mr2mk1g

dude... after all those Q&A's you pick that one to take issue with!?

People often don’t feel able to criticize in the forceful way they perhaps ought, so they resort to humor. I suspect the message gets though nonetheless, sometimes at least. At the end of the day it is for those in charge to mandate canopy choice (if anyone). All peers can do is chastise and advise. Anything above chastising a friend can end the friendship or simply render all advise as useless for coming from a nay-sayer. Taking the piss can convey the same message without ruining the relationship or ostracizing the audience. People often take that choice, after all it is easier. I’ve had to tell a good friend I think he’s going to kill himself if he’s not careful. I told him straight out and explained that I had to so that I could look his mother in the eye at the funeral. He agreed and thanked me for my concern. He’s vary aware of his radical choice of canopy but has not upsized. I can’t make him. I continue to reinforce the message (and remind him to be careful) with light hearted piss taking. Maybe that’s what you experienced? Maybe it wasn’t. It’s difficult to tell what kind of joking it was without having been there. Edit to add - I think this kind of running joke only works to reinforce where there is already the kernal of knowledge that they're in over their head in the first place. It's not education.

Their request is bourn out of ignorance. Police have more powers than citizens - they can shoot to prevent escape. If their request were honored and the clock turned back their son would have been told to stop, turned to run then shot in an attempt to escape. As it is, if they had turned to run then shot by a citizen that could have been illegal as there was no longer any danger to life. (all above assuming certain circumstances of course).

Yes it's changing. Not 100% sure exactly what yet though personally. All I've know is that basically JM1 will be essentially all the briefs etc associated with the old IC1 system. CH1 should be obtained at the same time as your A license (I think) and includes basic canopy skills. CH2, IIRC, includes extra canopy skills replacing IC1 and above - ie it requires more skills to acquire than the purely accuracy requirements of IC1. Above those you have CP1 and 2, which are prerequisites to performing any kind of speed inducing maneuver prior to landing and entry to swoop competitions respectively. Why the changes? Cos people keep killing themselves under functioning mains. This new emphasis on canopy coaching and continued development is a welcome change.

I figure the poll results might well be quite accurate - the biggest danger to the future at the moment could just be the brewing conflict between Christians and Muslims.

By your neighbors logic I suppose we’re all off to hell. You’re off to hell because you don’t believe in his version of religion. He’s off to hell because he doesn’t believe in Abuh’s version of religion. Abuh’s off to hell because he doesn’t believe in Mohamed’s version of religion. Mohamed’s off to hell because he doesn’t believe in Wing Yip’s version of religion. Who cares? Say thank you, but you’ve got the wrong religion and walk away. You live your life by whatever creed you wish, even if it’s your very own special creed created just for you. Seeing as every religion in the world is in a minority and told by the rest that they’re going to hell for believing the “wrong” thing, you might as well go the whole hog and be in a minority of one. Who knows, maybe you’re the only one that’s right and all 6 billion of us are off to your version of hell for not following your religion. After all, your take on it is just as likely to be right as any one else’s guess at it isn’t it?

apparently so - just goes to show your cypres won't always save your ass.

That's something I thought of while writing that post, but omitted from the final version. (I ought to note that I omitted it as I have a good deal of sympathy for the “victims” of the eventual outcome). What is the ultimate sanction for hospitals who fail to adhere to the requirements of this bill, if passed? Simple; their license to practice ER medicine will be revoked. Since no one has the "right" to practice ER medicine, the Catholic Church does not consider itself mandated to do so, and the US constitution does not deem such activities worthy of protection, no one’s actually had anything trampled upon. As I said though, I have a good deal of sympathy for any institution who feels forced out of an activity after making what they consider to be a religious decision.

More mental exercise coming up. It's often helpful to take a case to the extreme to see if the overall principal is right or not. I’m gonna attempt that. There’s that church who believe any medical intervention is evil – don’t remember their name, but I’m sure you all know the group I’m referring to. Let’s pretend they open a hospital where all they do is sit round and prey for people. Good on them, they can do anything they like and exercise their religion as they see fit, just as it should be. All the patients are there because they choose to be after all. Say they now want to open up an ER dept. and take random trauma patients; people who aren’t necessarily the same religion but just happened to be inside the hospitals catchment when they were hit by a car. They'll do their standard treatment of kneeling round preying for them. Now of course they need to be licensed to open this ER dept. and the state medical legislature come round and inspect their facilities. No scalpels, just scripture. No ECG machines just knee cushions. “Sorry - you don't get a license” say the state board. “If you want one you have to practice your ER medicine like this [long list of requirements]”. Hospital says - "hey, that's forcing us to go against our religious principals". Medical board says, “ok - just tell your patients that there exists other hospitals where they don't just prey for you, they actually plug the holes too. You can also tell them that if they go there they will be damned to hell for committing such a sin”. Now how is that, in principal, any different to this present situation? Any way peeps, I'm off home. More mental exercise another week.

That is one mechanism. Another is that it prevents fertilization occuring at all. Check your facts. No it's not. Go look up the chemical used - Levonelle.

No - the contraceptive morning after pill can prevent fertilization itself. Your medical knowledge is flawed. Someone told the pope so he could issue his edicts in relation to contraception and abortion. Think that guy's off to hell? ah come on man. Don't be so simplistic or antagonistic. We're just having a conversation on the internet. I'm simply doing this to exercise my mind and share my beliefs with others. Sinkster and I had a pleasant and productive chat about this yesterday (about 4/5 pages back). I'm most certainly not going to change the progress of this Bill by anything I post here; if I thought I would I would not be posting. This is purely a mental exercise to me, I do not seek to achieve anything beyond mutual learning.

The morning after pill is legally a contraceptive, not an abortive. Now I know there are arguments about that, but for some people that may well be an important distinction. As above. No, taking the pill is against the religion as is providing the pill. The bill does not ask them to do that. The possession of knowledge is not against the religion. Nor is passing knowledge from one person to another. No, their core belief is don't take the pill, not don't know about the pill. The distinction is very important. Knowledge does not mean use. No, not their core beliefs. The Church does not believe that the passage of information is evil. Stupid people are those who the Church and hospitals seek to help the most, irrespective of who's fault their stupidity is. No it's not. The church does not believe that the passage of knowledge is evil. I don't want to make the liberals happy. I don't want anyone to do anything that is against their religion. I just don't believe the passage of knowledge from one person to another is mandated against in the Catholic doctorine.

Too bad, you just got beaten within an inch of your life and raped, you got taken to the closest hospital, they saved your life, but it's a Catholic hospital. You didn't have a choice, in fact you couldn't voice your opinion because you were choking on your own blood. Now you've come to you could go to another hospital but you don't know to make that choice as no one's told you there is such a thing as a contraceptive morning after pill. This bill does not do that. It wants everyone to tell vulnerable people that there is such a thing as the contraceptive morning after pill. It does not want to make them "encourage or do the procedure". The bill doesn't expect the church to say it's a good idea - in fact it wants exactly the opposite. The bill wanted Catholic hospitals to include information about how the morning after pill is abortion and thus against the Catholic cread - ie the bill wanted the church to say it's a bad idea. Probably a good deal more than the number who think it's not possible to get pregnant on the first go, or who think washing themselves out with coke works. Plenty of those around. Me? I'm not. I'm just having a conversation on the internet. The bill? It's asking ALL institutions to make sure they tell people about the existence of a medical treatment so that the patient themselves can use their own religion to decide what they're going to do.

Ron, that's not what this thread is about.

A drive by on a hybrid John Deere, on fire, with a pellet gun while trying to drill for sweet sweet candy-dead-guy-oil. Fridays are more fun at the SC.

Dare you to stick a straw in one and give it a suck

hate to break it to you man, but just because it's black guey and liquid doesn't mean it's oil.

How about you do a drive by shooting on your lawnmower?

Accepted. I was using the phrase as a colloquialism for the fact that it is a grave evil and all the associated potential ramifications.

sabre 1 or 2?

Hey, not everyone's as nice as you and I. There's a guy in my club who's busy buying up used gear in the states and having friends bring it over to the UK for him so he can sell it on here for about twice the purchase price. Because your economy's gone down the pan and our gear prices are extortionate at the best of times he's able to sell on easily even at a massive mark up. I have mixed feelings about what he's doing. On one hand he's making money off fellow skydivers by simply playing the markets. On the other hand he's essentially providing a service - going through the arse ache of finding good gear, putting it together, getting it into the country, taking the risk of buying unseen and then simply taking a cut for that work. Now that the people who brought his gear in for him know what he's up to they won't help him out anymore (they thought the gear was for personal use). I'm personally not comfortable selling to people stuff they can get half the price elsewhere - he is. We all have different morals.

His cypress coffin is going to be put inside a second, zinc coffin which will be hermetically sealed. These two coffins will then be put inside a third, oak coffin which will then be covered by a marble slab. I like the simplicity of each, but I doubt the total cost was less than the average whizz-bang one people get told they ought to buy.

Because they can. It's a sellers market on a lot of gear, especially in some parts of the world. An item is worth what people will pay for it, not what it costs. If people will pay a high price for it, it's worth a high price, simple as that. Then again, they may simply be charging too much... they'll learn at some point when no one's interested, then the price will fall back to realistic levels.

You can set fire to my lawnmower when you prise it out of my hot flaming hands.

I'm not one of those people, nor is the bill about which this thread was started. Under the above circumstances I would agree with you. The bill does not seek to do that. As I pointed out 4 pages ago, the bill would only require the hospital to tell the patient that there is such a thing as the morning after pill and that it may prevent pregnancy. As I pointed out, Catholics do not believe you go to hell for telling someone of the existence of the morning after pill; Catholics believe you go to hell for taking the morning after pill. The bill requires only the transmission of information. The transmission of information is not against the core beliefs of Catholicism (though no doubt some might well argue with that).