john58

If by dead you mean that it is no longer a fun place for you, then I understand that. However, if you are using dead to say no one likes it there anymore, I think you are mistaken. I went there a week ago, and the club was still packed at 9:30 or 10:00. There was still no room on the dance floor even. Even if you find the crowd repulsive (you all have a point there), I can't really call a place dead that still has 1000 people in it at 10:30, even if everyone of them is in a k-hole.

i've got the jitters too. SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD... have fun everyone! see you this morning

i've got the jitters too. SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD SnD... have fun everyone!

Whitney all the way. I don't like Madonna

your post wasn't very insulting. The way you wrote it would only offend those who insult DJ's/Crowds at clubs. Since everyone likes to claim that everyone but them is being childish by arguing over DJ's, no one could act offended by your post, since it would mean admitting that they are in the group of people who complain about DJ's and clubs. If you want to catch a lot of crap, you should say something like: Jonathan Peters sucks goats. I heard he is leaving SF because he got a million dollar deal to tour with the Hanson brothers. Then you will hear it...

kittie, why do you give this guy the time of day? I think he enjoys each rebuke like this one...

1) It doesn't matter if people are standing around, unless they are doing their standing around on the dance floor when it is too crowded already. No need to take up real estate if you aren't going to use it 2) Its fun to complain about stuff like the crowd not dancing or there being too many guidos, if you don't take the complaining too seriously. People watching is a fun part of the experience. Also, just because I complain doesn't mean I didn't have fun while I was there. We should all know we have nothing to get too upset about. Anyone who doesn't like the clubs here should spend a summer in Minneapolis like I did once.

I think dancing ability is gained mostly through practice, assuming you have at least average rhythm. If you are average, and spend 10 hours a week on the dance floor, after a year of clubbing you will appear to be a great dancer to anyone who doesn't go out to hardcore dance clubs regularly. Once you reach that point, you really have nothing to be self conscious about, since you will look good to anyone who is reasonable about it. Having said that, I used to think that I would never notice bad dancing. I thought it was silly to complain about it. But now I pick up on it all the time. What I really hate is when people dance and are not into the music, but are doing it (badly) to placate their girlfriend. You see that with a lot with juicehead types, who punctuate their lackluster movements with angry scowls.

thanks guys, i feel better after venting a bit. People reading this board are probably more receptive to these ideas than the average middle aged adult though. For example, I have tried these arguments on my parents without making any head way. Their response is always "why do you care so much?" I don't know the answer to that entirely. It just bothers me the way our culture embraces one substance and demonizes all others.

I got all excited at Sven Vath 'cause I thought I saw SuperGreg sitting on a speaker. I looked at my girlfriend and excitedly exclaimed "SuperGreg, SuperGreg!" Since she doesn't read the board she thought I was crazy... And then, if it sounds too good to be true it is. Closer inspection showed that while my guy had the big SuperG 'stache, his unibrow was far too modest to be the ultra pimp in the flesh.

Congrats, I too reached this milestone recently. It's a great feeling isn't it?

This question is one I wrestle with a lot. The continuous stream of lies and hypocrisy on this issue drives me crazy. People assume that because alcohol is legal, it is safer than other illegal drugs. The media and government perpetuate this myth to the extreme. On that other thread about parents knowing what you do, it was amazing how many people pacified their parents by telling them they were hungover. Those same parents would freak out if their child rolled once in a while. Let's look at alcohol, the "safe" drug: 1. Fairly easy to overdose on 2. Can cause radical changes in personality 3. Often triggers violent behavior. 4. The DEA has tried pinning the label of date rape drug on "K" and "GHB." However, despite being responsible in most reported cases of sexual assault on college campuses, alcohol has somehow is never called a date rape drug 5. Alcohol greatly impairs the ability to drive safely. In one weekend, more people are killed in this country in drunk driving accidents than have been killed in history in ecstacy related deaths. 6. Alcohol is physically addictive 7. Regular alcohol use is known to cause brain damage, liver damage, heart disease, memory loss, obesity, and cancer. Now, let's look at 'E', the dangerous drug that is an epidemic destroying the country at breakneck pace, if you are to believe the DEA people trying to justify their own bureaucracy's existence: 1. Next to impossible to overdose on. You really would need suicidal tendencies to consume the 14 or 15 pills necessary to cause a problem, given that there is no added high after 1.5 or 2. Most if not all of the e "overdoses" you read about are actually other substances like K and GHB. However, a headline saying Gamma Hydroxybuturate doesn't sell as many papers as "ECSTACY," 2. Does cause changes in personality, but usually for the better. In other words, ecstacy doesn't bring out the "Bad side" of a person like alcohol can. 3. Can cause severe depression, especially if you are depressed to begin with. Sensible use and prozac supplementation can mitigate this effect, but in my mind it is the most dangerous problem with e 4. Will not cause violent tendencies. In fact, just the opposite. Media reports of kids going "crazy" are the work of people that don't understand that kids like to dance, sometimes really crazily. Most clueless adults would assume I am on drugs if they saw me dance, when usually all I have is a cup of coffee when I go out. 5. Impairs driving, but not nearly to the extent that alcohol does. If everyone stopped drinking and started doing E, it would save hundreds of lives in drunk driving reduction 6. Ecstacy is not physically addictive, period! As you do more, the fun effects go away, and the body doesn't "need" the drug to go on, unlike alcohol, which can ruin entire families once addiction sets in (ask any kid who has an alcoholic mom or dad) 7. E has not been shown to cause any long term physical health problems. It is true the long term effects aren't known, but keep in mind only a handful of substances have been shown to have ANY long term effects on the body in any cases when used sparingly. The likelihood of E being one is extremely small. If E has any negative long term effects, they will be exhibited in people who abuse it. We already have 2 substances that are legal which cause almost certain early death in people who abuse them (alcohol, nicotine). Somehow the country goes on. Given that, aren't we blowing the E epidemic way out of proportion. We sure are! Independent research should be allowed to progress, instead of the DEA sponsored BS research that goes on, so that accurate information can be obtained on E's effects. OK, i apologize for being so wordy. I think about this issue a lot though. Some fat drunk at a cocktail party on Saturday told me how drugs were ruining our youth. The hypocrisy of people is ludicrous. 2 final thoughts: 1. E is illegal. Therefore, it carries legal risk (arrest), and black market risk (getting something other than MDMA in your pill which is harmful.) I am NOT saying it is safe to buy it from a dealer and do it. I am saying that if it were legal, it would be much safer than alcohol. 2. By keeping alcohol legal, the law implies that people have a right to get high when they turn 21. With all the other technological advances that have been made in the last few thousand years,isn't it odd that we rely on the same substance to get high, despite all its problems that I listed above. If pragmatic research into pleasure drugs was allowed, a substance safer, less addictive, and more pleasurable than alcohol could probably be developed. We use computers now, we don't count with rocks. We have electricity, we don't make fires by rubbing two sticks together. So why do governments force us to settle for 3000 yr old technology for getting high? Either take the right away entirely, or allow research to go on to find the safest way for people to get high.

well as long as I can do the bulletin board then, I guess I'm better off with my hearing. I will need it to be able to comment on dj's/nights out

some time when your home during the week turn out the lights, throw in some music, and do the sticks in the mirror. You will see what it looks like, plus be able to try new stuff out and see if you like it.

I would say I would want my sight. Not being able to hear music and conversation would totally suck, but losing sight would screw up your life in so many more ways. Just getting around would be so difficult. You would lose so much independence. Plus, unless they come out with braille computer monitors, how would I read the clubplanet board? j/k

Man, I need to catch up. I'll be happy just to escape "the new to the board" label

Where is Temptsboy anyway, it seems like he has fallen off the face of the earth?

hahaha Peel the top layer off the onion, and make an effort to understand your client's core competencies. If all else fails, take a grassroots approach and use as many industry best practices as possible, and never allow yourself the luxury of restricting thought to inside the box. Today's managers know this is crucial in order to attain a sustainable competitive advantage in today's digital economy. Ever work for someone who talks like this? It can be painful...

The Nader people raise an interesting question. Should you: 1. vote for a candidate you know has no chance to win whose positions you agree with, or 2. vote for the lesser of two evils in effort to try and prevent the greater of two evils from winning?

Hopefully all you smith barney guys and gals are leveraging your diversity to deliver added value synergistically in this global marketplace. Since investment banks consider themselves "meritocracies", I believe it in their best interest to guarantee promotion to Managing Director for all employees who manage to attain "Old Skool Legend" status on this board. lol

1) BlueAngel looks damn good to me, not that she needs the vote of confidence since around 20 guys on the board already said the same thing 2) i really wish the_greatest would post a picture. whether the_greatest looks good or not though, he/she is obviously a jerk either way.

I agree that the president is just a figurehead, except in one respect. The president has the power to nominate supreme court justices. With quite a few justices getting up in years, it isn't inconceivable that the next president will nominate 3 or 4. If Bush wins, you can count on some ultra conservative family value BS judges by the time he gets done. Any pro choicers out there should consider this carefully, since abortion rights will be the first thing to go in this scenario. Why throw away your vote on a non candidate when Bush winning could directly impact what freedoms you have

It kills? But you don't even know what E (ecstacy) is? How do you know it kills? Because the mayor said so in the NY Post? So you bounce and you see people all messed up in clubs. Why do you think E did that to them? Couldn't it be GHB, Ketamine, Cocaine, LSD, or plain old fashioned alcohol? Unless you know the effects of all the different drugs you have no way to guess at what is responsible for messing people up. All drugs do not have the same effects, even the though that's what the media would like you to believe.

Speaking of grotch grabbers, I've had the same problem with drag queens. It's the same thing, some of them just unabashedly grab you wherever they want. This sort of thing has happened to me at SF, Twilo, Tunnel, plus a lot of clubs in Philly when I used to live down there. It's pretty nasty. I think there will always be a percentage of males in clubs that behave this way (those few who are alcohol drinkers are the worst I think). It's too bad because I think in some cases it really scares off women from going.

I hope I remember the club days in 50 years. I'm hoping to have some cool grandkids who will take me out when I'm 75. Guess its not too likely though since I don't recall seeing anyone who looks over 50 when I'm out (except Junior himself)