It's not Blake that he's talking about.
I used to have the video and the guy in question did look a lot like Ben Affleck in certain camera angles, but the shots directly in front let you know it wasn't him. I have no idea where it came from other than someone posted it to a group I belonged to on Yahoo groups a few years ago.
I'm gonna have to try this one. Sounds like a great christmas treat.
But if we can question the gender requirements of the marriage definition, why not the number of participants? Isn't that just another alternate lifestyle? And if we start opening up that can, then there is a destruction of marriage in a sense.
Heteros have been changing the definition of marriage throughout history.
Incestuous marriage used to be legal. Polygamy used to be legal. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. A Roman Emperor married his horse, which was legal under their laws at the time. An Egyptian queen married her cat {was that a lesbian marriage, as it had 2 pussies in it 
}.
Also, there has been gay marriage throughout history. It's only that last few hundred years that it became frowned upon.
I have found several other articles on the topic that say that all Internet Explorer current versions {5 - 8 beta} are vulnerable.
hXXp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7784908.stm
Serious security flaw found in IE
Users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer are being urged by experts to switch to a rival until a serious security flaw has been fixed.
The flaw in Microsoft's Internet Explorer could allow criminals to take control of people's computers and steal their passwords, internet experts say.
Microsoft urged people to be vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch to resolve it.
Internet Explorer is used by the vast majority of the world's computer users.
"Microsoft is continuing its investigation of public reports of attacks against a new vulnerability in Internet Explorer," said the firm in a security advisory alert about the flaw.
Microsoft says it has detected attacks against IE 7.0 but said the "underlying vulnerability" was present in all versions of the browser.
Other browsers, such as Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, are not vulnerable to the flaw Microsoft has identified.
Browser bait
"In this case, hackers found the hole before Microsoft did," said Rick Ferguson, senior security advisor at Trend Micro. "This is never a good thing."
As many as 10,000 websites have been compromised since the vulnerability was discovered, he said.
"What we've seen from the exploit so far is it stealing game passwords, but it's inevitable that it will be adapted by criminals," he said. "It's just a question of modifying the payload the trojan installs."
Said Mr Ferguson: "If users can find an alternative browser, then that's good mitigation against the threat."
But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
He added: "We're trying to get this resolved as soon as possible.
"At present, this exploit only seems to affect 0.02% of internet sites," said Mr Curran. "In terms of vulnerability, it only seems to be affecting IE7 users at the moment, but could well encompass other versions in time."
Richard Cox, chief information officer of anti-spam body The Spamhaus Project and an expert on privacy and cyber security, echoed Trend Micro's warning.
"It won't be long before someone reverse engineers this exploit for more fraudulent purposes. Trend Mico's advice [of switching to an alternative web browser] is very sensible," he said.
PC Pro magazine's security editor, Darien Graham-Smith, said that there was a virtual arms race going on, with hackers always on the look out for new vulnerabilities.
"The message needs to get out that this malicious code can be planted on any web site, so simple careful browsing isn't enough."
"It's a shame Microsoft have not been able to fix this more quickly, but letting people know about this flaw was the right thing to do. If you keep flaws like this quiet, people are put at risk without knowing it."
"Every browser is susceptible to vulnerabilities from time to time. It's fine to say 'don't use Internet Explorer' for now, but other browsers may well find themselves in a similar situation," he added.
Let's be clear here, moderators are not admin. It must also be noted that members of staff don't always agree on every topic.
I agree with the OP that there should not be any automatic transferring of data. It should be an opt in system.
That being said, I have no idea why the system is as it is. Maybe there is greater need for money to run the servers and the admins thought this was the best solution.
Why did blacks get upset about riding at the back of the bus? After all, they got to ride the bus.
Separate but equal, is never truly equal.
A good example is the UK's civil partnership laws. Things are same in some respects, but are similar in many others and in some cases not there at all. If they included us into the marriage laws, then we'd be truly equal.
Due to the weird economic times we are having around the world, it's impossible to say what the currency conversion is going to be as it changes each day.
Just this week we have seen $ gain on the Euro. It used to be $1.5 to 1, as of Tuesday they were nearly even. That's not to say that it won't make another major swing in either direction.
To be on the safe side, always expect it to be double what the amount is; ie $2 to 1. This way you won't break your bank. It won't be that dramatic, but that's how I do it to be safe.
Twinks are young and slim, while Youngbloods are young and morebuilt
Basically I think of youngblood as Frat boy
The rules were written by non English as first language people. Some languages are spoken in very blunt manners and it's acceptable to them as a culture. They aren't being offensive, as that is just how they speak in normal terms. When this translates into other languages, they still carry the tone with them.
I ALWAYS see on the main page and really ANY page with YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE DELTED AND BANNED IF YOU DONT (fill in the blank RULE)!
On the main page, the message is about duplicate accounts, which we ban as does every site I know of. We have the problem of most new accounts being duplicates. I can't remember if it's 2:1 or 3:1, regardless that number is way too high.
And there are many regular torrent sites that do not threaten their users and members.
Every site I belong to tells it's members what will get them banned. Like those, we don't always ban for the things that are in the rules.
Sure, the wording of the rules section could be worded better.
I think you are misreading what I wrote.
I never said you were trying to deny gay rights. I said fanatical believers use any bad article about gays to justify denying gays equal rights.
I won't respond to the rest f your post because I didn't say any of the things you are claiming.
I also think by trying to say that article was written with the sole intention of only pointing the finger at gay porn is silly. Unfortunatly, once again, gay people were used to get the point across cause let's face it: gay sells, and starts controversy.
All porn is still taboo and sells newspapers/magazines.
I belong to several skeptic {about religion} forums and articles like this are constantly used by fanatical believers when they try to justify denying gays equal rights.
I don't understand how the German High Court can order UK ISPs to turn over the personal data of their users?
Why didn't Davenport Lyons take this through the UK courts.
hXXp://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawyers-start-protecting-gay-gestapo-porn-081118/
Anti-Piracy Lawyers Start Protecting Gay Gestapo Porn
Written by enigmax on November 18, 2008
After going after thousands accused of sharing video games in the UK, lawyers Davenport Lyons are now branching out into other areas. This week sees them start going after those it accuses of sharing the movie Army Fuckers, hardcore gay porn featuring farm boys and Gestapo officers. Accusing the wrong people this time could prove very costly indeed.
The file-sharing media went crazy recently when UK lawyers Davenport Lyons admitted it wrongly identified married pensioners who, they claim were illegally sharing a video game. The lawyers publicly apologized over the fallibility of their evidence, with highly respected consumer magazine Which? going on record to say that hundreds of people may have been incorrectly identified and threatened.
The latest development is one that file-sharing commentators have quietly been expecting. While some 40-60% of those threatened over video game sharing in the UK appear to pay up, there are other ways of increasing this amount substantially via social leverage. Unsurprisingly, Davenport Lyons are now going down this road which is likely maximize compliance rates.
According to recipients of fresh letters this weekend, the lawyers have now expanded into movie protection - a gay hardcore porn movie to be precise. Set on a farm in the former Czechoslovakia, Gestapo officers apparently hand out forced punishment in Army Fuckers, a 2006 movie originally released by Dutch porn outfit Dream Logistics BV, on the Eurocreme label.
Strangely, however, Dream Logistics BV arent the rights holder anymore, or the ones that hired Davenport Lyons. It appears the new rights holder is German anti-piracy company DigiProtect, who managed to get this High Court order for disclosure of alleged file-sharers identities, based on evidence provided by lesser-known anti-piracy tracking company DigiRights Solution, of Darmstadt, Germany. Indeed, DigiRights Solution GmbH appear to have no obvious Internet presence.
Davenport Lyons are demanding £500 compensation, plus the costs from the ISP for disclosing the alleged infringers personal details. Recipients of the letter are given 21 days to pay up and are threatened with huge court costs and damages if they dont, which is no different to all the other threats made by Davenport on other media they protect. It is worth noting that of a claimed 25,000 threats of legal action, no more than half a dozen have gone to court and of those, none were contested, meaning that Davenport Lyons won default judgments on them all. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has ever contested a case with many people simply refusing to pay up.
Finally, those accused and deciding to settle are asked to sign an undertaking that they will never infringe copyright on any media owned by DigiProtect in the future, which might be easier than you think - considering the number of titles they own the rights to. As previously pointed out by P2P-Blog, DigiProtect seem to be acquiring the P2P Rights to many titles (including those of US porn company Evil Angel) and gathering their money via P2P tracking and subsequent legal threats.
Since most people will want to avoid lining the pockets of DigiProtect and friends, here is a list of titles that include those that appear to be now owned by DigiProtect and ripe for IP harvesting.
Although not DigiProtect titles, the eagle-eyed reader will notice the inclusion on this list of Dream Pinball 3D, Colin McRae Rally and Call of Juarez - all titles targeted by Davenport Lyons. According to the list, DigiProtect also owns the rights to Ataris dire Alone in the Dark 5?.
Of course, we live in a world that has become much more liberal in recent years, so the stigma attached to porn of all flavors has diminished significantly. However, the damage that will be done to a family will be considerable if someone is incorrectly accused of sharing porn that doesnt fit the acceptance levels in that household.
There is a firestorm coming, there can be little doubt, and a simple apology from Davenport Lyons following an incorrect accusation wont be enough.
hXXp://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9597.html
Nepal's highest court confirms full rights for LGBT people
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk November 17, 2008 - 14:43
A Nepali MP has said his "eyes were filled with tears" when he read the full written decision of the country's Supreme Court on a writ petition from four organisations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people.
A summary decision was issued in December 2007, when the court issued directive orders to the Nepal government to ensure the right to life according to their own identities and introduce laws providing equal rights to LGBTIs and amend all the discriminatory laws.
The final judgement was issued today.
It reiterates that all LGBTIs are defined as a "natural person" and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.
The writ petition was filed by Blue Diamond Society and other 3 LGBTI organisations in Nepal demanding the protection and defence of the equal rights of sexual and gender minorities.
"Reading this decision my eyes were filled with tears and I felt we are the most proud LGBTI citizens of Nepal in the world," said Sunit Pant, Nepal's only gay MP.
"A legal note of point has been raised for the new constitution of Nepal while ensuring the equal rights to individuals, like the bill of tights from South Africa, and non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientations and gender identities must be introduced."
The Court has also issued a directive order to form a seven-member committee, with a doctor appointed by Health Ministry, one representative from National Human rights commission, the Law Ministry, one socialist appointed by government of Nepal, a representative from the Nepal police, a representative from Ministry of Population and Environment and one advocate as a representative from the LGBTI community, to conduct a study into the other countries' practice on same-sex marriage.
Based on its recommendation the government will introduce a same-sex marriage bill.
Mr Pant, founder of Blue Diamond Society, was named in May as one of five representatives of the Communist Party of Nepal-United in the 601 member new constituent assembly.
The Maoists are the largest party with 220 seats.
Maoist insurgents, who fought a ten-year guerrilla war against monarchist forces at a cost of over 12,000 lives, finally signed a peace agreement with the new democratic government in November 2006.
LGBT people joined the Maoist rebels and others to protest in a democracy movement against the king, demanding a freely elected, secular government.
King Gyanendra eventually relinquished sovereign power to the civilian government and elections were finally held for a new assembly on 10th April.
Gays and lesbians in the Himalayan kingdom previously suffered persistent persecution from security forces during the absolutist rule of King Gyanendra. The harassment of lesbian, gay and trans people continued at the hands of Maoist rebels.
The assembly will draft a new constitution, decide the fate of the monarchy and govern Nepal for the next two years.
Mr Pant is a hero to many gay activists across the world. On a visit to India last week he said:
We have moved from being a marginalised and persecuted lot who were thrown out of homes, schools and jobs to people who have human rights and are now protected by the police, the same people who once harassed us.
"In Nepal, the LGBTI communities were part of the campaign for garnering votes for the Communist Party of Nepal.
"They approached me to campaign and I managed to secure 15,500 votes. It makes a statement that LGBTI people are interested in matters of politics and governance and not just sex.
"The campaign not only gave LGBTI issues visibility but a platform to negotiate for rights.
"It is one thing to clean up the city and stop transgenders from begging but one must provide them with alternative means of living.
"India is a very big country and a single strategy may not work. However, Im sure it wont be long before a political party will tap the LGBTI vote bank¯there are millions of untapped votes.
In May 2007 the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission gave its Celebration of Courage award to Mr Pant.
I find this all to confusing.
Arnie vetoed at least 2 laws allowing gay marriage. I think he vetoed 3 such laws.
He supported Prop 8.
Now he's saying that gay should have the right to marry, but he won't lift a finger to help gays get that right by sending a "friend of the court" brief/letter.
hXXp://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9593.html
Governor Schwarzenegger predicts Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk November 17, 2008 - 12:44
The Governor of California has said that the state Supreme Court was right to rule a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
On election day, November 4th, Californians voted in favour of Proposition 8, a ballot measure that seeks to change the state constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
With 100% of votes at polling stations counted, 5,424,916 (52.4%) voted in favour of a constitutional definition of marriage being between a man and woman. 4,832,086 (47.6%) voted against.
More than 2m postal and absentee votes have yet to be counted. However, the campaign to stop Prop 8 has conceded defeat.
"For me, marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't want to ever force my will on anyone," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said on ABC television's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"I think that the Supreme Court was right and that everyone should have the right.
"So the Supreme Court, you know, I think ought to go and look at that again. And we'll go back to the same decision. I think that they will. And I think that the important thing now is to resolve this issue in that way."
His wife Maria Shriver, a niece of former President John F Kennedy, has been a strong supporter of gay marriage.
Governor Schwarzenegger said he would not be joining 44 members of the California State Legislature who have filed a "friend of the court" brief in the state Supreme Court backing legal challenges to Proposition 8.
The legislators said that the ballot measure "eviscerates the judicial branch's ability to uphold the fundamental rights of all Californians under equal protection clause" of the state constitution.
They claimed that if Proposition 8 takes effect, "this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities.
"Furthermore, treating Proposition 8 as a mere amendment would divest the Legislature of its constitutional authority to subject such a fundamental abrogation of the equal protection clause to its deliberative processes."
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Centre for Lesbian Rights have filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8.
The California state legislators have filed their brief in support of their case.
The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitutions core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group lesbian and gay Californians.
Proposition 8 also "improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities."
According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organising principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.
"The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works," the groups said in a statement.
"Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution.
"But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters.
"That didnt happen with Proposition 8, and thats why its invalid."
The lawsuit was filed in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before last Tuesdays election but would like to be able to marry now.
The groups said they are confident that the state will continue to honour the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California.
It should be noted that, like every President, Obama will get to pick his own Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He can either choose bigots or fair minded people.
hXXp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/111808dnnatobamagays.2945b32.html
Admirals, generals urge Obama to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
05:09 PM CST on Monday, November 17, 2008
Associated Press
ANNAPOLIS, Md. More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.
"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's transition team, declined comment.
The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.
But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.
Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.
Larson said he hoped Obama would take more time to work with the Pentagon. Joining Larson among the signatories was Clifford Alexander, Army secretary under former President Jimmy Carter.
"There are a lot of issues they'll have to work out, and I think they'll have to prioritize," Larson said, noting that the new administration will immediately face combat-readiness issues and budget concerns. "But I hope this would be one of the priority issues in the personnel area."
The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.
Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.
"I know a lot of young people now even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.
The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.
The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.
Political observers say that even though the issue may not be as controversial as it was when Clinton addressed it, it's impossible to forget what happened then.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said Obama is unlikely to tackle the issue early on. Sabato said he expects Obama to focus on economic recovery and avoid risking the spark of a distracting "brush fire" controversy at the outset.
"I can't imagine that he will do this right in the beginning, given the Clinton precedent," Sabato said.
Aaron Belkin, who has studied the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as director of the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and organized the officers' statement, said how Obama addresses the issue will be the first test for the new president on gay rights.
"Everyone is going to be interested to see how he responds," Belkin said.
There are some inherent problems with this though;
1. As it stands now, we can't even get enough bone marrow for people with Leukemia.
2. The average cost for a simple bone marrow transplant is $250,000. Imagine how much this specialized type of bone marrow transplant is going to cost.
3. The vast majority of AIDS patients are in the poorest regions, so they will be flooding western countries to get treatment on backs of the taxpayers in these countries.