daviscw

http://www.gaarde.org/Acronyms/

That one looks pretty simple. My dad bought one that required a technician to come out and program it with a laptop. It took him about 3 or 4 hours. It would automatically change the surround sound settings if you told it to turn on the Blu-ray player. It was a universal remote, but when you told it to be another remote it showed every single button and setting. The turn off all button is sweet too. It ended up being so complicated that we put it away and use 5 remotes. I know its easy for you and I, but good luck with the girl. Seriously, if she can handle it, you've got a keeper.

If its anything like my house, you will now be yelled at anytime the wife / girlfriend / mom wants to turn the tv on, adjust the volume, or change the channel. Wait until you have to explain how to play a movie...

Nothing man, jorts are cool. http://www.jorts.com/

Nice dude! Great job reppin' the jorts too!

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings old man. My point is that you expect everyone to believe you as a source when Wikipedia is as good as any source out there. If you've ever looked at Wikipedia then you would know that authors most of time list their sources at the bottoms of the pages. All you have to do is click on the links, and there is your source. It's not magic, and its not all made up.

As study has shown that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica It is not considered a credible source, by any university, as it can be easily edited with false documentation. This is true for St.Johns, GWU,Johns Hopkins and NYU, those are the ones I know for sure. If it is not good enough for accredited and highly respected Universities, it is not good enough for me to accept as proof of a counterpoint. Yeah I'm pretty sure Dan knows this... The point is that Wikipedia can most likely be trusted. I think Dan can speak for himself and it is not a reputable soucre, period. Yes it is. More so than you.

As study has shown that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica It is not considered a credible source, by any university, as it can be easily edited with false documentation. This is true for St.Johns, GWU,Johns Hopkins and NYU, those are the ones I know for sure. If it is not good enough for accredited and highly respected Universities, it is not good enough for me to accept as proof of a counterpoint. Yeah I'm pretty sure Dan knows this... The point is that Wikipedia can most likely be trusted.

http://www.biggreenegg.com/eggs_XL.html

X2. Its insane how many Halo junkies there are. I don't know why y'all think COD4 is better than COD WaW. LOL, you can tell who plays HALO when your playing COD... they don't stop jumping everywhere ;D Haha, I know! They zig-zag around and throw grenades every 3 seconds too!

I studied all of this in a Business Law class, but I've already forgot. However, I do remember that you can visit the Secretary of State's website to look up existing names. You'll also learn a lot about LLC's and Sole Proprietorships and what not whie you're there.

X2. Its insane how many Halo junkies there are. I don't know why y'all think COD4 is better than COD WaW.

I had a pretty nice chat about fishing with a highway patrolman that pulled me over yesterday. He was one of the nicer ones.

Bottom line: When you play with ineligible players it is called cheating. You cannot argue that.

The way I see it, with your fingerprints on file the less likely they are to accuse you of something somebody else did. It sounds like you are just being hard headed.

It does affect their eligibility. When you take thousands of dollars from your University while you are on scholarship you will be suspended. These guys took got free books from their scholarship money and SOLD them to other students. Back to my point, if you have football players that were breaking laws or school rules contributing to wins, (i.e. entering a game at all) that is cheating. It is cheating when you use players to win that should have never been on the field on the first place because of their wrong doings. People are saying on here "Oh, that was nice of them to give out text books." They don't understand that there are thousands of other students not on full scholarship that pay the full price for text books. So here we have football players being given at least $10,000 a year to play football in college, when most of them came from wealthy backgrounds in the first place, and they sell textbooks they got for free. That's not right, and they don't deserve to step a foot on a football field.

I live on a river and I've caught them on night crawlers catfishing. People get tired of their pets and throw them in the river.

I'm saying if I were an employer and someone came in all tatoo'd out, I wouldn't hire them. Same if you had a bunch of piercings that were visible or needing a haircut/shave, stoned, drunk, whatever. How bad do you want the job? Bad enough to look polished or you just want to keep it real? Well, as a family man that cares more about putting food on the table than on 'being me' I'll do what it takes to get and keep the job. Don't try to draw any other conclusions about my statement other than I wouldn't have someone representing my company that doesn't look professional in my opinion and may cost some business. That's understandable.Your opinion is your opinion. I've personally never walked out of a store or restaurant because of a tattoo.

You might be a redneck if....

That actually ticks me off when somebody says that. Not only is that discriminating and wrong,you could very well be passing up the best employee you might hire. Me,I'll just wear long sleeves and cover them up.You'll never know it till I'm hired on and already made a good impression on you. 8-) Well, in my post I said if you showed up with them VISIBLE looking for work. Sure cover them up and you stand a chance to get the job but KEEP em covered while you're on MY job site. When you're on MY job site, you represent me and my company = my rules. And it's not discriminatory; it's called a consequence of your choice of lifestyle. You want to have tatoos all over your body; fine. Just realize that the employers of the world will think twice about having someone like that as the face for their company. Or if you do get hired, you'll most likely be limited as to how far you'll be able to advance. Same goes for people that want to smoke the wacky tobacky. Toke up all you want but realize that certain career fields will be off limits to you. Like I said, no offense meant. I'm old fashioned about some things. So what exactly are you saying about people with tattoos?

Or MORE! :-X

Playing with any player that shouldn't be eligible to play is called cheating.

Theres a place back home called Bricks Oven or Bricks Pizza or something like that that sells Dogfish Head. I don't know if there are any up your way or not.

X2 When its time to go, its time to go. Its best to be ready.

While I loathe Alabama, this is hardly an infraction that would result in them winning any games. I just like to run my mouth. You should know by now Burleyman.