it is really mysterious bring me here that i just search an title from the internet.
okkk.hi guys?i dont konw where i am and wheather i can submit,because i from china >....<

Specs

Specs

Specs

I think an important point with the election which really interest me is that we are for the first time from what I can say in my lifetime in the seat of power for this province. Not only is our new Premier's base of operations in this city but this is now the ruling party's stronghold. Unlike previous years were we were the outsiders with the power base either being in Calgary or in the southern rural regions. Don't know what this will bring but maybe I'll hear less complaints about how ****** this city is.

Chiarelli: MacTavish will be the No. 2 guy:

New general manager and president of hockey operations Peter Chiarelli told the Sun that while he hasn’t settled on a specific title for the demoted GM, McTavish will “be the No. 2 guy.”

Specs

Specs

Do you guys remember Pepsi points?


Have you ever read about John Leonard, the guy who bought the 7,000,000 points needed to get the Harrier jet in the ad and then sued Pepsi when they didn't get him a Harrier jet?

Well, feast your eyes, this is amazing:

In justifying its conclusion that the commercial was "evidently done in jest" and that "The notion of traveling to school in a Harrier Jet is an exaggerated adolescent fantasy," the court made several observations regarding the nature and content of the commercial. These included (among others) that:

"The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps."
"The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area."
"No school would provide landing space for a student's fighter jet, or condone the disruption the jet's use would cause."

The court also stated that:

“ In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired 'in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use.'[2]