tyrius.

Why not? I thought everyone likes dull, rusty hooks They're far from dull. In fact, I've taken a pack of Eagle Claw worm hooks and Gammie worm hooks (same size and everything) and examined them closely and was unable to discern any difference. They both caught on my fingernail with the same pressure, I noticed no differences in looks, etc, etc. The notion that Eagle Claws are dull is, in my opinion, unfounded.

Here's another one that looks "pretty good"!

The only thing that I don't like about the anaconda's is that we had to wait so long to get them! > The price is a little steep too. The shads and chunks are great. I used the chunk to catch my PB (more than doubled my old PB) this fall (which for me is long gone). The shad is just a fun bait that you can fish ANYWHERE. I'll be stocking up on lizards and anacondas over the winter and they'll get used next year. To those that think the rage tail is just another piece of soft plastic then you should buy some and try them out. They have action unlike nearly all other baits. And when the fish want a bait with a lot of action then these will be the ticket.

Gas futures also dropped under a buck a gallon!

If gas prices rise again then the stimulus package that will be enacted after Obama is sworn in will just be that much larger. The rapid decrease in gas prices is a stimulus and if that stimulus is removed another one will take its place. I also doubt that OPEC will move to get gas up to $3 a gallon again. They're going to make some moves to cut production but they aren't going to want to get oil up too high. They have to be aware of global slowdowns and be very wary of pushing downwards on the global economy. As the global economy goes so goes their revenue stream.

I don't think that you'll be able to find a better crankin rod for $40. I've got one and really like it. Hopefully, you got it on sale though.

I actually think that many lure manufacturers overdo the black in the lateral stripe. A broken up line or just a solid stripe of a darker green is all that is required. If I'm going to look for a quality color/paintjob then I look at mattlures baits as a standard. And

But now you're adding an assumption that the bass can hold it's mouth closed with the same strength that you can hold your hand closed. Also this is assuming that above strength is greater than the power put into the hookset. You're also then assuming that the bass will hold onto the bait after it feels the pressure of the hookset. I would wager that these are incorrect assumptions. And the angle does matter (especially with hooks that are not offset). If you pull straight out then the hook pulls straight out of the fish's mouth. If you pull up the hook pivots and the point is driven home. Try it and you'll see a difference.

This experiment is only valid if the friend is standing above the person holding the bait. The two people can not be on the same level for a valid comparison. If they are then the hook set is not the same as it would be when setting the hook on a fish in the water.

Vegetarian?

I should keep some, but I'm too lazy to fillet them. Also, my wife doesn't like fish and doesn't cook it. So, if I want to eat it I have to cook it myself. That's 2 strikes against keeping fish and those are strong enough to keep me from keeping fish.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/02/walmart.trampling.suit/index.html "Customers injured in crush suing Wal-Mart" America, isn't it great?!?!? :

I didn't expect THAT. I'd agree that the Stones should be held responsible for that instance. I thought it was going to be something like the Angels went crazy and beat people up at a concert that they were simply attending. It's quite a bit different when you hire someone who ends up killing someone else. That being said, now that I know a little more about the specifics, the two situations are not comparable.

The article said that the crowd basically ripped one of the doors apart (something like the metal door was bent like an accordion). So, given that I don't see how anyone could only let in a certain amount of those idiots.

Without knowing the specifics, all I can say is that it probably wasn't their fault. That's just my opinion though and my opinion obviously differs from a lot of others. As is evidenced by the ridiculous lawsuits and payments made to people who have "accidents" inside stores.

Then that is more than likely also true for every other store that does the black friday deals. People wait in line in front of these stores every year across the country and nothing like this has happened yet. So why would it be foreseeable? Is it a possibility? Sure, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart (or any other store) is responsible for safeguarding against every possibility. The responsibility for this crime lies solely on the feet (literally) of those who rushed into the store.

If the land isn't owned by the gov't (city, county, state, federal) then it's private property. Just because it's owned in common doesn't mean that it isn't private property. A lake that has multiple houses on it can still be private property.

I'd be pretty critical of that if I were you. Underwater wood rots at an EXTREMELY slow rate. Just read the other's responses for first hand experiences. Wood lasts a very long time as long as it is submerged. So that means that the minimal amount of rot will only result in what should be a minor (if any) oxygen depletion.

No truer words have ever been spoken. I won't say anymore though as political discussions will get this thread locked and it's a good one.

OK, I'm going to delve into some technical accounting stuff. I'm not trying to excuse the companies bad decisions, but just want to bring up another aspect of this situation that we haven't covered. This will also really show the true dork that I am. Anyways, there is an accounting concept called "mark to market". This concept requires companies to change the value of their "liquid" investments to the current market price (regardless if they plan on selling the asset or not). So, given the non existant Mortage Backed Security Market, MBS, (or Collaterized Debt Obligation, CDO) these assets are being written down to fractions of their original value. Because there is no demand for them they basically can't be sold. Because they can't be sold their mark to market value is very small. Now that only deals with current value. The actual security that they hold may have a default rate of say 25%, but given the current market price the bank has to value that asset of say 30% of its original value, instead of the planned 75% collection rate. So in other words, over the life of the asset the owner of the asset can honestly expect to collect 75% of the value, but they have to account for that asset of only 30% of it's value. This is due to the mark to market accounting method. Now that I've explained that, we can get into the effect that this concept has on banks. Hopefully, people are following this. Anyways, this mark to market concept causes HUGE writedowns of asset value for banks. This gets booked (accounted for) as an expense so the bank "appears" to lose money. They really haven't lost exactly what they've put down, but they are forced to put that amount. So, the quarterly results look really bad because of the extra expenses taken due to the write down. Also, banks are supposed to keep certain ratios of capital on their balance sheets. The mark to market concept inflates the amount of losses to the balance sheet so banks have to scamble to find other assets to "shore up" their balance sheet to meet regulatory requirements. They try to sell stock and if that doesn't work then they're in big trouble. If customer's start withdrawing their money (bank run), then the problem exacerbates itself until the bank can no longer function and they go out of business. So, in essence banks have assets on their books that have been written down significantely due to mark to market accounting. This causes the banks ratios to be out of whack and puts the bank in a really bad position of trying to find assets (raise capital/get investments). The bank's typical operations may be making loads of money, but because of the above they can be forced out of business or forced into a "merger". There is currently a lot of discussions to modify the mark to market accounting requirements. OK, I'm going to go have another beer and hope that my reputation here isn't that of a major accounting dork. I'm going to include a pic of my personal best just to make myself feel better.

That's a good argument, but a logical response is can these companies go through the transition period necessary in a change of leadership?

These precedents were set long ago. The last time was the last bailout of the auto manufacturers and that is only one example.

It's probably closer to if you caught 99 with dull/mediocre hooks you probably would have caught 100 with premium hooks (if it's even that much). There is no way that it is 7 and 10. The difference is noticable under close scrutiny but an Eagle Claw will more than likely penetrate only a fraction less than a Gammie or an Owner. I still pay more for Gammies but just like rods and other high end equipment you pay a lot more for a little increase in effectiveness (ie, the return is not 1 to 1 as you pay for more expensive equipment).

Yeah, the guarantee is a major difference and signals a big change in the Fed's direction in dealing with this crisis. This is the first that they had done that and the Fed today announced that they are going to actually be buying mortgage backed securities. Something like $800 billion worth I think. I look at the guarantees as an insurance policy that the gov't is now selling. The good thing is that they are selling them and not just giving them away!

Actually, I tried to explain this in one of my earlier responses. It's not easy to boil it down to English. Let's take the Citi deal. The gov't is guaranteeing $306 billion of Citi's assets. As payment for that guarantee they received $7 billion of preferred stock that pays an 8% dividiend. So, depending upon what the losses are on those assets (Citi is on the hook for the first $26 billion of losses) are the gov't may make money on the interest or on selling the preferred stock. As part of the capital infusion Citi granted the gov't 254 million stock warrants. These stock warrants have a strike price of a bit over $10. So, if Citi's stock rises higher than $10 then the gov't can buy 254 million shares and sell them for the difference between the current price and the stock price. For example, if Citi's stock price rises to $20 a share then the gov't can make $10 a share on 254 million shares which would be about $2.5 billion dollars. So, in essence the gov't makes money on the "interest", really dividend, payments on the preferred stock and they own the two assets which are the preferred stock and the stock warrants. Both assets would rise in value if Citi recovers strongly.