probably a stupid thing, but i believe in this kind of stuff so johngibby.com/NIS_Options_Analysis_Outcome.pdf

i'll have to monitor my bandwidth which isn't much so i'll probably take it down today.

karl barx kind of touched on this but don't punk bands do this all the time?

hell nofx's "fuck the kids" was done in two weeks or less.

since when was this movie supposed to be set in the "future?" it's set in the past actually (if you look at the gadgets the characters use and advertisements in the subway, etc.).

but yes, i saw that and thought it was stupid because it was. there was no need to say "formerly known as central park." because the next shot showed central park.

it's not so much about the accuracy of a DOD document, it's about having faith in your audience having the ability to put together context clues.

the movie is a good movie for average american viewers to see because it is not structured like a traditional blockbuster with a nice drawn out conclusion. and for that it should be praised, there's no need to rip on it because it's not setup like a book.

afterall... IT'S NOT A FREAKIN BOOK!

really?

i mean... really?

oh whoa is you. if only the hundreds of thousands of people who have had their houses torn down for roads had the kind of voice that you do huh?

this is really really not good for your ethical perception. i mean it looks like your garnering the power of your site to get people who most-likely aren't even from South Carolina to sign a petition that would possibly save your grandpaw's house but would move the route to destroy other people's houses who don't have this kind of power in a website.

real classy.

you know, i really love this site but your ideas of food are just kind of silly. is lettuce better for you than a snicker's bar? in nearly ever situation imaginable, yes it is.

but to actually have contradictory quotes in the same article yet still believe it to be gospel-esque is just... i don't know what word is appropriate.

you have "the science behind nutritionism is, at best, "promising" but not ready for primetime" followed directly with an insinuation that the same science the FDA uses is correct with "nutritionism has captured politics, so that the FDA isn't allowed to say, 'Eat less red meat,' but is backed into saying, 'Make eating choices that are lower in saturated fats,'."

How does one justify that comment of 16th century level science right after they demonize it?

I guess before I just flame away I should go, but it needs to be said that with a site like yours where you can influence a lot of people you need to be a little more cautious in what you recommend. Diets are not the same for everyone. Some people can live off pasta and red sauce for a hundred years while others would die after 50 of a heart attack.

Telling people to cut out their protein intake by eating nearly all vegetables is dangerous. Just as dangerous as telling people to only eat protein.

So yeah, chill out with your diet crap because all it is is crap.