Fezmid

Lots of people are addicted to caffeine. Coffee and pop (not soda... ) are the main culprits.

I just did the same thing a couple of weeks ago - I ordered off of eBay from onelinewholesaleparts, and received the mirror in a couple of days for ~$60 for my Camry.

My wife puts these packets of 0 calorie flavoring into regular bottled water. Not sure what they're called, but she likes 'em. I drink a can of Dew in the morning, and then water the rest of the day. About a gallon of water a day -- people make comments when they see how much I drink during a meal.

Try hooked on phonics - it can work for you!!!!

Your quote from above: Oh look, another random poster who is smarter than a PhD who has actually done RESEARCH on the issue! We're so lucky to have people who don't need to waste time with things like science to come to conclusions on this forum.

Let's see... Who is more believable, a Harvard-trained doctor, lawyer, medical school dean and former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.....? Or a random poster on a message board who says, "It's easy!!!! D'uh!!!!' So tell me, bills_fan, how much training in brain chemistry have you had to know that it's not really a problem?

I suppose in a way, that's true. But it's not just about willpower, which is what most in this thread seem to believe. It's a MUCH more complex issue than, "Don't eat it," especially since food companies are doing their best to re-wire your brain to force you to eat more. The entire issue, taken as a whole, is not black and white.

You should read this book: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9042602711.html For those who don't like reading: Combine that with: So in essence, the food companies are doing what the tobacco companies do -- put additives into their food to help re-wire the brain to make it crave the unhealthy food, regardless of whether the body is hungry or not. The difference between the tobacco companies and the food companies are that people NEED to eat to survive. Everyone eats, food is everywhere, especially in this country. Look at a regular American office - people bring in donuts for early meetings, have food in their cube to share with coworkers, many companies give away free pop. Peer pressure relating to food is everywhere -- heck, I had a business meeting yesterday where I was the only person who didn't order soup, and they gave me crap for it. My understanding is that in other countries, this is not the case. The book mentions that in France, for example, people are shocked to hear that people bring donuts into a morning business meeting. Oliver, care to comment? Say what you want, it's NOT as simple as "don't eat bad food."

This thread did convince me to eat two Duff's wings as a "pre-game" celebration. (and because I didn't eat lunch... )

Pretty much We need 50% of people to attend the annual meeting in order to vote in new board members and such. We're usually at around 20%.

Good luck with that. Almost everyone around here thinks it's an easy solution - eat a salad, case closed. As a culture, we're not allowed to bash based on religion, ethnicity, etc, etc. But weight, for whatever reason, is culturally accepted and promoted.

Changing a bylaw requires 75% of the association to agree with it. Good luck getting 75% of the people to give a crap about anything, let alone something that doesn't even affect them. It's sad, but true.

And you have scientific proof of this where exactly.....? Not just, "Ho hos are bad for you," but some real, double-blind experiments and research.

The key phrase in the law is: "with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use." He can display the flag -- but the law says nothing about permanently installing a flagpole in land that he probably does not own. With all of the townhomes I've seen (including the one I live in), I do not have exclusive possession of the yard. Therefore, a flagpole can not be erected without permission. Now I would think he should be allowed to do it - as long as he follows the proper procedure and the flagpole is safe - and if he asked permission and was denied, then it really sucks (and I could see that happening in my association now that I'm not on the board...). Nothing's stopping him from putting it on his house; the issue is with the pole. But like I said, if he asked and was denied, screw 'em.

I served on an HOA for 2 years, and there's a LOT of petty people living in these neighborhoods. Unfortunately, while it's easy to say, "Just don't move into a neighborhood with one," it's becoming very difficult to find houses that don't have associations of some sort. I understand their concept, but what happens is that the "normal" people don't want to put up the BS so don't go on the board, and the crazy control-freaks with nothing else to do get on the board and cause havoc. It sucks. However, to play devil's advocate -- did he ever go and fill out the form to ask permission? If he didn't, then the HOA has the right to say no -- as it would be considered a liability issue if something happened to the pole (lightning rod, falls over and kills someone, etc), and the lawyers would sue the association, not the individual. If he did make the request and it was denied, then that's lame.

Expect NBC programming to be pulled from Hulu in the near future. Do you think NBC will ever report anything negative about Comcast now? (do you ever hear anything negative about TW from CNN? Not usually). Less fair and balanced reporting. And as plenzmd said, Comcast could start using the various NBC holdings as leverage to get people to switch to Comcast cable (like, for example, MS does with IE). Conglomorates are rarely a good thing.

For those who have followed my posts, you'll know that I think this is a TERRIBLE idea and I hope it's declined. A single company should not be allowed to control both the content AND a distribution method as it creates a monopoly whereby other distribution companies are left completely out of the picture (for example, see the Versus debacle with DirecTV -- Versus is owned by Comcast). Step by step, we come closer to a dozen or so megacorps that rule everything... (assuming we're not already there...) http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/01/comcast...unced-thursday/

If you have cable (or sat), you're paying for the local networks as well -- they charge the carriers a "retransmit" fee, just like the non-local networks do. I don't know how the local networks get permission to transmit over the air. I'm assuming they have to pay for that themselves, but I'm not 100% sure how that part works. That said, the majority of people are paying for the locals.

From the article: According to Mr. Moffett’s analysis, if every African- American family in the country subscribed to the Black Entertainment Network, it would still have to raise its fees by 588 percent. He adds, “If just half opted in — still a wildly optimistic scenario — the price would rise by 1,200 percent.”

No excuse - you need to go out and find a better picture to post

Now we're just repeating.... Same picture and everything. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...p;#entry1570661

That's exactly my point -- ESPN wouldn't be able to get $12/customer. In turn, less people would have ESPN, which means advertisers would not pay as much money for commercials. They just paid over a billion for NFL games -- they wouldn't be able to afford that anymore. That means ESPN could very well go out of business. And let's skip ESPN - what about ESPN Classic? ESPN2? You really think BET would survive? The article I linked said no. SciFi? Sorry, not that many SciFi fans, so that network would probably be gone. Lifetime? Forget about it. You'd have maybe 10 channels to choose from. Well, in that case, why even pay extra for it at all? Now there's no more cable TV. The article also mentions that it would be near impossible to get any new channels -- because nobody's going to sign up for a channel that they know almost nothing about. Ala carte just doesn't work in the real world.

MOST channels would not make it -- which would then raise the cost of the channels you DO want to watch, making them nearly unaffordable. It's an idea that sounds GREAT on paper, and will utterly collapse television in reality (which some may say is a good thing ). For a good writeup of the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business...;pagewanted=all From the article: Wouldn't a similar example be people without kids having to pay school taxes in order to own a home...? If everyone didn't subsidize the school system, the cost for people with kids would skyrocket.

DUFF'S!!! Best wings in WNY.

You mean the future HOF QB who was the last player to lead us to a winning record? Can't wait to get my $50.