Wheetsin

As far as I know, not really - not without a significant amount of programming work, anyway. Caveat beging I'm much more familiar with the php environments than vb. First, you're actually talking about two unrelated issues. Whether or not something is on a main page has nothing to do with what shows when viewing new posts. With a sizeable amount of programming something could be removed from the main page - maybe -, but then users would have to "happen upon it" if they wanted to find it, or know where to look - which new users don't. Posts to it will still hit the new posts view, even if it's removed from the main page. Boards are structured so that forums appear on the first page as a table of contents type of notifier. It's a default behind how they're programmed. New posts goes by posts to hit the server, not topics displayed on the main page. I've probably not made that very clear. So to hit the other side of your question, I've looked and I don't see any kind of an "ignore thread" or "ignore forum" option. I don't know if we don't have it, or if I just can't find it -- I will defer to Alexandra for this. Ignoring a thread or forum is the only way I could think of to not see its replies listed under new posts... well, the only realistically do-able option, anyway.

I did have a close call last week - my own doing. Got wonky at a restaurant with co-workers, so I excused myself and yakked in the bathroom. Didn't have that instant relief so I knew chances were that I need another yak, so I stalled, asked for a box, etc... yakked again, and still didn't have that instant relief but one of the ladies I was with needed to get to the airport (a third lady drove all of us) and I felt bad for possibly making her late. And there was no way I was going to yak in the car, so I sat there trying to convince myself I could wait one more minute... one more minute... and it just kept hurting more and more. *sigh* It's not like vomitting when you better run or else. I just got to the point where there was no where else for my saliva to go. Fortunately my co-worker knew what was up & dropped me off at the door, and I made it, but I'm glad she had a lead foot because I would have had to ask her to pull off the interstate if we had been going any farther or slower. Which I've had to do three other times, btw -- ask someone to pull over so I can PB, that is. One was with my parents/husband after dinner on our way to a store, one was with a limo driver on the way to O'Hare (with a co-worker in the car), and one (unfortunately more like 13) with a co-worker who was driving me in for an emergency unfill. :tired Man, it's a good thing we can pull our dignity off the ground, brush it off, and start over!

Mine was lap and I've not heard of anyone in my program who had to be convereted to open. Part of that is going to revolve around good pre-op adherence. I *did* have to sign a waiver, that if for some reason he got in there and could not do it lap, I consented to being opened. I would imagine that's SOP.

I felt that way for the past 3 weeks, only not so adversely affected. I take it in stride. Get through today, tomorrow is probably going to be the same thing but that's one less day. Take a mental health day if you need it. I know time is a major force, but it's one day, and can do so much to help you get the rest of your work done. If all else fails, personally - I do my best when I procrastinate. Truly. I always score higher when I've just "whipped something out" than when I've gone through revisions and edits and planning. I know it's different with a thesis because you can't just write and that's the end of it, but... hmm... I assume you have some type of thesis committee or review board you will have to present to? Are you in the lucky situation of having it so that no one on your committee is an expert in your own area? Haha. I've let that influence my thesis topics before. Oh, door #1 that's what you did your dissertation on? Then I think I will go with door #2!!

We lived in an affluent neighborhood and I went to a school in an equally affluent area. And I mean - kids driving BMWs and Mercedes they got for their 16th birthday affluent. And then we moved and there really weren't particularly affluent areas, there were a few affluent people, mostly doctors at the local hospital, and a few nicer neighborhoods, and a few not so nice neighborhoods, but it was this great sea of middle class, for the most part. At least when I was in high school. Regardless of which school I was at, except for a very small handful (maybe 3) of classes I can think of, I always felt that learning was my responsibility and would occur outside of the class or teacher. The teachers told us what to learn, and that's all they did, but it was our job to go forth and learn it. In either school, except for the mentioned exceptions, I really can't remember learning occuring because of the teacher of because of the setting. I remember plenty of instances where I learned because I took the book home with me and read it and read it and asked my parents and kept at it until I understood what it was saying. Teachers just never held value, outside of "babysitter" for whatever hour I happened to be with them. They couldn't answer questions outside of what was printed in the text, they could not help me make connections or form new schema, or see some deeper insight in a superficial topic. We need to help our teachers learn to teach, not just to follow a curriculum or talk or instruct. I'm not a teacher so I don't have the first hand experience, but I have worked as a contractor hired to help schools fox this problem. And I know there's a huge deficit out there (can only speak for sure about schools in my state and two surrounding states) between what teachers are learning, how they're allowed to do their job, and the knowledge/skills someone really needs to teach effectively.

I would wonder if it's more an issue of not knowing he was never president, or of not knowing who the man is, and by the time you find out, you're so confused you really don't know any better. I'm like that when it comes to geography, which is probably my "weakest" of school type subjects. I'm pretty good with non-US geography, but don't ask me what states border what because unless I've lived there, there's a chance I couldn't tell you. But I'd know where to go to find the answer.

I agree with that, I am not either. But I do think that how people interpret their faith largely (if not completely) sets the rest of their value factors, which is going to drive their political persuasion. So indirectly, people vote largely of their faith. Not to be confused with people voting a certain way because someone of a higher ranking in the same faith tells them to.

I'm specifically leaving the author's name off because I don't want this to be seen as a reply directly to them, because it isn't. But it is using the words. It would be hard for me to disagree more with the logic above. That's like saying, "Someone told me that all dogs are blue, so I went and read the book titled All Dogs are Blue to test what I was taught, and sure enough - it said that all dogs are blue. Isn't that how most people learn that all dogs are blue?" If someone had heard all dogs were blue since - well - for their entire lives, in most cases, then they would probably accept that dogs were blue and seek something that would affirm that. At least before the years when we develop critical and differential thinking. And then, by the time they hit those years, they may not be so inclined (or they may - most certainly) because they "just know" that it's true, even if they haven't seen one. An alternative approach would be to hear that all dogs are blue, and then recognize that you've never seen a blue dog, so you read about all other dogs, and you start watching other dogs and looking for them, maybe even buy a few for yourself. Go rent some dog movies, check out the local AKC club, whatever it took to get some validity to the claim. And maybe you would find one blue dog and say, "Aha!" and maybe you wouldn't, and wonder, "Then what colors are they?" In other words, if you aren't sure all dogs are blue, you'd go to sources other than All Dogs are Blue to see if this is true. If you're fairly certain that all dogs are blue, then All Dogs are Blue affirms your thinking and you probably don't have any reason to look farther.

Flabuless, if you want to scuba, do it now. Don't let weight hold you back. I dived as much as 80lbs heavier than I am now, and I know I was not a pretty sight out there in my wetsuit, but who cares. Don't deny yourself the experience because you haven't hit the weight you want. Just bring lots of weights.

Yes, you can scuba post band. I called Inamed and spoke with them about a few times. I got two different answers. Once I was told it's completely safe, but advised not to go beyond 60ft (I have a deep diving specialty under my advanced cert) and once I was told that anything down to recreational depth would be fine. I asked them specifically about the integrity of the band under increased atmospheres and they said it wouldn't be a problem. Any gas would just be compressed, and on surfacing would only expand to its normal size, so that wouldn't be an issue. Hope this helps.

I PBed 3 days after surgery, and a few times with just 1cc of fill. For me, the band itself provided some degree of restriction, even while empty. So don't fret over PBing before you're filled. I'm going to bring up another side of the issue. And that's to trust your surgeon's judging on when it's time for a fill, and not be upset if he tells you it's too soon. I say this because I've been overfilled, and it's not fun. I was overfilled and had to PB, and over the next 6 or 7 PBs in the next 3 hours I became irritated and swelled to the point of complete closure. This meant I couldn't get my own saliva down, so every few times that I swallowed I had to PB again. If you're self-paying for your fills, think of it this way. What's better -- to pay for one fill when you're reasonably sure that you need it, or to pay for a fill that you might need, and then have to pay for an unfill, and then have to pay for a third fill to get you to where you would have been if you'd waited in the first place. As for your surgeon upsetting you, did you tell him? If not, do. It's hard to expect a behavior change if you aren't making it known that the behavior is unacceptable. He should be receptive to the feedback.

I've always known because 99% of the time it has been a gradual thing. Slight discomfort, something not feeling quite right... pain setting into the lower abdomen... pain setting into the hips... (start thinking uh oh, this may not just go away)... pain setting into the back... (start thinking uh oh, this probably isn't going to just go away)... salivating starts...(pretty sure this isn't going to just go away)... starts getting hard to swallow, etc. When my throat kicks in, and it gets hard to swallow, it's PB time. All of this happens in the course of about 15 - 30 minutes, depending on how much of the saliva I swallow, and how quickly I start spitting into a toilet, whether or not I have to try and hold it back or I can let 'er rip, etc. The closest I've come to an unexpected PB - was not unexpected, all of the above happened, it just happened in a greatly abbreviated timeline of about 2 minutes. That's because I stupidly added fluids onto a stick. I knoew the minute the liquid hit that I was in for trouble. BTW, don't do that, it magnifies the pain factor about 6x.

I have said this more times than I can count, but I truly wish the vote campaigns (e.g. Vote or Die) would taper off. People are feeling more obligated to cast their vote because it's their right and their duty, but they're casting uninformed votes. What's worse - not voting at all, or voting for something when you don't know what you're voting for? I don't have any official numbers on this, but I know in a discussion we had at work during the last election -- there were about 11 of us talking, and 3 of us understood what the candidates stood for, what the ammendments really meant, etc. The others cited reaons for their votes including, "Liked his name", "It's my favorite number", and "I saw it on a billboard". (Marketing is effective afterall) These aren't kids, either. I was the youngest of the bunch. And most people involved in the discussion have at least as many investments in the outcomes as I do, if not more (e.g. children).

The motive of paying was essentially to get people to show up. "Was" last time I really studied this (in undergraduate university when Crack and PP made its way into classroom discussion). I would assume that hasn't changed too much. Few addicts are going to seek voluntary sterilization because they're concerned about the ethics of having addicted babies or burdening a welfare system, or because they are concerned about their ability to raise a child. They're going to do it because they see some immediate gain for themselves. To an addict, cash (next to drugs) is probably the biggest motivator to do something. Offer an addict "free sterilization" and see who shows up. Offer an addict "$200 for sterilization" and your turnout will probably be much greater. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the practice, just trying to answer the question.

I know. I saw my cousins two weeks ago. Some of them, anyway. They're all quite deep in their religion, being life-long members of the local Catholic church. More specifically, I spoke with them about politics. Eventually. The conversation started with them asking my opinion of one of their classmates who had become pregnant and was being urged by the father to have an abortion. By virtue of that discussion, we evolved into something more political. The eldest (in her 20s) commented that she was a republican, which surprised me because I never had her pegged as a political creature. She's nice, but rather checked-out. I asked her why she said she was a republican, and she said, "Because I am conservative." So I asked her what conservative meant and she said, "It means I'm a christian." I asked her if liberals could be christians, too, and she said, "Not according to our church." *sigh* My little anecdote is so sad on so many levels.

I'm a liberal and an atheist and I don't hate them. I've been through this logic on another thread when I was told a series of things that atheists hate. I'm not familiar enough with Michael Medved to know where that leaves you. Perhaps he belives that "liberal christian" is an oxymoron. (?)

I missed 4 days here and don't even recognize this thread anymore. That's so cool. :biggrin1: TOM, did you hear the segment NPR had about this Friday? I believe it was right after the Katrina trailer fiasco/debate. It was VERY interesting. They are prediciting that in the next 5 years, one in five mortages will be foreclosed because of sub-prime mortgages. So it may be bad to be a sub-prime lendee, or live in a neighborhood where there's likely to be a large number of these lendees, but it could be a great time to start construction on a new apartment complex. Or a great time if you could warm up to the idea of buying up foreclosed homes and reselling them through low down payment, high interest loans.

You can try, but you're probably not going to get anywhere. Appeals are most effective when you're trying to get your insurance to agree to cover something. Exclusions are -- well, here's a very simple version. When your employer wants coverage, they get bids on the coverages they want and what it will cost them. Sometimes to save money or because they just don't want the coverage, whatever the reason, they will opt to drop certain coverages. These are called exclusions. When an exclusion is in place, it means that your employer has declined to pay for that coverage. There's NOTHING the insurance companies can do about this. Asking an insurance company to pay for something that's excluded is like walking into a store and expecting to walk out what things you haven't paid for. It just isn't going to happen. So what avenues do you have? The option to exlcude is owned by your employer. You can try asking your employer or HR rep to reconsider the exclusion, but one person isn't normally enough of a driving force tfor them to reconsider adding the expense.

I need the "I don't know" button. I can speculate, but it's all just guessing. I've tried switching things up - eating more, eating less, eating different, refeeds, changes in exercise, etc. I track my weight on a calendar, and on 2/7 I weighed the exact same I do today. This is how it has been for me for... oh... 5 - 7 months now. Occasionally I will have a 2 or 3 lb loss, then noooooothhhinnnnnnggggg. On 12/8 I was 265. So I've lost like 10 lbs in 3.5 months. That's far below even the low end of expected weightloss, and I still have 70 - 90 lbs to lose. In theory I should be able to do much less than I do now, and still lose weight. Oh, I will add that I do drink fluids with my meals sometimes. Small amounts. It has never made a difference in the amount I eat, or in how long I feel full.

No, that's not a challenge, it's truly just a wonder. It got me thinking.

I wonder if objects that don't have religious inferences on them are really offensive to any group that would protest the currency.

And I am not limiting "foreign" to mean Persian Gulf countries. I mean it as in - outside of our own sufficiency. Countries with many fewer resources (in all aspects except perhaps motivation or initiative) are kicking our asses here. What's our achilles tendon? Is it Big Oil and the power of lobbyists? Is it bad inheritance from shortsighted administrations? Past or present presidential ties to the Saudi power families? Something else?

I've read that book. People like that scare me. :heh:

We've seen worse from president's than wearing drag. I don't care who the candidate is. If I agree wtih them and I think they will do good things, they can wear a halter dress and heels. That's one less pair of heels I'm tempted to buy. See, they're already helping my economy.

I tried editing the above message for clarity, because I don't think I did a good enough job of being specific, but it's taking too long. I should say that theory is one of the backbones of how science works. And I don't think that publishers (or any other stakeholders) would be opposed to teaching other theories around the origin of man or ascension of man, we just don't have that many other theories going in this area. There's an old, old theory (that began with presocratic philosophers) that man rose up out of the water, but that's still an evolutionary chain -- the only real difference being the progression of what evolved into what. Still evolution. Laurend could speak better than I as to current theories, but last I was a student we just didn't have anything else that fit into the existing evidence and could be taken as a theory.