winsor

Did you hear me ask for an explanation? Did I say anything that implied that you had the presence of mind to ask? What makes you think that your guess is any better here than anywhere else? You have batted zero so far - whether by design or default I can only imagine. Someone once said this to me: "There's a big difference between what you know and what you believe; belief is independent of reality.." There's a big difference between belief and assumption. It appears that such nuance is beyond you, though your intent may be to come off as obtuse. You wouldn't be the first person to affect the persona of a dullard for personal amusement, so I may as well give you the benefit of the doubt. Blue skies, Winsor

It's not that simple. If it was a basic material balance problem, you wouldn't be braced for the results. It isn't so much how much you eat as it is what you eat. Some foods trigger the fat-storage mechanism in your body and some don't. If your diet is heavy on the "get fat" items, you can work out until the cows come home and you will be both athletic and overweight. Think sumo. Blue skies, Winsor

Yeah........I'm sure there is nothing to all those statements about "Foreign Fighters" in Iraq. Figment of everyone's imagination I'm sure. To put things in perspective, there is a much stronger link between Al Qaeda and training facilities in the US of A. I don't see any movement to attack Florida.

Let me get this straight - you're getting rief from a STUDENT? Jesus. That would be Skyserf and Medieval. Someone given to vertigo would be well advised to take up another hobby. Vertigo (as distinct from acrophobia) is serious, and anathema to skydiving = CYPRES or no. There are rather a few people whose online persona differs from that in person. I have yet to give it enough thought to have an opinion. I have only heard the term "smackdown" in conjunction with professional wrestling. This being a definitively phony endeavor requiring the active participation of all involved, it seems an odd choice of verbiage. Someone actually contemplating violence is a fool to telegraph that fact in advance. Since "fair fight" is an oxymoron, a sucker punch has a lot to be said for it. In addition, a Smith & Wesson beats four aces and all that, so advance warning is ill advised. Making threats tends to be illegal if the threats are specific, it is generally counterproductive to any purpose, and may well be indicative of stupidity or a weak grasp on reality. I certainly don't want to be on a load with anyone given to such behavior. Thus, I am lost with the part that involves bluster and implied violence. This may or may not be significant, as one's schedule may be the result of other factors than those imagined. Again, it doesn't follow. Laying low is easier and cheaper, and it sounds coincidental. If this is what is involved in instructing students, better you than me. Blue skies, Winsor

Prevention is the best cure. If you jump a pullout, you do not have a mechanism for either pilot chute in tow or horseshoe malfunctions. Either one of them is bad juju. If you have initiated deployment at all, cut it away. Keep pulling handles 'til your goggles fill with blood. Blue skies, Winsor

One of the advantages of an appropriate shotgun is that it is range-limited. With target loads (1 1/8 oz. of 7 1/2 shot in a 12 gauge), someone standing 350 yds away is perfectly safe - the shot won't go that far. Another advantage of a scattergun is its tendency to disperse after contact with a solid object. Contrary to popular myth, a shotgun is a point (as opposed to area) weapon at across-the-room ranges. Even with a cylinder bore (no choke), you are going to have a pattern not much bigger than the barrel itself. Since a 12 gauge target load has about twice the muzzle energy as the vaunted .44 Remington Magnum out of an 8 3/8" Model 29 Smith & Wesson, it is marvelously effective in social situations. Once the aforementioned load hits even one layer of drywall/plasterboard, it disperses such that you no longer have a bolus of lead moving at 1,250 fps, but individual pellets at greatly reduced velocity. If someone is any distance from the wall, you may put their eye out but you won't kill them. Buckshot is a bad idea. It can kill someone in the next room after penetrating a wall. As an aside, the peak pressures in a shotgun tend to hover around 10,000 psi, and most of the energy is expended in the first 5" of travel. In a Magnum pistol cartridge, the pressures are on the order of 40,000 psi and the pressures are near-peak when the bullet exits the muzzle. Though you may have more powder in a shotgun shell than a pistol cartridge (I put significantly more powder in my normal .44 Mag. loads than my 12 gauge loads) the muzzle blast is not as fierce. If you have ever fired a full-patch cartridge in a closed space without ear protection, you will appreciate the difference. One last advantage of a shotgun over a pistol is that it's tougher to wave around. Your average civilian holding a pistol will have it pointed all over the place, and even a 20" barrelled pistol-gripped Model 870 Remington or equivalent is easier to keep pointed in an intentional direction. In any event, training and practice are key to safely and effectively using any firearm. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, since when you need it you need it badly. Blue skies, Winsor

I haven't read Atkins' work, but synopses of his regimen indicate some oversights in his approach. The key is not so much carbohydrates per se as it is glycemic index and the tendency to reactive hypoglycemia. Complex and bound carbohydrates are just fine, while high fructose corn syrup is the absolute worst. An excess of simple carbohydrates is conducive to a high bad-to-good cholesterol ratio as well as type II diabetes. A balanced diet that stays away from things that cause blood sugar spikes allows one to eat a hell of a lot more without packing on the pounds. It is also sustainable, whereas Atkins is not. Exercise alone cannot outweigh the effect of the insulin spikes that result from consumption of high glycemic index foods. You just get well-toned fat. Actually, real slow-cooked oatmeal is fine for staying slim, as are whole apples. Most candy bars, however, are bad news. When I was living on pretzels and Coca Cola Classic as an airline pilot, I put on 15 pounds that exercise wouldn't get rid of. I now try to eat zero white sugar, high fructose corn syrup or white flour, and my weight and clothes measurements are the same as they were 30 years ago. Since I have like 10 jump suits, it's easier to stay slim than to come up with gear that will keep my fall rate under control. I'm also used to having a 42" chest and 30" waist, and don't consider being fat an option. Blue skies, Winsor

It's a term commonly used in conjunction with recreational drug use, usually associated with the onset of psychoactive effects. A jolt of adrenaline is similar to many popular stimulants. Morphine is characterized by a "pins and needles" rush, cocaine like having a 747 take off behind you, methamphetamine by a surge of energy and so forth. Some popular drugs are not known for any particular rush. At least according to what I've read.

While I'm sure some would consider this dry humor If you think I'm kidding, you're wrong. I'm serious as a heart attack. Precisely the kind of limited conceptual capacity to which I referred. If I have to explain, you couldn't comprehend. As a Native American I could say the same thing all day but I do believe it is "we the people" that makes this country a great nation. I thought EVERYBODY knew the joke to which that punch line refers. Oh well.

Again, I believe there should be a seperation of church and state. However, the founding fathers and the basis for which the system we currently live by is based on a trust in God( For reference see the backside of US paper currency and the front side of coins). To think it can be easily removed or eliminated from our form of government would require everything we currently know and live by to be scrapped. Not quite, it just requires looking at a few things in a different light. There's a big difference between what you know and what you believe; belief is independent of reality, but involves emotional investment on the part of the believer. Belief is by its very nature a disease of denial. If we stick with reality in official matters. we will be better off. "In God we trust?" What you mean "we," paleface? Blue skies, Winsor

As I stated, any God, that you choose to worship. I didn't see anywhere in the article where it specifically said only a christian God. I think it is safe to say that when God is referenced in that article that he is probably speaking to those of the christian faith as well as all the other faiths we have in the USA and on the planet. Since everyone that believes in something works on the assumption that they know The Truth (tm), they tend to treat people who think differently as misguided and show "tolerance." It rarely occurs to them that this attempt at tolerance comes across as small-minded and patronizing. Fairy tales have a long tradition in human society, and occupy a key role in our culture. Fantastic creatures such as dragons, gods, leprechauns, elves and so forth come alive in the telling, and many people lose track of the fact that these beings are but figaments of the imagination. Much though I think belief is an occasionally useful substitute for rational thought, I think it is a wretched basis for a system of government. If I want to indulge in fairy tales, I can go to Disney Land or church or something. By the same token that I don't look to the Seven Dwarves for leadership, I can do without governmental authority being used to inflict fantasies upon me. If you want to talk about Zeus and Odin, keep it independent of US Government activities. It's a different chain of command. Blue skies, Winsor

When I went to the American Imperialist War Crimes Museum in Saigon (aka Ho Chi Minh City) they had a big display on the Song My/My Lai 4 massacre. The gist of the presentation was that innocent people were killed, who were, BTW, to a very large extent "Heroes of the Revolution" - Viet Cong. Were women, children and the elderly killed? Yes. Were most of these women, children and elderly active participants in the preparation and implementation of booby traps/mechanical ambushes, and pivotal infrastructure to the insurgency in the area? Yes again. Were the actions of the Americal troops justified? Not by any standard other than removing a real and present threat to their continued survival. All in all it was a propaganda coup for the opposition. The seeds of the conflict go back many, many centuries. General Vo Nguyen Giap used the same playbook that defeated Kubla Khan's forces when they tried to subjugate the same real estate some time back. Our idea of "History" doesn't go back much further than 1776, and we appear to think that our country was created from a vacuum. Thus, we tend to try to put the puzzle together with only a small subset of the pieces, and the resulting picture is just plain wrong. In "Blazing Saddles" The Kid hung up his guns after he reflexively drew on a six year old - and the little bastard shot him. In Vietnam it wasn't a joke but an ongoing reality. For Kerry or anyone else to take such a simplistic approach to the Southeast Asian fiasco is absurd. If you want a simple take on the subject with any merit, it was Truman renegeing on the agreement that had been struck between Ho and FDR's people that set the wheels in motion for the disaster that resulted. Had Lee Harvey Oswald been unsuccessful in 1963, JFK would have pulled out in 1964 after the elections. For either party to bitch about the other getting the country mired in pointless overseas adventures is absurd. They are both guilty as charged, and should pick other issues to define themselves. If people caught on to the fact that war IS an atrocity by its very nature, rhetoric to the contrary would get short shrift. Blue skies, Winsor

I, too, am ADHD/Aspergers, and am very easily bored (to say the least). The only programs I was able to tolerate were those that let me go at my own speed and/or came so thick and fast that I didn't have the chance to drift off. As far as online college goes, it's not all one way or another. I have seen people with "online degrees" that were wallpaper. University of Phoenix, OTOH, seems to be intent upon offering real degrees. If the University of Phoenix is accredited (IIRC it is), I say go for it. If I'm hiring someone, the fact that they scratched and clawed their way to degree requirements goes a long way to granting them an interview. Go for it, and don't get discouraged. I didn't complete my Master's until I was 42. Blue skies, Winsor

shoot, kill, and after that put a gun in his hand. Then you don't want me on the jury. You are within your rights to shoot someone who makes a move that may be construed as going for a weapon. If you tamper with evidence, your rights go out the window. Blue skies, Winsor

A) Unless you're using a Garand, Mannlicher or something similar, odds are you have a box magazine and not a clip. B) You should be able to stop them with three rounds or less. With a 12 gauge to the center of mass, one will usually do the trick. C) If it turns out that they have one or more friends that either take umbrage at their demise, or perhaps have to get past you in order to depart, you may not want to find yourself with an empty firearm. Blue skies, Winsor

As Bat Masterson said, "take your time, and don't miss."

Are you going to give them the opportunity to demonstrate armament if it is not immediately apparent? It has been my experience that you are better off assuming that they have deadly force available and to deny them the opportunity to use it. If a cop is going for ID, he will usually move slowly, saying "badge, badge...." while extracting it with fingertips. If someone starts grabbing for a pocket after being advised that they are facing deadly force, shoot to stop immediately. Blue skies, Winsor

The procedure is to hit the lights and yell "FREEZE!" or some other one-syllable instruction. "HALT!" is just as good. If they turn into a statue, fine. If they turn around and run like hell, with their hands visible at all times, fine. If they do much of anything but freeze or flee, stop them. An effecitve combination that's likely to remove them as a threat is two shots to the top of the sternum and one between the eyes. In general, a warm 35 caliber (.38 +P, 9x19 JHP, .357, etc.) is a recommended minimum as a social piece; a short 12 to 20 gauge will do in a pinch. Make no followup shots (NO coup de gras). Do NOT put a knife in their hand. Do NOT rearrange the body to suit a better story. Do call 911 immediately, and indicate that the homeowner is the armed survivor. Do call a lawyer immediately. Some municipalities will give you a medal for taking out the trash, but some elements will be ripshit that you interfered with someone's line of work and thus represent a threat to people plying similar trades. Thieves and Villain's Local 406 might file some sort of grievance, and you might be up against the Union. Oh, and if they do comply with the order to freeze, instruct them to lie face down with their hands stretched out. Stay out of reach and call the cops while keeping them covered. If they move, shoot them repeatedly and go back to "you just shot someone" mode. Cause of death - suicide. Blue skies, Winsor

Looks like a CRW dog to me.

"Do you smoke after sex?" "I dunno, I never looked."

A group of infantry who'd been out in the boonies for a couple of weeks came upon a ville, where they managed to stock up on such things as fresh eggs and marijuana. After a hearty breakfast, they got silly and started a food fight. It got a little out of hand, and one guy was treated by the medic after being hit with an egg with his eyes open. A couple of weeks later, back at base, he received a Purple Heart on the basis of the medic's writeup. The treatment for "shell fragment in eye" was apparently enough to generate the medal. What the hell, the chicken WAS Vietnamese, and who knows what were its political leanings? Blue skies, Winsor

And FTS before that. I have an FTS 7-cell and an APS 9-cell.

Valerie, Your comments are generally true for someone who is in a moderately stable environment, with demographics suitable for finding someone appropriate and available. The dictum "to thine own self be true" tends to be a good policy. Unfortunately, many women (quite rightly) have criteria that may be impossible for some guys to meet. I have been told "I want a guy who is going to be around," and that ruled me out. I have had work assignments in many exotic places, and have yet to come across a career option that would allow me to stay in one place. Another issue is that there are so few women who are worthy of interest. I've been told that the key is to lower one's standards, but that's hard if you know how good it can be. Mediocrity is not an option. On a cynical note, the guys that women bitch about are generally what they really expect guys to be. For example, someone married to a nine-to-five Joe-six-pack couch-potato once-a-weeker that fits a standard condom and lives an entirely predictable, boring existence would typically be put off by an ovesexed overachiever who doesn't watch teevee. Not always, of course, but all too often. In any event, there is a significant difference between men and women regarding love/sex and whatnot (I'm not likely to get pregnant any time soon, for one thing). If you look at the difference between "romance novels" and "men's magazines" you can get some idea of how different are the fantasies upon which each gender thrives. There really is no male analog to the concept of "don't touch me there! I don't touch myself there!" Blue skies, Winsor

I would replace prejudices with preferences. I prefer to avoid: =>Democrats/Communists/avowed Liberals. =>True Believers or anyone obsessively dedicated to a cause. =>New Jersey natives. =>Lawyers. =>Therapists or anyone who patronizes a therapist (if you think you're crazy - you're right). =>Low libido types. Contrary to the contention that "there are no frigid women - just lousy lovers," there are women who have such a long goddamned fuse that it isn't worth the trouble. =>Dullards - brilliant women are MUCH better in bed. =>Timid types - if it takes a lot of cajoling to do something that's zero fuss in their absence, they are soon absent. =>Princesses - no matter how good looking they are, the high-maintenance attitude wears thin fast. These are not hard and fast rules, since I've broken every one of them at one time or another. Any time I have thought "I'm going to regret this," I've been right. Blue skies, Winsor

1) I don't drink, so you can keep the beer. 2) People who look better clothed should keep clothes on. Women who look better naked are welcome to be naked in my presence.