ZhenXBear

Wishing you all the best in determining why you're having pain during swallowing. I'd avoid the medical self-diagnosis, because resources online often point to the most serious of conditions, that aren't applicable to people. Hopefully just some gastric reflux, seasonal allergy related issue, or perhaps a dental issue. It's great that you're being so proactive about finding out what's going on, though! Some people delay seeking treatment for fear of what it "might" be and end up suffering unnecessarily when the real cause turns out to be something very treatable.

Just remember, that esophageal cancer statistically comprises less than 1% of all new cancer cases year year; it's very very rare! Much more likely you've got something more innocuous and VERY treatable. Please take care!

I think it's just going to take time for the 787 to find its groove. Much like the auto manufacturers are experiencing with the recent backlash from airbags, Boeing has felt the heat over third party battery issues they didn't have direct control over.

All problems aside, she remains a technological sophisticated aircraft with amazing design for a commercial craft.

I remember when Cirrus first introduced the SR20 and Diamond the DA-20; the GA community was pretty leery of the composites designs the manufacturers chose for them. Since then, I've flown both, and found them to be enjoyable for different reasons.

The SR-22 has become my favorite aircrafts to fly and my first "low wing" transition aircraft beyond some hours in an older Mooney. I like it much better than the C172 G1000 I got my instrument rating on.

Oh what I wouldn't give to log some flight time in a 787 simulator!! :cool:

...talked to or asked out by regular guys because everyone is to afraid to talk to them.

Epigonos, first congratulations on your diligence in giving work to Mr. Kesslar. Further congratulations on continuing to add variations on the theme of your life. No need to be in a rut when rutting. No need to be over the hump when humping. No need to be screwed in place when screwing. After all, we all only have so many orgasms assigned to us and you might as well share yours with as many partners as you please. And I know I please all my partners,, as long as I pay them.

Like California...I better start rationing before the well goes dry....

Gilbert you are totally alone and amazingly isolated in this preference. No one on this site likes younger muscular men. We loathe such men. We unclog our noses at them. In fact, the entire escort industry is predicated on men of a certain means, hiring men who are not young, muscular, handsome, talented, with engaging personality and a quick wit. How else can one explain Steven Kesslar?

LOL, you are so gonna get spanked when he reads this....but wait, perhaps that's the point.

As partisan as things always have been -- and in some ways the rhetoric, if nothing else, was worse in the 19th century, when personal invective was considered par for the course, than it is now-- there was a time in my lifetime when there was more bipartisanship, especially on foreign policy, and less polarization. From what I understand, this might have been a leftover from WWII, when the country was mostly united. Nothing unites us as easily as a common enemy.

 

The Civil Rights Act and other domestic legislation of the 60s could not have passed without Republican votes wrangled by Everett Dirksen behind the scenes. (In other words the Republicans still remembered their Civil War era roots and weren't white supremacists' party of choice back then.) Richard Nixon, may he rest in peace -- bright but neurotic guy who demanded his underlings put protecting him above their offices, which was his undoing -- was a lefty on domestic policy by comparison to Republicans these days. Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan served in an important policy position under Nixon. The EPA and the Legal Services Corporation were founded during the Nixon Administration. He may have made changes along the margins that favored business more than had been the case under LBJ, and his propensity for dirty tricks and seeing enemies around every corner led the FBI and CIA to even greater violations of civil liberties than before, but his administration and that of Gerald Ford largely continued LBJ's domestic policies.

 

This unity remained even under Ronald Reagan, whose administration I still mostly despise but for whom I don't have the hatred I used to have. (George W. Bush's administration and reading excerpts from Reagan's diaries cured me.) Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill had a cordial working relationship even though they differed over policy, and O'Neill let his Democrats vote on bills instead of blocking them unless a majority of his party members supported them, as the House Republicans now do.

 

It seems as though things went south starting with the Clinton administration, mostly because the Republicans decided that bipartisanship and putting the interests of the people as a whole first, as opposed to the people who could get them nominated, was no longer in their interests.

 

I don't have any solutions to offer other than to suggest that we get the government we deserve. People complain about negative ads, but they work. They complain about sensationalism in media, but it gets clicks and attention. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I completely agree. While I wasn't old enough to vote during the Reagan administration, I did have a political sense of "awareness" and very much enjoyed the polite discourse between Reagan and O'Neil. It's so disheartening to see today's fools in politics down in the mud, rolling around, pulling hair and biting at each other like rabid dogs. I would also agree that with G.H.W. Bush, the last vestiges of cooperation pretty much evaporated between the D's and R's. All we're left with now, is this sorry lot.

When I was in my early 30's I was asked by a college freshman to attend a football game in the President's box (another story as to why). As I sat there enjoying the game I took note of the cheesecake that was embossed with gold foil signature initials of the President; the lavish gourmet repaste was delicious but it quickly became painfully obvious where tuition money was going.

I understand that at times Universities must spend money on such functions to secure large donations and endowments, but having paid for my own education I simply couldn't help but ponder how many semester hours that entire event would have funded, or degrees for that matter.

In reading about the breathtaking salaries for Reagents in California is has become pretty clear that some of these 450k+ salaries aren't sustainable.

I wonder how many students it took to finance that cheesecake and how many are still paying for it years later.

I've said this before: I think Elizabeth Warren is superbright and her ideas, especially about the financial crisis and economic issues, are on the money. Her background is in law and economic analysis. She works from facts and studies, not assumptions, and she's willing to slay sacred cows.

 

But ... she has never in her life run anything or been an administrator. She is a truthteller, not (as far as I can tell) a natural at legislative negotiation and compromise.

If only we had more people in both the House and Senate that were truth tellers and willing to send sacred cows to slaughter; I find her pragmatism refreshing.

If anything it gives me hope that eventually our partisan elder-statesmen (and women) will stop choking each other long enough to notice America's meteoric disintegration soon enough to change course and prevent an extinction level event.

Idealistic of me perhaps, but I truly long for an age of willing compromise and progress. As it stands the vitriol the opposing Party has for any sitting President coupled with a fear that he or she might possibly be viewed in the slightest positive light, prevents compromise on any issue. We've arrived at a time where the needs of the Party supersede those of the Nation; a dangerous place.

Perhaps this is why I love that old campy Sci Fi movie "Mars Attacks"; when the Martians wipe out all of Congress and most of the Senate; finally we overcome a lack of term limitations!

"I'd like the American people to know that they've still got 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them and that ain't bad!" ~~ Jack Nicholson.

Speaking of having a debate about our investment priorities:

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/11/elizabeth-warren-outlines-debt-free-college-plan-calls-more-funding-higher-ed

 

When it comes to this issue, Elizabeth Warren is my gal! I love her.

 

I absolutely LOVE her. She's completely unafraid to take both sides of the aisle to task. Her scathing speech about the necessity to bust Citibank apart and the subtle yet painful links of its alumni to bipartisan campaign contributions and "fox guarding henhouse" mentality at the Federal Reserve were blisteringly passionate. If she ever runs for President she has my vote.

When I was young, the assumption was that a college education would expose you to ideas and information, allow you to discover what you wanted to do with your life, help you to become a mature adult, and if all that happened, you would find some way to support yourself. Now the assumption seems to be that the purpose of college is to provide you with a ticket for a well-paid job in finance, government, business, technology, or medicine, from the moment you graduate until you retire. I find that very depressing.

I think business has been the death knell of liberal arts degrees. They don't want to mentor people and develop skill sets in potential employees who could be brilliant assets if developed. They want to hire and have you hit the ground running, bringing most things to the table; if your lucky you get to add things to your tool chest while your there. I honestly don't know how these young grass get much of a break.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/09/national-poll-finds-overall-dissatisfaction-college-selection-process-while-parents

 

Key finding:

 

Sixty-eight percent of surveyed parents said they viewed undergraduate degrees in a positive light 10 years ago but only 44.6 percent saw the degrees favorably now, and there was a similar drop from 73.2 percent to 57.9 percent for graduate degrees.

 

Only 49.2 percent believed the institutions were paying attention to current labor needs and trends, and 54.8 percent said there was enough of an emphasis on job placement after graduation.

Those are interesting numbers, and possibly scary ones.

 

I think the big danger is that people are going to overreact, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. The survey results above do not say "parents are deciding college educations don't matter" but you could say it suggests they are moving in that direction. Almost every study on college and income I've seen lead to one huge and obvious conclusion: the better the education, the better the job and income, especially if you go into STEM fields.

 

I also think the media is doing as much harm as good on all this "middle class is dying" crap. The data basically suggest is that in the 1960's, when about 1 in 10 Americans had a college education, going to college was pretty much a sure way to become affluent. Now about 1 in 3 Americans are college educated. Most of the affluent are college educated, but increasingly, a college education may only be a sure way to become middle class, as opposed to affluent. But if the lesson people take away is that somehow college isn't the point any more, THAT is a sure way to doom kids who don't even try to the lower class.

 

I don't like the idea of ever flat out saying "liberal arts suck, forget about history and philosophy." But I do like the idea of really putting the megaphone on the fact that college has always been first and foremost about preparing kids for work and careers, and now we have to up our game in that area like never before.

Definitely an alarming statistic, Steven. When I was in college my degree choice was very focused, so when I graduated I knew exactly what I was going to be doing in healthcare. I did go to a University that insisted that even Science focused majors receive "core requirements" in both the arts, humanities and business. At the time I was pretty annoyed but looking back I do feel they helped me indirectly, but not directly.

In addition to the spiraling cost of education I think what's missing is transparency on the part of Universities. It's almost reached the point where I feel that the Federal government and any institution that accepts financial aid should be required to publish the average salaries, job employment prospects and job titles of every degrees student for a period of five years after graduation.

So often we see case examples of students graduating with Political Science, history or basic business degrees who find jobs that leave them incapable of making student loan payments. When someone declares a major there should be transparency and doses of reality surrounding what they're going to be able to do with it.

I'm also disturbed by the profitability associated with funding education. I'm immediately distrustful because the global banking system is painfully morally bankrupt. I truly wish the government would fully fund education at zero interest rates so that when people came out of college they didn't have so many chips stacked against their success. It's one of the few things all Americans could benefit from and actually use other than the postal service.

Today, I'm still involved with my original career choice but it's taken me in an interesting and enjoyable direction. I wish that every college student today could have some level of security knowing that their decisions to pursue a specific degree was not going to be the specter that haunts them 10 years down the road.

Let's face it, this entire hobby is definitely more fringe than mainstream in every way!!!

 

TruHart1

Lol, Tru. What does this mean for fringe elements within a fringe, let alone a niche within a fringe of a fringe!

I'm not a scientist but isn't a core difference between men and women in general is men can have and walk away from sex much more easily than women. One key indicator is men hire escorts much more than women.

Regardless I do tend to get attached more than most guys so I just have to deal. One way is to hire different pros

I'm not certain if this is a "man/woman" thing more so than a generational construct. I was recently reading an article about the Sexuality of today's 20-something's and Millenials, and they've found that they place a lot more emphasis on the quality of their interactions with friends, family and sexual partners than Gen-Xers or still older people. They also value happiness and happiness in career choices over financial gains as a whole.

With this in mind the ability to "walk away from sex" and get on with your day/week/life may very well be a social construct of time and generation. As the Generation Y'ers age may likely carry their views and values forward into the venue and influence the landscape of how this business is conducted, making that type of behavior more fringe than mainstream.

Everyone has their own ideas and perceptions about what a BFE is and what it involves. For many people the experiences of past relationships are what we use to define the interactions that we seek out in such an encounter.

How do you as a companion prepare for this type of request? Do you specifically ask? Do you instinctively know? Are they more difficult for you? More enjoyable? More taxing?

Clients: What defines this type of experience for you?

I noticed that a reviewer today arranged for en escort to be picked up by uber. I have my uber app but I have not yet used it. I travel quite a bit but the opportunity has not yet come up. I was wondering if you can maintain anonymity while arranging for an escort to be picked up by uber. Are there any receipts handed out or any announcements of name or verification of any sort? In other words, if I arrange for an escort to be picked up by user, is my name and credit card shared with the rider? This is hard to understand from the uber site. Thanks

As others have said, Uber will have the information, but another option is to pay them is via PayPal. I kind of like this option better because I don't have to actually give me CC information to Uber and I trust PayPal more. In reviewing PayPay (just now) all it says was that Uber Technologies was paid 'X' on this date. There's no information on the PayPal who was picked up, where they were taken or anything other than the fare cost. The application does have a "trip history" section though with the date/times of the ride, the total fare, who the driver was, and a "mini-map" of the route taken.

I also might add that as a recent adopter of Uber, I find it fantastic to use over the typical cabs in San Francisco. On my first trip, I got off of BART, selected my information and hit the button, and the guy was there literally in under 2 minutes. What I didn't realize was that there was a "ride share" option, but I didn't mind paying a bit more to get there more expeditiously.