John Adams

You could get a decent used amp for that but not with the effects. I'd rather play through a real amp but this weekend, for example, I'm in a split-level and driving down in a packed car. It's nice to leave the amp at home for the sake of packing and the neighbors. I haven't played it through my stereo, just headphones so far. But I imagine the sound is about the same. A little fuzzy but for practice, it's decent.

$40 for the connector and I believe $10 for the iphone software.

Crack is DEElicious!

This thread should be pinned.

My quick review. I got this last night. It's about as good as you think. Sound quality is low but adequate. A little line hum. Effects are very good. When I travel and want to take my electric (because I'm in that mood), it will end up being a nice addition to my case candy. This weekend, I'm headed to the shore and currently trying to master a few electric songs. Instead of dragging my amp around, all I need is my guitar and iPhone.

Since you write like a 3 year old, I'll try this in the way you seem to understand: Wrong. And no, I don't feel like providing support because I have no interest in engaging you. And why do I hold you in such disdain? See Kooky fringe Episcopalians, right? Only 14 presidents have been that religion and 2% of the US pop. Friggin' outliers. Then they shouldn't pass laws telling religions who they can marry. I am sure you can find where I argued that since you read my posts so closely. Any time you wonder why I hold you in such low regard, you can return to this post.

Right-o. Since you get so excited about my profession, this one's for you: "Id." Thanks for the offer. I'll decline that date.

I learned in Catholic school that although he was a Jew, he was the last one that mattered. All the rest are going to Hell.

Even where they don't feel the responsibility for the divorce (I never had that), the confusion over parents dating, step-parents, step- and half-siblings is a mess. Compound that with having 2 legitimate parents who have different rules is brutal. And who among step-parents makes and enforces rules...and why should I listen to Jane the girlfriend...she's not mommy. And then the issue that one parent is "off" while the other one is on is hard for a kid. "What's daddy doing when he's not responsible for me? What's that "free of little Jimmy" life like?" And then the holidays, grandparents, etc. And all that before the kid grows up. As an adult, I have to deal with hosting holidays, spending time with my daughter. Now it's just incredibly annoying and I am in control but it's always stressful. In short: Divorce sucks. Quick: Call the Waaah-mbulance. But to Peev, the point is that while marriage may be antiquated, parents of children (M-F, M-M, F-F) living together is not.

Maybe an ouch. I am one of those !@#$ed up kids of divorce and having met almost no kids who aren't !@#$ed up in some way as a result of divorce, it seems a safe assumption. About the only instances where it is justified and the kid is better off is where there is physical and drug abuse. Divorce is brutal for kids. You can still love them. You can not fight and use the kids as pawn. you can pick your next mate well. It's still a train wreck for kids.

But when you make a law that says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," you support Church regulation by the state. You're allowing the state to tell Episcopalians (and others) how they recognize marriages. I wonder how many people are happy with that step. Maybe the next step is, "Cannibalism is no longer allowed, even if it's miraculous cannibalism where bread and wine are transfigured into flesh and blood before consumption." Think the the Catholic Church would have a problem with that?

If you're a child of divorce, then you know how awful divorce is to a kid (Assuming you were a kid when it happened). The institution of marriage may be outdated but providing a consistent, loving, relatively unchanging environment to raise a kid is pretty damn important. To that end, having consistent parent (or parents) matters a lot. When kids have two homes, multiple parents, multiple parent boy/girlfriends, and mutliple sets of rules, the kids end up mental. Like you, probably.

Then why are you willing to stand in the way of churches being allowed to marry people?

Reagan's big tent created the mess of the Republican Party. When the fiscal people married the traditional southern Democrats to form Reagan's "big tent" Republican Party, it was the end of a fiscal conservative/small government major party presence. Reagan used the big tent to attack big government but subsequent fiscal conservatives have been hampered by having to cowtow to the big government religious right. So ironically, fiscal conservatives (like me) have to look at one of their heroes (Reagan) as the architects of the demise of fiscal conservatism.

Fixed that for you. 2M Episcopalians (among many others) can marry in their own church, except where the government says they can't. Nice church and state separation there.

Yeah, that would work fine. You want to be civilly unioned? Go to the courthouse and sign the papers. You want to be married? Go to the Fairy house and float around in the magic pixie dust if that's what you believe in, but leave the "marriages" to whatever religion wants to define it as.

Getting outvoted doesn't make them wrong. They are demanding it because: (1) For many of them, especially the Christians, they want to be married. And the denominations that would so it (not the kooky fringe ones even), aren't allowed to marry them. So you want to tell religions what they can and can't do regarding their marriage ceremonies. It's sad that you won't let people practice one of their religious sacraments but whatever. Your "rationality" breaks down because gay is gross. (2) If you are civilly joined to your husband, and end up in court over something like custody, imagine all the arguments that can be applied because the laws are written regarding marital custody and all the legal precedent is written for marriage. Gays would probably like to rely on hundreds of years of precedent and (some) predictability regarding their legal rights concerning: divorce, powers of attorney, adoption, custody, marital privilege, inheritance, benefits, etc. So the fight over a word has import at least for religious and legal reasons. Swallow about the first one because it's true. Lots and lots of gay people want to be married in church--and call themselves married--but you won't let them.

The OC's of the world won't allow it, that's why. Episopalians would be willing to marry homosexual couples. As would many other mainstream religions. The man-woman marriage nutcases won't let the religions do it. The right wants to tell religions how they can operate. It's kind of hard for OC to justify isn't it?

No he won't. He's already not in camp in plenty of time. On a team that is deep at RB, he's bargaining his way to the #9 pick special teams player. What a waste.

Actually, there are no longer torosauruses. They are now called triceratops. The only bad news is taht triceratops were bigger and had thinner necks. We're still safe.

I am one of those people. If Buddy/Bills FO didn't pull the trigger on Gaither because they knew he had serious health issues, kudos to them. But it doesn't excuse entering 2010 with the tackles currently on the roster. This team doesn't even have two people you can pencil in at starter at tackle FFS. And the people competing are Meredith, Chambers, Bell...a parade of nobodies. I like what Buddy and Chan are doing but this team's tackles are frightening.

Not looking good for Blackberrys. RIM will try to stem the tide of defectors but it's probably too late. RIM Netscaped themselves with the legion of blind followers. The email machine is less than consumers want these days. I wonder if they can turn it around. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/blackbe...t-plan-to-defe/

So wait: The leader of this circle is leaving? Guess you finished.

Stoopid.

Yup. Mother's, Father's, Valentine's. All dumb.