Croc

Well, the people who seem to enjoy freaking out over everythng on this site will still find whatever excuse they can latch onto to continue crying that the sky is falling...but those Canucks have that crazy Pontiac fetish, and it wouldn't surprise me if GM would like to keep Pontiac--even small and focused in the US--if only for the opportunity to rebadge Chevrolets up north. Seriously, people paid good money for this over a Cavalier:

MSN Autos / Autoweek Story (Google is my bitch)

Easy--"I don't believe in a higher power." What I find requires far more creativity is someone stating and JUSTIFYING their belief that a higher power exists without any real proof. Not that there's anything wrong with being religious, or that someone is required to justify any of their beliefs--just that I find it very interesting to hear the logic when someone chooses to justify.

Based on some PM's you have sent me, I assume you are referencing me obliquely. Go ahead, be judgmental and disappointed in me for expressing myself honestly and openly here. But just know that if I ever met you randomly on the street, and you happened to be morbidly obese, you would have no idea that I have strong feelings on this subject because I would treat you with the utmost of respect. There is a very big difference between having an opinion on a subject, and expressing that opinion disrespectfully to someone in person. Until I posted my stats on request upthread, for all you would have known I could be the most self-loathing fatass in the world. And frankly, considering I grew up in the midwest and did suffer from really bad childhood obesity up through the first half of college until I started taking responsibility for myself and my health, I'm pretty confident I have the place to speak on this issue. I know all the excuses; I used to use many of them. Maybe that's why I'm so critical of it in other people, but I do know what it takes to fix things, and frankly I don't think it's really all that hard or complicated. When I dine exclusively on fast food and drink excessively, I gain weight pretty quickly. When I eat healthfully, and balance my caloric intake, I maintain. When I restrict my caloric intake, continue to eat healthfully, and increase my physical activity (walking--exclusively walking), I lose weight. There is no secret trick to it. It takes nothing to take the stairs instead of the elevator, it takes nothing to walk to the corner store instead of driving, and it takes nothing to order a filling and nutritious meal at a restaurant instead of the deep-fried entree loaded with cheese and olive oil. Walking a mile takes ~15-20 minutes at a moderate pace, and burns 100 calories. Forego the dessert at the restaurant and take a half hour walk upon returning home, and not only are you aiding your digestion, but you are saving yourself 300+ calories on top of the 200 you burn walking 2 miles.

Food is not "addictive." There is no physically addicting property to it. "Psychological addiction" is just a responsibility-evading term for "poor self-control." Of course those pre-packaged foods contain preservatives and fillers (read: fat and empty carbs) that make them more shelf-stable and less nutritious. This is no revelation in that--that's been well-publicized and known for the past 15-20 years. Nutritional labels are required on every ready-made package of food--there's no excuse for ignorance. You want to bring up genetic predispositions, and not wanting to judge people for their obesity, fine; but I will bring up some facts: 3% of the population suffers from hypothyroidism. 1% of the population suffers from hyperthyroidism, and of that 1%, 15% can experience weight gain. So 3.15% of the population can reasonably be excused by thyroid problems. Genetic causes, however, do not even come close to explaining the obesity epidemic. You can read why here. I certainly do not contest that the obese have the right to be lazy gluttons (to paraphrase your post), but I most certainly have the right to think poorly of gluttony and sloth. You reserve the right to choose to be lazy and gluttonous, fine; but I reserve the right to judge you for it, especially when my tax dollars and insurance premiums subsidize your health problems. You can certainly be a kind, good-hearted person and be obese, but you can't argue against physical appearance (especially the controllable aspects of it) having an influence on people's perceptions of you. There are many studies out there (do a quick google search if you'd like) linking attitudes and values to physical appearance. Very fit people tend to be very efficient, goal-oriented, and attentive to their work. Obviously not EVERYONE fits this, but many people do. People who are fit tend to be more health-conscious and careful in other aspects of their lives. Fit people tend to have better self-control. So yes, I will (and so will most people whether or not they have the balls to admit it) judge people based on physical appearance. There is firm science backing up many of the judgments, and this is the reality we live in. Again, some people (3.15% of the population) have conditions making them much more prone to obesity through no fault of their own, but when I see a morbidly obese person chowing down on a Big Gulp Slurpee, a large plate of nachos, and a giant pretzel on the side, I feel fairly confident in ruling out any thyroid conditions.

YUP!

I don't think I've ever advocated for removing the choice to be an unhealthy lardass...I'm just not usually a fan of people who choose that choice over more aesthetic and healthy choices. There are exceptions, but not very many.

Exactly--it's their choice, knowing the consequences of being charged for more than one seat.

What, like the freedom to actually get your entire airline seat that YOU PAID FOR? The freedom to pay your OWN way for health insurance? Yeah, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the freedom to be a fat ass, but I don't want to subsidize it. Southwest has been charging obese people for two seats for over 25 years, yet only recently have people started complaining about it.

5'10" The XS shirt size is only from Lacoste, because Europeans don't do the whole "self-esteem sizing," and converting to standard American sizes means I get a men's XS sometimes...they go down to 2XS, so I'm not tiny.

It's my business if I have to look at it in too-tight clothing, it spills onto my airplane seat, it gets subsidized by my health insurance, it gets subsidized by my tax dollars through disability claims, and when I have to pay an extra $25 to check a second bag at the airport. It's called "public health" because it is a concern of the public--and each member of the public contributes to the aggregate statistics. I'm certainly not perfectly in shape, either, but I've lost 8 inches on my waist since I decided I was tired of being overweight and was going to do something about it. 4 years ago I was 214 lbs, wore a size L and 36" waist. Now I'm a 28/30 waist, wear size S or XS, and weigh about 155. And I don't even recognize myself in really old photos. It's awesome, and I highly recommend taking health seriously to anyone I can.

You're entirely right, but GMC is the sole success story of "brand management" with marketing. For whatever reason, consumers think GMCs are better than Chevrolets, and many people do NOT cross-shop the two. It makes no logical sense, but then again, it makes GM money.

Properly-fitting sweat pants don't look bad on in-shape people--especially not those velour track suit ones the girls wore a lot a few years ago...yum!

Heidi Montag, "Your Love Found Me"

Oh I know...I'm not a 110 n00b. Though ironically yesterday morning the right lane was empty and a bunch of vehicles were in the left 2 going much slower than I wanted to be. I personally prefer the middle lane--you can go fast like in the left, while the sight distances around the curves are better.

??? I certainly wasn't the only one doing it at the time! My favorite is still taking the Pasadena Fwy @ 75+

Taking Sunset at 60 through the Palisades is a total blast.

They might compete in the same segment, but they do not compete for the same buyer. Just because the new Terrain and Equinox are in the same segment, their distinct styling appeals to different buyers. Thus it is so with SKY/Solstice. How many people love them both equally? Even on this board there are strong preferences for one or the other. Hence, they complement each other more than competing with each other--even less so with the Solstice Coupe/Targa availability.

Generally agree. I'm just not a fan of Malibu or the people in it at all. Plus it's way the hell up PCH. Best LA-area beach hands down is Manhattan--so clean and wide, with a lot of decent shops nearby. Plus The Strand has some beautiful homes along that stretch. I just had a friend from Indianapolis visit me a few weeks ago--first time in LA and first time at a real ocean (apparently the Gulf of Mexico doesn't count...???)--and she had a blast. She saw it the right way, and had fun. The most common thing I hear from the out-of-state kids at USC is "How can you NOT love LA?" ...and while there definitely are some things that could be better, overall it's a blast all around.

Agreed on H&M. I got three shirts from them when visiting NYC (before the expanded to Indianapolis, and before I moved to CA), and one shrunk very unevenly (button-down) after the first wash, the other had held up alright despite not being cut entirely evenly to begin with, and the other fell apart within a week. They are high style, poor quality, and poor construction. You get what you pay for. I also gotta agree with the clearance racks. Saks has amazing clearance racks, and I always end up getting really cool $120 Ts for $30-$45.

Then so will Solstice. Frankly, the SKY and Solstice do very little competing against each other due to the great differences in styling. Shifting SKY to Chevrolet would provide more volume for Kappa, and maybe even make it a more viable platform (doubtful). But killing SKY will kill Solstice, make no mistake.

Ummm...#3 is the only one that actually is in Malibu, and even Gladstone's is a stretch at the base of Pacific Palisades. Getty is a must, but the Sepulveda Pass is not Malibu. Unless you're referring to the other Getty property, but I'm not sure of its status--after the fires up there I thought it was damaged? I dunno...I think the time would be better spent in the Westwood/Santa Monica/Venice area instead of going alllllllll the way up to Malibu. That way you could work in the Ballona Wetlands and the Beach cities more easily and with less commuting.

I'm not even going to bother re-reading my old posts...but a quick look around: A&F skinny jeans Reef flip flops Sperry Topsiders Ed Hardy sneakers Puma athletic shoes Lacoste polo shirts many, many random Ts from all over the place, most recently surf/skate styles a $h! ton of zip-up hooded sweaters, surf/skate style patterned surf/skate shorts (PacSun) various argyle items yeah, I've become a lot more SoCal in the last couple years.

Bob, what the hell is there to see/do in Malibu? It's a 45-minute drive from downtown, and other than seeing the view driving along PCH, there is NOTHING to do there--there are a lot of gated communities and "private" beaches you can't get to. I use quotations because all beaches are technically public, but Malibu has been in litigation against this since the 1970s and the du jour situation is that you cannot access the beaches with any ease at all without the key to the gate that only private homeowners have direct access to.

Yeah, I saw that the other day. The look on Simon's face is priceless.