oldNbusted

Then there's freaks like me who find that idea exciting...

Picture a DP with them...

@RandyC asked who he is, I know, or at least, I know his profile. I actually didn't know you were in Chicago. If I had, I would have assumed you had met him already. I think this is ok to put here since it's an RM link. https://rent.men/Jacesron

I want to meet this guy, but I have no reason to travel to Chicago and he doesn't seem to travel.

If you were not aware, RM has a profile visibility setting. You can turn it off and people won't be able to see that you've visited their profile.

Agreed. I like to let a guy know that I am truly appreciative of a superlative experience and a tip is intended to reinforce that.

Beautiful design and it looks well executed too. Do you have it connected to a tabletop dimmer? With a very bright lamp as intended, it could be the primary light source in a large room, but I'd definitely want to have the option to dial it down. DWR is my go-to for furniture porn, I really want a PH5 to replace the big box fixture looming over the dining room table, as soon as I figure out why the junction box in the ceiling is off center. http://www.dwr.com/ph5-pendant-lamp/6013.html

100 watt incandescent lightbulbs (trivia: lightbulbs are called lamps in the industry) are still around, but since they are no longer a high volume item, you aren't going to find them on the shelf at a big box store. https://www.amazon.com/41036-100-watt-Soft-White-Pack/dp/B00DGDHBI2/ And to be fair, conservationists didn't just say they used to much energy, the point was that for the vast majority of applications, they needlessly used too much energy. More reasons why this change was needed later. It's normal for sensitivity to light to decline with age, for a variety of reasons, so one requires more light to be able to see. Having said all this, I would encourage you to test a high quality lamp, to see if it's suitable for you, such as https://www.amazon.com/Cree-SA21-16027MDFD-12DE26-1-11-Replacement-White-Dimmable/dp/B01K7ZW73A/ In the early days of LED emitters ( the part that actually outputs light) , blue was about all they could produced at scale, so there was a lot of lighting industry time spent trying to convince people this was a good thing. Of course this was crap then and it's crap now. Fortunately, they solved the issues mass producing more human friendly color temperature emitters. Good timing too because now it's becoming well known to the general public that blue light is bad for melatonin production and is now implicated in all manner of modern sleep disorders. I actually saw a news report that the poor quality of public roadway lighting could be a contributing factor to the poor heath of people who work at night. I was surprised to see this, because the discovery that there are light sensitive cells in the retina that are not connected to the visual system but instead feed into the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which regulates the circadian rhythm, was only made around the turn of the century. If you do choose to generally use higher color temp lighting, it's recommended to have a mix, so you can transition to lower color temp lighting a few hours before your bedtime. It's not unusual for melatonin production to decline with age, so it's important to give your body its best shot to work naturally. You are right about the technical advancements. In addition to lack of proper color temperature emitters in the early days of the transition, there was another spec that was not a factor in the mass market, color rendition index (CRI), a scale up to 100 (best) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index One of the reasons for this was that incandescents always had a CRI of 100 and just about the only other human friendly lighting that people were likely to encounter was tungsten halogen, which typically has a CRI around 95. Everyone knew that fluorescent lamps were 'bad' so there was never any demand to improve them, although they can be made to work much better. As a result, outside of specific industrial situations, CRI was not a topic of conversation. Fortunately, criticism of how LEDs made things look 'off' made the industry improve on that spec as well. It's not so shocking that Republicans would support this, it's actually quite industry friendly. Reasonable measures that could reduce the rate of increase in electrical demand are a good thing as building new generation and distribution capacity has business risks. And if people have to buy more expensive lamps, I'm not sure that's not industry friendly either. No need to resort to ebay collectors likely charging 'collectible' pricing, there are still plenty available on amazon.com at more normal prices. As a tip, if you have a lamp in a particularly hard to access location, consider buying a 'rough service' lamp so you don't have to change it as often. If possible, you can also buy a higher wattage lamp, and install a dimmer, so the lamp is running below its rating. These can help a lamp last longer. I have to quibble about the timeline a little because I was aggressively seeking LED lamps and there were no 2700K, high CRI, dimmable bulbs available at mass market prices until about 2010. There were some specialty lamps before that, but they were ridiculously expensive and they were not very reliable. And that brings me to one of my gripes about the industry, especially in the early days, things are getting better now. The lifespan numbers bandied about usually apply only to the LED emitter, not to the electronic package (the driver) in the lamp that controls the LED. In the early days, the driver technology was new and didn't last long enough. People being told they wouldn't have to change their new lamp for twenty years were surprised when it burned out in two. Fortunately this appears to have improved considerably. Excellent info. In my opinion, CFLs were a total scam, everyone knew they would be replaced by LEDs. Color temps sucked, CRI was atrocious, flickering was bad (more on this later) but no one was really going to divert any of the R&D they were doing on LEDs to improving CFLs. Like you, I refused to buy CFLs, I transitioned from incandescent to LED. It's your money to spend on higher electric bills, but LEDs are not a static target, I would encourage you to reevaluate this as a strategy and check out the current offerings. I have to admit I don't recall ever seeing a standard shape 250 watt lamp, they were always a little larger than typical lamps. I'm curious if the fixture is designed to accommodate that? Something like this https://www.amazon.com/GE-Lighting-73788-130-Volt-300-Watt/dp/B000HJ974E/ You are not crazy for saying this. It's said that about 10% of people can perceive or are sensitive to lighting flicker from fluorescents and low quality LEDs. As it happens I am one of those people and you may be too. Your contractor should get educated. This was not an issue with incandescents because the glowing filament couldn't react as quickly to the A/C power sine wave, so it kept glowing. They used to give out flicker checker wheels you could spin under a light to see if it was flickering, but now you can use your smartphone. http://www.graybar.com/applications/lighting/blog/the-flicker-checker-on-smartphone This is why I recommend you test a high quality LED lamp, to see if it's compatible for you. If you could find some lamps that work for you, you might be able to save some money on your electric bill, especially if you prefer brightly lit scenes. At this point, the only incandescents in my house are mostly decorative, around the mirror in the hall bathroom. They are only on for a few minutes a day, if that, so I chose this lamp: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014X2ULNQ/

Trigga is in Palm Springs and has meet a couple of forum members... https://m4m-forum.org/threads/looking-for-the-biggest-cocks-monsters-only.110696/page-17#post-1293536

You may be on to something as 3 of the 4 are now in Seattle.

It's great to get back to more whole food, but it's turning out that food might not be as nutritious as it used to be... politico.com: The great nutrient collapse

Likewise! I have to admit my monolingual ass didn't recognize the phrase in German, even though it inspired an Asimov book I read many years ago.

Doesn't he own a shirt?

CLEAN UP IN AISLE CABANA!

I am going to steal this idea, thanks!

But all the research you've done! That can't be allowed to go to waste. Seems like a perfect topic for a blog post.

I suspect that in the vast majority of cases, you are correct, but in this specific instance, the poster reported the actual provider was similar enough to the pics and performed well enough to be satisfactory for the short term purpose, to put it dryly. @latbear4blk is our resident expert on why guys might use lifted pics, I'm sure he would be happy to explain further.

Basically. Thirsty has become current slang for generally wanting something from someone else, in this context, sex, so badly you will do something that you might not normally do.

It seems like you were fortunate to work out a compatible arrangement.

Because it works often enough. There was a post a while back from a forum member who visited a guy who was known to be using lifted pics, he said he was thirsty, the guy was only two blocks away and turned out to be close enough to the photos that the forum member got off.

A novice poster with 12 total posts, 8 of which are praising a single guy. Who thinks this is an effective technique?

Could everyone fit in a single resort? I kinda got the impression that some of these places were pretty small...