mr2mk1g

News over here are reporting it as a "leaking gas heater" caused their deaths. This annoyed me as it makes it seem like it's the campsite's fault for having poor equipment leaking gas. It was carbon monoxide poisoning pure and simple through the fault of the dumbasses who lit the stoves. Sad... but a little education or just common sense on the part of any one of the 18 would have saved all their lives. If the news agencies reported it correctly at least some of the remaining dumbasses have the opportunity to learn from it.

Define "the problem". If "the problem" is overall crime rates - sure "those people" didn't have a great impact on it. If "the problem" was gun crime in general - sure "those people" didn't have a great impact on it. If "the problem" was that very specific type of crime with which the 1997 legislation was concerned... then yes - "those people" fell squarely into the class of person who had committed those crimes. A lot of people here insist on continually getting confused about what "problem" the 1997 legislation was concerned with. You've all had it explained several times now... persisting with the same error makes you look silly.

Plus property cost in CA are a fraction of the UK regardless of the $/£ rate... you can get a hell of a lot of house there for the cost of what would be a small flat in the UK.

Yes and no - we have "demo clearance" which is discussed above. The accuracy requirements are pretty much identical to the US PRO rating IIRC but there's no need to go into flags/smoke etc just to get the rating.

IMO they don't even have to be WMD's... plenty of our guys are dying from ordinary weapons that this $13 billion could have bought.

Ah - but how far can you throw a pie? Seen Bugsy Malone? Their Thompson machine guns definitely fired something more akin to meringue. You can always out run a pie, but can you out run meringue? Of course if you want the ultimate stopping power you go for crème brule. The creamy base makes it perfect for the meringue application as in BM, and the tough caramelled sugar topping is going to take down a purp like nothing else. For ballistic purity and ultimate range I’d have to plump for the humble Scotch Egg. While only normally available as a savory dish, you just know there’d be no outrunning a Scotch Egg where properly employed.

[dons flame retardant suit] I always preferred crumble to pie... discuss.

It's more akin to one third of injuries on a DZ being attributable to deliberate swoop attempts and the DZ banning swooping. You see that happening a lot these days. Or one third of deaths due to low pulls... pretty universal to see low pulls banned for everyone isn't it.

I understand your position, but you focus on a different area than I. The main worry I had about the UN oil for food issue is that it gave Sadam between 1.7 and 4.4 billion $ to buy and build weapons and pay his army. That money must directly equate to the volume of death an mutilation suffered by out troops. Now I hear there's a possability that a blind eye was turned to Sadam getting as much as 13.7 billion... well that doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I'm interested to see how this pans out.

That's not quite what's happened just yet... although I don't doubt it will happen if the thread continues given the level of feelings people have about him. Well I don't pretend to know for sure why Crozby said Bush was two faced, (although I suspect you may be right about it being indicative of his general views about Bush more than anything else), I can at least see why that could indeed be an apropriate term under these circumstances. If this article is correct, what is complained of started under Clinton and continued under Bush. Bush's administration then heavily criticised the UN for allowing funds to reach Sadam... while on the other hand his own administration allowed many more times that figure to reach Sadam though other routes. Sounds a little two faced to me... should this all turn out to be true of course... which is yet to be seen.

I never ever indicated that he did! Nor did anyone else here for that matter. One person indicated that they felt he was "two-faced" (amungst other terms... I can't exactly be held accountable for another's comments though). I already pointed out above why the "two-faced" comment may well be an relatively appropriate term should this article prove to be correct.

Sorry... refresh my memory... what did Sadam have to do with 9-11 ?

I certainly wouldn't criticize you for doing so... it is the only wise course of action in such circumstances. I would merely echo Frenchy’s comment at the start of this thread: If it turns out to be true... things could become interesting - regardless of which side of the argument one would like to place oneself.

I suspect he mentioned Bush because if this story turns out to be correct, Bush et al criticized the UN for allowing Sadam to get hold of 1.7 billion... while the US administration (both Clinton and continuing under Bush) allowed Sadam to get hold of far far more $$... if the story is true of course. He used the phrase "two faced"... if the story is true I would tend to agree that someone who criticizes another for doing what they themselves were doing, could be termed "two faced"... but that's just how I read his comments.

I agree - I don't think the election in Iraq ought to draw many comparisons to that in Vietnam... but the following conclusion just seems plain odd to me: um... what about our backing of Iraq during their war with Iran... would that not be seen as analogus to our being on the same side as Ho Chi Minh during WWII? Ah well... tis a small point in an article whos general conclusion I agree with... although he also seems to be suggesting that taking issue with the war equates to making excuses for the Baathism or jihadism... I would suggest the two are quite seperate.

Are you saying that US names were not removed from the report on the oil for food scandal? Try the link below. Othe nationalities were condemned by the US on the evidence in the report alone... why should you also not get to hear about what your on nationals are up to? Why the double standard? Who's on the original of that list? Is Kerry there? Is Bush? Are you supposed to be on it? I don't know - the CIA doctored it. What involvement did they have? Exact same involvement as the rest of the people on the list - if the rest of the list is worthy of criticism so are the US individuals... I simply don't get the double standard. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16201-2004Oct7.html

You don't know if they did or not remember... the CIA removed the names of US individuals and companies involved before it released the document that named those in the UN. US citezens were involved... your govt. simply wont tell you who they are. Besides - I thought the big worry about the money arising out of the UN project was that Sadam could have used it to buy weapons... now we see that he could have bought many times those weapons from the money he got from this source... why is this source not also bad?

yeah - that's how it was when I saw it - a skydiving harness...

It'll turn back into CO2 gas as soon as the pressure's removed. At least the Ruskies are making a show of it when certain other countries just pull out....

Dunno - I've not looked into the proposed legislation. Maybe all companies will be graded? Maybe there's an emissions threashold overwhich you have to pay?? Perhaps more likely it will target industries in the worst offending secotrs??? I'm simply guessing... try asking Nac? In practical terms though I'd figure the line's drawn between tonns and pounds... ie even at my most offensive I probably still don't kick out tonns of CO2 a year... I'm guessin many industries do. Regarding this all comming back to bite us in the arse... I wonder when we'll see our first compensation claim for damages because of the earth quake resulting from Earth's first "fart"?

If we go whole hog on taxing companies based on the amount of CO2 they produce for them... so long as the CO2 tax would cost more than sticking the stuff underground does then this idea could become a great tax cutting proceedure for companies. There's even the potential to make money at it if you're good enough (read if the tech and location allows you to get good enough).

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha seriously... that's a classic.... bwahahahahahahahahahahahhhaa Tell you what - I'll give you the Dollar it costs... you jump it... and let me know how it goes.

I agree and yet I can see points to disagree with you. If you aren't fully aware of how each control input effects your flight, including front and rear riser input, you are unlikely to be able to achieve the level of accuracy involved in getting your demo clearance. (note I say "unlikely" - not simply “wont") I know I made a lot of use of fronts, rears and toggles in getting cleared... the skills I learnt in the process of getting cleared translate very well to many methods of "speed inducing maneuvers” on landing. I feel there is a good crossover of many, if not all, of the skills between the two ratings. However as I indicated, I agree with you. Demo clearance probably ought not be a trigger for grandfathering people into CP1... there's a lot to “swooping” that isn’t necessarily learnt prior to getting demo clearance. Besides - if you're good enough for CP1 then just demonstrate those skills and get the rating... if you're not good enough then you don't deserve the rating - regardless of what stickers you already have. I suspect in practice a middle ground will happen, as is the way with these thigs. Demo cleared jumpers will still have to satisfy the CCI that they’re worthy of CP1 but will be given a degree of latitude in what they have to demonstrate before being awarded it.

I had a second hand 8 year old cypres delivered to me a year ago by UPS. Came from the states – direct form Airtec after having a service done on it. I paid about than $120 for it and had to pay about $160 to Airtec for its 8 year service and another $80 ish for batteries. All of these figures were clearly stated on the invoices attached to the front of the package. I then had to pay about £245 in taxes just to pick the item up from UPS. That’s when the arguments began. I pointed out the invoice for the item stating its value as $120 and asked them how they could possibly charge me £245 in taxes on something worth only $120? The woman I spoke to wanted to know why on earth I would be stupid enough to pay $240 to Airtec to service something only worth $120. I told them that was a) absolutely none of their concern and b) that BPA and CAA regulations require an AAD to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. Since Airtec states that a Cypres must be serviced at 4 year intervals and this item was 8 years old I had to have it serviced at the cost stated irrespective of the unit’s value. She had to stop and think. Then she stated that regardless of an items age and or value at the time of importation, the importer of an item on its first entry into the EU has to pay import duty on it as if it were brand new. I told here that the item had been made in the EU and as such it was merely being returned to its economic point of origin, thus no taxes were due. She wanted to know how I could possibly tell it was made in the EU to which I responded that they are only made in one place on earth – and that was Germany, a founding member of the EU. I then pointed out that attempting to charge me import duty on an item manufactured within another member state was contrary to Article 73b of the Maastricht Treaty and could I be put through to her supervisor please. She said she’d authorize my refund cheque that day. hehe, the above may or may not be strictly correct... but hell, I got my money back.

Yes