winsor

No, but two Wongs make a White.

Where did you get that idea? Where did I get what idea? That was a quote from the article ... the guy doesn't even understand that a rifle is a gun. Where did you get the idea that I missed that quote? I didn't. I read the editorial, start to finish. I made no attempt to debunk every false or dumb statement he made - I didn't have all night to respond. Technically, a gun is not a rifle. A "gun" has a smooth bore, like a shotgun, while a "rifle" has grooves cut into it to make a bullet spin. The USMC made this very clear to me in boot camp. Woe be to he who called his M-14 a "gun"... But I haven't a clue what the author of the piece meant by that statement. The terms regarding firearms are somewhat fluid, and depend on who you ask. In some circles there is a distinction made between "pistols" and "revolvers." A belt-fed full-auto rifle-cartridge firearm is usually referred to as a "machine gun," even in the Corps. A magazine-fed pistol-cartridge firearm is commonly known as a "submachine gun" (the "sub" being sub-caliber). A magazine-fed full-auto full-patch rifle-cartridge firearm is known as an "automatic rifle;" if it fires a reduced load it becomes an "assault rifle." In any event, little regarding firearms is quite what it seems. A .38 is actually .357", a .38-40 is actually a .40", and a .44 mikes out to .4295" (say .43"). The military is kind of like the guy who has eaten more Big Macs than anyone else alive. From a culinary standpoint, he does not have a lot of credibility when describing much besides Big Macs; similarly, the Military has a lot of experience with billions of rounds from a very limited number of firearm/ammunition combinations. Don't get me wrong, I would question the sanity of a unit that let everyone choose their own caliber; if everyone had a .30 caliber, but this included 7.62x25, .30-30, .30/06, .30 Carbine, .300 Savage, .300 Weatherby, .300 WM, .30-40, .308, 7.52x39, 7.62x54R, you could have a lot of firepower but no interchangeability - and a logistical nightmare on your hands. A fixed cartridge for a shotgun is a shotshell or shell, but it is perfectly acceptable for someone who just hit 98 out of 100 clay pigeons to say "I gotta go get more bullets." Is that 'correct?' No - but if you can shoot like that, you can call them whatever you want. Thus I would not get too strung out by someone using vernacular common to a different firearm culture, though someone can also display complete ignorance with a single well-chosen sentence. BSBD, Winsor

Indeed there are. The dog that mauled/killed a person is euthanized. The person who owned the dog that did the mauling/killing is put in prison, held responsible for the actions of the vicious animal. Any questions?

Oops, sorry. Killing addicts is okay. Move along, nothing to see here, people. Look, if someone is already committing suicide by the installment program, robbing a frightened person with a Bull Mastiff or harpoon gun at the ready is simply cutting to the chase. I disapprove of the use of lethal force for anything short of last-ditch defense (in which case it is likely to be ineffective), but challenging someone who is likely to resort to lethal force is a bad career move, all things considered. BSBD, Winsor

Did that out of a broken Twin Bonanza.

"If I say exit and you say 'what?,' you'll be speaking to yourself." => post above beat me to it.

I have a 99 main with a 218 reserve. By the time I yank silver, I have had enough excitement for the time being. I want something overhead that is likely to keep me alive if I can't steer well or at all (think knocked unconscious or a kicked collarbone on exit or in freefall). In addition, being able to sink it into whatever places are available to land is a good thing. I have gone to Plan B on a variety of occasions, and have yet to look up and say "I could have gone smaller." Regardless of what you jump for a main, a nylon overcast is the way to go for a reserve. BSBD, Winsor

It's a Divinity School - what do you expect?

Ditto. I, however, claim no particular egalitarian stance, so my purpose here is to evaluate the test. If it indicates, for instance, that I have no bias, the test it broken.

good god, you're in no position to lecture anyone like that. He's not lecturing - he's advertising. His is for sale in brand-new, unopened condition.

DNA doesn't much care either. Evolution doesn't have a goal, it's just a process. Au contraire - according to the Jefferson Airplane, I, personally, am the crown of creation.

America. He got off the plane and - son of a bitch! - there it was! I discovered Europe.

If this was done there would never be another Dem president because large protions of the inner cities would not be able to vote You sure you want to go there? What's the down side?

Lions like Mint Jelly.

Only because it would challenge something he's emotionally involved in. Anything - as far as science is concerned - that can't be tested at all, has no weight. It may or may not be true, but it holds no more (or less) water than anything I could dream up, no matter how outlandish. There is such a thing as plausability, as well as mathematical integrity. Much that has turned out to be valid is counterintuitive, but mathematically sound. Gas Dynamics is a case in point. If someone is given to accepting fundamentals on the basis of emotional appeal their stance may be routinely dismissed, since there is no correlation between their model and reality. The accuracy, or lack thereof, of their claims is a matter of happenstance. BSBD, Winsor

He speaks in absloutes. Sames as if I said all liberals are socialists. Are you suggesting there are examples who are not?

Fine, if you want to play that game, she said "Americans fear the rise of the Soviet Union" with Americans being plural. Therefore we only need to find 2 Americans who fear the rise of the Soviet Union to make her statement correct. If we continue to play yours and others in this threads, stupid game, the Americans could be Canadians or anyone from South America. Only 2 american's needed ? talk about reaching. So if I say Americans fear the earth is flat, and can provide you a couple Americans who think the earth is flat, my statement makes sense? And it's true, there are a lot of dumbshit Dems, we just don't run them for President. Al Gore is truly short-bus material.

One can refinance, no problem - assuming there is any equity. Unfortunately, stepping on one's dick by buying into a bubble makes that tough. If one's job is in some kind of soft science or other field where math is considered on a par with magic, I could understand how it is possible to overlook the basic arithmetic involved. I do not, however, empathize. Nobody has to buy at the peak of the market. The old adage applies that if you can't afford to rent it, you sure as hell can't afford to buy it. BSBD, Winsor

When he found out it had nanothermite in the list of ingredients, he figured he could not go wrong.

I'm wondering if NATO is going to get involved in Syria, next. Not a hope, Russian would not tolerate it and there is no benefit in doing so for NATO. Why would anyone want to stick their hand into that hornets nest? I am not sure, exactly, but the US of A has a track record of doing much, much dumber things of late. It's like we are trying to prove "this time it's different!," going forth and duplicating actions that have destroyed empires each and every time they were tried. I was in France while we were in the middle of Operation Sandbox (or whatever the hell it was), and a fellow asked me "No offense, but are you Americans crazy?" "I suspect we are." BSBD, Winsor

Please name me three Democrats you consider as bad as those three Rebublicans? Easy. Peolsi Waters Frank Just for starts.

I know we have had our differences but, I feel, think, and believe as you have stated above. Is cynicism a mandatory condition of growing old? I'm 69YO and next year I start the final decade. I have been living in a state of gradually increasing disappointment regarding the future of America since 1998. I came to the realization that the popular approach was doomed in 1968. Flying to LA from Chicago, it hit me that resources were finite but population was exponential, and there was no way that population would not eventually outstrip necessary resources. We had just had a large, powerful group conduct a large scale experiment in Eugenics (Godwin anyone?), which made any suggestion of population control rather a third rail in the political arena. Hell, I'd be nervous about voting for someone dumb enough to come out and say it. We have thus focused on patch fixes for various issues and been distracted by a series of red herrings ("global warming?" bite me) to the extent that we have gone well beyond the tipping point. In short, we're screwed. When USAirways was going into bankrupcy, Dave Siegel, the CEO, had a series of "road shows" to lay out the realities we faced. He really pissed some people off, but I rather liked it, since he called a spade a spade. Responding to a question where the employee was worried about the nuances of his long-term benefits, Siegel told him that the issue at stake was overall survival, and that everyone was not going to make it. We are now in ant vs. grasshopper territory, where things still look pretty good, and there is still a decent amount of seed corn left to eat. In the all-too-near future, however, when our collective credit card is cut up and we have to live within our means, not everyone will be able to pull it off. It's gonna get ugly; having the bulk of 6 billion people go on an enforced diet is a recipe for crankiness. People in my family have the tendency to live into their 90s, which I do not see as a bargain at the moment. I wish I had been wrong in 1968, but, if anything, I was optimistic. BSBD, Winsor

To paraphrase Glenn Beck et.al., Republicans and Democrats are two heads on the same snake. Somebody please explain, who is running the show? Is it George Soros, the Bilderberg Group, the Muslim Brotherhood, China? The problem is that nobody is in control. To say that the dreadful state of affairs we face is the result of any group in particular is to give them way too much credit. The fact that we have made it this far is nothing short of amazing. The possibility that we will somehow discover sufficient resources to continue much further is nonexistent. Even if we put the most charismatic and capable leader in charge, with the authority to effect any and all the most elegant and effective policies, there is nothing we can do to undo the self-inflicted damage of the past 40 years (Nixon took us off the Gold Standard exactly 40 years ago, so that time frame is a good benchmark). It has been fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

For skydiving, the MC-4 is certificated for 360# suspended weight, so gear is not a problem. I have a couple of them with AADs available. As far as wingsuit or BASE go, you are into a whole different realm. Neither of these activities are at all forgiving, and should be considered only when you have the fundamentals of saving your life with a parachute nailed. The effect of weight in parachuting is not linear. Two people in identical condition, with identical wingloadings and the identical malfunction can often expect very different outcomes. An arrival that might have a small, fit person bruised and shaken will routinely have a person twice the size in an ICU. In any event, get input from big folks that jump, since the opinions of scrawny folks don't hold a lot of weight, as it were. Blue skies, Winsor

I despair of the body politic as it exists in the US today, and the countless cretins, morons and ne'erdowells seeking (and achieving) high office in this land do not give much cause for hope. Prior to Bush the Younger becoming the Grand Poobah, one would suspect he was a ringer. His track record in Texas seemed to be one of balanced leadership, and his folksy malapropisms but a ruse to sucker the unwary into underestimating him. Once in Washington, however, it was as though his IQ was cut in half on the spot. His syncophants (Cheney et al.) have been blamed for the most evil of his actions, but he was still willing to sign off on the most odious and onerous policies and legislation. Fast forward to Perry. He has not even cleared Austin and he is one of the most despicable presences in politics today - on a par with Pelosi or Schumer. Send him into the ethical black hole that is Washington and all bets are off. Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side of the aisle that has either a clue or integrity (the Golden Child is, after all, a lawyer). Unfortunately, there is a very small market for for either intellect or integrity in this country (think "Snooki"). One can only hope that Perry is just pretending to be an amoral dunderhead, or that the other candidates are only acting the part of superstitious twits to appeal to the electorate, and that, once elected, they will turn out to be enlightened and competent leaders. Not bloody likely. BSBD, Winsor