wayout

Jesus, I feel old...50 years ago I was watching it. That reunion would have been great to see and attend. Only wouldn't feel quite complete or the same without Jonathan (RIP).

Finally after quite a long period (a very frustrating long period) I can log in.

Very sad to learn this news. I've enjoyed his work for so long. I'll not be able to watch his videos again without some sadness of his passing at a young age. Pauleiro, how wonderful that you had a chance to meet him and letting us know he was very friendly.

Just following orders like a good soldier

He is just a lucky son of a gun..... My only issue is why did it take until 2:00 of 2:25 for the guys to go shirtless.....I really want to see 5:00 when they are totally naked

I'll watch it...but only if the guys perform shirtless (or as far as allowed on public TV) That's my idea of a real idol

Agree with you on Blake. Who are the other 3?????

Was sorry to hear the news. I met him once about 25 years ago at a hotel in Perth. He was having breakfast, by himself, and was very gracious and exceptionally nice when my business associate and I stopped by to say hello. I've always enjoyed his music...Gone too soon. RIP

I've never been to Villa Gianni but have wanted to. My only advice might have been to tell the door guy, since you couldn't talk to any of the guys individually, what your expectations were and to make sure it was made clear to the guy you selected. Clear communication is important but there are never any guarantees they will do what they say they will. I continue to experience that after many years of hiring where I try my best to set out what my expectations are and to get some agreement. Early in 2015 I hired a guy but it turned out to be a big disappointment despite having a general agreement on things.

To ignore someone, go to the dropdown by your username on the forum (next to the messenger and notification icons). Select "My Settings". On the left hand side, select "Ignore Preferences". There you can add users to ignore and select what you want to ignore (i.e. posts, signature, messages, chats). Hope that helps.

Even back then it appears there were plenty of lawsuits. I would be interested to hear the specifics of how much was actually awarded in the end to the litigants. I suspect the outcome had it happened today would be quite different... Lawsuits, The Titanic: A Sue-happy Society In 1912 February 2, 1998|By Deborah Hensler Special to the Los Angeles Times Raise your hands: How many of you left the theater after seeing Titanic, saying something like this: ``Wow. Suppose that had happened today. Can you imagine all the lawsuits?'' By the time we reached our car, my friends and I were planning the class action and counting the punitive damages. ``I guess if they'd had our legal system then,'' said one, ``it would have been the end of trans-Atlantic travel.'' OK, so I hang out with too many lawyers. You were involved with the romance of Rose and Jack and didn't stop to think about the supposed ``litigation explosion'' of our own era. But guess what: The historical record shows that the survivors and the families of the victims evidently thought lawsuit almost as soon as they dried off or heard the news. For American litigants, a lot rode on the question of which nation's law was governing. If British law applied (because the ship was flying the British flag), then the Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., the Titanic's owner, would be liable for as much as $2 million. If American law governed (under an 1800s law passed to protect American shipowners), the total maximum damage award would be a mere $96,000. In 1914, two years after the disaster, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of American law and the shipping company. Within a year of the disaster, survivors and victims' relatives had filed $13 million in claims, a figure that meant a lot more then. Neither rich nor poor were too shy to come forward, nor did gratitude for their miraculous survival preclude survivors from seeking recompense for every penny in property loss. Mabelle Moore sought half a million dollars for the loss of her husband and an additional $10,000 for the property he had on board. Mary Holverson wanted only $100,000 for the loss of her husband and $974 for his baggage but tacked on another $920 to erect a monument in his honor. Clara Frauenthal sought more than $20,000 for her diamond, sapphire and pearl jewelry. Then there was Mary McGovern, who initially wanted only $50 for two sunken Irish crochet collars. But after attending court hearings on the suit, she upped her claim to $70 to cover her time. As far as I can tell, Rose never tried to collect on behalf of Jack. The litigation had all the ingredients of a contemporary megasuit. The shipowners argued that they should not be held to blame for an unforeseeable accident. The night was hazy, so the lookouts could not have made use of their spyglasses, even if that equipment hadn't mysteriously disappeared between Belfast and Southampton. Sailing across the ocean with only enough lifeboats for half the passengers complied with the letter of the English law. Even if the owners were held negligent, they shouldn't be forced to pay, because the passengers' tickets included language that limited the owners' liability. The plaintiff attorneys first tried to break the caps on damages, then squabbled for months over their fees. In the key trial, held in England, lawyers argued back and forth about the weather, the receipt of warning telegrams (hard to prove, because most of the operators went down with the ship) and whether Titanic was proceeding at an unsafe speed. Each side had its own experts with clashing opinions about the nature of icebergs and the effects of haze and calm waters on their visibility. The jury deliberated briefly and found for the plaintiff victims on some grounds and against them on others. The shipping company appealed, saying that the jury didn't know what it was doing. So perhaps our own age is not peculiarly litigious. But I do know the title for the movie sequel: Titanic II, the Litigation. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1998-02-02/news/9801301206_1_shipowners-english-law-british-law

Cost of a ticket (one way) on the Titanic First Class (parlor suite) £870/$4,350 ($83,200 today) First Class (berth) £30/$150 ($2975 today) Second Class £12/$60 ($1200 today) Third Class £3 to £8/$40 ($298 to $793 today) ref: http://www.keyflux.com/titanic/facts.htm

Videos like that scare the bejeebers out of me, but I still can't help but watch it. I am amazed at what some people do, even with the safety precautions taken. Thanks for posting it.

ihpguy requested I post this...Warning: Grapic Translation of what went with the picture: Jaime Gold was cardiologist and worked at the university hospital of Fundão. Served the poor in a hospital in ruins because he believed in the quality of medical education as an important tool to improve the quality of life. He died because he challenged the current reality of total abandonment, where the criminal is treated as a victim of 500 years of colonization wrong ... bullshit. No, Jaime will not have crosses on Copacabana beach,. No, no slum will set fire to bus or close to the barricades bump curve, where Jaime was cowardly attacked. No, not Dilma were upset and will even call the Jaime family for a word of comfort. Jaime, Brazilian citizen, paid their taxes on time. Jaime me, it's you. Jaime are all distrusted before, but now we are sure that this country has totally WRONG

Blast from the past....thoroughly enjoyed listening to each of those. Time well spent.

I agree

I haven't seen it yet but am looking forward to it.....for those interested, here is the trailer

Late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in North Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared. But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, “Is the coming winter going to be cold?” “It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold”, he was responded. So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared. A week later, he called the National Weather Service again, “Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?” “Yes”, the man at National Weather Service again replied, “it’s going to be a very cold winter.” The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find. Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. “Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?” “Absolutely”, the man replied. “It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we’ve ever seen.” “How can you be so sure?” the chief asked. The weatherman replied, “The Indians are collecting a shitload of firewood.”

I just noticed that Steve is now listed as a guest and no longer listed as a member...I assume that means he has left us (voluntarily or otherwise) after a relatively short stay.

ohhhh....this is going to get interesting

Very interesting to learn a bit of the backstory from someone who was there at the time of HooBoy's passing. I have to wonder why Daddy is always wanting for donations and seems to lack financial resources when the site at one time was providing HooBoy a mid six figure income as Oz indicates? Other than the actual owner, has anything really changed from the days when it was operated by HooBoy? I am admittedly fairly ignorant of how these things work but I would assume (very dangerous of course) that it is all related to advertising and traffic, both of which seem to be healthy over there. Is it a case of an old woman with a virginia ham under each arm complaining to everyone she has no bread? Or is there a real drop in revenue due to some other possible reason? Maybe Oz could speculate (unless he knows for sure through his sources in North Korea).

While I don't participate in the other site any longer (other than being an occasional peeping tom), I think there are many reasons why people don't come to the defense of someone being bullied on that site. While none of the reasons may be very satisfying or even valid, I think it is useful to try to understand some of the dynamics and reasoning behind these types of situations. Some people actually enjoy the whole kerfuffle between the two people and are immensely entertained by it so naturally they don't want it to end and they just sit in the audience and eat their popcorn. They may also feel both parties are big boys and can handle things themselves without anyone interfering. There are those who don't even see it as cyber bullying because of specific nature of the site or that it may not raise to the level they feel meets that definition (their own definition of course). Then there are those that are fearful of providing any public support because of being attacked themselves. While difficult for some of us to understand, there are a wide range of sensitivities out there where someone really can not handle confrontation, difficult situations or being attacked (even on an relatively anonymous cyber board). Others feel that giving any public support just gives the bully exactly what he is after...attention and they refuse to "feed the troll". And then there are those that see it strictly as an owner/admin responsibility to deal with the situations and leaves it to them to handle it (or not). It should also be considered, that there may be support in ways not public that can be provided. Some may elect to use the "report post" button for those comments they feel cross the line or may even message the owner/admin to protest something written. While none of the above may be very satisfying or even useful to you at this point, it may help give some idea as to the variety of reasons why the public support wasn't what one would hope for or expect to receive.