Crap Throwing Monkey

I still can't believe I voted for the stupid little sh--. I'm still pissed that the option the Democratic Party provided was an even stupider big sh--.

Well...considering Jeb Bush might be running in '08, you should be kinder towards her. You'll probably be casting your vote for her. With leadership like this, our country is so friggin' screwed it's not even funny. Makes me glad the only thing required for New Zealand citizenship is a quarter-million US dollars. Cash.

I don't recall, actually. Wouldn't surprise me, though. I just got the text of Bush's address fron CNN. The eighth word in the third paragraph is "rostrum". Since I'm not watching (I never do, I can just as easily read the text, and then I don't have to listen to all the friggin' BS applause), can someone tell me how bad Curious George butchered "rostrum"?

90+ responses takes me about five minutes to read. Do you people have to read out loud or something?

Sheehan's nothing more than a tragic case of a greiving mother who's being manipulated by merciless forces she doesn't understand (e.g. ANSWER) without the merest bit of realization it's happening. I don't give her a shred of attention, aside from pitying her. Eventually the people manipulating her will move on to other things, and she'll be left wondering what happened to her "popularity" and "power".

Unless EFF's lawyers are employees of EFF (possible, I don't know), they're getting rich. Lawyers get paid, that's why they take cases.

I predict that lots of lawyers are going to get filthy stinking rich off this issue, lots of people are going to get checks for $1.17 from class-action lawsuits, and the wiretaps will continue regardless while no one gets around to discussing the real issuse involved. GOD I love this country!

Shut up. Your thread's been hijacked; you have no business being here anymore.

No sh--. So was my reply, moron.

That's actually kind of funny. It might actually make the State of the Union Address worth watching this year. She going to sit in the audience, or just set up camp in front of the podium?

iIthinkigenerallyagreewithyouexceptincertainplaceswherethetequilainducedstreamofconsciousnessfaulkneresquenatureofyourpostwasallbutimpenetrableyourpointsabouttheoffensivelineareofcoursedeadonandneednoexpansionfrommeoranyoneelseidisagreetosomeextentwithyourcharacterizationoflosmaninparticularasifeelthathisperformanceislesshisfaultthanitisthehorriblycluelesscoachingstaff Mostly, though, I disagree with the structure of your post, so much so that I hope trying to read the paragraph above while on a tequila bender makes you vomit up a lung.

Somebody ban this guy, just to teach him that the First Amendment doesn't apply to privately run bulletin boards.

We stopped? I've got dibs on that dumbass meazza!

It was in Illinois somewhere. Just one of the examples of the problems of these "sexual predators" lists. Not infrequently they're a knee-jerk reaction to a significantly over-hyped problem that haven't been given enough thought into their relation to other laws. Not unlike the PATRIOT Act in relation to the legality of using agencies of national security for warrantless wire-taps. Knee-jerk laws are a bad idea, no matter how well-intended they are. And that's beside the constitutional issues with sexual predators lists. Every criminal attorney I know (more than a few) expect these lists to be overturned on constitutional issues if it ever gets to the Supreme Court. There's not insignificant constitutional issues with punishment continuing after your judicially-decided sentence is served...

And then there's the occasional "sex offender" who grabs a 12-year old girl by the arm to scold her for running out in traffic, and gets on the list because the law states that "illegal restraint of a minor" is a sexual offense no matter what.

I would actually tend to disagree. Part of the fun of stargazing is (can be) actually trying to find what you're looking for to begin with. Plus, more seriously, you don't really learn the sky and stars when you've got a computer looking for things for you. The type of telescope you want depends to no small extent on what you want to do with it. Your typical astronomical telescope will be unsuited to terrestrial observation (as they invert the image - stargazers don't care of stars are upside-down, but bird watchers care if birds are). Also, depending on whether you want to split close double-stars, view the planets, or do deep-sky observing, your criteria will be different as well. Some things to consider are: - Are you storing this in an observatory, or carrying it in and out of the house? Most people don't consider that, but my first telescope was so bulky and awkward that I rarely used it because it was such a pain in the ass to carry into the backyard. If you get one that's too tough to move, it'll probably end up collecting dust. - Make sure this has a stable mount. Even the best telescope, on a shaky tripod that shudders when you touch it, is a piece of junk. When you're viewing something through it at 160x magnification, any vibrations are magnified sixty times...which can make the image almost unviewable as it jumps around all over the place. - Magnification isn't all-important, aperture is. As a general rule of thumb, for every inch of width of the telescope, you can use 50x magnification. My old 4.5" had a practical magnification of 225x...any higher, and not only does atmospheric turbulance distort the image, but the image gets too dim and fuzzy to view anyway. Ergo, those 60mm, 400X deals you see all the time are pure garbage...a 60mm telescope has a practical limit of about 120x magnification, because the image simply isn't bright enough to magnify more. Right now, I have an 8" Dobsonian (usually referred to as a "light bucket"). It's heavy, but reasonably compact and portable with a very stable mount, so I can toss it in the car and drive to a dark site. It's got a wide aperture and fast focal length (width divided by the length of the path the light has to travel, same as in a camera. Mine's about f4.5), so it's very good for deep-sky observing (galaxies and such, which was my area of interest when I actually aspired to be a professional). Because of the short focal length, it's maximum effective magnification is about 200x...but I'd rarely approach even that for deep-sky viewing. That's pretty much the ideal for my situation and desires...but I'm not a beginner either. Just make sure you pick something that won't leave you frustrated using it...which means stable, portable, and suited to what you want to do with it. And feel free to PM me with any questions.

Good point, but I don't see how it could be enforced. Actually, I still think my suggestion last night is best: if you don't have anything to say, don't friggin' say anything! And if you do have something to say, say it once! Of course, that requires maturity. Not something we've come to expect from a group that's not exclusively but primarily composed of Romper Room rejects.

Yes, I was referring to Bettlefield Earth being "merely" very good. Dune, however, is great. If it weren't pigeon-holed into the "sci-fi" genre the literary world is so prejudiced against, it would be considered a classic work of literature and not just science fiction. The sequels, though...Dune Messiah bored me. Children of Dune was good. It took me eight years to get through God Emperor, seven years of which was spent trying to read past page 187 (I don't know what it was about that page, but I always said "This book is offal" and put it down at that point.) Heretics of Dune has been sitting on my bookshelf for 20 years, unread. Occasionally I pick it up and try to read it...never get past the third page. Brian Herbert's prequels were decent in their own right...but when considered not in their own right but in light of the whole Dune series, they sucked. Needlessly naive with wooden and unappealing characters.

I met the guy once. He actually drives a green Volkswagen with question marks all over it, and wears that goofy suit in public. He's legit...in that the information you buy from him are legit government programs. It's also information you can find elsewhere, often for free. At the very least, I've seen his books in bookstores, so you can pick one up and leaf through it if you're that curious.

Well...it's not like it's difficult. I mean, is there anyone who doesn't realize that "Holcomb's Arm" doesn't like Losman? Hell, I don't like Losman either. The difference between me and Holcomb's Arm is that, whereas I only stated my case a couple of times, he feels the need to explain that he doesn't like Losman every single !@#$ing day... Part of the delicate art of shutting the hell up is learning that to make your point you generally only have to say something once.

The one thing I liked about Battlefield Earth is...well...that it ended. Horrible movie, right down there with "Volcano". Dune, though...I'd still sooner watch Battlefield Earth or Volcano than I would that pile of tripe they released as Dune. The book was actually pretty decent...if you're not some sort of scientology extremist (either way, pro- or anti-). Good enough that I devoured it (1200 pages) in a couple of days. Not great, though...but certainly readable and entertaining.

I'll give the cinematic release props for effects, of course. But the story was butchered FAR too much, even far more than was necessary to fit such a dense book into a 2+ hour movie. The "weirding modules" are a prime example...like the stupid "midichlorian" bull sh-- in Star Wars: The Phantom Blemish, it was an unnecessary cop-out to avoid dealing with the human themes that were the point of the story to begin with. (Contrast that with the most recent "Pride and Prejudice" release, in which the producers did a very creditable job of cramming a three volume novel into a 2:10 movie while remaining true to the central themes and points of the book...and by the way, Keira Knightley can seriously act.) Even by my relatively low expectations for any book being made into a movie, Dune sucked. Frankly, "Battlefield Earth" was a better adaptation of a book than "Dune" was...and Battlefield Earth really sucked.

I think the real problem is more fundamental: too many people have nothing to say and shout it from the rooftops. "Which Bills Player Would You Want To Bring To A Fight?" "Better Football Player: Tiger or Shaq?" "I'm high as a kite right now." Or any of Johnny's "What do you think of my avatar/name/underwear?" polls. The board - indeed, the world - would be a far better place if more people realized that their opinions generally are: 1) just opinions, and 2)not worth a bucket of warm sh-- anyway, and proceded to learn the delicate and seemingly lost art of shutting the hell up when they don't have anything to say.

Congratulations. Mom must be so proud.