I lived in Paris for a couple of years. A good bit of it in different
friends' apartments.
My parents lived in the 16th arrondissement off Avenue Foch. The McD's
I was thinking of was on the Champs-Elysees and was quite the thing at
the time, especially at the private school I went to eight or nin
> Dana wrote:
> yeah, I don't remember anything like that in Paris. Except for McD's
> milkshakes, and every time I have one of those I feel like I have just
> had an infusion of some sort of chemical. What do they make those
> with? Do they actually contain milk?
I dunno, but they don't look too
yeah, I don't remember anything like that in Paris. Except for McD's
milkshakes, and every time I have one of those I feel like I have just
had an infusion of some sort of chemical. What do they make those
with? Do they actually contain milk?
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:55:53 -0600, Gruss Gott <
> Dana wrote:
> Personally I am just as impressed as hell that the strawberry slushie
> contains actual strawberries.
I took a French colleague to an America burger joint (I ordered him a
1lb er!) and he got an oreo milkshake and said, "zees ees veddy
strange. You eet it, but you drink eet also.
Personally I am just as impressed as hell that the strawberry slushie
contains actual strawberries. And my nearest Sonic is about a block
and a half way, nyah nyah nyah :)
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:10:15 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> > Forget the fruit. I want
> Ray wrote:
> Forget the fruit. I want one of those
> Cherry/Grape/BubbleGum/whateverotherflavor Frozen Cokes and that big greasy
> egg/cheese/bacon sanwiches on Fried Texas Toast. That sounds like a damn
> healthy breakfast to me.
I saw The Biggest Loser last night and there was guy who ate 5
yeah, their food is surprisingly good for fast food, and you got to
love a place you can get fresh fruit for under a dollar.
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:34:00 -0500, Bill Wheatley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I knew there was a reason i loved sonic...and not just for the tastest
> freaking food
Forget the fruit. I want one of those
Cherry/Grape/BubbleGum/whateverotherflavor Frozen Cokes and that big greasy
egg/cheese/bacon sanwiches on Fried Texas Toast. That sounds like a damn
healthy breakfast to me. I wish they would build one around here
somewhere, I haven't got a clue as to wh
I knew there was a reason i loved sonic...and not just for the tastest
freaking food you'll ever eat.
GOOD NEWS!!! they are thinking of building sonics in South florida!.
If i just raise 1 million dollars i could be a franchise for them and
rake in the bucks. Such a great franchise.
On Tue, 14 D
I know, and OJ didn't kill anyone.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:07:14 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> >
> > I was responding to: "essentially that means she didn't violate the law"
> >
>
> In the US there is a presumption of innocence. If a prosecutor can't
> make a stro
AH! Was just searching the marketwatch site and it seems Spitzer is
running for governor. This explains much.
Dana
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:03:19 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dana wrote:
> > Speaking of responsive, this raises an interesting question. What if
> > Martha Stewart had
> Sam wrote:
>
> I was responding to: "essentially that means she didn't violate the law"
>
In the US there is a presumption of innocence. If a prosecutor can't
make a strong enough case to prove guilt, you're presumed innocent; at
least by those that respect the constitution.
Sam Morris wrote:
> He bought the stock when it crashed hoping one day it would rally.
> Sounds more like a crazy gambler then having inside knowledge.
My post was unclear. I'm not accusing Ichan of any underhanded play.
I'm just pointing out that it's funny how Stewart went all crazy over
the
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:23:39 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For me the point is that they couldn't prosecute her for securities
> violations because they didn't have a case - essentially that means
> she didn't violate the law so she did know better and acted on that
> knowledge.
the world is temporarily safe bitchy phone manners.
Dana
> Yeah, she's a regular Al Capone...
~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net
http://www.cfhosting.net
Message: http://www.houseoffusion
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:28:50 -0800, William Bowen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was responding to: "essentially that means she didn't violate the law"
It's like saying no way OJ could have done it.
> "not enough evidence to prove it" means you should still presume
> innocence, no? Or does this
> It's obvious she's guilty, her broker's assistant admitted it, just...
She was charged with nine counts and only found guilty on one
(Obstruction of justice), with one count (Securities fraud) being
dismissed by the judge. Her sentence was five months and she is almost
through with that. Additio
> Dana wrote:
> I am not sure. A lot of the licensig requirements have to do with what
> you can't do and what insider trading is.
For me the point is that they couldn't prosecute her for securities
violations because they didn't have a case - essentially that means
she didn't violate the law so s
Dana wrote:
> Speaking of responsive, this raises an interesting question. What if
> Martha Stewart had been a Republican donor?
>
> :) I'll hush up now.
>
What if? I'm not a Martha fan at all, but I think she got short
changed. She was an easy mark and something needed to be done to
placat
I am not sure. A lot of the licensig requirements have to do with what
you can't do and what insider trading is. Granted that ignorance is
not excuse, there is no possibility of an honest mistake with this if
she was a licensed broker.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:20:59 -0800, William Bowen
<[EMAIL PRO
> ? may have prevented her from saying she did not know better.
Perhaps, but at the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Her
status as a former broker should have no effect on the charges against
her.
You're either guilty or not, you're not _more_ guilty if you "know better"
--
--
? may have prevented her from saying she did not know better.
Dana
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:05:49 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Bowen wrote:
>
>
> >>>She was a licensed broker so she new what she was doing was illegal.
> >
> >
> >>I'm sure it weighed in that she was a forme
I didn't realize Spitzer was a Democrat. I was just making a cynical remark.
I did see her interview with Larry King. She expressed the opinion
that she would not have been charged if she were a man, in other words
that her status as a prominent female business owner caused her to be
singled out.
William Bowen wrote:
>>>She was a licensed broker so she new what she was doing was illegal.
>
>
>>I'm sure it weighed in that she was a former broker for MER but doesn't
>>mean you should let others slide. She was a sophisticated investor and
>>as such she should know she can't trade on inside
> > She was a licensed broker so she new what she was doing was illegal.
> I'm sure it weighed in that she was a former broker for MER but doesn't
> mean you should let others slide. She was a sophisticated investor and
> as such she should know she can't trade on inside info. But my point
> is,
He bought the stock when it crashed hoping one day it would rally.
Sounds more like a crazy gambler then having inside knowledge.
She was high profile and an easy conviction, and like you said,
Spitzer is a Democrat.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:21:40 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Mo
Sam Morris wrote:
> She was a licensed broker so she new what she was doing was illegal.
> I'm sure if she wasn't they would have let her slide.
>
I'm sure it weighed in that she was a former broker for MER but doesn't
mean you should let others slide. She was a sophisticated investor and
as s
She was a licensed broker so she new what she was doing was illegal.
I'm sure if she wasn't they would have let her slide.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:03:19 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dana wrote:
> > Speaking of responsive, this raises an interesting question. What if
> > Martha Stew
Corporate donations list from the Center for Responsive Politics:
Retail:
Price Club/Costco donated $225K, of which 99% went to democrats;
WalMart, $467K, 97% to republicans;
K-Mart, $524K, 86% to republicans;
Home Depot, $298K, 89% to republicans;
Target, $226K, 70% to republicans;
Circuit
Speaking of responsive, this raises an interesting question. What if
Martha Stewart had been a Republican donor?
:) I'll hush up now.
Dana
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:36:22 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Corporate donations list from the Center for Responsive Politics:
>
> Retail:
30 matches
Mail list logo
