text:
Studio Art
Department of Art
(440) 826-2152
Develop your artistic talent and build analytical thinking and technical skills that prepare you for career opportunities in education, advertising, arts management, design and more.
Studio art is a comprehensive major that melds theoretical study with practical application. It builds proficiencies in visual communication, aesthetics, conceptual thinking and creative problem solving.
Course offerings include ceramics, photography, painting, drawing, jewelry-making and printmaking.
BW's core curriculum – rooted in the liberal arts tradition – offers you an ideal foundation for learning to comprehend and critique art. You'll delve into the work of leading artists and study how the social, cultural and economic circumstances of their time inspired and influenced them.
Studio art offers diverse hands-on learning and portfolio-building opportunities to showcase your work. An internship enables you to apply classroom studies to real-world situations.
Nearby Cleveland offers an array of art museums and galleries that provide impressive cultural opportunities for internships, field experiences, networking opportunities and more. On campus, Fawick Gallery features local and student talent.
BW faculty are award-winning artists as well as professors. You'll learn from instructors with decades of experience.
Career opportunities
- Graphic designer
- Illustrator
- Arts manager
- Gallery curator
- Interior designer
- Buyer
- Advertising executive
- Architectural services
- Professor
- Art therapist
Interested in Becoming a Teacher?
If you would like to become an art teacher, BW has an outstanding teacher education program.
Distinctive Seminar Experience
BW Junior/Senior Seminar experience facilitates the transition from being an art student to becoming a professional artist. Upper-level art majors and studio art faculty meet on a weekly basis for a range of mentoring opportunities, including critiques, workshops and guest artist lectures. This multi-semester course is centered around the students' artwork and prepares them for their Senior Exhibition and professional work.
Offered as a major and minor, studio art is a comprehensive program that develops fundamental art skills of drawing, design, composition, color theory and more.
Studio art is a flexible major that can be a companion for a double major or can serve as a minor for communications, art management, history and music, among other disciplines. Students interested in art therapy can combine a studio art major with psychology.
Course descriptions, requirements for the major and additional information can be found in the University Catalog.
Small class sizes, individual attention and faculty mentoring are at the core of BW's studio art program.
Experiential learning bridges classroom study with real-world opportunities. You can enhance your studies through internships, co-curricular activities and other learning opportunities that include:
Internships/Field Experiences
BW's proximity to Cleveland puts you within a 20-minute drive to outstanding opportunities. Most students have multiple internships prior to graduation. Cleveland offers access to numerous cultural facilities, including the world-renowned Cleveland Museum of Art. Educational trips plus field experiences at private art galleries, auction houses and museums make learning career relevant.
Independent Study
Independent study offers students enrichment opportunities beyond the classroom for individualized and advanced study. Students work one-on-one with a faculty member.
Fawick Gallery
The gallery holds six exhibitions each year that feature student work and Ohio artists.
Student Clubs & Organizations
Personally and professionally rewarding, student organizations and activities foster skills in leadership and teamwork. Opportunities include:Art Attack Club
The club provides opportunities for students to learn about the fields of studio and visual arts to help prepare them for careers in the visual arts or for further study.
Arts Management Association (AMA)
The AMA provides service to area arts organizations and the BW community. It also sponsors professional development opportunities for its members, including all the arts (art, dance, music and theatre) as well as those that focus on not-for-profit and for-profit sectors. The association has partnerships with various organizations in Cleveland, including The Cleveland Orchestra, and assists in the promotion and operation of University-sponsored arts events and festivals. Member activities have included networking trips to New York City, Chicago and Toronto; Arts Advocacy Day Conference in Washington, D.C.; and grant writing workshops with panelists from leading organizations.
Study Abroad Boosts Career Marketability
The opportunity to experience another culture and gain an international perspective is invaluable to your professional development and will add to your career options. Benefits include:
- Understanding art from an international perspective
- Expanding cross-cultural communication and problem-solving skills
- Preparing for an increasingly diverse and international workplace
- Broadening academic horizons
- Improving language skills
- Experiencing a different culture
- Building an international network of contacts
At Baldwin Wallace, you'll experience personal and professional growth in a supportive community that challenges and inspires you to succeed.
Students who have applied to graduate school have been accepted to some of the best, including:
- Virginia Commonwealth University California Institute of the Arts
- Chicago Art Institute
- Rochester Institute of Technology
- Pratt Institute
- New York University
- Ohio State University
- Johns Hopkins University
- University of Maryland
- Loyola University
Alumni have worked at significant cultural institutions, including:
- Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Cornell University
- National Gallery
- Ithaca College
- TAR Magazine
- Cleveland International Film Festival
- SPACES Gallery
- Cleveland Partnership for Arts and Culture
- Rachael Davis Fine Art
- Morgan Paper Conservancy
- University of Dayton


text:
LEGO Shop Home Themes THE LEGO® MOVIE™ THE LEGO® MOVIE™ Ultimate Sticker Collection
THE LEGO® MOVIE™ Ultimate Sticker Collection
- Item: 5003798
- Ages:3+
- VIP Points: 0
- Retired product
Decorate your world with more than 1,000 reusable THE LEGO® MOVIE™ stickers!
Decorate your world with THE LEGO® MOVIE™ stickers!
Is your desk looking a little plain? Bedroom needs some extra color? Notebooks just a bit too…ordinary? Transform ordinary to extraordinary with THE LEGO® MOVIE™ Ultimate Sticker Collection! Filled with over 1,000 reusable, wall-safe stickers featuring all of your favorite THE LEGO® MOVIE™ heroes and villains, this fun-packed collection will help you make everything around you even more awesome.
- More than 1,000 full-color stickers included!
- Stickers are reusable and wall-safe
You May Also Like
- locale
- numRecs
- 5
- -inc-price
- true
- -inc-inventory
- true
- -rec-builder
- LEGO_rec_builder
- dataItems
- title_en-US
- link_en-US
- image_link_en-US
- category_en-US
- retail_price_en-US
- sale_price_en-US
- BV_rating_en-US

subset: commoncrawl


text:
▪ Software
▪ New eBook Releases
▪ Bestselling eBooks
CATEGORIES | View all
▪ Romance
Suspense & Thrillers
Science Fiction
Mystery & Detectives
Biography & Memoir
Spiritual & Religion
View eBooks by author
Categories: Erotica/Gay-Lesbian Erotica/Gay Fiction
Publisher: eXtasy eBooks/eXtasy Books | Date published: 11/15/2011
Our hero, Miles Diamond, narrowly averts financial catastrophe when he is hired by David Travis to find his missing twin brother. Unfortunately, Miles' new case almost immediately throws him into a dangerous world of sex trafficking, drugs and international terrorism where he is soon in as much danger as the man he is trying to find. So far, Miles has survived an attempt to drown him, a bomb aboard an airplane, a pitched gun battle, a fall from the roof of Notre Dame Cathedral and enough hot sex to bring an ordinary man to his knees. After organizing a stakeout in a fashionable Parisian neighborhood, Miles spends his spare time getting to know the neighborhood. After a spectacular run-in with the wife of a very handsome baker, he meets up with an old college friend who has a wealth of information regarding the case. Miles and his pals finally get a line on Daniel Travis's whereabouts when they manage to run the nephew of Daniel's lover to ground. Thwarted by an airline strike, the foursome ride the rails through Spain, bound for Morocco.


text:
16th Annual Real Estate Conference
|Event Start Date
|Friday, March 2, 2012
Hilton San Diego Bayfront, One Park Blvd., San Diego, Calif. 92101
|Event Start Time
|7:30 am - 12:00 pm
16th Annual Real Estate Conference Featuring U.S. Bank CEO Richard Davis
Join the Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate for our 16th Annual Real Estate Conference, featuring U.S. Bank CEO Richard Davis. Please register at www.sandiego.edu/bmcevent.
For questions or sponsorship opportunities, contact Diane Gustafson at (619) 260-2379 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
|Diane Gustafson | email@example.com | (619) 260-2379
|Web Address


text:
How to Choose Universities
- Do Your Research
- English-Language Requirements for U.S. Study
- Financial Aid Form
- Spotlight on Mechatronics Engineering
The academic culture in the United States is driven by a self-directed learning environment. In U.S. college classrooms, students are responsible for their own success and their motivation to succeed is demonstrated when the student is fully engaged in the learning experience and able to act independently. This ability to act independently and responsibly starts with the process of selecting and applying to the right U.S. colleges and universities.
Every day, EducationUSA advising centers respond to hundreds of questions about studying in the United States.
Advisers provide prospective students with introductory information about the U.S. higher education system and the process of applying to a U.S. institution, while encouraging them to research their options to determine the college or university that best fits their needs. In this article, we will outline some simple steps to get you started on doing your research.
Before you get started with researching, you need to consider all the options that are available in the United States, such as the different types and sizes of institutions, as well as campus locations in an urban, suburban or rural setting.
Also think about your academic preferences, such as your field of study, the degree you're seeking, student-faculty ratios, and co-operative learning opportunities.
Once you have your preferences determined, you'll able to start narrowing down your choices. You can find more information and read about the five basic steps to apply for U.S. study by going to: http://www.educationusairan.com/newsletter/vol3-1
Researching the Options
There are many online search engines and databases available to help you explore the variety of U.S. colleges and universities. The most comprehensive and useful sites will provide you with the ability to set filters, such as your level of study and campus location. We recommend that you start first with the search engines that are designed to help you find specific academic programs.
Getting to the Short List
Once you obtain a shorter list of colleges and universities, allow yourself enough time to compare programs and read about the institutions you are interested in.
Virtual Tours
Many colleges and universities offer a variety of platforms to introduce prospective students to the campus. Some schools post "video tours" of their campus on their website and through Facebook, Twitter, and blogs you can connect with current and other prospective students. You may also refer to Wikipedia or other encyclopedias online to read about the location of the college or university, its campus environment, local climate, population, and the social life. EducationUSA has collected many of these videos and hosts them in one central location to make easier for you. You can find them on the EducationUSA TV Channel on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/user/EducationUSAtv.
Knowing exactly why you are applying for a specific program and university in the United States will not only help you make an educated decision, but will also shape your statement of purpose to strengthen your application for admission and better prepare you for your student visa interview with the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy.
For more information about researching your choices visit: http://www.educationusa.info/pages/students/research.php
English-Language Requirements for U.S. Study
Competition for admission and financial aid are high and the greater your skill in English, the more opportunities you will have available. In addition, the stronger your English language skills, the better your experience will be as a student in the United States, especially at the graduate level. In the U.S. classroom you will be expected to read and research, converse with students and professors, and write articles about what you have learned, all in English. To best prepare for your academic experience in the United States work on your listening, writing, and pronunciation skills.
Most U.S. colleges and universities require that international students submit proof of English language proficiency with their application for admission. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is the most well-known and widely-accepted test to demonstrate English language skills for the academic setting. As you have been informed in our previous newsletter (Volume 3, Issue 6), IELTS is the other option for your English test requirements and the test scores from IELTS are accepted by over 2,500 U.S. colleges and universities: http://www.ieltsusa.org/recognition.html.
Most U.S. colleges and universities require that international students submit a supplementary form for financial aid in addition to the application form for admission. This financial aid form is usually available on the international student resources and services section of universities' websites and can often be completed online. (Note: always save a copy on your computer before submitting any form.) To determine your financial need, the admissions office might request that you answer questions such as information about your parents' and your own income (if you work), and your current living expenses.
U.S. institutions prefer to see that students are not solely relying on the financial aid offered by the university. Showing that you can cover your expenses and have another source of funding will improve your opportunities for admission with financial aid. Be sure to indicate this on the financial aid form.
If a university decides to accept your application, you will be notified of the funds granted for your studies with the admission letter. The amount of tuition, fees and living costs, less the amount of financial aid provided by the university, will be indicated on the form that you will receive from the institution to apply for a student visa. Therefore, be prepared for your student visa interview at the U.S. consulate with the financial documentation to demonstrate how you will pay for your U.S. studies.
To find a list of financial aid resources and read about how you can reduce educational costs please visit our link at: http://www.educationusa.info/pages/students/finance.php
Spotlight on Mechatronics Engineering
Mechatronics is a term that is not as commonly used in the United States as it is in some other countries. It is related to robotics and one of the specialized fields within mechanical, industrial, and electronics engineering. Depending on your specific research interests, you can identify the program most appropriate for you by researching specializations available at each university. If you are pursuing a more advanced degree and the university of your interest does not appear to offer a specialization in mechatronics, do not hesitate to write to the department and ask if it is possible to focus your studies on that area. At the Ph.D. level, depending on the university, many programs are individualized and it is more important to locate faculty members with interests and projects that fit with your own research interests.
The engineering accreditation body, www.abet.org may be helpful (they accredit only at the first professional degree level, but most ABET-accredited universities offer doctoral and other advanced degrees as well) or you can use general graduate school sites such as www.gradschools.com or www.petersons.com.
You may want to also read more about the field at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechatronics


text:
1. Preheat oven to 400°F. Coat 12 (1/2-cup) muffin cups with cooking spray or line with paper liners.
2. Whisk 1/2 cup sugar, yogurt, oil, egg, 2 teaspoons lemon zest, lemon juice and vanilla in a medium bowl.
3. Whisk flour, cornmeal, baking powder, baking soda and salt in a large bowl. Add the yogurt mixture and fold until almost blended. Gently fold in cranberries. Divide the batter among the muffin cups. Combine the remaining 2 tablespoons sugar and remaining l teaspoon lemon zest in a small bowl. Sprinkle evenly over the tops of the muffins.
4. Bake the muffins until golden brown and they spring back lightly to the touch, 20 to 25 minutes. Let cool in the pan for 10 minutes, then transfer to a wire rack to cool for at least 5 minutes before serving.
Note: White whole-wheat flour, made from a special variety of white wheat, is light in color and flavor but has the same nutritional properties as regular whole-wheat flour. It is available at large supermarkets and natural-foods stores and online at bobsredmill.com or kingarthurflour.com. Store it in the freezer.
Tip: To make quick work of chopping cranberries, place whole berries in a food processor and pulse a few times until the berries are coarsely chopped
To Make Ahead: Individually wrap in plastic and freeze in a freezer bag for up to 1 month. To reheat frozen muffins, remove plastic, wrap muffin in a paper towel and microwave on High for 30 to 60 seconds.
Equipment: Muffin tin with 12 (1/2-cup) cups
More From Kitchen Daily:
Nutrition Facts
Provided by: EatingWell
Per Single Serving / Serves 12 Total
- Calories 187 11%
- Calories from fat 63 6%
- Total Fat 7gm 11%
- Sodium 254mg 12%
- Total Carbohydrates 29gm
- Fiber 3gm
- Protein 4gm
- Cholesterol 18mg 10%
Percent Daily Values are based on a 2000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.


text:
Write a Fashion Police Caption for Liza Minnelli
Celebrity Style May. 25, 2010 AT 3:39PM
Think you have what it takes to be an Us Top Cop? Write a snippy one-liner for this photo of Liza Minelli at Monday's premiere of Sex and the City 2 in New York.
PHOTOS: The worst-dressed stars of all time!
Be sure to include your e-mail address before posting (it won't show up below), and a name you wouldn't mind seeing in the magazine.


text:
A little over a century ago, life expectancy in the USA was 48 years for women and 46 for men. In 2004, it was 80 and 75, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Life expectancy rates vary widely internationally, but most nations have shown dramatic increases, some more than the USA. Japanese women, for example, were expected to live 85.6 years and men, 78.6 years in 2004, according to the United Nations Demographic Yearbook. The CDC attributes higher life expectancy rates to better sanitation, improved access to health care, advances in medicine, healthier life styles and better health before age 65.
There's a lot of controversy about why life expectancy in the USA is lower than Japan and many other nations, when our cost of health care is so much higher. The United Nations rated the USA #38 between 2005- 2010, behind Cuba and the CIA ranked the USA #50 in 2011, right behind Portugal.
Many attribute the problem in the USA to preventable lifestyle-related chronic diseases, like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. In my last article on longevity, I talked about how stress shortens cell life. Stress also contributes to metabolic syndrome, which is defined as 3 or more of 5 risk factors for chronic diseases: high glucose, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL, and large waist to hip ratio.


text:
The Jack Benny ProgramIsaac Stern Show - Season 6, Episode 4 - 6 Nov. 1955 - Jack figures out that he's not a great violinist; Rochester and Mary plot to fool him into believing he is a great violinist with the help of Issac Stern.
To Download or Embed this video, go to this link.
Back to the Jack Benny Program Library
back to Uncle Earl's Classic TV Channel


text:
Twenty Years Of Bialowieza
A Mathematical Anthology: Aspects Of Differential Geometric Methods In Physics
(If any tax is payable it will be calculated and shown at checkout.)
Preview (read now) Add to my own site Give this ebook to a friend Add to my wishlist Author's page Publisher's page
moreThis volume marks the twentieth anniversary of the Bialowieza series of meetings on Differential Geometric Methods in Physics; the anniversary meeting was held during July 1–7, 2001. The Bialowieza meetings, held every year during the first week of July, have now grown into an annual pilgrimage for an international group of physicists and mathematicians. The topics discussed at the meetings, while within the broad area of differential geometric methods in physics, have focused around quantization, coherent states, infinite dimensional systems, symplectic geometry, spectral theory and harmonic analysis. The present volume brings together a set of specially invited papers from leading experts in the various fields, who have contributed to these meetings and whose work represents a cross-section of the topics discussed. Consequently, rather than a proceedings volume, this book embodies the spirit of the Bialowieza workshops and reflects their scientific tenor, as a tribute to the completion of two decades of a shared scientific experience.
This book will be of interest to researchers and graduate students working in the area of differential geometric methods in physics, as it gives interesting glimpses into the present state of the art from different points of view.
World Scientific Publishing Company; January 2005
275 pages; ISBN 9789812701244
Read online, or download in secure PDF format
Title: Twenty Years Of Bialowieza
Author: S Twareque Ali; Gerard G Emch; Anatol Odzijewicz
275 pages; ISBN 9789812701244
Read online, or download in secure PDF format
Title: Twenty Years Of Bialowieza
Author: S Twareque Ali; Gerard G Emch; Anatol Odzijewicz
Buy, download and read Twenty Years Of Bialowieza (eBook) by S Twareque Ali; Gerard G Emch; Anatol Odzijewicz today!
More Science
The Sixth Extinction 2014 US$ 9.99 352 pages
Sustaining Life 2008 US$ 26.99 568 pages
Subject categories


text:
Adapted in part from Tufts University and other sources
The Smith community—students, parents, alumnae, faculty and staff—are joined by a shared passion for ideas and dialogue. Social media is one of the few places where these groups come together, united by an interest in the college and its mission. By supporting conversation, we have the opportunity to create even stronger connections and engagement across all areas of our community, from alumnae to incoming students.
We developed guidelines to provide everyone at the college—from communications professionals to department administrators—with basic guidance on how to best use social media toward communication and engagement goals, both as the owner of an account and as a user or contributor on behalf of your department, program or graduating class. We also hope that these guidelines spark conversations among social media practitioners on campus to learn from each other as we explore these emerging platforms. As the landscape of social media changes, these guidelines may also need to be updated.
Social networks for the Smith community
As a member of the Smith community, it is imperative that you engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Living, studying and working successfully in this community depends on balancing freedom of speech with a sensitivity to and respect for the rights of others.
Do not post confidential or proprietary information about Smith students, prospective students, faculty, staff or alumnae. Employees using social media on behalf of the college must follow all applicable federal requirements such as the Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects the privacy of student records.
While an occasional events-related posting is certainly fine, social media platforms are not intended to be a calendar. Your audience accesses that information elsewhere and will quickly tire of postings of upcoming events or all of the news that they can read on another Web page. When writing a post, think about whether or not it will generate a dialogue. How often should you post? There is a shared wisdom about how frequently to post to the two current most popular social media platforms. The advice is several times a week to Facebook, and several times a day to Twitter. However, the content of the message is clearly more important than the number of messages you post.
Once you publish something through social media, you lose a degree of control of your message. Inviting a conversation means that you may receive critical feedback. If you encounter criticism or allegations, look into them. Feel free to correct misinformation. If you don't want to respond in a way that will be apparent to all of your followers, invite the person to have a conversation with you offline. You may be able to address issues and clear up misunderstandings that would otherwise perpetuate.
Smith is a non-profit institution. We discourage commercial promotion via college social media channels, e.g. a promotion for roses at commencement time from a local florist. If a business posts an irrelevant advertisement or solicitation on your Facebook wall, for instance, feel free to delete it. Similarly, do not use Smith's name to promote or endorse any product, cause or political party or candidate. Avoid conflicts of interest and maintain a distinction between your personal identity and the identity you represent on behalf of the university.
Remember that there is no such thing as a "private" social media site. Search engines can turn up posts years after the publication date, comments can be forwarded or copied and archival systems save information even if you delete a post. A photo that you upload should not be one that you don't want the world to see. If you are representing the college as an administrator of a social media page, try to maintain a high level of quality that reflects good grammar, punctuation and spelling. If you have questions about whether or not a post is appropriate, College Relations can provide direction.
The number of "followers" is not the only measure of effectiveness. Robust discussion through comments or responses, retweets and "likes" are also ways to determine whether you are engaging your audience. Also many no-cost tools exist to track the effectiveness of posts and shape content discussions.


text:
Skip the stress of hosting your yuletide celebrations and book a merry restaurant lunch instead
Christmas lunch at Circa, the Prince
Eat like royalty this Christmas with a three-course lunch served on the Circa deck, overlooking Port Phillip Bay. This well-regarded St Kilda restaurant offers a sharing-style lunch, featuring seasonal goodies taken from their kitchen garden. St Kilda.
Christmas lunch at Gazi
Let George Calombaris show you a Greek Christmas with a twist at his good-time eatery Gazi. His five-course set menu includes the best of his innovative street food – you can bet that his famous pillowy flatbread souvlakis will make an appearance. Melbourne.
Christmas lunch at the Prahran Hotel
Slip into one of the revitalised Prahran Hotel's cubby-like booths and enjoy a three-course feast to please the whole family. The pub is all about classic dishes done well, so you can expect festive favourites like whole crystal bay prawns and butter-roasted turkey with cranberry and lemon thyme stuffing. Prahran.
Christmas lunch at La Camera
Get the famiglia together for a relaxed, yet refined Italian feast. This Southbank restaurant offers a three-course menu, paying tribute to the Aussie tradition of Christmas seafood by serving squid ink linguini tossed with pan-fried prawns as entrée. Main course options include duck leg confit, beef eye fillet and traditional turkey breast. Southbank.
Christmas lunch at No. 8 by John Lawson
Impress the in-laws with a Christmas lunch that's suitably traditional, and more than a little bit fancy. Crown's highly regarded riverside restaurant is offering a six-course meal, which includes foie gras and chicken liver parfait, Port Phillip Bay snapper and grass-fed tenderloin with Yorkshire pudding, beef dripping potatoes and roasted Dutch carrots. Southbank.
Christmas lunch at Allegro
The Westin's modern Australian restaurant offers an indulgent selection of stuffed turkey breast with glazed chestnuts, poached blue eye, roast beef tenderloin or the seasonal wild mushroom ragout. We're leaving plenty of room for their famous festive dessert buffet: think black forest pavlova, gingerbread, yule logs and plum puddings. Melbourne.
Christmas lunch at Newmarket Hotel
Venture beyond the usual spread this Christmas and dive into warm crayfish salad, Tasmanian scallops a la plancha with jamón ibérico, and spit-roasted dry-aged moondarah wagyu. This is Californian-Mexican fusion – served to you in the leafy, retro surrounds of St Kilda's Newmarket Hotel. St Kilda.
Christmas lunch at the Melbourne Zoo
Turn your yuletide on its head this year and spend Christmas with creatures great and small. Enjoy a four-course meal that includes smoked salmon rillettes, toasted brioche and slow-cooked Western Plains pork; all the while taking full advantage of the three-hour drink package. The price gets you entry into the zoo all day, so be sure to extend your season's greetings to the otters on your way home. Parkville.


text:
SIZE 6.7 oz
We are no longer offering Xtend Your Youth Dual Fusion Water by Dr. Brandt. Discover a new favorite or contact our beauty concierge for further assistance.
Gently & effectively removes all make-up, including water proof formulas. Although this is a gentle cleanser it is very effective, leaving the skin soft and fresh.
Removes all impurities and makeup, trapping oil and residue in micelles (tiny molecules). Unlike standard water, the dual fusion water formula won't disturb the pH balance of the skin and will protect it from inflammation caused by environmental stressors and inhibit bacterial reactions. This cleanser is a must-have for all skin types. Ophthalmologist tested. Safe for sensitive eyes & contact lenses wearers.
• Removes oil, impurities and make-up residue
• Gently and effectively removes even waterproof make-up
• Supports skin's natural defense system against free radicals and external aggressors
• Leaves skin balanced, purified & revitalized
COMPLIMENTARY STANDARD Shipping within 2-7 business days within the contiguous U.S. on orders of $75.00 or more.
Most orders are shipped 24-48 hours within receipt of order. Please note that due to the speed of our ordering system, cancellations are not always possible. We ship Monday through Friday. Orders placed on Saturday and Sunday will be shipped the following Monday or Tuesday. We do not ship on major holidays. Orders placed on major holidays will be shipped the next business day.
All orders shipped complete, when all merchandise is in-stock; no partial orders shipped. You will not be charged until your order is shipped.
Please note that any item containing hazardous material, such as nail polish, hair spray, or perfume, is restricted by the U.S. Department of Transportation to ground-only shipping methods.
We are not responsible for orders damaged or missing in transit via a mail forwarder. Please call (866)525-4933 for further assistance.
APO/FBO Addresses: b-glowing proudly ships to our military.
Standard: 2 to 7 business days: $5.95 (For orders over $75, we offer COMPLIMENTARY standard shipping)
2-3 Business Day Shipping: + $11.00
1-2 Business Day Shipping: + $20.00
You can confirm delivery of a shipment at www.usps.com using the delivery confirmation number emailed to you at the time of shipping. UPS provides tracking for your orders at www.ups.com.
Dr. Fredric Brandt has established himself as a dermatologist to the stars, as well as an internationally known and sought-after physician and lecturer.
Using the extensive knowledge gained from his dermatology practice and clinical research, Dr. Brandt Skincare offers technically advanced products designed to repair and prevent damage to the skin, while making it healthy and beautiful.
Exfoliate dead skin cells and improve the appearance of your skin with Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion, an at-home alternative to expensive, clinical treatments. Lift, firm, and smooth sagging and aging skin of the neck and décolleté with one of Dr. Brandt's signature products, Time Arrest V-Zone Neck Cream.


text:
This Item is a closeout and is no longer available for purchase.
Drop your email here to be notified when it is available
Please select a to check availability, or to add this item to your Shopping Cart or Wish List.
Vance & Hines Power Shots Slip On Mufflers For Harley VROD
Unique dual-staggered, twin-layered slash cut end tips. Two 2 1/2" muffler bodies, complete with removable baffles and featuring Vance and Hines signature hot-rod sound.
Have a functionality, fit, or otherwise product-specific question about the Vance & Hines Power Shots Slip-On Mufflers For Harley V-Rod 2002-2007? Ask it here! If you have a customer service or shipping question, please direct it to our Customer Service department.
|Product Style
|RevZilla Item #
|Manufacturer Product #
|Slip On / Chrome
|In Stock: Ships next business day


text:
Wednesday, October 7
Check out DJ GT Mayne in the mix weekdays during the Hard Drive at 5 and on weekends!
By DJ GT Mayne
Full Story »
Copyright ©2015,
Interactive One, LLC . All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress.com VIP
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 6,918 other followers


text:
Novelty in our assortment: This "Pro hygiene brush" was developed as replacement for typical brushs with bristles. It can be easily cleaned or disinfected – which is needed in hospitals etc..
The Pro hygiene brush can be used to clean plain surfaces with its rubber lip. It can also be used for liquids.


text:
Sassafras, 48 S. Second St. 215.925.2317. sassafrasbar.com
Rent a cozy private room at Chinatown's horrible singing emporium, Yakitori Boy . Have a bite to eat from what they call their Japas menu, Japanese small plates that are delivered to the room. Once you've mustered up enough courage to pick out a song (most likely after two or 10 Sapporos), time will start to fly by. The business-minded karaoke people here will let you stay waaaaay past your allotted time with the meter running and simply slip you the check when you've blown out your vocal cords singing "Unchained Melody." Goodbye rent money, hello hangover.
Yakitori Boy, 211 N. 11th St. 215.923.8088. yakitoriboy-japas.com
Some things can't be trusted to the general public, namely All-Star voting and picking music in a bar. If old-fashioned jukeboxes were an exercise in limited self-government, then Internet jukeboxes are musical anarchy. And what do people do with their newfound freedom? Must ... play ... Weezer/Pearl Jam/Lynyrd Skynyrd/Coldplay/Dave Matthews. Or they get in Johnny Cash vs. Lil' Wayne pissing matches. Or put on an album's worth of Lords of Acid at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Better the benign dictatorship of the 700 Club , where Tracy Stanton and an assorted crew have been pouring drinks and spinning vinyl for more than a decade. No "Sweet Caroline," plenty of Black Keys, Sam Cooke, Django Rheinhart, Lou Donaldson; that's atmosphere. Now if the 700 folks could just stage a coup at WXPN.
700 Club, 700 N. Second St. 215.413.3181.
In The Death and Life of Great American Cities , urbanist Jane Jacobs wrote of the problem of border vacuums, areas where borders inhibit cross traffic so much that development can be seriously imperiled. Take a look at a satellite shot just north of Center City and you'll see a pair of borders: the Vine Street Expressway and the old Reading Railroad viaduct. It's so close to Center City, yet feels like the middle of nowhere. Fortunately, things aren't all bad: There's a great little bar, The Institute , just north of Spring Garden at 12th Street. The beer selection is usually fantastic, there are a couple of flat-screen TVs and a decent amount of street parking. Yeah, it's north of Spring Garden. Whatever, you chicken. Try going North for a chance and you'll be pleasantly surprised by one of Philly's better beer bars.
The Institute, 549 N. 12th St. 215.765.8515. institutebar.com
Channeling one of his heroes, 19th century flame throwing celebrity bartender Jerry "The Professor" Thomas, Christian Gaal artfully and gracefully heads up the bar staff at Rittenhouse Village restaurant Noble American Cookery with the zeal and eccentricity of Hunter S. Thompson (another one of his heroes). His craftsman touch with olde tyme cocktails like the sazerak is matched by his taste in clothes (he's most commonly adorned in waistcoasts and sleeve garters). A committed raconteur, his gift for gab and flare for the dramatics only heightens the experience of patronizing the barroom of this alcohol alchemist.
Noble American Cookery, 2025 Sansom St. 215.568.7000. noblecookery.com
Talking about the Barbary as a hip, young dance destination is redundant. It's in every corny advertorial neighborhood guide you can get your hands on. On weekends, Michael Madonna Prince is $8 to get in, and if you show up at 11 p.m. you'll wait in a 50-foot line for an hour. Lame. However, owner John Redden does a good job keeping the fun going on weeknights with regular parties like Tigerbeats (Mondays) and Bouffant Bangout (Wednesdays). On these cover-less nights you own the floor and you may even find yourself rubbing elbows with Philly favorites Amanda Blank and Spank Rock's Naeem Juwan. Surprise surprise, you can buy them both a beer and talk about their records; they're down. The dirty little beer and whiskey joint probably won't attract any Hollywood celebs (hello, this is Philly) but we have our own local sweethearts and ours can out drink those scrawny L.A. bitches any day.
Barbary, 951 Frankford Ave. 215.634.7400. myspace.com/thenewbarbary
People say Philly's really just a small town, and they're right. Does that make it warm and cozy or claustrophobic? That depends on how many exes, stalkers and former business partners are in the barroom. To paraphrase the Cheers theme song, sometimes you want to go where no one knows your name. That means heading to a hotel bar. Why not make it the bar at the Sofitel ? They pour a great cocktail, there's mixed nuts on the table (cashews!) and the waitresses wear these fetching black dresses. It's like taking a mini-vacation from your life.
Sofitel, 120 S. 17th St. 215.569.8300. sofitel.com
"Good Hefeweizen, Batman! You compiled a list of Better-than-Best bars in the city and left out Monk's. That's like putting together a list of art venues and leaving out Philadelphia Museum of Art, or cheesesteak joints and neglecting Vincenzo's. Maybe you think everybody knows about it-and maybe everybody does, but this is the bar that half of your list is trying to emulate.
While we're at it, how about venturing out of Center City by more than a few blocks and trying Earth Bread Brewery or McMenamin's in Mt. Airy? Earth has a particularly radical idea: it's a brewpub where the beer is wonderful. I wonder how they thought of it.
Lynn Hoffman"
""On top of that, he's quick to offer a sample before you commit to a whole pint unlike some other owners in our city. (We're looking at you Peters and Hartranft.)"
"Besides the strip clubs of Pennsport and the "is that even considered a fucking bar" aka Connie's Ric Rac, South of Washington Ave. is once again ignored by PW. I'm surprised (not really)."
"Attn Hartranft's,
Your unwillingness to offer a diminutive 1/2 oz. taste before purchasing the FIRST pint has cost you several customers, myself included. Since your beers are in the $5-$6 range, this taste would cost you 16--19 cents. This exorbitant amount however, would be quickly recovered with the patron's first purchased pint (nobody gets a taste then walks out) and your customers wouldn't feel as if they were drinking at a beer vending machine."
"oh Bike Stop, how I love thee.
A throwback to the gay leather cruise spots of the early 80's?
NOPE, this place is an original.
not polished, and no martinis but oh daddy what a good place to find yourself on the weekends.
keep it up boys.
"I once ate a cheesesteak, drank a flying fish, and watched a girl with a taint peircing dance on the bar. a great place to spend the day if you ditch work."
"List articles are doomed. Three Monkeys? The Grey Lodge is reason enough to visit NE Philly, and Scoats or staff will gladly give you a sample of whatever you'd like to taste."
"For those who find themselves in Chestnut Hill on a weekend night for whatever reason, finding something to do can be difficult. After all, the whole neighborhood shuts down around 9. Of course, McMenamin's and Earth are fine destinations, but I've got to recommend Towey's Tavern, near the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Mermaid Lane. Beer is cheap, the pitchers are big (during football season, they have $6 pitchers on Monday nights) and you can smoke there. Pretty awesome to find an honest-to-God dive right in the middle of Chestnut Hill, of all places."
Ready to find out Philly's coolest people, fanciest food, tastiest drinks, best shopping and more? Welcome to PW's "Better Than Best" list, a roundup of all of the city's top hidden treasures.


text:
« An Interview |
| Natural Product Fragments: Get Rid of the Ugly Ones Now »
Posted by Derek
I linked recently to the latest reaction check at Blog Syn, benzylic oxidation by IBX. Now Prof. Baran (a co-author on the original paper, from his Nicoloau days) has written See Arr Oh with a detailed repeat of the experiment. He gets it to work, so I think it's fair to say that (1) the reaction is doable, but (2) it's not as easy to reproduce right out of the box as it might be.
I'd like to congratulate him for responding like this. The whole idea of publicly rechecking literature reactions is still fairly new, and (as the comments here have shown), there's a wide range of opinion on it. Getting a detailed, prompt, and civil response from the Baran lab is the best outcome, I think. After all, the point of a published procedure - the point of science - is reproducibility. The IBX reaction is now better known than it was, the details that could make it hard to run are now there for people who want to try it, and Prof. Baran's already high reputation as a scientist actually goes up a bit among the people who've been following this story.
Public reproducibility is an idea whose time, I think, has come, and Blog Syn is only one part of it. When you think about the increasingly well-known problems with reproducing big new biological discoveries, things that could lead to tens and hundreds of millions being spent on clinical research, reproducing organic chemistry reactions shouldn't be controversial at all. As they say to novelists, if you're afraid of bad reviews, there's only one solution: don't show anyone your book.
Comments (59)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature
1. CountTheBricks on February 26, 2013 8:19 AM writes...
Prof. Baran is a class act and his response shows just that. I can pick up a little frustration in his tone, but I think that is understandable. He has most likely been hearing this for a while and finally had a public avenue for discussion. At the end of the day, BlogSyn is doing what has been needed for a while. There are countless examples of reactions that need scrutiny, and this researcher hopes BlogSyn gets off the ground in a larger fashion. @SeeArrOh, this is not a one-trick pony.
2. Anonymous on February 26, 2013 8:40 AM writes...
What is the point of supporting information if it requires further input from the authors to allow the procedure to be reproduced?
3. Eric on February 26, 2013 8:54 AM writes...
#2 - I think that statement, along with the genesis of BlogSyn, nicely illustrate the state of affairs with scientific reporting. If it were up to me, experimental sections of papers would be much longer and the papers would include data relating to what didn't work and why, instead of "here are the somewhat precise conditions we used to get our product. You figure out the rest :)"
4. Special Guest Lecturer on February 26, 2013 8:59 AM writes...
Unless we commit to actually reproducing reported procedures as part of peer review (too cumbersome), there will be reactions whose reported procedures will need care to reproduce. As Baran says, each transformation has a window of conditions under which it will work well - we are not always fully aware of every variable that affects the reaction outcome.
The focus of many papers is to obtain a specific molecular or polymeric product, and the authors are not going to spend time evaluating every conceivable variable of every reaction along the way - too expensive, too material intensive.
A higher standard should be applied to papers whose main focus is to report new synthetic methodology - we care about yield, substrate scope, and stereoselectivity. Peer reviewers should also demand unambiguous characterization of the outcome with variation of temperature, concentration, and sensitivity of the reaction to common impurities that might be found in the reagents. Post-publication review is a welcome development - both as a service to molecule makers and as a means to identify useful transformations from dreck. Look at azide-alkyne cycloadditions - develop a bulletproof reaction and the whole world will latch onto it!
5. UNC chemist on February 26, 2013 9:46 AM writes...
Classy response from PSB
6. See Arr Oh on February 26, 2013 9:57 AM writes...
Thanks for posting this, Derek. And thanks, Phil for your active participation to improve the literature.
7. Anonymous on February 26, 2013 10:02 AM writes...
Pro tip: when attempting to reproduce a procedure suspected to be finicky, DON'T start with 6-month-old reagents from the back of your freezer.
8. bboooooya on February 26, 2013 10:25 AM writes...
"Unless we commit to actually reproducing reported procedures as part of peer review (too cumbersome)"
It didn't used to be too cumbersome. I used to delight getting old papers from RSC journals that had notes that "The checkers found......". I guess a decrease in rigour and quality is the cost of progress?
9. darwinsdog on February 26, 2013 10:31 AM writes...
Defense has rested, prosecution will close. Sounds like starting with good oxidant is key and the rest, including how to warm a rxn, seems obvious. I agree with the point that blog syn should not commit blog sin (sorry i couldn't resist) and should make earnest attempts to contact AND work out procedures with authors before reporting their failures. It's the old free speech chestnut - anyone can say what they want to but you ought not to declare allegorical 'fire' if there isn't one.
10. The Aqueous Layer on February 26, 2013 11:07 AM writes...
I agree with the point that blog syn should not commit blog sin (sorry i couldn't resist) and should make earnest attempts to contact AND work out procedures with authors before reporting their failures. It's the old free speech chestnut - anyone can say what they want to but you ought not to declare allegorical 'fire' if there isn't one.
How many people contact a paper's author before trying to run a specific reaction? The whole point of publishing results and reproducibility is that anyone with half-way decent lab chops can follow the procedures as written and get the results that were published.
If you have to contact the author to find out the tips, tricks and nuances of every reaction, maybe it isn't such a useful transformation to begin with, or the paper needs to discuss the degree of difficulty in getting the reactions to work well and discuss the precautions you need to take in order to achieve optimal results.
11. D-Not on February 26, 2013 11:34 AM writes...
Refer to my previous posts ... This is the reason folks like See-Arrrr-Oh should be extra careful in "labeling reactions as - requires MOJO or not reproducible". Call me old school, But one can tell the quality / caliber of a chemist by simply taking a look at his or her TLC plates !!.
If Prof Baran were not to put his money on the table and reproduce the reaction (not to mention spend so much of his time) your blogs would have needlessly passed a verdict without giving him the benefit of the doubt. and that is shameful.
In the future - please SAO -- kindly check with the concerned authors (particularly Very High Profile Professors, since they have worked hard to gain the stature) and get them to contribute to your ability to re-produce these reactions.
It is unjust and as I previously characterized it as a "witch hunt" if we dont do everything in the interest of chemistry and at the same time safegaurd reputations of the Key personalities in our field.
Kudos to Prof baran -- a class act beyond compare.
Today I am proud to be a Chemist. (eventhough a 49-year old MS level chemist, closet academic, still rampaging through reactions and making analogs IN THE LAB)
12. Nature on February 26, 2013 11:51 AM writes...
Can we at least get an apology from @SEE Arr OH and all the minions that were patronizing See Arr OH in previous blogs including DL
13. CountTheBricks on February 26, 2013 12:09 PM writes...
Why do you want an apology? This is exactly what the point of BlogSyn is: Get engagement from the community when things aren't as they seem. Prof. Baran reciprocated exactly as he should have. He did not get irritated or insulted, he was intrigued. He was guided by his scientific curiosity to show, incontrovertibly, that his chemistry works when done properly. He admitted that his SI should have been more explicit and will likely not commit the same error in the future.
End of story, cheers to SeeArrOh and Prof. Baran for engaging in a highlevel debate of scientific merit, and on to the next example.
14. Vivian on February 26, 2013 12:13 PM writes...
Something tells me that the response by PSB would not have been as thorough/thoughtful/helpful without See Arr Oh's forum--I have many times emailed corresponding authors for procedure clarifications and not gotten as thorough of a study as the one you see on Blog Syn. None of the experimenters had axes to grind, and I think that blogs that address the practical aspects of doing chemistry are incredibly helpful for younger chemists! If your procedure isn't up to par with Organic Syntheses procedures (which are written so that MOST chemists can reproduce them, along with any pitfalls), that's all on you.
I have a real problem with people who think that just because a chemist has accomplished a lot in a career, they are beyond criticism or reproach. It's how these obnoxioius hierarchy systems get established (particularly in synthesis, as it were), and I don't think it's helpful to the advancement of the field to be shaking in one's boots to question a reaction that a PI has endorsed by putting his name on the paper. A PI has to understand that when you are corresponding author, you are responsible for the good that comes with the reaction, as well as any questions that arise from the reaction. I don't think writing about a procedure in a blog qualifies as public humiliation (and if it does for you, then you need to get a thicker skin)--it's more of an open discussion, which this field needs more of, not whispered claims of irreproducibility.
I don't think any of See Arr Oh's blog post was in the least bit confrontational--it's ok to say that a reaction is finicky, for goodness sake. What is the use of a reaction if most chemists can't reproduce it? Such a reaction would never be used for anything that is actually useful, and like it or not, chemistry should be useful and accessible to everyone! It is the JOB of the person publishing the paper to make darn sure that an experimental procedure is clear without having to consult the author.
Just my two cents, but as someone with both academic and industrial experience, I think that academics would do themselves much more service to scrutinize their reactions and make them more useful and accessible to the community of chemists who will actually use them (and not for some esoteric synthesis of some molecule that won't be used for anything).
15. Vivian on February 26, 2013 12:14 PM writes...
16. Vivian on February 26, 2013 12:15 PM writes...
17. Curious Wavefunction on February 26, 2013 12:25 PM writes...
#11 and #12: You guys have a real bee in your bonnet. All SeeArrOhh, BRSM and the others did was to point out that they could not efficiently reproduce a particular reaction under the stated conditions. The "verdict" here is a limited one (they never claimed that the reaction was fundamentally irreproducible). To call this a "witch hunt" is preposterous and it only detracts from the value of such investigations.
This is exactly the way science should work and I applaud both the Blog Syn authors and Prof. Baran for their response. What these guys are doing is what science should always be doing; testing and re-testing hypotheses and confirming reproducibility. It's a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and perhaps its only fault is that it hasn't worked as well as it should, partly because of cynics like you who are more interested in assigning blame than encouraging such efforts or fostering constructive criticism. What we see here is a beginning; you guys can contribute to it and your technical input will be welcome, but if you don't want to do this then you should consider not derailing the discussion by all this silly talk about apologies and witch hunts.
18. Grad Students Anonymous on February 26, 2013 1:36 PM writes...
I think what See Arr Oh, BRSM, and Blog Syn on the whole are trying to accomplish here is quite admirable. Those who would call this a witch hunt seem to be a bit *too* irked by peer-vetting of published results. Isn't that what makes our field stronger?
If your SI does not properly outline the procedure that allows others to reproduce your work, it is your failure, not theirs. It doesn't matter if you're a Nobel-winning chemist or a first year grad student. So three cheers for Blog Syn.
19. Special Guest Lecturer on February 26, 2013 1:56 PM writes...
#7: "Protip: when attempting to reproduce a procedure suspected to be finicky, DON'T start with 6-month-old reagents from the back of your freezer."
Obnoxious. Unless the published procedure stated that fresh oxidant was beneficial, I would have used the old stuff in the freezer for my initial attempt. Why waste time solving every possible pitfall before there is a problem? In the context of Blog.Syn, demonstrating that oxidant quality is essential is a great service, especially if such efforts inspire authors to do so in the first place...
I don't understand comments that suggest that high-profile PIs like Baran (or any author of a peer-reviewed publication) deserve special deference from public comment. SAO did not attack Baran. His post said "I followed this procedure and then varied the reaction parameters in the following ways and did not obtain the expected product." What's the harm?
20. marklar on February 26, 2013 3:04 PM writes...
The outcome of this story is much better than that of a similar story I remember in grad school. Members of an organic group in the department were trying to perform a reaction developed by a high-profile name/group in org. chem. I'm not familiar with the details (i.e. substrate similarities), but the reaction did not work as reported. The Prof. in our dept. contacted the high-profile Prof. and wanted to know if there were any 'tricks' to improve the reaction. The high-profile Prof. replied, "Maybe you should train your students better."
21. scope monkey on February 26, 2013 3:05 PM writes...
Getting a single rxn to reproduce is great (and kinda important) but using a public forum such as BlogSyn for practitioners to describe what kinds of functionality these rxns can tolerate would be really useful. Even if the industry folks aren't going to be lining up to disclose the exact substrates they've tried it would be useful to get feedback such as "works in presence of pyridine ring" or "failed in presence of primary amide". Admittedly the failures may a little more difficult to explain as there could have been many reasons for failure but those rxns which rack up a long list of successes I'd sure be happier to try out first.
22. newnickname on February 26, 2013 3:06 PM writes...
I think that all that transpired worked well. I didn't see a "witch hunt" or anything particularly confrontational at Blog Syn. I thought that Baran's response was very good and very useful. If anything, I would think that an author would prefer to "publish" one public clarification than have to receive (and maybe not bother to answer) numerous individual Qs about a typo or other experimental error.
Blog Syn, keep up the good work.
I wonder if CAS and Science Citation Index will start abstracting Blog Syn to help track down those helpful updates.
23. Not anonymous on February 26, 2013 3:16 PM writes...
#18: "Those who would call this a witch hunt seem to be a bit *too* irked by peer-vetting of published results"
How do we even know it is peer-vetting? If blog-syn really want broad respect from the chemical community they should not be "anonymous" or hiding behind their screen names. It's one thing to be anonymous during publication peer-review, but those comments are not available to the public. If blog-syn wants to continue to review publications, they should stand behind their work and put their full names and CV's available for the rest of us to see.
As it is right now, they unfairly deemed a reaction irreproducible (and it still says so on their website) with little to no consequences to themselves on the basis of 5 or so experiments. As Phil Baran rightly pointed out, "the reaction cannot take place if all reactants are not in solution". I think anyone who is "skilled in the art" should be able to recognize that.
24. Rhenium on February 26, 2013 3:46 PM writes...
#23 On the irony...
25. Not anonymous on February 26, 2013 3:59 PM writes...
#24 yes, that was the point
26. Grad Students Anonymous on February 26, 2013 4:07 PM writes...
to #23:
What would you call this if not peer-vetting? Are you insinuating that those trying to reproduce these experiments are not well-trained, intelligent chemists? I would think their reputations as long-time bloggers should give them at least some credibility to even the most cynical among us.
I think Blog Syn is a great addition to the community. Anyone who is "skilled in the art" has been at this long enough to know that some procedures are notoriously difficult to reproduce without certain "tricks" not thoroughly explained in the SI.
I've seen enough of my colleagues try to reproduce methods from the literature with initial difficulty that only work with some slight tampering to appreciate the value in the service that Blog Syn provides.
As others have stated, if your reputation can be damaged by Blog Syn, you didn't have much of a reputation to begin with. And as Derek pointed out on an earlier thread, I think some of Blog Syn's opponents "doth protest too much".
27. Anonymous on February 26, 2013 4:09 PM writes...
@19 They added a non-degassed liquid to an air-free reaction, then berated the commenter who suggested they try otherwise. *That* is obnoxious. They're acting like the one-armed guy with a bathtub rather than a person having ordinary skill in the art. SI in JACS is written for the latter. It isn't J. Chem. Ed.
@23 It seems like more of a guide as to how robust procedures are vis-a-vis half-assery than actual reproducibility, although "organometallica" seems like the most competent among them.
28. Prof Slavedriver's Postdoc on February 26, 2013 6:04 PM writes...
I have firsthand knowledge of some results from our lab that were published in high tier journals not being reproducable/even produced in the first place...the pressure to crank out revolutionary science on a daily basis can be too great for some people and lead to actual falsehoods being enshrined in the literature. I see great potential in Blog Syn to cull these travesties and legitimize the methods that are bona fide great science.
Statistically, the amount of replicates that Blog Syn posted for the Baran reaction is not bad (probably more times than most methodology substrates are vetted in their original papers) and I will argue that the featured synthetic PhDs are the definition of those skilled in the art, those that should be able to get a reported reaction working the same day they pick it up.
Anonymity is exceedingly important in this situation: witch hunts can be carried out in both directions, and when there is a major power imbalance (eg grad student/postdoc vs influential professor) there is a great reticence to question those who could sink your career before it's even started.
29. Aussie on February 26, 2013 7:04 PM writes...
Blog syn is a great idea - See Arr Oh deserve major kudos!
But now that Baran has shown it is reproducible and other anonymous people are posting that they can easily reproduce it (recently appearing today) how long will they keep up the "not reproducible" recommendation? Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
I can also do a TBS protection with old TBSCl and wet DCM and then call Corey's 1972 JACS paper "irreproducible". Or I can do a metathesis with volatile olefins and when it doesn't work I'll call them to retract Grubbs Nobel. Seem fair?
We are all in a rush to praise SAO and friends for what is admittedly a great idea and service but let's not forget that innocent people and legitimately useful chemistry can be hurt by recommendations that do not reflect reality!!
30. See Arr Oh on February 26, 2013 7:17 PM writes...
Thanks for the interesting and varied opinions in the comments today.
@Aussie - You bring up a very good point. I've spoken with Phil offline, and he advises that we should re-run the reaction in our hands before we change the recommendation.
@Everyone - Perhaps it's semantics, but we do not label the IBX oxidation "irreproducible," but instead "Difficult to Reproduce." The two terms are different; one connotes certainty, and one acknowledges that the reaction can indeed work with correct protocol.
31. Nature on February 26, 2013 7:19 PM writes...
@29 Aussie -- SAO has un-intentionaly stirred the hornets net !! Bet SAO regrets the fact that serious consultation with the good professor's lab was not done before blogging. classic case of puting blogging before chemistry. Shock journalism.
32. See Arr Oh on February 26, 2013 7:26 PM writes...
@Nature - Emails were sent back and forth between Prof. Baran and I, beginning on Jan. 29. Post went live on Feb. 18.
I've also corresponded with Prof. Tamsyn Montagnon, and you will see her recommendations posted at Blog Syn.
33. Model on February 26, 2013 7:42 PM writes...
SAO- cheers for doing this. wish you success in future posts / interesting chemistry
34. JRnonchemist on February 26, 2013 7:42 PM writes...
It looks like the post at Blog Syn has been up for a little over a week. I guess the new information came out today or yesterday? I know it seems slow in internet time to still have 'difficult to reproduce up'
Given that they seem to be running a two a month schedule on the attempts, I'd guess they still have time on the clock for getting things sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.
35. Not anonymous on February 26, 2013 7:43 PM writes...
#26 "I would think their reputations as long-time bloggers should give them at least some credibility to even the most cynical among us."
Please. How hard is it to start and maintain a blog? Just because someone has a long-time blog doesn't give you any idea about their experimental skill. Their CV would. Every chemist knows another chemist whose results they wouldn't trust right away if it differed from the literature. By hiding behind a screen name it literally gives us no information about this person's technique or experience.
And just because there is a published procedure doesn't mean you can turn off your brain when running a reaction. Be a scientist and follow up a little better if something doesn't work 100% as reported in your hands.
To be clear: I think the overall goal of blog-syn is a commendable idea, but I think there should be more accountability to what they are doing and giving us more information about themselves would help. And yes I understand the goal is to help the chemical community by giving tips and tricks to difficult reactions, but at the same time it borders on calling people a fraud or a sloppy chemist for what essentially could be their own sloppy work.
36. dave w on February 26, 2013 7:59 PM writes...
re #35: "Just because someone has a long-time blog doesn't
give you any idea about their experimental skill. Their CV
Some of the comments keep saying this as if repetition should
induce belief, but you could alwasy turn that around. "Just
because someone has an impressive institutional history doesn't
mean they're automatically a top-notch experimentalist." To
believe otherwise, to be so fixated on "CV" and "reputation",
implies a viewpoint where the object of the game is to gain
"professional 'respectability'" and doing actual science is
merely a means to that end...
And I don't think anyone called anyone a "fraud" or a "sloppy
chemist"; it sounds like there is general agreement (even from
its original author) that the specific reaction in question here
can be finicky about the details of the specific conditions.
37. Realist on February 26, 2013 8:18 PM writes...
Based on everything I've read the only conclusion I can come up with is:
The procedure to MAKE IBX is "difficult to reproduce"
No other conclusion is logical.
38. JRnonchemist on February 26, 2013 8:35 PM writes...
There have been a total of three processes posted at Blog-Syn, plus the intro post. So far. This looks like two per month. So in year, maybe they will have twenty more.
If they don't get up to that many, it'll probably have ended up a flash in the pan, and not worth getting worried over.
If they do, it should be pretty easy to tell if they are bullies, lazy, or incompetent. If they often have the same pool of volunteers, then they will generally bring the same tendencies to each project.
Careful following, or a careful archive binge in the future should be enough to notice irregularities and problematic habits. Assuming the reader has some level of maturity, has some background knowledge of internet communities, and enough chemistry and or general science.
39. anon on February 27, 2013 9:09 AM writes...
D-NOt (comment 11) seems to be obsessed with the stature of the people whi publish the results and not the quality of the results/publications themselves. Who gives a crap if a paper is by a PhD student, a "bigshot", or even someone obsessed with making contorted analogies between organic chemistry and 3000-year old myth, its all open to scrutiny.
40. Anonymous1984 on February 27, 2013 11:20 AM writes...
I think the authors of Blog Syn are doing a great job but I also think the complaints about anonymity are valid. No matter how honest their intentions may be, it's hard to take someone seriously when they are anonymous and don't feel like associating a real name with their work. If I know that SeeArrOh is a real person with real credentials I am just more likely to believe in the veracity of what he/she has done.
41. newnickname on February 27, 2013 12:07 PM writes...
I am very sympathetic to maintaining anonymity at Blog Syn. I would think that those contributing there are grad students, post-docs and other professional chemists and NOT a bunch of hackers skillfully posting faked criticisms (when they could be posting links to their malware websites and such). Those are people with skills nonetheless. They have probably sought advice from more experienced colleagues and so on up the ladder.
Those same people are the chemists for whom the experimentals should be written; not for undergrads; not using obfuscatory patent lingo; but clear, workable procedures that someone with "skill in the art" but less than 25 years at the bench can reasonably figure out and reproduce.
42. another process chemist on February 27, 2013 12:24 PM writes...
I would agree with #28 (Slavedriver's Postdoc) that anonymity is important because ours is a fairly small world and we all need to worry about the ramifications of rubbing somebody the wrong way. In addition, more often than not this kind of verification work will not make a direct, positive impact on the productivity or bottom line of whoever it is that signs our checks, so there could be other negative ramifications of having one's name associated with this kind of valuable work.
Professor Baran is wise to clearly state that his student, having demonstrated conditions for making the 2-methylnaphthalene oxidation work, will not be doing any more work in this area – it isn't the most pressing business at hand.
As #41 alludes to, I think a key factor here is that nobody wants to see new methodology fail. We all want to have more tools at our disposal, so we all benefit from identifying (and sharing) the keys to making a new reaction work robustly. Anonymity is only a problem if we are worried about somebody falsely describing their efforts in order to make somebody look bad. Would that actually happen?
From my perspective, credentials do not matter (and yes, I do have Ph.D. from a good group and plenty of nice-looking industrial experience). As I mentioned in the previous thread, my processes need to be described clearly enough so that they can be executed by individuals who do not have a chemistry degree. Is that an unreasonably high bar for somebody who is inventing new methodology (not a rhetorical question – it might not be realistic)?
43. ab on February 27, 2013 1:51 PM writes...
I love all of the comments that suggest somehow PSB is vindicated and that SAO should apologize and such. Let's have a re-cap, shall we?
1. In the lit, this paper is cited in 54 reactions, with a total of 4 of them appearing to be successful. Reproducible? Practical? The lit suggests differently.
2. Several chemists attempt to reproduce the results using the exact same substrates under several sets of likely conditions that mimic the SI as closely as can be known. Results: poor.
3. After a revision of the experimental procedure, a hand-picked student of PSB's runs the reaction on a small scale under what (one has to think) must be the ideal set-up - which, mind you, is materially different than that claimed in the SI - using pristine reagents and obtains a 65% yield, while the original paper claims 90%. Somehow this constitutes "reproducibility." Really? This is the definition of yield inflation and a sloppy SI.
4. PSB or the student (not clear which) claims definitively that if the reaction were run on a larger scale with a few tweaks, magically the yield would improve dramatically. Please. Reactions displaying solubility and/or physical properties issues are notoriously capricious on scale up. PSB should know this. As it stands, there is zero evidence of the veracity of this statement.
I don't have an ax to grind with PSB. Nearly everyone who contributes to the comments on this blog knows that PSB is one of - perhaps THE - most impressive talents in the field right now. That does not mean his work is above scrutiny. Furthermore, the work that SAO and company put in to get to the bottom of these issues is truly admirable and moves the field forward. In fact, for those of us who actually need to get stuff in a vial on a weekly basis, this work is invaluable. And I don't know why this should matter, but yes I do have a Ph.D. from a top 5 (or 3, or 1, depending on the year) university working for someone you all know doing chemistry you are all familiar with. I frankly don't care to go into more detail than that, since my comments stand on their own. New methods are vital to the work that I do. Papers that accurately define the scope and limitations of these new methods, even better. My hope is that the "check and balance" provided by SAO and company will push more PI's to publish reality, which will benefit our field a lot more than inflated yields.
44. Gator on February 27, 2013 2:26 PM writes...
AB -some good points. But let's review them:
"1. In the lit, this paper is cited in 54 reactions, with a total of 4 of them appearing to be successful. Reproducible? Practical? The lit suggests differently."
Wonder what would happen if you did that analysis with any method invented in the past decade? That's why there are 1000 ways to oxidize an alcohol or put on a boc-group. They don't all work on all substrates.
2. Several chemists attempt to reproduce the results using the exact same substrates under several sets of likely conditions that mimic the SI as closely as can be known. Results: poor.
Not true- As documented by the experimenters themselves their reagent was clearly crap. They tried to oxidize toluene and other volatiles with the reagent not in solution.
3. After a revision of the experimental procedure, a hand-picked student of PSB's runs the reaction on a small scale under what (one has to think) must be the ideal set-up - which, mind you, is materially different than that claimed in the SI - using pristine reagents and obtains a 65% yield, while the original paper claims 90%. Somehow this constitutes "reproducibility." Really? This is the definition of yield inflation and a sloppy SI.
Not different than claimed in the SI of the original paper. They state they use pure IBX made by the JOC paper. What exactly is yield inflation? 99% of papers give their best yield of a transformation. They don't give ranges and they certainly don't give the yield you can expect when doing it for the first time. SI looks pretty good for a 2002 paper and most method groups don't even write full papers. So I think you are wrong on both counts.
4. PSB or the student (not clear which) claims definitively that if the reaction were run on a larger scale with a few tweaks, magically the yield would improve dramatically. Please. Reactions displaying solubility and/or physical properties issues are notoriously capricious on scale up. PSB should know this. As it stands, there is zero evidence of the veracity of this statement.
What a coincidence there is zero veracity for any of your statements either. I think I'll trust PSB on this one.
Finally, we are discussing a paper in which PSB is NOT the corresponding author. He is not even the first author (after KCN). I think a lot of you are forgetting this. Probably back then KCN had a factory of people doing IBX reactions so I have no doubt that 90% is reachable on napthalene if they were doing this reaction every day.
What papers in the literature give the yield you can expect if you've never done the reaction, use volatile compounds, and shit reagent? Maybe they should but then you should be complaining about the entire field, not just one paper...
45. ab on February 27, 2013 4:03 PM writes...
#44 Gator-
I AM complaining about the entire field, this just happens to be another paper that exemplifies the problem. Derek has also explicitly written about this problem in past blog entries.
Regarding 1, I fully agree that it is good to have many methods to perform any given transformation. However if said method does not work to perform said transformation, then we don't really have anything terribly useful, do we?
Regarding 2, well, if you feel that a reagent freshly prepared to 95% purity by recrystallization using an established lit procedure is "crap," especially when the SI claims that commercial material was used (which really would be crap) - and also makes NO MENTION that the purity of reagent has a huge effect on the reaction - well, let's agree to disagree on that one. And I'm not referring to the oxidation of toluene, I'm referring to the oxidation of 2-methylnaphthalene. If solubility was such an issue in this reaction, the authors should have written explicitly how they obtained the 90% yield.
Regarding 3, maybe you could give the SI a read and let me know where they claim they used pure IBX made by the JOC route? Thanks.
And yield inflation is the citing of a reaction yield that does not represent the result typically obtained using the published procedure. It's as simple as that. If one of PSB's personally picked students cannot even come close to reproducing the cited yield, then that yield is inflated. If you don't see this as a problem, that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that one too.
Regarding 4, you are certainly free to "trust PSB on this one," but if you were actually counting on the stated reaction to work so that you might use your lab time productively, you might find yourself relying a bit more on data and evidence, rather than your gut feelings.
46. Not anonymous on February 27, 2013 4:54 PM writes...
#45 "I don't have an ax to grind with PSB. Nearly everyone who contributes to the comments on this blog knows that PSB is one of - perhaps THE - most impressive talents in the field right now. That does not mean his work is above scrutiny....If one of PSB's personally picked students cannot even come close to reproducing the cited yield.."
It certainly sounds like you have an axe to grind against PSB for some reason. The fact of the matter is you have no idea who the student was and how much time and effort was put into it.
What blog-syn did was not scrutiny, it was flailing around with chemicals like an undergrad and claiming the reaction was not reproducible in a very public fashion. This is not "crowd sourcing" as they claimed. It's not about reproducing reactions for the general knowledge of all, it's about calling chemists out. Be honest with yourself, the only reason blog-syn is getting this much attention is because two out of the three chemists featured already are at a top tier institution and people want some gossip. If they want the broader chemical community to trust them when they put their work in a public forum they should stand behind their work and not do it anonymously.
"...but if you were actually counting on the stated reaction to work so that you might use your lab time productively, you might find yourself relying a bit more on data and evidence, rather than your gut feelings."
I think he is going with the evidence that PSB put out there when the blog-syn chemists were flailing around with chemicals. I know whenever I set up a reaction I try to use the crappiest reagents possible, not follow the reaction reasonably, and get mad when I don't get 100% yield!!!
47. Grubbs Ghost on February 27, 2013 5:29 PM writes...
AMEN #46. Plain common sense there.
48. Andrew (@_byronmiller) on February 27, 2013 5:32 PM writes...
I find it fascinating that a handful of anonymous commenters are making such a big deal out of the use of (consistent, accountable) pseudonyms by SeeArrOh et al., and refuse to show any charity or good faith in taking said authors at their word about their intentions.
@"Not anonymous", if you want to criticise their technique then that's fair, but why can't you accept that their intentions are honest and decent? Refusing to put your name to your own words, and indulging in personal attacks, whilst criticising others for using pseudonyms and accusing them of having an underhanded agenda makes you look like a hypocrite.
Can we please just accept that SeeArrOh is being honest about his intentions, and is willing to learn from mistakes made? That way the discussion can shift from this undignified, unpleasant, and unproductive trash talk back to the merits of the chemistry.
49. who cares on February 27, 2013 5:40 PM writes...
To me this discussion seems entirely ridiculous as the process chemists have pointed out. I'm pretty sure pb is a big boy and can take care of his own reputation. The only reason for these negative comments I can conceive of is people are worried that their work will be scrutinized. Keep up the good work cro.
50. Jose on February 27, 2013 8:23 PM writes...
@ N/A: "What blog-syn did was not scrutiny, it was flailing around with chemicals like an undergrad and claiming the reaction was not reproducible"
This is an absurd statement. My co-workers and I, all well-regarded med chemists at a company you most certainly have heard of, burned an entire week trying to oxidize p-bromotoluene after the rx tanked with our real traget molecule. I can assure you, we were not flailing like undergrads- we distilled, we NMRed, we made/bought/and QCed the IBX, etc. The results were consistent, and negative.
That leads to one conclusion: there is insufficient detail in the paper to reproduce a specific reaction in the paper. Whether it is solubility, IBX vintages, or experiential setup remains to be seen.
51. Jose brother on February 27, 2013 9:19 PM writes...
See arr ohh has yet another reproduced IBX reaction to post....
52. Hap on February 28, 2013 10:01 AM writes...
Maybe the jobs lost in chemistry are being replaced by jobs sharpening bladed hardware? I would have thought it was a limited market, but apparently, it's rather lucrative, like supplements.
20: I think I would have had a hard time not responding, "I'll teach my students to work better when you teach your students to evaporate all their carbon tet off their reaction products before they weigh them."
53. marklar on February 28, 2013 12:43 PM writes...
Exactly! If the Org. Chem. folklore is true, then you are referencing the same prof. I'm talking about.
54. Rich Apodaca on March 1, 2013 5:54 PM writes...
Interesting that the topic of anonymity and pseudonymity has come up in many comments. Here's my take:
tl;dr: There's nothing wrong with not using a legal identity to publish science. In fact, the authors' given names and current affiliations are irrelevant to any discussion of the actual science.
But BlogSyn's acceptance of anonymous reviews and reviews by authors using handles could make a big difference in the effect BlogSyn can ultimately have on chemistry.
55. Honclbrif on March 2, 2013 12:02 AM writes...
I think a major division in this thread has been on where people put the weight: is the reaction working every time 100% more important, or is the name of someone who has advanced the field in fundamental ways more important. Developing a procedure which works all the time is very different from advancing a science on a fundamental level. The supporters of BlogSyn seem to be rallying around the fact that they have showed that this procedure does not work as advertized; who cares what fundamental advances the author(s) have made, here is a specific instance of a thing not working as advertised. On the other hand, the people who support the name feel like BlogSyn are a bunch of shit-stirrers; who are they to sully the name of Baran because one minor procedure does not work as advertised.
It is up to you, as a scientist, to determine which you put more weight upon and why.
56. Secondaire on March 3, 2013 11:50 AM writes...
The idea that SAO is somehow on a quest to bring down PSB is absolutely preposterous. This is a reaction that multiple people from multiple sources have noted as being wonky and inconsistent. In addition to what #55 said, I don't think it really matters if the authors are from Scripps or from Trashwater State University - the fact is, others skilled in the art who thought this procedure would be useful tried it and it didn't work. This is NOT an indictment of PSB. Perhaps a graduate student wrote a sloppy SI and people should've been more aware of it - PSB did the right thing in the way he responded. He got it to work. Someone else didn't. Perhaps, as we've all surmised, the reaction's just finicky; nothing more, and nothing less. By pointing out its finickiness, however, BlogSyn is doing a wonderful service to the chemistry community. It's not a witch-hunt. Get over yourselves, people.
57. Groggy on March 3, 2013 2:02 PM writes...
Yes secondaire - PSB's student, the other author (see her post on blog syn), German guys (no less than 4 times in one paper!), anonymous posters on blog syn all got it to work without a problem. Seems like only blog syn people are remaining...
58. See Arr Oh on March 3, 2013 5:25 PM writes...
I think we've figured out how to make the IBX oxidation chemistry work. See latest post over at Blog Syn: http://bit.ly/YkPstH
59. MrIBX on March 4, 2013 10:14 PM writes...
@Groggy: what about the German guys?
Email Address:
Remember Me?
About Us |
Advertise |
Contact Us |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use
© Copyright 2006 Corante. All rights reserved. ()


text:
A Pike County couple were taken to jail Wednesday night after police received a 911 call reporting a battery between a boyfriend and his girlfriend.
Troopers with the Indiana State Police were called to a residence along South Pike County Road 1000 East near Velpen just before 9:30. The home is shared by 25-year-old Lucas Clements and 23-year-old Ashley Cruze.
Cruze answered the door and a trooper immediately observed multiple bruises on her face.
Police say Cruze's boyfriend Clements also had injuries to his face.
Further investigation determined young children had been present during the altercation.
Police say Clements and Cruze were each arrested on a Class D felony count of domestic battery in the presence of a child. They were lodged in the Pike County Jail, where they are being held without bond.
Authorities released the two children at the home to their grandparents.


text:
- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -
ATF tries to block whistleblowing agent's Fast and Furious book
Posted By yihan On October 7, 2013 @ 4:54 am In Featured Stories,Old Infowars Posts Style,Police State,Tile | Comments Disabled
John Solomon
Washington Times
October 7, 2013
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is blocking the main whistleblower in the Fast and Furious case from publishing a book for pay, claiming his retelling of the Mexico "gun-walking" scandal will hurt morale inside the embattled law enforcement agency, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
ATF's dispute with Special Agent John Dodson is setting up a First Amendment showdown that is poised to bring together liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and conservatives in Congress who have championed Mr. Dodson's protection as a whistleblower.
The ACLU is slated to become involved in the case Monday, informing ATF it is representing Mr. Dodson and filing a formal protest to the decision to reject his request to publish the already written book, sources told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity.
The battle also could have repercussions on Capitol Hill, where the two lead investigators who helped uncover the Fast and Furious scandal, Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, Calif. Republican, had written a foreword to the book, the sources said.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/atf-tries-to-block-whistleblowing-agents-fast-and-furious-book/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2015 Infowars. All rights reserved.


text:
How To Stop Being A Stage-Five Clinger
How To Stop Being A Stage-Five Clinger
How To Stop Being A Stage-Five Clinger
Feeling clingy, sensitive and insecure in your relationship? Those feelings can turn you into "the needy girlfriend." You know, the type. The one who texts constantly to know where her guy is out of fear she's being ignored, or worse, cheated on. The one who clogs up his Facebook wall with sweet nothings and talks incessantly about getting married. That one. If you suspect you're "needy" or headed down the road to "needy" please take this advice:
1. Have your own life. Remember what you were like when you and your boyfriend first met? You had friends, hobbies, and lots of things that were not centered around him. Make sure you're still keeping up with those things. Doing so will make you happier, more interesting to him, and less likely to fixate entirely on your relationship. In Love? Don't Forget Your Friends
2. Schedule things out. Having a weekly date night, a monthly day trip, or regular evening text session on both your schedules can give you the sense that things are less amorphous and provide both of you with something to look forward to.
3. Tame those "what if?" demons. Stop thinking "what if?" every time you're apart (What if he sees a prettier girl while he's at the bar with his friends? What if he's not calling because he's on the phone with his ex? What if, what if, what if). Whenever your anxious thoughts start to spin out of control, remember that "what if?" is a lot less important than WHAT IS. And then remind yourself of what the reality of your relationship is.
4. Remember that you're great. You're beautiful. You're smart. You're fun. If you weren't, then he wouldn't have started dating you in the first place. Remind yourself from time-to-time of just how amazing you are. Regardless of whether you're in a relationship or not, it will make you feel more secure and centered.
5. Tell him outright. If the reason you're acting clingy is because he's treating you like you don't matter, then it's time for a talk. It may be the case that he doesn't realize how he's making you feel. It may be that he's just not into you anymore. Tell him, and if he refuses to work on making things better, get out. He "Has A Lot Going On." What Does That Mean?
On the flip side, some argue that a woman starts acting all needy when her man stops making her feel secure in the relationship. Whether that's true or not is certainly up for debate. But if the woman you fell in love with has turned into an over-sensitive clinger demanding your time and attention, here are five very simple things you can do to bring your girl's sense of security back.
1. Do what you say you will do. Call when you say you'll call, make her believe you're a loyal boyfriend with a sense of follow-through.
2. Randomly clue her in. Share what you're thinking when she's not probing you for information, tell her about your thoughts and dreams, make her believe she's worthy of your secret thoughts.
3. Not out of sight, out of mind. Give her a call or drop her a text when you're out with your friends to let her know that she's on your mind even when you're apart.
4. Maintain contact when out together. Catch her eye from across the room you're out together at a party, let her know that you know you have the best date in the room.
5. Prove you're observant. Let her know that you notice her appearance, give her suprise compliments, make it clear you appreciate her.
10 Things That Basic B*tches Say (Apparently)
More Juicy Content From YourTango:
- The Straight-Up Truth: Why He Treats You Like Crap
- Are You Secretly Passive-Aggressive? Here's How To Find Out
- 7 Reasons To Be Grateful For Your Partner's Annoying Habits
Photo: Jeff Weston


text:
Apparently, our family Tooth Fairy has become quite formal.
She or he now leaves notes.
Real legal notes.
"By the way, Sweetie," I asked my eight-year-old son. "How much did the Tooth Fairy leave with this, um, contract?"
"Oh," my son answered, "Just this crisp twenty dollar bill."
"What?" I quickly said. "A twenty dollar bill for one baby tooth! Are you kidding? TWENTY DOLLARS?"
I turned to look at my husband. "
If that is the going rate," I thought, "I think I might just get some gold caps."
Instead I said: "What in the world do you think is going on with our Tooth Fairy?"
My husband shrugged his shoulders. "Obviously," he answered in a muffled breath. "Obviously, the Tooth Fairy Bank was low."
I put my hands on my hips. "But," I questioned again. "But, this is a professional we are talking about. How can you not budget for a bicuspid?" "Well," my husband answered. "I don't know magic, but I do know bank hours. And, it appears that the Tooth Fairy was faced with a Sunday shortfall. And the Tooth Fairy -- though quite magical and, most likely very attractive -- cannot make the ATM release any bills less than a twenty."
I shrugged my shoulders. "But a prepayment plan with an eight year old?" "Well," continued my husband. "I, for one, find the business transaction to be quite refreshing."
"There is only one thing to do," I said to my son as I gave him a pen. "Sign and date on the contract's bottom line."
Transaction incomplete.
Due to testing the Tooth Fairy.
Try again. Love,
Tooth Fairy
"Well," I said after rereading the second note. "This is quite clever. Very clever. "
"Mom," my eight-year-old son said, "Yesterday, I lost another tooth at school and didn't tell you about it. Somehow the Tooth Fairy found out and is now mad at me."
I put my hands on my hips. "A mad Tooth Fairy? Really?" I turned toward my husband. "Does that make sense to you at all, Dear?"
My husband looked quite surprised. "Apparently, the Tooth Fairy Monetary System seems to be flush again. And, while the Tooth Fairy is distracted tonight, I'll be helping myself to a little loan for a flat screen." My husband wants to milk the Tooth Fairy. I'm telling Santa. But that's another story. ©2004 Karen Pond
Click HERE to subscribe to e-mail updates from barnstablepatriot.com.
CONTACT US | The Barnstable Patriot | 4 Ocean Street | P.O. Box 1208 | Hyannis, MA 02601 | 508-771-1427 | Copyright © 2015 Local Media Group, All Rights Reserved.