|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 1, 2005 15:54:25 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with a nip and tuck. From the pic' in the article I would never have thought that. Interesting article on Rourke. Are you reading the issue with Bob Marley on the cover? I think thats the one before this current issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 1, 2005 16:02:27 GMT -5
Been playing on the "This day in history" option on my web-page and for the fun of it put in my b-day of June 11th: So, this day in history 1982:
June 11
Q: When was the movie "ET" released?
A: ET, the story of an adorable space alien (or "extraterrestrial") who befriends an adorable Earthling boy, was released on this day in 1982. "ET" is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
I remember when it came out...I stood in the longest movie line I've ever stood in in 1982 with this gentlemen I'd met that afternoon. Too long a story for further reflection...
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 1, 2005 16:22:25 GMT -5
That was my 17th b-day. The story behind my sweet 16th is far more amusing. Maybe I'll post it one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Apr 2, 2005 1:42:08 GMT -5
Nope, March issue w HST on the cover. Maybe I’m missing something & Mickey had corrective work. Last I saw he had a plastic job on par w the cat ladies.  |
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 2, 2005 3:18:32 GMT -5
Oh. O.K. "Final Cut" was kinda interesting. Good acting. Am almost finished with Koontz's dreadful "The Taking." Ick. I love Koontz and can honestly say this is the worst novel he's ever written.
Anything for that next buck or to fulfill a contract I suppose.
Hope to finish it tonight and start John Saul's "Black Creek Crossing." His best spookiest novel in my opinion is "Suffer The Children."
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 2, 2005 3:31:36 GMT -5
Actually thats "Cry For The Strangers." "Suffer The Children" is so-so.
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 2, 2005 16:32:20 GMT -5
Sad about The Pope. I hope the forth-coming conclave of the cardinals will elect as equal a humanitarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 3, 2005 20:53:06 GMT -5
Sat down and listened to an entire Britney Spears album tonight. Really liked "Toxic" so I bought the g.h. c.d. "My Prerogative."
Weally like:
Toxic
Oops!...I did it again
Me against the music
Stronger
Everytime
...Baby one more time
Lucky
I'm not a girl, not yet a woman
Do Somethin'
Everytime is a weally sweet song.
Wonder if thats faux fur she wears on the cover or the real McCoy?
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 3, 2005 22:21:29 GMT -5
Also wonder: Do bona-fide vegetarians refuse to wear leather goods? Or is ok to kill and wear animals yet not eat them?
Hmmm...more to ponder.
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on Apr 3, 2005 22:44:16 GMT -5
Looks like its turning into a one-man-chat here. Will go playground hunting soon I guess.
Been thinkin' of Popes names and all. I wonder: does a Pope have to have an apostles/disciples name? Seems like lots of Pope's have apostles names. What do you think would be a cool named for the next Pope?
I think Pope Bartholomew Thaddaeus would be a cool name.
Had a pet guinea-pig named Bartholomew once, a long, long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Apr 4, 2005 11:24:00 GMT -5
I’ve seen plenty of so called veggie types wearing leather goods.
Always makes a good instigating start point with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Apr 4, 2005 11:40:22 GMT -5
Unless they choose to be vegetarians for health reasons, or a matter of personal taste, rather than a concern for animials ...
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Apr 4, 2005 11:52:52 GMT -5
Valid point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Apr 4, 2005 13:11:11 GMT -5
I had a boss once who was a complete veg head. But she did buy leather boots because she said they were the only things that lasted. I can see where someone would not eat animals but could feel comfortable wearing leather products. But there is never an excuse to wear fur, nope, none, nada.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Apr 4, 2005 19:17:13 GMT -5
I think the inconsistencies in how people approach vegetarianism relate somewhat back to how vocal they are. We haven't eaten meat in 6 years, but we eat fish. I wear leather, but have cut out all personal hygene products tested on animals right down to toothpatse. Gradual steps toward a desired goal. For us it's health and animal welfare, but without imposing on others or trotting out a soapbox. I would love to be completely free of perceived hypocrisy, because so many people feel compelled to catch you in some sort of lie. "You eat meat, but wear leather, what kind of quasi animal activist are you?" The kind that does the best they can, but for reasons other than rationalizing it for those obsessed with with highlighting some perceived hypocrisy. If people want to eat meat and wear leather, they should eat meat and wear leather. Personally, if I'm to offer a shred of my position for a second, I'm more concerned with respectful treatment of animals used for product. Fur is not appropriate at any point imo, plus it's tacky. Chickens shouldn't have their beaks cut off so producers can cram more of them into cages while they pump them full of sterhoids, and in 2005 I'm not sure we need to spray animals in the eyes with hair spray to make sure if it's suitable for our lids. I'm all for efficient corporate processes that increase bottom lines and shareholder value if they're rooted in what's respectful of all life, not just human life. Most alternatives to animal products are still not mainstream enough that the economies of scale allow producers to offer them at mainstream prices. We have gradually incorporated more and more animal friendly options into our lifestyle as they've become available and as we could afford the differential. We'll keep doing that, and yeah, someday maybe I won't be wearing leather shoes.  |
|
