PLFXpert

Peregrinerose--AGREED!

I could name a few who would be obedient and serve their master well. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I was on topic, thankquevurymuch. The answer is yes to "remotely close" (meaning it will likely be more expensive, but we're talking a couple dollars, not 10s & 20s/lb difference here) and is not even close to as simple as "land being expensive and in short supply thus the whole idea is a wash". I suppose I am more referring to "certified humane" than only free-range as free-range might still be fed processed foods and grains of which are not natural to their diet. I don't know of a "simple" solution to any of the world's major issues. But there are solutions that take time & effort and usually sacrifice in the interum; sacrifices that are difficult for some and cost money and thus major change isn't too often made. And it would probably take me Sangiro's entire bandwidth citing more than 100 credible sources to explain the process from beginning to end effectively. If you would like me to concede it might/likely will cost more, I already have numerous times. And that has never been my point; thus you are off topic. (teasing). What is the major foreseeable problem you have anyways with the cost of meat increasing by going certified humane? Perhaps that will be easier to discuss since cost seems to the number one priority to you. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

You're wrong. Where have you read this isn't possible, I'm curious? I have not read his book, but I've read excerpts and such online and am intrigued with Michael Pollen, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, who wrote "The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals." In an interview with him for "Greater Good" magazine Pollen says the following, which of course I'm quoting b/c it seems to coincide with my thoughts and readings exactly: In the excerpts I've read, he writes about the differences between "free-range" and "organic" and such and even some of the problems with such. Certainly there's still a long way to go, but a little improvement (ie: free-range, certified humane, etc) is better than none at all.

I LOVE Verizon. I've been with them for 7 years. When three family members between Billy and I passed in a matter of weeks they allowed me as many extra minutes as I possibly needed---which turned out to be about $500 worth. And in the boonies when everyone else's phone cuts out, mine is still crystal clear. I love it!

He definitely does creepy well---but I don't know. Something about the scenes he had with Kate in last night's episode was off; bad acting. But, hey I've only first seen him in the recap episode as I did not see the second half of Season Two, so maybe third time's the charm. I thought the premier was good in the sense that it was interesting, but not as interesting as any of the Season One episodes. And I'm just a little ticked at how sloooooowly it's mooooovving and the lack of quality in the clues. The little contraption thing for Sawyer to get fed was a little silly. The only thing that sparked my curiosity was the other prisoner across from Sawyer (who is he?) and the first scene with Juliet when she played "Downtown". She looked a little mental so I wonder about that in future episodes. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I thought it was terrible. Whomever plays Henry Gale is also a bad actor; but he's creepy which works for him. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Why, thank you. Yey!

Billy's complaint is that, and everything I said, plus he hates that they recap soooooooo muuuuuuuuch. And you go weeks w/out seeing a new installment sometimes. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Oh my gosh, I was just coming back to say exactly that! Since it was the premier episode we watched it at its scheduled time last night. From now on, only on DVR so we can watch commercial-free and get it over with. I can't STAND daytime soap opera-type shows. Brings back memories of summer with Grandma and always having to be back by 2 p.m. so she could watch her "stories". I'd watch all summer and only, like a week has gone by on the soap and the same "mystery" is left unsolved. They're.................sooooooooooo.............slooooooooooooooowww-----------moving........... And Lost has become that way, too. And there's too many contradictions---Um, hello---Ethan was the first "Other" and he had super-strength, etc. Now the Others are portrayed as normal people, just with un-normal jobs/positions in this world. And the mysterious things on the island--what happened to those? And why when we finally get a glimpse is it not at all capable of doing some of the things we'd seen in earlier episodes? It took the entire premier episode just to find out Jack was in an aquarium and somehow these Others are able to get full on documents/info from the outside world. At least with a novel you can spend several hours reading to get to the end and have answers. And b/c its a novel the writer edits over and over so that the facts match up. Same goes with a movie. I'm beginning to think the big theory of Lost is to see how many seasons viewers will watch w/out having any idea what the hell is going on. And I'd hate to think I'd waste my time watching every season only to be royally disappointed at the end. They need to speed up the storylines a bit and give more clues & answers (and ones that actually coincide) or I'm out. Peace.

YES! A bandwagon! I'm in! Seriously. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

That's true. My immediate thought was for Ms. Virginia's safety. I didn't think about the legs or... underarms. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I shave Billy all the time. I would NOT let him shave me. But he can watch. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I like you. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I haven't had the time to read up on it; but I'm not talking about those types of changes---I'm talking about some of the mysteries of the island---they've changed a lot from the beginning to where later when they reveal something, it's not at all compatible with the hints & sneak peaks they showed earlier. But, I still enjoy the show. I'm interested to see what becomes of Walt and his dad on the boat since supposedly they were given coordinates of how to leave and find rescue. And of course now Walt can tell his Dad what sort of "tests" he took while he was with the Others. Oh....and where's Walt's dog? I didn't see him in the recap episode. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I'm excited. I hope I'm not lost (he he) given that we didn't see the 2nd half of Season 2. But we did watch the recap episode last week---problem is just from seeing the first season in its entirety I know the recap episode left out some details. I like details. But, it's not like I have a theory so I guess missing a few details is no biggie. Frankly, I don't even think the writers have completely figured out their theory yet. I've noticed they've changed a few things from the first time you notice something strange to what it ends up being; the changes don't coincide to the original. Thus, I think the writers make subtle changes as they come up with new ideas to make it fit. So, I guess my theory is there is no official theory yet. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I bet he's not fucking. Come on, Squeak, you had it coming. And P.S. I am freshly 26 and I know who "The Who" are. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

And if one stops eating meat for each breakfast, lunch & dinner (ie: more than one needs for sustenance) then one might actually be saving money. Of course, I'll be the first to admit eating healthy is about twice as much money as not. Little Debbies and a sack of potatoes go for $1. Fresh vegetables & produces are far more expensive; especially when one goes for cherries or strawberries instead of an oatmeal creme pie. Assuming one wants to continue their over indulgence of meat, one must ask themselves: Would I rather know that an animal suffered unnecessarily for this meat which is $2-$4/lb or would I rather purchase the pricier (and likely better tasting & healthier) option? Not to mention sometimes doing the right thing requires a little sacrifice. I would guess many here are not so selfish they would not be willing to give up something else on their grocery list if they're on a tight budget and would prefer to opt for the more humane meat choice.

Most definitely. You confident in numerous scientific studies (and what was actually in textbooks in my college "Wildlife Studies" course)? ..to remain full for several months. OK; continue to consume more when you're full and then don't eat for a few months. I'm OK with that. I refuted your original statement. 'Twas not I who originally made such a comparison. And we are off topic; thus I will not be responding to such commentary and opinion in the future. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

In your eyes I MUST be a "royal snob" then. (But, my laugh is real b/c the way you said that is so on the wavelength of my sarcastic humor.) I LOVE escargot and caviar. I grew up eating those and others on a regular-enough basis (once every couple months or so) and still enjoy them today. I will use beer as an analogy. As I child I thought beer tasted "vile & disgusting" yet my father always had it in the cooler on road trips and in the fridge at home and I was raised in a household where drinking (as long as done in moderation) was the norm, not the exception. Suddenly I didn't mind the taste of beer anymore and even grew to enjoy it.

Current level of meat consumption; ie: bacon & sausage for breakfast, hamburger or turkey sandwich for lunch and a chicken or steak dinner. Not to mention the thousands of pounds of meat that goes to waste each year b/c it is produced but not purchased & consumed before expiration. There IS enough money and there IS enough space and there's even enough food to feed all the world's hungry but I'm sure that's quite impossible, too? I'm not a defeatist by nature. If I care, I find that I'll always discover a way.

Assuming you're being serious--Animals do not kill & consume prey when they're full. They do not wait for a tastier prey to come along when they're hungry. They do not seek out the fattest or the thinnest but rather the weakest which is what they'll be able to catch. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I would bet money you are 100% correct. Imagine the liability of having such. Again.

I'm happy you're aware of finning and perhaps that will be another installment. Certainly with the roomier non-obvious choices you've mentioned even I am up in the air on in some cases. I LOVE crab. I allow myself it once/year and certainly make sure it does NOT come from Canada. Canadian fisherman often also participate in seal-hunting b/c of the vast # of seals in the northern waters (whom eat large quantities of fish that fisherman would rather understandably catch themselves). Excerpt from Wikipedia: It's interesting that b/c humans look for more, we have obesity and eating disorders. If humans simply learned to disassociate food with pleasure (as we were meant to) we wouldn't have these problems (nor would humans need meat three times/day which leads to more demand which leads to more likelihood of animal cruelty). But that's another argument altogether and certainly not one I'd get into on the basis that there's no way that will happen. I mean, I myself have tried to no avail. But, I'm far more successful than most. But comparing people "wanting more" out of their food and parachuting is not a very good analagy; and I would even say a fallacy, Private Law. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

It's a nice thought (and well-constructed post, thank you