Dusty Chalk

Like I said, a bad portent.

Lots more Anathema: We're Here Because We're Here, Hindsight, A Moment in Time, Were You There?, and A Natural Disaster (which is sounding a lot better after the passage of time, and being allowed to digest the radical change from one of the architects of the Gothenburg sound, to a more mainstream prog rock band, to a band that sounds like Radiohead meets David Gilmour era Pink Floyd).

Did they say 'nettles'?

Yes, correct. I can't speak for Duggeh, but in my case, that's just my particular brand of humor.

I was having this argument earlier -- to me, the difference between 'fantasy' and 'science fiction' is an element of the supernatural. Agreed? So the counter-argument is that how can we know that anything is supernatural? Maybe it's just as yet unknown. So my counterargument to that was, "fantasy is anything that violates science both as we know it today, or anything that may violate predictably known science or something to that effect", but I was already faltering, because the whole thing about science is that we don't know what we don't know, otherwise we'd know it. So he said, "okay, so anything with faster-than-light travel or time travel is fantasy and not science fiction, even if they don't violate any other known scientific laws". To which, I of course, had no argument, so settled with, 'yo mama was science fiction...until I did her last night, then she was my fantasy'.* So...anyone want to throw out a definition that will help either side of the argument? *Not really, I didn't think of that until just now.

Red cream soda? They couldn't be bothered to make it taste like cherry or strawberry or whatnot, so they just called it 'red'? Doesn't bode well...

That was my first thought. You don't have many just plain dull people over there?

If you cross your eyes, it almost pops out at you looks 3D.

Oh, well if it's science fiction or fantasy, than you should definitely get an iPad. [/random snark]

He should have, is the short answer. Dude, it's "stupid meets stupid, with a third stupid on camera"*, pretty much. There's just no excuse for that to have happened, other than for our amusement. * Re: third stupid -- (a) did he have to pull the camera away so quickly? ( Couldn't he have reacted a little more passionately, rather than, "oh shit."? I distinctly did not hear an exclamation point. © Or laughed, the other usual youtube reaction of the camera person, e.g. "dude, ha-ha, he's stealing your car"...

Awesome.

Anathema, Were You There?

Happy Birthday, oh anadigi one.

I know exactly which Jungle Book he's talking about, I grew up on that too (although I didn't grow up on the picture disk). But..."He Poos Clouds"?

MSRP, anyway. And yes, a quick google shows I'm wrong, so of course add Bell & Ross to your list VPI.

I thought it was Cyril Raffaelli...?

WANT.

I thought most Bell & Ross were beyond that price point, but again, I don't follow anything but the phantoms, so could be wrong.

The BHSE sounds pretty different, but IMHO, the KGSS and BH sound pretty close.

I know nothing about that price range. Rolex would be the de facto goto brand, I would think, but I would also look at Breitling (I've only ever seen one I like, though, myself), and Omega. Me, myself, personally, if I had that kind of money, I would probably get an Omega or a Zenith. My recommendation to her would be to go to a high-end watch store (and be steadfast about saying "no" on the initial visit), and just start looking. I have found the line, "I'm just looking -- I've only just begun my search...so I'm just to here to get some initial ideas..." is a nice salesperson turn-off-er, without them kicking you out of the store and still helping you. I know of one in Towson MD, but don't know what the good ones are in NY. Do you have a Tourneau there?

Rachmaninov, "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini", Simon Trpčeski, piano, BBC Symphony Orchestra, Sir Andrew Davis conducting / Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 3, BBC Philharmonic, Gianandrea Noseda conducting (came with this month's BBC Music magazine)

It's not so much "better" as "different". Well, no, I think it's better (and several others will, too) for a variety of reasons. (1) The e-ink technology is an entirely different viewing experience -- not everyone thinks that this, alone, is worth it, but I do. (2) It's designed to do one thing (mostly): reading. So there's no touchscreen, no softbuttons constantly getting reprogrammed, or whatever. There's buttons for page forward and page back, and that's all they ever do. That kind of thing. Again, not everyone is going to find this superior -- I do, but I'm not a power iPad user. I think if you are a power iPad user, you (a) get used to the screen, which, for an LCD, is quite nice, and ( you get used to navigating within the confines of "that world" (iPhone/iTouch/iPad/touchscreens). So the advantage is not as much, and therefore outweighed by the weight of having two devices. (Others feel free to pipe in, this is just my observation of iPad vs. Kindle society -- and yes, I do realize there are people who have both, and that having both sort of undermines my argument, so you especially, feel free to speak up.)

Monkey: you do realize that in addition to digitally replacing the entire crossover, the JH3A also can be used to EQ things like a slightly hot top end.

I didn't see one for "superior".