When having an expensive repair done:

1) Can an item involved wear out as well, causing almost or as much cost in labour?
2) Can failure of the item cause damage or shorten the lifespan of the item you are repairing?
3) Is it cheap and easy to replace "since you have it apart"?

If you can answer yes to any of these questions, it's a solid, logical idea to replace the other items.

The idler and tensioner pulleys tend to be the reason your timing belt fails before normal wear occurs.
The water pump is usually 3-4 bolts and an O-ring and tend to cost $50-100. The labour involved is IDENTICAL to the timing belt (and actually changing the belt when you change the water pump is a good idea too.)
New accessory belts for your alternator and power steering et al. are cheap.
You would also be smart to have your battery and alternator tested while they are disconnected. Most auto electrical shops will do that for free, just make sure they're reputable.

This really doesn't surprise me I spoke to my wife about these things and they sent her to a Christian "Summer Camp"

They wake her up in the middle of the night and had her remove all religious apparel or accessories.
They took all of the camp kids out into the woods and separate them into small groups
They would ask you if you believed in god and if you said yes they would shoot you with the paintball gun to prove how hard it was to be a Christian or whatever in other countries.

They've been doing this shit for years it's no wonder it escalated to this level.

http://www.turquoise-accessory.com
http://www.chinatownstore.com

Thanks for that man. I have a well-groomed beard but I like to keep my neck clean-shaven and my neck-line tight. Unfortunately, neck skin tends to be the most delicate. I end up having to go through those expensive-ass cartridges like once every 4 or 5 shaves. Once that blade-jizzm dries out, it tends to wreck havoc on my skin. I'm wish-listing all of your recommendations for purchase when the last of my cartridges runs out (or shortly before) >> ^Fletch:

>> ^jqpublick:
I didn't know about the after-shave, I'll check it out. Thanks.
>> ^therealblankman:
@gwiz665 I knew the part about the ladies would convince you.
For my fellow Canucks you can buy the Proraso line at Shoppers Drugs across the country. They also carry the "Real Shaving" products from England- I really like their after-shave balm, use it every day.


I switched to DE shaving about a year ago after reading some enthusiastic comments for it somewhere. I used to abhor shaving. Now, it has become a pleasurable, zen-like ritual instead of a monotonous chore. I will never go back to cartridges.
For those thinking of giving it a go, I'd just recommend getting one of the many blade sample packs you can find on Amazon and on just about any site that sells DE razors. There are many different skin and beard types, and not all blades will feel and perform the same for everybody. I ended up choosing Astra Superior Premium Platinums. Buy them in a hundred pack and they are about 11.5 cents apiece. I get about 5 or 6 shaves per blade. Some people will get less. Some will get more. Even if you shave every day (I don't), it's cheaper than the Dollar Shave Club (initial costs aside).
If the initial cost is off-putting to you, take trip to the local grocery store and stare at the ridiculous price of replacement cartidges for the razor you are using now. DE razors and accessories are like cars, computers and kitchen knives. You can spend as much as you desire on one. There are many excellent razors under fifty bucks available. I use a Merkur Heavy Classic 43c and I love it. Unlike cartridge razors, it wil last a lifetime.
But cost savings isn't the reason I would recommend DE shaving. The benefits listed above by @therealblankman are the reasons why it's superior to catridge shaving. DE shaving takes a little longer than cartridge shaving (if you want baby smooth cheeks), but the results are more than worth it.
Proraso seems to have a following by the looks of some of the above comments, and for good reason. I also use the Proraso Ultra-Sensitive soap, the Proraso aftershave balm, and Proraso Anti-Irritation pre-shaving cream. I complete the kit with a nice badger hair shaving brush.

>> ^jqpublick:

I didn't know about the after-shave, I'll check it out. Thanks.
>> ^therealblankman:
@gwiz665 I knew the part about the ladies would convince you.
For my fellow Canucks you can buy the Proraso line at Shoppers Drugs across the country. They also carry the "Real Shaving" products from England- I really like their after-shave balm, use it every day.



I switched to DE shaving about a year ago after reading some enthusiastic comments for it somewhere. I used to abhor shaving. Now, it has become a pleasurable, zen-like ritual instead of a monotonous chore. I will never go back to cartridges.

For those thinking of giving it a go, I'd just recommend getting one of the many blade sample packs you can find on Amazon and on just about any site that sells DE razors. There are many different skin and beard types, and not all blades will feel and perform the same for everybody. I ended up choosing Astra Superior Premium Platinums. Buy them in a hundred pack and they are about 11.5 cents apiece. I get about 5 or 6 shaves per blade. Some people will get less. Some will get more. Even if you shave every day (I don't), it's cheaper than the Dollar Shave Club (initial costs aside).

If the initial cost is off-putting to you, take trip to the local grocery store and stare at the ridiculous price of replacement cartidges for the razor you are using now. DE razors and accessories are like cars, computers and kitchen knives. You can spend as much as you desire on one. There are many excellent razors under fifty bucks available. I use a Merkur Heavy Classic 43c and I love it. Unlike cartridge razors, it wil last a lifetime.

But cost savings isn't the reason I would recommend DE shaving. The benefits listed above by @therealblankman are the reasons why it's superior to catridge shaving. DE shaving takes a little longer than cartridge shaving (if you want baby smooth cheeks), but the results are more than worth it.

Proraso seems to have a following by the looks of some of the above comments, and for good reason. I also use the Proraso Ultra-Sensitive soap, the Proraso aftershave balm, and Proraso Anti-Irritation pre-shaving cream. I complete the kit with a nice badger hair shaving brush.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

I'm with you man... it was unwatchable...

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What is this narcissistic nightmare? Why is she famous? She is a mediocre singer, a mediocre dancer, produces mediocre songs and has shown little to no artistic growth for her 30+ year career. And what's with using younger, more interesting acts as fashion accessories? Wouldn't it be more interesting to let MIA, Cee Lo or LMFAO cut loose rather than have to watch Madonna lip sync her way through a late midlife crisis? And, unless you are Snoop Dogg, putting your own name in your own song is just sad.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

What is this narcissistic nightmare? Why is she famous? She is a mediocre singer, a mediocre dancer, produces mediocre songs and has shown little to no artistic growth for her 30+ year career. And what's with using younger, more interesting acts as fashion accessories? Wouldn't it be more interesting to let MIA, Cee Lo or LMFAO cut loose rather than have to watch Madonna lip sync her way through a late midlife crisis? And, unless you are Snoop Dogg, putting your own name in your own song is just sad.


I thought it was great, especially for a Superbowl Half-time show.

What is this narcissistic nightmare? Why is she famous? She is a mediocre singer, a mediocre dancer, produces mediocre songs and has shown little to no artistic growth for her 30+ year career. And what's with using younger, more interesting acts as fashion accessories? Wouldn't it be more interesting to let MIA, Cee Lo or LMFAO cut loose rather than have to watch Madonna lip sync her way through a late midlife crisis? And, unless you are Snoop Dogg, putting your own name in your own song is just sad.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think you underestimate the waffle consumption levels of the average citizen of Arkansas.

>> ^spoco2:

Not only are these people devolving purely to save a few dollars, they are doing so for one of the umpteen million STUPID single purpose kitchen accessories that seem to exist.
Seriously, do people need a waffle maker, a doughnut maker, a popcorn maker, a mini pie maker, a crepe maker, a giant doughnut maker, a cupcake maker... etc. etc. etc.
Absolute waste of space, waste of money, waste of resources. If you have a good set of basic kitchen utensils/pans/pots/trays etc. then you can make everything... and those things will be used repeatedly for lots of different things.
You won't end up with half a dozen never used appliances because you thought 'yeah, sure, I like waffles, I'll use that all the time'.
Dick people, dick companies for making them, dick shops for selling them at such stupidly low prices that people feel they just 'have' to buy them... all increasing waste on this planet. Yeay fuckin' yeay

Not only are these people devolving purely to save a few dollars, they are doing so for one of the umpteen million STUPID single purpose kitchen accessories that seem to exist.

Seriously, do people need a waffle maker, a doughnut maker, a popcorn maker, a mini pie maker, a crepe maker, a giant doughnut maker, a cupcake maker... etc. etc. etc.

Absolute waste of space, waste of money, waste of resources. If you have a good set of basic kitchen utensils/pans/pots/trays etc. then you can make everything... and those things will be used repeatedly for lots of different things.

You won't end up with half a dozen never used appliances because you thought 'yeah, sure, I like waffles, I'll use that all the time'.

Dick people, dick companies for making them, dick shops for selling them at such stupidly low prices that people feel they just 'have' to buy them... all increasing waste on this planet. Yeay fuckin' yeay

>> ^Boise_Lib:

What did she feel that made her jump up?


a spring in her cushion

Later that Sunday at Church -

So dawg, what happened?

Shoot, went to a rally to preach the word. Came out an accessory to a fist fight and inciting unrest. It's funny like that in the hood sometimes. You never knew what was gonna happen, or when. After that I knew it was gonna be a long summer.

-Don't Be a Menace to Saudia Arabia While Drinking Your Juice in the Heart Land.

Viral. Never seen that accessory before.