Y2HH

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:02 PM) 1) The FDA is not the be all end all. I don't think Eskimos have an FDA approving their diet. And they don't get cancer (hyperbole). 2) Scientists and the government and the FDA have absolutely NOTHING to gain by doing studies into probiotics or any other supplement because it will take away from their pharmaceutical sales. Come on man. 3) You talked about people facing a deadly disease trying to eat right and exercise... that's a bit late don't you think? i'm talking long-term preventative stuff here. Not some wacky "changed my diet this month so now I'm gonna be free from cancer" crap. Like I said...I did it way before hand...and it didn't prevent what happened, not even a litte. What happened to me, by all accounts of how good I took care of myself throughout my 20's, should not have had any chance of happening...but not only did it happen, it happened in a very bad way. It's not really a statement of fact you're making...yes, you can prevent things by eating right and exercising...but the odds of you preventing something you're predisposed too may go from 10% to 30%...which are much better odds...but there is still a 70% probability you're going to get what's coming. The way you're making it sound, is that by eating right and exercising, you're knocking the odds down 99%...that' just not remotely true. You do not defeat genetics/predisposition that easily. You're still a very young man...I can tell by the way you talk, very optimistically, and I can further tell you take your health for granted. So did I. So do most people who have never had something out of their control debilitate them. Because you don't know what it's like. I'm not talking about some sports injury you had a part in occurring, such as a twisted ankle, or a broken arm. I'm talking about coming down with something you cannot heal by resting or eating properly. I'm talking about coming down with something regardless of how well you've taken care of yourself. For example, what Rock is experiencing sounds like cartilage degeneration...that's genetic...and no amount of eating properly or exercising is going to do much about it. A friend of mine has chronic arthritis, and I mean severe heavily medicated level...he's only 34 years old. Eating broccoli and exercising did nothing for him...and does nothing for him. A lot of it is luck...luck you seem to have to this point. Luck Tony Horton sure as hell has.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 07:31 PM) totally. crazy s*** does happen. however, how do you explain food+exercise correcting curvature in the spine in scoliosis patients, even though traditional medicine and doctors say there's nothing that can be done about scoliosis once you're an adult? there's a lot that a proper diet can do to heal your body. doctor's just don't want you to know that because they're in the business of selling drugs. You don't explain it...exercising and strengthening muscles can help with things like this...but sometimes it does nothing at all. I guarantee there are far more stories where eating properly and exercising did nothing to trump genetics than it did to help it. You simply don't hear about them...but go to any local hospital to check the facts. While 1 patent may have destroyed cancer and credited it to eating properly and exercising...most every patient facing a life or death disease does the same...only a majority of them lose the war. They simply don't make very good stories...so you rarely hear about them. Like I said...I ate right...and a lot of what you recommended really has no scientific proof behind it...for example, probiotics...may or may not do anything. While I happen to believe they do something...I just happen to have a bottle of them here with me...notice the FDA won't recommend them...because for every person it seems to help, there is a person it does nothing for in their testing. The fine print is pretty clear: * This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any diseases. When various products actually do the things they claim to do...the FDA says so. And no, I don't believe everything the FDA says...but you shouldn't believe everything product X says, either. A lot of life is luck. Be thankful you've had it so far...because if the day comes you ever are stricken with something like I've been in my past...or Rock has been, for another example...all the eating right and exercising isn't going to help...because you're already eating right and exercising. You will NOT beat genetics the majority of the time...sadly.

Here is the problem with this election: The best we have to offer -- that have a chance to win -- is Obama vs Romney. Obama is a liar and a failure. He's proven this over the past 3+ years by basically doing nothing he said he'd do in his previous campaign. And the things he has done, such as allowing all the bankers that robbed our system blind, have done nothing to curb said behavior. I would like to give him some degree of credit for doing something about healthcare...while I'm not a fan of the overall law, some of it's unarguably good for the people. That said, he also didn't write the bill...at all. Not that he's alone to blame in this. Congress (both houses), can share in everything that's come to pass equally. Romney...more of the same bulls***. We have 2 choices...again. Two bad choices. Dumb and dumber. Evil or evil. Voting for the lesser of two dumbasses is still voting for dumb. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I select none of the above. Obama sucks. Romney sucks. I hope they both lose.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Ha! Is that where I got that from? It's very true though, and I am trying to live by that as much as possible including really cutting down things in my diet as well as alcohol (the hardest part). No thanks on the alcohol part...I enjoy a drink now and then. That said, while I will sometimes drink every day for weeks straight...I will only have 1 drink, or 2 beers. Some of this is true only if everything happens to go right in your life. I took very good care of my body throughout my 20's...I ate low fat, watched my carb intake, worked out 5-6 days a week, including cardio...and I came down with a debilitating issue in my 30's that put me in so much pain I couldn't work out or do much in the way of physical activity for a good 2 years...for no actual known reason. Doctors (a multitude of which examined me), said it's pretty common but affects different people to a different degree...and I just happened to be affected very painful way in which doing most things physical just wasn't going to happen. I took excellent care of my body...and in this case, my body did NOT take care of me, is the point I'm making. And throughout my 20's while my friends were doing drugs/drinking an excessive amount, I did the opposite...and look what happened. They never experienced what I had to experience in my 30's...and it made me question everything people like Tony Horton like to sell. Sometimes, it's all chance... The part I WILL agree with, 110%, is that if you take care of your body, so long as you are free of genetic or hereditary defect (roll the dice), you WILL live a higher quality of life...but there is still a lot in life that healthy people tend to take for granted. I know I did until what happened to me happened to me. As I've said multiple times on here...there is a vast difference between health and fitness. I'm back to about 99% now...after some surgeries, etc...but I have to say...just because you're in shape...it doesn't mean much. It can all disappear in an instant from some health hazard you have no idea about...yet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) eta: crosspost with Y2HH but it's essentially the same thing. Pointing out that Obama appointed the guy from GE still doesn't address Romney's role at Bain or why he won't release his tax returns. Politically, if Romney wants "job creator" to be the headline on his resume, he needs to be able to explain the profits generated by outsourcing under his watch. Actually, all Romney needs to do is spend tons of money advertising he created jobs, even if he didn't. It doesn't matter if these ads are true or not...they can be distorted truths to the point the become lies, and if you spend enough money, and keep telling some variation of the same lies, people will believe them. Since there really are no laws/rules governing political ads...why bother with the truth at all? Just create a bunch of commercials showing Obama is the single person responsible for job losses...even if it's not true...because congress is more responsible for such things than a president could ever be.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) No, I agree, it's an effective ad. And it's well done. But i think the GOP could respond to it pretty easily by pointing out the investments the Obamas have made overseas, or even his administration's bailout of non-American companies as part of the stimulus (i'm sure that'll be brought up later as well). You can't on the one hand praise globalization and then fault a guy for utilizing the benefits of globalization. And yes, Romney is in a tough spot and i've been less than satisfied with his "answer" about his involvement with Bain in 2002. But if he was CEO in name only, even drawing a decent salary, who cares? I see nothing wrong with that. At least he was the guy that started the company and took the risk of opening the doors. Just point to Obama appointing Jeffrey Immelt (CEO of GE) to the post of how to create American jobs, all the while GE has been out sourceing American jobs in droves. From Wiki: Obama administration In February 2009, Immelt was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn.[14] When President Obama chose to put Jeffrey Immelt at the head of the Economic Advisory Board, he felt that Immelt had attributions in knowing what would help the global economy. Obama has reported that Immelt has emerged as one of his top economic advisors in regards to trying to rebuild America's economy.[15] On January 21, 2011, President Obama announced Immelt's appointment as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers, succeeding former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.[16] The New York Times reported that Obama's appointment of Immelt was "another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly."[16] Immelt will retain his post at G.E. while becoming "chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama is creating by executive order."[16] Despite this, in July 2011 Immelt's General Electric announced that it is in the process of relocating its X-ray division from Wisconsin to China.[17][18] Immelt had previously referred to China as GE's "second home market".[19]

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) (Mind you, I'm typing this from a hotel room just outside of Boston, so the thanks are really appreciated ). What of the other questions you said you didn't have time to answer yet?

I just wanted to take a few moments and let people that are actively involved in The Filibuster know they aren't wasting their time. Some of us do grow and change, and the conversations (or arguments) and information you can glean from these threads makes that possible. So I just wanted to say thank you for taking part in this, even though, at times, it can feel like your banging your head against the wall. It's very hard to see another persons point of view on things, and I think if everyone took the time to try to see it from another persons point of view, and how they might have that point of view, a lot more can be learned/accomplished than just brushing them off as if they have nothing to add to the conversation(s). So, I'd like to thank the following...some of which were once more active, or are new to this section, but still make the list. If I leave you off the list and you've had conversations with me/us here before, I do apologize...but I'm sure someone else can add you. Anyway, whether we've agreed or disagreed in the past (or argued)...I just wanted to thank you for making the conversation here better, and more informative. Balta1701 BigSqwert Tex Alpha Dog Strange Sox Southsider2k5 NorthSideSox72 Cknolls Soxbadger greg775 jasonctf Mr_Genius kapkomet iamshack Rex Kicka** Jenksismyb**** lostfan farmteam

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 10:00 PM) Can't answer all questions before sleeping but will try with this one. There are a large number of ways to change atmospheric CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly tiny compared to the amounts that have been stored on land or in the earth over geologic time. Therefore, you can have any of these mechanisms, and in fact a huge number more, happen and that can wind up changing CO2: Die-off of plant life Ocean turnover (Bringing up ocean water from the bottom of the ocean, which can have carbon in it) Decrease of weathering rates Melting of ices (Ices can contain lots of locked-up carbon) Erosion of a geologic unit with a lot of carbon Increase of certain types of volcanic activity Desertification Sea level changes (exposing more or less land to biomass). Acid rain (erodes carbonate rocks) Overpredation/extinction of key species Just a few examples coming to mind late at night. Now, there's a lot of reasons why some of those would increase or decrease CO2...but the fun part scientifically is...theyhave different chemical signatures. Between the isotopes of carbon and oxygen, and the other signatures (like weathering rates, soil formation, evidence of glaciers) we can put together pictures of how they work and understand what the balances are. Getting a very rapid rise in CO2 geologically, it turns out, is fairly difficult. Most of those mechanisms are pretty slow. Volcanism, erosion, glacial advance/retreat, those are processes that take thousands or millions of years. The only one that really works fast is melting of methane clathrates, which are stable ices that are formed by the presence of methane and can lock up a very large amount of the gas. If you trigger the release of that, through some external event (like warming the ocean, or an impact, or something else) you can release that gas very quickly to the atmosphere. This has probably happened a few times, most recently about 45 million or so years ago I think, and then maybe a few others. That type of event is our only geologic comparison for what we're doing, taking carbon out of the earth rapidly and pumping it into the atmosphere. How does carbon go back down? Well a few things like increasing biomass or putting trees in the arctic can help, but those aren't the big lever. The thing that really draws carbon back down responds on the 10,000 year + timescale...that is erosion. You warm the planet up, you increase weathering of silicate rocks because those weathering rates respond to temperature. You warm the planet, you get faster weathering, and eventually that carbon gets pulled back out of the atmosphere and deposited/locked up in sediments in the Earth again. If we went away right now, the planet would warm another degree or so from what we've already released, probably melt most of greenland in the next 100 years or so and maybe a portion of antarctica, and then weathering rates would start to pick up from the elevated temperatures. Within maybe 100,000 years, the plug of CO2 that we've released will be close to used up. This was informative. Thank you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) McCain's 2008 Research File on Romney: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File Most of the data in that file is laughable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) But you've already admitted in the first sentence that you don't know what the current understanding of the causal factors are. Your rejection is not based on knowledge of the subject. I'm not an expert in the field and am not speaking as one. I did, however, link you to a site that covers many of the aspects of climate science as well as many of the standard 'skeptic' arguments. If you want to know why your "it's happened before" position is unsupportable, go read the link. You are certainly not the first person to come up with this objection. There are some scientists who disagree, yes. It's a very limited number, however, similar to the percentage of scientists who reject evolutionary biology or the HIV-AIDS link. In short, cranks on the fringe. Even those who went into a major study as heavily skeptical of the mainstream claims have found, after examining the data, that AGW is very real. Documentaries are meaningless in this context and I've honestly never seen An Inconvenient Truth. Arguments against AGW are not automatically dismissed but systematically examined and then refuted, either by pointing out bad data, shoddy methodology or over-reaching conclusions. You do get to a point where counter-arguments are dismissed out-of-hand simply because they're weak and unoriginal; this is more applicable to pop-science arguments than actual scientific contributions, however. I will outright admit that other than having the knowledge this has occurred in the past, I do not understand, nor do I have the time to understand modern climatology. What little I do know is that the entire science has become something of a scientific pop-culture phenomena...and money is pouring into it right now, deservedly or not. This bothers me, as it's become almost something of a cult/idealism with some people. Whenever I see pop-science suddenly become flooded with people making megatons of money from it, I see red flags and want everyone to stop, take a step back and continue moving forward with a better -- non-panic inducing -- mindset. Being a layman, I have to take the science at it's word, and I tend to take all relatively new science with a grain of salt, until the data continues to come in and continues to be conclusive to the point that the hypothesis becomes proven scientific fact. History is replete with incorrect science being passed off as fact. I just happen to think the jury is still out on this one, and before we spend trillions upon trillions of dollars we don't have to "kind of maybe" solve the problem, I'd like to see more continued conclusive and irrefutable evidence combined with assured solutions, so we aren't just guessing and wasting even more money (which we've become very good at). Also, if the evidence suggests it will take a global solution, in which all nations must work together for it to happen, then that's what has to happen versus having the US spend trillions to undo the damage, only to have China (for example) double down on CO2 emissions and equal us out, solving nothing in the process. Here is what I would want to know, as matter of fact, not as a matter of "guess", or even as a matter of "possibility". Keeping in mind the resources we have are finite, from man power to money to natural resources necessary to build it, IF we do everything recommended by the scientific community, and spend the trillions of dollars needed to do it (keeping in mind we can no longer spend this same money elsewhere, for other equally pressing needs), will this actually solve the issue? Can this question be answered? If yes, in what expected timeline? What I would find unacceptable for an answer is anything of the following...well, um...well, we're 80% sure it will solve the problem...in 230 years when none of us will be around to have to answer for it... I'm not a religious nut...I don't believe in a floating man in the skies that will save us, or save our planet (which doesn't need saving)...I believe in Science. When I jump up, I come back down...because gravity is real...it can be demonstrated, repeatedly. I CAN be convinced to believe in this science, too...I'm just not convinced...yet. And do note, that some of those websites you posted that supposedly speak of "bad data", for example the "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" website, is, at it's core, openly biased in it's mission is to prove man made global warming is real. That's not science. Science is in proving something, one way or the other, without regard to which way ends up being correct.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) See, the thing is, thousands of scientists who work on this around the globe also realize (and in fact were the ones to discover!) that there's been global warming before. They've studied these previous warming trends as well as our own. They've developed robust and remarkably accurate models based on paleoclimate and our current situation and the conclusion that thousands of individuals around the globe have come to is: CO2 is the major driver of the current warming and we are the major factor in the current imbalance. That the climate has warmed in the past doesn't actually say anything about our ability to cause it to warm now. In fact, by finding instances in the past of CO2 driving climate change, we find a causal mechanism and can apply it to our own actions. If we know that CO2 rose rapidly at some point millions of years ago and led to global warming, then we can reasonably conclude that our adding of a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause similar warming. What caused the previous rapid rises, and further, what then caused it to fall on it's own since we weren't here to interfear? I'm not a scientist...and I don't pretend to be. I simply reject the modern idea because it's happened before, and will happen again...with or without us. Are you an expert in this field, or are you just speaking as if you're an expert in this field because you've read a few papers from a few scientists you happen to agree with? And what of those scientists that disagree with this science? Are they all agenda having lairs because they don't agree? There have been a number of documentaries made on both ends of this...despite a majority of them agreeing with this science right now, are we to automatically dismiss any counter arguments simply because we don't like them?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) There's nothing really logical about that argument, though. You're rejecting the entire field of climatology based on your supposition on some egotistical drive of scientists to believe that man is the cause. That's not really an argument at all, to be honest, and it doesn't even attempt to address any of the actual data and modeling. No, I'm rejecting it based on the fact that it's happened before *we* were here to cause the CO2 emissions are you blaming. That is very logical.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Not necessarily. Cutting pollution at plants (and in car engines) generally involves utilizing some form of chemical reaction (catalytic converters), re-burning the gas or other processes. For instance, your typical coal plant emissions controls will have scrubbers that significantly reduce SO2, particulates and mercury (though they still pollute terribly) without doing a thing about CO2. Your car now has multiple catalytic converters and a complex emissions gas re-circ system, but it doesn't cut down on CO2. At the end of the day, it's still a chemical reaction. You need to produce heat to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Generating X amount of heat will always require burning Y amount of coal and producing Z amount of CO2. Efficiencies in the heat transfer/steam generation process can help reduce the amount of fuel needed to produce a certain amount of electricity, but even at unity (i.e. perfect and complete transfer of all energy from the burning coal into electricity), we're still going to have high levels of CO2 emissions. If we want to control those emissions, we need specialized equipment like carbon scrubbers or we need sequestration. These options are available in industrial power settings, but not for automobiles. I want cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner forests...I don't care what they have to do in order to accomplish it, either...and if it means that by proxy, CO2 also drops, fine. But I don't care about CO2 if it doesn't affect air or life quality, since I don't believe we caused the warming trend that's occurring. I think it would have occurred whether we were here or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) But if you don't believe that CO2 is the significant driver of global warming, then there's no reason to cut CO2 emissions. It doesn't impact air quality. If AGW is not a significant thing, then there's no reason to impose carbon caps or C&T; there's no externality there that we need to capture. We can reduce other pollution emissions in other ways with less cost without worrying about CO2 if that's our concern Warming trends have occurred in the past, and yes, they'll occur in the future, but that's not a reason to reject the concept of AGW. Of course scientists who have been studying this for decades have considered what happened in the past; paleoclimatology is the grounds for a lot of our understanding of climate systems in the first place. There are pollutants that go hand in hand with CO2 being emitted that do affect our air quality...I'm not an expert, but I assume that if our factories cut pollutants that do affect air quality that CO2 would probably go down with them. And I'm fine with that happening. And I still feel that my reason to reject the concept of AGW is logically sound. I still believe man, with his nearly limitless ego, really wants to be the cause of climate change. I just don't believe we are...I think it's a natural occurance based on the fact it's happened before...and will happen again, with or without us. I'm also not rejecting that we CAN contribute to it...I just believe the amount we actually do contribute is so minimal it doesn't matter. But in our infinite search for self importance, we would like to believe we're making a bigger dent in the universe than we actually are.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) Transportation still remains the leading source of CO2 emissions. Our engines are much better now, but cars also weigh a hell of a lot more due to both increased comfort and features and increased safety (airbags, ABS, Traction, Stability, more robust chassis, bigger brakes, etc. etc.). You could get 40+MPG cars in the 80's because they were lighter. We were steadily increasing the total amount of fuel consumed every year until the crash. I know you're a non-believer to "a degree," and that rejection of the world-wide scientific understanding of the issue is part of the problem. Could you ever see yourself supporting the large-scale changes we need to address this since you don't even believe it needs to be addressed at that level? I support those large scale changes now, not because I believe we are the main contributor to rising global temperatures, but because why pollute when you don't have too? If better, more efficient methods for our factories exist today, which would cut emissions/pollution, I'm all for implementing them for the sake of our own health and for cleaner air. Not because I believe it's going to save the world. I'm not rejecting the world-wide scientific understanding of anything other than the idea that *we* are the main cause of global warming. I *do* reject that claim/idea. Because warming trends, even severe ones, have occurred before we existed...and they will occur AFTER we've existed. I do *not*, however, reject the idea that we pollute, needlessly or even carelessly, and there are better modern methods that could be used cut said pollution for the sake of our air quality, etc.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) We haven't really started to address it, no. It's hard when something like 50% of the country denies that the problem even exists. We're still putting out increasing amounts of CO2 over the last several decades. If we were really addressing the problem, doing what we need to do, we'd be drastically cutting emissions, not talking about Keystone. This report contains the most recent estimates I've seen. There's a slight dip in the last few years due to the economy crashing, but we aren't doing anything to really reduce emissions. Based on this data, it would lead to the conclusion that it's corporations and factories that cause the issue, since a lot of people, by force or otherwise, are doing something about it. If you buy a car today, it's far more efficient than it was just a decade ago. Same goes for modern appliances, etc. Not only that, but even within us non-believers, we tend to be more efficient about things since everything we can buy is simply more efficient than it once was, or even partially made of recycled materials. Even if an individual doesn't believe it in it, there isn't much they can do to be less efficient and cause more pollution than society around them allows. Plastic bottles are thinner, partially made of post-consumer recycled waste, etc. The examples are numerous, and all around us...even our more modern computers are made to be more environment friendly, being made with glass, metals, etc...which are far better to recycle and reuse than their older plastic counterparts. And yes, I'm a non-believer to a degree. While I believe in climate change/global warming, I don't believe we are as much of the cause of it as a lot of people want to believe. Do I believe we contributed? Yes. But not much.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) but global warming would cost too much and be too economically disruptive to address! "I told you so" is little comfort Are you claiming we haven't started addressed it, even a little? There are numerous things we've done that conserve energy, burn it cleaner, and cause far less pollution over the last decade. Everything from more efficient furnaces, to air conditioners, homes, to more fuel efficient cars, be it hybrid or even full on electric. Unfortunately, it will take a long time for such small changes add up to any sort of noticeable effect...especially with other countries doing nothing, or pretending to do something, but not actually caring. It's hard for me to believe a country like China gives a damn about pollution when they don't even care about the basic welfare of their workers, who assemble iPad's and other computers in sweat shops for a wage they can't even live on without working 90+ hour weeks. If it took upwards of 70-80 years to "cause" this...let's not pretend it will only take 5 or 10 to undo it all.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 08:50 PM) Did you read page 81 of the ACA? It's not in effect yet since no plans have been created for this act as of now, nor have exchanges. And plans created under this law can still be "cadallic plans" which will simply be taxed under a luxery type tax...a tax they don't have to pay anyway, since we pay it for them. They will still have access to healthcare that us normal people do not...such as doctors on hand 24/7, etc. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— REQUIREMENT. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Technically she'd be the third female VP nominee. Geraldeen Farraro ...who else? Edit: Oh, Palin. Sorry, I had to undelete memories to recall this. Thanks a lot.

I've heard good things about the new Spider Man...but I have my doubts...I liked Tobey McGuire as Parker/Spidy, and I give him a megaton of credit for the now successful comic hero to the big screen movement...so it kind of bothers me they already rebooted a great set of movies. Spiderman was the first of the new comic movies that worked for mass audiences...and I think it was the catalyst for hollywood to green light all of these awesome comic movies we've been getting as of late. So put me in the Tobey McGuire > new hipster peter parker camp.

I thought we had no farm system... We seem to be stacked with rookies that are preforming rather well.

QUOTE (Joxer_Daly @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) Was just thinking of getting my hands on an old oil barrel somewhere, and finding someone who's handy with metal to cut it in half (longways, obviously) and weld some legs, handles, and hinges for the lid half onto it. Not sure what way I'd fit the grill into the inside of it. Was speculating as to whether it would also be suitable for slow-grilling. As a nation renowned for your BBQs, what do you US sorts make of my fabulous idea? We do that here all the time with the huge metal drums. Some of us call them trash can grills.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 11:07 AM) I have worked within blocks of the Tower for about 14 years now, and haven't done it. The big reason we are going to do it, is because my six year old is obsessed with the building and really wants to do it. That makes it worth it for you then, regardless of the price.