Tasha and Janx, sorry you are having a rough time. Here are some warm chocolate chip cookies.


If that doesn't help, how about a cute puppy?


And if cookies and puppies just aren't enough, how about a dance with this guy?

okay now i am grining! .... cookies , puppies, and vincent .. its like a dream come true hehe! and thanks everyone for being soo nice

*skips the cookies, give the pup a quick pat...RUNS straight for Bobby's arms...! Trips over own feet and lands on face, lays on floor jealousyly watching Tasha and Bobby dance...*

id be happy to share ...only for one dance tho ... then he is mine again

::helps KimberlyT to her feet:: It's OK - I think he's used to us ladies landing at his feet Once Tasha lets you have a dance with Bobby, we can go for some dinner.

JaneEmily, These are wild!!. Definitely a young VDO going through the pangs of prepubescence & puberty. The top photo looks like Vincent, Mom & the older sister who owns the Rib Joint? Vincent looks around 15 or 16 years old. Already very tall for his age. The bottom photo he's 12 or 13 at the most, chubby before his height shot up. His two sisters (one is obviously Elizabeth) & either a friend or a cousin?

I love seeing Vincent as a real person, going through what all of us go through, those awkward years.

I just saw a very perverse commercial for Redi-Whip during the 7 pm episode of CI. Something is just wrong about it. Anyways, I think Mr. Redi-Whip is the shooter from "The Third Horseman". If not that episode, definitely another. Did anyone else see it?

Okay, so i had to ask two unrelated questions for stats so my first one was the shipper relation and now my second one is...


Answer me back with your answer: Yes or No answer please.

Do You Think the World[Intelligent Life] is Going to End by Nuclear War?


---

If anyone can answer back that be great.

i wouldnt be surprised i do believe that we will be our own downfall

KK! Deal! Just once and I would be totally satisfied!




I hope he is used to it...
Sounds like a wonderful plan to me...thank you for the invite!



I do too. Makes him see more human and also more amazing that he can do what he does!



Okay, is this a serious question? If it is...
Sadly, I think I would have to say yes. There are way too many P.O.'d people out there with big bad weapons, just waiting to use them.
Either that or God will decide he has had enough...I just hope I am not here to find out either way.
(Just a thought, you should read "Swan Song"...great book, perfect role for Vincent...as Josh.

Yes, it was a serious question. I have to gather 30 answers. Thank you for answering!

--

Also thank you, tashafallen for answering as well. it's greatly appreciated.

Valley -- no, not end by nuclear war, but by God when the time comes.

Good luck!

Besides the boy in the picture not looking to me like 18 to me; at 18, most boys and girls are near, if not at, their adult height. If the boy in the picture is VDO, he is not likely to be 17-18 years old; because I wouldn't guess he's near or at 6' (much less, 6'4") tall and the girls in back of him all look like they are at least an inch or two taller than him; which I think would be unusual even if the boy was 16 and the girls were 18.

And, Spook! You think about your 30th High School Reunion--I haven't had any notice of it yet; but in June of this year, it will be time for my 40th.

Thanks flashymom i can always count on you!

God is going to kill us off. O.o
That doesn't make God a very comforting thought.
but it's funny my little sister said Jesus.

I debated whether to post these on this or the Marathon Thread (Marathon is more schedule-oriented.)
But I thought these two articles and excerpt would be of interest though none is directly-connected to LOCI or the other two articles.

How TV's switch to digital will affect you
By Rick Kushman - rkushman@sacbee.com

Published 7:30 am PST Monday, February 18, 2008

We're one year away from the biggest, most complete change in the history of television in America. And most people won't notice.

At midnight on Feb. 17, 2009, all of TV will go digital. Those magnetic waves that have sent out analog television signals since TV was invented will stop, by order of Congress, and every TV in the country will either be ready to take digital signals or go dark.

So, first thing. Don't panic. When the sun comes up one year from today, the enormous majority of TV sets will hum along just fine.

However, about 10 percent of Americans – roughly 13 million households – and 16.6 percent of the homes in the Sacramento media market, will need to make some adjustments, according to a report from Nielsen released last week.

Here's what that means specifically to you:

• If you have cable or satellite service, you are cool.
• If you have a digital TV – which includes high definition, but also means any TV with a digital tuner – you, too, are cool.
• If you get TV from an antenna, like rabbit ears or that metal thing on the roof, sorry, you need to get cool.

The cheapest way is to do that is to get a digital converter box, available at most major electronics retailers for $50 to $70. There also are government-issued coupons that will cut $40 from the price tag.

Or you can sign up for cable service or buy a new TV. But you don't need to. I repeat: You don't need a new TV.

I say that in case you missed the story that consumer protection groups went to electronics stores around the country – including in Sacramento – and found a massive number of salespeople giving out bad information about the digital conversion. That bad info ranged from getting things wrong about the converter boxes to insisting people needed new TVs.

Now, I'm not arguing that a new TV can't be a good thing. I'm saying not to get one just for the digital conversion. And if you go to a store where the clerks say otherwise, tell them I said you don't need a new TV. You also can tell them I mentioned you might hit them with your shoe, though I should remind you that assault is against the law.

We're wandering off point, which was that TV goes digital in a year. The next question would be, why?

The backstory is complicated, but it boils down to this: Major TV broadcasters – ABC, NBC, CBS and the like – have for years held vast amounts of analog spectrum. In essence, that's space on the limited range of the airwaves available to broadcast using magnetic waves.

In return for receiving broadcasting licenses, the deal was that once 85 percent of Americans could receive digital signals via cable, satellite or digital TVs, broadcasters would give back that spectrum. The plan is for the federal government to use some of it for things like police, fire and other emergency radio, and to auction off the rest to communication companies for wireless services.

Ken Ferree is a former member of the Federal Communications Commission and was one of the commissioners who pushed for the conversion. He said in a phone interview that broadcasters have been avoiding the giveback by invoking moving definitions of the 85 percent rule.

"In 2005, Congress stepped in and set a hard date," said Ferree, now president of the Progress &

Freedom Foundation, a Washington D.C. think tank. "The idea was to take that beachfront spectrum back and try to do more with it."

The other half of the equation, of course, is making sure everyone in America knows about the change. Recent studies have reported varying amounts of awareness, though they are trending toward the optimistic. A January survey by the National Association of Broadcasters, for instance, found that 79 percent of consumers have some awareness of the switchover.

"Some people are predicting riots in the streets," Ferree said. "But even if most people don't understand it, they're starting to hear about it. By next February, it may all be a big bore."

The group that may have the most to lose, besides consumers with rabbit ears on old TVs, is the major networks. They might be facing a sudden drop in ratings. That's why the networks and broadcast stations are gearing up substantial ad campaigns.

Another, larger impact might take longer to appear, and it involves cable and those TiVo-like digital recorders that, I swear to you, will change your life. Here's how it might work.

When TV signals go all digital in 2009, analog cable customers won't be affected because the cable companies will convert the digital signal for them.

However, many cable systems will go another direction and change all their customers to digital service. The effect of that will be that the cable people will bring in a new box.

(By the way, it's still unclear what will happen in Sacramento. Comcast told its investors last week that it intends to switch about 20 percent of its markets across the country to all-digital. Bryan Bird, a Sacramento Comcast spokesman, said local officials have been studying the issue but have nothing to announce yet about this region.)

At the basic level, a change to digital cable shouldn't affect cost much. Comcast, for instance, currently charges the same $54.65 a month for the same basic analog or digital cable package.

However, once you get digital cable, you can get a digital video recorder – they're only $7.95 a month, and, yeah, I am pushing DVRs: they're magical – and that means a couple things. For viewers, it's better TV viewing. For the networks and advertisers, it's fewer and fewer people watching ads.

Digital cable or satellite also means video-on-demand, another way to reorder your TV watching.

The results of all that could be a fundamental change in how TV gets paid for. Instead of most revenue coming from advertising, it might come from us, because we might pay by the show or network. In return, we may get to avoid commercials.

That larger shift is a longer discussion for another time, though it's yet one more example of how evolving technology continues to make our world easier, harder, and, of course, very different, even when we don't really notice. For now, just start thinking about digital TV.


NBC acknowledges reality with 52-week season
Tim Goodman

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

This Article appeared on page E-1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

No broadcaster or cable channel has yet to definitively answer the question of what television viewers really want - other than compellingly great series all the time without paying for them and, if possible, without commercials.

What do viewers want? It's a simple question, bound to get myriad responses. But it's suddenly relevant now that NBC announced Tuesday its plans to present a 52-week television season. The full details of the plan are supposed to be revealed in April (but you can find a few guesses below as to what it might entail). The Peacock has been itching to be a game-changer, and this, if it works, would alter the TV landscape. Other networks are also likely to change the way they do business, from how they develop shows to when they air them. Taken together, this would signal your first post-strike revolution. Of course, Fox once decided it would implement a year-round schedule, and all that really happened was its executive wing was cleaned out and told to go home.

But there's merit to a 52-week schedule. This 40-plus-year-old philosophy of starting in September (it's fall, you're inside, you're ready to watch TV) and ending in May (it's sunny outside and you'll be leaving on vacation soon) may have seemed logical, but it wasn't, and it was made less so as cable began to program the summer months and steal away viewers.

There are 112,800,000 households using television in this country. And the people watching have made it clear that they watch 365 days a year. They are not following broadcast television's archaic schedule. For 52 weeks a year, they're looking for something to watch.

Congratulations, then, to NBC for being the first to step up and say it will change to reflect what's been going on in this country for decades. A full year of programming - and one would assume it's fresh programming. Excellent idea. But since NBC is notorious for counting pennies - and shining them in the sweaty grip of its greedy palm - we can assume that programming more is not going to end up costing more. So there will be changes. The guess here is that NBC didn't send you a questionnaire about what you'd like those changes to be, so what you want is going to take a backseat to what you'll get.

In all likelihood, there will be fewer episodes of a series, which might shift money to create more series to fill out the year. Some of that programming may be imported from Canada and England and offered up to you as is (not such a bad thing and probably long overdue). But you can also probably expect more cheap reality programming. You'll probably get more reruns, too.

That's probably not something you had on your list of wants. But it's hard to see how the math is going to work without repeats. As it stands now, a television season can run 36 weeks. If your favorite series - in a non-strike-shortened season, of course - makes the usual 22 episodes, that leaves 14 weeks of filler. Even assuming that NBC has some brilliant plans to make those 14 weeks fresh, that would be playing with the old rules. The new rules stretch 36 weeks to 52, and that's a gaping mouth to feed, is it not?

But let's stay positive here and think about the good that could come to you, the home viewer.

Based on the Nielsen ratings, one would have to assume that you or your friends are helping fuel the success of certain reality shows. No need to point fingers or go into denial. Somebody's watching people lose weight, make a deal, find a partner or witness C-list celebrities dancing. So there will be more "unscripted" fare on the menu. But enjoying television is all about savvy decision-making, so what if, across the dial, you had the chance to watch new series that lasted only nine episodes? Never mind that the series could be canceled after four or that it could be picked up for even more. Just focus on the idea of nine, without guarantees. Is that enough? Do you need 13 or 22? What about the British model - six episodes? It's the small-plates approach to visual consumption. It certainly sounds intriguing. Adjust the portions, lengthen the hours of operation.

But we're the super-size nation and we like more, more, more. In some ways, six episodes or nine episodes sounds palatable only if the show isn't very good. Right? It leaves the schedule more quickly so you get more choices. Next! But if the episodes are great, you'll want 22 and be annoyed that you can't get more until almost a year later.

That's certainly one of the risks in a 52-week season. But the option of short runs is intriguing to the networks, because they don't have to commit themselves to the industry-standard 13 or 22 episodes, which is an enormous outlay of cash for no guarantee that you'll stay loyal for that long.

Shorter might not only be better, but it might also be the new normal sooner than you think.

If other networks join with NBC in a year-round schedule - and all of them agree that the current system is broken - it could indeed be change for the better. The marketplace is well stocked now with channels willing to pay for scripted fare - whether it be FX or AMC or TNT or USA. We've been witnessing a leveling of the playing field for years now - the broadcast networks have had less than 50 percent market share for a long time - and viewers have adopted this paradigm shift far faster than the Big Four. One of the little-discussed elements of the WGA strike, in fact, is how viewers didn't seem very put out by it. They found fresh programming, because the so-called 500-channel universe is immense. There's content everywhere.

Here's to the new world order.


Sondheim musical 'Company' actually works on TV

[email="cmccollum@mercurynews.com?subject=San%20Jose%20Mercury%20News:%20"]By Charlie McCollum
Mercury News[/email]

Article Launched: 02/19/2008 01:33:21 AM PST

http://www.mercurynews.com/charliemccollum

Below is an excerpt from this Article for the SVU Fans among us.

[ . . . ]

• I didn't want to spoil things for fans by mentioning it in advance but, yes, that was Richard Beltzer making a cameo appearance as Detective John Munch in Sunday's episode of HBO's "The Wire."

As a character, Munch first turned up on "Homicide: Life on the Streets" (from a book set in Baltimore by "Wire" creator David Simon) and is now most often seen on "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit." But along the way, Munch (and Beltzer) has turned up on "Law & Order," "Law & Order: Trial by Jury," "The X-Files," "The Beat" and - of all things - "Arrested Development."

That's far and away the record for playing the same character on different series.

Aww, thanks

We sound alike you and i...my experience of being bullied pushed me right back into my shell. It happened close to thirty years ago but it traumatised me, mainly because one of the instigators was supposed to be my best friend, my dad had just recovered from a near death battle with meningitis and despite still being very shaky on his feet, would walk up to my school every day to collect me and my sister and i lost my ability to trust. I do trust again but to lose it again would be catastrophic. I think i was drawn to the Goren character for the same reason as you were.

flashymom: My son is going to be Goren sized for sure. All the men in my family (my dad's side) are all six feet and over in height. He has UK adult sized 10 feet (US sized 11 i think) and they'll probably get bigger. I keep joking that he's going to be 6ft 4" with size 13 feet but i don't think it'll be a joke...so add on the autism and it's going to get interesting. And i envy his metabolism so much...he eats huge meals and while he's more solid, he's not any fatter. You could bounce a coin off his stomach LOL!!

@Valley: no. Maybe a nuclear bomb will blast away some parts of the earth sooner or later, but some kind of life will survive and start all over again. It might be a good thing for the Earth, recover for some thousand years until we have overpopulation again. Also: what do you define as intelligent life?

no

No - I agree that there are a lot of po'd folks out there with weapons that should never have been invented, but by destroying everyone no one would win and that wouldn't get them into the history books (power driven dictators want to be remembered).

I believe man will be the end of man by the simple destruction of our natural resources (what a bleak thought). Is ciaddict around? I need a puppy and some chocolate chip cookies.

Here judy i have some cookies





and a puppy

Valley - The answer is no. If it is the fate for humanity to become extinct, we will be the architects of our own destruction, but it will not be nuclear war. Disease or climate shift are the most likely candidates. As was mentioned, there MAY be some nuclear explosions, but it won't be the BIG boom that takes us all out. Nukes are a big club to threaten with. Someone wants to win in a war, and with nukes there is no winner because there's nothing left to win. Infrastructure and the population to run it are shattered. Same thing with Bio-Weapons. Unless the side releasing the agent has a foolproof cure, they wouldn't risk killing their own population as well. And as we all know, diseases mutate at a very fast rate, resisting all attempts to wipe it out.

God will have nothing to do with it. Our free will is what will doom us ultimately. I'm not anti-religious, and I am faithful, though not Christian, but people have got to stop thinking that a Deity is going to either fix things or end them. It's people that have ultimate control over their own fates and destinies. Deity is watching, and may exert influence to a small degree, but truly it's people who are in control of the world. Deity cares about people, and I totally believe that help will be given if asked for, but humans need to learn that Deity doesn't want us to fight for them. They want us to live happy, productive lives and try to grow and learn and become better souls.

Ok ok... Phew... Sorry I went off a tangent there, but I really am not trying to down anybody's faith. These are my views and you don't have to agree with any part of it at all. You're fully welcome to post your disagreement and I'm sure we can have a civil discussion. Moving on...


I snipped it a bit to the relevant points.

Wow. The broadcast people are finally getting it. I personally don't mind shorter runs of shows, because that means if it sucks it's gone faster, and if it's awesome, well I hate waiting, but if there's another show that I want to watch too, it's not yet another one I'm trying to fit in, it's the next one in the cycle of the year.

Like when Dresden Files were on Sci-Fi, I'd watched Eureka, then after their season was over, Dresden took over a couple weeks later. A few weeks after Dresden was over, Eureka came back. The other thing about shorter runs, is that the actors are free to do other things. Imagine VDO doing 6 epis of LOCI in one part of the year, then doing another show for the other part of the year. Or more movies.

As for importing British or Canadian TV: Heck yeah! We've already got Doctor Who (need to catch up!) and Torchwood (got season 1 at home), but they've got all sorts of good shows in both places and Americans need to diversify their TV diet. Some people don't like British TV because they don't get the jokes and it's a different sense of humor sometimes (correct me if I'm wrong Lozzie!), but when I first started watching anime I didn't get alot of the stuff either. After I time, when I had slowly learned the conventions of Japanese life, then I got it... and it was worth waiting for.

I really hope this catches on.

I agree with Flashymom--no on the destruction by nuclear weapons. This gets into deep theology, Valley, but He won't be killing us off. He will be destroying (once and for all) sin and the damage it has done to us and this earth. And He will be restoring the earth to what He created it to be before sin entered.

I know Tasha already sent you some cookies and a puppy. But I believe there can never be too many cookies or puppies in the world, so here you go Judy.

Intelligent life would be anything that is able to communicate.

Like say some alien life reaches one of our radio signals, its considered intelligent life if it can understand and respond.


---

THANKS to everyone who answered!!!!!!!

skip the cookie, ignore the dog---go straight to Bobby!!!!


valley--the answer is no.

Thanks ladies - I can always count on my friends to make me feel better. I have the cold that's been going around so Doc Goren has been seeing after my other needs , but a cute puppy and chocolate chip cookies are always good for a smile.

Wasn't sure where to post or if anyone else was aware. I just saw this when I went to check e-mail and thought Mothership fans would be interested:


Television News
Jesse L. Martin Leaving 'Law & Order'
The actor is exiting the drama series he called home for the past nine years, and ''K-Ville'' star Anthony Anderson is in talks to fill the void. JESSE L. MARTIN The actor is exiting Dick Wolf's NBC series and will next play Marvin Gaye in the biopic ''Sexual Healing''Will Hart

) – After months of speculation, it is now official that Jesse L. Martin is leaving NBC's Law & Order after nine years on the show. Sources say his character, Detective Ed Green, will be written off. In the wake of Martin's departure, Anthony Anderson, star of Fox's freshman cop dramaK-Ville, is in final talks to come on board as a new detective partnered with Jeremy Sisto's Cyrus Lupo. Martin is expected to shoot one more episode with Anderson stepping in later this season. Although Fox has never officially pulled the plug on K-Ville, Anderson's casting in Law & Order pretty much makes that a done deal. Martin recently finished work on the feature Peter and Vandy, and will next play Marvin Gaye in the indie biopic Sexual Healing, which also stars James Gandolfini.

Mmm..chocolate cookies..yammy!!Aaa..aaa..look at that cute puppy!! Hmm..he has..big puppy eyes like VDO!!

I take it all-the cookies,the puppy and VDO!!

No more Ed Green? ::SOB!!!::

No Ed Green??Oy,shuks..so sad!!

I don't want to get preachy here, but God doesn't want to kill off anybody, that's why He sent Jesus. Those who have accepted the mercy and grace freely given by Jesus through His crucifixion and resurrection ("saved") don't have anything to worry about when the end of the world comes. If you're not sure about your soul, just grab a Bible and start reading the Gospels. (I'd say more, but, will keep that for a different forum.).

I wonder if they're going to bring back his character from SVU - Detective Lucius Blaine

Yes my soul will be hanging out in the Summerlands, basking in the warm love of the Goddess... and still playing World of Warcraft.

ITA with you. I'm a catholic but I think people need to look for what unite us instead of fight.

[quote name='JanxAngel' date='Feb 21 2008, 04:32 PM' post='754300']
Valley - The answer is no. If it is the fate for humanity to become extinct, we will be the architects of our own destruction, but it will not be nuclear war. Disease or climate shift are the most likely candidates. As was mentioned, there MAY be some nuclear explosions, but it won't be the BIG boom that takes us all out. Nukes are a big club to threaten with. Someone wants to win in a war, and with nukes there is no winner because there's nothing left to win. Infrastructure and the population to run it are shattered. Same thing with Bio-Weapons. Unless the side releasing the agent has a foolproof cure, they wouldn't risk killing their own population as well. And as we all know, diseases mutate at a very fast rate, resisting all attempts to wipe it out.

God will have nothing to do with it. Our free will is what will doom us ultimately. I'm not anti-religious, and I am faithful, though not Christian, but people have got to stop thinking that a Deity is going to either fix things or end them. It's people that have ultimate control over their own fates and destinies. Deity is watching, and may exert influence to a small degree, but truly it's people who are in control of the world. Deity cares about people, and I totally believe that help will be given if asked for, but humans need to learn that Deity doesn't want us to fight for them. They want us to live happy, productive lives and try to grow and learn and become better souls.

Ok ok... Phew... Sorry I went off a tangent there, but I really am not trying to down anybody's faith. These are my views and you don't have to agree with any part of it at all. You're fully welcome to post your disagreement and I'm sure we can have a civil discussion. Moving on...





You wrote so well,thank you!!I'm a Christian by religion,I don't blindly follow religion.I just respect my religion,but I don't let any faith to rule my life.There are NO WINNERS IN WAR!!Only sadnes and destrucion!!People control thre own destinys!!Today around the world I see only,and so much hate and destucion!!People should wake up,and don't leat anybody tell them what to do,and run there life,as a escuse using the religion!!People should be look beound staus,religion,or color of skin.Should reach out,to give other peolpe a help in hand!They should stop using there religion to opress other people,and doing genocide!!We are all humans,and when we all put everysingle difference aside,them we can all leave together in pease,and save this beatiful planet.

OT Rant (Can you be OT in an OT thread?)

FOX has done it again! I got a text from my roommate who was watching CI at 10 this morning, which I tape daily so I can watch when I get home from a long day and she said FOX decided that it would be a good time to interrupt my show with a "breaking" story about an earthquake that happened earlier in the morning. I haven't seen the tape yet but I think they were talking about the one in Nevada. Now, don't think I'm heartless and don't care about the plight of others. I do care, very much so. I hope that everyone is alright. But FOX continues to put on "breaking" stories that aren't really breaking but just want to get the news on a half-hour earlier as the news follows CI. I'm cheesed and I don't even know what episode I missed yet. Gah!!

Back to your pretty interesting discussion...

No see, this is the only thread where being off topic is actually on topic!

NO!!

For every idiot that wants to puch the button I am hopeful that there will be 2 to stop him/her.

Cloggs

did you get your 30 responses?

with that definition the answer is a definite no, even plants are able to warn each other when a bug starts to eat one of them. Yes, it's just chemistry, but almost everything is "just chemistry and physics".

great text, Janx!

I don't think someone with a nuclear bomb who is insane will fear his own death. Some people think they cannot die. Oh, does anyone remember "When the wind blows"? I had the book as a child and I will never forget that.

back to my studies, have an exam about Resource Economics tomorrow

oh bother, some of us have to do these statistics things and get a really interesting discussion going.. others have Resource Economics to worry about, and what do I get... scheduling 6 guys to go all over the UK to check/vet customer counting equipment (don't ask!!!). Which would not be that bad if my boss did not throw me a curve ball every hour and gets me to reschedule half the guys... ::SIGH::

Thanks God I m going shopping this weekend with one of my best friends who is coming over for a flying visit.

Cloggs

Sorry you're having a frustrating day Cloggs. I have recently discovered shopping as a relaxing way to spend the weekend. My roommate and I sometimes just go to look at stuff. Great. Now I want to go shopping and I still have one more class to go to...

I'll tell you what, I will sympathise with you in your classes and you can sympathise with me andI 'll go shopping for both of us!!!!

Cloggs

Sounds good to me!

I second that if you still need my vote.



This makes me feel sad



That makes me mad when they do that. Maybe I am traumatized from 9/11, but I feel that when the news breaks in to regularly scheduled programming, it dern well better be for a national disaster or emergency. I also think that something like a school shooting or another situation along those lines that may involve people nationally should be reported. Anything else really isn't necessary to break in, especially when the news can be gotten a half hour later on the regularly scheduled news.

no, see... Love that line!

Yeah. I say no,see all the time.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Valley, if you need another vote, my answer is no, our world will not end by nuclear war.

I also don't believe that God will destroy us. God (or whatever you call your higher power) loves us & is responsible for our being here on this earth. He gave all of us free will, His greatest gift to us, so that we may select our own fate.

If anything ends this world, it will be an eventual disintegration of our natural resources. Like that movie, "The Day After Tomorrow."

I called a client this afternoon to confirm our appointment for Monday. I asked her if she had gotten my letter scheduling our appointment at her house on Monday and she said, "Yes, that's why I called you--to see if you were coming".