I don't think complaining about a broadway show or movie containing alot of "Show Music" is like complaining there's comedy in a comedy. I grew up watching the musical movies of the 30s and 40s with Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire and Bing Crosby. Those musicals just contained music, good music of the day, many times popular hits. Show Music today is trying to be BIG! MUSIC! EXTRAVAGANZA! and it just sounds different. Much of the music of the old movies feels like a natural piece of the movie. When Crosby and Sinatra start singing in High Society, you think "Why wouldn't they?", the plot and character development just keeps moving. With modern musicals, especially those heavy on Show Music, everything stops, the spotlight hits the singer, the song proceeds, heavy on the projection, and then when it ends you can get back to the story.

I'll take the old movies, thanks.

Fix your screen resolution. I only had to use my mouse wheel once.

Heck they hate the same people you do too, seeing how you hate everyone and everything. Your anger is going to see you right into the hospital if you don't get a handle on it.

Who're you, Ralph Nader? You're kidding, right? You see no difference between Guliana or Romney on the Reupblican side or Obama and Edwards on the Democratic side? Have you been paying any attention at all? The Republicans are screaming for more war, more torture, less government of all kinds unless it is for the war and the torture and fewer rights for everyone unless you're wealthy or it involves guns. The democrats are for no war, no torture, repairing America's reputation, fixing healthcare, improving the minimum wage, closing the gap between rich and poor and a hell of a lot more. Why not do a little research before you try to sound jaded. It is thinking like that that helped put Bush in in the first place.

I have never once had an editor make anything better

I find this quite difficult to believe as your letter desperately needs an editor.

Here you go. Some here were complaining that we're talking about humanity's destruction and that the Earth will go on happily without us. Here's 10 ways to destroy the Earth itself:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html

If they reorganize themselves into groups that only perform 4 abortions each, then they're exempt from the law. This is the kind of Big Business solution republicans love, so there may even be legal precident for such a reorganization. They'll still use the same building and doctors, they'll just realign everything for administrative purposes.

Do people currently posting as anonymous have to create a screen name first and then not use it? If you could log the screen name with every anonymous post so you know who each Anonymous is, this would allow you to keep individuals from abusing the system and to assign random "anonymous" tags to the individuals that last within that article's comments only. The randomly assigned, but distinct tags would allow responders to know which "anonymous" they were talking to without compromising identity to the masses. The only ones that would know the true identity would be the Salon screeners. These screeners could ban the abusive Anonymi wile permitting them their anonymosity.

Lieberman has devoted his life to public service. He just isn't very good at it, to the detriment of the country.

Nature is correct. And a likely result would be athletes using these drugs in safer ways. If administered by responsble doctors, they'd be less likely to injure themselves with them and more likely to use them in ways that actually benefit them. As a previous poster mentioned, we don't really have any studies showing which drugs work and which don't. Legalization might even get rid of some that aren't really helping.

As for those who are claiming kids would be hurt, how? It'd still be illegal for them and they wouldn't face any more pressure to use them than they do now. In fact with legalization, there might be less pressure as they know that they'll start taking them when it is time and in a safe way. Those that would still take them are the same ones that do it now.

Kindly respond, stating your acceptance to this notification and we shall give you more information on this program

Did you respond? You should respond and state your acceptance to see what they send you/ask you for next. They haven't asked for anything they can use against you and it'd be interesting to see what they do end up asking for. In addition, you might want to let the legitimate companies know how their names are being used.

Thanks for the softball

You're welcome.

First of all, there is never a right time to use steroids and they aren't safe.

Not true at all. There are many times that steroids are fine to use and actually help certain medical conditions. When taken under the supervision of a responsible doctor, they can be quite safe.

Swing and a miss. Strike 1.

Look at Lyle Alzado's grave and Jason Giambi's stomach.

Cherry picking 2 anecdotal cases doesn't constitute scientific evidence. Along similar lines, look at Dale Earnhardt and Grace Kelly. There is never a time to drive, it is unsafe.

Foul Ball. Strike 2.

If they're legal, every high school football player in the country would immediately start taking them (their older buddies would supply em).

I'm not saying to make them over the counter drugs. I'm saying that they should be legal within professional sports when taken under the supervision of the team doctor. Their "older buddies" wouldn't have any source that they don't have now.

Called Strike, caught looking. Strike 3, you're out!

I appreciate your contrarian view, lynx, but please think.

I appreciate your attempt at a response, but please read.