jcd11235

Cool stuff, and fitting, considering how much of Metallica's pre-black album stuff was "borrowed" from classical music. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

(Get Your Tongue Out Of My Mouth 'Cause I'm) Kissin' You Goodbye Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you suggesting that the mainstream media outlets of the US report on the Palestine/Israel conflict in an unbiased manner? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Good guess The Heretic titanium is $275,000 in the US http://www.ecossemoto.com/PDF/Press/MCN_Nov21_Ti.pdf and prices seem to go up from there, with ES1 projected prices at $330,000 to $1.5M. http://www.ecossespirit.com/PDFs/Motorcyclist%20Nov%202007%20inside.jpg%20@%2025%25%20(RGB-8).pdf The heretic C starts at $50,000, according to the Forbes Life article found in the site's "Press" tab. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Once again, explain? There was a typo in your post. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No.. but if you want a HATE AMERICA slant to your news.. you can certainly get it from them. So you don't buy into the Bush administration's smear campaign; you only continue spreading their BS. Got it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well now... that certainly explains alot of your posting habits Are you buying into the Bush administration's smear campaign against Al Jazeera, now? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The flip side of the coin is that UBL likely feels much more comfortable traveling now. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Good guess Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

This Love Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's what happens when I try to multi-task. Multi-tasking or not, creating time warps is a pretty impressive skill. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If you had actually read the article, you would know that it in no way cheerleads for Hamas. It is actually possible to critically analyze the actions of one nation without promoting that nation's adversaries. Had you read the article, you would also know that the it was new when this thread started. Nice to see you avoid addressing any points made therein, though. Further demonstration that you didn't read the article. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I read the title and thought the thread was going to have something to do with bike riding. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nah.... never happen....you can blame the sources he gets his"news" from, to the exclusion of any other reality based historical perspective. You would think he was another of the butt hurt brits who love to bash your country on principle.. even though they were incapable of stoping the attrocities against jews by their wonderful peace loving palistinian neighbors that surrounded every jewish settlement. It's nice to see that there's no shortage of cheerleaders for Israel who are afraid to actually address the article to which the OP linked in order to have a relevant discussion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You do realize that I specificlly posed a scenario in which there were no such associated dangers, right? Are you serious? Yes they can. Clearly, you have no idea what the actual effects of illegal drugs in general, or pot in particular. I provided you with substantial resources so you might educate yourself, but it appears that you have no interest in the truth. I haven't seen you supply any credible sources showing this. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with UCLA physician Donald Tashkin? "It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer." I'll offer excerpts from an interesting article:Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers." The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders." There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?" "Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis." Drugs don't typically cause family issues. Drug laws, however, cause plenty of problems. True, some drugs are addictive (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, heroin). Others are not addictive (e.g., marijuana, ecstasy, LSD). Of course, addiction does not imply that a substance cannot be used responsibly without significant negative effects. For example, I'm addicted to caffeine, like millions of other Americans. Despite my addiction, I'm able to get on with my life without my coffee drinking adversely affecting the rest of my life. Interesting. By that logic, we should prohibit cars, sex, alcohol, and parachutes, among many other things, because some people are unable to maintain control. Well, I'm pretty sure he did. His growing is for the the industrial cultivation of hemp as a product. That was a considerable amount of time ago though. Very agrarian lifestyle he led. Males and females are not separated for industrial hemp. That practice is only desirable (albeit not totally necessary) when cannabis is being harvested for THC. THC serves medicinal and recreational purposes, not industrial purposes. To be fair, I have to give you credit for acknowledging that you won't let the facts affect your opinion on the matter. Bullshit. Try actually reading them. come on now, dude. Military pilots? Airline pilots? Now I know you are making things up. Once again, you're making false claims without any idea what the truth is. Yes, I have witnessed airline pilots and Air Force pilots use illegal drugs. Why do you find that surprising? Illegal drugs are used by all kinds of people, including many, many successful, productive people. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of your friends and colleagues partake in some from time to time. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

He didn't go any further because he did not have the authority to do so, and he was wise enough to recognize that removing a government from power without having another government ready to immediately fill the power vacuum would be a strategic blunder and a catastrophe. Bullshit That claim has been repeated refuted in t6his forum. OIL OIF was supposedly justified because Iraq supposedly had WMD and the ability to attack the US with only 45 minutes notice, which, as ignored intelligence predicted, turned out to be untrue. Iraq was not capable of mounting a significant attack upon her neighbors and certainly not the US. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It could credibly be argued that they did just that. The financial sector's demand for mortgages and MBS's caused lenders to do whatever it took to get people to sign up for mortgages, lest those lenders not have mortgages to resell. The demand for mortgages and mortgage backed securities drove the increased demand for homes, which, as you know, drove up the home prices. That isn't to say that some of those borrowers didn't know that they were getting loans they couldn't afford to pay back or would leave them upside down if the housing market tanked. However, there were also lenders and/or mortgage brokers who duped their customers. Some of those customers were simply not financially savvy and were persuaded to sign up for loans ill suited for their needs even though they qualified for more practical loans. Others engaged in outright fraud, misrepresenting loans to borrowers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Can you please clarify that statement? As it reads, it sounds like you're saying that the user finds his drug to be worth more than the money he uses to pay for it. I'm inclined to believe that isn't what you intended. (If it is as you intended, I would say that is true of most any good or service for which we voluntarily pay. If it wasn't, why bother buying anything instead of just keeping our money?) Yes, at least to the extent that the danger of explosion is kept to a minimum in chemistry labs (as opposed to kitchens & bathrooms). To what increased dangers are you referring? The neighborhoods won't suddenly be more dangerous simply because people can legally smoke pot or use other drugs. It is unlikely that you would even recognize them as drug users without actually witnessing them actually ingesting the drugs. Like found countries? From George Washington's diary: "1765, May 12-13. Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp. August 7, began to separate the Male from the Female hemp... rather too late." The August 7 entry is strong evidence that Washington was growing some of his cannabis for THC. Further: Dr. Burke, the President of the American Historical Reference Society, researched the correspondence of the first several presidents, and in 1975 confirmed that seven of them smoked cannabis. George Washington preferred to smoke "the leaves of hemp" rather than to drink alcohol. James Madison was once heard to say that smoking hemp inspired him to found a new nation on democratic principles. James Monroe, the 5th US President, was introduced to hashish when he was serving as Ambassador to France, and he continued to enjoy the smoke until he was 73 years old. When Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce served as military commanders, they each smoked hemp with their soldiers. In one letter to his family, Pierce complained that hemp was "about the only good thing" about the Mexican War. I've personally witnessed many highly successful people use illegal drugs recreationally, in many cases regularly. Included among those are airline pilots, Air Force pilots, well known cinematographers, successful business entrepreneurs/owners, college professors, inventors, soldiers, and world champion athletes. Perhaps your idea of not doing much of anything differs from mine. Bullshit. What a cop out. If you can provide evidence, do so. If not, I'll have to assume that your assertion is once again baseless, without merit. Nothing could be further from the truth, but go ahead and continue attacking the player when you can't keep your eye on the ball. You know what? Why don't you show me that study. The whole thing; not the partial mentioned source link through a website. I'll overlook the hypocrisy of your request. Here is one such study. From the conclusion: In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups' respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet all of the individuals in both groups admitted to having occasionally driven under the influence of THC before entering the studies. Thus, the new data seem no less representative of how drivers normally operate under the influence of THC. The addition of these data to those previously collected merely broadens the range of reactions that might be expected to occur in real life. That range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety. Alcohol present in blood concentrations around the legal limit (0.10 g/dl) in most American States is more impairing than anything subjects have shown after THC alone in our studies. As mentioned, medicinal drugs have had worse effects on psychiatric patients' driving performance in other studies employing the same test procedures. If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern. Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation. In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as "moderate" in the tests, they could easily become "severe" under exceptional circumstances. Another one: The study showed that a modest dose of alcohol (BAC = 0.034g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, as measured by the molar approach, relative to a placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 ｵg/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. Neither alcohol nor marijuana significantly affected driving performance measures obtained by the molecular approach, indicating that it may be relatively insensitive to drug-induced changes. Driving quality, as rated by the subjects, contrasted with observer ratings. Alcohol impaired driving performance according to the driving instructor, but subjects did not perceive it; marijuana did not impair driving performance, but the subjects themselves perceived their driving performance as such. Both groups reported about the same amount of effort in accomplishing the driving test following a placebo. Yet only subjects in the marijuana group reported significantly higher levels of invested effort following the active drug. Thus there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. You need to read more. I have provided plenty. You have confused your absurd claims (e.g., potheads are litterbugs that destroy beaches, smoking pot reduces property values, etc.) with actual justification for the laws prohibiting many recreational drugs. Right. Back to attacking the player instead of playing the ball. Incidentally, I get plenty of exercise; thank you for your concern. Like the Presidents? Like the pilots? Maybe you mean I should look at the successful entrepreneurs? Or perhaps it's the world champion athletes that use drugs that I should be looking at? The professors? If he does heroin? Fuck no. Way to avoid the question as it was asked. A heroin user has about the same chance of dying from heroin use in a given year as a skydiver has from dying from skydiving in a given year. Are you loathe to share your room with a skydiver like you are the heroin user, since either one is about as likely to be dead soon from their habit as the other? If you wouldn't mind the skydiver as a roommate while waiting for your femur to heal, why do you have the double standard? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nope, not projection. You show traits that mirror people I know. Now go pick up a football or something and go meet some people. You see traits that aren't there. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I doubt that this is a fact as you claim. A quick search provided: Source 1 Source 2 Note that the second source shows heroin to be approximately as dangerous as tobacco. I have previously read (but didn't look for the source just now) that some cutting agents increase heroin users' risk of death, a factor that would be greatly reduced or eliminated with legalization. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Legalization may make it much cheaper. But I doubt it that they will always be at home when they use. Judging from your posts in this thread, I seriously doubt you would even be able to identify a regular cocaine user that didn't need to resort to "doing sleazy things to feed their expensive habit." The same is true of methamphetamine users. Further, there is a high probability that you would be impressed by their motivation and productivity. That's doubtful. Pharmaceutical grade product (e.g., Desoxyn) would replace the product currently provided by "bathtub chemists." Some people like downers (e.g., alcohol, cannabis). Other people like uppers (e.g., amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine). If anything, legalization would increase the involvement in "communal upkeep of neighborhoods and communities at large." I don't think you realize how many drug users avoid contact with their neighbors simply due to fear of being busted or found out as an illegal drug user. Further, in the current legal climate, drug users tend to be reluctant to support or participate in neighborhood watch (aka narc on your neighbor) programs. Do you have any evidence supporting your belief? Many studies suggest that cannabis use does not adversely affect driving ability beyond the extent expected of over the counter cold medicines taken as directed. The DUI scare tactic is a red herring w/r/t cannabis. Since no one has provided any justification for their prohibition, there is no need to keep recreational drugs illegal. One person's drug use seldom risks the life of other people (driving under the influence of alcohol being a major exception). You would probably be surprised to find that heroin users (heroin being the most lethal per 100,000 users of commonly used recreational drugs) have about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying from their habit in any given year, approximately the same as skydivers. Would you be equally loathe to be side by side with a skydiver as your femur heals? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I strongly concur, for mostly the same reasons you mentioned. (Although I can't relate to your love of food, to each their own.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No I didn't. It's been addressed before. And, I have said why it doesn't matter. You keep claiming the dangers of illegal drugs, then every time it is pointed out how they pose less danger relative to legal drugs, you back pedal and claim that their danger doesn't matter. Strange. When I played "Army" (I even had to wear their ACU's) the last year or so, I saw a lot of different opinions(i could have sworn there are more democrats than republicans in the Army), beliefs and culture. True, every soldier is not exactly the same, but variety is minimal compared to the civilian world. No, I am not confused by those two very different concepts. I'm not sure if it is forward or reverse progress that you've switched to projection from irony. Should we recap some of the absurd claims (that have been repeatedly shown to be wrong by several other poster, not just me) you've made in this thread? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's quite an ironic statement, coming from someone who can't even acknowledge Israel's own responsibility for her problems with her neighbors. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!