rehmwa

But that's not accurate either "I believe God said it, I believe it, that settles it - for me" That would an honest bumper sticker. The first one still doesn't acknowledge real faith over blinders. ... 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 appreciate that viewpoint quite a bit. But it's in conflict with what I perceive the intent of the poll is trying to facilitate (clearly boobie advocacy) ... 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

You do bring up the other option (though just because they talked about it doesn't mean you still won't find yourself upset anyway for various interpersonal scenarios) I like this. Choices are: 1 - spouse 2 - friend 3 - meh - don't care - 'we have an arrangement' 4 - I don't want to pick one, even in a hypothetical poll because I don't like making decisions 5 - boobies ... 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

character just is, it's not tested, only demonstrated just because something is harder to one person, doesn't make them better - that's silly. I can try REALLY hard and sometimes make a layup - Michael Jordan doesn't even have to try and would rarely ever miss one - that doesn't make me a better basketball player than michael jordan. or does it??????? ... 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 with JR on this one. This first person is better if you consider honesty and basic character defines the "better person". Only way to not go with this person is that the voter thinks the first is not honest about his lack of temptation - but that's rewriting the scenario falsely - the assumption is they are 'truly and for real' actually not even tempted. the 2nd person is tested and passed, they are striving to be like the first person and that's commendable. That's not a "better' person, but it's certainly one that 99% of us relate to easier than the first - therefore we WANT to think WE are better and would translate that into a vote for that guy. The 3rd option is a very despicable and arrogant person and will likely get this thread moved to speaker's corner ... 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

your Dad's quite a pessimist - I'd think the citizens would do pretty well here But your statement is hard to interpret: Gun ownership doesn't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? The 2nd amendment doesn't matter? so is he against gun ownership because he can't determine a 2nd amendment application any more? (ie.the 2nd doesn't have an applicability in today's world so we shouldn't own that type of property) Or is he against gun control, because the government ( with one hand tied behind it's back) could take even a totally unrestricted citizenry. (ie, the 2nd doesn't apply, so the gov shouldn't bother regulating) The third leg of this is that the government purposely will over regulate firearms to purposely defang the citizenry. either way, I'm not interested in 2nd amendment arguments (though I think he's wrong - his premise is the modern army squaring off in a fair battlefield fight against handfuls of citizens armed with rifles and shotguns and handguns - silly premise, the population would be more guerrilla against a foe with stronger technology - and we know that's very effective). I will own what I want (that should include guns too) because I have rights to private property as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others Sometimes, I think the 2nd was actually just a reminder from the founders to the citizenry, that people have a responsibility to keep the government in check - no matter how bad it gets. But the culture at the time had them speak in terms of determined and physical defense. this is applicable even today. ... 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

Having a "both" option is reasonable. The question is 'who are you MOST upset with' so having "both" is not reasonable at all - unless this is a poll to see how many people get uncomfortable with the question and won't examine their own thoughts as such - and we already have "boobies" for that ... 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

you really shouldn't have a "Both" option in a hypothetical about "most upset with". That just lets people cop out on the answer ... 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

Funny analogy, but fixed it as best I could. I would also have accepted Sharia is to Islam as cannon is to Catholicism Cattholliccism. ... 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 marriage certificate argument is bogus - in the eyes of the court, it does not matter who performed the ceremony or the religion of the celebrants, only that the ceremony was completed by someone eligible to do so by state law. The only reason for sharia law to have an impact upon the will would be if the distribution of the estate went against state law. But might there might be an argumented position of intent between two people that practice whatever religion? Like a verbal or written contract that religious law would considered equivalent to. (contractual or civil law then, not criminal equivalent) I could see a judge doing that, and I'd consider that arguable and reasonable for him to do so. ... 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

Superman would never use kryptonite bullets unless he needed to shoot another Superman. Or maybe Superboy, or Supergirl. And I hope he wouldn't shoot Supergirl, because she's super-hot. To kill a sheriff he could just use his super-hot ray vision and turn him into a crispy critter. But for crispy critters, I prefer animal crackers. The only problem is trying to figure out which crackers are what kind of animal, because of all those indistinct lumpy shapes. And speaking of lumpy shapes, I really like jelly-fish. But my favorite jelly for toast is strawberry jam. Not that squishy jelly stuff, but real jam that spreads smoothly. And sometimes when you're really in a jam, you just need Superman to come save you. why, john.... you're being funny and teasing. And doing a good job at it. I'm impressed. ... 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

A couple things.... First, the safety of everyone on the plane comes ahead of regulations in my world, and an unrestrained body is a very dangerous thing in a crash, or even in a "hard landing" for that matter. The last thing I want is the weight of a human body on top of me as we pull a few G's (which, by the way, is a good reason to not just put your belt on but also pull it tight). Second, if the pilot isn't concerned about jumpers wearing their belts for takeoff, I'm concerned about the pilot and what else he/she doesn't care about. BTW, I doubt you'll find any DZ operation with a waiver allowing jumpers to leave belts off during takeoff. If you're going to debate, be realistic. Chuck - you're discussing the seat belt thing. My response on this one was about patchy cloud scenario. Ego and Pissing matches on jump run is not productive. Dealing with it with the DZO or S&TA on the ground afterwards is better. If you're going to go into your normal abuse mode, at least keep up with the thread. If you want my thoughts on the seat belt thing, it's up thread - I think the OP did the right thing and consider that the pilot 'should' have taken care of it before the OP had to. then a small discussion about how we train and mentor our people. ... 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

again, the person with the most risk in that scenario is the pilot - he'd have been better off voicing his concern to the pilot and letting the pilot decide about the entire load after that, if the pilot thinks he can release under the rules (in his opinion, or under any waivers that the jumpers might not be aware of, or just because the pilot is a rule breaker, etc etc etc), each jumper should be able to choose for themselves - and each instructor for their students ... 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

C'mon, 80 million Germans... should at least make up with California Well, as long as he had a part in Predator,...... Speaks German ... but is Austrian Just like "Dan Ackroyd, famous American actor" No I mean stars in that movie seem to do well, comparatively, in political moves (at least temporarily) - don't you follow Arnold and Jesse Ventura? Dan Ackroyd is absolutely one of our best, wryly spoken, humorous, parade floats. Of all time. ... 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 some irony here, you realize - but it happens all the time 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

You forgot to blame the gun itself. It might have just violently loaded itself when he wasn't looking. Then violently turned to point at him. Then violently squeezed its own trigger. I'm told that's their nature....... ... 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 here I was - giving you the benefit of the doubt ... 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

C'mon, 80 million Germans... should at least make up with California Well, as long as he had a part in Predator,...... ... 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 wish this tangent has run it's course - but it was a pretty lame thread to begin with anyway. ... 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

Look, it's really easy. First, you have to assess who's going to ever be a nutter, or a felon. Then you don't sell them guns. I think it's simple, you go into a store to buy a gun. THEN, we assign someone to observe you for an observation period - if you never go crazy, or commit a violent crime (either convicted or not, we're talking actually commit) - then you don't get a gun. "Nutter" is defined by whatever the local sheriff considers 'abnormal' based on his standards - i.e., you vote for someone else, or he just doesn't like your attitude or looks, or any other reasonable thing - especially around election time At the end of the observation period - if you've been good - you can buy a gun - we can bury it in your coffin. AND, the observation can provide quite a bit of useful information for marketing or census type government usage and tracking. So there's a plus. It's a left wing dream. Or a right wing dream. Depending on who's reading this post. ... 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

that's telling 'em. chip them up old school, just like Saddam's sons. ((actually, I think you're showing us a cultural overflow since you're coming off a bit like those you are protesting about. It's nicely done, showing unreasoned biased homicidal hatred as emphasis. Pretty subtle for Speaker's Corner, and the slow people will need a bit of narration to see it - but they know who they are......or maybe they don't)) wood chippers don't kill people, people kill people if you ban wood chippers, only outlaws will have them ... 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

on a small plane like that, it seems like the pilot should have been the one to offer that exact option - the OP getting off doesn't protect the DZ or the pilot. Returning to the loading area did work in that the DZO enforced that rule which the pilot should have backed up. on the rest - yes, I agree with you. That said, I'll still contend, that style points help affect culture and, long term, fixes good habits in others much better than assholes rationalizing their crappy interpersonal skills under the label of 'tough love' or 'calling it like it is'. Again, you know the type of jumper I'm talking about - no matter how big or small the DZ, there's usually 1. Back to the topic, the OP notes "She still doesn't wear the seatbelt" ------- this seems to confirmthe jumper remains the sole issue - and the pilot and DZO are complacent 1 - Seems the DZO and the Pilot have to address that with this jumper. And, unless she has a narrow waist and really big boobs,...... sorry, I digress 2 - In the meantime, the TM needs to continue to stick to his guns for himself, the pilot's license, and his passengers. Good for him edit: of course, my tangent here is just that, tangential ... 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, I agree with you that the matter of compliance is cut and dried. but you have to admit, that some skydivers can pretty much take even a reasonable statement and pretty much shut down the skydiver they are talking to I'd side with our poster here without any info - most people are pretty decent about this stuff big difference between "hey, we need to wear seatbelts on takeoff, you wanna buckle up?" vs "hey, HEY, HEY!!!! you - DUMBASS ... buckleup you shithead, you wanna KILL my passenger here? {mutter} what the hell is going on with all the stupid newbies lately" I've seen it in action - and I know you have too ... 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

You are really good at openness and ability to listen to other's viewpoints - I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter ... 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

you did the right thing, you already know it - not sure what you're looking for here - reinforcement? As for personalities - Seems that being considered an asshole is usually a matter of your delivery to the skydiver, not the content - did you kindly remind her of the seatbelt requirement and ask her to put it on? or did you just verbally smack her down and not give her a chance to do the right thing without conflict? note that I have no idea of the details and I'm just guessing - we don't have her 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