TampaYankee

I did a test review for him without a problem. Your review was also filed and looks ok at first glance. He is identified with Hendersonville NC. I did notice that your review was submitted for BladeAndrews. That might explain the circumstances you encountered. I have corrected. FWIW

Thanks for the follow up on this. ATL is to be commended for following through on their part too rather than sweeping the episode under the carpet.

I agree about Roethlisberger. He belongs in jail. Nevertheless, I give it to the Bears by an ass and the Jets will hit the showers victorious. If I remove lust from the analysis then it will be GB and Pitt. For nostalgic sentimental reasons I hope the Bears go all the way. Similar feelings for GB. Both teams take me back to my childhood days watching football on TV when it was a fantastic new appliance for my family.

Happy Chinese New Year to you too.

New LGBT-Friendly Hospital Visitation Regulations Go Into Effect The Huffington Post Nick Wing First Posted: 01/19/11 10:05 AM Updated: 01/19/11 10:05 AM New regulations regarding hospital visitation rights went into effect Tuesday, paving the way for members of the LGBT community to have further control over their own medical decisions. Under the new protocol, initiated last April and developed over the following months, hospitals partaking in Medicare and Medicaid must now allow all patients to decide visitation rights, as well as who to entrust with making medical decisions on their behalf, regardless of sexual or gender identity. "This policy impacts millions of LGBT Americans and their families. The President saw an injustice and felt very strongly about correcting this and has spoken about it often over the years," White House deputy director of public engagement Brian Bond wrote on the White House blog. Janice Langbehn, who, along with her children, was denied hospital access to her partner, Lisa Pond, in 2007 after she suffered an aneurysm told ABC News that she is happy with the development, but still grieving over the prior hospital practice. "Other couples, no matter how they define themselves as families, won't have to go through what we went through, and I am grateful," she said. "But the fact that the hospital didn't let our children say goodbye to their mom... That's just something that will haunt me forever." Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese has also expressed gratitude for President Obama's and his administration for quick action on changing the policy. "LGBT people experience discrimination in many aspects of their lives, but it is perhaps at its worst during times of crisis," Solmonese said. "We thank President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius for recognizing the hardships LGBT people face and taking this important step toward ensuring that no one will be turned away from a partner's hospital bedside again." See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/new-hospital-visitation-regulations_n_810893.html

Which Cars Cost the Most and the Least to Insure? By Jerry Edgerton, CBS MoneyWatch.com You've got your eye on a new car. The price looks right, the gas mileage is good and it gets high marks for safety and reliability. There's one more question you need to ask: What is it going to cost you to insure? If you are considering a luxury car, sit down before getting the answer. Average insurance costs can run as high as $3,544 for a Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG, the No. 1 most expensive on Insure.coms just-released list of most and least expensive cars to insure. At the other end of the spectrum, if you want to keep your insurance cost down, get a minivan. The Chrysler Town & Country LX is the least expensive vehicle to insure at an average national cost of $1,092. In fact, five of the 10 least expensive to insure vehicles are minivans, including Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna. Rates are based on insurance companies' experience with having to pay claims for accidents in a given model. "People who choose minivans are likely to be carrying children and using the minivan for errands," says Amy Danise, senior managing editor of Insure.com. "They are likely to be safe, responsible drivers." Not surprisingly, the most expensive cars to insure are those that cost the most to buy and to repair. The top 10 are all high-end models of luxury brands, including five from Mercedes-Benz and two from BMW. That Mercedes SL65 AMG, a sleek convertible roadster, sells for $198,750. "We know that drivers buy that car for flash and speed," says Danise. And when that speed leads to an accident, repairing such luxury cars is a costly proposition. On a lesser scale, small cars favored by young drivers, who generally have a poorer safety record than their elders, also can be expensive to insure. For instance, the turbocharged Subaru Impreza WRX Sti, beloved of young speedsters, costs an average of $1,639 a year to insure vs. just $1,273 for a more sedate Subaru sedan, the Legacy 2.5i. While insurance premiums may not be a deal breaker for a car you really want, you might use them to decide a tie between two good choices. An average insurance cost tool at Insure.com will give you premiums for specific models. These figures are national averages. Your own specific rate will vary according to your age, where you live, your driving record and sometimes your credit score. Meanwhile, whatever your vehicle, you can take these steps to lower your car insurance bill: Take a higher deductible. If you now have a $250 deductible, you could cut your premium by up to 40% if you boosted that to $1,000 deductible (assuming of course that you can keep $1,000 in savings to cover your portion of repairs to your car after an accident). After just a few years of accident-free driving, you'll have saved more than enough on premiums to cover the deductible. Shop around. All those TV commercials are right about one thing: Switching companies sometimes means big savings. But the same company isn't always the cheapest, depending on your state and whether you live in a central city or bucolic countryside. Check on discounts. Some companies give you discounts if you don't drive to work or you drive fewer than 12,000 miles a year. Others have discount arrangements with groups everything from alumni associations to medical and bar associations to active and retired military personnel. If you qualify, you get the discount. See original article at:http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1689/which-cars-cost-the-most-and-the-least-to-insure/

Peter & Hazelmary Bull, British Hotel Owners, Fined For Refusing Gay Couple A Room 01/18/11 06:38 AM AP LONDON A British judge has fined a Christian couple for refusing to allow a gay couple the use of a double room at their hotel in southern England. Judge Andrew Rutherford says Peter and Hazelmary Bull broke the law when they turned away Martyn Hall and his partner Steven Preddy in late 2008 Bull and his wife cited religious objections, but insisted their policy was not solely aimed at homosexuals but all unmarried couples. Equality campaigners condemned the Bulls' decision. In a written ruling at Bristol County Court on Tuesday, Rutherford awarded the gay couple 1,800 pounds (about $2,900) each in damages. See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/gay-hotel-owners-britain_n_810170.html

It would... and the drought too.

I think the value of the article is more informative than alarmist. I find it interesting to know that there is a repeating record of this kind of catastrophic rain occurrence. More interesting that the cycle is nearing an event period although not too near and who knows if it will repeat on time. For me this is in the same category as the Yellowstone supervolcano with catastrohic eruptions every 600,000 years give or take... That too is nearing its repeat cycle although we probably have some tens of thousands of years to go. Or on a smaller scale, the repeating New Madrid earthquake fault in the Mississippi Valley that repeats every several hundred years. All this serves to remind of us we are temporary aberrations in the scheme of nature even though our temporary existence seems like an eternity compared to our individual lifetimes. Of couse, this also comfirms for me that California is the land of biblical plagues.

Scientists warn California could be struck by winter superstorm By Liz Goodwin [/b] A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake. It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State. The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence. The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile. The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes. Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release. Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here. See original article at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm

Are these the top 5 beach areas for gays as well? (I use areas because I recognize that gay beaches may be collocated nearby and not the same stretch of sand.)I found Venice a suprise in this list. Just ignorant that it would be so high in the running, being an east coaster.

Top 5 Sexiest Beaches in the World by Annemarie Dooling Posted Jan 17th 2011 09:27 AM Sometimes a beach vacation is about relaxing and getting away from it all. Other times, however, you just need a trip to the ocean to check out the amazing people that inhabit it. When you're fiending for a little something exotic, and you're ready to pack up and fly away, there's only thing to do: take a trip to these 5 sexiest beaches in the world. Sexiest Beaches in the World #1: Ipanema, Rio There's a reason crooners love to take on the song, 'The Girl from Ipanema.' With bronzed skin, large smiles and dangerous curves, the women and men of Ipanema seem almost other worldly. For some prime people-watching, take a spot on the beach; you won't want for anything as the kiosks roll around selling bathing suits, sandwiches and suntan lotion. Try not to stare at the women of all shapes and sizes sporting 'fio dental,' dental floss bikinis, and men wearing the tiniest speedos that make this one of the sexiest beaches in the world. Sexiest Beaches in the World #2: Ibiza, Spain Though Ibiza's history is filled with relaxed vacationing by flower children, today it remains one of the biggest party destinations in the world. You can find clubs on every corner in Ibiza, and scantily clad partygoers everywhere - and all this on a beautiful beach. In the summer months, particularly July and August, when the heat is at its highest, you can find attractive young things running around in bathing suits, or even topless, 'til sunrise in the morning. Sexiest Beaches in the World #3: Venice Beach, California If you're looking for a sexy beach destination in the United States, there's no where better than the Golden State. From daisy duke shorts to health fans exercising in bathing suits, you'll find some of the most attractive Americans across the country all in this one spot. With surfing, skateboarding and other athletic activities across the boardwalk, beautiful healthy people flock here. Sexiest Beaches in the World #4: Manly Beach, Sydney This ultimate sexy beach has a sexy name and lives up to it! Though there are dozens of gorgeous beaches lining the Gold Coast of Australia, Manly is popular among the athletic set and high-class vacationers. Besides stunning views, soothing sands and blue waters, you can spy the very best of Sydney taking a weekend break here, as it's just 30 minutes from the city's main ferry terminal. Sexiest Beaches in the World #5: Santorini, Greece There's just something about Santorini that makes otherwise normal people go wild. This topless beach might be the most quiet on our list of sexy beaches, but it doesn't lack in intensity. With white and blue buildings all around you, perched on hills, and crystal clear water below, the seclusion and serenity of Santorini is the perfect place for honeymooners, travelers and even locals to lay back, take their tops off and get some rays. See original article at:http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/01/17/sexiest-beaches-in-the-world/

Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez APFor those who regularly write and read about civil liberties abuses, it's sometimes easy to lose perspective of just how extreme and outrageous certain erosions are. One becomes inured to them, and even severe incursions start to seem ordinary. Such was the case, at least for me, with Homeland Security's practice of detaining American citizens upon their re-entry into the country, and as part of that detention, literally seizing their electronic products -- laptops, cellphones, Blackberries and the like -- copying and storing the data, and keeping that property for months on end, sometimes never returning it. Worse, all of this is done not only without a warrant, probable cause or any oversight, but even without reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in any crime. It's completely standard-less, arbitrary, and unconstrained. There's no law authorizing this power nor any judicial or Congressional body overseeing or regulating what DHS is doing. And the citizens to whom this is done have no recourse -- not even to have their property returned to them. When you really think about it, it's simply inconceivable that the U.S. Government gets away with doing this. Seizing someone's laptop, digging through it, recording it all, storing the data somewhere, and then distributing it to various agencies is about the most invasive, privacy-destroying measure imaginable. A laptop and its equivalents reveal whom you talk to, what you say, what you read, what you write, what you view, what you think, and virtually everything else about your life. It can -- and often does -- contain not only the most private and intimate information about you, but also information which the government is legally barred from accessing (attorney/client or clergy/penitent communications, private medical and psychiatric information and the like). But these border seizures result in all of that being limitlessly invaded. This is infinitely more invasive than the TSA patdowns that caused so much controversy just two months ago. What kind of society allows government agents -- without any cause -- to seize all of that whenever they want, without limits on whom they can do this to, what they access, how they can use it: even without anyone knowing what they're doing? This Homeland Security conduct has finally received some long-overdue attention over the past several months as a result of people associated with WikiLeaks or Bradley Manning being subjected to it. In July, Jacob Appelbaum, a WikiLeaks volunteer, was detained for hours at Newark Airport, had his laptop and cellphones seized (the cellphones still have not been returned), and was told that the same thing would happen to him every time he tried to re-enter the country; last week, it indeed occurred again when he arrived in Seattle after a trip to Iceland, only this time he was afraid to travel with a laptop or cellphone and they were thus unable to seize them (they did seize his memory sticks, onto which he had saved a copy of the Bill of Rights). The same thing happened to 23-year-old American David House after he visited Bradley Manning in the Quantico brig and worked for Manning's legal defense fund: in November, House returned to the U.S. from a vacation in Mexico with his girlfriend and her family, was detained, and had his laptop and memory sticks seized (they were returned only after he retained the ACLU of Massachusetts to demand their return). But this is happening to far more than people associated with WikiLeaks. As a result of writing about this, I've spoken with several writers, filmmakers, and activists who are critics of the government and who have been subjected to similar seizures -- some every time they re-enter the country. In September, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these suspicionless searches; one of the plaintiffs on whose behalf they sued is Pascal Abidor, a 26-year-old dual French-American citizen who had his laptop seized at the border when returning to the U.S. last year: Abidor was traveling from Montreal to New York on an Amtrak train in May when he had his laptop searched and confiscated by Custom and Border Patrol officers. Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student, was questioned, handcuffed, taken off the train and kept in a holding cell for several hours before being released without charge. When his laptop was returned 11 days later, there was evidence that many of his personal files, including research, photos and chats with his girlfriend, had been searched. A FOIA request from the ACLU revealed that in the 18-month period beginning October 1, 2008, more than 6,600 people -- roughly half of whom are American citizens -- were subjected to electronic device searches at the border by DHS, all without a search warrant. But the willingness of courts to act is unclear at best. The judiciary, with a few exceptions, has been shamelessly deferential in the post-9/11 era to even the most egregious assertions of Executive Branch power in the name of security. Combine that with the stunning ignorance of technology on the part of many judges -- many of whom have been on the bench a long time and are insulated by their office from everyday life -- and it's not hard to envision these practices being endorsed. Indeed, two appellate courts have thus far held -- reversing the rulings of lower courts -- that Homeland Security agents do not even need to show "reasonable suspicion" to search and seize a citizens' electronic products when re-entering their country. Some lower court judges, however, continue to rule the practice unconstitutional: see here for one federal judge's emphatic rejection of the Obama DOJ's arguments as to why such searches fall outside of the Bill of Rights. In a July, 2008 Senate hearing, then-Sen. Russ Feingold hosted the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which vehemently opposes this practice, and Feingold said this: Over the last two years, reports have surfaced that customs agents have been asking U.S. citizens to turn over their cell phones or give them the passwords to their laptops. The travelers have been given a choice between complying with the request or being kept out of their own country. They have been forced to wait for hours while customs agents reviewed and sometimes copied the contents of the electronic devices. In some cases, the laptops or cell phones were confiscated and returned weeks or even months later, with no explanation. Back then, this was painted as yet another Bush/Cheney assault on civil liberties, so one frequently heard denunciations like this from leading Democrats such as Sen. Pat Leahy: "It may surprise many Americans that their basic constitutional rights do not exist at our ports of entry even to protect private information contained on a computer. It concerns me, and I believe that actions taken under the cover of these decisions have the potential to turn the Constitution on its head." But now that this practice has continued -- and seemingly expanded -- under the Obama presidency, few in Congress seem to care. Indeed, even in the wake of increasing complaints, Congress has done nothing to curb these abuses or even regulate them. But at least one member of the House, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat, is attempting to do something. Rep. Sanchez has introduced a very modest bill -- H.R. 216 -- requiring Homeland Security to issue rules governing these searches and seizures so that they are no longer able to operate completely in the dark and without standards. The bill would also impose some reporting requirements on DHS (Section 4); provide some very modest rights to those subjected to these seizures as well as some minor procedural limits on DHS agents (Sec. 2); and would compel "a civil liberties impact assessment of the rule, as prepared by the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security" (Sec. 2((9)). Yesterday, I spoke with Rep. Sanchez about her bill, and the 8-minute interview can be heard on the player below. I actually anticipated this interview would be somewhat confrontational because I think this bill -- though well-intentioned -- is woefully inadequate and potentially even counter-productive. The bill does not in any way curb the central abuse: Homeland Security's seizure of people's property without any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion (a bill introduced by then-Sen. Feingold would have barred all such searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion). Rep. Sanchez's bill also leaves it up to DHS to promulgate its own rules rather than having Congress fulfill its oversight duties by imposing rules on the agency. And worst of all, the bill could be seen as codifying -- granting the Congressional stamp of approval and thus strengthening -- Homeland Security's power to conduct these suspicionless seizures. But the more I listened to her, the more I thought that perhaps this is a good first step -- at least arguably better than nothing (I'm still ambivalent on that question). At the very least, this bill would force into the sunlight information about what DHS is actually doing, perhaps generating some controversy and enabling more stringent restrictions. It would provide some formal mechanism for citizens to complain about abuse and try to have their laptops returned (though, as computer expert Jacob Appelbaum told me, he would never trust a laptop hard drive that had been in the custody of government agents, as it could easily be fixed, without detection, to surveil all future use). And it would impose at least some guidelines against invading attorney/client communications, medical information, and other sensitive data (though without any enforcement mechanism, it'd be less like a requirement and more like a suggestion that would likely be ignored). One point Rep. Sanchez emphasized is that even if she wanted a stronger bill (and it seems clear she does), the chance of enacting it in the GOP House is very small. After all, the Democratic Congress did nothing about this problem. But that underscores one amazing point: the right-wing of the Republican Party and its "Tea Party" faction endlessly tout their devotion to limited federal government powers, individual rights, property rights, and the Constitution. If they were even minimally genuine in those claims, few things would offend and anger them more than federal agents singling out and detaining whichever citizens they want, and then taking their property, digging through and recording their most personal and private data -- all without any oversight or probable cause. Yet with very few exceptions (a few groups on the Right, including religious conservatives, opposed some excesses of the Patriot Act, while the small libertarian faction of the GOP oppose many of these abuses), they seem indifferent to, even supportive of, the very policies that most violently injure their ostensible principles. See original article and hearr interview at:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/15/laptops

I agree it does compromise discretion. So does the site masthead for that matter. Just part of the price of viewing an adult site. Tech support tried to get it to open behind the site splash page without success. It opens in front of it on my IE8. The good news is that loading is slow enough for me to click the close button before it desplays anything much.

If Fouraces was anymore of an idiot and loser than his posts portray here, he might just be one of the reasons why these forums are as laughable and removed from most healthy gay men living their lives. His website is pathetic and so

MsGuy, Your always sprinkling the scene with crumbs for thought. All sounds good to me. I agree that the designation of the employment code 'dandy' sounds just dandy to me. Now for Oz, it looks like it's back to school for him so he can become an exchange student to share profound educational experiences or... becoming a missionary in the Church of What's Happening Now so that he can save some of those dandies.

I am hopelessly addicted and the explanation lies therin.

Obviously you left without your loafers.

Beats the hell out of me. Maybe that is where they hid the evidence when they were living with mom and dad? What a way to fuck up a pair of shoes.

Rentboy generates its own market just as HooBoy did in the beginning and us successors do. Guys see what other guys are asking and they figure they might as well ask the same, without necessarily adequately appraising the local market or what they as escorts bring to the occasion. Lots of these guys, maybe most, probably operate at two rate tiers, the rentboy.com tier and the local market tier. Americans are often an easy mark for an inflated tier in a foreign market given what they spend back home. The local customers are unlikely to use rentboy for contact are not so fast to accommodate inflated rates. My take is that few indpendents in BKK are likely to afford rentboy ad rates. That leaves agencies looking for business travellers and tourists. I also suspect that many agencies go with quanity over quality when recruiting, looking at the guys more as commidity than models. That is my opinion. Oz and firecat would have more direct knowledge about that scene.

The best part of a long flight is having it behind you. Seems like a long way to go for Golf, given all those PS courses, but playing a new course is fun. A hole-in-one assured no doubt. I'm sure that your shirtless venture out will bring fullfilment of all that promise you sense. The biggest issue will be picking and choosing from the attracted throng. Please keep us voyeurs stoked with fresh details of your adventure as it unfolds. We're with you in spirit.

Oliver, Good luck with the party. It sounds like great fun. You have a succesful track record by historical account. I'm sure it will be another repeat success and possibly with record attendance. Too bad some have to manufacture drama out of thin air but some just seem to be gifted at that. On the bright side, better to have it exhausted in that forum than brought to the gathering. Please let those of us who cannot make it know of the high points of the gathering after you recover from the hosting activities.

Not to be political here but... we do have a constitution. People do have rights, even the crazy. That is part of the problem. It shouldn't be easy to scoop people up and 'put them away' whether by family or authorities. On the other hand, there should be some avenue for providing hospital care for the critically mentally ill that can be instigated by family or authorities. Therein lies the rub. How do you draw lines in a very fuzzy environment balancing individual rights with individual and community safety. The Left may stress the legitimate rights of the mentally ill. The Right is is reluctant or unwilling to fund the treatment facilities advocating dumping them in prisons which the Right is also equally unwilling to adequately fund and which is not an appropriate venue for mental patients. The status quo is not working and hasn't been for decades. We just turn a blind eye to the problem until there is a flare up like this, or Virgina Tech, or Columbine. Clearly the track record is that we talk about seeking strategic solutions like mental health screening and treatment and gun restrictions for the menatlly suspect, but then forget about those solutions for lack of consensus or commitment and concentrate on tactical efforts of prevention through observation and techonolgy. Unfortunately, these are weak responses simply because it is only obvious after the fact as to who is the bad actor. Before the fact, he may have been one of a thousand in the Tucson area who shared similar red flags. Are we to 'put away' all thousand on speculation? It is a tough problem, particularly if we cling to our absolute rights of due process and gun ownership. We need to see some gray area in limited circumstances for those rights, however consensus remains unlikely. It is likely to be more beneficial to restore the comity in the country (and the schools for that matter) to reduce an inflammatory atmosphere that makes extreme langauge and attitudes more commonplace and thus seem less unacceptable, which could spill over into isolated actions, grave and not so grave alike. That doesn't mean there wont be a Lee Harvey Oswald but maybe there will be fewer congressional or gov't office windows shot out or explosive envelopes sent to pols, or maybe one less congress person shot per decade. Who knows? Can more comity hurt? Are we as a country so intellectually ill equiped that we cannot make our political arguments without resorting to name calling or race baiting, or equating opponents with the most evil figures in history? Are our knuckles beginnging to drag in the dust once again?

It was just a matter of time before all of these incendiary comments was going to move someone to attempt assasination. Adding guns to the mix by people parading around public event 'packing' just pour gasoline on the hyped up raw feelings. There are many figures, public and private, with dirty hands in the era of second ammendment solutions from Tea Party individuals to talking heads and print pundits to State Governors and members of Congress. Finally, the sherif of that Tuscon county spoke out calling a spade a spade and decried his own state being the capitol of the craziness rooted in fear hate and bigotry. Watch the usual hate mongering talking heads back away from any responsibility, intended or not, for this atmosphere. They'll blame it on a lone psycho and ignore their infammatory part in moving these nuts to action. That is the way instagtors work, from the sidelines.

Very hot guy and kudos to the bottom. He takes that log like a champ.