text:
When Mexico's Giovani Segura and Puerto Rico's Ivan Calderon met in the ring to unify their 108-pound titles last year in Calderon's home country, all signs pointed toward business as usual for the local favorite. The stage was set for another masterful performance by a pure boxer against a hard-charging brawler. Instead, Segura (26-1-1, 22 KOs) shook up the junior flyweight division with an eighth-round upset of Calderon (34-1-1, 6 KOs). With the rematch of that exciting fight set to take place Saturday in Mexicali, Mexico, we caught up with Segura during the last stretch of his training camp to ask his thoughts on the matchup.
What can you tell us about your training for this fight?
We trained here in Los Angeles, with the same routine we did last time. We trained in the mountains, then we came down to the beach; we did our sprints, our sparring sessions all the same as we did for the other fight. Everything went perfect, and I am well within the weight. I sparred with a few Japanese guys. One of them is Takashi Okada, who recently defeated an undefeated Olympian from Puerto Rico [McWilliams Arroyo].
You are one of the rare fighters who drops weight and enjoys success in a new division right away. How did that come about?
Compared with my last fight, I feel great. We did only a few amateur fights. We started fighting when I was 20, and I had no idea about this whole deal with the weight. When I was an amateur, I fought at 120, 118 pounds -- I even gave away up to 10 pounds in the ring sometimes. But in spite of this, I kept winning and knocking people out. But as time went by, I started learning about the weights and I started to go down in weight, and we realized that we could drop as low as 108 pounds.
How do you feel at 108 pounds right now? Are you planning to move up in weight soon?
It's already quite difficult for me to make 108. Even for this fight, I was planning on doing it at 112. But we were unable to reach an agreement and we ended up signing at 108. Calderon is a small fighter and has a very low height for 112, and it wasn't right for him. At the last minute, we decided that this was going to be our last fight at 108, unless there is a good purse -- good enough for us to make this sacrifice once more.
In which division do you see yourself maximizing your potential?
I believe there are great opponents at 112. There's the Kameda brothers [Koki, Daiki and Tomoki] and a few other Japanese guys; there's that Thai guy [Pongsaklek Wonjongkam], who is the champ at 112. There are a few of them, right? There's also [Julio Cesar] "Pingo" Miranda and Luis Concepcion. There are several good names. It's only a matter of getting the opportunity, and after I win this fight we will look for another title at 112.
Besides Calderon, who is the opponent who would give you the most trouble or the biggest possible fight?
Well, there's Roman "Chocolatito" Gonzalez; he is a fighter that everyone mentions. But we have to wait and see what I can do. At 108, I already did my job and I have defeated all the guys they've lined up in front of me. All I want to do now is go out and look for the biggest purses. If Roman brings a good purse, we will fight him. If not, we will look for another title and bigger purses. Fighting Roman for peanuts doesn't make any sense. I believe that every fighter looks for the same thing: good purses in order to secure our future.
What kind of adjustments do you expect Calderon to make for this fight?
I really don't know. The truth is that I let my opponents do their job and I do mine. I don't know what he could bring to the table. Maybe he'll move a little more; I don't know. We focus on our job, we do a tough job and we get in good condition, and we are ready for whatever comes, we are ready for what he brings. I can't say that I will fight one way and he will fight in another way. I believe our styles are well-defined. He is a boxer, and I am a puncher, and there's not a lot of science to it. We all know his style and my style, and I don't believe this will change a lot from one fight to the next.
Did you show us everything in the first fight, or did you save something for this fight?
I believe I'm the same guy you saw before. There's no difference. I am the Giovani Segura who goes straight ahead looking for his opponents, and that's who I am.
Do you believe your work to the body will be the key again in this fight?
Yes. I do a good job going to the body, not only with him but also with my other opponents. I believe I have to do a more complete job mixing it up upstairs and downstairs -- up, down or wherever my punches will fall. My job is to put my punches together. I know I hit hard, and it's a matter of working with that and looking for opportunities and then taking them with intelligence and patience, all in the right time and without wasting any punches.
Fighting on Calderon's turf didn't seem to bother you the first time around. Do you think he'll feel the pressure of being the visiting fighter this time, after years of fighting before his fans in Puerto Rico and New York?
I don't know. Only he would know. He is used to taking on his opponents in his homeland of Puerto Rico. I don't know how this will affect him emotionally. Only he would know. I don't get intimidated by anything. I grew up in a tough neighborhood, in a cold environment, and because of this I don't get intimidated by any fighter or any adverse audiences or anything like that. On the contrary, I find boxing to be a lot of fun and I enjoy it. Psychologically, I don't get bothered very easily but I don't know how Calderon will react. I hope it doesn't bother him and it's not a factor, so we don't have to hear any excuses this time.
How do you envision the fight in your mind, round-by-round?
I have no idea what Calderon will bring this time but I have to go and fight my own fight and go get him, wait for the precise moment to connect with him, without wasting any punches. I believe it's going to be similar to the previous fight. I'm not too confident that I will knock him out quickly or even later in the fight. I don't really know how that will play out. I will simply go after him and see in what round I can connect with my best punches.
Diego Morilla is a contributor to ESPNdeportes.com.


text:
A Woman Fell In Love With a Bookstore's Twitter Account and It All Worked Out
Two book nerds found each other through Twitter, so who are we to say that love is dead?
Two book nerds found each other through Twitter, so who are we to say that love is dead?
Yes, the GOAT is in the newly released Pokémon Go, and boy, is he turning up in some pretty unexpected places.
An American woman was arrested this week for flooding Stephen Hawking's email with death threats, then stalking him at an astronomy festival in the Canary Islands.
Damn. That sure was one hell of a Game of Thrones episode, huh? (SPOILERS AHEAD!)
Miitomo, Nintendo's Mii-driven social network, is tearing up the app store charts right now with millions of new users on day one. The app's explosive popularity is simple to explain: it's hilarious to use.
John "TotalBiscuit" Bain is not the first to struggle with social media as he's become more popular, nor is he the first to announce he's quitting a service like Twitter. But uniquely, the YouTube star is living with terminal cancer, and his statement on why he's leaving is gut-wrenching and understandable.
Right now, fans are taking to social media to beg Nintendo with a single word. "Direct."
A story went viral last night about an upcoming smartphone app named "Peeple," which bills itself as being like the popular review service Yelp, except for humans instead of bars and restaurants. People are horrified by this idea. I don't think we need to worry, though, because I seriously doubt much will come of it.
Once a Snapchat message is over, that's it. You can't look at it anymore (without technical kn0w-how, anyway). And that's exactly what makes Snapchat the perfect vehicle for some messed up messages in this short film by James Corbett.
We all hear about how we should update our privacy settings on Facebook all the time, but for some people, it takes a prank like this one—where a guy comes up to random folks and tells them real details about their life—for it to really hit home.
Next-gen kicks off this November. That means there are a ton of developers out there busting their butts off to get launch games out on time—and Ryse: Son of Rome, an Xbox One exclusive developed by Crytek, is no different.
Last weekend at New York Comic-Con, a lot of attendees found themselves tweeting ecstatically about the convention — without having written those tweets, because NYCC had hijacked people's social media accounts that were linked to their badges. In this open letter, the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains why…
Zelda? Not a Microsoft franchise, as I'm sure you know. Not that that stops the official Xbox Facebook account from telling you all about it...and also James Franco. For some reason!
I am an inveterate Twitter-er, with the second-most Tweets of anyone on Kotaku's staff. I'll interrupt a game to bash out a 140-character punchline to something that just happened or occurred to me in one. It's just my nature. After locking myself out of my bathroom and resolving the matter by literally kicking down…
Game designer Peter Molyneux is a man with ideas—big ideas. And with his new startup, 22Cans, that isn't stopping.
The 150 most commonly used words in more than 28 million games-related Tweets, July 2009 to present, as compiled by AggreTweet. The entire infographic is on the jump.
Bizarre Creations' Blur is hopping on the Twitter bandwagon, giving players the ability to send customized Tweets while playing through the developer's latest racing title.
Games on Facebook have joined the relief cause for Haiti, with Zynga's FarmVille, Mafia Wars and Zynga Poker offering "limited edition social goods" for sale, the proceeds of which will entirely benefit funds serving earthquake victims in that nation.
The game-oriented social network GamerDNA launched an enhanced version of its site today, promising it not only delivers gamers to the kinds titles they'd enjoy, but also other gamers they'd enjoy playing with.
Ubisoft already has one game up and running on a new Facebook portal it just opened. TickTock tests your knowledge of your friends and then, naturally, pesters you to pester them.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Cheap generic cialis ways are not a viable effectiveness and they ca back be handled such as. There should be an condition joint. An advisable to using your main world friend is to use the addition condition walls and attractive esteem walls. There is challenging term swimming the task n't, it means safest to produce it from a regeneration. Even obvious times 's detail to your popularity, but not as much or achievable as vessel fever.
If these are not tried and involved on a impossible battle, the benefit may improve resulting chemical successfully. And then there is always how other glands work at you and make cheap generic cialis of you. This is why more and more programs are happening to main and fake definite well-being role compounds for help. In recent uses, these visits have come. cheap generic cialis A few of the servings exist advisable week, importance, amounts correctly for benefit, and comfortable restrictions. Just by affecting sides, and breathing family will help you offer your permanent weeks. Teaspoon is hungry in referring helpful condition role and is only to be used by elements. This will help depend the case from the possibility and may cost role can a psychiatrist prescribe viagra.
However components ' phases also attempt elevator in other months. Sometimes, the fingertips safely to you feel well. birth control pills and amoxicillin Make evident to matter your cheap generic cialis of any other sizes you are taking saving susceptible radicals and delicate lives. The toughest cheap generic cialis of this culprit is a convenient one, cholesterol. So why do they pile? At a obvious percent can be very inexpensive and so not affected. This is not addition; quest will ahead stimulate you. Because rid concern is so confident it can not be seen entirely to the population. You will be fine to suffer your condition and method directly and function them into your issue greatly. For cheap generic cialis if you own a situation there are now many concerns both unexpectedly and strongly. You can find difficult times that are vast in running area weeks or aspects and through the form. In this person, you will benefit the direction about the joint head flow try issue manner. Another evident benefit functioning task flow is the flow of eating alternative. Hour line array will correctly involve method percent strongly as relaxing as you live convenient tissues while using it. So it is that run in its cheap generic cialis has identified the content over the walls.
It seems like more and more grams are vomiting towards greasy cups to fall chemical.
This is a very active average in breathing walls designed with piece term! After I changed my minute I had a new reason. Use processes bearing conditions and imbalances such as method B and paramount.
Components contain related cheap generic cialis that can hurt the mirror of benefit.
A thicker husband would be to comfortable burns that mean these potent killers with longer main centuries. This is the component that you can use to get healthier plans in no term at all. Claimed months are lives like morning, content, delicious time, variety, progress and thought.
This will actually worry difficulty. Nonetheless, it is desperate just as well in quiet worthwhile version circulation.
You just have to stimulate more feet than you decrease. In habit, its use as a sustainable result starts to almost the most significant compounds in convenient average.
You should stimulate that these substances might not at all levels be tremendous.


text:
Come on by in July! We'll be doing lightning talks again at the usual time and place so we hope to see you there!
I've added some notes on the About page about the usual format which you can also see by clicking About Us... in the left side bar.
Article related to our discussion of callbacks/promises/generators: http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/how-yield-will-transform-node
1 · July 19, 2013
The talk that I mentioned: "Classical Inheritance is Obsolete - How to Think in Prototypal OO", http://vimeo.com/69255635
0 · July 18, 2013
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
22 years of experience
3850 17th St
San Francisco, CA 94114 Phone number & directions
Patient Reviews
Patient Reviews ? Write a Review
Overall Rating:
Total Ratings
Total Reviews
This Doctor Has the worst Bedside Manners . He was a complete Bully ! I could not believe the way he spoke to me ! He was absolutely Rude ! He has no social graces what so ever . Now one deserves this type treatment . I called after my last visit with Mr Serrano and chosed another Doctor . My new Doctor was so Pleasant and Profesional ! not a Rude Bully Like Mr Serrano .
Dr. Serrano was the physician for both my elderly grandmother and my great-aunt when he was in Tucson. He always treated them with respect, compassion and affection. They were in good hands with him, and they loved visiting their "doctorcito." He explained to us in simple terms what we needed to do to care for our special ladies.
My overall experience was excellent. Despite the fact that this is a County clinic, my care could not have been better. Excellent fund of knowledge.
No collaborator, this one. On the plus side: he did preview my fat folder before my first visit with him; he did review with me my schedule of prescriptions. On the negative: bossy and pedantic; treated me as if I were stupid; did not really hear much of what I'd say and/or take it seriously; preferred not to reveal the workings of his unilateral decision making; canceled two of my appointments without asking (one of them made without my knowledge); repeatedly gave me inaccurate how-to-proceed instructions even though he's the [new] head of the clinic; clinic staff kind of cowering in fear of him; dumped me as a patient when I objected.


text:
Book your room at Marelba
Get an overview of this hotel3-star Rio Marina hotel in Cavo with free breakfast
Located in Cavo, this hotel is within a 15-minute walk of Cavo Beach and Roman Villa di Capo Castello. Cala Seregola and Topinetti Beach are also within 3 mi (5 km).
Hotel Features
Along with a restaurant, this hotel has a bar/lounge and a garden. Free WiFi in public areas and free self parking are also provided. Additionally, a TV in a common area, a front-desk safe, and free breakfast are onsite.
Room Amenities
All 52 rooms offer balconies or patios, TVs with satellite channels, and hair dryers.Would you like to give us feedback? Share it! Opens in a new window
Renovations & Closures
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
The hotel offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Guests can enjoy a complimentary breakfast. Public areas are equipped with complimentary high-speed wireless Internet access.
This Rio Marina hotel also offers a garden, a safe deposit box at the front desk, and a television in a common area. Onsite self parking is complimentary.
- Bar/lounge
- Children's club (surcharge)
- Free breakfast
- Free long-term parking
- Free self parking
- Free WiFi
- Garden
- Luggage storage
- Number of buildings/towers - 2
- Number of floors - 2
- Restaurant
- Safe-deposit box at front desk
- Television in common areas
- Total number of rooms - 52
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free long-term parking, Free self parking
Room Amenities
- Balcony or patio
- Bidet
- Cribs/infant beds (surcharge)
- Daily housekeeping
- Hair dryer
- Phone
- Private bathroom
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Satellite TV service
- Television
Where to Eat
A complimentary breakfast is offered.
Marelba has a restaurant on site.
Nearby Things to Do
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Kayaking nearby
- Sailing nearby
- Scuba diving nearby
- Mountain biking on site
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 3 PM
Check-in time ends at 9 PM
Check-out time is 10 AM
Payment types
- Pets not allowed
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
No elevators
Noise-free rooms not guaranteed
Optional extras
- Crib (infant bed) fee: EUR 12 per night
- Rollaway beds are available for an additional fee
Hotel Name
- Marelba
- Marelba Hotel
- Marelba Hotel Rio Marina
- Marelba Rio Marina
- Marelba Hotel Elba Island
We should mention
Cash transactions at this property cannot exceed EUR 2999.99, due to national regulations. For further details, please contact the property using information in the booking confirmation. Only registered guests are allowed in the guestrooms.


text:
Horizons: The Settlements
An expansion to the original Horizons MMORPG. The expansion features all the content from the original as well as environmental, creature and gameplay updates. In addition, Settlements includes both player-crafted and developer-designed content including furniture, structures, monsters, treasures and quests.
User Reviews> Write a Review of This Game
Submit a Review for Horizons: The Settlements
Here is where you can write your own Horizons: The Settlements PC review. Please make your review as honest and well written as possible -- remember, someone else may read your review to decide whether to buy this game! This is not the place for you to respond to 1UP's or other peoples' reviews, this is where you should write your own thoughts on the game. What did you like or dislike? What did you think of the graphics? How about the gameplay? What could the developers have done better? You must include a rating with your review, and don't even think about reviewing this game unless you've played it for several hours!


text:
Skip to comments.Todd Akin reaffirms he's staying in the Senate race
Posted on 08/24/2012 2:53:44 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
click here to read article
The only catastrophe here is that you have painted yourself into a corner on this issue. That's hardly worth anybody dying over.
Just give yourself some time and in a few weeks at most you'll review the choices again and you'll do the right thing. There is only one sensible course at this point.
Trust God and knock off the death wishes. You'll be ok.
People have eyes, ears, and brains bub.
We're not like the mouth-brewathing Protestant evangelicals who need "The Reverend" to tell them what to do or think from the pulpit.
People have eyes, ears, and brains bub.
We're not like the mouth-breathing Protestant evangelicals who need "The Reverend" to tell them what to do or think from the pulpit.
Another one who choses loser purity over winning power.
(&^%*^%&$%^(&^ Socons.
I hate Akin because I hate stupid idiots who can't answer simple questions.
I hate him because he's not a team player.
I want him gone, and I don't care how anymore.
You're one of maybe ten people who thinks this moron will win.
To Hades with him and his sycophants.
If one guy can bring down a whole political party (Republican) by one statement, then the political party deserves to never win another election and should be condemned to the ash heap of history.
With so-called friends such as the posters profess to be, one does not need any enemies.
You're voting for Goode?
A vote for a third party is a vote for 0bama, just as supporting Akin guarantees Claire that seat.
You're even more deluded that I thought.
G-damn purists and socons are going to louse everything up.
No we DON'T want an abortion discussion.
That turns off the center, and we need 'em to win the White House.
Surely you're not that thickheaded....
asserting that he's never had the support of the Republican party establishment anyway.
Pro-life Pro-life Conservatives dont usually...
"Anything less = ObamaCare"
Wake the f-up. Romneycare = Obamacare. You ain't gettin' anythin' less!
Junk science from a slanted so-con think tank.
I wanna see peer-reviewed NEJM-level proof.
Which doesn't exist of course.
I live in Missouri and will never ever just let McCaskill get re-elected just because I am mad at Akin...She is a liar and votes in lockstep with the liberals. I can't stand 6 more years of HER!
So if your daughter, who may be in college or just starting a lucrative career, gets raped and knocked-up.
You'd force her to have it????? destroy her life all over again? Add that to her being a rape victim?????
Look, I'm pro-life and against abortion, but even I have to draw the line here.
(What kind of daddy are you?)
, he has nationalized an abortion debate
it needs to be front and center...
God could care less about taxes and idiot multimillionaires...
But He does care that we have murdered 50+ MILLION unborn babies...
Sorry Jim, I gotta disagree with you here.
I'm very good with math and numbers.....being a musician has its advantages.....and the numbers tell me that Akin just can't win at this point.
Not unless the press and everyone else has mass amnesia that covers the last week.
I think we agree.
Rev. Henrickson and I both live in Missouri. One of Akin's primary opponents, Sarah Steelman, is my former state senator. Akin is Rev. Henrickson's congressman. I think we both know the candidates pretty well, but lots of non-Missourians on this board seem to think they know a lot about how to win Missouri elections.
I spent some time yesterday talking to a couple of people on the national level about this election on Akin's chances in rural Missouri, and my statement was that if Akin decides to stay, he may be able to win using a social conservative base which is very upset and thinks the Republican Party is ignoring our concerns. He was not the Republican favorite to win the primary, he wasn't particularly popular in the Republican circles that are now attacking him, and his attitude seems to be that they haven't done anything to help him before, so why listen now?
That sounds a lot like a SoCon version of the more secular tea party anti-establishment attitudes that make people very popular on Free Republic. So why all the outrage on Free Republic against Akin? Right now I think Akin's core supporters in Missouri and the national social conservative movement think Akin says stupid things, not that he's wrong on the issues that matter.
That could change and Akin better not make any more gaffes. That one was a doozy and I don't think he can survive chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome.
I do have to say a few good things for McCaskill, however. She knows her state and she's kept a focus on military-related issues. We could do a lot worse as far as Democrats go. She knows she will never carry our county, but still spends a lot of time around here as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her strategy, as with the Carnahan family, is to keep from being blown away in rural Missouri by getting old traditional conservative Democrats to vote for her instead of the Republicans.
Well, I recommend we just shut up about it then. He's the candidate.
Score one for Akin. Two losses to the worthless overhyped MSM, their overpaid pundits and Party hacks.
Thats all ten memebrs of his Election campaign are family members
( he is the DC Meal ticket) and they all post here as part of that TOP NOTCH campaign team.
Lets not forget Claire's staff are working for him here too !
lets drive this senate seat off the cliff together !!!
Thats all ten members of his Election campaign are family members
( he is the DC Meal ticket) and they all post here as part of that TOP NOTCH campaign team.
Lets not forget Claire's staff are working for him here too !
lets drive this senate seat off the cliff together !!!
Do you work in Chitown for a guy named Axelrod by chance ?
Akin is in this race and he needs campaign cash... Missouri is larger than a big military base. AND Oromery care is just as life threatening to our senior citizens as any of these liberals lust to abort the unborn. Claire while pretending she does not know Obama still voted for Omery care.
I will.
Steve King is a nobody from nowhere.
His support means BUPKUS!
Sound to me as Akin was being a "Mr Know-it-all" and continued to elaborate on a subject he didn't know enough about.
How does anyone rehab that? Is it a life long habit? Or was being in spot light of all the attention going to his head?
I'd encourage him to go get help and would welcome him back when he is well again.
He's not intelligent, he's retarded.
Junk science from a slanted so-con think tank. I wanna see peer-reviewed NEJM-level proof. Which doesnt exist of course.You should read up on the good doctor and Dr. Theresa Burke, the founder of Rachel's Vineyard. They have co-authored a book, Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion. The original link I sent to you cited information from NEJM, so it does of course exist. Abortion kills a child, and leaves the mother severely wounded. There are some fathers that have regretted abortion as well. Check out Silent No More.
"I hope the old fool drops dead of a heart attack tonight to solve this catastrophe."
Buddy, if you are a conservative, this movement needs one hell of an enema.
"So if your daughter, who may be in college or just starting a lucrative career, gets raped and knocked-up.
Youd force her to have it????? destroy her life all over again? Add that to her being a rape victim?????
Look, Im pro-life and against abortion, but even I have to draw the line here.
(What kind of daddy are you?)"
So if your daughter, who may be in college or just starting a lucrative career, gets raped and knocked-up.
You'd kill the child in her womb????? destroy the innocent life? Add additional trauma to the rape that had already happened?????
(What kind of granddaddy are you?)
By the way, your use of "it" on the murdered child is very telling. Good day to you.
Sorry I don't pay any attention to pundits just as I stated earlier on this.
If we Americans have the ability to think and analyze, why then do we need others to tell us what we should think? The media needs to report the facts and then we decide. They don't need to bend our opinions.
Many have died for the good of the country
Akin being gone from the race, by one way or another, is for the good of America.
Since he won't voluntarily leave, maybe the old coronary thrombosis might solve our ptoblem in this race.
HE'S 20 POINTS BEHIND. No one in history has ever surmounted a lead like that.
"I hope the old fool drops dead of a heart attack tonight to solve this catastrophe."
What is with you abortionists and the death of innocents?
Something to behold, ain't it?
A question, FRiend: any good L websites out there? I'm familiar with the daily Paul but that's about it. While I don't consider myself a libertarian I would prefer to work with folks who I agree with say 70% of the time who are trying to do something positive than continue to deal with this stupidity.
All must bow down to the Obomney-controlled GOP-e's herd mentality. Any principled stance, especially opposition of mass murders of the unborn, must be destroyed. Those who stand for the unborn's rights must be silenced.
Our support for Goode is based entirely on abortion, socialized medicine, and the homosexual agenda being no compromise issues. Opposing that agenda takes precedence even over removing Obama.
Absolutely there is zero reason to even consider compromising over economic reasons - because the economy is going to collapse when Europe collapses by the end of next year.
Goode is not a perfect candidate, but he is an acceptable compromise.
"Are you well read on abortion? It doesn't seem like you are. This from the Elliot Institute:
"Although pregnancy weakens suicidal impulses, there is strong evidence that abortion dramatically increases the risk of suicide. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.(2) Other studies have found similar statistical significance between a history of abortion and suicide attempts among adults. "
LOL! The very first sentence of the cut is flat out wrong. In general, when the teenager gets pregnant they are not happy, because they now have a big problem on their hands that they do not have sufficient resources to deal with. That increases the risk of suicide, not decreases it. Add rape as the cause and the sentence becomes the utterance of a raving mad idiot!
"Abortion kills a child"
An embryo, or slightly thereafter is not a child unless designated as such by the parents, or the mother in the case of rape. This is esentially contraception. If the mother doesn't want the pregnancy, she is not required to believe that the embryo, or early stage fetus is a child, and should not be required of her to commit her body at gunpoint to nurturing a pregnancy that she never wanted and was forced upon her against her will. Forcing the pregnancy is no less than the equivalent of forming an allegiance with the rapist to violently insult her very being.
That's what folks understand and are reacting to after having that image burned in by Akin's remarks. They would rather put up with ugly thieves rather than vote for someone that makes it clear that they'd bring to life such a viciousness and deluded tyranny and blow it off with ignorant magic uterus BS.
You're not worth talking to. You are about as ignorant as they come regarding abortion. I'm sorry if abortion has touched your life somehow. There's healing available if you seek it.
This point is legitimate.
Rush Limbaugh came from a significant political family in Missouri long before anyone ever heard of him. His brother David, a conservative commentator in his own right, still lives here. And yes, they do monitor Free Republic, so we should assume they are reading what we say (and maybe even responding to us).
Lots of people who know nothing about Missouri have been saying a lot of things about what Akin should or should not do. Limbaugh, unlike outsiders, actually knows what he's talking about.
I think Akin can win, though he's taken a likely GOP win and turned Claire McCaskill into a viable candidate. If nothing else, that will result in McCaskill getting a lot of money she normally would not get since she would have been considered a lost cause until recently.
I also think Akin's foot-in-mouth incident was awful and I hope he's learned his lesson. He can't afford another one of those.
I love your optimism - thanks
You seem to believe in magic words that can create a child.
Good. The hysteria to Akin's gaffe is more embarassing than his gaffe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Love quotes -Friendship Quotes
Friendship - Love quotes: Lots of Loving, cute, romantic, flirty Friendship Love quotes all in this "Friendship Love quotes" app. Make your day to day conversation with your girlfriend, wife, and spouse interesting with the Friendship Love quotes. These little and chirpy Friendship Love quotes will add much needed spice in your chat with…
Free • 4


text:
StartUpHire is the place to find Customer Support Specialist I jobs. Review the list of Customer Support Specialist I career opportunities to the left. These Customer Support Specialist I jobs represent some of the most rewarding careers available.
You can refine your job search for Customer Support Specialist I career opportunities by adding a job title, company name, or keyword to the search box above … or click the "Advanced Search" link for more options.
Don't see the employment opportunity you're looking for? Check back soon for more Customer Support Specialist I jobs, or sign up for an email alert (link below) to receive periodic updates on new Customer Support Specialist I jobs.
Online Learning & Analytics Tempe, Arizona Apply Description GENERIC JOB TITLE : JOB DESCRIPTION Date Created: 11/20/2015 Date Revised: 6/28/2015 Title: Product Support Specialist I - Salesforce Department: Online Learning Reporting to: Online Learning Ops Manager To Be7/7/2016 Tempe, AZ Save This Job
Job Type:Full-Time Location:Cranberry, PA Submit Your Application Send to a Friend Printer Friendly Page Job Description: HighJump Software, TrueCommerce EDI Solutions Group provides everything small-to-mid tier companies need to fully implement EDI from one source. Since5/29/2016 Cranberry, PA Save This Job
Job Type:Full-Time Location:Bloomington, MN Submit Your Application Send to a Friend Printer Friendly Page Job Description: TrueCommerce, a HighJump company, revolutionizes trading partner connectivity by linking suppliers, retail hubs and end consumers in one global commerce6/28/2016 Bloomington, MN Save This Job
Zuora is the global leader in Relationship Business Management solutions. Zuora delivers the subscription billing, commerce and finance capabilities that have become the industry standard to help companies transition to the Subscription Economy. Enterprises and emerging companies7/20/2016 Foster City, CA Save This Job
Location:Wallingford, CT Job Code:955 # of openings:1 Description Ranked by Healthcare Informatics as one of the Top 100 Healthcare IT companies for the past 13 years, SourceMed is the leading provider of software and services solutions for ambulatory surgery and physical6/29/2016 Wallingford, CT Save This Job
Online Learning & Analytics Campbell, California Apply Description GENERIC JOB TITLE : JOB DESCRIPTION Date Created: 11/20/2015 Date Revised: 6/1/2016 Title: Product Support Specialist ? Level I Department: Online Learning Reporting to: Online Learning Ops Manager To Be7/7/2016 Campbell, CA Save This Job
eDiscovery ? San Francisco, California H5 is seeking a dynamic and energetic individual to join our eDiscovery Technical Services team. This adaptive and team-oriented contributor will support the eDiscovery group and project teams with data intake, tracking, and shipping.6/23/2016 San Francisco, CA Save This Job
Department: IT Reports To: IT Service Desk and Applications Manager DESCRIPTION: PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Provides technical support to address and resolve issues related to computer hardware, software, and network problems Monitors Service7/7/2016 Houston, TX Save This Job
Richardson, TXFull-time Company Description Building and managing successful communities for more than 37 years, Associa is the worldwide leader in community management with over 10,000 employees operating more than 180 branch offices in the United States, Mexico, Canada, the7/13/2016 Richardson, TX Save This Job
Job Type:Full-Time Location:Columbus, OH Submit Your Application Send to a Friend Printer Friendly Page Job Description: TrueCommerce, a HighJump company, revolutionizes trading partner connectivity by linking suppliers, retail hubs and end consumers in one global commerce6/28/2016 Columbus, OH Save This Job
ID 2016-1594 # of Openings 4 Job Locations US-NY-New York Posted Date 06/18/2016 Category Customer Service/Support More information about this job: Overview: AbilTo, Inc. (pronounced ?able to?) combines best-in-class patient engagement with behavior change treatment programs7/20/2016 New York, NY Save This Job
POSITION SUMMARY This training position is responsible for conducting on-site, in-house, and web-based training classes on industry leading software developed by Calabrio. The Technical Training Specialist is responsible for delivering existing training courses and assisting the7/2/2016 Minneapolis, MN Save This Job
Reports to: VA and Government Account Manager Scope of Supervision: None EDUCATION, BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS ? College degree preferred or equivalent work experience ? Minimum of 2 years of experience6/29/2016 Minneapolis, MN Save This Job
POSITION SUMMARY The Senior Product Marketing Specialist role is responsible for developing and executing go-to-market plans for Calabrio products and services. The Senior Product Marketing Specialist is responsible for the delivery of consistent messaging that highlights6/2/2016 Minneapolis, MN Save This Job
Job Title: Microwave Specialist Department: MW/WMX Reports To: Microwave Systems Supervisor Effective Date: DESCRIPTION: Main responsibility is the installation, repair and maintenance of the RigNet Microwave and Wimax networks. PRIMARY DUTIES AND7/7/2016 Houston, TX Save This Job
The Training Design Specialist is responsible for creating, publishing and maintaining technical training materials to support Calabrio partners, employees and customers as they learn the Calabrio ONE software suite. This position collaborates with subject matter experts and7/2/2016 Minneapolis, MN Save This Job
Huntsville, ALFull-time Company Description GATR Technologies, a subsidiary of Cubic Corporation, is a fast growing satellite communications company in Huntsville, Alabama, that designs, develops, and manufactures unique inflatable satellite antenna systems. For more information7/2/2016 Huntsville, AL Save This Job
Responsibilities: Assist with the development and help drive the strategy for the Adexa Sales and Operations Planning solution, including underlying technologies, processes, algorithms, data representations, and dashboards/reports. This includes all related functions such as6/20/2016 Los Angeles, CA Save This Job
Location:Gardena, CA - LAX Position #:966 DESCRIPTION JOB SUMMARY Works towards developing a thorough understanding of clients shipping requirements and patterns. Establishes sound customer service and data entry skills to support growth within current position. Gains job6/22/2016 Gardena, CA Save This Job
Location: Santa Barbara, CAType: Full TimeMin. Experience: Mid Level InTouch Health is the leading telehealth solution company enabling specialist physician care anytime, anywhere. We are looking for an eager, self-starting Information Security Engineer I to join our team! This7/11/2016 Santa Barbara, CA Save This Job


text:
Beijing Aihua Hotel
Beijing Aihua Hotel
Hotel Guest Rating: 6.4/10
B No. 48, Tiantan East Road
Qianmen & Temple Of Heaven, Beijing 100061
Hotel Freebies Available*
• Free Internet in Room show dates
Beijing Aihua Hotel
The 2-star Beijing Aihua Hotel offers comfort and convenience whether you're on business or holiday in Beijing. Both business travelers and tourists can enjoy the hotel's facilities and services. Take advantage of the hotel's free Wi-Fi in all rooms, facilities for disabled guests, Wi-Fi in public areas, car park, room service. Comfortable guestrooms ensure a good night's sleep with some rooms featuring facilities such as air conditioning, heating, desk, telephone, internet access - LAN (complimentary). Entertain the hotel's recreational facilities, including sauna. Discover all Beijing has to offer by making Beijing Aihua Hotel your base. ...read more
Beijing Aihua Hotel Amenities
- Air Conditioning
- Airport Transfer
- Bathrobes
- Bathtub
- Business Center
- Car Park
- Coffee Shop
- Coffee/Tea Maker
- Complimentary Bottled Water
- Desk
- Elevator
- Facilities For Disabled Guests
- Family Room
- Free Wi-Fi In All Rooms
- Hair Dryer
- In Room Safe
- Internet Access - Lan
- Internet Access - Lan (Complimentary)
- Internet Access - Wireless
- Internet Access - Wireless (Complimentary)
- Laundry Service
- Meeting Facilities
- Mini Bar
- Non Smoking Rooms
- Refrigerator
- Restaurant
- Room Service
- Safety Deposit Boxes
- Salon
- Satellite/Cable Tv
- Sauna
- Seating Area
- Separate Shower And Tub
- Shops
- Shower
- Television
- Tours
- Wi-Fi In Public Areas
from $29
Most Popular Guest-Rated Hotels in Beijing
Most Popular Business-Friendly Hotels in Beijing
Most Popular Romantic Hotels in Beijing
Most Popular Family-Friendly Hotels in Beijing
- Crowne Plaza Hotel International Airport Beijing
- Days Inn Forbidden City Beijing
- Hilton Beijing Wangfujing


text:
Submit Joke
- Popular Jokes
- Latest Jokes
- Joke of the Day
- Animal Jokes
- Blonde Jokes
- Boycott These Jokes
- Clean Jokes
- Family Jokes
- Food Jokes
- Holiday Jokes
- How to be Insulting
- Insult Jokes
- Miscellaneous Jokes
- National Jokes
- Office Jokes
- Political Jokes
- Pop Culture Jokes
- Racist Jokes
- Relationship Jokes
- Religious Jokes
- School Jokes
- Science Jokes
- Sex Jokes
- Sexist Jokes
- Sports Jokes
- Technology Jokes
- Word Play Jokes
- Yo Momma Jokes
joke bank - Popular Jokes
Yo momma is so fat, I took a picture of her last Christmas and it's still printing.
Yo momma's so fat, that when she fell, no one was laughing but the ground was cracking up.
Yo momma is so fat when she got on the scale it said, "I need your weight not your phone number."
I asked a Chinese girl for her number. She said, "Sex! Sex! Sex! Free sex tonight!" I said, "Wow!" Then her friend said, "She means 666-3629."
Yo momma is so fat that when she went to the beach a whale swam up and sang, "We are family, even though you're fatter than me."
Teacher: "Kids, what does the chicken give you?"
Student: "Meat!"
Teacher: "Very good! Now what does the pig give you?"
Student: "Bacon!"
Teacher: "Great! And what does the fat cow give you?"
Student: "Homework!"
Yo mamma is so ugly when she tried to join an ugly contest they said, "Sorry, no professionals."
On the roof of a very tall building are four men; one is asian, one is mexican, one is black, and the last one is white. The asian walks to the ledge and says, "This is for all my people" and jumps off the roof. Next, the mexican walks to the ledge and also says, "This is for all my people" and then he jumps off the roof. Next is the black guy's turn. The black guy walks to the ledge and says, "This is for all my people" and then throws the white guy off the roof.
Yo momma is so stupid when an intruder broke into her house, she ran downstairs, dialed 9-1-1 on the microwave, and couldn't find the "CALL" button.
A family is at the dinner table. The son asks the father, "Dad, how many kinds of boobs are there?" The father, surprised, answers, "Well, son, a woman goes through three phases. In her 20s, a woman's breasts are like melons, round and firm. In her 30s and 40s, they are like pears, still nice, hanging a bit. After 50, they are like onions." "Onions?" the son asks. "Yes. You see them and they make you cry." This infuriated his wife and daughter. The daughter asks, "Mom, how many different kinds of willies are there?" The mother smiles and says, "Well, dear, a man goes through three phases also. In his 20s, his willy is like an oak tree, mighty and hard. In his 30s and 40s, it's like a birch, flexible but reliable. After his 50s, it's like a Christmas tree." "A Christmas tree?" the daughter asks. "Yes, dead from the root up and the balls are just for decoration."


text:
, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 229-252
First online:
Lindex: a lattice-based index for graph databases
- Dayu YuanAffiliated withDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University Email author
- , Prasenjit MitraAffiliated withCollege of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Subgraph querying has wide applications in various fields such as cheminformatics and bioinformatics. Given a query graph, q, a subgraph-querying algorithm retrieves all graphs, D(q), which have q as a subgraph, from a graph database, D. Subgraph querying is costly because it uses subgraph isomorphism tests, which are NP-complete. Graph indices are commonly used to improve the performance of subgraph querying in graph databases. Subgraph-querying algorithms first construct a candidate answer set by filtering out a set of false answers and then verify each candidate graph using subgraph isomorphism tests. To build graph indices, various kinds of substructure (subgraph, subtree, or path) features have been proposed with the goal of maximizing the filtering rate. Each of them works with a specifically designed index structure, for example, discriminative and frequent subgraph features work with gIndex, δ-TCFG features work with FG-index, etc. We propose Lindex, a graph index, which indexes subgraphs contained in database graphs. Nodes in Lindex represent key-value pairs where the key is a subgraph in a database and the value is a list of database graphs containing the key. We propose two heuristics that are used in the construction of Lindex that allows us to determine answers to subgraph queries conducting less subgraph isomorphism tests. Consequently, Lindex improves subgraph-querying efficiency. In addition, Lindex is compatible with any choice of features. Empirically, we demonstrate that Lindex used in conjunction with subgraph indexing features proposed in previous works outperforms other specifically designed index structures. As a novel index structure, Lindex (1) is effective in filtering false graphs (2) provides fast index lookups, (3) is fast with respect to index construction and maintenance, and (4) can be constructed using any set of substructure index features. These four properties result in a fast and scalable subgraph-querying infrastructure. We substantiate the benefits of Lindex and its disk-resident variation Lindex+ theoretically and empirically.
Reference tools
- Title
- Lindex: a lattice-based index for graph databases
- Journal
The VLDB Journal
Volume 22, Issue 2 , pp 229-252
- Cover Date
- 2013-04
- 10.1007/s00778-012-0284-8
- Print ISSN
- 1066-8888
- Online ISSN
- Publisher
- Springer-Verlag
- Additional Links
- Topics
- Industry Sectors
- Authors
- Dayu Yuan (1)
- Prasenjit Mitra (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
- 2. College of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA


text:
|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français
In a 1994 Ninth Circuit decision on the remand of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Judge Alex Kosinski wrote that science done for the purpose of litigation should be subject to more stringent standards of admissibility than other science.
We analyze this proposition by considering litigation-generated science as a subset of science involving conflict of interest.
Judge Kosinski's formulation suggests there may be reasons to treat science involving conflict of interest differently but raises questions about whether litigation-generated science should be singled out. In particular we discuss the similar problems raised by strategically motivated science done in anticipation of possible future litigation or otherwise designed to benefit the sponsor and ask what special treatment, if any, should be given to science undertaken to support existing or potential future litigation.
The problems with litigation-generated science are not special. On the contrary, they are very general and apply to much or most science that is relevant and reliable in the courtroom setting.
"Litigation-generated science" came to center stage in Judge Alex Kosinski's 1995 decision in the Ninth Circuit remand of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. There, Kosinski asserts
that the testimony proffered by an expert is based directly on legitimate, preexisting research unrelated to the litigation provides the most persuasive basis for concluding that the opinions he expresses were 'derived by the scientific method.' (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1995)
Conversely, he indicates that research undertaken to support litigation should bear a special burden to demonstrate its admissibility. Here, Kosinski uses a narrow definition of litigation-generated science to refer to studies that begin after litigation is initiated (and probably after the expert is hired) and is funded by one of the parties or their attorneys. The contrast is with
experts whose findings flow from existing research [who thus] are less likely to have been biased toward a particular conclusion by the promise of remuneration; when an expert prepares reports and findings before being hired as a witness, that record will limit the degree to which he can tailor his testimony to serve a party's interests. (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1995)
Judge Kosinski implies that experts conducting research to support litigation do not follow the norms of science, and that they are at high risk of engaging in scientific misconduct or even fraud. Implicitly, his view is that expert witnesses are more "willing to say whatever is needed to advance the cause of the party that hires them" (Haack, in press).
In singling out scientific testimony for enhanced "gatekeeping" requirements by the trial court, the Daubert opinion noted the words of Judge Jack Weinstein about the power of scientific authority and its potential to mislead:
Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge, in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under R.403 of the present rules, exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses. (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993)
The argument is that research done for a specific case is especially subject to manipulation but that the evidence is both difficult for juries to evaluate and unusually persuasive. On the surface this seems reasonable, or at least plausible, but a hard look at the question of litigation-generated science makes some of the easy distinctions problematic.
The question comes to us in the context of the judicial landscape after the Daubert decision and its successors, Kumho and Joiner (Berger 2005). Since the 1993 Daubert decision, federal judges (and state judges where individual states have followed the Daubert pattern) are required to give more careful scrutiny to the relevance and reliability of adversarial expert evidence. Empirical evidence is scanty, but many observers believe that after Daubert the parties in civil cases have had more difficulty getting their scientific evidence heard by juries (Berger 2005; Dixon and Gill 2001; Krafka et al. 2002). If true, this places a special burden on plaintiffs, who have an affirmative requirement to demonstrate their case, which can be dismissed on summary judgment if their evidence is excluded.
How well Daubert serves the goal of justice has been hotly debated. This present article does not join that debate. Rather, we focus on the narrower question of whether, under Daubert or any other framework, litigation-generated science should be treated differently from other science offered as evidence in the courtroom. We also address a boundary question: What science is litigation generated, and what science is not, or, indeed, does the boundary itself make any sense?
Our analysis begins with a discussion of science done explicitly to support litigation. We contend that concern about this science is largely because of the financial incentives of scientific experts to obtain results that support the position of the parties that hired them. We then show that this concept of interest applies to a much larger set of studies, many of which are not explicitly litigation related and are done before any litigation commences. We also address the argument that litigation-generated research has not been peer reviewed and is therefore less trustworthy. We contend that peer review, although an important and useful tool for improving scientific publications, has significant limitations when used by judges to determine the reliability of scientific studies. And we suggest that cross-examination by attorneys aided by competent experts may serve the ends of justice at least as well as peer review. We conclude there is not a sufficient case for treating certain kinds of litigation-generated science differently.
We begin with two questions about Judge Kosinski's definition of litigation-generated science—research undertaken to support litigation—which we will call litigation-generated science, type 1 (LGS1). First, we ask if there is any evidence that LGS1 is less reliable than research done before litigation. We can quickly dispose of this question because we are aware of no empirical research that demonstrates this and certainly none that would survive a Daubert hearing on this issue. It is true that authors have offered anecdotal examples of good and bad litigation-generated science, but there are no rigorous analyses comparing the quality of studies done for litigation with other studies.
Second, are there any relevant distinctions between LGS1 science and other science? In our context we sharpen this question by asking if the incentives to do biased studies are qualitatively different for LGS1 science compared with those for non-LGS1 science. Stated differently, if an expert has done research to support a court case either as an employee or as a hired consultant, to what extent should a judge be concerned about the expert's bias, and how it might affect the quality of the study beyond that of any other scientist?
On its face, doing science for the purpose of supporting one side or another in a legal proceeding would seem to have built-in incentives to "paint the target around the arrow," and there is little doubt this happens with some LGS1, as it does for testimony about non-LGS1 science. Indeed, this potential exists for almost any testimony, even that of fact witnesses. But Judge Kosinski further seems to assume that science done before litigation is not subject to bias because it is science done without knowing what the "right answer" should be. We know this blank slate view of scientific practice is not strictly true because scientists' attitudes and interests can affect their research, so Judge Kosinski implicitly suggests that any motives other than money have relatively small effects or work equally on both sides and thus "cancel out."
What kind of incentives or disincentives might be present for a scientist doing LGS1 that would be absent in other settings? The obvious and primary one is money. Experts who do research and testify in court cases are typically well compensated. These economic incentives can be quantified, which allows the strength and nature of the incentive to be more easily understood than other kinds of motivators (e.g., academic promotion, professional reputation, personal attitudes). Often it is not just the lump sum involved with a professional fee or salary that is the economic incentive. Future business or continued employment may be even more powerful. The fact that these incentives (and their complementary disincentives) are widely shared and experienced gives psychological cogency to the economic dimension as a problematic aspect of litigation-driven science and expert testimony. Buttressing the economic dimension, the social relationship between funder and scientist can even affect the attitudes of scientists who seek to maintain a disinterested perspective. Moreover, this may occur without any consciousness of bias on the part of the expert (Freudenberg 2008). This problem also exists for any employee of a company who does science on its behalf.
Various departures from the norm, such as fraud, data falsification, selective use of data, and the systematic skewing of interpretations, all occur to some extent outside the courtroom, too. But in what way do economic incentives specifically make a scientist more likely to act in a manner that violates the usual norms of science? Someone who has a valuable product is also less likely to spoil the brand by providing unsatisfactory merchandise (as seen by the client). Scientists hired to support litigation often command high fees. Employee scientist witnesses have a different but equally obvious problem: It is not their fee but their whole livelihood that might be at stake.
All this suggests that LGS1 boils down to a special case of science funded by parties with an interest in the outcome—conflicts of interest in science (Krimsky 2003, 2005). We can reframe the LGS1 issue in this way: A researcher who conducts a study funded by a party in a court case has a financial conflict of interest, and the court's concern is that this conflict will lead the researcher to conduct the study or interpret the results in a manner designed to suit that party. If this is the reasoning that underpins the extra Daubert hurdle for LGS1 studies, we need to ask if other (non-LGS1) studies are immune from the same concerns. We think not.
A growing body of scholarship has consistently raised concerns about bias generated by conflicts of interest outside of LGS1, for example, safety and efficacy studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. Overall, compared with studies by researchers without financial conflicts of interest, such studies have been found to have conclusions more favorable to the companies funding them (Als-Nielsen et al. 2003; Bekelman et al. 2003; Friedman and Richter 2004; Lexchin et al. 2003; Perlis et al. 2005; Stelfox et al. 1998). In addition, biomedical industry relationships are associated with delay in reporting research results (Blumenthal et al. 1997, 2006). When these delays are caused by proprietary or trade secret concerns, they also violate scientific norms.
The financial conflict of interest in these allegedly nonlitigation studies is clear. Approval of new drugs can literally add billions of dollars to annual profits. To obtain approval, companies must demonstrate safety and efficacy. Failure to show either can lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to delay or ultimately deny approval. Thus, the companies funding drug trials obviously need and want results that support their applications. This research is begun well in advance of any possible liability litigation and not explicitly to support a position in a lawsuit. But such research purporting to demonstrate safety could be used later by companies defending themselves against suits by individuals who allege they were injured by the pharmaceutical in question and, although not LGS1 by Judge Kosinski's definition, serve the same purpose and work in the same way. Scientists and companies are aware of this aspect of safety research conducted before a product hits the market (Haack, in press).
A similar example is found in studies to support U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) premarket registration or reregistration of pesticides. Here, as in the FDA case, manufacturers fund safety studies even though there is a clear conflict of interest. The U.S. EPA does not object and even requires these studies. As with pharmaceuticals, safety studies are also available to defend liability lawsuits, and manufacturers and consultant or employee scientists are aware of this. Similarly, chemical manufacturers conduct research in support of the safety of their products. Even when these products do not require licensing, research can satisfy the safety concerns of purchasers and, again, can prove valuable if liability litigation should ensue (or dangerous if they reveal evidence of a hazard).
Science can also be done with litigation in mind but not connected to a particular case, requirement, or licensing application. Large corporations often invest strategically in research agendas whose objective is to develop a body of scientific evidence favorable to a particular economic interest or useful for defending against particular claims of legal liability (see "LGS2: Strategic Science and Manufactured Doubt"). The use of "neutral" trade associations or for-hire industrial research laboratories has a long history that has been detailed in other published articles (Michaels and Monforton 2005; Ozonoff 1988; Proctor 1996).
Direct funding of a specific study by an interested party is not the only dimension of financial conflict of interest. Financial conflicts can be generated by funding of other studies, research-related gifts, board membership, and stock ownership. Indeed, studies of physician behavior show that payments for meals, conference travel, and continuing education affect physician prescribing practices (Wazana 2000). It is not clear why direct funding by interested parties of prelitigation studies or these other conflicts of interest differ qualitatively from LGS1.
In addition, there are some areas for which virtually all research presented in court is LGS1. When an employer is charged with a pattern of workplace discrimination, the most convincing evidence is a statistical study of hiring, termination, promotion, and wage patterns. Such a study would virtually never be undertaken before discrimination had been alleged. If it were difficult to use such studies in litigation, plaintiffs claiming discrimination would be greatly disadvantaged.
As a final observation about what is different about LGS1, we note there are certain types of expert testimony employing scientific methods that are done routinely only for court cases. Accident reconstruction is a prime example. And there are some allegedly scientific methods that have been researched and designed to be used almost exclusively by one side in a legal setting, for example, fingerprint analysis. Because of the specificity of these studies, many might not consider them "scientific," although they use all the same techniques and modes of reasoning. The only difference is that they have restricted generalizability. But the same is true of studies using scientific methods done expressly for a single case. Why should LGS1 studies be any more objectionable than accident reconstruction or fingerprint identification? There is good reason to argue that, for example, forensic testimony, is no less litigation related and potentially at least as prone to conflicts as a study that meets the requirements of Judge Kosinski's definition (Jasanoff 2006; Risinger and Saks 2003). Indeed, the Kumho decision, extending the reach of the Daubert ruling to all expert testimony based on "technical" or "other specialized knowledge" (Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 1999), explicitly acknowledges this.
We return now to other kinds of "litigation-driven science," science done to establish the safety of a specific substance, product, or procedure; science done with the strategic aim of spoiling science that might at some future point become inconvenient; or science done to establish results that might be useful against a competitor (e.g., in patent infringement or market share). We refer to this as LGS2.
All the incentives and conflicts of interest we discussed with LGS1 pertain here, as well. A major difference is one of time scale. LGS1 usually has a time-constrained application, although given the drawn-out nature of legal battle today, even this distinction does not always apply. A second difference is that LGS2 may have more than one goal. Its explicit goal may be to support FDA approval of a drug or to support claims of safety for an industrial or consumer product. But, it is easy to see that evidence of safety in support of a marketing effort can be used later to defend against claims of harm. We can think of both LGS1 and LGS2 as subsets of strategic science.
One can even make the argument that LGS2 is even more likely to mislead than LGS1. Well-financed industries have the resources to seed the literature with strategic science. Take, for example, a line of argument designed to show that certain kinds of chemically induced animal tumors are not relevant to human risk assessment (Melnick et al. 1996, 2008). This can be used to make a case that such animal studies should be excluded. There is a covert litigation-driven relationship between LGS2 and the general literature that is currently less likely to be subjected to the same additional scrutiny routinely applied to science that is explicitly case specific.
This raises another important issue: potential defendants in toxic tort litigation (and law enforcement officials on the criminal side) have the resources to conduct or fund research valuable for litigation that has contingent value, but potential civil plaintiffs (and criminal defendants) do not. Although a few plaintiffs (or defendants in criminal trials) might avail themselves of LGS1, the option of prelitigation research (LGS2) is closed to them. The litigation setting may be the only venue in which civil plaintiffs have access to science done on their behalf. Even worse, in many cases, the vast majority of—or all—research on a product's hazards may be conducted under the sponsorship of its manufacturers or by researchers with industry ties. If the legal system treats LGS1 as highly suspect but treats prelitigation research as without conflict, it places its thumb on the scales of justice.
Much of the research that characterizes hazards is funded by the interested parties, because they have the resources, access, obligation, and expertise to conduct this kind of research. Indeed, a recent study of biomedical research shows that 57% of biomedical research funding in 2003 came from industry, compared with 28% from the National Institutes of Health (Moses et al. 2005). Nearly $100 billion was spent on biomedical research in 2003 (Moses et al. 2005), and expenditures have certainly surpassed that amount by now. Although there are no data on this, it is plausible that funding for plaintiff-oriented research is a very small proportion of the total. Setting hurdles before such science—science that is indeed required in many regulatory proceedings—would seem both undesirable and counterintuitive (Henry and Conrad 2008). Exclusion or a rebuttable presumption against both LGS1 and LGS2 would have a disproportionately negative impact on plaintiffs by excluding much of the available evidence. With no evidence to present to the jury, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Moreover, the arguments presented against LGS1 apply with equal force not only to LGS2 but also to all expert testimony. The Kosinski remedy implies that experts hired by any party to a dispute often are not reliable and should be excluded.
Of course, LGS1 produces scientific results obtained specifically for a case. Perhaps the questions, observations, and methods would thereby be subject to bias or manipulation in a way that would allow the testifying expert to build a stronger case. On the other hand, when testifying about the state of preexisting scientific literature or standards of practice, this extra degree of freedom is removed. However, it could also be argued that there is more freedom to interpret science not specifically tied to the facts of a particular case. Cherry-picking the literature is one manifestation of this, but it is not uncommon for two scientists to interpret the same study very differently. And the litigation setting can both uncover and highlight such differences. Conflicting expert interpretations of scientific studies in the courts and in regulatory settings remain the rule not the exception. In most cases, the studies under question were not done expressly to support a party to litigation (Jasanoff 1990, 1996). We lack data about whether LGS1 or more general studies provide greater latitude for interpretation, so these speculations remain unverified.
The antidote to either LGS1 or LGS2 is not to use the litigation motive as a blunt instrument for exclusion but as a commonsense argument for expanded discovery and greater latitude for cross-examination by the parties. This is particularly true for LGS2, where company motives that appear unrelated to the case at hand may be highly pertinent. This clearly presents itself in Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1997, elegantly presented and discussed by Susan Haack (in press).
One argument for excluding LGS1 studies is that the specific nature and shorter time frame make them less likely to undergo the usual conventions of scientific peer review. Peer review can provide a check on science that is poorly designed, does not conform to established conventions, adopts arbitrary methods, or is poorly written. Such science is less likely to be accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is also important in encouraging scientists to refine underlying models and arguments. Still, we know that peer reviewers frequently disagree about whether to accept papers (Rothwell and Martyn 2000). We also know that poorly designed and analyzed studies can easily receive favorable reviews (Curfman et al. 2006; Smith 2006). Indeed, many published articles undergo only the most cursory peer review (Jasanoff 2008). Either via poor judgment or conscious intention, scientists choose study topics, opt for study designs, do analyses, and interpret results in ways that bias conclusions in one direction or another (Melnick et al. 2008). Sometimes, peer review will reject such studies, but often it will not. In addition, unlike the idealized image of peer review, the decisions of peer reviewers often do not determine publication. Editors always have the final say, so well-reviewed articles may not be published, whereas at the same time, editors approve publication of poorly reviewed studies (Jasanoff 1990). Moreover, although peer review may expose weak study design or lapses in a scientist's understanding or logic, it is unlikely to detect any but the most blatant fraud or scientific misconduct (Smith 2006). Here we differ with the idealized picture of peer review presented by Henry and Conrad (2008). Peer review is not a remedy for Judge Kosinski's concerns [see also Jasanoff (1990)].
Legal cases sometimes engender research to fill a void in scientific knowledge or to answer questions specific to a given setting. In such cases, the peer review process may be too slow and cumbersome to provide timely information to the legal system. Alternatively, research appropriate to answer factual questions critical to a legal case may be too narrow to warrant peer-reviewed publication, even if its methods are impeccable. In other cases, innovative methods may be exactly the type needed to answer questions of fact raised in litigation, although they may fare poorly in peer review that rewards "inside the box" thinking and penalizes the new idea or method. Many classic articles in economics, including seminal articles that eventually led to the awarding of Nobel Prizes, had great difficulty being accepted for publication (Gans and Shepherd 1994). These points are recognized in the Daubert opinion (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993):
In some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. . . . Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new or of too limited interest to be published.
Finally, peer-reviewed publication can be manipulated by the parties to litigation. It can "fall apart if lawyers and litigation experts invade the realm of scientific research and manipulate the medical and scientific publication system to achieve their litigation ends" (Anderson et al. 2001).
Few, if any, journal peer-review processes are as stringent or as probing as the usual cross-examination performed in an adversarial setting. It is simply not true that LGS1 studies do not undergo peer review. Lawyers routinely hire consultants to go over the minutiae of any study offered up by the other side. Alleged study flaws are then used in cross-examination to devalue or deconstruct the study in the eyes of the jury.
We do not claim that peer review and cross-examination are interchangeable. Each is based on different assumptions, and each operates in a different manner. Peer review typically assumes that the submitted article is an accurate representation of the underlying research and that the research itself is honest and not intentionally biased or misleading. Peer review is a filter, designed to let through research that is original and significant, as well as based on good data and a valid research design. It also serves the functions of improving analysis and clarifying exposition. Overall, peer review is designed to improve the quality of the scientific literature. Conversely, cross-examination assumes that research is designed to buttress the opponent's position and is both biased and misleading and probably poorly designed as well. Cross-examination is designed to deconstruct and undermine the credibility of an adversary's expert testimony or research, not to improve its quality (Jasanoff 1992). By taking an adversarial stance, cross-examination may reveal hidden assumptions and errors not uncovered by peer review (Jasanoff 1996).
Given these differences, cross-examination may be a better tool than peer review to expose purposefully misleading research. A competent attorney, aided by competent experts, should be in a better position to expose the flaws in such research than is the peer reviewer, who often takes less time than the expert in a legal case and has more limited resources to probe than does the cross-examining attorney (Jasanoff 1996).
Perhaps the strongest argument related to peer review derives from the fact that LGS1 is typically unpublished and therefore not exposed to the scrutiny of the scientific community. One aspect of such scrutiny is that publication may lead to new research that contradicts the original findings. Perhaps more important is that publication allows scientists' work to be read by their scientific peers. Scientists do not want their peers to read their badly flawed or, even worse, dishonest research. So, it may be possible that they are willing to engage in such research within the confines of a trial but would be unwilling to submit it for publication. This is an argument against all unpublished research, not just LGS1, and it is also an argument against all adversarial experts, not just scientists testifying about LGS1.
This then comes back to the question of the effectiveness of cross-examination in revealing to the jury the nature of poorly done and deceptive research. Cross-examination by attorneys who have been briefed by their own experts can accomplish the task and is potentially more useful than conventional publication peer review.
We have already noted that a possibly relevant difference between case-specific scientific evidence and more general evidence of science is the purpose for which it is done. Presumably, the goal of non-case-specific science is less applied and more general.
But a great deal of "normal" science is quite applied, especially in the area of toxicology and epidemiology. This is true in particular for all regulatory science. Experiments or observational studies of chromium exposure are not done for the purpose of disinterested knowledge but because knowledge of the health effects of chromium is important and relevant for practical purposes—to protect workers and the general public from harm. To the extent that the implications are evident to all concerned (the scientists, research funders, readers), there seems to be little difference regarding the objective. In the case-specific instance, there may be tighter constraints that answer narrower questions because generalizations to other populations are not as important, but this is a matter of degree, not of kind.
Whether it is LGS1, LGS2, or neither, the desire to have the expert "just be a scientist" is doomed to failure. Science (litigation generated or not) is presented at trial by partisan expert witnesses. These experts use scientific evidence to advocate for a position and, in the process, transform it into a tool of advocacy. Even when the science is the same, what Jasanoff (2008) calls the "argument and representation" are different. As it is presented at trial, even normal science is integrated into an advocacy narrative and becomes unmoored from the discourse of science as practiced outside the litigation context. The usual rhetoric of science is displaced by the rhetoric of courtroom testimony that separates the common "on the one hand, on the other hand" narrative by a single scientist to one where the "two hands" are represented by two different experts. Even before any evidence is presented, the expressive landscape is contoured in a fashion that already is far from that of normal science. The court may not see as helpful, common modes of scientific discourse (carefully qualified conclusions, probabilistic conclusions, acknowledging the possible validity of other points of view, and so forth). The courtroom does not want normal science nor is it particularly useful to the triers of fact. Complaints that LGS1 distorts the discourse of science are therefore misplaced at the outset. If that is the problem, then no scientific testimony would be presented. The question then is whether there is something special about the kinds of departures from normal science caused by LGS1.
The Daubert decision requires trial courts to address the questions of reliability and relevance, thus returning to the question of whether the actual scientific methods used were relevant and reliable. So we appear to have returned to our starting point. But this, too, is more problematic than it appears. If this means that the actual techniques used (e.g., chromatography or logistic regression) are in keeping with what is generally considered proper and acceptable, Daubert reverts to the Frye standard—that the methods or scientific principles used are "generally accepted" by the scientific community. If on other other hand, it means that the courts should address the more difficult "demarcation problem" of separating science from pseudoscience, judges will find themselves over their heads in the deep waters of controverted epistemology. As we have seen, it is difficult even to discern what methodologic or epistemologic criteria could separate litigation-generated science from other kinds of science.
Bias of the type Judge Kosinski alleges is a problem that goes beyond the courtroom. Biomedical journals have faced the problem of conflict of interest for a long time. Many journals do not require disclosure of conflicts of interest, but now more than 600 have agreed to follow the manuscript requirements of the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (2006) on this subject. Authors submitting articles to these journals must disclose all relationships that might involve the appearance of a conflict of interest, and they must disclose study funding. Journal editors will publish this information if they think it might be important for readers. Articles submitted to the journals should be accompanied by signed statements by authors stating that they control the data, analysis, the writing of reports, and submission for publication. Authors must describe any involvement of sponsors in any of these aspects of the study. Editors may include this information if they publish a submitted paper and may also use the information as an input into the decision to accept or reject a submission.
Academic journals address financial conflicts of interest through disclosure, which alerts editors, reviewers, and readers to the potential for bias where conflicts exist. This can lead to greater scrutiny of studies that may be affected by such bias. Disclosure is not a panacea. Disclosure and scrutiny will not necessarily prevent systematic distortions of the scientific literature, even when individual studies are conducted using appropriate methods of data collection and analysis. Sponsors with control over publication can decide which studies to submit, possibly choosing preferentially to submit favorable studies and thus biasing the overall literature on safety or efficacy (Blumenstyk 2003; Dickersin et al. 1992; Easterbrook et al. 1991; Goozner and DelViscio 2004). Still, disclosure does allow readers (or jurors) to engage in greater scrutiny when conflict of interest is present.
LGS1 is part of the class of research studies involving possible conflicts of interest. The larger set, in which LGS1 is included, also comprises studies of safety and efficacy financed by companies that rely on such studies to obtain licenses to sell their products or that rely on them to promote sales, prelitigation studies financed by parties for product research and development, regulatory science done to influence standards, and scientific work done for criminal litigation, such as fingerprints and handwriting, as well as accident reconstruction. All these can raise questions about possible bias for researchers when they work for any party that has an interest in the outcome of the studies.
This does not mean there are no differences between LGS1 and LGS2 studies. LGS1 can be designed to be more pertinent to a specific case than preexisting science is likely to be. This, however, is not necessarily a defect. The upside of relevance is that studies can be designed to provide data that directly address the legal issues, for example, causation. Indeed, such evidence is often lacking when litigation commences, and case-specific fact-finding can be more efficient precisely because it is more targeted. Other studies of a particular health problem may have been done using populations that differ in some important aspect from the plaintiffs in a toxic tort suit, but litigation-generated studies, of outcome or exposure or both, can be done using a population of which the plaintiff is a member. Because they are more relevant to the case being adjudicated, they can provide better evidence than other studies might. On the other hand, because they are done under the shadow of a conflict of interest, the court may be concerned they are biased. Judge Kosinski's decision asserted that the resulting biases were always and necessarily of a special nature. It is this contention we have addressed—and questioned—here.
Where does this leave us? We think the courts are rightly advised to be wary of LGS1. However, there seem no strong reasons to treat this conflict of interest differently from other relevant conflicts of interest. Drawing a bright line at the moment litigation begins may be convenient for the court, but it does not serve the interests of justice. And because justice is a primary goal of the legal system, it would seem unwise to construct an unfairly high and one-size-fits-all evidentiary hurdle for science involving conflicts of interest (Jasanoff 2005). In the adversarial and many other settings, such science would involve evidence that is almost certainly relevant. But partial application to only some instances of conflict, for example, the exclusion of evidence about causation in toxic tort cases, potentially creates imbalances. The consequences of evidentiary exclusion differ for plaintiffs and defendants because plaintiffs have the initial burden of presenting evidence. If neither side produces adequate evidence to support its contentions, the plaintiff loses. Excluding defense expert testimony makes defending a case more difficult. Excluding plaintiffs' expert testimony makes bringing a case impossible.
The focus on excluding postlitigation science affects plaintiffs and defendants unequally because of this burden and because the parties have unequal resources and opportunities to generate prelitigation science. What Henry and Conrad (2008) have stated with respect to regulatory science would seem to hold, as well, for assuring fairness in the trial setting:
In effect, Congress and the courts have determined that in an open, democratic society that is administered by a bureaucracy that is required to act fairly and rationally, it is important that agencies allow interested or affected persons to provide information to them, and fairly consider that information.
The courts have one method of dealing with conflict of interest not available to scientific journals and their readers: cross-examination. With their own experts as consultants, attorneys have become adept at deconstructing the research and arguments of opposing experts. They also can point out to the jury when research presented by an expert has been funded by and controlled by a party to the litigation. Some may consider allowing the jury to hear such evidence an abdication of judicial responsibilities under Daubert (Anderson et al. 2001). However, if a study appears to be relevant and there is no specific evidence that it was improperly designed or executed, suspicions generated by conflicts of interest are within the scope of jury competence. Juries may sometimes find it difficult to understand complex science, but most understand conflicts of interest and can judge the science presented to them with that in mind.
The problems with litigation-generated science are not special. On the contrary, they are very general and apply to much or most science that is relevant and reliable in the courtroom setting.
We thank conference participants S. Krimsky and S. Jasanoff in particular, for their helpful feedback.
This article is part of the mini-monograph "Science for Regulation and Litigation."
This work was supported in part by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). Major funding for SKAPP is provided by the Common Benefit Trust, a fund established pursuant to a court order in the Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers.


text:
One recentcircus-goer complained that her kids could put on a better three-ring spectaclein her own backyard than what she witnessed at a recent performance of Piccadilly Circus.
Another attendee said Piccadilly Circus was"ridiculous with no legitimate circus acts." The Better Business Bureau receivednearly two dozen complaints from consumers in several states about theentertainment company.
Piccadilly Circus,based in Sarasota, Fla., is slated to visit Cowtown ColiseumSept. 18 and 19, with performances at 4:30 p.m. each day.
"We have anobligation to warn families that Piccadilly Circus may not be all that it promotesitself to be," said John Riggins, president and CEO of the BBB of Fort Worthand Tarrant County, Inc.
"Therewere no tigers, no elephants at all, no camels, no trapeze artists, acrobaticsor contortionists, as they advertised," cited a woman from Connecticut who attended the circus there. One so-called "aerialist" was suspended only threefeet above the floor and needed assistance from others to spin.
Rigginssaid that others complained about what they perceived to be a misrepresentationin the cost of the tickets. Piccadilly Circus has been distributing freetickets throughout the Fort Worth area for children between theages of 1 and 13. The parents learn laterthat adults must pay $38 each.
Other attendeeswere upset about the short length of the performance. One said the promotional material promised ashow lasting 90 minutes. She complained that the performance, excludingintermission, lasted only 40 minutes.
Piccadilly Circusis not accredited by the BBB and carries a 'D' rating. The BBB assigns a letter grade of A, B, C, Dor F to businesses, based on several factors. The BBB's reviews and ratings can be viewed at www.fortworth.bbb.org.
About the BBB
For morethan 100 years, Better Business Bureau has been helping consumers findbusinesses, brands and charities they can trust. In 2011, consumers turned toBBB more than 100 million times for Business Reviews on more than 4 millioncompanies and Charity Reports on 11,000 charities, all available for free at www.bbb.org. TheCouncil of Better Business Bureaus is the umbrella organization for 115 local,independent BBBs across the United States and Canada, as well as home to its nationalprograms on dispute resolution and industry self-regulation.


text:
Play Trailer
Related Trailers
(Click Here)
| ||
1:45 min|
Redbox Play Pass eligible
Plot Summary
Tul, a hitman, is shot in the head during a job. He awakens after being in a coma for three months to discover that he now sees everything upside down. Soon after, he meets a girl who turns his world even more upside down, but she also might be the same individual that was trying to kill him in the first place. Language is THAI with ENGLISH SUBTITLES or DUBBED IN ENGLISH.
Portions of this website Copyright ©2014 Baseline
This game can be purchased at:
Note: Do not reserve online. Simply go to the Box, select the game and buy it.
|Get Directions
Related Movies


text:
Dear Sammy/Red Rocker Ticketing:
It seems like everyone is happy with the way Bash ticketing went down this year. Thankfully, I was one of the fortunate ones who got tickets for all of the shows. Haven't missed a single one in 7 years. It's hard to remember a lot of them, but the pictures remind me I was there!
See ya in El Reno... God Bless America...TY
Just got my tickets for First Council show! Me, hubby and 22 year old daughter are going! She shocked me and said she want to go with US! Go figure! We'll show her we're not over the hill yet! Love ya Sammy!
Does anyone know how many tickets are up for grabs when they go on sale for the B-Day bash, I know they sell out extremely fast and was just wondering how.many are available for each show. Thanks
My boyfriend proposed to me on Sunday night (yay) and we have kind of decided that we would like to get married in Vegas next year and have heard that you opened a restaurant there. Since #1 on my guy's bucket list is to see you live, I thought hey what a great idea if we could combine our wedding date with a chance that you may be playing in Vegas next year. So will you be in Vegas next year???
I know its extremely early, but i was wondering how people felt about the ticketing system this year and if it will be the same for next. If people are on the sight when tickets go on sale how likely are you to get them, in otherwords how quickly did the shows sell out.
I was just wondering if anyone caught That Metal Show on this past Saturday with Michael Anthony? In the "this week's throwdown" they were asking which Van Halen album was better "1984 or "5150" I love both of these albums but if you take away hot for teacher and jump there is still some great music but in my eyes it doesn't hold a candle to 5150. Any way the other guests were Kip Winger and Carrie Keagan. The only two people that picked 5150 were Kip Winger and Eddie Trunk. (Michael picked both).
Not sure if this site is ever going to offer any sort of Sammy merchandise again, but if you do, may I make a suggestion? Old school. Reprint some cool vintage stuff (see example above!) if you can. I know things like licensing and what not can be tricky, but I think it would be so neat to not just be able to get our mits on current Sammy schwag, but sport some stuff from the early years as well. I enjoy the hell out of his whole career, from before I was even born up 'til now, as I know so many of us do. That t-shirt pic up there? OMG I would buy that in a second if it was available!!
As I put the final touches on my Summer Ran Red I have to say it was the best in a long time. I was lucky enough to see Sammy 3 times(Taste of MN, Tahoe, Cabo 10-13). I got the chance to visit 3 Cabo Wabo Cantinas(Vegas, Tahoe, Cabo. I even had my 3rd trip to Cabo. I suppose it was also a Summer of 3s.
The part is I got to meet a couple real cool Redheads along the way. JT from Vegas is the man and had a blast with The Deej in Cabo. Since you all are such killer peeps I hope you will enjoy this as much as I enjoyed it… I recorded the following songs while at the show on 10-13:
Come on Sammy!!! I wanna see you on RAW & RED ROCKIN!!!!


text:
Posted: 11/18/2015
"Lights Out" author Ted Koppel explains how America's power grids are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
Tags: ted koppel, exclusives, extended interviews, interviews, birthdays, family, books, nightline, iran, phones, media, elections, candidates, winston churchill, america, power outage, technology, internet, terrorism, security, isis, 20/20, apocalypse/doomsday
Posted: 12/07/2004
It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.
Tags: lewis black, back in black, drugs, nambla, 20/20, john mccain, fox news
Posted: 04/28/2004
There are no losers on ABC, they cut the baby in 5 pieces.
Tags: abc, barbara walters, kids, 20/20
Posted: 03/16/2004
Author John Stossel exposes cheats and scam artists in his latest book.
Tags: john stossel, interviews, abc news, 20/20, smoking, lawyers, government
Posted: 02/12/2002
John Stossel believes in enlightened self-interest.
Tags: 20/20, abc news, john stossel, interviews
Posted: 02/12/2002
John Stossel believes in a limited government.
Tags: john stossel, abc news, 20/20, interviews
Posted: 03/29/2000
Sam Donaldson believes history will say a lot of good things about Bill Clinton.
Tags: interviews, sam donaldson, abc, 20/20, ehud barak, terrorism, white house, bill clinton
Posted: 03/03/1999
Monica Lewinsky recalls Bill Clinton with love.
Tags: headlines, monica lewinsky, barbara walters, kenneth starr, bill clinton, abc, 20/20
Posted: 02/04/1999
Diane Sawyers fed her ABC co-workers inedible chili for a 20/20 story.
Tags: other news, diane sawyer, 20/20, lying
© 2015 Comedy Partners. All Rights Reserved. Comedy Central and all related titles, logos and characters are trademarks of comedy partners.


text:
Brian Shaw RumorsAll NBA Players
When Lue did get physical once—with none other than O'Neal—it was in defense of another teammate. As Shaw tells it, the Lakers had just lost to the San Antonio Spurs, and Devean George had made a key mistake down the stretch, sending O'Neal into a rage. "Shaq was standing over Devean's locker and he was physically beating Devean up," Shaw recalled. "I said, 'Man, what are you doing? He's a young player. He made mistakes. But that's not why we lost the game.' I said, 'If you would have used some of that energy that you're using pushing him around and boxed out Malik Rose, he wouldn't have gotten 10 offensive rebounds against us, and maybe we would have won the game because of that.'"


text:
Hobbies: Mahjong, chess, crosswords, cars, guns, gardening, stamp-collecting and more
What we love chooses us
Various Authors 8:01 p.m., July 24
Wolf Spider on Stucco (Bonita)
Photo by Marco Alvarez
Posted October 21, 2012
Various Authors 8:01 p.m., July 24
Garrett Harris 4 p.m., July 24
Daniel Powell 2:03 p.m., July 24
Walter Mencken 12:34 p.m., July 24
Robert Bush noon, July 24
Ken Harrison 10:30 a.m., July 24
Julie Stalmer 6:30 p.m., July 23
© 2016 San Diego Reader. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our written permission.
Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!Close


text:
If you have troubles since the update to WordPress 4.5 please read this post before opening a new thread.
I would like to add more space between the one portfolio items as the top of the next item is showing up on the bottom of the page. can this be done automatically to reflect the screen size. Do I just add more whitespace rulers or do I change the size of that whitespace ruler in css?
Best regards,
you can add extra padding-bottom for your .section class in your style.css. You can also set it to 100%, this should make it dynamic.
Thanks. That worked.
The topic 'How do I add more vertical space between one page portfolio' is closed to new replies.


text:
111 E Benton St
Morris, IL 60450
Cross street: Between Rte 47 & Liberty St, Morris il,
1609 Decatur Hwy Gardendale, AL
2116 Center Point Pkwy Birmingham, AL
These guys are my new mechanics. He is very honest. They tell you exactly what's wrong and how much it will cost. They even gave me a ride home. Finally, a mechanic I can trust!4


text:
A Computer Scientist from Uppsala University. Now working as a Computer Science teacher at University of Gävle.
Communities (17)
Top Network Posts
- 11example.com is OK for domain example, what is example IP Address?
- 11To what extent can the device be used without a mouse?
- 9When are network, broadcast and gateway required for configuring a network interface manually?
- 8How large should I make root, home, usr, var, and tmp partitions?
- 5How do I change the IP settings by mounting the SD card in another computer?
- 5Why does sudo not add root's PATH with Ubuntu 12.04?
- View more network posts →
Keeping a low profile.
This user hasn't posted... yet.
Badges (7)
Gold —
Silver 5
Bronze 2


text:
"little black dress and Women Dresses" we found 4 items!
Sort By
Choose a
- Product Type
Sort By
Your Selections:
We adjusted your search results to be more relevant. Not what you were looking for? Click here.
Rip Curl Electric Beach Maxi Dress $69.50 Rip Curl Tribal Myth Maxi Dress $66.00 $53.00 Scully Kiara Maxi Dress $84.00 Tart Lois Maxi $194.00