Wheat grass it is...with a splash of vodka.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
Im allergic to vinegar dear, how about a nice bag of wheat grass?

In reply to this comment by rougy:
>> ^peggedbea:
so rougy, you douchebag... are you saying you wanna be inside me????????????!!!??


You're confused again, dear.

I'm not your douchebag, I'm the guy who fills up your weekly assortment of douchebags, the ones you bring to the drive-thru in the trunk of your car.

What will it be this week, sweetie? The usual?

Three waters, three vinegars, and one half-and-half?

Thanks for saying that, Lucky.

And thanks for all of your hard work.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Congratulations on going gold! And thanks for all your contributions.

Thanks for the heads up.

Those Canadians have a lot of heart.

In reply to this comment by qualm:
Maybe you haven't heard this one: http://www.videosift.com/video/Pacing-the-Cage-Bruce-Cockburn

At least the food is great in Houston.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Now I feel like a jerk.


But it's true, the shit-kicker "I'm so ignorant I'm smart" Texan has always rubbed me wrong.



psst....i know, i live here.

Thanks!

You know, if the GOP wants Limbaugh to be their mouth-piece, I say go right ahead.

Limbaugh will be their undoing.


In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
good call

In reply to this comment by rougy:
And Steele just apologized to Herr Rush today.

Who's leading whom?

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
If you want to experiment and don't want to fuck around with reinstalling over and over on a spare PC (or don't have a spare), go grab VirtualBox as I've mentioned twice now.

Thanks for mentioning VirtualBox. I didn't even know it existed.

That will make things a lot easier now.

C'mon, baby.

If you want to fly you've got to fly right.

It's just not a sundae without the cherry on top.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
wait wait... are you saying well have to get him liquored up and stoned and fat before hell make out with me? either im insulted, or you have the same relationship philosophy as my exhusband. wait, maybe both.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hey, I'm game.

If your cerebral cortex brings the hooch, my limbic system will bring the munchies and the weed.



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i loooooove him. our brains should make out.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Gladwll is an excellent writer.

I highly recommend anything of his, especially his New Yorker articles.

Hey, I'm game.

If your cerebral cortex brings the hooch, my limbic system will bring the munchies and the weed.



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i loooooove him. our brains should make out.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Gladwll is an excellent writer.

I highly recommend anything of his, especially his New Yorker articles.

Keep your asinine, myopic, bullshit to your post page.

Anybody who uses the phrase "Islamofascist" reveals more about himself than he realizes.

Is that clear?

I don't need ugly people like you dirtying up my profile page with your one-sided hogwash.

I stay off your profile page, you stay off mine.

In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Tel Aviv - The United Nations suspended all activities in the Gaza Strip Thursday, accusing Israeli soldiers of firing on a marked UN vehicle during a three-hour humanitarian cease-fire initiated by Israel.
Source
Don't be a boob. It's well known now that Hamas is using UN-flagged ambulances as troop carriers http://www.videosift.com/video/Hamas-using-UN-ambulances-as-troop-carriers

Of course, Israel will deny that, or come up with some plausible excuse, and of course, we all better believe them or else we're just racists.

While no one has a monopoly on truth, you hear a lot more from the IDF than from the psychotic Islamofascist warlords of Hamas. You do sound racist in your comments quite often, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Let's not forget that relief boat that they rammed, then denied ramming.

Oh yes, Moonbat Love Boat. Give me an F-ing break! If Israel let every two-bit terrorist sympathizer through Gaza would be even more awash in weapons. For trying to break a legal military blockade; ramming them was kid glove treatment. They could be sleeping with Davey Jones.

According to many sources, a lot of people were killed in those schools and none of them were militants.

Ya, according to many of the same sources, The Joos are descended from Pigs and Monkeys too.

But if Israel says they are, well then, who the fuck are we to disagree?

Just a bunch of racists, right?

I prefer to regard you as what Lenin referred to as a "Useful Idiot". Just try not to pass it on socially or genetically

I'm sorry, man. I know there's two sides to the story, but this is just bullshit and everybody in the world can see it.

No, there are plenty of people outside your echochamber who see the truth, and the perversion thereof which the Islamofascists and their sympathizers have foisted on Europe, The Media, and Left Wing Intelligentia in general.

Israel, and I'm talking about the political body of the country, has one plan for the Palestinians: complete eradication.

Even if Hamas was out of the picture and the Gazans were doing everything by the book, they would still get pushed around and bombed and blockaded until somebody snapped and gave the IDF another reason to bomb the holy hell out of everything.

Gaza would be at peace without the armed terrorist resistance of Hamas. There would be no blockade or checkpoints. There would be jobs and plenty for all. Hamas and their fuckwit apologists have gotten us where we are. Israel has no interest than to be left in peace. Try supporting that.

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.
5. TheSofaKing does not think the NSF and the ASCE were original investigative teams even though they responded within hours of the collapses and before FEMA and the BPAT teams were formed.

According to the document:

"Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts."

Do you agree with that?

Or is that another bit of documented reality that you'll choose to ignore?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No that does not constitute an "original investigative team" to me. They were one group out of several who arrived quickly to respond to an unimaginably chaotic situation, for which there was no "procedure". Do you know what the word "among" means?

In reply to this comment by rougy:
This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No I don't agree with that. Have you read the document you linked to? Because if you made it even two paragraphs in, you would have seen where your latest attempt at documentation is again, and predictably I might add, incorrect.

"A variety of other engineering researchers and professionals, including members of the Structural Engineering Association of New York, also engaged in the monumental task of collecting data that could lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings ..."



In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Your running record of my beliefs is incorrect. #3 and to some degree #2 are in contradiction with my last post which stated at least one expert from NIST was on site with FEMA and did examine physical evidence. Your questioning whether I have read all of the WTC 1 & 2 reports (tens of thousands of pages) and you can't even read 2 sentences?

As for the full NIST report, no...I have not read it in it's entirety . I doubt anyone has. I have read significant portions of it depending on what aspects of the investigation I was interested in at the time.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Ok...I know you like to take things slow out of your own necessity, but it has been obvious where this was going since your first post. Why don't you just come out and say what you want to say? It's not like it is anything new or based on evidence.


From NIST website

"FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation"


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?

1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?


In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I guess by "original investigation" you actually meant "preliminary investigation". FEMA's initial report was completed in cooperation with the American Society of Civil Engineers, and no, the NIST did not have anything to do with it. Nor should they have.

Once commissioned to do so , the NIST produced a mind bogglingly thorough report on WTC 1 & 2. In paper form it sits about 3 feet high.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

The investigation and subsequent report on WTC 7 was separated from the first report in order to get it out faster. That is why the one I linked is preliminary, with the full report due out in early 2008.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.


The NIST was not part of the original investigation into the collapse of the towers 1, 2, or 7. Correct?

1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.


The NIST was not part of the original investigation into the collapse of the towers 1, 2, or 7. Correct?

*****

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I stand by that document for what it is. A preliminary report on the collapse of building 7, which states "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition", and "...it was a classic progressive collapse". It also provides a comparative plethora of explanations and photographic/schematic data to back up their hypothesis. Something you are unable to provide. The timeline on page 26 alone should tell anyone who knows anything about demolition that this building fell with no help from a secret government operation.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Popular Mechanics does probably the best job I've seen of allowing some of the "experts" whose quotes have been used as fodder for conspiracy theorists to respond and most of them do not believe in any conspiracy, but rather their comments were misconstrued by people with agendas.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
You're a total fucking asshole and an abuser by nature.

This is a link to one of your "proofs" that WTC7 fell due to the fires and structural damage.

Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse - April 5, 2005

You stand by this document, is that correct?