Subject: This Link comes from Adan

From: "Helena" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:47:56 -0400

Hi Sylvester;

Sylvester our specially designed replics look exactly like their highly expensive brand prototypes. Sometimes even the professional aren't able to tell the difference from the real one!

http://xylive.reavicdp.com

"Oyster Perpetual Cosmoguraph"   >>>
Price:    € 179.-

Perfect quality

Worldwide shipping

Secure payment

You won't see any difference

They have largely ignored the first-person explanation — the life story that people themselves tell about who they are, and why. Generous, civic-minded adults from diverse backgrounds tell life stories with very similar and telling features, studies find; so likewise do people who have overcome mental distress through psychotherapy. “When we first started studying life stories, people thought it was just idle curiosity — stories, isn’t that cool? McAdams, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and author of the 2006 book, “The Redemptive Self.” “Well, we find that these narratives guide behavior in every moment, and frame not only how we see the past but how we see ourselves in the future.” “Younger kids see themselves in terms of broad, stable traits: ‘I like baseball but not soccer,’ ” said Kate McLean, a psychologist at the University of Toronto in Mississauga.

Psychologists know what life stories look like when they are fully hatched, at least for some Americans. They also describe several crucial scenes in detail, including high points (the graduation speech, complete with verbal drum roll); low points (the college nervous breakdown, complete with the list of witnesses); and turning points. In analyzing the texts, the researchers found strong correlations between the content of people’s current lives and the stories they tell. nusscoco nosmime-archive888megatron.ietf.orgmo Those with mood problems have many good memories, but these scenes are usually tainted by some dark detail.

The pride of college graduation is spoiled when a friend makes a cutting remark. Instead they go to a Koranic school, where they learn the Koran by rote. In the first movie Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) met and wooed his lady love, Fiona (Cameron Diaz); in the second he got to know the in-laws. The current installment finds him faced with impending fatherhood and something of a career crisis. With the decline of manufacturing and few formal jobs, many residents make a meager living off one another’s misery.

He makes about $2 a day, and cannot afford to send his sons to school. That DreamWorks ogre’s skin is the color of money after all.

But there is nonetheless a feeling of finality about “Shrek the Third,” a sense that the tale has at last reached a state of completion. (This may be why I liked it better than the others. The story this time unfolds as a series of increasingly dreary and teary melodramatic encounters regularly interrupted by special-effects-laden fights. This film seems to be "All About the Benjamins," to use the title of an Ice Cube action comedy. But although Ice Cube's business sense is right on the money, the minor surprises of the first film are gone. When the moneyed inner-city entrepreneur Quentin Leroux (Harry Lennix) builds a lavish competitor called Nappy Cutz right across the street from Calvin's shop, the battle is on — Calvin has to fight to keep his business alive. It is, rather more coyly, also about a man who died from a perforated colon after he arranged to have sex with a stallion.

When a bank robber escapes from prison and goes on a violent crime spree, Malcolm is assigned to bring him in. Venture capitalist: that’s the misleading job description preferred by the title character of the slight and silly “Wendell Baker Story.” Wendell (Luke Wilson), a cheerful Texan slacker, runs a profitable operation on the Tex-Mex border selling fake driver’s licenses to illegal migrant workers. But if you like Lyle Lovett songs, Thomas McGuane novels and sardonic country yarns sung by grizzled Texan “outlaws,” you’ll have no trouble slipping into its easygoing groove, fortified by its country-rock soundtrack.

The attractive stranger at the airport bar hears one version, the parole officer another, and the P.T.A. And a burst of new findings are now helping them make the case.

McAdams, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and author of the 2006 book, “The Redemptive Self.” “Well, we find that these narratives guide behavior in every moment, and frame not only how we see the past but how we see ourselves in the future.” Researchers have found that the human brain has a natural affinity for narrative construction. But there is nonetheless a feeling of finality about “Shrek the Third,” a sense that the tale has at last reached a state of completion. If ever a movie had a case of the blues and the blahs, it’s “Spider-Man 3,” the third and what feels like the end of Sam Raimi’s big-screen comic-book adaptations. A movie featuring Ice Cube bellowing "No more profanity. Shot on Super 16-millimeter film, with many scenes steeped in a blue that would have made Yves Klein envious, “Zoo” is, to a large extent, about the rhetorical uses of beauty and metaphor and of certain filmmaking techniques like slow-motion photography. Malcolm Turner (Martin Lawrence) is an FBI agent who is a master of disguise and will stop at nothing to get his man.

Wendell, who works with a partner, Reyes (Jacob Vargas), out of an Airstream trailer he calls the Ellis Island of the Southwest, means no harm. For my taste, a little goes a long way. For more than a century, researchers have been trying to work out the raw ingredients that account for personality, the sweetness and neuroses that make Anna Anna, the sluggishness and sensitivity that make Andrew Andrew.

The attractive stranger at the airport bar hears one version, the parole officer another, and the P.T.A. board gets something entirely different.

Yet in the past decade or so a handful of psychologists have argued that the quicksilver elements of personal narrative belong in any three-dimensional picture of personality. Researchers have found that the human brain has a natural affinity for narrative construction. People tend to remember facts more accurately if they encounter them in a story rather than in a list, studies find; and they rate legal arguments as more convincing when built into narrative tales rather than on legal precedent. “This meaning-making capability — to talk about growth, to explain what something says about who I am — develops across adolescence.” During a standard life-story interview, people describe phases of their lives as if they were outlining chapters, from the sandlot years through adolescence and middle age. By contrast, so-called generative adults — those who score highly on tests measuring civic-mindedness, and who are likely to be energetic and involved — tend to see many of the events in their life in the reverse order, as linked by themes of redemption. They flunked sixth grade but met a wonderful counselor and made honor roll in seventh.

But the point is that the narrative themes are, as much as any other trait, driving factors in people’s behavior, the researchers say. Any life story is by definition a retrospective reconstruction, at least in part an outgrowth of native temperament. Yet the research so far suggests that people’s life stories are neither rigid nor wildly variable, but rather change gradually over time, in close tandem with meaningful life events.

And eventually they conquered it. They tested levels of conscious and unconscious hostility after the recollections, using both standard questionnaires and students’ essays.

“What our experiment showed is that this shift in perspective, having this distance from yourself, allows you to relive the experience and focus on why you’re feeling upset,” instead of being immersed in it, said Ethan Kross, the study’s lead author. Taken together, these findings suggest a kind of give and take between life stories and individual memories, between the larger screenplay and the individual scenes. The way people replay and recast memories, day by day, deepens and reshapes their larger life story. Idriss Abdoulaye sells water from a pushcart for 20 naira a jerry can, about 15 cents, to people like himself, too poor to have wells. He makes about $2 a day, and cannot afford to send his sons to school. Unless the Shrek team wants to follow its hero into the dangerous swamps of mid-life, thus shifting his literary pedigree away from William Steig and in the direction of John Updike or Philip Roth, it may want to leave him in a condition of more-or-less happily ever after. The story this time unfolds as a series of increasingly dreary and teary melodramatic encounters regularly interrupted by special-effects-laden fights.

As it happens, the over-all shape does recall a Busby Berkeley musical — snappy story, lavish number, snappy story, lavish number — but without the snap or fun. He makes about $2 a day, and cannot afford to send his sons to school. In the first movie Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) met and wooed his lady love, Fiona (Cameron Diaz); in the second he got to know the in-laws.

Which is only to say that “Shrek the Third,” directed by Chris Miller and Raman Hui from a script with a half-dozen credited begetters, already feels less like a children’s movie than either of its predecessors. After exploring the predominance of violence in American culture in Bowling for Columbine and taking a critical look at the September 11th attacks in Fahrenheit 9/11, activist filmmaker Michael Moore turns his attentions towards the topic of health care in the United States in this documentary that weighs the plight of the uninsured against the record profits of the pharmaceutical industry.