lookin

Yoo-Hoo! Is anybody here?

I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight. I will not try to edit posts after midnight.

'Scuse me, any of you guys see which way this thread went?

Why not take a look at what's in the little suckers and then decide? Frosted PoP'ems Ingredients: Sugar, Enriched Wheat Flour [Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Reduced Iron, Niacin, Thiamin Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid], Water, Palm Oil, Soybean Oil, Nonfat Milk, Glycerin, Egg Yolk Powder, Leavening (Baking Soda, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate), Soy Flour, Natural & Artificial Flavor, Cornstarch, Corn Syrup Solids, Pregelatinized Wheat Starch, Salt, Dextrose, Calcium Carbonate, Soy Lecithin, Xanthan Gum, Calcium Sulfate, Mono- And Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Potassium Sorbate (Preservative), Cellulose Gum, Guar Gum, Wheat Germ, Beta Carotene (Color), Nutmeg Oil, Agar, Carob Bean Gum, Sodium Phosphate, Caramel Color. They may be brown, but there's not a speck of chocolate to be found. (Probably true for Ralph Woods' butt hole as well, but I'll bet it's all natural flavor and mighty sweet too. )

You're right. Great collection of info all in one place. Thanks!

I read it! Mere minutes before TY heaved a brick through it, I saw it and I liked it. You always have the good stuff, and this one was about a snit I once got into that you couldn't quite recall. Nor can I but, not to worry, there's plenty more where that came from. And, of course, I'd love to know what mischief you got into whilst Flirting 4 Free. I've been trying to figure out a delicate way to ask. You've probably flirted your way up to St. Petersburg by now, nyet? Meanwhile, I was over in the engineering school, struggling through differential calculus and worse. Not much exegesis going on at my end of the quad. On the plus side, I can usually figure out within a degree or two how they're hanging.

I think the issue goes well beyond party affiliations. In my opinion, it goes to the heart of what we U. S. citizens are prepared to give up, just on the government's say so. We know a bunch about one side of the equation: giving up privacy is a one-way road. It doesn't come back again. Plus, a little invasion of privacy is always followed by a little more. It's been a long time since anyone in the government, Republican or Democrat, has said, "We finally have enough information; we don't need any more." The cost side of the equation seems clear to me. It's the benefit side of the equation that I am not at all clear on: what do we get in return? Just for grins, let's say that every email, text, twitter, and tweet was instantly decrypted and scrolled across the bottom of every TV screen in the country, and let's say that every single phone conversation was tapped and blared from loudspeakers in the center of towns all across America. Would anyone from the government step up and say. "At last! We've now got the tools to stop terrorism in its tracks!"? Of course not. Instead, with each new incursion on privacy, we get federal folderol like: "We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." What the hell does that even mean? Is it worth trading our remaining pockets of privacy for? I understand we got hit hard on 9/11, and I understand that we're all willing to pay a price to keep it from happening again. But I think it's now time to begin the cost-benefit discussion on how much we give up and for what return. Voluntary silence at this point, I'm afraid, can lead to enforced silence down the road. For the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike are tagging along and not asking the questions that desperately need asking. I think it's up to us, as U. S. citizens, to challenge our elected officials to engage in this debate, to open discussions with those around us, and to support private groups who are taking the privacy issue seriously. If we leave it up to the politicians, I think the anti-privacy laws will be in place long before we realize what we've lost. [/rant]

MsGuy, I doubt you have a bad bone in your body; well, not until Ralph Woods comes calling anyway. I tried to add an extra smiley in my earlier post to better convey intent but, what with one thing and another, the edit period snapped shut on me. Never heard 'exegesis' before this thread, and appreciate the definition and cultural context. Especially grateful to learn of its opposite, 'eisegesis', which I expect will come in handy during a political thread one day. By the by, what brings you here at this late hour?

Ban Politics? I'd definitely hate to see that. I don't care where the topics reside, but to declare them taboo would take a big nick out of the Forums for me. I'll admit that politics doesn't have a big forum here, by tradition perhaps. And perhaps because political discussions often find their way into threads. That has to be another one of my favorite things about this website: the fact that political opinions can be expressed freely without knee jerk attacks. I think there's getting to be a poster culture here that allows for differences of opinion, without the issuance of fatwas. More than that, I respect the thoughtfulness that many here put into their political posts. I actually do read many posters here with my eyes open for new info and new insights. I'd hate to lose that.

Indeed it was, and a very humble mea culpa! When I used it above, I must have forgotten reading it in your post from last week, or you'd have received well-deserved attribution. Imagine, me forgetting something!

As well it should be! Not to pry, but did this happy event take place in a club or in a more - er - 'intimate' setting?

And for not defining chazerai I get potched?

Sounds fine, but wouldn't that take a lot of work? I'm really happy with the way you guys run this website, and I like the fact that you participate fully in the forums. I'd hate to see you spend your time on housekeeping chores, and not be able to enjoy the site yourselves. Not sure what issues it would avoid, and it sounds like you've thought this through more thoroughly than I have. In all events, I'll be fine with whatever you decide. As they say, different strokes for different folks.

I love the pictures! I'll be happy looking at them no matter where they appear. Is there a problem, though, with a separate forum? It seems to me they would stand out better on their own, but maybe I'm missing something. Anybody care to smarten up a chump?

I would too. Splitting them off would also keep topics on the main page of both forums for a longer time. In addition to Lucky's Place, we could have The Zipper Zone. Good point. Another of my favorite things about this website is the ability to upload pictures, in addition to linking to pictures from other websites. To have those uploaded pictures appear in the post without logging in would, as you say, be another good way to attract new viewers. Great ideas, Matrix!

From the article: "Keep in mind that investors ultimately bought a deal almost exclusively based on the rating, and not the issuer's decision [regarding] what loans to put in or what loans not to put in," Cecala said. "Historically there's been very little recourse back to the issuer for problems with securities down the road and the bottom line is if you can get it past the ratings services you're more or less home free." The three big credit rating agencies that dominate the market -- Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings -- had a chance to use Clayton's information during this time, but declined, Johnson testified. Not yet taking their share of the responsibility, in my opinion, the credit rating agencies put the lipstick on these pigs and provided cover for the issuers. They then proceed to duck responsibilty by saying they relied on information provided by the issuer, who paid them for the rating. I think the whole cockamamie system is due for another refresh.

You may want to pack some smaller sizes too. A recent German study showed that overweight men lost an average of three pounds after just a week at high altitudes. No excercise, no dieting, just being high made them lose weight. Funny, it usually has the opposite effect on me.

I may be a little late, but will definitely check in when I get home. It's a nice idea, FourAces. TY and OZ, do you think the programmers could give us an Easter egg if we hit fifty? If not, I'll see if I can get hold of one.

To cleanse her pores, the Modern Miss Will often douse her face with piss. And should she find her eyelids droop, She'll sometimes add a bit of poop.

Well, it appears that not all roads lead to Rome. When you follow Oz's link, you get to the Forum's Main Page, and the Top Posters band is right at the bottom, just as he said it would be. But when you click on the 'Main Category' link from 'Lucky's Place', as I am wont to do, you'll go to a page that looks like the Main Page, but it isn't the same and it doesn't have the Top Posters band at the bottom. And check the URL. It's different too. It ends with '/142-main-category', which Oz's link does not. I've come to the conclusion that the programmers are still hard at work patching up the recent software upgrade, and are just tryin' shit out to see what works. I bear them no ill will, however, as a.) I'm not paying them, and b.) I kind of look forward to seeing what they'll try next. If I were paying them by the hour though, I'd seriously consider kicking a little butt. Sure hope they both return soon. Their contributions are missed.

That did the trick! Send me an email, and I'll give you info so we can meet up. I tried sending you one, but not sure if it got through. Here's some good news: the weather's supposed to be excellent starting the day you arrive. Don't forget your layers though, as the fog and the Bay will conspire at some point to cool you down.

Try making your font size smaller. The bands separating each poster seem to stay fixed on the page, and cut off information that doesn't fit within the space allowed. With a smaller font, you should be able to see it all.

I believe this question is what they call a 'softball' in the Q&A biz. Thank you! 1. "Buffalo" Bob Smith 2. The Peanut Gallery 3. Clarabell. Horn. (He was also proficient with a seltzer bottle.) 4. Princess SummerFallWinterSpring There were quite a few other characters, but my personal faves were Phineas T. Bluster and the Flub-a-Dub. Oh, and Dilly Dally! Needless to say, not much homework got done in my house until after dinner. Not sure why, but Lamb Chop irritated the hell out of me as a child. On the rare occasion when I couldn't get to the TV quick enough to shut it off before that cloying voice intruded upon my otherwise peaceful meditations, all I could think of was clamping its sweet woolly head in a sturdy vice. Honestly, I did not need the tsuris.

I saw the headline and was all ready to jump in. After all, 'Old TV Trivia' is right up my alley. But you're talking seventies and eighties, when I was otherwise occupied, rather than the fifties when I did most of my watching. I got a couple of them, but petered out right after 'I Love Lucy'. Now go back a couple of decades, and I'm your man. Go ahead, ask me anything about Howdy Doody!

They do it, of course, for the money. According to Wikipedia, U. S. citizens spend somewhere between $14 billion and $49 billion on drugs coming into the country. Most of our efforts are focused on cutting off the supply, but the results have been marginal. We can point to a 50% increase in the street price of cocaine, but it's not clear that higher prices lead to lower demand, and certainly not to a complete drying up of demand. We like our drugs and we're good at figuring out how to pay for them. Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if we shifted our efforts toward reducing demand in the U. S. That would certainly take some of the money out of it. And, as long as we're just talkin', I wonder what would happen if we legalized everything, produced it here, and sold it at cost plus a reasonable markup plus tax. That would take nearly all the money out of it, and all the drug smugglers would be free to go find other ways to spend their days. I know, I know, legalizing all drugs would make us a nation of day trippers; our economic engine would sputter to a halt; our elected officials would sit around listening to reggae instead of making up new laws all day; and our kids would all tune in, turn on, and drop out. Or would they? There was a time, a century or so ago, when all drugs were legal in the U. S., and we seemed to get by OK. And there are other countries in the world today where drugs are fairly easy to come by; the Netherlands hasn't fallen apart after decriminalizing marijuana. I wonder what would really happen if we took the government out of the drug war business, and let it focus on helping those who have an addiction they want to overcome. Would it be any worse than what we have now? How big a pile of bodies do we need before we try a different approach? Much to ponder.