9nines

How do these show work? Viewers vote someone to win? If so, I imagine Fat Momma will win.

Is there any company that would make that into a T-shirt decal?

over two years

I did a quick search (there is more on the internet than I thought.) Wow, I also found he did not stop with dogs and cats but went on to larger animals and even a man (took 30 minuts because Edison used to little power, as he thought what killed dogs and cats would kill a man), in the first electric chair: A search of "edison" "Telsa" "ac" "dc" "dogs and cats" finds pages of search results, so I will post just two of the first ones - these two seem pretty descriptive of what Edison did. http://www.techniguy.com/zone/pages/elchair.html http://qzed.livejournal.com/68430.html Edit: I found this one interesting: http://www.knowallabout.com/t/to/topsy_the_elephant.html Topsy the Elephant ( c. 1875 - January 4, 1903) was a member of a domesticated herd at Coney Island's Luna Park. She had been a part of the Forepaugh Circus previously. Topsy was deemed an ill-tempered and dangerous animal in that she killed three men in as many years, the last being an abusive trainer who tried to feed her a lit cigarette. For this reason, her owners decided to put her to death. Cyanide poisoning failed, and a proposal of hanging was abandoned after ASPCA protests. Thomas Edison suggested electrocution, using the Westinghouse alternating current system of electricity transmission, which Edison, a backer of direct current argued was more dangerous. The ASPCA found this suggestion acceptable, viewing electrocution as a more humane form of killing. Electrocution killed Topsy quickly. Edison recorded the execution with a motion picture camera, and showed his film to audiences around the country, as part of his unsuccessful attempt to discredit AC.

First, in no way is this a criticism on JW; your signature line just reminded me about some horrible facts on Thomas Edison. I noticed your signature quote: "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison" Thomas Edison was not a very good person and his actions show that he did not believe what he said in that quote. First He stole some of his inventions. In one of the more famous thefts (the commercial application of alternating current, for which he is most noted) he violently killed many animals, all across the nation. On electricity, Tesla had pioneered alternating current, AC; Edison had pioneered direct current, DC. Tesla and Westinghouse held the AC patents. AC, being frequency manipulated, was far easier to transport long distances. Physically it would win, over DC, in power grids, delivery to homes and buildings etc. Edison, knowing DC would never make mass electricity possible, orchestrated a campaign to ruin Westinghouse and Telsa, so he could get the patents. He did this in steps. One of the first steps, was to convince the public that AC was unsafe, therefore delaying Westinghouse mass implementation. What Edison did in step one: His propaganda 'fear against AC' campaign took many angles (he wrote editorials, gave talks, etc.) Many centered on the danger of electrocution from AC. To bring drama to this threat, he toured cities. He built steel mess wire grates that he laid on stage floors. He hooked those wires to a large AC generator. He invited all newspapers and as many people as could fit (many times he did this on town squares so thousands could watch), to the shows to witness the horror of AC, where they would witness live electrocutions. What was electrocuted? Before the show, he paid local boys to round of dogs and cats. He then turned on his generator and had assistants fling the animals onto the mesh. As the animals were violently killed by the electricity, he would point and say, "see how dangerous AC is. That will happen to you if they put AC across our lands." It has been a while since I read these accounts, so no source to post right now. You can search for "tesla" "Edison" "AC" "DC" "dogs and cats" and find much on this. I will try to check for sources and post later, as this is not the happy "print the legend not the fact" history on Edison that is taught in elementary school.

Why would you think that? Most people eat meat. Our bodies do not absorb B12 well (might have to do with our lower intestines not absorbing food well - for comparison gorillas with close to same digestive system, absorb 5 to 10 times more food in the lower intestines than humans but captive one fed similar diet to us, lose that ability.) Even less absorption of B12, as we age: many meat eating seniors have very low B12 levels.

Mine was around 125 two years ago and around 135 a year ago.

A few things: 1) Simply warning, in case you get tempted: A leading cause of "gyno" in male weight lifters is from steroid use and not just pharmaceutical steroids but also many of the legal herbal products (the ones that do work.) They cause your body to raise both its testosterone and estrogen levels. It won't happen to every male, that uses steroids, but it happens to some. 2) Kind of a side comment: By definition all protein has much nitrogen in it - it is basically just amino acids in nitrogen. I do not know which protein sources have more nitrogen than others, but if a source has more then that means it will have less amino acids (if a source's percentage of nitrogen goes up then the percentage of amino acids would have to go down, as the two parts combined would equal 100% of the product's mass.) 3) Nitrogen balance is a confusing concept. It seems many attribute the balance as being caused by your diet, while more in-depth study indicates it is caused by your body's health (some disease leads to losing nitrogen) and stage (a younger growing person is going to use more nitrogen for growth and an older, non growing person is going to tend to release more nitrogen.) What this seems to mean is that positive nitrogen balance does not affect body growth and health; rather it is the effect of body growth and health. In other words, if you are young and growing (and no disease), you will be in positive nitrogen balance.

Research on the subject: http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2003issue4/vj2003issue4weight.htm What was your diet before? Are you eating less calories, now? If you are, maybe your body is using muscle more than fat for the reserve.

This might be - I do go past that. Thanks.

I disagree, on allowing it not being seen as forcing it: If you have 75% of a class, in elementary school, praying, those other 25% are going to be forced to pray also, via peer pressure. Think back to elmentary school: How would the praying 75% treat the other non praying 25%? After one day of that treatment (name calling, not playing with them at recess, etc.), that 25% would be joining the prayer activities, the next class. That is forcing them to do so.

I thought this was funny: This a quote from some Role-playing computer game describing the size of something, in the game: "dying", "bony", "lean", "normal", "fleshy", "plump", "fat", "obese", "American-style".

Protein quality is likely a red-herring notion and also self-inflicted harm by vegetarians. I say red-herring for two main reasons: 1) The complete and incomplete proteins theme is based on an arbitrary amino acid profile: eggs and milk. I have searched often and I have found no reports showing any basis for why that profile should be met. Note: If anyone knows of any research showing why that profile is ideal, please post. With no basis, it appears to simply be dogma, on the assumption that eggs or milk are some perfect food source. My guess: researcher just assumed eggs and milk are perfect food, found egg and milk amino acid profile and based an ideal profile on that. 2) The so-called incomplete protein sources (except for very low protein sources such as apples but then they have so little protein, they should not been seen as a source anyway) are not lacking essential amino acid, as this theme implies; they are just lower in it than the ideal profile (see #1) and most are low by a statistically small amount. For example, most of these labeled incomplete proteins are low in one or two essential amino by only 10 to 25%. In other words they have 75%+ of one or two essential amino acids and 100%+ of the others, in comparison to the arbitrary ideal profile. For example, this means that 10 grams of rice protein (rice contains 75% of the lysine of the named ideal protein source and 100%+ of all others) would have the same or more of all essential amino acids as 7.5 grams of protein of the ideal profile. Statistically, how does that matter? I state this is a red-herring notion because even if #1 proved true (it seems more dogma than evidence), this would only be a problem if a) you ate only that one food source as 100% of you diet (you would have more problem than worrying about your protein in that case) AND b) you were just eating and digesting the bare minimum of needed protein (there is likely no, non-starving person, in the entire world not eating enough protein - unless you just eat refined sugar or something, you could not do it if you tried, without starving.) On broccoli's amino acid profile and how vegetarians hurt themselves: On broccoli's amino acid profile compared to the coined ideal profile: It is only low in leucine by 17% (has 83% of the leucine, in comparison to egg and milk ideal profile.) For comparison, the average fat cut of hamburger meat has 79% of the tryptophan of the ideal profile, therefore it is considered incomplete and by more than broccoli, yet have you ever heard anyone state this (besides me)? No and the reason is that this is likely only dogma and is used more for propaganda (planting the seed: have to worry about your protein if a vegetarian) than health concerns. What troubles me is that vegetarians are the chief people that keep this fallacy alive. The majority of vegetarian messages I read (from message boards like this to editorials to newsletters to magazines) play into this protein quality dogma. In other words, we are doing our critics own fighting for them, by accepting this lesser-protein notion as fact versus the pulled-from-the-sky assumption that it likely is.

Is the reason for testing more "legal" than "medical"? Would not doing the testing (at least the company tried to find out the safety, the defendants would claim) be shown as negligence, in court, if later problems with the drug were found?

A physical therapist, who worked with me twice because of my recent should injury, said not to go down that far on bench press because it is putting much of the pressure on the shoulders to initially lift it back up, if bar on your chest (he said shoulder muscle are heavily burden that low and your chest is not doing as much the first inch or so, if bar starts that low.) Is he wrong?

I am not doing that much wait (around 70 pounds each dumbbell is my maximum, around 60 to 65 is my normal work-out now) but it seems like a lot of pressure on my shoulders too, as I position them.

I wonder if this (free path) might be the cause to my problem though. It might be putting too much pressure on stabilizer muscles to balance the weight properly and inflaming their tendons.

I have been having problem with my shoulders: pain, sore to touch at end of collar bone, etc. First my right and now my left. The right, has been sore, to varying degree for two months. Do you think dumbbells could cause problem? For last six months, I have been exclusively using dumbbells. I was thinking they might be putting a lot of pressure on my shoulders, since heavy weight isolated to each arm, versus both arms balancing the weight as with a barbell. For example, I hold the dumbbells, to do bench press, as I sit on the bench and lay back to lie on the bench. As a fall back slowly on the bench, I am holding the dumbbells with each hand. Even going slow, that might shock my shoulders after I hit the bench with my back. Also when I initially lift them into position to do bench press, I can feel pressure on my shoulders. Anyone work with dumbbells a lot? Is this likely a problem caused by them? Note: I do do rotator cuff exercises, so they should not be out of shape. Thanks.

I had wondered about the same thing, as I have ridges running down mine. I searched for information on the topic before. Some sites have superficial opinions it is nutritional deficiencies. More in-depth ones state it is normal and happens as people age. Pits and running horizontal might be different. I think mine have always had ridges running down the nail. I think since being be vegan, their strength has increased (harder to cut and grow faster I am curious if others have the same thing?

Quick search: found this on Whitehouse web site: President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. Elementary School Sam Houston Elementary School in Midland, Texas

He went to public schools, in Midland, until part of high school I believe.

"To give you an idea how backwards this place is, I went to Quaker Meetings here for a while and discovered one of the six "Friends" was a Prof. @ WT A&M and he created and studied cattle carcasses!!!!!! Quakers here are just "progressive Baptists". NO self respecting Quaker anywhere else would have been involved in such a field. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!" I did not want the thread, from which this came, to go on a tangent but I wanted to post a subject that I find interesting. The cultures of Texas. Excluding that most urban areas are somewhat progressive, Texas is and has been for about 150 years, divided philosophically as a donut. The outer donut has traditionally been strict conservative Baptist in flavor with the economy built around extraction industries (larger crops and mineral extraction) using a caste system: you either owned much land and your family enjoyed its fruits or you did the work on those lands and got paid as little as you would aspect. These areas historically had no to poor public school systems (the land owners children were sent to North Eastern prep schools and colleges) and culture focused around Baptist church activities (no alcohol sold publicly etc.) The people were very bellicose in political views. You can still see this typical attitude in George W Bush - he fits that old society to a tee. The middle of Texas, in contrast, was settled mostly by fairly progressive immigrants from Germany and other middle western European countries. Most of those immigrants were highly skilled tradesmen or artisans (blacksmiths, wood workers.) They cherished libraries and education and democratic governments (equal voices.) I heard a clever quote about contrasting these society on education. 100 years ago, in the average middle Texas home, one would find an extensive library that was read daily. The people woudl share books in public square libraries. In the outter circle of Texas, the only book you would find is the Bible and if you had or read any other book, no matter the subject, you were shunned by society. Also the attitude of the people was very much different. For example, one was peaceful and cooperative and the other was war-like. The Apache (or maybe it was another tribe) would seasonally go through Texas. As that tribe went through the outer parts of Texas it was at constant war, with many lives on both sides lost. When it went through central Texas, they would use torches (lighting of torches, outside of Austin, is a current yearly celebration based on this), if at night, to let the settlers know they were coming because both sides were friendly toward each other and openly traded etc. While not to the extreme of the past, you can still see attitudes etc. play-out as above, in the different parts of Texas.

Please do and post back - I a mvery interested on this also, as I think it might be fake.

That Company plays marketing games on the topic. The Company will officially say something along the lines that only 1% of its products are tested on animals but will not state which ones are or are not. If you were to be injured by any of their products (example bad eye irritation by a shampoo) I would think it is very likely that Company would show your attorney mounds of evidence of the animal testing done to show they fully tested the product.

If she understands that connection, can't you reinforce that idea when she asks why she can not eat the "stuff" other kids eat.