Steff

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 11:44 AM) I believe it ranks up there with a Christmas Story, Over the Top and Shawshank Redemtion. It's one of those movies you've seen a million times before but just can't help stopping on it while channel-surfing. Jim is that way with that Last Action Hero movie. Hates it.. but stops on it every time it's on. :banghead

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:25 AM) Could you post what site it was that you saw those? I'd love to check it out Here it is.. http://niptuckfans.com/forum/index.php There are a ton of theories and spoilers on there... An entire section for spoilers in fact. Don't go there unless you have good will power not to read them..

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 11:33 AM) Well, if the college has rules about pornographic material on university-hosted web sites, then there's no question the kid earned the suspension by violating a clearly spelled out rule (assuming the rule is clearly spelled out somewhere). I think I'm done with rule/law threads for today..

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) I don't know...does the "Girls Gone Wild" precedent apply here? That court ruling basically said that anything done in a public setting could be photographed/videotaped and there was no limit on what could be done with it. Is an open window a public setting I guess is the question. I think the bigger issue is putting it on college web site..?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) There's something about a pot and a kettle...what is that??? :headshake Before this turns to "banning" territory for me...I'm going to go hang someplace else for a spell. I don't see why you would be banned. Unless it would have something to do with the pot/kettle comment.. what is that? Stirring the pot..? And I can see how you may have (obviously did) misunderstand the course of my posting. I should have combined my comment about those (like your father in law) in the field who can appeal the law, and those not yet in the field.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) What do you mean by calculated? That I actually think before typing? That I actually would like to convey meaning and carry on a conversation? I clarified twice my reference. Go "get" someone else. :rolly

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) No, that's clear in the fact that you made that statement, but it could be reflecting to where these guys went wrong with their career choices years ago. I dont think the one having a problem here is me, since Tex also misread you. I think you are having a problem successfully backpeddling...again. It could be... but it wasn't. So I clarified, twice. Tex's actions are calculated so his opinion is moot. I'm clarifying for you.. that I was referring to those researching a potential career as a pharmacist. We done?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:52 AM) You statements were never that clear Steff. We were talking about THIS case, not some future case in some future world. You seemed to be blaming these people for not thinking about this in the past. So clearly, you were not that clear if both Tex and I were misunderstanding your case. This isn't clear to you...? QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:26 AM) What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...? One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens.. If not.. perhaps ask for clarification rather then assuming..

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:48 AM) OK. But aren't these pharmacists already in the field? I was replying to these pharmacists should just quit and shouldn't have been pharmacists to begin with. They have a legit right to work to get the law changed if that is what they believe. They may loose, but citizens have that right in this country. Obviously they are. What that has to do with my suggestion for those that aren't yet, I fail to see..

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) Thank you. I'll talk to my father in law about this one for sure. He's one of them there drug prescribers. I'll ask him if when he went into the career if he ever thought he would have to prescribe a medicine of this sort. I bet he's going to say "no". In my town, if the Walgreens refuses it, I can walk across the street to the Osco...if they refuse, I'll got to Wal-Mart...if they refuse...maybe Target... It's not like there is a shortage of places to go. I think the pharmacist are getting a bum rap here a bit. Which is why your father in law has the right to fight the law - like the other 6 mentioned in the article are doing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) What part of this law and pill wasn't around 10 years ago so how were pharmacists suppose to factor it into their decision? My son is going into Psychology. What advances in the field, and laws that will be enacted in 2015, should he be researching before making his decision? And pharmicists who have been in the field for years would just now be researching if they want to be pharmacists...? Clearly I was referring to those not yet licensed.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:32 AM) Are you suggesting they should have thought A. Someday, someone may invent a pill or procedure that I may find morally upsetting. B. The government may pass a law making it illegal for me to not dispense the pill. I think that's a little unfair. What part of "when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals" wasn't clear...?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:16 AM) Congrats steff....is this your first neice or nephew?? I have a neice.. But my sister lived in Florida at the time of her birth so I didn't get to be part of all the ultrasound stuff. I'm soooo excited.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:04 AM) 'kay...sometimes it's easier said than done. What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...? One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens..

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 10:18 AM) Yep, good way of putting it. And don't the chances for side effects increase because of the higher dosage? There are arguments both ways, as with anything you put in your body. The studies, per capita, have been statistically favorable to it's safety.

My sister is having an ultrasound today.. I'm so excited to see my little nephew..

QUOTE(SoxPride56 @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 09:51 AM) I agree 100%, but who would be the backup 1B? Thome? Thomas..

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 09:40 AM) Guess I'm wacky, I side with the pharmacists on this one. Especially with a pill THAT controversial. Regular birth control is one thing, but this one I understand why some would NOT want to be a part of it. Call me crazy. Oh, and no need to argue with me on it, I won't change my views on this pill. Then go work somewhere where it's legal to refuse to fill a script of something you are against. And ya might want to read up on "that pill". It's "regular" birth control at a higher controlled dose.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 09:29 AM) I think it's Matt, or the lesbian anesthesiologist I've been reading a site that somehow has access to the "sides" which I guess are snippits from the filming.. (if someone could elaborate on that I would appreciate it).. and Matt is going to take some twists the next 3 episodes which will rule him out. A little tease... Cara Fitzgerald, the girl Matt hit while joyriding stoned with his friend last season.. comes back to haunt him.

QUOTE(S720 @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Hi everyone, I emailed Pat this morning to compliment her White Sox painting. Well, she emailed me back and wanted to know the name of this forum. I am asking for the admins' advice. Thanks. Advice on what...? Give her the link. She'd be a welcome addition.

Hey Cali.. or anyone else who watches N/T.. did Dr. Merrill Bobolit die after he did the illegal lipo..? I remember he was way high when Sean found him, but I can't recall if he OD'd or just went into rehab...? If he's not dead.. that's who I think is the Carver.. Ehh.. maybe. edited to add: OK.. it's not him. He's in jail. It's Quentin. edited, again, to add: OK... he could have escaped, right..? Bobolit was totally obssessed with Christian's face - and in love with his body.. so he didn't cut him on the face, and got off raping him.. He was also totally in love with Kimber and hated her at the same time for hooking up with Christian - the logic behind kidnapping her from the wedding. Killed 2 birds with 1 stone in hurting both of them at the same time. Crap.. I don't know.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 08:22 AM) Shouldn't the yea be directed at Blagojevich on this one? If there was no law, do you think Walgreen would have suspended them? I'm guessing no, but it would be great if they'd just stop hiring pharmacists who would try something like this. Of course.. They "yea" for Walgreens is because they didn't fight for them, like the pharmacists thought they would. It's not an automatic suspension. I doubt potential employees would be so forthcoming.. "Oh.. FYI.. if I don't agree with a script. I aint fillin' it.. When should I start..?"

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/305nd3.htm Four Walgreen pharmacists disciplined for not filling contraceptives Wednesday, November 30, 2005 By Jim Suhr he Associated Press -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ST. LOUIS — Walgreen Co. said Tuesday it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule. Ed Martin, an attorney for the four, called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said the pharmacists would consider legal action if Walgreens doesn't reconsider. Citing religious or moral grounds over filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill, the four "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreens spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said. A rule first imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April that became permanent in August requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control such as the morning-after pill. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule. At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were pressed by Americans United for Life, a Chicago-based public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated. "If you're a pharmacist and a woman has a prescription for contraceptives, you should have to fill that prescription," Blagojevich said Tuesday during an appearance in southern Illinois. Illinois' rule requires that prescriptions for emergency contraception be filled "without delay" and not complying can result in the suspension of a pharmacy's license and that site's chief pharmacist, Bruce said. Deerfield-based Walgreens put the four on leave Monday to comply with the rule, she said. Bruce would not identify the four pharmacists involved or the stores where they worked. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law. Martin said the four may take their case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or sue to get reinstated and collect lost wages. "There's some hope Walgreen will snap out of it and that these people would get their jobs back," Martin said. Walgreens policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed — except where state law prohibits — but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said. The four pharmacists can be reassigned to a Missouri store if they choose and Walgreens would help them get licensed in that state. "As far as I know, they have not taken us up on that offer," Bruce said.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 10:34 PM) Who the f*** does what i put in bold? Yes, most people expect the same thing when they watch 2 fast 2 furious and boyz in the hood. I know i did. qwerty.. tears in my eyes from your comments in this thread..

QUOTE(SnB @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 12:28 AM) cocktail/popcorn shrimp is the only seafood i'll eat. I used to absolutely LOVE shrimp.. then once on vacation in Florida I ate some and got a horrible case of the hives. Just came on out of nowhere. For a while I could still eat the buffalo shrimp from Hooters, but no more. Now that's my only allergy. I can still eat crab, lobster, muscles, oysters, etc, etc.. It's weird.