text:
- Report: #789039
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Gobson Truck World
Gobson Truck World3455 South Orlando Drive Sanford, Florida United States of America
Gobson Truck World Offered us two choices of loans, but in the end we could only accept ONE. The Higher one. Sanford, Florida
*Consumer Comment: questions
*Consumer Comment: So Where Is The Problem?
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
Four test drives and 16 right hand turns later, we decided on the one we liked(which was not the one i had chosen on the internet, it happened to be in the hands of the manager who, "Took it home to make sure it was safe.")(Riiight!) So we fill out all the paper work and give them the trade in which they gave us $2500.00 for the trade; nice down payment right, wrong! So the salesman comes back and says, "Good news, your approved." Slides two price quotes in front of me that states, (1) $5000.00 down(And Trade in) for payment of somewhere of $438.00 and the other (2) $1000.00 down(And trade in) for payment of somewhere around $478.00. Immediately i say, "1st one is not an option". "OK" He says, and takes it away and throws it away. I then inquire about the interest, where he has to talk again with his manager. Comes back and says,"between 8% and 11%", which i though was a little high. So in the end after trying to convince him to come down, i said "Okay", lets do it. He then tells us in order to drive out of here with this truck today(Sunday) you will need to put $5000.00 down. For a total of $7500.00 down which is a third of what the truck cost.
Now I'm really aggravated, why put two quotes in front of us, if all we can do is accept one. "They wanna see more down", they said. to make a long story short, and after seeing other trucks drive of the the lot that day we conceive to a $500.00 "Hold Payment", to see if they can push the loan through. We leave our trade in there and drive back(had a third vehicle with us) home. Next day, i had to call them to find out what is going on, and i get told, "Good news, you are approved". I said, "what is the interest?" He states, "22 Percent." "That is not an option & what happened to the 8 to 11 percent?" "That's the best we can do" he says.
(Just to make it clear I don't have the best credit, but took a co-signor with us who did.)
Needless to say i immediately drove the 1-1/2 hours back and picked up my trade in, where they had the audacity to say, "What happened'? "You can't help me give me my keys & title", I said & left.
So if you are ever in SandFord Florida, buyer beware about these guys, who lie, cheat and steal, and even, "Larry the Cable Guy,"(sorry Larry) promotes. My next stop is to the BBB.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/15/2011 07:15 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Gobson-Truck-World/Sanford-Florida-32773/Gobson-Truck-World-Offered-us-two-choices-of-loans-but-in-the-end-we-could-only-accept-O-789039. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Gobson Truck World
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
#1 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, October 15, 2011POSTED: Saturday, October 15, 2011
"who lie, cheat and steal"
OK, they lied about the down payment. How were you cheated? What did they steal?
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
#2 Consumer Comment
So Where Is The Problem?
AUTHOR: Jim - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, October 15, 2011POSTED: Saturday, October 15, 2011
By your own admission you have bad credit, which by the way, you gave to yourself. Your credit is so bad you even brought a cosigner.
Because of your credit reputation, you did not qualify for a lower interest loan with a lower down payment. It happens everyday and there's nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about that. That's why it is in your best interest to pay your bills on time!
You can forget the BBB. THE BBB Is NOT some government agency with enforcement powers...in fact...there's nothing to enforce here. The BBB is nothing more than a snake in the grass scam where anybody can BUY a membership and buy whatever PHONEY ACCREDIATION they want.
No I don't work for Gibson, Gobson or any car dealer.
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
- Report: #989155
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Tmart.com
Tmart.comInternet United States of America
Tmart.com Dhgate.com Backorder Scam, Ripoff, Scam, Chinese Took My Money Internet
*UPDATE Employee: What is your order number?
*Consumer Comment: This is the same old song and dance
*UPDATE Employee: Sorry for the inconvenience caused
*Consumer Comment: N&K TRADING INC (AKA)TMART.COM IS A FRAUD
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/31/2012 01:21 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Tmartcom/internet/Tmartcom-Dhgatecom-Backorder-Scam-Ripoff-Scam-Chinese-Took-My-Money-Internet-989155. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Tmart.com
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
#1 UPDATE Employee
What is your order number?
AUTHOR: Sherry ye - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 09, 2013POSTED: Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Thank you for your comment.
For this issue, I would like to invite you to leave your specific order number in your comments, it will help us investigate your issues and contact you to solve your problems. And we will guarantee your rights and interests that you will be compensated fairly.
If you have any question, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Best regards
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
#2 Consumer Comment
This is the same old song and dance
SUBMITTED: Monday, January 07, 2013POSTED: Monday, January 07, 2013
What I can vouge for is that I ordered around holiday time, beginning several weeks prior to Thanksgiving. Most of us as consumers automatically give or take a few days for shipping delays for holidays. But they will use this statement as a crutch to deviate away from their original issues with shipping. I got to know them pretty well around holidays; they never, ever had a shipping schedule posted. Ever. I scoured the website for loopholes as well. The average consumer can figure that there will be no mail services on Thanksgiving or Christmas, so when they are giving you this general info, it is to point the finger your way, as they will take absolutely no responsibility for any of their mess.They took 50 bucks from me for expedited 1-3 day shipping almost 2 weeks prior to Thanksgiving and my makeup palettes for resale did not arrive till much later, little by little, in 4 seperate orders. The last one arriving about a week before Christmas. My small biz orders for these palettes were being cancelled by my customers, so yes, a nightmare. Many palettes were broken. then they absolutely would not budge on refunding m the fast shipping fee, stating that products ( which they claimed on website to be in US warehouse- I made certain, as timing was of the essence) were in Hong Kong. I went thru so much stress with this company and there was nothing PayPal nor my bank could do for me .over $400 later. Excuse typos. I am not Asian, but I'm just quickly trying to get my point across.
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
#3 UPDATE Employee
Sorry for the inconvenience caused
AUTHOR: Sherry ye - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 01, 2013POSTED: Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Sorry to hear that.
I noticed that you have placed the order on 31 December, 2012. And on our website there have a notice: Our Holiday Shipping Schedule: 1) 12/25/2012 and 01/01/2013 - All shipping carriers are CLOSED, so no deliveries these two days. 2) From 01/01/2013 to 01/07/2013 - orders may be delayed to be shipped in 1-3 days. Anyway, we will manage to ship these orders soon. Apologize for the delay. Happy holidays!
So the order will be a little delay.
Please don't worry, I will follow up with your order.
Thanks for your support and patience in advance.
If you have any question, please feel free to contact us.
Best regards,
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
#4 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: victim - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, December 31, 2012POSTED: Monday, December 31, 2012
HERE SOME EXAMPLES: makeuptalk.com/t/119640/can-i-trust-tmart-com AND budgetlightforum.com/node/2140 and resellerratings.com/store/Tmart . and sitejabber.com/reviews/www.tmart.com and tmart.pissedconsumer.com
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
As far as the public record shows, Ron Wyden first started complaining about the Common Commercial Service OLC Memo in late 2010, in a letter with Russ Feingold written "over two years" before January 14, 2013. As I've written, John Yoo wrote the memo on May 30, 2003, as one of the last things he did before he left the Office of Legal Council. It seems to have something to do with both the Stellar Wind program and cybersecurity, and apparently deals with agreements with private sector partners. At least one agency has operated consistently with the memo (indeed, Ron Wyden's secret memo submitted to the court probably says the memo was implemented) but the government claims that doesn't mean that agency relied on the memo and so the ACLU can't have it in its FOIA lawsuit.
According to a letter liberated by Jason Leopold, however, someone in Congress was raising concerns about a memo — which is probably the same one — even before Wyden and Feingold were. On June 30, 2010, then Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Silvestre Reyes wrote Attorney General Holder a letter about a May 30, 2003 memo. On October 5, Ron Weich wrote Reyes,
We have conferred with Committee staff about your letter and your concerns regarding the potential implications of the opinion. We appreciate your concerns and your recognition of the complexities of the issues involved in our consideration of your request. We will let you know as soon as we are in a position to provide additional information.
In other words, three months after one of the top ranking intelligence overseers in government raised concerns about the memo, DOJ wrote back saying they weren't yet "in a position to provide additional information."
That seems like a problem to me.
It also seems to be another data point suggesting that — whatever the government did back in 2003, after Yoo wrote the memo — it was being discussed more generally in 2010, possibly with an eye to implement it.
Update: On reflection, I may have overstated how sure we can be that this May 30 opinion is the same opinion. I've adjusted the post accordingly.
The NYT has a really helpful description of the emails to Hillary that intelligence agencies are claiming are Top Secret. It explained how several of the emails almost certainly couldn't derive from the intelligence the agency claimed they came from, such as this one on North Korea.
The fourth involved an email sent by Kurt M. Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, shortly after a North Korean ballistic missile test in July 2009. The email has not yet been made public, even in redacted form, but the State Department has challenged an assertion from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which gathers data through satellite images, that the email included information that came from a highly classified program.
In a letter this past Dec. 15 to Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a State Department official said that the information could not have been based on N.G.A.'s intelligence because Mr. Campbell did not receive any classified intelligence briefings for what was a new job for him until a few days after the North Korean test.
I believe the NGA was dawdling on signing a sworn declaration about this email, unlike the CIA (whose Martha Lutz has signed her name to many a wacky claim).
Unsurprisingly, the NYT reports that the bulk of the emails in question pertain to the drone program, specifically in Pakistan.
The Obama administration's decision to keep most internal discussions about that program — including all information about C.I.A. drone strikes in Pakistan — classified at the "top secret" level has now become a political liability for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of "HCS-O" — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources — a detail that was first reported by Fox News. The officials said that none of the emails mention specific names of C.I.A. officers or the spy agency's sources.
The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.'s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.
The officials said that at least one of the 22 emails came from Richard C. Holbrooke, who as the administration's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been intimately involved in dealing with the ramifications of drone strikes. Mr. Holbrooke died in December 2010.
Reading these passages and the article in general made me realize something: The reason the CIA is insisting these are classified is almost certainly because of the ACLU's two FOIAs for drone information. In the Awlaki-focused one, the ACLU (and NYT) succeeded in arguing that past public statements from people like Leon Panetta constituted a waiver of the classification of the CIA's involvement in the program. Any public dissemination of other official Administration figures discussing the drone program would provide ACLU another opportunity to go to the judges in these cases and demand further disclosure about CIA's involvement in the drone program.
Over the years, the Obama Administration has gone to great lengths to defeat the ACLU in its various FOIAs, from having National Security Advisor Jim Jones get involved in the torture FOIA to delaying congressional oversight into the Awlaki killing. Here, it appears they're even willing to damage Hillary's campaign to serve as the inheritor to Obama's legacy to thwart the ACLU.
As a number of outlets have reported, the Second Circuit last month upheld the government's effort to keep a March 29, 2002 OLC memo pertaining to targeted killing secret; the opinion was unsealed yesterday. The government is probably doing so to keep changes in their rationale for why assassinations don't violate the prohibition on assassination in EO 12333 secret.
The judges on the panel — especially Judge Jon Normand, who wrote the opinion — had pushed during an ex parte hearing in June to release language in that earlier memo because the dog & pony show around drone strikes in 2012 to 2013 had used closely related language. But after some more secret briefing, the court decided the application of EO 12333 was different enough such that it remained properly protected.
It seems highly likely the specific part of EO 12333 under discussion pertains to the assassination ban. Between the earlier hearing and the opinion, the court pointed to language in the March 25, 2010 Harold Koh speech, the March 5, 2012 Eric Holder speech, and the April 30, 2012 John Brennan speech on targeted killing (they also pointed to two Panetta comments). Each of the cited speeches discusses the assassination ban — and little else that might directly pertain to EO 12333, besides just generally covert operations authorized under Article II. There's this language in Koh's speech.
Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems—consistent with the applicable laws of war—for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute "assassination."
This language in Holder's speech,
Some have called such operations "assassinations." They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.
And this language in Brennan's speech.
In this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. We have the authority to target them with lethal force just as we targeted enemy leaders in past conflicts, such as German and Japanese commanders during World War II.
But even though all these public speeches commented on this interpretation of the assassination ban, the 2nd Circuit still permitted the government to shield the earlier memo.
The transcript of the June ex parte hearing reveals one explanation for that: the earlier memo was a "far broader interpretation" of the issue.
That's consistent with the government's earlier claim (which I wrote about here).
Although the district court noted that the OLC-DOD Memorandum released by this Court contained a "brief mention" of Executive Order 12,333, the district court concluded that the analysis in the March 2002 Memorandum is significantly different from any legal analysis that this Court held has been officially disclosed and for which privilege has been waived.
In other words, while the earlier memo discusses the same aspect of EO 12333 as these public speeches (again, the assassination ban is by far the most likely thing), the earlier memo uses significantly different analysis, and so it may be hidden.
The June transcript also reveals that OLC lawyers reviewed and wrote on the 2002 memo at a later time — the implication being that someone in OLC reviewed the earlier memo in 2010 when writing the Awlaki one (and curiously, that hard copy with handwritten notes is the only one DOJ claims it can find).
There are two things I find increasingly interesting about this earlier memo about EO 12333 — including at least one part presumably about the assassination ban. First, the implication that one of the lawyers reviewing it in 2010 saw the need to write a new memo (perhaps seeing the need to clean up yet more crazy John Yoo language? who knows). As I repeat endlessly, we know there's a memo of uncertain date in which Yoo said the President could pixie dust the plain language of EO 12333 without changing the public language of it, and it's possible this is what that memo did (though the President was clearly pixie dusting surveillance rules).
But I'm also interested in the date: March 29, 2002. The day after we captured Abu Zubaydah (who, at the time, top officials at least claimed to believe was a top leader of al Qaeda). The SSCI Torture Report made it clear the CIA originally intended to disappear detainees. Were they planning to execute them? If so, what stopped things?
In any case, CIA won its battle to hide this earlier discussion so we may never know. But it appears that DOJ may have felt the need to think thing through more seriously before drone assassinating a US citizen. So there is that.
A couple of weeks ago, ACLU NoCal released more documents on the use of Stingray. While much of the attention focused on the admission that innocent people get sucked up in Stingray usage, I was at least as interested in the definition of an emergency during which a Stingray could be used with retroactive authorization:
I was interested both in the invocation of organized crime (which would implicate drug dealing), but also the suggestion the government would get a Stingray to pursue a hacker under the CFAA. Equally curiously, the definition here leaves out part of the definition of "protected computer" under CFAA, one used in interstate communication.
(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer—
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
Does the existing definition of an emergency describe how DOJ has most often used Stingrays to pursue CFAA violations (which of course, as far as we know, have never been noticed to defendants).
Now compare the definition Jason Chaffetz used in his Stingray Privacy Act, a worthwhile bill limiting the use of Stingrays, though this emergency section is the one I and others have most concerns about. Chaffetz doesn't have anything that explicitly invokes the CFAA definition, and collapses the "threat to national security" and, potentially, the CFAA one into "conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest."
(A) such governmental entity reasonably determines an emergency exists that—
(i) involves—
(I) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
(II) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or
(III) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime;
Presumably, requiring conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest might raise the bar — but would still permit — the use of Stingrays against low level terrorism wannabes. Likewise, while it would likely permit the use of Stingrays against hackers (who are generally treated as counterinteligence threats among NatSec investigators), it might require some conspiracy between hackers.
All that said, there's a whole lot of flux in what even someone who is often decent on civil liberties like Chaffetz considers a national security threat.
And, of course, in the FISA context, the notion of what might be regarded as an immediate danger of physical injury continues to grow.
These definitions are both far too broad, and far too vague.
Orin Kerr and Steve Vladeck got in a bit of a squabble last week over the Second Circuit's decision not to reach the constitutionality of the phone dragnet. Vladeck called it wrong-headed, because even if the constitutional injury of the dragnet is temporary (that is, only until November 29), it's the kind of injury that can recur. Kerr reads both this — and the Second Circuit's original opinion — to be nothing more than a pragmatic nudge to Congress. "If you liked that opinion, it's a little hard to object to the Second Circuit's pragmatic, politically savvy, we-got-Congress-to-act-on-this-so-we're-done moves in the second opinion."
But I think both are misreading what the Second Circuit tried to do with this.
Take Kerr's suggestion that the initial ruling from the Second Circuit got Congress to act. He doesn't say what he means by that (or which civil libertarians he had in mind when asserting that). The earlier decision certainly added pressure to get the bill through Congress.
But look at how Gerard Lynch, in his opinion, describes the relationship: Congress not just passed a bill to prohibit bulk telephone collection, but it "endorsed our understanding of the key term 'relevance.'"
Congress passed the Freedom Act in part to prohibit bulk telephone metadata collection, and in doing so endorsed our understanding of the key term "relevance." See H.R. Rep. No. 114‐109, at 19.
Lynch goes on to cite the House report on the bill to support this claim.
Section 103 of the Freedom Act, titled "Prohibition on Bulk Collection of Tangible Things," states that "[n]o order issued under this subsection may authorize the collection of tangible things without the use of a specific selection term" that meets certain requirements. Id. The purpose of § 103 is to "make[] clear that the government may not engage in indiscriminate bulk collection of any tangible thing or any type of record." H.R. Rep. No. 114‐109, pt. 1, at 18 (2015). Section 103 is also intended to "restore meaningful limits to the 'relevance' requirement of Section 501, consistent with the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in ACLU v. Clapper." Id. at 19.
He cites language point to an entire section that the House says will restore limits to the relevance requirement of a section of a law "consistent" with his own earlier opinion.
All that said, it's not clear that USA F-ReDux, as written, does do that. That's true, first of all, because while the House report specifically states, "Congress' decision to leave in place the 'relevance' standard for Section 501 orders should not be construed as Congress' intent to ratify the FISA Court's interpretation of that term" (Lynch cites this language in his opinion), it also doesn't state that Congress intended to override that definition. What the bill did instead was leave the word "relevant" (still potentially meaning "all" as FISC defined it) in place, but place additional limits for its application under FISA.
Moreover, I'm not convinced the limits as written in USA F-ReDux accomplish all that the Second Circuit's earlier opinion envisioned, which is perhaps best described in the ways the dragnets didn't resemble warrants or subpoenas.
Moreover, the distinction is not merely one of quantity – however vast the quantitative difference – but also of quality. Search warrants and document subpoenas typically seek the records of a particular individual or corporation under investigation, and cover particular time periods when the events under investigation occurred. The orders at issue here contain no such limits. The metadata concerning every telephone call made or received in the United States using the services of the recipient service provider are demanded, for an indefinite period extending into the future. The records demanded are not those of suspects under investigation, or of people or businesses that have contact with such subjects, or of people or businesses that have contact with others who are in contact with the subjects – they extend to every record that exists, and indeed to records that do not yet exist, as they impose a continuing obligation on the recipient of the subpoena to provide such records on an ongoing basis as they are created.
Even setting aside my concern that USA F-ReDux only explicitly prohibits the use of communications company names like Verizon and AT&T as a specific selection term — thus leaving open the possibility FISC will continue to let the government use financial company names as specific selection terms — USA F-ReDux certainly envisions the government imposing "a continuing obligation on the recipient of the subpoena to provide such records on an ongoing basis." It also permits the collection of records that "are not those of suspects under investigation."
In other words, Lynch used this second opinion to do more than say the Second Circuit was "done with it." He used it to interpret USA F-ReDux — and the word "relevant" generally, outside of FISA, and to do so in ways that go beyond the clear language of the bill.
Vladeck is wrong when he suggested the Second Circuit would assess "whether and to what extent the Fourth Amendment applies to information we voluntarily provide to third parties" — that is, the Third Party Doctrine generally. The Second Circuit made it quite clear throughout that they were interested in the application of "relevant," not whether the Third Party Doctrine still applied generally, which is probably why Lynch isn't that worried about the injury recurring.
And I think Lynch used this opinion — one the government can't really appeal — to suggest the application of USA F-ReDux is broader than it necessarily is, and to suggest the narrowing of "relevant to" is more general than it would be under USA F-ReDux (which applies just to certain sections of FISA, but not to the definition of "relevant" generally).
It's not clear how useful the opinion will be in restricting other over-broad uses of the word "relevant" (especially given DEA claims it has eliminated its dragnet). But I do suspect, having interpreted the law as having narrowed the meaning of the law, Lynch felt like he had limited the egregious constitutional injury.
The 2nd circuit just denied the ACLU's request for an injunction in the phone dragnet, finding that Congress intended to let the dragnet continue for 6 months after passage of USA F-ReDux.
That's not all that surprising, but it also means the 2nd circuit is dodging constitutional issues for now (in part by claiming Congress had adopted their reasoning on the meaning of "relevant to," which it did not; I will return to this).
But the court remanded the case on one main issue: what happens on November 29, when the 6 month transition period ends.
Appellants and the government disagree, however, regarding the mootness of the final relief requested after November 29: an injunction that would require the government to end the telephone metadata program and purge records collected unlawfully. Appellants argue that the government intends to retain the records "indefinitely," and are under no outside obligation to purge them, and thus that their claims for relief will not become moot on November 29. The government argues that the claims will be moot on November 29, because the telephone metadata program will cease at that time, and an order enjoining the telephone metadata program will have no effect.
Further, the government notes that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has announced that the government will not use § 215 data for law enforcement or investigatory purposes after November 29. See Statement by the ODNI on Retention of Data Collected Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (July 27, 2015). Additionally, the government states that it will destroy all records as soon as possible after the government's litigation‐preservation obligations end, id., and thus Appellants' requests that their information no longer be queried and that their records be purged will also be moot.
We do not address whether Appellants' claims will become moot on November 29, and leave this, and all other remaining questions, to the district court in the first instance.
While I don't expect much to come of this question either, it is rather awkward that the court has chosen to remand that decision today, of all days.
As it is, the 2nd circuit misses one development in this case, which is that after declaring on July 27 that they were going to keep the data but not use it for law enforcement purposes, the FISC then refused the government's request to just rubber stamp that decision. So the question of what will happen with the data is still being review at the FISC.
Not only that, but today is also the deadline Michael Mosman set for FISC-appointed amicus Preston Burton to submit his first brief on this question.
So Burton will submit something — there's no reason to think we'll get to see all of his brief — without the benefit of knowing that ACLU may still contest whatever he argues for regarding the use of the data past November 29. And of course, one reason the government may need to keep that data past November 29 is because EFF has a protection order that requires they keep it for their lawsuit(s).
That still doesn't mean anything all that interesting will come of this, but we do have two courts addressing the same question at the same time, without full notice of the other.
DOJ just announced a new policy on use of Stingrays which requires a warrant and minimization of incidentally-collected data. It's big news and an important improvement off the status quo.
But there are a few loopholes.
First, the policy reserves exigent uses. The exigent uses include most of DOJ Agencies known uses of Stingrays now.
These include the need to protect human life or avert serious injury; the prevention of the imminent destruction of evidence; the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; or the prevention of escape by a suspect or convicted fugitive from justice.
In addition, in the subset of exigent situations where circumstances necessitate emergency pen register authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3125 (or the state equivalent), the emergency must be among those listed in Section 3125: immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to any person; conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime; an immediate threat to a national security interest; or an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year.
We know the US Marshals constitute the most frequent users of admitted Stingray use — they'd be covered in prevention of escape by a fugitive. DEA seems to use them a lot (though I think more of that remains hidden). That'd include "conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime." And it's clear hackers are included here, which includes the first known use, to capture Daniel Rigmaiden.
And I'm not sure whether the exigent/emergency use incorporates the public safety applications mentioned in the non-disclosure agreements localities sign with the FBI, or if that's included in this oblique passage.
There may also be other circumstances in which, although exigent circumstances do not exist, the law does not require a search warrant and circumstances make obtaining a search warrant impracticable. In such cases, which we expect to be very limited, agents must first obtain approval from executive-level personnel at the agency's headquarters and the relevant U.S. Attorney, and then from a Criminal Division DAAG. The Criminal Division shall keep track of the number of times the use of a cell-site simulator is approved under this subsection, as well as the circumstances underlying each such use.
In short, many, if not most, known uses are included in exceptions to the new policy.
The many known uses of Stingrays where warrants would not be necessary — and where DOJ would therefore just be using a PRTT — are of particular importance given the way new disclosure requirements work. There are, to be sure, admirable new requirements to tell judges what the fuck they're approving and what it means. But nothing explicitly says defendants will not get noticed. DOJ has said no past or current usage of Stingrays will get noticed to defendants. And all these non-warrant uses of Stingrays will be noticed either, probably. In other words, this returns things to the condition where defendants won't know — because they would normally expect to see a warrant that wouldn't exist in these non-warrant uses.
The policy doesn't apply to localities, which increasingly have their own Stingrays they permit federal agencies to use. Curiously, the language applying this policy to federal cooperation with localities would suggest the federal rules only apply if the Feds are supporting localities, not if the reverse (FBI borrowing Buffalo's Stingray, for example) is the case.
The Department often works closely with its State and Local law enforcement partners and provides technological assistance under a variety of circumstances. This policy applies to all instances in which Department components use cell-site simulators in support of other Federal agencies and/or State and Local law enforcement agencies.
Thus, it may leave a big out for the kind of cooperation we know to exist.
Then, of course, the policy only applies in the criminal context, though DOJ claims it will adopt a policy "consistent" with this one on the FISC side.
This policy applies to the use of cell-site simulator technology inside the United States in furtherance of criminal investigations. When acting pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Department of Justice components will make a probable-cause based showing and appropriate disclosures to the court in a manner that is consistent with the guidance set forth in this policy.
BREAKING! FBI has been using Stingrays in national security investigations! (Told ya!)
This language is itself slippery. FISC use of Stingrays probably won't be consistent on the FISC side (even accounting for the many ways exigent uses could be claimed in national security situations), because we know that FISC already has different rules for PRTT on the FISC side, in that it permits collection of post cut through direct dialed numbers — things like extension numbers — so long as that gets minimized after the fact. The section on minimization here emphasizes the "law enforcement" application as well. So I would assume that not only will national security targets of Stingrays not get noticed on it, but they may use different minimization rules as well (especially given FBI's 30 year retention for national security investigation data).
DOJ suggests that DOJ never collects content using Stingrays by stating that its Stingrays always get set not to collect content.
Moreover, cell-site simulators used by the Department must be configured as pen registers, and may not be used to collect the contents of any communication, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3). This includes any data contained on the phone itself: the simulator does not remotely capture emails, texts, contact lists, images or any other data from the phone. In addition, Department cell-site simulators do not provide subscriber account information (for example, an account holder's name, address, or telephone number).
But the rest of the policy makes it clear that department agents will work with other agencies on Stingray use. Some of those — such as JSOC — not only would have Stingrays that get content, but can even partner within the US with FBI. So DOJ hasn't actually prohibited its agencies from getting content from a Stingray (domestically — it goes without saying they're permitted to do so overseas), just that it won't do so using its own Stingrays.
Finally, while not necessarily a loophole (or at least not one I completely understand yet), I'm interested in this definition.
In the context of this policy, the terms "collection" and "retention" are used to address only the unique technical process of identifying dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information, as described by 18 U.S.C. § 3 I 27(3), emitted by cellular devices. "Collection" means the process by which unique identifier signals are obtained; "retention" refers to the period during which the dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information is utilized to locate or identify a target device, continuing until tlle point at whic!h such information is deleted.
This definition (which only applies to this policy and therefore perhaps not to national security uses of Stingrays) employs an entirely different definition for collection and retention than other collection that relies on collection then software analysis. Under upstream collection, for example, the government calls this definition of "retention" something closer to "collection." Don't get me wrong — this is probably a better definition than that used in other contexts. But I find it funny that FBI employs such different uses of these words in very closely connected contexts.
So, in sum, this is a real victory, especially the bit about actually telling judges what they're approving when they approve it.
But there are some pretty obvious loopholes here….
Update: ACLU also welcomes this while pointing to some of the limits of the policy.
Update: Here are some of my posts on the FISA uses of PRTT, including (we now know) Stingrays.
I Con the Record just announced that the NSA will make the phone dragnet data it has "analytically unavailable" after the new system goes live in November, and unavailable even to techs three months later.
On June 29, 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the Government's application to resume the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata program pursuant to the USA FREEDOM Act's 180-day transition provision. As part of our effort to transition to the new authority, we have evaluated whether NSA should maintain access to the historical metadata after the conclusion of that 180-day period.
NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015. However, solely for data integrity purposes to verify the records produced under the new targeted production authorized by the USA FREEDOM Act, NSA will allow technical personnel to continue to have access to the historical metadata for an additional three months.
Separately, NSA remains under a continuing legal obligation to preserve its bulk 215 telephony metadata collection until civil litigation regarding the program is resolved, or the relevant courts relieve NSA of such obligations. The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations.
As I understand it, whatever data has been found to be two or three degrees of separation from a baddie will remain in NSA's maw, but the data that has never returned off a search will not.
I'm pleasantly surprised by this, as I suspect it reflects a decision to accept the Second Circuit verdict in ACLU v. Clapper and to move to shut down other lawsuits.
As I noted, two weeks ago, the ACLU moved for an injunction against the dragnet, which not only might have led to the Second Circuit ordering the government to purge ACLU's data right away (and possibly, to stop collecting all data), but also basically teed up the Second Circuit to remind the FISC it is not an appellate court. I worried that would lead the FISC to ask FISCR to review its dragnet decisions under a provision newly provided under the USA F-ReDux.
Shortly after ACLU filed its request for an injunction, the government asked for an extension to … today, which the court granted.
So I assume we'll shortly see that filing arguing that, since the government has voluntarily set a purge date for all the dragnet data, ACLU should not get its injunction.
That doesn't necessarily rule out a FISCR fast track request, but I think it makes it less likely.
The other player here, however, is the EFF.
I believe both ACLU and EFF's phone dragnet client Council on American Islamic Relations, had not only standing as clients of dragnetted companies, but probably got swept up in the two-degree dragnet. But CAIR probably has an even stronger case, because it is public that FISC approved a traditional FISA order against CAIR founder Nihad Awad. Any traditional FISA target has always been approved as a RAS seed to check the dragnet, and NSA almost certainly used that more back when Awad was tapped, which continued until 2008. In other words, CAIR has very good reason to suspect the entire organization has been swept up in the dragnet and subjected to all of NSA's other analytical toys.
EFF, remember, is the one NGO that has a preservation order, which got extended from its earlier NSA lawsuits (like Jewel) to the current dragnet suit. So when I Con the Record says it can't destroy all the data yet, it's talking EFF, and by extension, CAIR. So this announcement — in addition to preparing whatever they'll file to get the Second Circuit off its back — is likely an effort to moot that lawsuit, which in my opinion poses by far the biggest threat of real fireworks about the dragnet (not least because it would easily be shown to violate a prior SCOTUS decision prohibiting the mapping of organizations).
We'll see soon enough. For the moment, though, I'm a bit surprised by the cautious approach this seems to represent.
Update: Timeline on data availability fixed.
Update: Here's the government's brief submitted today. I'm rather intrigued by how often the brief claims USA F-ReDux was about bulk "telephony" data when it was supposed to be about all bulk collection. But I guess I can return to that point.
Update: They depart from describing USA F-ReDux as a ban bulk collection of telephony when they describe it as a ban on collection of bulk collection under Section 215, also not what the bill says.
Part of the compromise on which Congress settled, which the President supported, was to add an unequivocal ban on bulk collection under Section 215 specifying that "[n]o order issued under" Section 215(b)(2) "may authorize collection of tangible things without the use of a specific selection term that meets the requirements" of that subsection.
Update: This is key language — and slightly different from what they argued before FISC. I will return to it.
Plaintiffs assert that, by not changing the language of Section 215 authorizing the collection of business records during the transition period, Congress implicitly incorporated into the USA FREEDOM Act this Court's opinion holding that Section 215 did not authorize bulk collection. See Pls.' Mot. 7- 8. Plaintiffs rely on language providing that the legislation does not "alter or eliminate the authority of the Government to obtain an order under" Section 215 "as in effect prior to the effective date" of the statute. USA FREEDOM Act § 109, 129 Stat. at 276. That language does not advance plaintiffs' argument, however, because the statute says nothing expressly about what preexisting authority the government had under Section 215 to obtain telephony metadata in bulk. It is implausible that Congress employed the word "authority" to signify that the government lacked authority to conduct the Section 215 bulk telephony-metadata program during the 180-day transition period, contrary to the FISC's repeated orders and the Executive Branch's longstanding and continuing interpretation and application of the law, and notwithstanding the active litigation of that question in this Court. That is especially so because language in the USA FREEDOM Act providing for the 180-day transition period has long been a proposed feature of the legislation. It is thus much more plausible that the "authority" Congress was referring to was not the understanding of Section 215 reflected in this Court's recent interpretation of Section 215, but rather the consistent interpretation of Section 215 by 19 different FISC judges: to permit bulk collection of telephony metadata.
This year continues to be a big one for women in film. Films featuring women as leads and/or directed by women made beaucoup at the box office. Mad Max: Fury Road, Pitch Perfect 2, Insurgent, and Fifty Shades of Grey are among the top ten films out of more than 284 released so far this year. Two of these films were directed by women; all four featured female leads. And two of these films put to lie once again the bullshit claim that 'women can't lead action films.'
The immense popularity of these movies — especially with women — demonstrates how much Hollywood underserves the female audience, in spite of repeated studies revealing how much women contribute to box office results. Women want women's stories, told by women, and they've gotten them too rarely.
You'd think that Hollywood would actively court the single largest demographic by catering to its desires — but no. The film production pipeline remains solidly weighted toward men, still chasing the increasingly distracted 18-25 year-old male demographic.
It's not as if women aren't available as actors or directors. The Directors Guild of America (DGA) — the labor organization representing directors — counts among its ranks roughly 1200 female directors, reflecting the parity of female students who've been through film school or learned on the job in other production roles.
Which makes one wonder why actor/director/producer George Clooney said in a recent interview, "…there's something like 15 female directors in a town of directors …"
If a household name like Clooney doesn't know more female directors, what exactly is it the DGA is doing for its female membership? It's clearly not representing them within their own organization, let alone to studios and the public.
The ACLU's May 12th letter to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spelled out DGA's complicity with Hollywood's exclusion of female directors, when it asked the EEOC to investigate discriminatory practices. DGA has denied the use of short lists, but apart from preparing regular reports on diversity in hiring, it's not clear at all what the DGA does to further the hiring of women directors. Continue reading
Thus far, I have not seen a statement from the ACLU on last night's developments with respect to the PATRIOT Act — the passage of cloture, McConnell's failure to even ask for an immediate vote, followed by McConnell filing several amendments that would weaken USA F-ReDux. [Correction: here is one. h/t EG]
Indeed, no one even seems to be interested what the ACLU thinks about all this, reporting the key players to include Mitch McConnell and Richard Burr, the White House and Intelligence Agencies, and the House, especially House leadership that would be forced to shepherd any changes to USA F-ReDux back through the House, but not the ACLU.
I'm interested.
Especially with Burr's amendment to extend the transition period to the new phone records program to a full year. After all, ACLU's lawsuit just got punted back to the District to see what happens now, but it was punted based on the presumption that Congress was going to fix the illegal dragnet "soon."
A year is not "soon," at least not in my book.
If ACLU agrees with me, they can asks the judges to provide some relief "sooner" than a year from now, either by ordering an earlier end to the dragnet or — at the very least — requiring the NSA to pull all of ACLU's records from their dragnet. Indeed, given the number of active court challenges the ACLU has against the government, they'd be able to argue pretty compellingly they need quicker relief than a year.
In the past, NSA has suggested it would be too onerous to pull the records of one plaintiff from the dragnet. Who knows whether they were just bullshitting judges, but if it is too onerous, that would present other issues.
All of which is my way of saying the ACLU may have a few cards of interest in their hand that no one is much considering. I'm not going to ask them what they're holding, mind you. I like that they may be deliberating in secret to thwart efforts to extend the dragnet.
I'm just noting that they do appear to still be holding some cards…


text:
Issue #144 / Nov 2012
Cover Theme: Hadoop
DVD: openSUSE 12.2
Article Code
Download this issue as a PDF:
100 pages
Price $9.99
Issue #144
SERVICE: openSUSE 12.2
SERVICE: Don't Copy
This month's DVD
SERVICE: openSUSE 12.2
NEWS: Tech Tools
HPC in the cloud with StarCluster
COVER STORIES: Cluster in the Cloud
Big data excavation with Apache Hadoop
COVER STORIES: Big Dig
Buy this issue
Pages: 100
(incl. VAT)
Visit Our Shop
Direct Download
Buy this issue as a PDF
LinuxCon North America Convenes in Toronto, Canada
Linux Foundation's big event celebrates the 25th anniversary of Linux
Linux Turns 25
Linux has evolved from a "won't be a professional" project to one of the most professional software projects in the history of computers.
Mirantis Joins Hands with SUSE To Offer RHEL Support; Red Hat Not Happy
Competitors get in the game with RHEL without Red Hat
Linux on Windows 10 Poses a Security Risk
Security researchers have already notified Microsoft; some fixes are available
Mirantis to Refactor OpenStack Fuel for Kubernetes
The company is collaborating with Google and Intel to use Kubernetes as an engine for Fuel
Canonical Joins Document Foundation Advisory Board
The upcoming release of LibreOffice will be available as a snap package
SUSE Joins the Microsoft Test Drive Program
Customers can take a free test drive of SLES for HPC on the Azure Cloud
SiFive Launches a Line of Open Source Chips
San Francisco-based chip company announces their first fully open source chip platform.
Fedora 24 Released
The whole distro gets rebuilt on glibc 2.3
Canonical Announces Cross-Distro Support for Snaps
Ubuntu Vendor tries to solve app packaging and distribution problem across distributions.


text:
I have a poll posted and noticed my required fields aren't being required.
I thought I had tested it to be working when I first posted it and someone else alerted me that they weren't being required. So I thought maybe it was a cookie thing. So I deleted all YOP cookies and was able to vote without filling in the required fields.
After the vote there are 3 fields. The first two are required and the last is not. I have double checked in the edit section and the two fields have the checkbox checked for "required". Is there something else that has affect on whether the required fields work?


text:
UPDATE: "The Flash" Hasn't Cast Savitar, Says Berlanti
TV, Comic Books
Wars are won by decisive leaders, dedicated soldiers and technology that gives you the upper hand. But after you win the wars, what happens if that technology fell into the wrong hands?
That's what happens in this week's Havoc Brigade graphic novel from Studio 407. Writer Neal Marshall Stevens and artist John Bosco showcase a world where a decades-long military conflict is finally overcome with the introduction of a group of soldiers piloting experimental machines known as Havocs. After peace is achieved, the Havoc Brigade and their vehicles are put out to pasture but strife begins anew when one of their own has different ideas. The Havoc Brigade was created to put an end to the war, but with the war over who is to stop a rebellious man with a Havoc at his command?
Havoc Brigade creator/writer Neal Marshall Stevens might be an unfamiliar name in comics, but he's a big name in horror circles as writer of several horror movies including Thirteen Ghosts and one of the Hellraiser movies. Reportedly Stevens came to comics to have more of his story ideas reach the world, complaining of the complex and disappointing process of getting a film made. Stevens has a second comics project in the works titled Demon Squad, also scheduled to come out via Studio 407.
Here is a five-page preview of Havoc Brigade provided by the publisher:
What if the fictional stories you grew up reading could come to life? Sure, it'd be fun to meet Sherlock Holmes… but what if everything both good and evil came to life? In the upcoming graphic novel Fictionauts from Studio 407, a group of scientists-turned-adventurers is tasked with fighting off the threats from our fiction bookshelves before they make it to our world. Created by Mauro Mantella and Leandro Rizzo, this mixes the fiction-is-real concept from comics like The Unwritten with classic sci-fi-turned-superhero books like Challengers of the Unknown into a raucous looking, punching-Moby-Dick-In-His-Blowhole kind of story.
"[Fictionauts] combines over-the-top pulp action, humor, and high-concept science-fiction with some of the most famous literary characters of all time," says Studio 407's Ivan Salazar in a press release. "It's the lovechild of Grant Morrison and Herman Melville that comic fans never knew they wanted, but won't be able to live without!"
The titular team at the center of this patrols the metaphysical space between fiction and reality, hoping to prevent these fantastical creations from bleeding over into our reality. In the past they've faced off with the aforementioned Moby Dick and traded barbs with greats like Charles Dickens, but when a mysteriously named Agent X attempts to break down the walls completely between fiction and reality the team is pushed to see if they can stop the world from being inadvertently destroyed by the imagination of our most creative prose novelists of all time.
Ivan Salazar probably isn't someone a lot of comic fans would know, but those of us on the press side have likely had some sort of interaction with him or gotten some assistance from him over the past few years. I first met him a couple of years ago while he was working for BOOM! Studios, where he worked with Chip Mosher, their former marketing and sales director. Ivan, Chip and the other members of the team worked together on several big initiatives, like press conferences with Stan Lee at the San Diego Comic Con and the BOOM! RV at ComicsPro.
Salazar left BOOM! not long ago and recently got back in touch with me to let me know he was now public relations and marketing manager for Studio 407. I wasn't very familiar with them, so I asked him a few questions about both his old job and his new one.


text:
I did some research in this vacation, just want to share with you these information i digged out, I don't make these up, all excerpted from agria's annual report and news released by agria. if you have different reading from the reports and news please post your opinion.
1. I doubt Agria's ability to make money in China, look at the following Net income (loss) attributable to Agria Corporation since 2008.
2008 --- 751 million loss
2009 --- 135 million loss
2010 --- 59 million loss
2011 --- no mumber for whole year, only 18 million earning in the first 6 months, it's highly possible they hid some cost in the first 6 months, defered to second half year, who knows.
2012 --- 15 million loss
ok, you may argue that the major revenue contributor now is PGW, it will be a different story in 2013, then you should ask yourself one question, is Agria still a good investment if its domestic business lossing money? Think about this: if someone tells you that he wants to raise money and invest in a NZ company, would you rather invest in him than buying PGW share directly? why we need one more middle man?
2. Agria funded the acquisition of PGW partly through debt that matures between October 2012 and February 2014, and partly through equity financing in Agria Asia Investments through New Hope International, which holds an option to require us to repurchase its shares in Agria Asia Investments between May 2013 and May 2014. In other words, Agria shares 50.22% control of PGW with Ngai Tahu Capital Limited and New Hope International. GRO has 80.81% equity interest in this 50.22% of PGW, so at the end, as GRO holder, we only have 40.58% of PGW dividen.
3. Under a supplemental agreement, Agria Group agreed to provide guarantee to New Hope International for a minimal level of dividends to be distributed by Agria Asia to New Hope International. If Agria Group makes any payment to New Hope International under that guarantee, New Hope International will remit such payment to Agria Group once cumulative dividends distributed by Agria Asia to New Hope International exceeds the minimal guaranteed level. To secure the performance of Agria Group's obligation in connection with this put option held by New Hope International, in June 2011, Agria Group pledged its shares in Agria Asia to New Hope International and Mr. Guanglin Lai, the chairman of our board, made a personal guarantee to New Hope International for Agria Group's payment obligation in the event that New Hope International exercises its put option. Agria Corporation agreed to indemnify Mr. Lai against all the obligations, losses, costs, damages, expenses, liabilities, actions and demands that he may incur or sustain in connection with his personal guarantee.
In short, GRO has to pay New Hope a guaranteed minimal level dividen!
4. I don't believe Agria can be listed on Hongkong GEM soon, because Agria doesn't meet the management team requirement-- same management team for 2 years. The CEO and CFO resigned two months ago. Even the IPO application gets approved, I doubt the HongKong market will accept it, just look at agria's ugly performance in last 5 years.
5. about the delisting: moving to OTC market doesn't mean minority shareholders can not trade the stock, the real problem to Agria is it will affect the ability to obtain adequate financing for the continuation of operations would be substantially impaired.


text:
FiltersShow / Hide
- All Events
- Music
- Comedy
- Theatre & Shows
- Sport
- Cinema
- Festivals
- Days Out
- Edinburgh Fringe
- Anywhere In The UK
- Location: Anywhere in the UK
Radius: ... miles
Get an alert when new Elgan Llyr Thomas dates are announced
Welsh tenor from Llandudno and winner of the prestigious Bryn Terfel Urdd Gobaith Cymru Scholarship.
Elgan Llyr Thomas tour dates listed on Ents24.com since Dec 2011.
Elgan Llyr Thomas Tour Dates
Track Elgan Llyr Thomas
- You are tracking Elgan Llyr Thomas
- Email alerts will be sent to your email address
- Receive email as soon as new tour dates are announced
- 1,301,956 fans now rely on Ents24 alerts
- Alerts are free and always will be!
- We never share details with 3rd parties
No current UK tour dates for Elgan Llyr Thomas
Alert me when new Elgan Llyr Thomas tour dates are announced...
You are tracking Elgan Llyr Thomas.
We will email you as soon as UK tour dates are announced.
- Be the first to know about new Elgan Llyr Thomas tour dates
- Alerts are free always will be
- We hate spam and will never share your email address with anyone else
- 1,301,956 fans now rely on Ents24 to track their favourite artists and venues
Puttour dates on your web site
- Customisable, flexible tour date widget
- Super quick set-up, get the code here
News and Announcements RSS feed
No current news or announcements.
Have Your Say
- Read the full review
Just returned from the Royal Northern College Manchester St David's Day Concert and were thrilled to hear this young Welsh tenor from Llandudno give such a wonderful performance, he has such a natural voice. His whole heart was in singing the Welsh National anthem .
His is the… (cont'd) Myfanwy from Prestbury
Have you seen Elgan Llyr Thomas? Write a review
Do you represent Elgan Llyr Thomas, or are you a member of their promotional team? Click here to claim this page


text:
Save the Planets! 3-2-1 Penguins! #7, DVD
- All Products
- Academic
- Accompaniment Tracks
- Audiobooks
- Bible Accessories
- Bible Covers
- Bible Studies & Curriculum
- Bibles
- Books
- Buy in Bulk
- Catholic
- Children
- Christian Living
- Church & Pastoral
- Church Supplies
- Closeouts
- Clothing & Accessories
- Crafts & Recreation
- Download
- DVDs
- eBooks
- eBooks On Sale
- Family
- Fiction
- Gift & Home
- Homeschool
- Last Chance Bargains
- Music
- New Release
- Non-Fiction
- Pre-Order
- Slightly Imperfect
- Software
- Spanish
- Subscriptions
- Sunday School
- Teens
- Toys
Product Description
In "The Green-Eyed Monster," green-eyed monsters appear and start eating everything in sight when jealousy arises between two groups of sheep. Can the Penguins restore peace before the planet completely disappears in a monster lunch-munch? Then in "More is More," the citizens of Gutt are addicted to sugar frosted cereal, and their insatiable appetites are threatening to throw the planet off course! Can these over-indulgers learn that moderation is the key to restoring a healthy orbit? In "Give and Let Give," a planet populated by a feisty bunch of garden gnomes and pink flamingos argue over water rights during a draught. Will these feuding lawn ornaments learn to share so everyone has enough to drink? Running time: Approximately 66 minutes. Recommended for ages 5 and up.
Bonus Features:
- Pearls of Wisdom
- Make Your Own Planet
- Animation Progression
- Video Trivia
- Studio Commentary
- Discussion Guide
- Fun Games: How to Draw Kevin and Chancellor Gutt
- DVD-Rom Fun
- Closed Captioned
- Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound
- English and Spanish subtitles
Product Information
|Format: DVD
Vendor: Big Idea
|Availability: In Stock
Ages: 5-12
Series: 321 Penguins
Other Customers Also Purchased
Moon Menace on Planet Tell-A-Lie!PenguinsGlobal Access Sales & Marketing / DVD$3.99 Retail:
$9.99Save 60% ($6.00)Availability: In StockCBD Stock No: WW74985
Liberty's Kids: The Complete Series, 4-DVD SetLook Above LLC / DVD$7.49 Retail:5 Stars Out Of 5 83 Reviews
$12.98Save 42% ($5.49)Availability: In StockCBD Stock No: WW533608
The Super Snoopers Volume 1, DVDBMG / DVD$1.99 Retail:3 Stars Out Of 5 2 Reviews
$14.95Save 87% ($12.96)Availability: In StockCBD Stock No: WW319525Video
A Life God Rewards for Little Ones (Ages 2 to 5), Board BookBruce Wilkinson, Thomas WomackMultnomah / 2002 / Hardcover$1.99 Retail:4.5 Stars Out Of 5 11 Reviews
$5.99Save 67% ($4.00)Availability: In StockCBD Stock No: WW520947
Related Products
Tomato Sawyer and Huckleberry Larry's Big River Rescue, VeggieTales DVDBig Idea / DVD$8.99 Retail:4.5 Stars Out Of 5 60 Reviews
$9.99Save 10% ($1.00)Availability: In StockCBD Stock No: WW111793
Product Reviews
greenmomma3 Stars Out Of 5it was ok, and good enough for the priceDecember 1, 2014greenmommaQuality: 4Value: 3Meets Expectations: 3My kids range from 2 to 9 and I had expected that they would LOVE the penguins. It is a so-so hit. They don't "ask" for it to be put on, but if I choose it and put it on they usually don't ask for something different.
Dorothy5 Stars Out Of 5June 15, 2009DorothyMy kids love 3-2-1 Penguins (and else everything VeggieTales makes) this one didn't disappoint - it was packed with adventure and fun and full of Christian references. Great alternative to all the cartoon junk that they are bombarding our kids out there.
Mrs. Lindsey2 Stars Out Of 5November 18, 2008Mrs. LindseyWe bought this for our 4 yr. old who has each of the others in the series and was excited to have a new one. We were disappointed to say the least. It isn't remotely Christian, mostly promoting morals, but not citing the Bible or even "the Good Book" as before. Now there are Scriptures coming from fortune cookies. Bizzarre! We actually ended up throwing away our copy. My son is too young to understand that "The Green-Eyed Monster" comes from envy and doesn't just appear out of nowhere. And even with the recommendation of ages 5 and up, it is going to take some explaining to figure out the monster thing. Let's get back to the Bible as the source of authority and morals. Not fortune cookies.
Mrs. Vickie Niedrauer5 Stars Out Of 5October 20, 2008Mrs. Vickie NiedrauerVery Veggie Talish. Loved it, especially the first one with the sheep. We loved loved all the episodes in the DVD. Looking forward to some more!


text:
When the correction begins, we are ever so close to it beginning, maybe even today....I would go to the sidelines, in a hurry....Look at Japan & China markets, they have already started. Our markets will probably rollover today, Nasdaq looks strong, but will probably turn red, too.
Highly unlikely. Earnings are still good and Europe is starting to recover. Even Spain is showing signs of life.
bump. LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Priced in months ago, many tech stocks in a bubble....TSLA...PCLN....NFLX.....AMZN....GOOG, and one not a tech stock that comes to mind....Chipolte Mexican Grill....CMG...Over $520 dollars. Many of these stocks will lose $100 of dollars.
Markets are at record highs, many European markets at record highs....Priced in, young man.
ask him about the giant corrections he was calling for at Dow 13900 and S&P 1500. Starting in January and every freaking month this year. You'd go broke listening to this idiot. He is broke, that's why he has nothing to do but irritate people on here.


text:
Scleroderma is an ongoing (chronic) disease that causes abnormal growth of connective tissue. It can affect the joints, skin, and internal organs. It is degenerative and gets worse over time. The disease can be in one area of the body. This is known as localized scleroderma. Or it may affect the whole body. This is known as systemic sclerosis. Scleroderma is more common in women.
Scleroderma is thought to be an autoimmune disease. This means the symptoms are caused by the body attacking its own healthy tissues. Genes play a role in the disease, but it is not passed on from parents to children. Some environmental factors may also play a role.
Scleroderma can lead to scarring of the skin, joints, and internal organs. Symptoms can occur a bit differently in each person, and may include:
The symptoms of scleroderma can be like other health conditions. Make sure to see your health care provider for a diagnosis.
The process starts with a medical history and a physical exam. Diagnosis is based on the changes in the skin and internal organs. An antibody test may help show the type of scleroderma. Tests may also be done, such as:
Treatment will depend on your symptoms, your age, and your general health. Treatment may include:
With localized scleroderma, some symptoms may get better over time. However, damage to skin and other organs may be permanent. With systemic sclerosis, symptoms can over time lead to damage to the skin and cause thickened, tight skin. This can change your appearance. And it can cause movement problems. It can also cause severe kidney, lung, digestive, or heart problems. In some cases, these organ problems can lead to death.
Systemic scleroderma is a long-term condition. It is important that you learn ways to best manage your symptoms. Learn about the disease and work with health care providers who have experience with scleroderma. Because scleroderma can affect so many systems of the body, you may need to have many specialists on your health team. Physical and occupational therapists may help you with managing your activities of daily living. Make sure that you and other team members are in regular touch with each other. If you are not able to manage your care, pick a trusted person to oversee your care. Make sure to address your emotional well-being, too. Do not hesitate to ask for help when you need it.
If your symptoms get worse or you have new symptoms, let your health care provider know.
Tips to help you get the most from a visit to your health care provider:
For Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts members
Find a Doctor & Estimate Costs
Health & Wellness
Review Benefits
Review Claims
Attend a Seminar
Medicare Plans
Request a Call
Manage Your Account
Plans & Products
Forms & Documents
Tools & Support for Educating Employees
Medical Policy
Office Resources
Provider News
Annual Report
Contact Us
Corporate Citizenship
Diversity Leadership
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.® Registered Marks of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.© 101 Huntington Avenue, Suite 1300, Boston, MA 02199-7611 | 1-800-262-BLUE (2583)
About Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Terms of Use, Privacy & Security
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is a leading provider of quality health insurance for residents of Massachusetts. Our main goal is to make health care cost-effective by offering health insurance solutions for individuals, families, and large and small businesses at affordable rates.
Our Vision — Making Quality Health Care AffordableOur Promise — To Always Put Our Members First
To learn more about our Massachusetts health plans, please visit our Plans & Products page, where you can compare Massachusetts health insurance plans, buy health plans online, and get Mass health insurance quotes.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts also offers insurance, pharmacy coverage, and Medicare Plans for seniors; life and disability insurance through Indigo Insurance Services (a wholly owned subsidiary); and insurance for individuals aged 18-26 years. Learn more about our other insurance plans and Medicare plans, or contact a sales representative today.
After your visit, would you be willing to provide some quick feedback?
(It will only take a minute)
YesThis will open a new window
No Thanks


text:
UPDATE: "The Flash" Hasn't Cast Savitar, Says Berlanti
TV, Comic Books
Every day this year, I will be examining the first pages of random comics. This month I will be looking at four writer/artist duos, as voted on by you, the readers! This week features Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle! Today's page is from DC Retroactive: Batman – The '90s #1, which was published by DC and is cover dated October 2011. My retailer, Howard Harris, was nice enough to let me borrow this comic for this post. Thanks, Howard! Enjoy!
After years apart, DC brought Grant and Breyfogle back for one of their "Retroactive" gimmicks last year, and honestly, they hadn't lost a step. The biggest difference between the art in this book and the art from their celebrated collaborations is the coloring, with Carlos Badilla using digital paints to make the colors softer and a bit over-rendered. Breyfogle's art has always looked better with a bit more of a stark inking and coloring job, but that's the way it is with modern comics, and we'll just have to deal with it.
Grant returns to the villain he created in his first issue of Detective Comics, the Ventriloquist, who has just been released from jail. This leads into Alfred's little pep talk and Bruce heading out into the night. This is a nicely written page for a few reasons. Alfred's pep talk is a bit schmaltzy, but it stands out in the marketplace of 2011, because Batman has become such a bleak figure that it's nice to see Alfred reminding him of all the good he does. Grant also makes sure that Bruce says "thank you," which is the only thing he says on the page. This is a Batman who cares about his "family" and appreciates that they are there when he's blue. He's a "weird figure of the night," to be sure, but he also has a human side, which too many writers forget about. Grant never did when he wrote the character back in the 1980s/1990s, and he doesn't here. As with many of his original Batman stories, this book is as much about Batman trying to help people as it is about fighting bad guys, and Grant foreshadows that here.
Breyfogle is still a great artist, even if this page doesn't show all his strengths. The establishing shot sets the scene, and then we see Alfred in the foreground in Panel 2, once again highlighting his importance in Bruce Wayne's life. He's clearing another (presumably) uneaten dinner, and his word balloons lead us back to Bruce, sitting in the chair watching the news. You'll note that in this panel and Panel 3, Breyfogle draws Bruce covering his eyes and almost weeping. This is interesting, as Breyfogle is one of the few Batman artists to show a wide range of emotions on the Caped Crusader, including sadness. Bruce is sad and also weary – he covers his eyes, and we can almost read his thoughts: "What do I have to do to keep these guys in jail?" Because Breyfogle humanized Bruce so well, the transformation in Panel 4 to the stoic Batman is more effective – Bruce can be upset so Batman doesn't have to be. The final panel is a nice one – Alfred has a hint of a smile because he knows he's helped Bruce out, and Breyfogle leads us off the page with the Batmobile speeding away out of the cave. This page really gives us a nice sense of how Grant and Breyfogle create a comic book – while we don't see Breyfogle's fluidity, we do understand that Grant and Breyfogle want to show a human Batman and the vagaries of Batman's existence, as villains often get out of jail after Batman puts them away.
I suppose the only criticism you can make is that Breyfogle's art hasn't evolved all that much, as we see from the reprint of Detective #613 in the back of this comic. But we can make the argument that it was so great in the first place, so it doesn't need to evolve! These two guys hadn't worked together for several years, and this book shows that they hadn't missed a step!
So that's our look at four writer/artist duos. I hope you guys enjoyed it. Tomorrow, we're back to random choices, and I'll have another opportunity for you, the readers, to choose the direction we go in October! Meanwhile, here are the archives!
I don't think I've ever seen Alfred say "No problem" before. So informal! Now I kind of wish he'd said "No problemo."
I feel the paper stock and computer coloring hinders the best effects of Breyfogle's art. He really excelled on newsprint, where the inks could bleed further into the page. It enhanced the mood, and made his already fluid style more… ichorous. In that blood of the gods way.
I don't know if it's the computerized coloring, but the sound effect of the batmobile just doesn't work…..the sharpness of it is jarring.
While computer coloring has evolved in service of a very different art style than Mr. Breyfogle's, I do not think it is quite as bad as you are making it out. The shading adds something to Alfred's expression in the last panel and I like the clarity of the light source in Panel 4. Unlike garik16, I like the Batmobie sound effect.
The Batman figure in Panel 5 is a bit overly stiff and the color is part of the problem. However, it is not that big a deal overall.
Re: saying "B" (which would be correct) instead of "G"….
To quote Benny Hill –
"He can't do that. It's incossigle!"
Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.


text:
I had my 19 week scan last Friday and found out I have placenta previa. I am scared to death of losing this baby? The doctors said in a lot of cases it resolves itself so not to worry too muchĀbecause itĀis common in the 2nd trimester and many times resolves itself by the 3rd trimester.ĀI am over 35 and had a c-section with my first child so the doctor said these factors contribute to having placenta previa with this pregnancy.
Has anyone out there had this condition before? Did it resolve itself or did you go to full term with it?


text:
Who needs a glove to play baseball? Baltimore's Robert Andino sure as hell doesn't need one. After the Twins' Justin Morneau fouled off a pitch, Andino drifted towards the stands and added a couple style points to the same old foul out by catching the ball with his bare hand. Great catch man, but you know, using the glove makes life a heck of a lot easier. Just sayin'... [via MLB.com]
Clip of the Morning: Baseball Player Makes A Great Catch Without Using His Glove (Video)
Watch Now


text:
SE-14r light repeating blaster
this wiki
The SE-14r, sometimes referred to as the Imperial repeating pistol, was an upgrade of the standard BlasTech Industries SE-14 blaster pistol,[1] produced for Imperial officers, stormtroopers, pilots, and other crew. It was considered a backup weapon to the standard-issue E-11 blaster rifle.[2]
Behind the scenesEdit
The SE-14r is from publicity photos for A New Hope and not actually seen in any of the films, however, a similar blaster not in Imperial service, the SE-14C is seen being used by Dr. Evazan in the Mos Eisley cantina.
In the Star Wars: Battlefront video game series, the blaster is the sidearm for the Confederacy of Independent Systems, indicating it may have been used prior to the rise of the Empire. It is also used as a sidearm by the Empire, but only in the PlayStation 2 versions of the games. In the PC and Xbox versions, it is replaced by the scout trooper blaster pistol.
For some reason the SE-14r is the standard Imperial infantry weapon in Star Wars: Empire At War and its expansion, being used by stormtroopers in urban, forest, swamp, and temperate environments, and by Imperial Field Commanders and Scout Troopers in all environments, and is also out of scale, being roughly the same size as an E-11 Blaster Rifle despite its blaster pistol status.
In Hasbro's Clone Wars line, the General Lothsome figure is supplied with an SE-14r blaster pistol.
- Star Wars: The Complete Visual Dictionary
- Star Wars Battlefront: Prima Official Game Guide
- Star Wars Battlefront II: Prima Official Game Guide
Notes and referencesEdit
External linksEdit
- LucasArts Battlefront website (navigate to Gameplay > Units > Imperial)
- Star Wars Miniatures


text:
Wedding Vendor: Siri Bridal Boutique
434 N Canal Street #15
South San Francisco and Online, California 94080
Siri Bridal Boutique is offering a 10% discount off each bridesmaid dress ordered in groups of 3 or more.
Dresses must be in the same fabric and color story
Call the S.F. shop to make your appointment and view these styles in person!


text:
Featuring more than 20 acclaimed, award-winning shorts plus never-before-seen footage, PLYMPTOONS compiles the best and the brightest work of Academy Award(r)-nominated animator and cult-hero Bill Plympton, master of the animated black comedy world. During a career spanning over 30 years, Plympton's creativity and talent have earned him countless accolades and a worldwide cult following. This uproariously funny collection brings together the very best of his early work including commercials, animated spots and short films.
A journey through this political-cartoonist-turned-animator's canvas of animation, PLYMPTOONS: THE COMPLETE EARLY WORKS OF BILL PLYMPTON offers up a delicious dose of mutated humor, from Plympton's first film created during his college days, "Self Portrait", to the Academy Award(r)-nominated "Your Face", his first solo effort.


text:
Discover a selection of top forums 1969 rising on the internet. Come to share your passion on forums 1969 rising and meet other fans of 1969 rising. Then, why don't you create your own forum of 1969 rising ?
Rising from the tainted ashes of the old servers, I am proud to present Kinetic Wave Gaming Rebirth! a return to the golden age!
kinetic, wave, gaming, rebirth, #rising, tainted, ashes, servers, rebirth!, return, golden, age!
The OFFICIAL stock car racing series on Turbo Sliders!
scarts, turboscarts, nascar, turbo, sliders, auto, racing, full, throttle, #rising, star, turbocharged, nationwide, sprint, camping, world, truck, oval, arcade, drafting
Free forum : One of the last remaining unofficial forums for Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising.
operation, flashpoint, dragon, #rising, ofdr, forums, fansites, game, cold, crisis, river, codemasters, forum


text:
Hi all,
I am trying to locate a plugin that will allow me to shortcode Collapsible/Expandible Boxes into the website content. It must be able to change colour of boxes and add html content to these boxes.
I have looked - but have had no luck finding something like this. Does anyone know of a plugin that can do this?


text:
I have shifted from Live Wire theme to StrapVert but the thumbnails of posts are not being shown at front page after shifted to StrapVert.
How to solve this issue ?
I have shifted from Live Wire theme to StrapVert but the thumbnails of posts are not being shown at front page after shifted to StrapVert.
How to solve this issue ?
Make sure your functions.php has this line of code:
add_theme_support( 'post-thumbnails' );
Then, wherever your image is supposed to show, add this:
if ( has_post_thumbnail() ) {
Hope that helps!
the first line is already added, please tell me that where I add the last code (On which line/Before the line/exact location):
if ( has_post_thumbnail() ) {
Hello Asif,
You don't need to add any code as its all already done in the theme. What you need to do is add featured images to your posts and the theme will do the rest.
If you are still having this issues after having added featured images then please post a link to your site so that I can take a closer look.
Check my site here (www.infozonepk.com). Here in this theme you see all thumbnails with posts.
But when I shifted to StrapVert thumbnails of posts on main page did not appear.
Weather I have to added again the image as featured image to all posts ?
Look and some help!
Hello Asif I'm currently away attending a family wedding hence the delay in reply.
Can I ask you to open a ticket via the support link at wpstrapcode.com and I'll pass you my email so you can send me a screenshot of the site. At the moment I can not analyze the site as the theme is not active.
I have generated the Ticket and you can see the screenshot in link and you will see that its main page and the thumbnails are not showing here after converting to StrapVert Theme.
This topic has been closed to new replies.


text:
BRUNSWICK, Maine - Bowdoin's Luke Trinka enjoyed a magical run at the 2013 USTA/ITA Men's Tennis Regional Championship hosted by Middlebury College this weekend, becoming the first Polar Bear to claim the singles crown in program history.
Unseeded heading into the singles bracket, Trinka posted a 6-0 record and was pushed to a third just twice in the tournament, including the final where he beat Conrad Harron of Williams College 6-0, 3-6, 6-1. With the victory, Trinka earns a trip to the Small College Championships at the Three Oaks Tennis Center in Fort Myers, Florida from October 10-13, 2013.
Several other Polar Bears competed in the tournament. Complete results are available at the link. Bowdoin will close out its fall season schedule at Bates' Wallach Invitational next weekend.


text:
I am using default Kubrick themes on my site (http://nofieiman.com) with some modification on its header and background.
However, I notised that the complete sidebar of my site got pushed all the way down to the bottom of the page.
It only happens to IE, not to Firefox or Opera.
Could you please help me to fix this?
Thanks in advance.


text:
- Report: #469912
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Delta Airlines And Cheap Tickets
Delta Airlines And Cheap TicketsDelta Air lines .com New York City, New York U.S.A.
Delta Airlines And Cheap Tickets Deceptive advertising and Very bad service New York City New York
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
I had 2 cancellations and ended up flying to atlanta then to Chicago arriving at 12 pm because the regional airline didnt have planes that met the weather conditions. Deltas craft did. Im looking for a trip refund and I think this form of deceptive advertising and bait and switch pricing should be stopped by a class action law suit
Brooklyn, New York
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/15/2009 09:02 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Delta-Airlines-And-Cheap-Tickets/New-York-City-New-York/Delta-Airlines-And-Cheap-Tickets-Deceptive-advertising-and-Very-bad-service-New-York-City-469912. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Delta Airlines And Cheap Tickets
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
- Report: #902047
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Sugardaddyforme.com
Sugardaddyforme.comInternet United States of America
Sugardaddyforme.com JAGODA ASSOC SD4ME NA CHARGED MY CREDIT CARD 53.01 FOR A MEMEBERSHIP THAT i DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR. Internet
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/24/2012 05:04 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Sugardaddyformecom/internet/Sugardaddyformecom-JAGODA-ASSOC-SD4ME-NA-CHARGED-MY-CREDIT-CARD-5301-FOR-A-MEMEBERSHIP-T-902047. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Sugardaddyforme.com
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
Vendor News
Our Vendor News offers news and announcements about vendors in the Chemical Processing industry.
Economic Snapshot
Our Ecomonic Snapshot offers news about the world economic atomsphere and how it may affect your bottom line.
Industry News
Bayer And Dow Team To Turn FFA Into FAME12/08/2009
BASF, Dow Announce Support For New Patent Asset Index10/12/2009
Dow Water & Process Solutions To Deliver Keynote, Best Practices At IWC09/28/2009
Dow Kokam Receives $161 Million DOE Grant08/06/2009
Dow Water & Process Solutions Will Unveil New Technology At Conference07/10/2009
New Plant Positions Dow For Growth in Asia Pacific06/05/2009
Dow Corning Ramps Up Production In Response To Influenza Outbreak05/29/2009
ISPE Document, Webinar Offer Solutions To Maintenance Issues05/07/2009
Maintenance And Reliability Metrics Definitions Published By SMRP05/06/2009
Workshop Aims To Increase Profitability Via Maintenance and Root Cause Analysis04/24/2009
Chemical Companies Awarded For Community Safety Efforts04/21/2009
Dow Announces Start Up of SSBR Plant in Europe04/16/2009
Top Companies Form Alliance To Advance Wireless Data Technology03/25/2009
Dow Corning Silicones Are Protecting Polar Research Station03/08/2009
Dow Corning Announces Workforce Reduction02/26/2009
Lubrizol Acquires Dow Thermoplastic Polyurethane Business
The Lubrizol Corp. announced today that it has acquired the thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) business from The Dow Chemical Co.01/05/2009
Kuwaits Pull Out Pummels Dow Chemical12/29/2008
NFPA Seminar on Explosive Dust Hazards Held At Farr APC
Seminar is part of program to address NFPA standards for combustible dusts as enforced by OSHA.12/19/2008
Dow Chemical Joins The Masses, Slashes Jobs12/09/2008
Dow Corning Starts Pyrogenic Silica and Siloxane Production In China
Dow Corning Starts Pyrogenic Silica and Siloxane Production In China11/19/2008


text:
Knights Inn Wheeling properties are provided below. Search for cheap and discount Knights Inn hotel rates in Wheeling, WV for your business gathering or personal travels. We list the best Knights Inn Wheeling hotels/lodging so you can review the Wheeling Knights Inn hotel list below to find the perfect place.
Our page will list below Wheeling, WV hotels/motels that are comparable to the quality of Knights Inn.Booking a group or meeting? Get bids from hotels in Wheeling WV
When you stay at Knights Inn Pittsburgh Bridgeville in Bridgeville, you'll be close to Woodville Plantation.


text:
Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library
The list below includes all pages in the category "Opera-ballets".
This includes all operas which conform to the genre of Opéra-ballet, a series of dances and operatic scenes popular in France during the Baroque period.
See also Tragedies en musique, Ballets heroiques, Comic operas, Operas and Stage Works.
Pages in category "Opera-ballets"
The following 84 pages are in this category, out of 84 total.


text:
100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain. It can be mild or excruciating, sporadic or continuous, inconvenient or completely debilitating. With chronic pain, inflammation in the central nervous system can remain active for months or even years.
At the Kaplan Center for Integrative Medicine we have developed a powerful, systematic and highly successful strategy for alleviating serious chronic pain and illness. We understand the impact illness has on your life and believe that you don't have to live with chronic pain.
Conditions Treated
Some of the most common chronic pain conditions and illnesses treated include:
The Kaplan Center Medical Team
What is Integrative Medicine?
Incorporating the best elements of conventional and alternative medicine, our goal is to provide an integrative approach that attends not only to our patient's physical symptoms, but also addresses the root causes of pain and illness, including problems of the mind and spirit that may be contributing to the disease process.
At Kaplan Center, you'll find professional expertise, strong communication between you and your provider, and a high level of collaboration among the members of our medical team in caring for you. The result: We put you back in charge of your life, helping you to attain optimal health.
Dr. Kaplan addresses the severity of the opioid epidemic in this country, outlining some critical next steps if we are to see any measurable improvement in recovery rates.
A Patient's Story
The providers at the Kaplan Center have helped both my daughter and me – through the courses they offer and the treatments they provide. I underwent a couple of abdominal surgeries over the years, and since then, have been cautious about participating in abdominal exercises. I attended Jeanne Scheele's core stabilization class, and she taught me the importance of core health, even given my history. With this knowledge, I started an exercise routine that is gentle on my back, yet effective. I have been using her program three to four times a week and am now stronger than
I have been in 10 years! Jeanne is very gentle, encouraging and knowledgeable – three characteristics that can be difficult to find in one provider.
Blueberry Tart with Walnut Crust
Fresh fruit will always be the best option for dessert when trying to eat healthy, but there are times when that's simply not going to cut it. This blueberry tart uses low-fat alternatives and leaves out the refined sugar. We hope you enjoy it in moderation! Equipment: 9-inch removable-bottom tart [...]
One Minute Yoga Practice To Do Anywhere/Anytime
At this moment, do you notice accumulated stress in your body? That slight clenching in your jaw, furrow in your brow, tension in your shoulders, tightness in your belly? The tools of Yoga Therapy are so powerful because they are accessible and meet us right where we are. The following [...]
4 Brain Boosting Properties of Resveratrol
What do pistachios, peanuts, blueberries, and grapes have in common? In addition to providing a tasty snack, they are all sources of Resveratrol - a naturally occurring substance found in certain plants that offers a number of health benefits to the brain! Resveratrol is a type of phytoalexin - a [...]
5 Ways To Establish A Healthy Gut
Research over the last 10 years has revealed a great deal about the nature of bacterial flora (the microorganisms that live in our digestive system) and the vital role they play in our health. Because the immune system is largely housed in the intestines it makes sense that the 100 [...]
Is Low-Dose Naltrexone Safe for Artificial Heart Valve Recipients?
Q: I have read that Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN) should not be taken by people who have had organ transplants. Does this include an artificial aortic heart valve? Also, does it affect INR levels and should Warfarin dosage need to be readjusted? Low-dose naltrexone is a specially compounded capsule of 1.5 [...]
3 Steps to A Better Brain
Memory loss and cognitive decline is a battle most people will face as they age. But it is this really part of the "normal" aging process? Not necessarily. Current research is revealing that what we believed to be degenerative changes in the brain associated with the normal aging process could [...]
Opening Hours
Monday – Thursday : 8 am – 5 pm, ET
Friday : 8 am – 12 pm, ET