Rancide

See, I thought there was a good reason everyone else just decorated. As Blake (who also built a bra from the ground up) helpfully demonstrated, if you've got anything bigger than a AA, you need a cup. A REAL cup. Not a triangle of lace held up with some straps. I thought Merlene was incredibly lucky that her model had no boobs. Put her design on Blake's model and she would have looked like... well... Blake's model. If you look at any of the stills on Heidi's website, you can see that she is already halfway there even though her boobs are smaller than the average 16 year old boy's.

The latter is probably technically the more correct pronunciation (though also the less common one). Van Gogh was Dutch, and his last name isn't really pronounceable using sounds found in the English language, but "Van Goff" is probably closer than "Van Gogh" and is the accepted pronunciation in UK British. The "gh" in Dutch is kind of a gutteral sounds that still exists in many Germanic languages as well as some non-Germanic languages like Hebrew. Americans just give up and end the name on an o sound. The British at least try to do something to replicate the noises at the end. All this to say, I'm pretty sure her pronunciation choice was deliberate.

Wait. There's someone named Eric on this show?

I'm pretty sure Marissa wasn't cast for her tatooing ability. But she and Tyler sure bring the pretty, at least for those who are into that look.

Or, not really.

I have strongly negative feelings about missionary work that I won't get into here because they're sort of beside the point, but if it's any consolation at all, I--as a single woman with no male companion--lived in Nicaragua for about 6 months and did a lot of charity work while I was there. It's really not that bad. Is it more dangerous than the US? Yes. Is there a high likelihood of death or dismemberment? No. It's a "don't be dumb" rule. Don't walk around alone after dark if you're a woman, don't wear jewelry, don't turn down deserted streets you don't know anything about, don't talk to strange me on buses. I had 0 problems. The only person I knew who did have one was someone who made the bad decision to walk the same way to work through a poor neighborhood every day and then the doubly bad decision to stop and chat with someone for 15 minutes one day before heading on his way. And all that happened to him is that he got his iPod (which he shouldn't have been carrying), passport (which he shouldn't have been carrying) and wallet stolen. They actually recovered the passport once he told the police he was American. (He's Asian-American, and the police didn't immediately realize he was a US citizen and were less motivated to help him before they found out). Further to this point, while I realize this is not super-reassuring, most people intent on doing serious harm would REALLY rather not fuck with Americans because the American consulate WILL come down on your government to come get you. Killing Americans is a pretty good way to get your nice little commercial enterprise that had been operating freely with only occasional payoffs to the local police shut down with the full wrath of the armed military. I'm sorry your family is leaving, and I'm not trying to minimize that or question your questioning of it. I don't know them (or you). Just saying I really wouldn't spend nights up all night thinking they're going to get killed. You're much more likely to get kidnapped and taken to the ATM to empty your account than you are to be raped or murdered. Not that being robbed is pleasant or okay. But it's better than being raped or murdered.

Honestly, most rehabs in this country are a scam. I get that AA/12-step have helped many people, and I don't begrudge those people their success or think it shouldn't be one treatment option, but the relentless focus on AA-type models in this country is facilitated by an outdated puritanical outlook towards addiction (you're a bad person! It's your fault you can't stay clean! You just don't want it badly enough!), an ignorant court system (tons and tons of people at AA/NA/etc are there on court order sent by judges who have bought in to the idea that addiction is the addict's "fault"), a failing health care system (doctors and drugs too expensive for you! AA is CHEAP), and inertia (what other field of physical/mental/behavioral health is still using a model largely unchanged from the 1930s?). Bottom line: addiction treatment in this country is a mess. I agree with you that the place Josh is going isn't too far off from the norm. And that's a really, really sad thing.

Chris is an obnoxious bully, but his posse is really weak. Dave is a spineless milquetoast, and Tyler and Marissa are just kids.

As funny as it was, I feel bad for the dude with the peeing Neptune. It was actually a pretty decent tattoo, especially compared to the others, but once someone points out something like that, you can never unsee it. Poor guy.

Who is the third Jerome baby? Avery, Olivia's, and.... ? I'm happy I managed to tune one out. Avery still better be Morgan's eventually. Or Avery could just die (once it's no longer played by its current most adorable baby ever seen on television). Sonny has too many damn children.

I honestly don't care. If you live in a world where front-hugs and kneecaps are reserved for the sanctity of marriage, it doesn't take actual intercourse to make you an unfaithful, hypocritical cheater. I'd honestly prefer we not ever learn the details. Because... Josh. ICK.

If there's one bright lining in all of this (aside from the entertainment value it's providing me), maybe it will ease the path of some of the more normal, non-Gothardite-inclined children--you know that of the 19 there has to be at least one--into mainstream society. With no TV show and an older brother who is a hypocritical hot mess, it should be easier for, e.g., John David or Jinger, to come out of the closet as a mouth-kissing, beer drinking, pants-wearing Methodist without having to issue a press release on the subject.

His OKC profile says he's "single" (and 6'0") and is looking for "casual sex." Too soon to start Anna pregnancy watch #5?

Some more okcupid answers from a friend who has an account: Have you been faithful in all of your past relationships? No. What is the most exciting thing about getting to know someone new? Discovering their body. Would you need to sleep with someone before you considered marrying them? Yes. Would you strongly prefer to go out with someone of your own skin color / racial background? No. Regardless of future plans, what's more interesting to you right now? Sex Rate your self-confidence: Very, very high Do you believe that men should be the heads of their households? Yes What do you think of reality television? It's alright Imagine that your partner does not enjoy performing oral sex and refuses to ever perform it on you. How disappointed would you be? Somewhat disappointed Say you've started seeing someone you really like. As far as you're concerned, how long will it take before you have sex? 1-2 dates Do you believe that it is possible for two previously platonic friends to start having casual sex without affecting other aspects of their relationship? Yes. In terms of birth order, which are you? The oldest child Once you're intimate, how often would you and your significant other have sex? Every day What's the highest level of education you've completed? College Are you smarter than most people? Yes Do you have a really good relationship with both your parents? Yes Have you ever tried any sexual roleplaying, such as student/teacher or patient/nurse? No, but it sounds interesting. Is it okay to live with someone you're dating, even before you're engaged or married? Yes

I don't understand why everyone was so eager to send St. Marq home. I'm sure he's hugely unpleasant to live with, but he hasn't won anything yet. He's been a middle-of-the-road tattooer with an outsize mouth. I don't get why eliminating him was such a huge strategic priority. I did enjoy that the judge's stupid attempts to stir up drama by having the contestants pick who was up for elimination backfired on them, and I also enjoyed the whining that followed. I'm sure Chris Nunez is a great tattoo artist, but he's also an arrogant bully and a condescending prick. It was good to see it thrown back in his face. Based on the judges' reactions to not being 100% in control of everything that goes on, it's clear that they wouldn't make it even half a season as a contestant.

Oh, I'd still mind. We don't need 20 80-year-olds on set, but Alan and Monica were in line to be Lila and Edward. Every soap needs a matriarch and patriarch. GH currently has no one filling that role, and no one even in line to fill that role. It's wrong.

He was on a reasonable number of days per week, which was good enough for me. Sonny sucks, always has sucked, always will suck. But at least every story doesn't revolve around him any more. Also, I hate RC as much as anyone, but actors dancing on his grave seems unprofessional to me. Just say you wish RC well and look forward to seeing what the new regime has planned for your character. Sheesh.

I also loved 2006, but 2007 was when I quit for good after Alan, Georgie, and Emily. I didn't return until Guza was gone. I also miss Patrick a lot.

Ah. Thanks. One of the biggest advantages of watching this on youtube is that basically no one annoys me because I never hear any of them speak. Which seems like a good thing since it seems like some of the best competitors are kind of jerks. The only one who has ever really bugged me was Flip because of his on-course antics with the ridiculous mask. To someone who never sees any of the interviews or clips, Drew just seems really good (and really hot). I think I will keep up the youtube only viewing!

I watch this show on youtube--and by that, I mean I watch clips of individual runs of the best contestants specifically to avoid the obnoxious announcers and ridiculous interviews--so I'm out of the loop. Why do we hate Drew?

Catching up on this weeks's shows... I agree with the chorus who sees no heat between Sam and Patrick, but I continue to be baffled by it. They're both so very pretty. Sam is weird. For all that KeMo is hot has hell, now that I think of it, she's never really generated any heat in any of her pairings. The only one I've ever really liked was McBain. To be fair, I loathed and ffed Jason religiously starting circa baby Michael and continuing right up until he got dumped off the pier, so maybe maybe I just missed the wonder of whatever was supposed to be JaSam. But for someone who looks so sexy just standing there, she really doesn't do relationship-sexy very well at all. To me, at least.

Count me among those who didn't understand the "no tools" fake shock/drama. Wasn't someone disqualified one season for bringing a pattern book from home? I understand that scissors are different from a pattern book, but given the whole "make do with what little we give you" ethos of this show, my assumption would also have been that I wasn't allowed to show up with anything at all that could be used during a challenge. Of course, I would also have read the rulebook, where I presumably would have learned to the contrary. But no, Tim, showing up to PR without scissors is not at all like going on vacation with no deodorant. It's more like renting a private beach house for a week and not bringing your own toilet paper or towels. Sure, the rental contract probably told you to supply your own. But it's not entirely unreasonable under the circumstances for someone to have assumed they would be available.

I just wanted to clarify that all of my posts with respect to the right/wrong in the lawsuit relate only to the legal merits of this particular lawsuit, for which ABC's cancellation of the shows is not really a relevant factor. I didn't watch OLTL and have no personal investment in the show, but I understand that people who did have feelings about right/wrong separate and apart from the terms of the contracts.

I'm guessing that's a big part of it. I didn't watch OLTL and so wasn't really following the launch when it happened, but from what I've gathered from others, my general understanding is that much of what PP complained of (killing off characters, stealing actors, etc.) happened after PP had already delayed the launch and generally looked like it might be in trouble. In fact, the story I've always sort of had in my head (maybe wrongly?) was that ABC "sold" OLTL to PP when ABC was thinking of killing off all its soaps, then after PP looked like it wasn't going to happen, ABC decided to "take back" the characters--which they may or may not have had the right to do--and then only once it looked like ABC was having success with that did PP suddenly decide to go forward with the project it looked like it had abandoned. It's not really a defense to breach of contract for ABC to say "hey, your company would have gone under anyway." But it is a mitigating factor in determining the damages. If PP was headed under, ABC is probably only financially liable for the harm done by the [x] number of nails it added to a coffin that was already significantly underway. It's a really hard argument to make that "but for" ABC's actions, PP would have been a successful venture and ABC should therefore be liable for the entire loss. An analogy would be opening a restaurant and having one of your wine suppliers fail to deliver as promised a few weeks after you opened. Did they breach a contract? Sure. Did you suffer damage? Probably. Do they owe you money? Possibly. If the entire restaurant closes down a couple of weeks later, is the wine supplier liable for the entire loss? Almost certainly not. You can--and companies almost always do--allege in your lawsuit that if only the supplier had been on time, the restaurant would not have failed, but that's a pretty far-fetched theory that's hard to prove. How much damage did ABC (as compared to other factors) do to PP? Who knows? What PP can do--and has done--is block ABC from using the characters themselves in the future. It would be difficult to argue at this point that ABC's use of the characters can or would do ANY damage to PP since PP doesn't exist or have any intentions of existing in the future. (I'm assuming the contract, which I have not read, didn't give PP the permission to pass the rights on to others so that there is no value to PP if PP can't use them itself). But PP can still seek an injunction keeping ABC from violating the contract in the future, which blocks ABC from using the characters now or until the case is resolved. My guess is that PP views the injunction (i.e. prohibition against future misconduct) as more valuable to its legal position than recovery past damages (i.e. whatever amount of economic harm it suffered as a result of ABC's violations. Hence the "stick up" aspect to the lawsuit: "notwithstanding that we don't really want these characters ourselves, we'll prevent you from using them yourselves unless you buy us out." Unfortunately for PP, it seems either ABC doesn't care enough about OTLT intellectual property rights to buy PP out, or possibly PP is making completely unreasonable settlement demands. It's impossible to say which. All this to say that what's likely being fought over in settlement is not really how much harm ABC did or did not do PP back in the day but rather how much ABC is or is not willing to pay to get the rights back. That's probably another reason why it's hard to find counsel--because the answer to that question is "who the hell knows?"

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the ethical rules allow lawyers to file any suit that isn't objectively frivolous and utterly without conceivable merit of any sort. That's a really low bar to entry. If a company isn't bankrupt and is paying its own legal bills, it's not that hard to find a firm willing to take your really, really crappy (but not objectively frivolous!) lawsuit because hey, you're paying. To provide a concrete example of how this works, see the time Donald Trump sued Bill Maher when Maher refused to pay up after joking that he'd donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he wasn't the love child of his mother and an orangutan. Good lawsuit? No. Could Trump find a firm willing to take his money pursue it? Sure. No, in the sense that the court can (and already did) approve a contingency fee arrangement for the firm that signs on, so the firm's potential recovery is not really constrained by court. The agreement in question allowed the firm to keep 1/3 of whatever they recovered but required a $400k upfront investment to cover costs. A firm could theoretically make FAR MORE off this case than they would under a straight fee arrangement. PP sued for... $50 million? 1/3 of $50 million is way more than they'd make billing by the hour. If any firm reasonably thought they could recover that, they'd jump at it, bankruptcy or no. What the bankruptcy process is really doing here is forcing law firms (rather than plaintiffs) to value the suit. And it seems like they don't value it very highly. (Apologies for the long and probably unnecessarily technical posts about the suit. It just so happens that this is what I do for a living--not just being a lawyer but even this specific kind of litigation, and I so rarely have anything of concrete value to add around here...)