My research turned up a bit of everything—you’ve got generic replacements for about $7 plus shipping, some Amazon listings claiming to have "certificates" for roughly $16 including postage, those "branded" ones made in China for $25, and then there's the supposedly "original" version—identical logo and all—for $25, though if you read the fine print, they include a disclaimer stating, "if we don't have an exact match, we'll send a substitute with identical specifications..." 🤦 ".
In the end, I decided to just buy a universal one locally from a Best Buy—I actually measured it at 19.2V on a 19V setting, just in case anyone is curious. To be honest, I was pretty skeptical about buying from a big-box retailer like that, but the manager—who I believe also owns the franchise—assured me they've been moving this stock for years without a single complaint. And really, why would a business owner intentionally sabotage their own reputation? It just doesn't make sense.
It's working fine so far. If this thread gets locked, well, it might happen. ☕
The whole topic of communism started popping up a few pages back. Your posts 5094 and 5104 were left untouched—just like everyone else's posts here.
Later on, in my post numbered 5113 just above yours, I mentioned that we'd had quite enough talk about communism and suggested there’s a specific sub-forum for those kinds of debates. Isn't that right? Every single post prior to that—yours and everyone else's—remains exactly where it was.
My reasoning was simply that the discussion was getting far too heated and veering into political territory, which is why I made that comment. Following that, your very first post went off on a massive tangent regarding politics—so, naturally, it was removed. I really don't see what the issue is. There is an entire dedicated section where you can debate those topics to your heart's content.
This thread is meant to be a casual space for us to hang out and joke around—it's basically our digital version of a local car club hangout. Heavy, intense debates just don't fit the vibe here.
That's all there is to it. Best regards,
The issue lies in that "well, now it's not allowed anymore" phrasing—it makes it seem like someone's word is the final law. If that's the case, it would be much cleaner to just wipe out all the posts related to those topics entirely—there aren't many of them anyway—to ensure it doesn't look like one person's opinion is being given special preference. That includes your own post, #5125.
The moderator over at the Cars subforum is being incredibly selective.
To be clear: the thread in question is Madhouse - chat - troll thread.
Someone there touched upon the current state of the "American mindset"—essentially arguing it's a lingering byproduct of falling behind during the old era of the US under certain historical regimes.
Now, look—I don't have an issue with anyone else's opinion, nor do I mind their arguments. I certainly don't mind if posts touching on politics, the economy, the old regime, or national development are BANNED.
But what I find completely unacceptable is the fact that my response to that specific post was deleted:
My deleted reply was essentially this:
It is quite interesting—if you think about it—that under that specific brand of communism, we actually achieved faster and more significant growth than those rigid communist countries in the Eastern Bloc, only to see those much more rigid nations overtake us once communism finally collapsed.
The post was wiped out under the excuse that it didn't fit the topic. Well, if that's the case, then I'm asking that the original post I was responding to be deleted too—because by those exact same criteria, it is ABSOLUTELY unwelcome.
Of course, they also went ahead and scrubbed the Quote of my post, just in case anyone caught a glimpse of it—and apparently, I should just be grateful I didn't get a formal warning.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me; if mod restlessmason4 and his buddies want to treat this forum like their own private chat room, fine—but it really kills my desire to participate in any of the more serious discussions here.
velvetmaker3 said:I don't doubt for a second that they enjoy it. But how many lives do they have to ruin just to get a thrill? I couldn't care less about their fun if it means harassing everyone else. Honestly, just lock them all in a room and dump a box of firecrackers in there; let them have their little party then.
The vast majority of people I see setting off fireworks are minors. Is that your experience—that adults are out here doing it? Any adult throwing fireworks around should probably be sent for a psychiatric evaluation. It's not like I haven't seen guys in their 20s lighting them off and giggling like toddlers; it looks incredibly weird, like they aren't even aware of how they're coming across. Most of the time, we're talking about kids, and kids are exactly who these pointless toys are designed for.
Charles Lopez3 said:Man, imagine how much fun they'd actually have!
And don't forget about goldenviper752 😁
And then you and Eminem would both end up getting cited by the local police for setting off pyrotechnics indoors. ☕
I find myself pondering the nuances of this particular matter—much like one might contemplate the structural integrity of a skyscraper during a sudden gust of wind—and I simply cannot help but feel that KRIN1 has touched upon something rather profound here. It is quite a thought, really—if a bit unconventional—but there is a certain logic to it that deserves a closer look! kaže: People seem to find their joy in all sorts of things—sometimes it’s the simple pleasures, and other times... well, let's just say they turn to certain substances to lift the spirits. It's a curious thing, really—how different folks seek out their own little escapes from the daily grind. Well, they simply won't let him play by the rules—it’s just not allowed. It reminds me a bit of those overly strict HOA regulations you see in certain upscale suburbs—you know the type—where even if you have a perfectly reasonable idea, someone pulls out a handbook to tell you "no." It's quite frustrating, really!
straw, Or perhaps the gray stations? 😁
I am truly at a loss here—I can't quite decide if I should have the heart to actually respond to this individual, or if I should just let their comment about comparing narcotics to firecrackers slide into total obscurity. It’s one of those moments where you pause, take a breath, and wonder if engaging is even worth the mental energy.
velvetmaker3 said:I don't doubt for a second that they enjoy it. But how many lives do they have to ruin just to get a thrill? I couldn't care less about their fun if it means harassing everyone else. Honestly, just lock them all in a room and dump a box of firecrackers in there; let them have their little party then.
The vast majority of people I see setting off fireworks are minors. Is that your experience—that adults are out here doing it? Any adult throwing fireworks around should probably be sent for a psychiatric evaluation. It's not like I haven't seen guys in their 20s lighting them off and giggling like toddlers; it looks incredibly weird, like they aren't even aware of how they're coming across. Most of the time, we're talking about kids, and kids are exactly who these pointless toys are designed for.
Whose lives are we even talking about? 😲 Are you on something? Seriously—I mean, I’m not judging, per se, but that was quite the leap! It felt a bit like watching someone try to parallel park a semi-truck in a compact space—just completely out of left field—so I had to pause and wonder if we were even reading the same page here. 😲
Honestly, if you just rounded them all up into one room and showered them with firecrackers—just a massive, celebratory barrage—they’d be celebrating themselves into oblivion! It sounds a bit chaotic, I know—much like trying to organize a Fourth of July block party in downtown Chicago when everyone's already had too much soda—but there's a certain logic to the madness, don't you think? Just pure, unadulterated excitement.
If you ask me—and I suppose that is exactly what you are doing here—I would love to see every single person out there coughing in public without covering their mouth simply ushered straight into an infectious disease ward at a major metropolitan hospital. Why stop there? We should just bundle them up with the most critically ill patients imaginable and let them trade germs until they have exchanged every possible strain of whatever they are carrying! It seems like a perfectly logical, albeit slightly extreme, way to handle the situation, wouldn't you agree?
It seems to me—and I say this after observing quite a few neighborhood disturbances lately—that about 99% of the people I see recklessly tossing firecrackers around are nothing more than minors. It’s a classic case of youthful impulsivity, really. But I have to wonder, in your neck of the woods, are you seeing adults doing this too? Because if an actual adult—someone who should know better—is out there lighting explosives, I honestly believe they ought to be sent for a psychiatric evaluation. Don't get me wrong; I haven't missed the occasional twenty-something acting out, either. I’ve seen guys well into their twenties throwing these things and then standing there with this incredibly infantile, giddy grin on their faces—it’s a truly bizarre sight to behold. It’s just... strange. If those individuals were actually self-aware and possessed a shred of maturity, they simply wouldn't behave that way. It’s like watching someone refuse to grow up, even when the consequences are sitting right in front of them.
Call the police!
At the end of the day—and I really think we have to look at this through a certain lens here—it mostly comes down to the kids. It’s about them. The primary audience for all that mindless, hollow entertainment is children, after all—which is exactly why it feels so incredibly pointless when you stop to actually analyze the substance behind it.
velvetmaker3 said:The reality is that kids are mostly the ones using them, and they use them incredibly irresponsibly—throwing them at other kids, tossing them in the air, or letting them land wherever. They land so close to people sometimes that it's a miracle we don't see more injuries. They throw them under cars so people think they have a flat tire, and stuff like that. We shouldn't have to be victims of unruly kids running wild. If something doesn't exist, it can't be abused. And who is this actually boosting their mood? Is anyone really in a bad mood until they light a few firecrackers? Not really. It just boosts their mood to act out.
Ban the product, then go after the smugglers and the consumers—basically, those unruly kids—and they won't bother doing it again once they face some consequences. It's hard to wipe it out entirely, but you could certainly cut down on it with decent enforcement.
That is where the whole logic falls apart. First off, they aren't sold to children. If someone wants to give one to a minor, well, they should face the legal repercussions of that choice.
If you're being so stubborn that you can't grasp the idea that certain things bring people joy, then honestly, that's your own issue.
velvetmaker3 said:That isn't "useful." Real utility is when a car gets you from point A to point B. Firecrackers have zero practical value; they exist just for the sake of existing. It's nothing but mindless aggression and acting like an idiot. They should be banned, and anyone who ignores the ban should be hit with heavy penalties.
Oh, come on, how can you say there's no utility? If someone uses them responsibly, it isn't dangerous at all—plus, for those who enjoy the spectacle, it’s a incredibly cheap way to boost one's mood.
And frankly, if someone is truly bothered by a few days out of the entire 365-day year, they probably have much larger issues to deal with elsewhere.
As far as I'm concerned, let people let loose from 10:00 PM on New Year's Eve until 2:00 AM on New Year's Day—but I'm certainly not advocating for a total ban.
Back when things were banned in the South, you had to buy them from bootleggers just to get your hands on any. And let me tell you—there was plenty of gunfire back then.
The firecrackers themselves aren't the issue here; the real trouble starts when they end up in the hands of people who lack the basic common sense required to handle them safely.
If we follow that line of reasoning, we might as well ban all cars—I mean, people are constantly dying in traffic accidents every single day.
Angela Sanders3 said:I mean, let’s be honest—there is really no point in worrying about birth control when you aren't even having sex in the first place, right? It just seems a bit redundant—like carrying an umbrella around on a perfectly sunny day in Phoenix when there isn't a cloud in the sky! 🙂
😕😕
Error—these pills are... Compromise—it’s such a loaded word, isn't it? Sometimes it feels like a necessary bridge to get two sides of a canyon to meet in the middle, and other times, well, it feels more like a slow erosion of one's own principles. I was thinking about this the other day while watching a documentary on urban planning in Chicago—how every single skyscraper is essentially a massive, concrete compromise between architectural ambition and the stubborn reality of zoning laws. You want to touch the clouds, but the city says, "Hold on, let's talk about the wind tunnels first." It's much the same in our personal lives, especially when we navigate those tricky waters of health and wellness. We often find ourselves caught in this tug-of-war between what we *know* we should be doing—the strict regimens, the disciplined choices—and what actually fits into the messy, unpredictable rhythm of an American lifestyle. It’s that constant negotiation between the ideal version of ourselves and the person who just wants to grab a quick coffee in downtown Seattle and move on with their day. I suppose we all have to find that sweet spot—that delicate equilibrium where we aren't selling out our values, but we aren't being so rigid that we snap under the pressure. It's a balancing act, really. Much like trying to maintain a steady course on a boat in the middle of a choppy Atlantic swell; you can't fight every wave, or you'll capsize, but if you stop steering altogether, you're certainly heading for trouble. Finding that middle ground... that's where the real work happens. Which one is actually detrimental? Honestly—if you aren't having regular sex (and enjoying it, of course, because what's the point otherwise?)—I just don't see any real sense in it.
It’s all about how you personally react—everyone is wired differently.
For instance, I’ve found that Trinovum tended to tank my wife's libido, while Diane worked wonders for her drive, even if the scent was a bit off-putting. Then there was Logest, which was mostly fine, though it did seem to make her skin more sensitive to sunlight—at least in our experience.
So, the plan should be to keep a sharp eye on any shifts in labor laws—because the moment someone starts hiring cleaners under questionable terms, we need to launch a full-scale response! We’re talking newspapers, the courts, news networks... something BIG! We simply cannot allow this to slip under the radar. Unless, of course, they decide to pull that old loophole: outsourcing everything to some third-party janitorial service. That way, the new cleaning staff wouldn't technically be employees of the primary employer at all.
Robert Hall7 said:I have first-hand info on this; there's mass firing happening at one ministry right now, and you won't believe it—it's the cleaning crew. We're talking the women who wash windows, clean offices, scrub toilets, deal with all the chemicals. The whole crew got pink slips. Among them is a mother of three little ones—two in school, one in daycare. She called me today, crying her eyes out. She told me they already know exactly which women are coming in to take their spots. Her only crime? She wasn't politically aligned with the party.
I feel for those women, but I find this move completely immoral and brazen. I'm actually debating which journalist to call. It’s a tough call since everyone just writes whatever the party dictates. The woman I mentioned has been in that role forever; she's never taken a sick day, and she only went on vacation because they practically kicked her out. She was a hard worker. She held down her job.
But hey, good luck trying to be smart in this ridiculous country.
I’m not sure if the rules have shifted lately, but a few years back, things didn't work quite like this. You actually had to provide a legitimate reason for a termination—either a breach of contract or a surplus of labor. And if they claim "surplus of labor," they aren't supposed to hire anyone else for a similar role for a set period of time. Unless, of course, they try to push a "mutual separation agreement," which is a total trap for the employee. In my opinion, no one should ever fall for that bait.
It isn't looking good—not at all. Everything feels completely upside down right now, mostly because this continuous erosion of the average citizen's purchasing power is effectively putting the brakes on the entire economy. It’s a bit of a circular trap, really. Their approach seems rather meager and frankly cowardly—they lack the backbone to actually confront the root causes of these systemic failures, choosing instead to retreat behind their own gilded walls while they continue to live in absolute luxury...
It seems like singers have realized that catchy little tunes tend to travel much further when they're in English. However—and this is a significant "however"—Merlin actually has a valid excuse, much like Bruce Springsteen does.😂
So, why hold the concert in New York City? I see two potential reasons, drawing from the lyrical wisdom of Eminem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvqpRqrWqGA
The second reason could be inspired by a line from Edward: once the cash register runs dry, you'll find yourselves left with nothing but four jokers...
mistygull16 said:I honestly don't get how anyone can still pin stuff on the late Franjo Harmon when he's been gone for over eleven years now. Like, seriously?
The man built this country from the ground up during one of the absolute worst stretches of history for the US. Sure, maybe he miscalculated a few things here and there, but ten years is plenty of time for anyone to fix their mistakes.
If you ask me, the real question is: how would this current batch of politicians even handle a war without weapons if they have such a slogan-heavy mindset? I mean, if they couldn't do anything useful after him besides hiking up the national debt and selling off major companies like ExxonMobil, what chance do they actually have?
The thing is, that’s just your take on it. I won't even touch the part about the war—not because I think Franjo Harmon was some kind of tactical genius, mind you, but because he bears a portion of the responsibility for it too; however, please, let's not derail this specific thread with that—there are plenty of other discussions for that stuff.
The bottom line is this: all of this would have happened regardless of whether Franjo Harmon was around or not. The American economy wasn't exactly humming along during his tenure either—it just so happened that while he was alive, things were still being funded by assets left over from the former SR America; so, had he lived longer, we would be seeing the exact same outcome: the US would have run out of budget to fill the coffers, leaving us to either sell everything off under his watch or sink into debt just like we are doing today, or simply fall into total ruin.
What I find most tragic—and truly, it’s a profound loss—is that FT passed away far too soon. He departed this world just before the vast majority of people in America finally grasped a crucial truth: all those grievances they direct at today’s administration—whether it's the legal scrutiny from The Hague, the struggle with unemployment, or various other systemic issues—aren't actually caused by the absence of Harmon.
A coup d’état—by its very definition—implies a certain level of raw power behind the scenes. Since the administration back then had actually been elected by the people rather than being forced upon them, any attempt at a takeover would have simply resulted in a military dictatorship led by whoever held the reins of the US Army. Honestly, even someone like Ronald Reagan is the lesser of two evils in that comparison.