phishtaper

ticket prices in toronto are outrageous. the market is completely out of whack with reality now. bands like the Raconteurs are playing shitty venues in TO while they are actually playing decent venues in other cities for half the price. WTF?! the mars volta is playing the docks, where maybe! a third of the crowd can actually see the band. no thanks. and the big draw artists like clapton, cohen, even george michael are several hundred dollars a seat and they dont even come close to selling out. double no thanks. with so many shows coming to town, im going to pick and choose carefully. i may just bail on a ton of shows altogether or this may just become my summer on the lawn.

[color:purple]try visiting the food forum. things get downright nasty there. dry rub vs. oil marinade. people lost fingers during that one!

i heard on Bubba the Love Sponge this morning that when Clinton took office in 1993, gas was $1.10/gal. when he left 8 years later it was $1.30. thats an 18% increase. now almost 8 years after Bush took over, gas is $3.30. that's a 154% increase. ... some fuel for the discussion ...

when i was a grad student, a prof came into my office one day and commented on the MLK print I had hanging on my wall. he questioned whether I should instead have up a print of Malcolm X. he thot me being rather nonconformist in my studies, I would have preferred the civil rights shit disturber (x) more than the mainstream one (mlk). i'd never looked at it that way, but have ever since.

now, why do i always have this feeling that kev is the only one looking for god?

i love that name. sounds like the name of an evil corporation that james bond brings down, and scores three babes along the way. it's ceo wears an eye patch and a leather trenchcoat.

her hair is so 80s

Definition of onosecond :. (Å-nÅ-sÄ•k'É™nd) 1. (n.) The period of time one spends between pressing the send button and then realizing that they really shouldn’t have sent that e-mail message. this may be as close as I ever get to use this word here and damn it, im gonna jump on it! splat!

without "make believe models", you would not have cancer treatment, traffic lights, trips to the moon, oreo cookies, cellphones, microwave ovens, frost resistant corn, or even omega-3 enriched eggs. statistical modelling is a core element of scientific research today. it's not make believe.

you are thinking and talking about it, riiiiiiiiiiiiight?

i think this would have ruined my week, forbin. (not intending to open a healing wound here, oops). i noticed how confused they were getting names from the lists, but just figured it was first night disorganization that would have worked itself out and gotten better through-out the week. i had no idea that anyone outside would not get in. sorry man. if its any consolation, thanks for taking one for the team to let the rest of us know that we'd better get our asses down there well before doors. cheers.

who doesn't?

you dont know Phish!? screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech! get out!

anything by Celine Dion

no doubt. just gotta find the right tent

i think this is a very important point. and the more someone can make a lot of money off it, the more it is likely to happen. good "rant" by the way

hmmmmmmm, i saw a few guys who looked "industry", but the vast majority of people there seemed to be fans. perhaps I was either in a different area on the floor, deranger, or people just figured I too was industry. (being in my 40s and looking oh so sauve and debonair, im often confused for industry or narc ).

this thing is starting to become hard to resist ... people at work are talking about it too.

that was probably weirdness. i also got the impression I was surrounded by skanks, but thot it geeky/creepy to say "hey buuuuuuuuudy, what's yer nick on the board?" oh please, we're all just as filthy as we ever were.

What do you mean by this FOWL? Can you provide examples?

read the Panel Report more carefully, that's not what it's saying. it presents probabalistic models and reports what is likely to happen. simultaneous drought and flood is not a contradiction. the Report says that with increased global temperatures, polar ice will continue to melt and coastal areas are predicted to flood. mid-continental areas are predicted to become dry. moreover, increases in sea level will drastically affect global climate patterns (like continental currents and storms). nobody is saying that the water will all evaporate.

really enjoyed it last night. thanks to basher! now, someone told me they were filming it, but i didnt see any cameras. did any of you see cameras?

Happy Birthday, Brad! Here's hoping you get some new kick-ass gear!

ive never really understood the desire to try to "debunk the myth of global warming". is it based on a desire of superiority to tell the rest of us that we are stupid suckers? as someone said earlier, the debate is over. the overwhelming body of evidence certainly indicates that humans have drastically affected the climate of this planet. of course, natural cycles exist but humans have done irrepairable damage, over and above what would have otherwise naturally occured. to argue with that is silly. yes, its easy to find articles, a few even in peer-reviewed journals (but 99% not), that present evidence contary to general findings. but that's common to all areas of study. the exceptions, however, do not make the rule. and to deny the mass of the evidence just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing. personally, i laugh when videos are offered as "evidence". it just seems lazy and more often than not, they are incredibly biased and themselves based on inadequate evidence. surely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not list google and youtube videos as the benchmark of evidence. but then again, perhaps the collective wisdom of thousands of international researchers pales in comparsion to the geniuses of youtube. and the academics have also been hookwinked.

i dont think they are the same party at all. there are clear differences on a number of issues. at the federal level, the conservatives support a parallel finance (two-tier) health care system, the liberals dont. the liberals support a national child-care system, the conservatives dont. the liberals support stewardship of the environment, the conservatives dont. the liberals have women and minority candidates, the conservatives dont. the liberals support same sex marriage, the conservatives dont. the conservative support increased military spending, the liberals dont. obviously ive painted things quite black and white and numerous counter-examples exist, but the basic, general distinctions between the two parties hold, i think.