rehmwa

I like Wendy's post. I have to watch the whole thing but: 1 - public disrespect like what the kid did is out of line 2 - Shooting the computer is stupid. Take it away, take it apart, whatever 3 - put the cigarette aside for just this once how'd the parents lose control of this terrible kid in the first place? why'd dad need to do this outside of private? he really came across as a bumpkin - being tough and direct and firm here is correct, but he just came across as a dork (agree, there's a lot of stuff hidden here) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I only recognize three words in there: The, on, pud what manufacturer? Or can you send a link or picture? Edit: found it. thanks for the reference - more and more rig manufacturers do seem to be appearing, don't they? The pud picture I see on Basik's website At first glance, the pics look pretty bulky (not low profile enough (for me)), but the details in the product description and the closeup pics look a bit more intriguing. As I said - YMMV. It all depends on what each jumper values most. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Why? What is wrong with establishing that different communities/ethnicities can have different needs? you can bunch them up into stereotypes if you like what is wrong with establishing that individuals within or between your cosmetic divisions also have different needs? those are more real doesn't mean we put them in buckets and give the buckets different rules ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

sure, and that helps define the individuals and adds benefit to how we interact on a personal level with individuals and that we are lucky to have all those refinements in our society however, in terms of Government treatment of people (not personal treatment), law should be blind ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

stop being constructive, it's a bit unsettling nevertheless - I continue to look forward to the day when people are really blind to group differences and just talk about people as individuals and not demographics ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm sure you're an outlier in many categories........ ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Not sure I agree re: Hispanics. There's alot of Hispanic labor in the area where I live. As a rule, these folks work hard, and value family first and foremost. Compared to where they came from, they are doing markedly better (why else would they endure to get here?). Wrto blacks (haven't you heard, African American is out of vogue now?), and Native Americans, not sure why that's the case. There are very successful black people in my company. They work hard, are professional, and are widely respected (and it has nothing to do with their skin color). I like these two posts, it really reflects the politics and priorities of you two - Andy talks about "groups", you talk about "individuals" when the focus is so different, it's not a surprise how difficult it can be sometimes to find common ground when discussing policy ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Hackey or fist (same thing, cosmetic differences only IMO) - watch videos, those things are flopping around like crazy, I don't trust them at all. That said, people use them all the time - I had one for 15 years with no issues (I just hate how they bounce around). If I have one, I pack it deep inside the pocket, and the pull it barely out so that the spandex edge is against it holding it down somewhat - so it has a better chance of being still in the air flow. I think a tuck tab would solve all my issues with my impressions of hackey - haven't had one like that. PVC - I have no issues with these. Best when they are sewn down on both edges (tape through it, not a single point). We have a video of a jumper catching his finger in another jumper's tubePC on exit - it was an ugly sequence. Lightweight, but the empty hole seems like an unnecessary snag. I don't know why they don't cap the ends or make it solid. Puds (NOT "freefly" pud, just pud, c'mon) - I think this is the best version - it sits against the container and is much better protected against snags in and out of the airplane than the others (IMHO). I like a straight pud without tuck tabs best - like the Sunpath pud - it stays very still in freefall, but is easy to find and pull and still is very snag free in the plane and the air - would be nice if it had a small tuck tab. The Mirage Pud has a hefty tuck tab and a tapered profile (wider at the PC attachment narrow as it moves out board - it's so well designed to avoid snags, that it's almost too hard to find and grasp for me when I have gloves. I think the Mirage style pud is the best design (they really a lot of thought into everything from what I can tell) but I'd reduce the taper, personally, and have a smaller tuck tab if I could - then that would be my preference. I tried to draw the two in the attachment (sloppily - yellow is the handle but the corners all are rounded, blue represents the apex part of the PC). I have both types of rigs and both makes of puds. I can't comment to other offerings from other manufacturers (my 3rd rig is a Vector, but very old and it has PVC). that said - keep your pounch spandex well maintained - you vidiot deserves it - so do you Key things to think about - snag hazzard, ease of grasping, is it still in freefall and while standing in the door (or is it just rattling all over the place) baby heads, special designs, etc - meh. all those I've seen look like snag hazzards to me. But I guess if someone wants to be cute..... edit: for the newbies that don't know. A 'tuck tab' = pretty much a flat stiffener sewn into the junction of the hackey/pud and PC. you tuck that into the bridle protection flap and it greatly restrains the handle. YMMV ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

If she's trim like that with definite muscle tone? then I'm ok with it. that picture.....I didn't really see any muscle tone to speak of - so (at least from that angle) it doesn't do it for me anyway. What's the point if clothes lay nice on her, but naked she's gaunt? Even more so, what's the point of dating a model that can't even carry her own groceries, let alone pack a rig, or finish the rock climb???? I like athletic builds on women, not thick, definitely not heavy, definitiely not skinny. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Actually, that brings up another point -- can a new-style government-only domestic partnership be limited as to span? I.e. you get married for a 5-year span, and then it's automatically dissolved? I'm not saying it to be a smartass, but it's something that will need to be thought out if we really divorce the concept of marriage from domestic partnership. \ I would think so. It would just be a contract between two people that enables a (very reduced) list of partner benefits. Why not sign up for a 5, 10, or lifetime, contract? Is it getting a bit Heinlein-ian in here? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I don't think the "too late" argument is valid. Marriage was such a part of the language in the old form, I think this issue served to show the point that individuals in a marriage (of any kind) actually ARE being afforded a different set of rules over individuals not in a marriage. That it wasn't noticed until then is simply inertia. There's a genesis to any argument. We're just in phase one - expand the benefits to another group - and even further concentrate those left out. That'll work to highlight to single people even more that there's a more basic disparity at stake here. It should be a nation of equal individuals, not a nation of preferenced groups. For this - What about people like me - I not against gay marriage - I think recognizing it is better than the status quo - I just think the issue is more basic than that. I don't like the inference at all. Also, how does that argument even work for those opposed? - it seems a better argument for the pro side, not the con side..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Or holding the NRA national convention in Denver right after Columbine. Many were offended by that. I wonder what your stance was on that subject... I think there was a thread on it. Recall the NRA took a lot of actions to try to be sensitive in the execution of the convention. I bet a dollar you can look up JR's comments. Though I'd say, in that case, a better analogy for Columbine would be to question having a national bullying convention, or a teen mental health convention over the NRA. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no issue there - I did an edit in the up post - go read it and let me know what you think ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

if this fine is absolutely restricted to this scenario, then that's at least something worth talking about do you think it is? maybe it is, that's how Shah wrote it, but he's not known for relaying a very clear picture without his bias. So the assumption is we were talking about default, not bank errors. if not, then this is a moot point - If it is - those people would have legal recourse already to address the mistake - $2000 is silly, because a civil case can already be made for reparations and damages due to an improper foreclosure. So that means this law is a crappy PR move that might hurt more than help vs the previous status quo ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

we've degraded to the same ol' same ol' stuff. though Lawrocket's OP was about the legality of coming to the right decision was very interesting I'm done. Sorry to tangent to stuff that's been hashed out so many other times. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

And that right there is really the point. I couldn't agree more that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only recognize civil unions. I would fully support making that change. I don't see that happening anytime soon and until it does then everyone needs to be treated equally. To say one classification is allowed the legal recognition and another is not is nothing more than discrimination. Since this is a semantics barrier to doing the right thing, then we just hijack the word "marriage" (for governmental applications only) and then just assign all the 'domestic partner' rights to it. Delete the old marriage stuff completely. Then we're not just adding another subgroup to the special privilege class of "married people". Let's do the complete right thing and allow ANY two citizens to establish a legal partnership - we can call it "marriage". two spinster sisters that have no one else two roommates that carpool various relatives two strangers that just need someone to speak for them I'm serious - the real issue is about individual's rights. If two people want to contractually decide to support each other and share resources, then why shouldn't they? This let's everybody win. a 'social' marriage can be a private or religious (if they are so inclined) affair for any two individuals that want to profess emotional commitment to each other in front of their friends and family - since it's private, then the government would have ZERO business obstructing that at all. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Here's how I read your description - an idiotic that took out a loan on home he can't possibly afford can now default on his financial responsibilities and get awarded a couple grand for it. AND, the bank that normally wouldn't give that bad loan but was forced to do it under government requirements now has to pay for the privilege. Shit - If I can take out a loan every week and default on it to foreclosure, that's a 6 figure salary ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

is that a store that sells old sex toys or an old store that sells sex toys because you that might matter to you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So what you are saying is - Overregulation is screwing up the economy and resulting in unfair treatment of members and restriction of reasonable activities by its citizens even in your microcosm of this condo association wow, what an amazing economic and political policy revelation - who'd have ever thought it? edit: yet in other threads - you still maintain that the best fix is to pass MORE laws that require giving loans for situations that are high risk. Learning is an art form ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Did you notice the book that's being advertised right next to the article? "Fallen" by Karen Slaughter. Is this a subliminal suggestion? Are they trying to incite people to go on a killing spree so the gun store can be shut down? Do you really believe ad servers work by having humans read articles rather than simply searching for keywords that automatically place them? perhaps the ad is intended to get people to buy more guns for self defense ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Just wait - last time I brought up the whole point that the real issue is that Marriage itself is actually the true unequal rights issue - some hot head decided for me that I MUST be so against gay marriage that I'd rather just trash the entire benefit system than see anyone else get in on the goodies you and your ilk know this - you can tell buy the smell ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The only item in there I'd call a "social" issues is environment. I'd call the rest, individual rights issues. At the very least, I'd split the whole social issue pie into: 1 - those that reflect infringement of the government on an individuals equal rights (this area I'm fully in agreement that we must defend it). 2 - those that actually impose your will onto others - don't tell me what kind of light bulb to buy. Government should bugger off. it's pretty easy to split that list (though typically someone smug will split some hairs here in a self congratulatory fashion). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'd like to offer another slant on this: Context is merely the government involvement - I really don't care one bit about the religious or emotional content of the institution here - that's not what's this is about - for those that are, they really don't get it. anyway We have here a group of people - traditionally married people. And each of these individuals, get to have "special" rights and considerations (and penalties) from the government. We have here another group of people - those that wish to have those same 'special' considerations for pairing up in non-traditional ways. I think the focus is completely wrong - this issue is this: why, just because, I'm married, do I get a different treatment from government compared to someone that's single? the issue isn't the another group wants to enjoy special treatment ALSO the issue is that there is a group of people that get special treatment government shouldn't be in the business of marriage - period. It's a nation of individuals. If you are married, partnered, roommates, etc - the government should be blind to that frankly, if any two people, for ANY reason want to establish a contract for: sharing property, ability to make decisions for the other when the other is incapacitated, inheritance, sharing income, etc - that can be contracted. The government has no business trying to 'encourage' anything. Let the individuals decide for themselves and let each individual have the same rights regardless of any type of status. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

see, my caviat is an important one here - the whole " (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others)" the portion I quote above is a clear breakdown of individuals not valuing the individual rights of others and.....again....they can certainly value their heterosexual marriage more than any other version and that might just be for the good of society depending on how that marriage progresses. The problem was legislating (forcing) their restriction on those that disagree. Again, government was the issue. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

there's a lot of whining and complaining and very dramatic gesturing (I don't know - it wouldn't be an issue if marriage wasn't something the government was involved in in the first place) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants