...

Can you provide more detail? I always thought that, at worst, they can turn it into residencies.

So, I was looking for more renderings, trying to see the solution for attaching the Harbour Centre to the FN Center, when I found this interesting thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1561764 If you're interested on all of the major projects locally, they're pretty much in there, although perhaps a month or two out-dated.

Wait a minute, are you saying people are taking this thread and that banter seriously? No way.

You should bring in some donuts as a prize.

I know it's hard not to when you're swinging those big bats.

I'd say we're this close: --> <--- That's pretty good! Hail progress! I must have missed the "Tuesday is Straw Man Day" memo. Would you care to email it to me for my records? Thanks!

No, I definitely do not see our local affiliates as conservative. It really has nothing to do with being critical, so much as it has to do with what they do, and do not, present as news, and which information they choose to include in a story. I don't disagree that a regular newscast doesn't give them time to really lay on the mud, but they can still do it with the time they have each day in total. I worked local news, I do have an idea of how it all works.

Hmmm...I think none of these factors are mutually exclusive. Next question.

Okay. Believe what you will.

What's percentage of ~300 million is ~10 million? Of course, and they help their cause by doing more than just dabbling in politics...they're elbow deep. How do you suppose a news network can "help" a statist administration like the Obama administration? They spread the propaganda. Obama doesn't need a network's money, Obama needs the networks' power. I can pretty much guarantee you that the network sets the news direction tone for local affiliates. If the network mothership were more about left- or right- leaning biases, then the affiliates generally march in lock step.

Depends on how good-looking she is...

WOAH! Capitalism? No, way. Which news network is the most profitable? Fox. NBC was acting to help move along a narrative, to match an ideological agenda. At best, they were acting to maintain access, which only serves to keep them financially afloat, and definitely does not help their bottom line.

You got the wrong cat, sister. I'd love to watch post-game interviews with chicks on the team.

I didn't challenge anyone; I made an observation. Stick in the mud.

The evidence and facts SUPPORTED the claim of the defendant to the extant that there was reasonable doubt the prosecution was full of sh*t. That this was essentially an unconstitutional attempt to frame a person for the sake of politics. Feed them red meat. Let's not forget, a lot of political machinations were involved just to get Zimmerman brought up on charges. The facts and supporting evidence were overwhelming from the get-go.

I see. So we're back at Zimmerman making up a story, breaking his own nose, injuring his own head and hiring the witnesses who saw them on the ground (with Martin on top), paying off the police, cheating the lie-detector tests, and what-ever else he could have done to make sure the evidence weighs in his favor.

Huh. <---Note the period, as opposed to a question mark, or exclamation point.

I think it would be more fun to see your interpretation, first! Don't you?! Absolutely. Why do you have "Question everything." as your signature?

"Wrong" doesn't have to mean "illegal", "immoral", or "harmful to others". "Wrong", especially in this instance, can mean "foolish" or "ill-advised". Of course Martin, prior to jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him (by his own admission), wasn't doing anything illegal, immoral or harmful in trying to make it to his home. He was doing something foolish in light of the context. But, even so, that's nothing to die over. Where Martin went wrong is when he jumped someone, broke their nose, busted open their head, and yelled at them "you're going to die tonight!". Is that what LGR4GM or SwampD would do if they discovered someone were following them? Oh, and which facts are hypothetical?

He was clearly looking for Darcy Regier's testicles.

Well, what are the facts? A or B? Did Zimmerman approach Martin first? Or did Martin jump on Zimmerman first? Do you know? If so, cite the source, please. Holy jumbled reasoning, Batman. If Zimmerman were jumped by Martin, how could he "allow" the altercation? I think you need to re-visit the definition of fact. This is closest to the truth. A tragedy no matter how it's parsed. But, it's not being positioned that way, is it? I see a lot of people trying get Zimmerman charged with something...anything... You know what, you or anyone who thinks Martin "wasn't doing anything wrong" ought to put your money where your mouth is: 1. Find in your local news a neighborhood plagued with break-ins. 2. Sometime around 11pm, don your favorite hoody and start walking around the neighborhood identified in item 1. 3. Make sure you walk on lawns and very, very close to the houses/buildings of the neighborhood. 4. Report back to us your findings.

If the facts of what Martin was doing are lost on you, there's no point in going any further. In other words, Martin's activity that night is well-established; if you don't see how a stranger walking right next to homes at night in a neighborhood that has been experiencing break-ins can raise some flags, then it's pointless to discuss this any further.

What does that mean, "he followed him"? Was Zimmerman not allowed to drive around the neighborhood in his truck? You, and others, are making it seem like Zimmerman was crouching behind bushes, tip-toeing through back yards, and peeking over porches to "follow" Martin. All Zimmerman did was drive down a street or two in his truck, stop, get out and walk a few yards past his truck while on the phone talking to police dispatch seeing if he can spot Martin, and then head back to his truck to leave. He wasn't going all ninja on Martin. Martin JUMPED Zimmerman while Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong. I don't get this. And there are people calling Zimmerman "white". He's just as "white" as Obama is "white". Talk about street justice: you people want to discard the facts and act on the emotion whipped up by the media, the race industry, and the White House. Sheeple. Disgusting.

The so-called "open-minded" folk all have their biases as well, they're just too wishy-washy (or cowardly) to admit it. Many, many people are too worried about what their neighbor thinks and are afraid to be who they are. And too many people are all too ready to be insulted or set upon, and are eager to point fingers when they are just as guilty as being prejudiced (which, BTW, doesn't have to be a racial thing at all) and biased as anyone else. By saying I'm letting you "sort out at least one person with an inherent bias" just exposes your own biases. You see the imagery in my avatar, come to a conclusion on it without even asking a question, and file away in your mind the type of person YOU THINK I am. How did this happen? Because you are acting on bias/prejudice. There is no such thing as an un-biased person; show me a self-proclaimed neutral person and I'll show you a liar and, IMHO, a coward.

How? Explain how Zimmerman initiated a conflict.