eleanor

Not really an event but since the beginning of this year I've just been aimlessly living. College and all its activities were just part of the "daily crunch." Getting goods grades no longer made me happy, it was just something I made myself think of as mandatory and nothing to congratulate. I still have no idea what I am going to do after college, despite knowing I hate actually being in school and therefore would probably hate graduate school. It also doesn't help that I hate my undegrad school and most of the people who go there. However I'm set to study abroad in Scotland this semester, but there's a good chance it won't work out depending on my financial aid package. :| tl;dr college years =/= best years of life, and I hate going to school with a bunch of ridiculously rich kids

"Manners" was a great album. IMO much better than their first EP, "Chunk of Change." For some reason I really got stuck on their song "Swimming in the Flood".... I know it's not even the best song on the album but I guess it was just one of those songs I get sucked into. Other than that, I can't really recall the titles of their other songs (lol, except "Sleepyhead" which I imagine as some sort of drug trip in the form of a song), just that it's was an awesome album to listen to. I think the entire album is hit or miss for people. If you don't like the first one you hear, you probably won't like the rest, and vice versa. Anyways if you like them (well PP is actually pretty unique to me, but just in case you're not too familiar with other well-liked indie artists) you might also like Animal Collective (if you're not sure where to start, the song "My Girls"), Of Montreal, Daft Punk (although I'm sure you already like them if you're listening to Justice hehe). Phoenix is like a more pop-like electro indie band ("1901," "Lisztomania") OK I'll stop now because you probably already know all of these bands lol :|

[quote name='Shinmaru' date='02 June 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1275501116' post='694284'] Eva 2.22 was kind of strange because the characters are so honest and straightforward! Asuka particularly threw me for a loop. It's weird because the feelings behind the characters aren't really different (they feel the same way they do in the series once you make your way past all the layers of confusion), but Eva 2.22 does away with most of the deliberate confusion, I think half out of storytelling necessity and half because Hideaki Anno is just a different person now than he was 15 years ago when first directing Evangelion. I wouldn't say it is necessarily better or worse yet (especially with two movies remaining); just different. Also Eva 2.22 made me realize that, apparently, Asuka is my favorite Eva character. When in the hell did THAT happen?? ([spoiler]Asuka's eyepatch in the next movie looks pretty boss, gotta say. Wouldn't she be a great pirate?[/spoiler]) [/quote] [spoiler]I totally agree. The Asuka bit was like "ffwhaa?" Especially when she called Misato and talked about how it was nice to open up/talk to other people (my face --> o_o). I was on 4chan's /a/ and they were all claiming that the rebuild Asuka was worse because she was just a huge tsundere but I liked her a lot more in the rebuild than in the original series, too. She's still not my favorite but I can see why Rebuild would change someone's mind... in the original series I pretty much didn't like any of the characters except Kaworu, who was in it for like 14 whopping minutes, but after Rebuild I really like all of them. And I ship Shinji/Rei now, even if it's sort of creepy. They were shipping Shinji/Rei SO HARD in Rebuild. And it's interesting to see Shinji and Rei acting with a bit of backbone this time. It seems like in the rebuild they emphasize Shinji's main problem as his need for approval from his father. I watched the series so long ago I don't remember well but I never remembered it being like the *main* cause, just one of many. Anyways, I approve. And when Rei stopped Asuka from slapping her in the elevator. Loved it. Also I'm one of those fans who REALLY WANTS Rebuild to be the "sequel" (aka this is the world Shinji created after the third impact/everyone turns into tang in EoE). People are theorizing that eyepatch Asuka is the "real" Asuka from EoE... idk I sort of want it to happen hehe. I hated Mari at first because she was a useless side-character/Mary Sue but by the end I loved her. Also I was teh happy over Kaworu. :] I want Shinji/Kaworu :] :] I was disappointed by 1.11 because it just boring rehash to me, but 2.22 has gotten my excited... I want Rebuild to be "better" than the original. ITA with what you said about how Anno is a different person now. I want Rebuild to have a bittersweet ending rather than EoE's depressing mindfuckery with overuse of Christian symbols. [/spoiler]

Everything is better than Family Guy and American Dad.

Is it just my mac or like half of the users' fonts on OB now so tiny you can't read them without zooming in three time or squinting??

OT, but DisrespectWomenEarnALiving, Katana, Korey and SaiyanPrincessX, your fonts are so small it's difficult to even read. Maybe it's just my mac, but... head's up or something I guess. On-Topic, I love cheese of all varieties and forms. I really like eating gouda with apples, pears or grapes. On sandwiches I like provolone. Also making pasta and watching globs of mozarella melt everywhere in the pan is one of the best sights ever. I like dipping fries in blue cheese. Or even drizzling blue cheese on my burgers. Or steaks.

[font="Verdana"]I just watched Rebuild of Eva 2.22 and my mind is blown.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] OB Advice Time.... So I interviewed with this tutoring company on Tuesday for a summer receptionist job but then during the interview they thought I'd also be good for doing SAT Prep or other tutoring things so I ended up interviewing with two people and at the end the main lady said "I'll call you by the end of this week and tell you which position we think would be good for you." So I sort of assumed I had a job there, they just had to decide what kind of job, but I am a worrywart and have obsessively been keeping my phone next to me all week. I knew that the lady came into work on Saturdays so when she hadn't called by Saturday morning I decided to call her and ask for an update. And so the tutoring lady said she could get back to me Monday/Tuesday because she had meant to meet with the other guy I interviewed with and discuss but he had been out of town, but they thought I'd be good for SAT prep at a center near my house. So I said "I'm asking because there's also an internship lined up for me and I told the internship coordinator I could tell her if I'd be taking a job instead by Monday (since the lady said she'd tell me by the end of this week)... Is it safe to say that I'll be working for you guys this summer?" (this is all true. **** unpaid internships I'd rather get $$$) The lady was like "Not 100%...but like over 90%. Well, when did you say you had to tell the coordinator?" I said Monday and so the lady said "OK, then just go ahead and tell her you'll be working for us." SO MY LAME QUESTION IS WAS IT OK FOR ME TO DO THAT? DOES THE LADY HATE ME NOW SRRY I WORRY A LOT[/font]

[quote name='Korey'] [FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]True, but the author didn't say the other contributing factors towards obesity. Even then, the way he used the argument was lacking substance and overall came out flat. It was a flawed use of logic.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] It was a flat and generally uninteresting argument, but I just, really really doubt that the majority of regular NYT readers would actually think soda = fat people. If we're in such a state of misinformation that most people think obesity can just be linked to one thing, I don't even know what to say.[/font] [quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Cool, but how's about we let people be critical of articles instead of dissecting said crticisms? Regardless of being a column or not, and despite it's topic, when you bring in sub-topics, it helps credit your opinion when you provide a multitude of sources and points of view across the spectrum. This columnist picked and choosed his sources in order to project his opinion, which is ultimately the point of the article, but the sources he picked were lucid at best. Which, consquently, leads people who follow issues like this (as opposed to the uninformed masses who just pick the up paper to see the MLB scores) to be very critical of the amount of research done within the article. In short, don't bring something up if you're only going to cull the information for what works for your political agenda. We're all equals here, and everyone's opinion is valuable. But let's not get in a huff over a criticism of an editorial piece. I'm sure Al doesn't wish any sort of malice upon this writer, and the guy is still getting paid to put his opinion on paper. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] I liked that James said in response to your thoughts on opinions and argument. So what, am I supposed to not voice my opinion on why I thought Allamorph's criticisms were unnecessary? The fact that he railed on this entire piece, without even checking to see if the writer was an news reporter or a editorial columnist, and did things like not even read all the graph information (or didn't read it correctly), is completely baffling to me. So I pointed it out. On a more general topic (and this isn't directed at anyone in the post, just my general thoughts)-- for all the flack news media gets, and believe me I agree with what most people say, I also get annoyed with people who simply sit around and ***** about how crappy news is today. If you are truly interested in getting a well-rounded view of a topic, it's YOUR responsibility to do so. Watching FOX to learn about, say, a congressional bill that is about to be voted on, and then just complaining that FOX gives you a biased view is downright pathetic to me. Watch multiple sources, read various print publications (not just CNN.com and NYT.com), RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN, then come up with your own opinions on something. And while I attacked Allamorph's post, a lot of things he points out can be great assets for the educated news reader to use while reading any news story. Question uses of studies, any numbers/statistics, and graphs. Is the reporter presenting both sides? Are there substantial direct quotes? Is the reporter presenting all of his information in an objective matter? [/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] .... ........ head/desk David Leonhardt is a columnist. NYT's "Economic Scene" is a weekly column written by David Leondardt. It's OK that he's a flaming liberal and it shows, because he's a COLUMNIST (aka editorials). I've obliterated like half of the things you attack in your post just by pointing this out. moving on[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]... So I've been diving into some news sites to at least get a feel for things while simultaneously practicing my ability to see through the retarded levels of liberal/conservative spinshit facing the masses today. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachmanenough[/COLOR] has had no influence on my decision.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Yeah...first you might want to look up the difference between editorials and news reporting.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]But while I've been browsing, I've been forced to come to the conclusion that if an article has any variation of the phrase "studies show" anywhere inside it that the author of the article has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Generally true. But this is a NYT columnist, so I am skeptical that he's really the incompetent idiot you make him out to be.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri].... First off, the entirety of the pertinent information (or at least useful information) is contained in the final sentence of the third paragraph: [I]"...the Washington Council seems to be seriously considering a penny-per-ounce tax on nondiet sodas, energy drinks and artificial juices."[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms]It's not a news story or report. No need for the factual lede to be the first sentence.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri](Aside: 'seems to be'? Are they or aren't they? They're voting on it next fracking week. I think a scheduled vote means they [I]are[/I] considering it; don't waste time pondering if they [I]might[/I] consider it. This is news, you halfwit.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Actually it's an editorial-style column.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]...But looking through the article, it seems that the thought of the government actually making money is taking a backseat to some of the most specious arguments I've ever seen, both for and against it. Let's start with the argument against it. Per the article: [INDENT][I]"...a tax would most hurt 'hard-working, low- and middle-income families, elderly residents and those living on fixed incomes' and would destroy jobs."[/I][/INDENT] The author of the article... doesn't buy this argument for a second, and neither do I. It is absolutely idiotic to think that pop is a household staple. There's milk, there's fruit juice, and there's water, and if you can afford multiple two-liters and twelve-packs of cans a week then you can afford a fracking Brita filter. Soda is a [I]want[/I], not a need, so if you're going to suddenly become destitute from buying soda, then I have an idea. DON'T BUY FRACKING SODA[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Actually you might be surprised by what a typical American family considers a "staple" and what exactly makes up these families' daily diets. Considering that you're so gung-ho about researching everything thoroughly, you might want to, like, research that and see if you can find raw statistics. And no, your experience of what your family and what your friends' families buy at the grocery store don't count as evidence (especially if you're white, middle-to-upper class). [/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]However, the leading argument [I]for[/I] the tax is possibly even more specious than that. Per the article: [INDENT][I]"The tax also appears to be one of the most promising ways to attack obesity, given the huge role sugary drinks play in the epidemic. 'It’s wrong for the government to stand idle in the face of an epidemic of obesity that’s hurting the quality of life and the health of our residents,' says Mary Cheh, the Council member who has proposed the tax, 'when we have policy choices in front of us that can materially affect the problem.' "[/I][/INDENT] ...excuse me? Okay okay okay. So this tax you're proposing isn't supposed to help pay for the actions of our Federal government—which, might I remind you, is now in the [I]trillions[/I], which I can't even begin to comprehend—but instead is supposed to be a form of behaviour modification? I want a hit of whatever these people are smoking.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] This is congressional politics we are talking about. HAVEN'T YOU EVER SEEN THE WEST WING Also I generally support the idea of government stepping in and trying to regulate the health problems of the its citizens, but that's just an unrelated thing I wanted to say.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]The article's author spends the majority of the article supporting this standpoint, and even at one point says why extending the current 6% sales tax to soda wouldn't be a good idea: [INDENT][I]"...small tax changes don’t always change behavior, as a recent study by the RAND Corporation found. So a small soda tax could actually have a worse impact on some families’ budgets than a substantial one — by raising the price of soda without affecting consumption."[/I][/INDENT] In other words, the bigger the tax, the greater the chance for mass societal behaviour-modification. But think about this for a second. If a smaller tax increase might not affect consumption rates, wouldn't that be effective at generating the money our government needs right now? Or rather, wouldn't a larger tax on soda be counterproductive to the purpose of [I]having a tax in the first place?[/I][/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] You know, the power to tax is not limited to simply raising revenue. The power to tax is the power to destroy-- Congress can use their taxing power to depress certain products (tobacco, etc.) or advertise certain products (giving tax benefits to those who buy homes) because they want to. [/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]But speaking of the RAND Corporation, let's take a look at how this argument for national health is supported. First up: [INDENT][I]"As Kelly Brownell, a Yale researcher, says, the link between obesity and soda is scientifically stronger than the link between obesity and any other type of food or beverage."[/I][/INDENT] [U]Statistics Lesson #1 – Correlation[/U]: Just because there is a relationship present between two items [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] [U]mean[/U] that one causes the other. This is literally the first thing you learn when going into applications of statistics: you [I]can not[/I] automatically assume causation from correlation. Once you learn the methods, you get it drilled into your head. ... What you [I]can[/I] say, though, is that there is a definite relationship between the two, and comment on the strength of it. In the case of the article, that's what was said: note the words "scientifically stronger". But what will the interpretation by the author and, in general, society at large be? "Soda makes you fat." Yes, and eating ice cream gives you skin cancer. And you can cure AIDS by going to church.[/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] The author never specified when he wrote "link," so it's wrong of you to automatically assume he meant "causation" rather than "correlation." You're right that most readers will interpret it as you guessed, which is possibly the only valid criticism I found in your entire post. But that's something all readers should learn to do, since 99% of journalists use similar methods.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]Moving on: [INDENT][I]"And soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obese. The typical American consumes almost three times as many calories from sugary drinks as in the late 1970s. This increase accounts for about half the total per-capita rise in calorie consumption over the same period. Remember, many of these drinks have zero nutritional benefit — unlike meat, cheese or juice."[/I][/INDENT] Guess what, bucko? [I]Water[/I] has zero nutritional benefit! [/font][/quote] [FONT=TREBUCHET MS] Yeah, water doesn't literally have "nutritional values" because there's no calories or anything, but seriously? Everyone knows that drinking lots of water is great for your body, and everyone should know that soda is terrible for you. [/FONT] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]And I don't know anyone who likes to drink meat-and-cheese smoothies. If you compare two items for the shocker-phrase (zero nutritional benefit, gasp!), make sure there's not another 'healthy' choice out there that does the exact same fracking thing. [/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms]Or maybe he compared soda to healthier foods and drinks because in the following paragraph he introduces a paraphrase from the Yale lady who specifies that the link between soda and obesity is greater than any other drink OR food. Just something to think about.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]And notice what was said right there in the first fracking sentence: soda is why we're fat. [/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] No, he said soda is a "huge reason why" we're fat. Not "soda is why we're fat." Now you're just putting words into his mouth. He's trying to back up the statement that soda is one of the reasons why more people are obese. Which, to me, is not exactly a wild and radical thought. It makes a lot of sense. And btw he can say that "soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obses" because it's a column.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri][INDENT][I]"We’re drinking more soda for several reasons. Above all, the inflation-adjusted price has fallen 34 percent since the late 1970s, largely because it can be manufactured more cheaply than in the past. Meanwhile, the average real cost of fruits and vegetables has risen more than 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."[/I][/INDENT] So . . . by this logic we're drinking more soda because it's less expensive than drinking vegetables? To be fair, I understand the intent of the logic here: if it's more expensive to buy fruits and vegetables, it's more expensive to produce (and therefore buy) fruit and vegetable juice. But, again, what about water? Aren't we supposed to be drinking eight glasses a day? And do you think that these people who are "guzzling" soda (ostensibly because it's cheaper, surely not because it tastes good) are also drinking their eight glasses of water a day and therefore don't need that particular lecture?[/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] No, he's saying ONE of the reasons why we drink more soda is because it's cheaper. Not OMG WE'RE DRINKING MORE SODA ONLY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER. Seriously the guy even writes "for several reasons," and then lists ONE of the reasons. And what about water? We're not even on the subject of water. If there was like some tax-incentive the government was taking to make more people drinking water, we could talk about the prices of water. Also water is free to most people, so I don't even know why we would talk that much about water. [/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]Incidentally, take a look at the graph there at the top of the article. Notice how it says "fresh fruits and vegetables"? That's a subtle bit of biasing right there. It also says nothing about canned fruits/veggies or juices or V8s, and I'm not entirely certain it reflects the prices of fruits and vegetables from the farms to the bottlers. So much for honesty.[/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] You could also consider the fact that fresh fruits and vegetables have exponentially greater nutrients than the canned versions. And most fruit juices are just as bad for you as soda. The amount of sugar and other chemicals in them is not "healthy." Also why are you even wondering if the graph reflects the prices of fruits/vegetables from farms==> stores? The graph info specifically states that these numbers reflects the consumer price index, which means how much the products cost in the store. It's not trying to even pretend or confuse people when it comes to that.[/font] [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]No, neither argument, for or against, makes any fracking sense at all, and to me the entire article is full of superfluous data. Nowhere was there a link to the proposed tax bill, no information on the status of the vote itself (aside from it taking place next week), nothing. All I know is that the idea exists and it will be voted on soon, and the rest was just more soapbox diatribe passing for informing the public. And the most telling part of the article comes in a conclusion of which the author is most likely particularly proud—or else they're just relieved to have BSed another article for their deadline. [INDENT][I]"Someday, we will probably look back on our gallon-a-week soda habit the way we now look back on allowing children to ride without seat belts or listening to doctors who endorsed Camel cigarettes. We will wonder what we were thinking."[/I][/INDENT] (~flaming liberal~)[/font][/quote] [font=trebuchet ms] Again, it's not a news story. You can disagree up and down with his opinions and how he presents them, but seriously 90% of your entire post was like you attacking an editorial piece for not being a news piece. Which isn't the journalist's fault. It's yours for not even bothering to look up if this story was a column or not.[/font] [quote name='Korey']Being a jounalist-in-the-making, I can say I'm disgusted with the lack of true research this author did. There's several factors that lead to obesity (genectics, lack of excercise, etcetera). The author did touch on the aspect of improper diets, but tried to loosely connect it to the premise of the article: the soda tax vote. [/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] But was there even a part in the story where the writer was trying to say 'SODA IS WHY WE'RE ALL FAT'? He's only saying the amount of soda Americans drink is a contributing factor to our obesity. Also I didn't find his part about the link between obesity/soda and the soda tax to be so "loosely connected" that it made the piece terrible. I mean no this wasn't the greatest thing ever and it was actually incredibly boring/stuff I already knew to me, but since it is an economic column there's no need for him to start talking about all the things that contribute to obesity. Not really a "good" piece IMO but not atrocious.[/font]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Some exceedingly polite young lady or gentleman at my school just texted me to helpfully inform me that I have the appearance of a homosexual and am obligated to trim my facial hair. Why is there no block option on my phone and why can I run a search, but the results cost me?[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Ummm that sucks. I'm sorry. Just ignore it, this person obviously has no ****ing life and is so pathetic they feel the need to anonymously text someone about their appearance.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms]i am i am... ... becoming obesssed with a kpop group. NOOOOOOOO [/font]

[quote name='Stephanie'][size=1] I can't help but laugh at the people who initially think that a 100 word maximum paper is going to be easy, especially on a subject you have a lot of info for. Keeping it to 100 words is rather tricky.[/size][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] uh...does that even count as a paper? seriously.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] I

[font=trebuchet ms] whhaaattt I LIVE FOR PIC SPAMS thank god I don't have a final tomorrow [b]Lauren Bacall & Humphrey Bogart[/b] Bacall is forever and always the head b--ch in charge. Also they were possibly the best couple ever. And To Have and Have Not was a great movie. [img]http://i40.tinypic.com/4gj82.jpg[/img] [b]Gregory Peck[/b] Hmmm basically the perfect man.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]I love rain. It's such a beautiful sound?even the cars driving on wet roads?and I love lightning. I just hate being rained on. I suspect you have been avoiding AIM for a while. For shame.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] One of my favorite feelings if when I wake up and it's thunder storming/raining very heavily outside. I feel all cozy :] I hate drizzle or afternoon rain, though.[/font]

[quote name='Boo']If you haven't seen this film yet, you're missing out on witnessing one of the greatest pieces of art of our time. Kick *** is a freaking masterpiece. Seriously. you will have one of the best film experiences ever watching this film. [size=5]IT'S BRILLIANT[/size][/QUOTE] [img]http://i43.tinypic.com/29w4e51.gif[/img]

[quote name='CaNz']thats a silly question... of course i do... I mean... you saw how she made a checklist with smilies as checks didn't you?[/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] Bahaha I like you [img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2iw1zs8.gif[/img] I feel supremely lame for being in my dorm at 11 on saturday night[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] Canz do you have a massive crush on Taperson or what. I'm bored and calling people out[/font]

[quote name='taperson'][SIZE="1"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]We weren't going for humor. We're just bored. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [quote name='Gavin'] [quote name='Sangome'][FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]Uhm. Okay.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]QFT.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] [img]http://i43.tinypic.com/fcjkn8.jpg[/img] Wow i have been being bitchy lately. I blame finals[/font]

[font=trebuchhet ms] failed attempt at humor has failed[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] Prep rules all[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] Also I generally get urges to get wasted to avoid writing giant papers.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms] The only times I drink are to be social or when I've had a rough week and want to go crazy on the weekend. TBH I really really hate the taste of alcohol-- and trust me I've tried every "delicious" drink that "doesn't take like alcohol" (EXCEPT Midori Sours, but I really doubt those are miraculous either). I just don't like alcohol. Even just the smell of beer makes me gag. So I never drink for pleasure, just for the sole purpose to get drunk (aka I pinch my noise and try to get mixed drinks down asap. I can't handle shots.) In some ways I'm glad about this because I have a tendency to become addicted to things. But it still sort of sucks because I'm studying abroad in Scotland next semester.[/font]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden'] Though since watching [B]Supernatural[/B] I've gotten an affliction for the Impala SS they use I believe it's a suped up 67...well here's a link if somebody wants to let me know if I'm right or not [IMG]http://www.supernatural.tv/gallery2/promos/s2/childrenshouldntplaywith/SN204-0001.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] [font=trebuchet ms] this x100 I also like the dodge charger from Burn Notice: [img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2q836mb.jpg[/img] [img]http://i41.tinypic.com/2q9h1mg.jpg[/img] mmm but I may just really like these cars because I associate them with the men who drive them 8D I also really liked "Eleanor" from Gone in 60 Seconds: [img]http://67mustangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/1967-forsd-mustang-eleanor-movie-car-csv-bruckheimer-cover.jpg[/img] and that car Vin Diesel was driving at the end of Tokyo Drift: [img]http://www.furious.e.pl/galerie/TOKYO/the-fast-and-the-furious-tokyo-drift-car-of-the-day-rb-powered-mustang-20060531034537790.jpg[/img][/font]