the "what" it is, is it's a radio format. (I know that sentence wasn't structured very well, but it's early and I'm not into the grammar thing right at this moment.) That is actually spelled out rather clearly in the article - that Infinity radio stations (Infinity is a major radio company, like Clear Channel) that used to carry Howard Stern have now adopted this format. In case you haven't noticed, many if not most commercial radio stations, the ones owned by these ginormous corporations, have adopted these soullessly automated music formats "spun" by a "DJ" who is actually some corporate stooge doing the same empty between-song patter for stations all over the country. "Local" is fast becoming an extinct species in the radio world.

This format sounds like utter crap, but I don't listen to commercial radio anyway so what do I know.

... to seeing this movie eventually; I'm a lifetime college basketball fan, and a lifetime University of Kentucky fan. I'm hoping that this film does give a more realistic depiction of legendary Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp than has been given by some in recent years. Rupp was a mean ol' bastard, to be sure, and as a rural, depression-era southern man, he was far from politically correct. He may not have marched for civil rights, but he was hardly a racist.

In 1966, the Southeastern Conference still maintained their "unwritten" policy of all-white men's basketball teams, and all of the schools in both the SEC and the Atlantic Coast Conference fielded all-white teams. In 1959 and `61, the Mississippi State men's team wouldn't even go to the NCAA tournament, because of the possibility that they would be forced to play integrated teams.

In the semi-finals of the `66 tournament, Kentucky beat an all-white Duke team to face Texas Western in the championship game. Had they lost, I wonder if Duke would have been saddled with the taint of racism that some writers felt necessary to afix to Adolph Rupp's legacy?

I love "Rollergirls," pretty much for all the same reasons that Lynn cites.

And as a guy commenting on what I think has been an all-female thread so far (apologies if I'm getting anyone's gender wrong), may I offer this insight? Yes, the women of "Rollergirls" are sexy, but not because they all look like extras from "the O.C." or something. They're sexy because they are real, lead normal lives (well, I'd call their lives "normal," but I'm probably not particularly normal), have a healthy amount of confidence, and they seem like fairly sharp chicks who enjoy having fun. I'd love to hang out with most of these women, and I entered the "Rock n' Rollergirls Sweepstakes" with that in mind.

And Punky: I adore you. Call me. Please. ;-)

I've only seen Kari Wuhrer in "Eight Legged Freaks," but I loved her in that, and any guy who couldn't "find chemistry" with her would have to have been dead for six months.

And whoever it was upthread who called her a bad actress: she was great in the one movie I saw her in. STFU and leave the poor girl alone.

How is that spelled? A-R-C-A-T-A?

I'm looking it up in my road atlas, because now I know where I want to move to. Sounds like heaven to me. Looks pretty good in that report, too. I wonder if FOX realized they were shooting a promotional video for Arcata, CA?

I don't keep up with the Winter Olympics-type sports, especially ice-skating. Do I assume correctly, from reading the column today, that Michelle Kwan lost some competition recently, but was declared a winner anyway? (My guess: she didn't make the Olympic team, but was put on the team anyway. Someone let me know if I'm right.)

Oh, and as for the "force-out" rule: getting rid of it would be ridiculous. If a receiver catches the ball in the air, and is going to land with both feet inbounds, it's a catch. If you say otherwise, then why not let defensive backs catch the receivers before they land - anywhere on the field - carry them to the sidelines, and dump them out of bounds? Why not eliminate forward motion? Why not make it legal for a 350 pound defensive lineman to break thru the line, pick up a quarterback, and carry him all the way back to the endzone for a safety?

this sounds an awful lot like, "Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties," etc. And it seems to be about as accurate.

Democrats will generally acknowledge the shortcomings of their candidates; I know almost no one who was a blind loyalist to John Kerry in `04. We got behind him because we knew that, despite certain things we didn't like about him, he would be better for our country and would represent our interests better than George W. Bush.

But look at the creepy cult of personality that has grown around Bush among Republicans. That man could be caught on live TV in the process of burning the Constitution and pissing on the Bible, and there's a solid 30% of Americans who will emphatically insist he had a good reason to do both.

I'd sure like to hear the examples this study provides of Democrats "blocking out facts that disrupt" our biases, given that we're generally considered the party of the circular firing squad.

what the heck is "skeleton?" I read this after reading the story about the OTC diet drug, I assumed that being skinny had something to do with it...