It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
Blue Angels are supposed to be here for an air show next weekend.Johnnie wrote:A Blue Angel and a Thunderbird crashed today within an hour of each other. The Thunderbird pilot ejected safely. The Blue Angel pilot didn't.
This weekend the Thunderbirds are supposed to be here for the Air Show. They probably won't be now.
I know some. My sister was/is(?) a fan.wlu_lax6 wrote:How about John Mellencamp. Feel like if Bruce is a blind spot you would miss out on Little Pink Houses and such.
Me neither, but there were a few commercials.Rush2112 wrote:The movie Philadelphia? Never saw it.mister d wrote:You also can't not know Streets of Philadelphia simply because of the movie.
Came out in 1993, I didn't have/watch TV for most of the middle 90s.mister d wrote:
Me neither, but there were a few commercials.
I'm picturing WLU walking around the office with a tie and dress shirt tucked into bicycle shorts.wlu_lax6 wrote:So with the DC Metro's "SafeTrack" effort (DC's metro infrastructure is so bad right now they have to shut down segments to repair..a process that will go on into at least November), I am biking to work. Not a big deal 10.2 to 11.4 miles depending on the route I take. However, sitting in my fancy office chair while wearing really nice bike shorts (lots of padding) is basically nirvana. This could be the new trend in office apparel...Dockers with bike shorts inside...I am going to be rich!!!!
I couldn't envision anything other than wearing dri-fit boxer briefs now, especially in the summertimemister d wrote:Like the bike shorts themselves are comfort improvers? I've never actually worn them, but I just assumed the opposite, like they just glued everything to your body.
I could be wrong, but I think you could easily wear those dri-fit boxer briefs under your bike shorts instead of a jockstrap.Brontoburglar wrote:I couldn't envision anything other than wearing dri-fit boxer briefs now, especially in the summertimemister d wrote:Like the bike shorts themselves are comfort improvers? I've never actually worn them, but I just assumed the opposite, like they just glued everything to your body.
I also understood why women wear tights to the gym when I started wearing them (under shorts) when I was deadlifting
Bib Shorts man...Bib ShortsSyb wrote:I'm picturing WLU walking around the office with a tie and dress shirt tucked into bicycle shorts.
No No No No No No. Bike Shorts are designed to be worn commando. The goal with bike shorts is to minimize the amount of seams and various materials in order to prevent chafing. Your inner-thighs are a prime target for rubbing against your saddle, and if you’re wearing underwear then the seam can end up rubbing against your downstairs for the entirety of a ride. The other reason to not wear underwear is that chamois pads are specifically designed to wick away sweat and they’re usually made of an anti-bacterial material.sancarlos wrote:I could be wrong, but I think you could easily wear those dri-fit boxer briefs under your bike shorts instead of a jockstrap.
lifetime versus weekend???? think about it.mister d wrote:If the Stanford victim's father kills the Stanford rapist's father, I will heartily applaud. The only downside would be his punishment.
I can't decide if that looks more like a wrestling singlet or a modern version of German lederhosen.wlu_lax6 wrote:Bib Shorts man...Bib ShortsSyb wrote:I'm picturing WLU walking around the office with a tie and dress shirt tucked into bicycle shorts.
Jerloma wrote:lifetime versus weekend???? think about it.mister d wrote:If the Stanford victim's father kills the Stanford rapist's father, I will heartily applaud. The only downside would be his punishment.
It was fun re-reading all those 2007 comments. When are you guys starting up AofG, again?Jerome wrote: think about it.
That was a great waste of like 15 minutes. Some great ones in there like this one from DSafesancarlos wrote:It was fun re-reading all those 2007 comments. When are you guys starting up AofG, again?Jerome wrote: think about it.
This has been enjoyable, as I have long wondered what it would be like if gazelles just laid down in front of packs of lions to be ravaged.
This one jumped out to me from membengal.WEATHER OR NOT CHRIS DID IT, HE STILL A HERO. I PREY THAT THE PRESS DONT PRAY ON THIS TRAGDEE. I KNOW HE LOVD HIS SUN. U ALL NEED TO STOP H8'N. NOW. I NO CHRIS WAS A GOOD PERSON. MURDER ASIDE.
He ain't gettin' paid to mow his own lawn.Brontoburglar wrote:he owns/operates a landscaping company
No, but doesn't he have a bunch of Mexican to put on the job?mister d wrote:He ain't gettin' paid to mow his own lawn.Brontoburglar wrote:he owns/operates a landscaping company
Which illustrates why I did not become a gynecologistBrontoburglar wrote:to circle back to the discussion about lawn maintenance, my neighbor across the street mowed his grass for the first time yesterday. the grass was two feet tall
he owns/operates a landscaping company
This one particular part of this one particular episode (and just this part of just this episode) is one of those odd things that just pops up in my head every so (too?) often.Ryan wrote:The runner-up to play George Frankly on Mathnet was Phil Hartman
The Singularity.Jerloma wrote:What is the word for when AI takes over the humans?
Ryan wrote:Best of luck
Semi-related story about the judge who gave the light sentence to the Stanford rapist.mister d wrote:If the Stanford victim's father kills the Stanford rapist's father, I will heartily applaud. The only downside would be his punishment.
District Attorney Jeff Rosen removed Judge Aaron Persky from the bench in a pending case involving a nurse accused of sexually assaulting a sedated patient.
Rosen said he had lost confidence in Persky after the judge dismissed a misdemeanor case mid-trial Monday, an unusual decision that essentially exonerates the defendant prior to a jury vote.
“We are disappointed and puzzled at Judge Persky’s unusual decision to unilaterally dismiss a case before the jury could deliberate,” Rosen said in a statement. “After this and the recent turn of events, we lack confidence that Judge Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing in which a male nurse sexually assaulted an anesthetized female patient.”
The misdemeanor case involved possession of stolen property — specifically stolen mail, said James Leonard, supervising deputy district attorney. After the prosecution had presented its case, including witness accounts regarding stolen credit card applications, the defense filed a motion to dismiss — something almost always denied.
Persky granted it.
“The judge ... didn’t think a jury could find the defendant knew this was stolen mail,” Leonard said. “The jury didn’t get to hear the rest of the case or deliberate. This was dismaying to us.”
Out of the last 150 cases or so, such a motion has been granted “maybe twice,” the deputy district attorney said.
Rosen said the decision to remove Persky from the case against the nurse was a “carefully considered step.” The district attorney filed the motion to remove Persky, a rare action that implies a lack of faith in the judge’s impartiality in the case. It was unclear whether other pending cases before Persky would be subject to similar action.
They probably nominated themselves for employee of the month.Jerloma wrote:What do you do when someone sends out a group email trying to find out when everyone is going to the wake of the mother of someone at work and it's a person that never in a million years would you think that you have any obligation whatsoever to attend their mother's wake? Everyone is just asking like it's a damn foregone conclusion. I don't even like this person!
This fucking wake-shaming has to stop.
Wow, that will set a huge precedence. They could essentially prevent this judge from hearing any criminal cases ever. It sure seems like he may be taking bribes. Purely speculating, but it fits as an explanation of two shocking rulings. Very surprising to see a Judge dismiss a criminal case before trial. It means that prosecution, assuming all of their arguments are true, failed to make a case. I can't imagine a DA going forward with a case that poor. I would assume CA has a Grand Jury system, so that defendant must have been indicted by a grand jury, meaning the GJ found the case against him legit.sancarlos wrote:mister d wrote:If the Stanford victim's father kills the Stanford rapist's father, I will heartily applaud. The only downside would be his punishment.