I also use Photobucket...it's free & it's great! I use the option for posting a clickable thumbnail, as illustrated below. Thumbnails are very helpful for people who are on dial-up modems cuz they don't take so long to open. To view the pic, you simply click on the thumbnail & it enlarges...then move your cursor to the lower right corner & pause a moment; a small enlarger button appears. Click on that & the pic enlarges again, giving you the sharpest image. The fully enlarged pic below will measure 640 X 480. Here's how to do it: Select the desired image in your Photobucket album and click the small empty box below the pic's lower left corner. Move the slide bar (on the right) to the bottom and click on "Generate HTML and IMC code" A new display will open with 4-5 options. Use the FIRST option, which is labeled: "HTML clickable thumbnails for eBay, Live Journal, My Space, etc. - recommended" Place your cursor at the beginning, highlight the ENTIRE contents of that box...then right-click it and choose COPY. Now move into the GW thread you want to post to. Right-click inside the "Message" box and you will see the code attached. Click on "Preview Message" ... if you followed the directions, you will now see the actual picture instead of the coding. You can add any text either before or after attaching the photo. Patrick

I aree she should be called princess especially since Camilla is, though she won't use the Princess of Wales title out of deference to the late Diana, for which I give her credit. And apparently "Princess Di" was incorrect, although it was dubbed by the media. Her title was actually Her Royal Highness Diana, Princess of Wales until the divorce when she was stripped of the HRH. So they are not Princess Di and accordingly not Princess Kate since they take their title from the husbands. (Where are all the feminists? LOL) From the link below: "Prince William's current title is Prince William of Wales. Under the rules of British titles, his wife would be styled Princess William of Wales. Not Princess Catherine, not The Princess of Wales, and especially not "Princess Kate." (The thought process is the same as it is for the wife of John Smith being formally called Mrs. John Smith.) This is assuming of course, Grandmama, the Queen, does not give William any additional titles in time for the wedding." William was given a Dukedom by Elizabeth though so she is now also a Duchess. Just found this: "The official title of the former Catherine Middleton is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, according to the statement issued by Queen Elizabeth's press secretary today." It also clarifies: "Calling a woman "Princess So-and-So" is reserved for royal-born women." So that's why Princess Elizabeth was proper, Princess Di, Princess Kate and Princess Camilla would be incorrect. That does not however explain "Prince Phillip" unless that's another media title. It's interesting how a woman can marry the King and become a Queen, but a man can't marry a Queen and become King. Of course it's because Kings are "higher" in rank so to speak, but it's an interesting thing, especially in these times of so much political correctness. But I can't really find the title changes that would happen for instance on the following: - Elizabeth dies, then Charles becomes King, and Camilla is Queen. - Charles dies. I realize Camilla cannot become head of state and rule so therefore William becomes King. Does Camilla then forfeit the Queen title to Kate and revert to Princess or does she retain her Duchess of Cornwall title? I don't recall history enough on it nor do I know the royalty rules. Like I said, I'll never figure them oot! Here is a link that might be useful: 'Princess Kate' Title is Technically Incorrect

banks (as with all big and small businesses) are forced, ruthlessly, to follow the aggregate consumer's rules as enforced (often brutally) by the economics of their favor. Well, actually, the "aggregate consumer's rules" isn't really rules, it's "market forces." Different thing. Rules are the laws that are passed saying you can't trick Grandma into putting her rent money into a penny stock you own so you can dump your shares at a profit, leaving her to be evicted. There should have been regulatory oversight all along by the government to keep this debt Ponzi scheme from getting out of hand. The Fed dropped the ball. But they'll also expect the taxpayers to bail them out--like the airlines--instead of letting them go bankrupt. Last time I checked http://ml-implode.com/ there were over 230 CEOs dissapointed that you're not correct ;~) They tried. Paulson's attempted bailout of SIVs. He expected too much monetary contribution from the banks, so that scheme died. That check we're all supposed to get later this year--that's a taxpayer bailout, maybe not of the banks directly, but of the economy. Not that it will work. I expect more bailout schemes to crop up thruout this year. They'll foreclose on homes and let them fall down from neglact rather than accept a lower interest payment. Funny how that NEVER occurs... *ever.* Whenever banks foreclose on a home they try to clean & turn it on the open market IMMEDIATELY... usually at whatever price the realistic PUBLIC free market will actuall pay for that home, in order for the bank to regain some of its investor's funds Tell that to Buffalo and Cleveland. Perhaps you didn't read those threads. The short version--the banks aren't bothering to pay property taxes or maintain houses, and the cities are suing to force them. (that would be YOUR money from your retirement accounts.) The fact that retirement money has gotten mixed up in all this incredibly speculative derivative debt mess is exactly the problem that the govt should have been paying attention to and not allowed. See the link below for more depressing news about pensions. You need to make up your mind. Bankers are EITHER money-grubbing profit driven capitalist whores... *OR they are carefree money-tossing spendthrift "pig-headed" ne'er-do-wells that can't be bothered to do something that will actually conserve & retain their investor's funds. Can't be both simultaneously now... Well, actually, it's quite common for people to be both greedy and stupid. In fact, that seems to be the qualificaiton for getting on a company's board nowadays. Letting--what is it currently, $100 billion?--evaporate from the financial markets in a matter of 3-4 months IMO qualifies as careless, money-tossing, and stupid. Negligent even. And since all these banks and insurance companies are supposed to be so financially sophisticated, one has to wonder how they ever thought that building a skyscraper of debt on top of a sandbar of assets (some estimates run as high as $30 'value' per $1 of actual assets) could ever possibly NOT collapse in a collosal mess of disaster. If they'd asked me, I would have told them in my mother's immortal words, 'that doesn't sound like a very good idea.' And yes, all of us are going to feel the pain from this collapse for a long time. But the ones who came up with these slice-and-dice debt derivatives are going to get their million-dollar bonuses (on top of the ones they've already gotten), their golden parachutes, and their lucrative lobbying jobs. As will the politicians who let them get away with it. Look, there's nothing inherently evil about capitalism. However, it needs to be controlled by laws. As Gordon Gecko said in his famous speech, capitalism is nothing more than self-interest. But self-interest unfettered by laws governing behavior results in the strong robbing, killing, and raping the weak. (See the Dark Ages, the Vikings, and certain areas of the modern world, ahem Rwanda) We live in a society. One might even optimistically call it a civilization. Such behavior is not acceptable. It's irrelevant if the exploitation/victimization is physical or financial. Since today survival is based on money, not one's ability to hunt game or herd cattle, people's money needs to be protected from predation by others. That's where the government must step in and impose regulation. None of this stuff happened before all the deregulation that took place in the 80s (i'm obviously not including the pre-Depression era, which inspired the imposition of securities laws to begin with). Most of those years that make up the "history" people refer to when they say "the historical return of the stock market" took place when the market was much more highly regulated than it is today. Over the last couple decades, we've been moving more toward Roaring 20s-style markets. Not a good thing. Yes there are some new laws, like Sarb-Ox, but they're pointless. They impose costs without protecting anything.

You mentioned a full second level--has someone converted a second story to an apt? Did they get permits? Are the floors and walls strong enough and would this be like a "second floor condo? Does it have a seperate entrance? Are there fire walls installed? Insurance? Privacy? Kitchen? Washer and Dryer? Kids? Pets? Smoking/non?You need a RE lawyer to check things out. I personally would not like it, especially with the landlord living underneath me.