Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently his voice wasnt the only thing soaked in butter -

as almost every review has noted, Fishburne really "packed it on" between films. One reviewer even noted "they must get really good eats in Zion"

not7yS

"We take eighteen ounces of sizzling ground beef, and soak it in rich, creamery butter, then we top it off with bacon, ham, and a fried egg. We call it the Good Morning Burger."

[evenodds]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I know two chicks that smoked crack and apparently one was still struggling with it more than ten yeas later. The poor dear was a girly girl who used to sew her own dresses with her mom. No idea how that happened. The other gal was a year older and totally had the lopsided haircut and took the train into the city on weekeends and shopped at Flip. I guess they were trying to be different.

After I read this, I realized I know a few recovering crack and/or cocaine addicts. From people I know who tried it (and are still functioning/alive, which is not all of them), the jump from powder cocaine to crack happened quickly in the 80s and among people you would have never suspected.

For example, it has been said that a mysterious fire in the state capitol was caused by the governor's kids smoking crack with lobbyists and legislators in the governor's apartment.

Ultimately, they all went back to powder cocaine, since it became more socially acceptable, or rehab, or both in those endless cycles.

Edited to add: I know lots of people who smoked weed, or popped their parents meds, and who ended up rolling into rehab during high school, but I was completely stunned when I learned that a kid with whom I had attended school since the 5th grade was a big-time heroin dealer. We were both 18 at the time, and I think he is still in prison.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How does that work for people who went to high school before the advent of crack, which is probably most people over the age of 30.

How did people go #2 before the advent of crack?

[notcasesensitive]

The long-awaited all-star version of Survivor has been confirmed by CBS and Mark Burnett. After announcing details for Survivor Panama, which will include "more challenges in the water [and] an ongoing theme involving piracy and the biggest and most impressive tribal council area yet," Burnett said the eigth season will be "an all-star Survivor tournament of champions," according to Zap2it.com. Although the site reports "Burnett did give a final list of returning contestants," it and other media outlets are only reporting the names of the following former cast members who will participate: Rudy Boesch, Richard Hatch, Susan Hawk, Jerri Manthey, Tina Wesson, and Ethan Zohn. The show will air next spring, The New York Daily News reports.

n(in other news, it will take place on a film set in the valley)cs

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I think this has finally killed my longstanding Ollie cybercrush. Baby, how could you do this to me? Now I have two posters who I will think "ass" when I see them.

Wait, am I one of them? B/c I don't have a hairy ass at all. And I'm 1/2 Italian...My mom (the full Italian) has a better mustache than me...

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Tamyra Gray sounded way worse than I ever remember her sounding last year--what's with the quaver? Justin Guarini had a waaaaayyy better arrangement of Unchained Melody than they saddled Clay with last night. He was weak on the low notes, and doesn't have the beautiful tone of either Clay or Ruben, but he's still a great performer.

I didn't watch much last year and don't recall Tamyra at all. But she SUCKED last night. What the hell? Also, has Kelly Clarkson made any appearances on AI this year? I haven't seen her around during the moments I've seen. Her new song is listenable. For those with ABBAcal musical taste.

Same goes for Justin Guarini. Don't really remember him. He, however, was quite good last night. I really liked Clay's Unchained melody but Justin's was really great.

I \|/ Clay.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Misc. stuff about crack being the test of matching-bicycle plain-vanilla suburbanhood; etc.

Well, I knew a couple people who did crack in HS, and I'm over 30. And I grew up in SERIOUS matching-bicycle plain-vanilla suburbia, though I haven't seen this show at all. (Seriously - the suburb in Edward Scissorhands? Made me homesick.) None of them (or the other crack-dooer I met in college) ever had any trouble with it, actually. Though one of the HS people did go on to a serious herion problem, now kicked.

Crack, it's a gateway drug.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I didn't watch much last year and don't recall Tamyra at all. But she SUCKED last night. What the hell? Also, has Kelly Clarkson made any appearances on AI this year? I haven't seen her around during the moments I've seen. Her new song is listenable. For those with ABBAcal musical taste.

Same goes for Justin Guarini. Don't really remember him. He, however, was quite good last night. I really liked Clay's Unchained melody but Justin's was really great.

I \|/ Clay.

I still don't get the fascination with this show. I've only seen 2 shows and both were shows where someone gets thrown off. The entire shows appear to be fluff and filler that is so bad it makes The Bachelor appear to be a streamlined show. And those tacky medley concoctions (A Tribute to the Bee Gees?) that appear to be lipsynched remind me of Star Search at best and Solid Gold at worst. Don't even get me started on the taped skits or whatever they are. So what gives? Why would anyone want to spend an hour of their lives watching this dreck?

n(in gossip, the movie poster for From Justin to Kelly has digitally enhanced the size of Kelly's ass from the original photo, according to realityblurred.com)cs

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently his voice wasnt the only thing soaked in butter -

as almost every review has noted, Fishburne really "packed it on" between films. One reviewer even noted "they must get really good eats in Zion"

not7yS

I saw Fishbourne on the Today Show (or some such) earlier in the week and he said he was in the best shape of his life during the filming. Go figure.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The problem is, you don't listen. I said she doesn't deserve to be in the tournament. She is playing to make a statement: "Girls can compete with boys at the highest level" or "At the very least, I can compete with boys at the highest level." To make such a statement, you should qualify for the tournament. She is being let in. Therefore, why she is being let in or how she is being let in is irrelevant. I already said that I have no problem with the chick who qualified for the Greater Hartford. Pay attention.

TM

This is really the last time I will speak on the subject, I swear. I listen just fine, and because of this, I'm convinced we are talking past each other (as usual). I will recap what your arguments are and where I have no argument with you.

Thurgreed: I don't like sponsor's exemptions -- they are bad for the game and keep deserving men who went through Q-school from a spot in the tournament.

Me: Fair enough. You don't like sponsor's exemptions, but they have been a fact of life in the PGA for some time. As Less and others have mentioned, sponsors exemptions are for the benefit of the sponsors and if they "hurt" anyone, they only do so to those professionals who are at the lower margin. They have been used in the past to generate interest in the game and allow for fans to see up and coming golfers who they ordinarily would not get to see in this context. In the past, players such as Tiger who have certainly proved they could play with the pros have played under sponsor's exemptions as amateurs. I will assume, for your argument to be internally consistent, you didn't like that either. Acknowledged. However, as long as they exist, the sponsors are allowed to give them to whomever they want, as long as they feel that person won't be a complete embarrassment to the game.

Annika has proven herself to be one of the greatest female golfers ever. Because of this, I don't think she will be an embarrassment. Since the sponsor's exemption exists and they saw fit to give her one, I think she should be able to play. I didn't take a position on whether I agreed with sponsor's exemptions or not, or didn't you catch that?

Will some of the male golfers be "distracted" by the buzz surrounding her competing in the tournament? Obviously -- just look at Singh's comments. But this distraction would also exist had she qualified for this tournament or any other, and don't pretend it wouldn't.

Thurgreed: A great number of men, especially the elite players, have advantages over women in golf. Their strength (but not in the sense required in sports like football, basketball, etc.) allows them to hit shorter clubs than women, thus allowing them better control. Even though you exoressly acknowledged that Annika can hit as well as some of the men on the tour, she will still be at a disadvantage to the elite male golfers and therefore doesn't belong.

Me: Well, no shit. There is no argument here, and the fact that you think there is proves that you did not listen to what I was saying. What I said was that while she would be at a disadvantage to many men for this reason, she will not be at a disadvantage to all of the male competitors who play in that tournament, because she hits as well as a number of the men (let's not quibble about the number, okay -- that's irrelevant). It's irrelevant because if we follow your argument to the logical extreme, we should probably just keep the field to the number of men who have a realistic chance of winning any given tournament on any given week (the long hitters with the requisite control) because they hit the ball better than all the others, which means we would have a field of what, ten guys? Maybe that's what you would like to see, but I think that would be boring as hell. And sometimes, yes, depending on the course, someone who is not a long hitter can win a tournament. We agree on this. Go back and reread, if you need to.

The fact that she can hit as well as a number of the men who qualified apparently doesn't mean anything to you because they qualified and she didn't. I get it. Will you at least concede that she is probably as good as some of the guys who will play in that tournament, and who qualified "the right way"?

I just fail to see any harm here. The fact that a tournament can give sponsor's exemptions to whomever they please, and she is indisputably as good as some of the men who will have either been given these same exemptions, as well as some who will have qualified to compete. I say that this makes her as worthy of the opportunity to play if the sponsor sees fit to allow her to. I know, you don't like sponsor's exemptions -- I get it, really. I concede that you don't like them, but they exist. Since they exist, they should be able to do with them as they please.

Is she doing this to make a statement? Probably to herself, sure. Is she doing it to make a larger statement? Not necessarily. Maybe, she just wants to see how she does against what is considered the best of the best. Unlike other sports, the only thing that she is likely to bruise or injure is her ego, in which case, I'm sure that she will be the first to admit that "she doesn't belong".

You're a weird dude, Thurgreed. I am loathe to bring this up, because I have no taste to start this debate, and I realize it's probably not a perfect analogue as you seem to demand, but if you substituted the words "University of Michigan Law School" for "Tournament" and "minority applicants" for Annika, whose side of this argument would you be taking? I'm just curious.

Have a great day. I'll be looking forward to your response.

sf

[Anne Elk]

Article here.

Women gives birth in hospital restroom. Didn't know she was pregnant.

How can you not know? The first couple of weeks, OK, that I can understand, but 9 months?


Edited to fix typo.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
I saw the sneak preview of Matrix Reloaded and have a few thoughts:

First, if you're a man, and you're thinking about wearing leather pants in public, here's a quiz...

Which one of the following best desribes you?
(a) Lead Singer in Rock band
(b) Biker Gang Member
(c) Pale, Scrawny Guy

If you answered (a) or (b), feel free to wear leather pants. If you answered (c), I'm allowed to laugh openly at you.

As for the movie, it's good. Reviews have been mixed, although I don't remember loving The Matrix when it first came out. I think reviewers might be making too much out of the first one, so that the second one inevitably suffers by comparison.

The special effects carry the day here. Even those who think the movie had too much expository dialogue can't deny that there are two set pieces that are worth the price of admission. The first is "The Burly Brawl." This is a fight scene between Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Agent Smith 2.0 (the excellent Hugo Weaving). The twist here is that Agent Smith has figured out how to copy himself, so it's Neo versus about 100 Agent Smiths. As Keanu would say, "Whoa." The computer programming and digital artistry required for this battle are just as revolutionary as "Bullet Time" was in the original.

The second main battle is a 14 minute fight scene that was staged on a 2 mile loop of highway that was built in Alameda for the film. You have bullets, two semi trucks, 'splosions, ninja swords, kung fu, twin albino ghost cyborgs (seriously), and a motorcycle stunt by Carrie-Anne Moss that must have happened when her agent was not on set because she's driving a bike, without a helmet, with a passenger, into hordes of oncoming traffic. I know stunt people were used, but Carrie-Anne apparently did most of the driving herself.

There are a few new characters, some plot twists, and a whole layers-upon-layers thing going on in this one. The Wachowski Brothers were smart enough to have most of the ponderous dialogue and plot points spoken in the butter-soaked voice of Lawrence Fishburne.

They're also smart enough to add Monica Bellucci to the cast as a temptress (big stretch for her) and to have one of the villains adopt a French accent. I would have thought that last one was a cheap shot at pleasing the NASCAR set, but production has been going on for years, so that decision must just be based on latent, ongoing hatred of the French.

Anyway, much better fight scenes and special effects than X2, probably not as good plot-wise as X2 (unless you're deep into the philosophy of the Matrix, in which case you were probably the guy wearing leather pants to the sneak preview), but much more impressive.

Helpful Hint: Stay after the credits for the trailer to Matrix Revolutions.

I saw a sneak preview last night too, and your asssessment pretty much matches mine. I thought that the Zion temple scene was rather well done, too. But then I'm a sucker for dance intermingled with sex. My companion commented to me during the Burly Brawl that if they kept it up much longer, it would begin to resemble a video game.

I thought that the chase scenes were the most amazing, in terms of special effects.

The movie was a little too exposition-y. I don't recall that in the first film, but in retrospect, they did do a lot of explaining. I think the major difference was that most of the exposition in the first film was at least overplayed with images (the whole baby to battery series).

[purse junkie]

God, what a horrible surprise! I'd be screaming from a hell of a lot more than labor pains.

I have read of a few cases where women who were morbidly obese, always had really irregular menstrual cycles, or who had some breakthrough bleeding that didn't harm the fetus, were not aware that they were pregnant. Seems more likely though that it was utter denial.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently his voice wasnt the only thing soaked in butter -

as almost every review has noted, Fishburne really "packed it on" between films. One reviewer even noted "they must get really good eats in Zion"

not7yS

I noticed that too. I was wondering if they were going to explain that. His face looked oddly doughy.

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Article here.

Women gives birth in hospital restroom. Didn't know she was pregnant.

How can you not know? The first couple of weeks, OK, that I can understand, but 9 months?

I saw an Oprah show about 10 yrs ago that I have never forgotten - the story was about a woman who was a nurse with one kid already who went to the bathroom and out popped a baby. She was a size 4-ish and put on about 3-5lbs over the 9 months. They showed pics in her bikini right before the birth - she looked great. Had her period for nine months. And she was very well-spoken and seemed very intelligent - not some crackhead who doesn't know what's going on. Amazing. They had her Dr. on and everything who theorized that instead of pushing forward the baby had somehow gone backward toward the spine and remained hidden.

-TL