lookin

Bon Appétit loves their whisks. I don't. I just put the eggs in a blender for five seconds and they get nice and fluffy. And, yes, you can pour a little milk or cream in there too, maybe a teaspoon per egg. They won't separate unless you use a lot. As they say, the low-medium heat is key too. At the end, I sprinkle a little grated sharp cheddar on top.

For me, it was seeing Rick Donovan's ad in the back of the BAR. When I realized that all that stood between me and him was $125, I did not hesitate.

Somethin' tells me you picture everybody like that.

I'm so embarrassed! It turns out my browser has two ways to zoom a page. One way zooms everything, and the other way zooms the text only. I always have it set to 'text only' which keeps everything inside the browser window. Somehow, perhaps the work of a recently exorcised demon, it became unset and thus spawned all my troubles. Fixed now, I'm happy to say, with a click of a button and all that's left is to try to understand whatever possessed me to think that TY or OZ or any of their trusted programmers could possibly have done something to interfere with the impeccable coding that underlies the MER website. What could possibly have put such a thought into my head?

Of course I am delighted that my cry for help has at least spawned another frolic by the denizens of MER, and perhaps assisted in the exorcism of a few of gcursor's erstwhile demons. I have no doubt that, henceforth, he will get laid hard, well, and often. And please don't trouble yourselves further about my incipient blindness. I believe I may have found a workaround.

Lately it seems I have to keep scrolling left and right in order to read posts. Unless I make the text very small, it goes off the right hand side of the screen. Until a few days ago, I could make the text much larger and it would wrap around and fit perfectly within my browser window. I use a Mac and I've tried it with both Safari and Firefox. Both require me to either keep scrolling left and right, line by line, or squint to read the tiny text. I think OZ mentioned something about a software update a few days ago, and I wonder if that has something to do with the change. If so, is there a tweak that will bring all the words back on the page? Or will I need to keep my mouse slipping and sliding like Madame Zara on a Ouija board?

Ever since my operation, I've been a little titubant.

Already?? Ay, caramba! It must have happened while I was lining up the Mariachi Band. Well, never too late for all the boys to say, , ¡Enhorabuena Señor Lucky!

The Vienna Boys Choir on Ice . . . or is that too highbrow?

By my lights, it could happen today, it could happen tomorrow, or, if his boyfriend turns suddenly amorous, it might not happen for another week. But, soon, very soon, our Lucky will make his 3000th post here at MER. Originally, I was planning to host a soirée intime of some kind, as many of my friends are as excited as I am to see le milliéme trois go up on the Board. The difficulty, of course, is the uncertainty of when it will be. If it were to happen Tuesday instead of tonight, the escargot would be past their prime, and the Baked Alaska would be a soupy mess. Then, too, I wondered if something a bit more ambitious might be called for. As soon as one person hears the ball has dropped, hundreds - if not thousands - more will be lining up to mark the occasion. Every idea I've had so far seems to have hit a snag of some sort. Fireworks are illegal where I live, Grace Cathedral is booked up for weddings every day, and the BelAmi Boys are on tour at least through Thanksgiving. Even Wayne Newton is busy turning his house into a tourist attraction. (And, besides, I understand he and Lucky came to a slight misunderstanding while browsing the selection at a popular candy store. ) So I'm getting frighteningly close to the end of my tether and, if I can't think of something soon, he'll be scooting right toward number 4000 without the slightest bit of acknowledgment on my part. Lookin' for some help here, and wondering what you all will be doing to celebrate the milestone? .

A very nice story! Thanks for posting. Some of my favorite bits were at the end: At their Oct. 15 wedding, the two men wore matching black suits and Hawaiian leis as they exchanged vows under a bamboo wedding canopy that stood beneath one of the Queensboro Bridge's great stone arches that are a unique feature of Guastavino's décor. The couple also wore ties emblazoned with a Chinese symbol meaning "double happiness." (Mr. Wolfson had them customized in Chinatown at a shop on Elizabeth Street called — what else? — Elizabeth Tailor.) Their officiant, Justice Rosalyn H. Richter, who sits on the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, proclaimed before a crowd of around 50 close friends and family members that here, at last, was "the ceremony you wanted, in the city you call home." After reciting their vows, Mr. Wolfson and Dr. He put their wedding rings on their left hands. At the celebratory dinner that followed, Rendong He of Victoria, British Columbia, Dr. He's 72-year-old father, said that his son's marriage "is not traditional in China, but the world is changing." "I love my son, and Evan is good, his family is good, and my son is good. I support my son." Mr. Wolfson's father, Jerry Wolfson, 81, sweetly chimed in, claiming that somehow he just knew that the precocious boy who became a lawyer could even, he said, "go to China and back" for a principle he believed in. "Little did I know he would bring us such a treasure." Elizabeth Tailor and a bamboo chuppah are above and beyond. Thanks again for the story!

I would have said the one with his hand between his knees and his arm around the guy in the middle.

You sure are a clear thinker, MsGuy. Thanks for stating it so well.

I remember one day late last Fall, When I headed on out to the Mall. "If anyone's listening, My buttocks are glistening!", I hollered from under my stall.

I really like the '30 minutes ago' time stamps. Thanks! And I'd be delighted to send you a little Smirnoff to enjoy with the dizzy bottom of your choice!

Maybe I'll dress up and go hang out in Saxon Woods Park.

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of guilt, especially for something as trivial as drinking a little soda. Not only did you drink the soda, but you don't even have the enjoyment of doing it. Sounds like the worst of both worlds. Why not say, "Well, I enjoyed my soda for this week and maybe next Wednesday I'll have a little more!"

Perhaps you can write him a short note telling him why you think you'd be a good friend and slip it under a set of keys for the new Porsche you'll park in his driveway. And don't forget to include your phone number.

Perhaps, to reflect our international user base, we should be using Greenwich Mean Time. A few days ago, someone told me that the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, shoots a green laser beam over London, marking the exact spot where time begins. For me, the relevant time here on the Forums would be how long ago something was posted. If a post says 'an hour ago' or 'three days ago' or 'almost two years ago', it would be more meaningful. Making it a clickable link that would show the exact date and time would be a bonus. Or why not get rid of time stamps altogether, acknowledging the timeless nature of many of the contributions here?

I was afraid of that.

Just make sure it's not your parole officer. I once got six months added to my house arrest for something I posted in the Fetish Forum.

Woof!

Lurkerspeaks, EXPAT, eeyore, stripfan, are you listening?

Your secret's safe with us.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an uproar over the NYPD's surveillance program, originally designed to collect information on "terrorists" but certainly capable of collecting information on anyone else the largely unregulated officials decide is worth a second look. Of course, these kinds of programs are pretty easy to get up and running when those whose rights and privacy are being violated are widely considered "dangerous" and "collateral damage" is a small price to pay, but what happens when a group that one of us belongs to is labelled "dangerous" by somebody, somewhere? And what happens when one of us gets included in the "collateral damage"? Frankly, the mere existence of such technology gives me the willies. Let alone some kind of undercover operation at Club 39. Judge asked to review monitoring of Muslims * Black New Yorkers fear 'siege' New York's camera system will be better than London's * Link is busted; here's the article: Judge Is Asked to Allow Review of Police Dept. Monitoring of Muslim Communities By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM Published: October 3, 2011 Lawyers in a federal lawsuit that has governed how the New York Police Department investigates political and religious groups for more than 25 years asked a judge on Monday to let them collect information to see if the department had violated his orders in how they monitor Muslim communities. In papers filed in federal court, the lawyers cited a series of recent news articles that detailed the use of undercover officers and informants to gather and maintain information about political activity among Muslims in circumstances in which there was no indication that crimes had occurred. "These accounts, if true, suggest that the N.Y.P.D. is conducting surveillance and maintaining records of such surveillance in violation of the terms of the Modified Handschu Guidelines," the lawyers wrote, referring to the court-ordered guidelines in effect as a result of the class-action lawsuit. The guidelines were first set forth in a 1985 consent decree and significantly loosened in 2003 after the Police Department asked that they be thoroughly revamped because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The lawyers on Monday also asked the judge in the case, Charles S. Haight Jr. of United States District Court in Manhattan, for an order requiring the department to preserve its records and databases. The changes to the original 1985 Handschu Guidelines allowed law enforcement agencies to exchange information more freely and no longer required the police to file statements on its investigations of political and religious activity with the Handschu Authority, a panel made up of two senior police officials and a civilian. To ensure that constitutional rights are respected, the guidelines require the police to follow a 22-page set of F.B.I. guidelines issued in 2002. Judge Haight said in 2003 that he would allow greater police powers because the nature of public peril had changed. His ruling led to a rewriting of the decree that established the original guidelines governing police investigations of political activity, which were known for the name of the original plaintiff in the 1971 lawsuit, Barbara Handschu. In their court papers, the lawyers said the news articles — two lengthy and detailed articles published by The Associated Press in August and September and two columns by the blogger Leonard Levitt on his NYPD Confidential Web site — described a Police Department policy of focusing on Muslim communities in New York to identify "hot spots," including mosques, social gathering places and student organizations based on college campuses. One of the lawyers, Jethro M. Eisenstein, noted in the papers that the surveillance of political activities detailed in the articles might not violate the Modified Handschu Guidelines, which say that for "the purpose of protecting or preventing terrorist activities, N.Y.P.D. is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally." But he wrote that keeping records about "protected speech and behavior heard and seen during those operations is a violation of the Modified Handschu Guidelines," as "no information obtained from such visits shall be retained unless it relates to potential unlawful or terrorist activity." Celeste Koeleveld, the executive assistant corporation counsel for public safety, who is representing the city, said through a spokesman that her office had just received the papers and was evaluating them. Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman, did not respond to a telephone call and an e-mail seeking comment. The relaxed guidelines initially went into effect in early 2003 as internal department rules, leaving the class-action plaintiffs with what they said were no means to enforce them; previously, they could go to Judge Haight if they thought the department had violated the consent decree. But in August of that year, just six months after the new guidelines went into effect, it was revealed that the department had been debriefing arrested Iraq war protesters about their political views and affiliations and recording their responses on a debriefing form, a violation of the new rules. Judge Haight then incorporated the new guidelines into the consent decree, prompting a lengthy battle over whether the plaintiffs' lawyers had the power to bring what they believed were violations of the guidelines to the attention of the court. The department opposed any role for the court, but Judge Haight ruled that the plaintiffs had the power to complain about Police Department policies that they believed violated the modified guidelines. If they prove the policies violate the guidelines, the court has the power to order their end.