winsor

Yes! Of course! Why else would you have it? Well, some people jump with a reserve only because the dz requires it. ...and the FAA. Chuck You can always use an emergency rig for an observer ride, with no intention of jumping. Overcome with panic when the door opens and people perform a mass evacuation of the aircraft, it is only natural that you should use the certificated safety equipment to get out of the airplane (that is most likely broken). Imagine your amazement when the plane lands in one piece. It's a mistake anyone could make, and the regs do not forbid such misunderstandings.

The fact that you and I agree, on anything, is proof alone that there is no god. What god would allow that!!!!!! That makes two things. Hell, if we ever met we'd probably have more in common than either of us think. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. At least that is what the bumper sticker said.

If God were to reveal his Shekinah Glory to non believers, wouldn't they still think he's a "fucking dick," or will they shit their pants and drop to their knees and repent in a pool of piss? That is the question... Consider it revealed. Judge an artist by his works - which makes your deity du jour an underachiever, at best.

Your idea is to go to your bosses at your small regional paper supply company(the tax payers), and tell them that you know you spent recklessly, no, my plan is to tax (increase the household income) the rich (who are the richest they have ever been in the entire history of human civilisation). your plan seems to be to sing lalalalala at the problem... Assuming you went to school, did they teach Arithmetic there? If so, did you pass? you don't agree that taxing the rich will increase government income (and thus reduce the deficit)? Actually, given the Law of Unintended Consequences, no. The attempt at redistribution of wealth sounds like a good idea on the face of it but, like many "progressive" policies, it often has the opposite effect to that intended. In Cuba, there was well-justified dissatisfaction with the "haves" by the "have nots," and the takeover by the "beards" was followed closely by the exodus of pretty much anyone with the werewithal to leave (the "haves"). The Socialist Workers' Paradise that was left had everyone on a similar economic standing, which is to say it became a nation of "have nots." If you squeeze the "rich," they can often afford to retire to St. Moritz or Tahiti or wherever they damn well please. Anyone that was in their employ no longer has a job about which to bitch. I have been in all too many countries where the inequities of the Market have been replaced by the inequities of the Government. Much though the former may suck, the latter is hardly an improvement. My take on Socialism as it exists in practice is that it is like being born into the Army, only much worse. Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed. BSBD, Winsor

So, because you skydive with a reserve parachute, does this mean that every time you jump you do so in fear of a main parachute malfunction? Yes! Of course! Why else would you have it? As any Boy Scout could tell you - Be Prepared.

no, my plan is to tax (increase the household income) the rich (who are the richest they have ever been in the entire history of human civilisation). your plan seems to be to sing lalalalala at the problem... Assuming you went to school, did they teach Arithmetic there? If so, did you pass?

No amount of "proof" or argumentation will be sufficient for you. No matter what is said or shown to you will change your heart. I would argue that you will not and even can not believe or have saving faith in Christ without divine interevention. All you are doing is acting like the rebel in the King's courtyard that you are. Every breath you take is on loan from God and you curse him with every breath. There are very good theological reasons for why good and bad happen to everyone (both believers and non-believers). That doesn't matter because you have made up your mind and nothing is going to change it. I admit that the same is true for me. However, it is a lot more complicated than just saying "God did it" (with regard to why things happen as they do) and "placing blame." No, TK just doubts that which is patent bullshit. If there was one shred of evidence to the contrary (without resorting to a litany of logical fallacies), he would consider it.

A - This thread is entirely about blaming God. B - Killing and slaughtering innocent people wouldn't make you stronger since the hardship wouldn't be on you. If everyone loved their neighbor as they love themself as I believe God wants, this world would be excellent. It's the horrible people on this planet that make it awful. Not hardly - the thread is about the concept that gods are the stuff of fairy tales. Saying that there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow does not imply that one is mad at leprechauns so much as suggesting that they are figaments of the imagination.

Nah, it makes it seem like he thinks there is no such thing, and that the whole concept is asinine.

See joke in original post. The the truck driver states he's not afraid of anything. Understand I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of fear or being prepared. It's just when people are in denial about their motivations, well, there's probably a bigger issue they're also in denial about. Right, like you assert upon occasion that your goal is not abolition of firearms. FWIW, the best form of self-defense is real estate - put as much of it as possible between you and trouble and your odds improve markedly. I agree that firearms are anything but a panacea - if you really need one, you are in pretty deep kimchee. My problem is that the people who advocate banning firearms are in favor of eine Schimmverbesserung (it does not translate well). Basically the intent is to make firearms as illegal as, and as unavailable as, say, cocaine. Brilliant. BSBD, Winsor

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, because when you need it you need it badly.

Yet upthread, you claimed that disrepect toward the moderators was a personal attack against them - you appear to have a double standard. Cite the reference. That is not a sentiment I recall expressing.

I figure, if the rules aren't going to be applied fairly, then the insults aught not be one-sided all the time. There is a steady stream of crap coming from you all the time. Just sending some of it back in your direction whether I get banned or not. You like giving it out...but you don't seem to like getting it back. Again, your inability to distinguish between disrespect and abuse is telling. I called into question your cognitive and correlative capabilities, and you demonstrated that any such doubts were well justified. You have shown your feelings to be very fragile. Nevertheless, if your response to having your feelings hurt is to behave in a contemptible fashion, you should quit your bitching. Or learn the rudiments of coherence - your choice.

It's hard to find anything substantive in these posts worthy of a reply. It's almost like arguing with your 8 year old kid. You are beginning to catch on. My sole point is that you have yet to make a coherent point about much of anything. You complain about perceived slights - but you have no qualms about name-calling and threats. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, thank goodness. I would be nervous, indeed, if I excited you. And I would be nervous indeed if my credibility (or that of anyone else here) was dependant on your approval. Added: As it stands, I am not nervous. Don't sweat it, your lack of comprehension of logic has nothing to do with me.

Is it by your standard alone that one is deemed credible? Not at all, logic was an established discipline long before I came on the scene. It would appear to be completely new to you, however.

Oh, thank goodness. I would be nervous, indeed, if I excited you.

If you expect to be taken seriously, you give yourself too much credit. Your credibility is shot.

No PA, just a statement disavowing inclusion in the generality. If you were familiar with the reference, you would not be concerned. What about the two posts where I was called a paleface cocksucker? ...but I don't mind. I gave blanket permission long ago for anyone to personally attack me as long it was creative and/or funny. With all due respect, WTF are you talking about? Posts #253 + 254 = paleface, judgemental christian cocksucker....no? I only made reference to my posts. If, in the reference to carnal genuflection, you see yourself as a "judgemental christian cocksucker," it is on you. Neither Butters nor I said any such thing. BSBD, Winsor

Hmmm… Guess we’ll see… Posts 253, 254, 255… No PA, just a statement disavowing inclusion in the generality. If you were familiar with the reference, you would not be concerned. What about the two posts where I was called a paleface cocksucker? ...but I don't mind. I gave blanket permission long ago for anyone to personally attack me as long it was creative and/or funny. With all due respect, WTF are you talking about?

And of course, that means everyone else but you, right? god forbid you should answer a simple fucking question. I'm still wondering what the fuck offends you about my 9-6 work week followed by a weekend at the DZ. Um, I think you are addressing that to somebody else. I don't think I was the one who objected to your lifestyle - though I think your should have chosen to be independently wealthy. But, hey, it's your choice to be a slave to a paycheck, and I respect you for it. Let me know if I'm being too transparent.

It's been made clear that the major players in this conversation cannot or refuse to participate without being personally insulting. This behavior is, for the most part, supported and allowed to occur by the liberal leaning "so called" moderators. Therefore, it becomes very difficult to discuss the topic at hand in an honest and civil manner with some level of maturity. People in glass houses and all that. Voicing a complaint by means of a PA on the moderators? I am, indeed, impressed.

I think the idea is that Pandas "choose" to eat bamboo and Koalas "choose" to eat eucalyptus leaves and homosexuals "choose" to be sexually attracted to their own gender. This, of course, was met with derision by anyone with a fundamental preference either way, and we were off to the races.

Hmmm… Guess we’ll see… Posts 253, 254, 255… No PA, just a statement disavowing inclusion in the generality. If you were familiar with the reference, you would not be concerned.

You speak for yourself.