Grammy Awards...who performed and what did they sing?? any highs and lows of the show?
The lowest moments by far were all the times the Dixie Witchins won %26amp; you had to listen to them say absolutely nothing of meaning or intelligence. They are classless %26amp; did not beat anyone in their categories by talent, chart or album sales. It was purely a pity party for them last night!
Grammy awards?binoculars opera theater
check it all out here...www.grammy.com
My 1 year old daughter was born with only one functioning kidney. The right one has been classed as dysplastic, she has cysts elsewhere also attatched to her bladder and ovaries.
The doctors finally managed to perform the cystogram yesterday (tried at 5 months and failed) it has shown that she has reflux. We don't know the severity of it yet as we don't see the urologist again until april. My concern now is whether the reflux could cause problems with the remaining kidney and if so will she end up needing dialysis in the future. Her general health at the moment is well but she already has problems where she stops passing urine and has high blood presure. I need to know if i am worrying too early or if i should try to see the urologist sooner.
i think she needs a lot of help and likely a kidney transplant, see the urologist
Will reflux cause more problems?performing arts center opera theater
She's already having problems passing urine according to what you wrote so I wouldn't wait, I would phone the Dr immediately %26amp; explain the situation %26amp; demand to get an appt, If not take to an ER. You don't play around with one functioning kidney.
I would push for a visit with the urologist sooner if possible. Reflux can do a lot of damage without symptoms. There are other patients who had similar trouble when they were kids and you could post your question at http://www.ihatedialysis.com - it's a great support forum. good luck!
From what I know, NIN is a one man band, and the other members are only there for the live shows. When I look at the CD liner notes for the studio albums, there are always a few people given credit for some of the instruments. Does Trent play all the other instruments himself?
Please be nice with your answers, even if this is a dumb quesion.
Yes when recording he plays every intrument he was compared to George Harrison, Aldo Nova, and a few others that played all the instruments on the album I don't recalled if he still does but Pretty Hate Machine, Downward Spiral were recorded solely by him
because there was an article in regards to those two albums in rolling stone
Does Trent Reznor perform all the instruments on NIN albums?opera score opera theater
yes but not live
yes, its all him.
No he doesn't. Remember when he went solo for a while. NIN is a band and he does a lot of the work. I know the original guitarist is now in Filter.
no
As its main producer, singer, songwriter, and instrumentalist, Reznor is the only official member of Nine Inch Nails and remains solely responsible for the musical direction of the band.
He is not the only one who plays all the instruments, but he doesn't have any other official "members."
I partially saw something similar on one of those TV court shows, I think divorce court. I didnt keep it there long enough to hear if it was considered an irreconcilible difference.
It should be established before getting into a serious relationship. It is a person's choice to perform it or not. Dating is used to find a person whom you will be happy with correct. Then the case with these two may be they are not a good match. Let bygones be bygones and separate.
Regardless of the situation, always remember that oral sex is a matter of taste : )
Is refusal to perform oral on your partner, legitimate grounds for the termination of a relationship?greek theater opera theater
Heck, yes.
No that's an excuse
It's insufficient grounds for such
From a man's perspective, yes...
I believe it is a ridiculous excuse for divorce.
Heck no, everybody has a choice, and no one, I repeat, NO ONE, should be required to perform a sex act he or she does not want to perform.
i think that it would depend on the relationship, if it was a casual thing, they sure terminate it, but if it is a loving long relationship with marriage in the future, then i would think that oral could not be grounds, but on the other hand, i think that if during the relationship, there is fighting about it, then whats it from stopping when in a marriage, perhaps the relationship is doomed,
NO,(for better or worse)
Yes any reason is a good reason
Its NOT, the guy is just selfish, but if that is his daily desire and never gets it then it counts as a ground
NO, that is not what true love is about. It is only a tiny part of your relationship.
that kind of attitude no use for marriage because it will stop at some point it stopped with my wife soon after we married
Hell no, Why would you want your partner to do something they didn't feel comfortable with doing? You need to be a little bit more considerate of the other persons boundaries. Try and find out why they don't feel comfortable doing this and then try to figure out a way to correct the problem. But giving up without even trying is so weak. Who knows if you talked to the other person about it you might be able to solve the problem.
It is an irreconcilable difference if it causes conflict and can't be resolved. People get divorced for less than that all the time.
That's seem a little extreme basis for getting a divorce...Its just an excuse for something else..
Nope that is not grounds for termination of a relationship and it is very stupid if someone would leave their wife/ husband for something like that.
No it is not but if you love each other you will at least try
Did you try and sit down with your mate and get to the root of why your partner wont perform oral? More than likely there is something that is disturbing him/her, and it could be something deep rooted to the point that therapy would be recommended. If you love your partner try and be understanding and communication is where you both need to be. I tell you from my own experiences I was dating a woman that was like that, but she enjoyed having oral done to her. Well, I tried to find out what was the problem and she didnt feel comfortable about it enough to talk about. So, whenever we got intimate I would really show her how I was into her and lo and behold I got her soooo hot that she broke through the ice and did it to me. It turns out later once we talked about it that she was turned off by both the smell of men down there and all the hair. It also helped I had trimmed it up and had just showered.
I hope this helps ya.
its a big piece of the whole pie! those who say it doesn't matter if you love each other. but if your partner truly does love you than your partner wouldn't think twice about wanting to consume every bit of you forever. so i would move on to someone whose love is lustful and desireable not fizzled out and finicky.
well since you are so smart and mean to people that were trying to help you. ....If you can not or will not see things the same as your partner then that is a difference. NOT BEING ABLE TO GET BEYOND THAT DIFFERENCE IS IRRECONCILABLE. now if someone want to use that as a catalyst for divorce, they are well within there rights. even though it show xtreme selfishness on both side.
I know a couple, that just got married - they entered into their marriage with full knowledge that she would not do this.
If they are up front with what they will and will not - then no.
What happened with people being honest now days.
So it depends on the couple and the relationship.
Good Question!
Its part of the deal.
the definition fo rape is any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
its good grounds for it as if you dont at home someone else will elsewhere
A SELFISH PERSON WOULD SAY YES IT IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.... BUT SOMEONE THAT REAL LOVES U WOULDNT MAKE YOU DO ANYTHING THAT U R NOT WILLING TO DO... ORAL IS NOT ALL THAT IF U REALLY KNOW HOW TO WORK IT U REALLY DONT HAVE TO HAVE ORAL...... DONT LET ANYBODY MAKE U DO ANYTHING, U R GROWN AND U KNOW WHAT U R COMFORTABLE WITH DOING.....
i dont think it's grounds for a divorce but eventually he will find someone else to give him oral leading up to a divorce. married or not, you shouldnt have to be forced to perform any sexual act that is not comfortable for you despite if it will please your man/woman. There are personal and sexual limits to every human being. If someone divorces their mate for the reason of not giving oral sex, then i think it's a good idea that they seperate anyway. The relationship is about sex rather than love.
Stupid answer for a stupid question.
I have an 11 month old cat from a rescue home. He's beautiful and I love him to pieces but the problem is he doesn't seem to understand the concept of going outside to perform his toiletry habits :). I'm assuming wherever he was before he was never allowed outside and must have used a litter tray all the time.
I have two older cats and they all get along, but although he will now go outside to play with them he still comes inside to perform. I've tried taking some of his 'offerings' out to the garden to show him where he can go but that hasn't worked and I really don't know how to get round the problem. Any sensible ideas would be greatly appreciated :)
Start gradually, get used to his habits first, does he goes to the bathroom usually after eating usually? after nap times? then find out about HIS new surroundings, put yourself in his paws, is there lots of cats in the neighborhood? Cats are private and favorite private areas. Once you've thought like your cat- gradually start taking a clump of used litter, preferably wet ones if the other cats are male, to a soil or sandy area, introduce them to it at the proper time and magic will happen, once the cat fells comfortable (usually 1 or 2 times). When he is out he'll rather stick to the fresh open air (leaving his litter box dirty, but still sanitary, for awhile will want him to broaden his horizons and air)
Help needed please .... :)?home theatre opera theater
take the litter box outside
i dunno really, have u tlked to the vet? try some cat repellent, but really i dnt no
Get a litter box and put it in the garden, next time he goes, put the "cat surprise" in the litter box, then put him in the litter box with it out in the garden. Repeat that.
I had a cat like this and only cured him by leaving him outside for ten hours, so he had no choice! I did put his food and water outside too.
try taking a litter box outside, if he still does poop inside you will need to give him a smack every time he does so he gets the idea, not hard u doont want to hurt the lil fella but just so he understands what ur trying to say here
If he wants to go in the litter box, maybe you could put the litter box in the house and after he starts using it, put it outside and have him use it there until he gets used to going outside. Good luck~~
Sometimes once a cat is litter trained you cannot get it to go outside. I have taken my cat out on a harness and had her come in just to go to the bathroom. Chances are this cat was strictly an indoor cat and you might never get it to go outside. What you did was the proper thing, taking offerings out to the garden, bottom line is your cat has made his decision. Perhaps those cheap cardboard boxes they sell (temporary litter boxes) at grocery stores would work, or a pan you can keep outside when he is out there. Good luck.
1. Take out one of the litter boxes with you.
2. Keep him outside a little bit longer when he can't hold no more, making him have no choice to go outside.
3. Or just allow him to use the litter box in the house when ever he needs to go. He might like the privacy (some cats are that way).
laru had a good idea that may just work.... put the litter box out door where he can see it
take the litter box outside,put some dish washer in it and let the cat smell it.4 or five days later pour the litter where you want the cat to poop.He's gonna poop there a few days later.
don't forget to put his water and food outside,too.
Good luck!
every day move the box a little closer to the door and eventually outside , the take it away completely that worked for my kitty!
Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.
With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what conspiracy theorists don't tell you is that the test was done with a minimum of fire proofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code.
The 1968 New York City building code - the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built required a two-hour fire rating for the floor system.
Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, "These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed."
"The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected," Sunder said to a group that gathered to watch yesterday's final test at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Ill. "Our investigation's final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the aircraft-damaged towers' ability to resist the fire," Sunder said
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
This is more evidence conspiracy theorists are being dishonest when they point to these tests and suggest the building should not have collapsed. They KNOW this because this is old news.
So the fire expands the naked truss steel and it pushes against the perimeter columns. At this early stage the perimeter columns are strong enough to resist the expansion and cause the expanding truss to sag.
Computer simulation of expanding truss pushing out on a perimeter column and sagging
As the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel (Desks, seats, paper, plastic, etc..) the expanded truss cools and contracts. This contraction happened over a period of time and over many floors. This is a very important point, because had it only been one floor contracting the perimeter may not have buckled as much.
If a floor sags, it pulls both the perimeter columns and core columns toward the center of the floor. Because the core columns are stronger than the perimeter, the perimeter is the side that gets pulled in.
There are plenty of photographs from every angle which show the slow progression of sagging of trusses and bowing perimeter columns. It would be impossible for the NIST or anyone else to fabricate the photos. It was one of the most photographed and videoed events in history. It would be easy to prove the NIST is involved in a mass murder if they doctored photos. Yet this is exactly what some conspiracy theorists suggest.
Other conspiracy theorists say it's an optical illusion created by heat. But it would be impossible for this illusion (Heat/Light refraction) to happen only to one side of the building even when that side of the building cooled. Light refraction changes with the position of the person looking at it. So no two cameras would have shown the same degree of bowing. Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.
This illusion also happens to be where the collapse started.
A "scholar" says the bow was due to the core columns being cut. He points to the movement of the north tower antenna which some originally thought moved first. But this was not the case..
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)
The "scholar" is starting from a false premise and building a case around it. Something the "scholar" suggests the NIST did.
Putting this irony aside, the real evidence that the core did not move over time is the fact that the other faces showed no signs of the core moving until the collapse.
Before I continue, it's important to distinguish between the events of the moment of collapse and the gradual progression of bowing of the perimeter columns. I am talking about the gradual progression of bowing. The NIST does not disagree with the tilting of the top sections of the towers and that the core was a major part of that. Where the "scholar" differs is that it was the core and not the trusses which caused the tilt/collapse. He needs it to be the core to explain away the bowed columns and still entertain the thought of thermite/thermate.
If the core tilts, pulling the columns in at the impact level in, you would see an equal but opposite reaction from the opposite face. If the east perimeter columns were being pulled in because the core columns tilt, the west would show signs of being pushed out. The top would also tilt, not just when it collapsed but over time as the perimeter is being pulled in. Think about it, the core is connected to all the floors above the impact point. If the trusses were in pristine or even merely slightly sagged condition as suggested by this "scholar", and the core and not the trusses pulled in the perimeter columns, then the core would have tilted pushing out the columns on the roof level. Why is there no sign of this happening? Because it didn't. It's just another attempt at throwing the kitchen sink in to explain this evidence.
Why is this important? Because no believable scenario exists to explain explosives or thermite creating this effect. NONE. How would thermite/thermate bow columns over time? It simply ignites and burns chaotically. So we're left with an effect which looks EXACTLY like the fire sagged the trusses, then contracted and pulled in the columns with no evidence of thermite or a credible scenario which would explain the drawn out event.
A helicopter pilot saw this about 10 min before collapse but had no way of communicating that to the people in charge.
A bow is clearly visible on the right hand perimeter wall as trusses sag and pull in the perimeter columns. The photo below is NOT from the NIST report.
The photo below is from the NIST report.
Collapse begins a minute later. View from another angle, not from the NIST report...
Below is a video from the moment the columns begin quickly buckling inward. Note there is no ejection of debris characteristic in Controlled Demolition before the event. Only after the building begins to fall do we see the debris from the pancaking floors eject outward as the floors force air out of the windows.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Br...
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence that the building was pulled in. Not just one floor, but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence that the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building, you have to explain how a bomb pulled the walls inward well before they fell...
Starting with the moment the plane hit, survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was made to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could feel the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, and shifted load distribution, it's not hard to imagine enough of these factors adding up to cause a collapse. Factors which weren't known at the time. NIST鈥檚 computer model even took the wind shifting into account.
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-tr...
Fine. But it's not a question, and the conspiracy theorists will continue to find ways around perfectly good evidence.
They're unwilling to accept the fact that we were thoroughly outsmarted, and are even less happy that roughly the same thing could happen tomorrow, perhaps with methods that are altered. None of us are happy about what happened, and we're very much at a loss, but some have truly taken the matter to heart and wish that somehow things really didn't happen as they did.
I think that's why it's essentially unprofitable to go after the conspiracists aggressively. Just answer their objections point by point--the excellent Popular Mechanics article is perhaps the best example--and keep your composure. There's really no other choice.
The Collapse of the Twin Towers Part IV: Can the Conspiracy Theorists debunk this?palace theatre opera theater
Wow, impressive 4
dude the fire was in the 96 to 100 flloor ---ppl were standing there and then jumbed from the heat ---if the tepreature was 2000 like what we been told this folks would been melted.
thats mean it was hot but not to the limit that it will melt the steel ---the way it collapsed is like gravity in 9 seconds ----if it was from the top down it will take more time
Oh, yeah! The NOVA show! I watched it, too, and it totally explained how the towers could fall and how "fire could melt steel. snicker snicker! Hey, maybe if we put it on YouTube the conspiracists would start believing the truth. What do you say?
It's AMAZING how many times the Official stories contradict itself !!
First they said there were no steel columns but "hollow shafts", denying their existence in order to prove their "pancake theory".
"Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened" = You are making claims with absolutely no proof. it is not at all evident, it is just an opinion and I'm curious which sites ignore the existence of the core columns ?
And btw, in the Official Report... there is no mention of columns ;)
Bugger off and go play on the street or something
All who joined after Minutes to Midnight as an LP fan must remain silent.
Projekt Revolution 2008 has been announced, but so far only 3 acts had been announced along with LP. Atreyu will perform in the States only while Jay Z will be at the UK show and HiM in Germany. However, more acts will be annouced.
In previous years, they had some interesting acts...2002 saw Adema and Cypress Hill. Mudvayne joined again in 2003. KoRn was up in 2005 and even Snoop Dogg and Ghostface joined. The concerts had a good mix of nu metal, hip-hop, and rock with The Used and Funeral For a Friend being the only scene bands on tour.
But 2007 brought too many "emo"/post-hardcore bands like MCR, Taking Back Sunday, Saosin, Madina Lake...the hardest band on the tour was LP. I have fears that more "emo" scene bands, especailly Panic at the Disco, and no harder bands will be annouced. If LP joins with more pop punk/post-hardcore acts, will you still go for PR should it come to your hometown?
If they did a show in my hometown, I'd come for the Linkin Park set and then piss off.
I think LP purposefully chose sh*t bands to play with to make themselves look even better (like they even need to!)
You're totally right, LP would totally blow any of those other artists out of the water. Atreyu would be smashing as well, as well as Mudvayne and KoRn, but yeah no more crappy emo bands please!
It would be worth paying the full ticket price just to see LP's set and leave.
Question for Linkin Park fans from the Hybrid Theory/Meteora days?regal theater opera theater
All I have to say to you is this:
We had a vote on my Local Station, and Tool beat them by 4 percent tonight!
I actually tend to like most of those bands along with Linkin Park through all the transformations so yeah i would go.
Whatever sells tickets and who Linkin Park doesnt mind pairing up with will happen.
And those bands are popular right now, well most of them anyway.
I wouldn't care if Miley Cyrus was on tour with Linkin Park, I'd still go just for LP. I've been a fan for 7 years and always will be. The "emo" bands aren't affecting Linkin Park's music, it's not like their sound is drastically changed based on who they tour with.
Oh, and ATREYU is gonna be on tour with them for the US leg of PR:08?!!! I may die of excitement.
I don't care who else is there, I would go just for LP. But they aren't coming here.
