MsGuy

LOL, thus is my prima facie case thoroughly refuted. I concede the field. My only remaining defense, poor though it be, is to draw your attention to the and the that concluded my post. You're not the only one who likes to stir the pot on occasion. TIGER, tiger, burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare seize the fire? And what shoulder and what art Could twist the sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, What dread hand and what dread feet? What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil? What dread grasp Dare its deadly terrors clasp? Lucky, not even Hito could envision you as a trembling kitten but I suspect he's right about the sweetness underneath. ---- P.S. Thanks for the post about Fox. I was wondering if that was what was ginning up the fuss about his "special friend". The English press hint but don't come right out with it.

In one of those cases Karen Golinski, a federal court attorney, is seeking family insurance coverage for her wife, which an Obama administration office denied because of the 1996 law. Clement argued that Congress had legitimate reasons for granting marital benefits only to opposite-sex couples - tradition, the "unknown consequences of a novel redefinition of marriage," and the government's "interest in maintaining the link between marriage and children." Golinski's lawyers contend the law must be overturned unless its defendants can show compelling reasons for withholding benefits to same-sex couples. Clement countered that courts have applied such a protective standard only to groups that can't protect themselves in the political process. ---- One might argue that the very existence of a law denying the group in question a federal spousal benefit available to all other federal employees is itself fairly strong evidence that the group cannot protect itself through the normal political process. ---- That said, some might also argue that the following quote makes a prima facie case that Lucky misses the bare knuckle brawls of the other board: "Our fellow poster Epigonos is an avowed Republican who opposes the Obama administration. Does he support this horrendous claim?" ....

That thought crossed my mind, RA1, but the dog herself seems cheerful, confident & pleased with her performance. Positive reinforcement gets you the biggest bang for your buck or so I'm told. Said to work fairly well on kids too.

That dog belongs on DWTS.

1. No, not that I've noticed. Try it with and without & see which is more comforable for you. You might need to be a little more careful about scraping with your teeth, depending on which teeth come out. 2. Again not that I've noticed. 3. You didn't ask but make sure you get well-fitted dentures. Fit makes all the difference. After about a year I got to where I would forget that I had them in.

LOL, trust Lucky to go straight to the bottom line.

Off with their heads!

ahahahahahahahahahaha

Not to fret, Hito. I imagine BBB is otherwise engaged for the nonce. He'll be back shortly, rubbing his heinie and bragging about yet another French conquest.

ditto

Oops, the add reply button got stuck.

"[Recruiters]...had tens of thousands of felony waivers, and they were taking people convicted of drug use...This will increase the pool of people available and allow people who want to serve the country to join." That's the key to this; recruiters for the services operate under great pressure to meet their quotas. Now the question is whether gay youth will choose to enlist. My guess would be that the great bulk of them will continue to go in as "straight" but more will choose to make a career of the military since they're no longer in danger of losing their retirement pay if exposed.

Seemingly small stuff like this can really screw up your day when they catch you unawares. A good travel tip, ihpguy.

Yep, regular party animals (That's me on the left)

Good news, Mom. No note today!

How the hell do you get those teensy slippers on?

Thanks,gc. Now the scumbag has a face. Stuart Lawley - Chairman and CEO Stuart Lawley is an experienced Chairman and Chief Executive, who has developed and successfully managed a number of UK and US businesses in office technology and the Internet. He was Chief Executive of Eurofax Ltd., Alto Group Ltd. and Chairman of Oneview.net plc (all UK Companies).

"oculd"?? Don't be so hard on yourself, gcursor. Let's just call it a typo; now "Im", that's just plain lazy.

OK, I admit my search skills are more limited than most but, after an exhaustive (22 minute) hunt, I am unable to find the thread. Can you give us another hint, Charlie?

Should we scratch the Amish off our list of peaceful societies, lookin? ---- Sorry, the Devil made me do it.

I predict I will never watch a show called "Housewives of Anywhere."

My brother, a lifelong if somewhat paranoid Democrat, is convinced that the Repubs deliberately triggered the collapse of Lehmann to ensure that Dems would be in power when the shit well and truly hit the fan. Turn about is fair play.

Exactly! Legitimate registry corporations don't behave this way. ICM is making no pretense to be anything other than a blatant money grab. So new question: Who are the clever greed heads hiding behind the initials ICM? Does anybody know who these wankers are? Googling ICM got me squat about the owners. ---- PS OZ, I did find this white paper put out by ICM. Basically it says "Attention Trademark Owner: Fuck you and the horse you road in on. We are immune from infringment claims, so we're gonna sell your names to the highest bidder." ---- Thinking it over, there's got to be some Silicon Valley investment bankers behind this. Nobody else would go about this with so much arrogance.

Let me see if I got this right: Whoever the bottom-dwellers are behind ICM set up The International Foundation For Online Responsibility to act as a false front non-profit which acts as the required non-profit sponsering organization. ICANN, the organization that controls domain names, is harrassed, sued (&/or bribed) into awarding ICM the exclusive rights to .XXX. ICM proceeds to auction off the juciest site names and then blackmails the entire porn industry worldwide into registering with them to protect their brands, not to mention coyly advising folks like say IBM and Disney that they really need to register to prevent stuff like Disney.XXX from proliferating. Did I mention that these jokers charge 5 to 10 times what the legit address registry companies charge? (A measly $10/registration is supposed to be kicked back to IFFOR "to research ways to keep net porn away from minors." ) OK, forget about the political issues here or any potential impact on free speech issues. All I am asking, OZ, is: HOW DID WE MISS OUT ON A SWEET RACKET LIKE THIS???? Some web sources state ICM expects to gross something like 200 million bucks a year! Those upfront sales of the juicy parts are gravy. Can anyone explain to me how these 's got away with this? ---- Seriously, OZ, you really let down the side when you let this one get away from you. TY and I could have used the $10 per to set up homes for poor but deserving rent boys in Havana, Rio. Prague, St. Petersburg, Bangkok...hell, all over the world! Think of the good we could have done. All we would have asked is a little six figure compensation for our work as directors of the non-profit. And expense accounts, obviously. And a private jet. We can't be flying all over the world in those miserable business class seats. Sigh...

tribute by Jonathan Mak