wsdler

Until Apple's deal with AT&T (who's poor customer service is only surpassed by Sprint) expires I probably won't be looking at an iPhone. AT&T's customer service is just terrible. In addition the sensitivity of the first gen iPhone was terrible, hopefully that problem has been fixed in the 2nd gen. My girlfriend bought one and returned it because the reception was so poor (and she lives in a major city with full coverage). It would constantly drop calls and the audio quality was spotty. When it worked, it worked well though. When it was working properly the audio quality was amongst the best I've heard out of a mobile phone. Unfortunately that didn't happen very often. More often then not you could hear the codec struggling.

You know, you're absolutely right. The declining polar bear population, glaciers disappearing and receding at a dramatically accelerated rate, dying coral reefs, acid rain, and icebergs the size of Rhode Island are all a great big conspiracy. While you're at it don't forget to mention that the Apollo program was filmed on a Hollywood stage. The only fleecing going on is the Bush Administration deliberately rewriting documents from top scientists because it's not good news for the Bush Family big oil interests and Haliburton. As you said, follow the money.

Unfortunately we don't get the slip in the state.

I like a lot of stuff... Van Halen, Aerosmith, Stones, Led Zeppelin, James Taylor, Bonnie Raitt, Melissa Etheridge, Chick Corea, Bobby Shew, Roy Hargrove, Miles Davis, Sting, The Police, Letters to Cleo, The Beatles, Holly Cole, Sarah Vaughn, Billie Holiday, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Sarah McLachlan, Norah Jones, Once Blue, Diana Krall, Ozzy/Sabbath, AC/DC, Ray Charles (just awesome), John Scofield, John Mayer, BB King, Billy Joel, Bjork, Black Crowes, Dylan, Brian Setzer Orchestra, Springsteen, Guns n Roses, INXS, Herbie Hancock, Hendrix, Jonatha Brooke, Amber Rubarth, Lisa Loeb, K.D. Lang, Pink Floyd, Sheryl Crow, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Stevie Wonder, Tom Petty and whomever the hell he's playing with, Old U2 (I like them better when they were more pissed off and singing with passion... I'm not really into this "It's a beautiful day" pop stuff they've been putting out in recent years), Willie Nelson. I also listen to classical on the radio although I don't have much of a collection myself. I'll listen to pretty much anything but rap (I need to hear an actual melody).

Are you talking about the Tena Flex Maxi? I tried a case and I didn't really like them. They're about the same as the Tena Supers (although if memory serves me correctly the diapers available in the UK and the US are a bit different... the US Tena Supers have no leak guards, the US Tena Flex Maxis do). Problem for me is it seemed that the wetness wouldn't be distributed around the diaper as well as with the Tena Supers. I also didn't find the Flex Maxis to be as comfortable (I'm wearing a Tena Super right now).

I'd prefer a penguin. They're cuter.

What I find really ironic is that most of the folks who oppose same sex marriage typically proclaim to be for smaller government and minimal government invovlement in our personal lives yet when it comes to this issue, they're all for it. Hypocrites. I find the idea of attempting to legislate who can love whom to be absolutely reprehensible as it is a form of discrimination and harassment. Let's face it, this is nothing more than religious interests attempting to yield their collective power to achieve a religious objective (I suppose there's atheists and agnostics who are anti-gay but I've yet to meet any). It doesn't exactly coincide well with the separation of church and state. Give gays and lesbians the right to marry. If a given CHURCH doesn't want to perform the ceremony or acknowledge love between two people, so be it. They should have the freedom to decide that. They should NOT however have the ability to medal in other people's lives beyond that and ENFORCE their religious beliefs upon people who do not subscribe to the same religion. I find that to be disgusting and morally repugnant. It leads to all kinds of things that I'm guessing Jesus and God wouldn't want to have any part of... like declaring war in god's name (what part about "thou shalt not kill" did you not understand?).

I'd ALWAYS been interested in diapers after I was house broken. At 5 years old I found my cloth baby diapers, put one on, and wet it. After that I'd steal my mother's maxi pads (big thick ones) over time, put several of them in my diapers and use them as a makeshift diaper. As I got older I'd ride my bike to the convenience store and buy some Pampers or Luvs. When I was 18 I bought my first package of adult diapers. I don't know what started this fetish for me but I DO have memories of having accidents before I was potty trained (well, I'm not sure if at that point they can be considered accidents). I have about four memories of wearing diapers or having my diaper changed. I think the catalyst was an attractive woman who was a friend of my parents. I'd wet my diaper and I specifically asked for her to change me.

As scary as it is to consider the possibility of having someone in office that wishes to continue the Iraq War I think it would be a terrible mistake to disregard McCain. The Republicans are extremely efficient (especially the religious right) when it comes to organizing for a vote. I didn't think Bush could win the last time around but he did (the Dems didn't help by nominating Kerry as the incumbent though, listening to him was akin to listening to paint dry).

You mention my grammar and then offer up the above sentence? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say there but the reason Bush didn't veto anything in his first term is because there was a Republican majority in the house and the senate. He didn't need to veto anything. Information? The Bush administration cherry picked the intelligence it wanted to make the case to go to war. Rumsfeld originally suggested invading Iraq. It wasn't as if Iraq presented a new threat. It was a course of action that they deliberately sought after. Well, there's the Bin Laden and Bush family ties. I think it's a bit of a conspiracy theory stretch but the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country after the attack without being questioned. It's also worth mentioning that the previous administration left Bush a memo that said "Bin Laden determined to attack". I'm not saying Bush is responsible for the attack but they pretty much disregarded that memo. They certainly didn't do everything possible to prevent it. Now, why aren't they actively searching for Bin Laden? I'm sure they're searching, but it's a LOW priority. Why? Because Bush spent 584 BILLION dollars invading a country that was never a threat and pulled personnel out of Afghanistan allowing him to slip into Pakistan. I betcha anything 584 billion dollars would have had us Bin Laden's head on a stick by now. Fact of the matter now is that Afghanistan's chief export is heroin. Had we finished the job there, caught Bin Laden, and rebuilt their country we'd have actually made some good friends in that region because for a little while the Afghani people were better off after the repression enforced by the Taliban. But no, we blew it, we pulled many troops out, let Bin Laden get away. It's a mess. From factcheck.org: Clinton's major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office. The Republicans opposed that bill. So no, the Republicans don't get the credit for that. Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit either as noted income from the internet bubble brought in unexpected tax revenue and that definitely helped but the republicans had previously left a string of increasing deficits. Clinton stopped that. I don't see how facts hold no credibility. BTW, I forgot to mention the Bush administration's handling of Katrina and their lack of support for the troops for denying them the funds to provide basic equipment like body armor but I suppose you'd deny that reality as well. Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever. I'm sure of that. Even in the present he has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US.

Really, perhaps you'd like to explain why Americans have less personal freedom now than they ever had in the history of this country? Perhaps you'd like to explain why terrorism is at a record high and how (as a direct result of the Iraq war) this country is in more danger than it's ever been in. Perhaps you'd like to explain why we dropped the search for Bin Laden (remember him... the guy who actually attacked us???) like a hot potato to go and bomb a country that was literally of no threat to us? Perhaps you'd like to explain why almost 7 years later we have no idea where Bin Laden is? Perhaps you'd like to explain why we're in Iraq? Oh yes, it's the WMDs. No wait... they have materials to make WMDs. Oh no... that's not it... they changed their story again. It's the yellow cake uranium (fabricated "intelligence" from a questionable source on a US payroll). No wait... the yellow cake uranium was a fraud. Now it's "they may have the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction". No wait, that's not. Well, now it's to bring democracy to the Middle East. No, that's not it either... oh yes... it's a humanitarian mission (how is killing over 100,000 Iraqis a humanitarian mission). It's going to cost 20 billion. Bzzt... 584 billion and counting. Please explain to my why we had a budget surplus at the end of the Clinton campaign and why we have the biggest budget deficit EVER now? Explain to me why freedom of the press has been squashed (god for big if the media was allowed to film caskets of dead soldiers who died protecting oil fields and not freedom). Explain to me why a law was passed that prohibits Bush and Dick from being prosecuted as war criminals (you'd only do that if you were guilty). Explain to me why he was not held accountable as a traitor (he has committed treason) for blowing one of our spie's cover because her husband didn't agree with Bush's politics? Explain to me certain DAs were fired? Explain to me why Haliburton are the ones getting the contracts to rebuild Iraq and not the Iraqi citizens? Explain why the Bush administration did away with Habeas Corpus (which the Supreme Court has recently rightfully restored)? Explain why Bush and crew thinks that it's OK to torture illegally held detainees? Please explain the deliberate campaign on behalf of the Bush Administration to convince the American people that Al Queda was in Iraq when it never was. Explain why the Bush administration has continually denied the real threat of global warming to the point of deliberately rewriting scientific reports and banning the use of certain words? Please explain to me why the dollar is so incredibly week right now? Please explain to me why this country is in a recession? Please explain why "No child left behind" is having such an incredibly negative effect on our public education system? Please explain why this president has taken more vacation than any other president in the history of this country? 584 BILLION dollars. With that kind of money we could have launched a "man on the moon" Kennedy-esque challenge to get America off of foreign fossil fuels within 20 years or so. You want to do damage to the Middle East... THAT is where you hit them. You have either chosen to blatantly disregard facts, or you're completely ignorant. Seeing as you weren't old enough to vote in either election I'm guessing that you haven't really been paying all that much attention over the past 7.5 years. The options for a future election are irrelevant to the past. This president will go down in history as the worst ever. He will be associated with evil, and greed. He will be known as a mass murderer and as the president who completely destroyed any shred of good reputation that this country had left. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

It depends. The picture may be fine. Either way resizing the picture alone won't help, you'd to both resize and crop it. If you're using the image as a background there should be a "stretch to fit" option somewhere. You want to turn this OFF. This option takes the image and stretches is (or compresses it) to fit the dimensions of your screen. Now with this option off it may just display the image itself and leave a blank background if it's not big enough to fill the entire screen or it may tile the image. Depends on the OS and your settings. If you want a perfect match first you have to know the dimensions of your screen. A standard 4:3 aspect ratio screen will be 800x600, 1024x678, 1280x1024, or 1600x1200. A widescreen will be 1280x800, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, or 2560x1600. Assuming you're dealing with a horizontally oriented image you must first resize it such that one of the dimensions of your image will overlap the screen resolution. So... if I want to resize one of my images for my screen I need to go from 4368x2912 and first resize it. In this case I'm going to resize the longer dimension down to 2560. With the native aspect ratio of my camera that would leave me with an image that's 2560x1707. My monitor is 2560x1600 so I still have to crop some pixels off the top and/or bottom in order to get it to exactly match the resolution of my screen.

Correction... he was not elected to 2 terms. In the 2000 elections our constitutional rights were violated and the supreme court made him president. It's pretty well known that Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the folks at Diebold had a hand in rigging the election. Even in my home town in NH it was recently discovered that Diebold voting machines were rigged to swing a vote (a test was done where a number of yes votes and a number of no votes were entered into the machine... when the votes were tallied the WRONG count came back, the machine was found to have been tampered with and the guy in charge is a slime ball and already has a criminal record). So, Bush was not elected to a term in 2000, he stole it and the Supreme Court fucked us all in the ass. How he got elected in 2004... oh yeah, the Dems chose the ONLY person on the planet who could possibly lose to him. GRRRRrrrrrrr History will judge W and the Bush admin is the worst in American history. Finally the Supreme Court has come to it's senses in a few recent cases and actually upheld the constitution. Amazing. Unfortunately it's too little too late. Hundreds of thousands of people have died needlessly under this administration. Anyhow... now that it's down to 2.... Barrack or McCain? I'm glad Barrack won over Hillary. I used to support her but Jon Stewart caught her in a two faced lie (it was a conflict of interest... in the same day she defended accepting lobbyist donations saying that the folks they represented had legitimate concerns an then she turned around and said that the lobbyists were not influencing her in any way (this was in relation to health care)). I'm afraid Hillary is now too much of a Washington politician. I think Barrack has a stronger moral foundation (and he seems more trustworthy to me... he's run one of the cleanest campaigns in recent history).

I disagree. Just because someone doesn't go on a date until a certain age doesn't mean that they aren't gay or straight? Even if they do it still doesn't mean that they're one or the other. Many gays and lesbians date partners of the opposite sex before they figure things out. It doesn't mean that because they went on a hetero date that they're straight. That said, it may not be the best analogy in the world as I believe sexual preference is something that is preprogrammed at birth and I believe the AB/DL thing has a different trigger but anyhow, you get the idea.

Thanks for the info!

I've used ATNs, and Molicare's super and super plus. Both Molicare diapers are more absorbent than the ATNs in my experience.

DailyDi... Just a curiosity question. How many unique visitors do you get on a daily/weekly/monthly basis (an average or guess is fine, if you don't know the number off the top of your head please don't spend any time on it... it's just a small curiosity on my part). Thanks!

Thanks guys. I think I've located a source in Neptune, NJ which I'm going to visit before the long drive home so I don't have to stop.

Interesting. I prefer disposables and I've felt guilty about the impact using them has however... I'm skeptical that it's more environmentally friendly to use a disposable than it is to use the toilet. Did they consider how much energy is consumed in manufacturing the diapers in their equation (which includes trucking in the materials to the suppliers, manufacturing the components of the diapers, shipping those products to the diaper manufacturers, etc. etc. etc.). I find it really hard to believe that that is more environmentally friendly than flushing the toilet (of course there was the qualifier that said in some communities, I wonder what they mean by that). The argument of using water to wash cloth diapers isn't what I'd be concerned about. That water can be processed and returned to the environment. It's not like it goes into a water trash can and is gone forever. What would worry me would be the electricity required to run the washing machine, and the electricity or natural gas required to run the dryer. Still, if true it would put me at ease with one of the areas of guilt that I have with my diaper wearing however I remain skeptical.

I believe Sure Care is still plastic as well.

Anyone know of any stores in the Point Pleasant, NJ area that carries Molicare or Tena?

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. If you can't identify it, it's a UFO... therefor I believe however, I believe everything in our skies are terrestrial (with the exception of meteorites). Now that said, I do believe that aliens exist as the math clearly supports it. I don't believe they'd be visiting us. Why? because our technology is so freakin' ancient compared to what they would have if they indeed had a capability to "fly" here. Any culture that has the ability to visit our planet has necessarily mastered traveling faster than the speed of light. As far as our understanding of physics goes, that's technically not possible. Maybe we'll discover a way to travel faster than light one day, there's some interesting theories out there but as of yet... nothing. If if the laws of physics does allow it that technology would probably be thousands if not tens of thousands of years off. So there's that. Now let's take a look at our own technology. What don't we use all that much of anymore? Spy planes. Why? Because satellites are pretty much doing that job now. We no longer have the need for a manned mission to spy, we do it by remote. We also tap the communications of other countries (in addition to our own citizens without a warrant... GRRRRrrrrr). So, if an alien culture wanted to study us they could send an unmanned probe. I'm sure if they have the technology to travel faster than light, that they also have the technology to go undetected from our comparatively stone age technology. What about the argument that today's technology was the result of discoveries made by capturing an alien craft? Unlikely! Again... any civilization that's advanced enough to have technology that can propel them at speeds faster than light (without killing them... and a vehicle that was capable of that would literally be Star Trek like in nature... the need for inertial dampers, etc. otherwise the acceleration would either take many many years, or it would instantly kill you) is going to have technology so advanced that there's no way we'd be able to analyze it or even figure out how to use it. Consider this. Imagine if we could go 300 years back into the past with something as common as a laptop. There is NO WAY they could figure out how the heck it works and how to manufacture something similar. Screw 300 years... try 100 years ago. They lacked the tools to do any kind of meaningful black box testing. So, we're talking about hundreds of years here. Again, any civilization with light speed technology would be THOUSANDS of years ahead of us. Our sophistication would literally be stone age by comparison (we'd be talking about organic being who's biological abilities would be enhanced by very advanced technology... it's already happening in our current times (digital retinas, artificial hearing, pace makers, controlling machines with brain waves... most of which was developed to help people overcome handicaps but eventually it will get to a point where people will use technology to enhance their natural abilities... I can almost guarantee it)). I'm also guessing we probably wouldn't be that interesting to research considering how primitive we would be comparatively. What about the argument that they want to take over our planet and wipe us out? Again, unlikely We have devastating nuclear weapons in our current time. The current world arsenal could destroy this planet several times over. Think about how incredible their weapons would be? They could probably just vaporize us without damaging anything else on the planet with the press of a button. Go beyond that though. Physicist Michio Kaku theorizes in his book "Hyperspace" that any civilization sophisticated enough to reach that level of technology would have advanced to a stage of civility where they were totally non-aggressive. The chance for a civilization to self annihilate would seem to be fairly high. Just look at our current situation? What would it take to spark a nuclear war. As time goes on technology will advance dramatically and that means the weapons will get more advanced as well. The greater the time period you look at, the greater the chance is that we are going to obliterate this planet (either by war or by some kind of pandemic disease due to the damage we're doing to the planet). I think it would stand to reason that other sentient cultures would probably go through similar stages of development so the chances of a civilization getting to the point where technology has been sufficiently mastered to attain faster than light travel is also sadly unlikely. All that said, I believe that there must be intelligent life out there somewhere. I just don't think they're visiting us. Although who knows... from all the reports of anal probes maybe there's a species out there that really likes butt sex.

"Will the witness please describe the incident" "Yes, when his regular doctor wasn't available he insisted on a female doctor. During the exam he was wearing an adult diaper which had baby prints on it" Bang, trip to the psych ward for mental evaluation at the very least. Wearing a diaper to a doctors visit... if it was left at that then fine BUT, when his regular doctor wasn't available he insisted on a female doctor. That might have been a flag to bring another doc in the room (fwiw it's not "standard procedure"... my past few docs have been women and they've haven't called anyone else in the room for the testicular exam (and no, I didn't wear a diaper... no need to force that upon an unwilling participant). Then when he dropped his pants and had a diaper on with a baby print... I'm not a lawyer but I betcha anything that those two facts are more than enough for the foundation of a solid case. Also, doctors aren't idiots. They're pretty adept on picking up behavioral clues and it's not a stretch at all to expect a doc to be able to quickly catch on to the alterior motives here.

Oh come on now... give me a break... You're being too kind!

I'm wearing one right now. Yes, it is a Tena. The older style had a tape landing zone. They've recently switched over to a Velcro style "tape". I actually liked the old tapes a little better.