TampaYankee

Crestor is a very good drug and it comes only at twice the price of Lipitor, which itself is probably five times the price of Simvastatin. Lucky for me I get by on the Simvastatin. I do love grapefruit, especially red grapefruit. I miss it.

Wash day! Time to wash every dirty shirt and napkin that I can find.

Nosferatu returns? With hair, but not much.

My memories are almost exactly like yours down to the cornbread stuffing and giblet gravy. No fudge pie though. I would like to try that. Otherwise, we differ only in the candied yams. We took our sweet potatoes straight out of the oven, out of their skins and applied plenty of butter. A little salt was optional, especially if you heaped on the butter. My mother is long gone and I don't have the legs to make a Thanksgiving dinner anymore, which i did for years. However, I still make cornbread dressing and pick up a roasted chicken at the supermarket along with some sweet potatoes and cranberry sauce. Not a bad compromise as far as compromises go in senior years.

The combination won't kill you but grapefruit will compromise the absorption by the intestines of any statin thus reducing its effectiveness as a cholesterol med. There is a reason the statin directions say to avoid grapefruit. Lucky can ignore the instructions one day a week and probably live to tell about it. He probably won't even go bliind. But he might as well save his statin pill that day.

It really is inexcusable although it is understandable. There needs to be a serious overhaul of the Government procurement process. It also wouldn't hurt for the Obama administration to have critical action teams in place to understand the ins and outs of that procurement process as well as the requirements, design, and build processes in order to mitigate the stifling effects on technology builds. The latter is what I fault Obama on. But you have to understand the traps built into the system to try to mitigate them. I guess he didn't. Big mistake.

Thanks for sharing.

Twenty on red.

LOL I like both. We could call you as an immaterial witness! That would be in the back-up scheme, which Oz and I never really got around to proposing, whereby we tie a heavy stone to the accused offender and toss him in the village cesspool. If he floats then his guilt is affirmed. Of course the offender could file a cross-complaint causing both parties to be adjudicated at the same time. I suspect the drop in complaints would be precipitious.

Never really believed the hyped polls and always figured a tight race in the end. Conservatives come out, progressives and moderates generally are less enthusiastic about off year participation. The government shut down helped with that. I thought it was a mistake and would hurt to have Obama and Bloomberg enter the fray. McAuliffe didn't need them and I think they did hurt. He should have left it at Bill and Hillary, both definite pluses in VA. But then McAuliffe has never been very savvy IMO. I'm amazed the Va Dems couldn't do better. Still, the statue of Grant on his Horse would be better than the Cucch. (We need a hair-on-fire icon. )

Thanks for sharing.

Sadly it does. lookin's Shermanesque refusal to accept office has resulted in the still-birth of that germ of a proposal to realize a 'private' process for hearing comity complaints. It was sort of a package deal. Pitty too as I see you are ready with your scepter of justice to mete out discipline as needed to straying villagers. I must compliment you on your choice of a more practical wardrobe for the day-to-day exercise of the office. I am without doubt that you would have made a great Lord High Executioner.

I must say that I am a bit taken aback by your hasty eagerness to pose for your official office portrait. It does seem a bit unseemly for a Lord High Executioner to wrap himself so gleefully in such flamboyant trappings. No doubt you are looking forward to making your mark on the necks of many future transgressors.

I agree with your first point and came to this conclusion after my last post. The process will be there if members want to use it. Let me restate the suspension finding requirement a little more succintly: To find for suspension a majority must find in the affirmative with a minimum of at least 9 votes. You do the math. Management shall continue to dispense doses of discipline as needed, do not fear. However, we will not ban or suspend anyone unless and until their behavior crosses a bright line to become vindictive or agenda driven in the estimate of management. There is no need to put it to a vote. Admin implements it and members vote anytime they want, whether to use it or not. Thanks for the donation. We appreciate contributions of all amounts.

So far, I'm taking from this thread either we just go ahead and institute the original plan and the community chooses to make use of it or not, or we just forget the whole thing, continue to enforce bright line infractions and leave it to the each to deal with his neighbors, with Management dispensing a dose of discipline about civility as needed. I'm not into cooling-off periods or hand-slaps or other namby-pamby feel-good accomplish-nothing over-the-long-term actions by Management. The most effective things that can be done is: respect each other or ignore each other. The latter requires self discipline, self restraint and use of forum tools provided. If you guys want to shape your community behavior beyond what Oz and I are comfortable with then do it. Else, live with it as is. The latter will mean that responses to requests for suspending or banning members will most often receive the reply: deal with it. We will review complaints as we do now. But only bright line infractions are likely to result in suspension or banishment. That's my view anyway. Oz will have his say and he and I will move ahead with what we decide. That is unless someone proposes an appealing idea that has not been considered.

Please believe me that a 10 day cooling off period will do nothing to remedy the piqued passions. This is based on history, and members want their complaints more fully addressed.

I believe that anonymous charges should be a nonstarter unless..... If someone has a complaint then he should be willing to stand behind it. Also, to avoid charges of a 'management fix' we have to know who is for and against censure. Else, we haven't moved the needle one iota with respect to charges of management favoritism. An alternative process that avoids Management influence questions and does provide a measure of privacy to the parties involved is presented as food for thought. Speaking off the cuff here, without any notice to or input from Oz, I would be willing to consider an alternative Comity Comission process. The penalties would be the same along with the time frame and seconds and notices. It would be held in camera, i.e. privately. The Committee would be constituted by three forum members meeting all of the requirements set out in the above public process. They would run the process privately accepting complaints, notifying the Accused and hearing the complaints, response and rebuttals. They would keep Management informed from the outset and copied on all correspondence. Based on all inputs, the Commission would deliberate and deliver the finding to Management and to the Community. Management would take any action in line with the finding. Because the decision authority is concentrated in so few hands, who is appointed would be critical to ensure that an accurate sense of the community is reflected. Management would appoint the Committee Members. They would be publicly known. Of the three slots my choice for two of them would be lookin and MsGuy. There are a number of others who would make a fine choice for the third slot. I just haven't narrowed them down and Oz ought to have a choice too. I repeat, this is an off-the-cuff potential alternative that could address privacy issues as well as vote critical-mass. Just food for thought. I believe the original plan is a good plan but this alternative is in the direction that addresses some of the issues brought up.. Of course, this assumes acceptable members would be willing to accept the authority and responsibility of the office. If such a plan were to be considered seriously as an alternative then more thought would have to be given to the details. Doing nothing will result in maintaining the status quo. If doing nothing is the consensus of the community then so be it. Let us know. We want to hear from the community about what the community wants. P.S. Lookin and MsGuy, this is not a punishment for your comments but a statement of my respect for and faith in your fairness, even temperament and knowledge of the community and its players. I would not propose putting such authority in someone's hands as a punishment.

What numbers do you propose to make the process more efficacious? Keep in mind that it should not be an easy task while it must be possible to achieve for egregious cases.

Depends on how long and how recent. What is more telling is the cover-up but isn't that always the case. This guy is a lying thug. You know a Mayor, any Mayor, is up to his ass in gators when he blames blatant illegal actions on being "in a drunken stupor". lol I wonder what he blames six months of in-public bare-faced lies on?

I have to say that either the kid is not very smart or that he doesn't give a shit. If the latter then he ought not play games. If he actually values privacy and discretion the he shouldn't make half-ass attempts to sneak in and out of brothels. If he really doesn't give a shit then he shouldn't make the half-ass effort either, rather march in and out openly. But maybe what he does seek is just controversy. What better way to set tongues wagging.

There is actually a documentary about this that I saw on the History or Discovery Channel or some such within the last two years. I posted about it in some previous thread the specifics I do not recall now. Very chilling. The Sovs were ready to pull the trigger when Reagan backed out of the games to take care of other pressing needs, being replaced by a much lower subordinate. The Sovs figured it this was real he would not have done that. Whew!! As chilling a tale was recently uncovered and described in another documentary on one of the said cable channels. It involved three Sov nuclear missile subs on a secret mission off the US in '87 I believe. Two subs had the usual complement of commanding officers onboard but the third also has the top guy in the Navy or the Sub branch, I do not recall now which. He was a survivor of the K-19 nuclear sub disaster. He knew first hand the devastation of nuclear poisoning as that crew lost half a dozen men to it in that disaster. I do not have time to get into the details now but the quick story is: The mission gave each of the three sub captains authority to launch missiles on their own initiative if they lost communications on the mission. The communications was lost in the sub that had the Navy Admiral. The captain apparently became a very sketchy under pressure and actually ordered his second-in-command to assist him in activating the launch sequence. The Top Navy Admiral ordered him to stand down but the Capt refused. Only when the second-in-command accepted the Admiral's order was the event defused. This came to light only after that Admiral died in recent years and his wife released papers of his. It is a very chilling documentary. Wish I could share more but I have to run to the bank before closing.

Aces, thanks for sharing this retrospective with us. I appreciate it.

Let's don't get personal in replies. Post about the topic, even if it is an individual's request, and not about each other. Thanks.

Oz, Why didn't you take the hint from the ticket purchase fiasco to book another airline? The handwriting was on the wall.