mr2mk1g

That's not what the US gun lobby would have people believe. Their favourite theory is that less guns mean more crime in general as criminals will be emboldened by the fewer people possessing firearms. The above statistics don’t bear out that popular theory. Gun ownership or lack there of in this country has far less to do with gun crime than do many other issues. A lot of other things have happened since 1997. The number of people shot on the streets can not be affected by changing the number of people who were formally permitted to keep a registered pistol locked in a gun cabinet in their home, separate from its ammunition.

Just hop on an escalator and hold your teeth against the brushes up either side. To prevent social embarrassment pretend to tie you shoes as you do so. Job’s a goodun’

even at 3 per pack, pound for pound these knickers still come out more expensive than gold

thing is though she shows less to her gyno... she might as well not wear anything and she's still gonna get laid having flashed that much skin. Gotta like the look of em though... even if they do look like they're gonna cut like cheese wire. Defo the must have beach wear/pool wear for 2005 ladies.

Yes she is... about $25 and $10 depending on the link... although I'm not altogether sure why one costs more - my german's not at all good.

OK... a) is there ANY point to wearing one of these? b) does this amount of material actually justify that price? http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74267&item=5350252293&tc=photo http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5334841357&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcJa_BIN_Stores&popuprebrand=false (belive it or not this auction came up while searching for car parts... least that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

I don't know about you guys... but I might not notice the odd dead cow and a couple of chickens amongst the 30,000 corpses and 100,000 wrecked houses in my one town. Moreover, reporting them dead would probably far from high on my list of priorities. Besides, who the hell would I report them too and why would they even care... and that's only if I’m around to report them and wasn't killed by the wave myself of course.

Well if they're simply a genuine whuffo helping them sell is a good thing. 1) you help out a simple joe shmo who would otherwise have a bad experiance of losing a lot of money trying to do a jump. 2) if the certificates go unredeemed skyride get $400 for a total outlay of about 25 cents (nice profit margin hey?). 3) if the certificates are redeemed skyride actually has to pay a DZ for the jumps. 4) the DZ might get direct return custom. 5) buying them 2nd hand from a wuffo puts no money in skyride's pocket but does take money out. the only negative I can see is that you further the cycle of accepting skyride certs at the DZ where it's redeemed. edited to add: a DZ could buy them and simply redeem them with skyride without actually putting anyone on the plane. Depending on what skyride pay back the DZ could make money on the $300 purchase price without actually having to do any work whatsoever.

hehe, once again, remember - so does the US... only the CIA removed the companies names from the list before you got to see it so you don't know exactly who was involved.

Contact the manufacturer - your best/most economical option may be to send it straight back to them for a new harness.

It all depends on which statistics you care to look at. I have repeatedly stated on here that you cannot point to a rise in UK crime figures to show a gun ban has no effect. Firstly there is simply no way to show causation. Further to that, cherry picking the one or two statistics that support your agenda and ignoring all the other numerous ones which do not is far from giving the “full facts”. If you want to provide the “full facts” you must give a whole load of statistics for the period you’re looking at and maybe people will be able to see the overall picture into which a rise in overall gun crime is set. Such as these: Since just before we banned handguns overall crime has fallen by 39%. Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime has fallen by 51% Since just before we banned handguns burglary has fallen by 43%. Since just before we banned handguns theft has fallen by 36%. Since just before we banned handguns overall violent crime has fallen by over 36%. Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has fallen from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago. All this is to be set against the backdrop of a major restructuring of the way in which police record violent crimes (NCRS). This change produced a 50% rise in recorded violent crime, whilst over the same period other unchanged reporting methods showed that there was in fact no rise in crimes actually being committed. This results in a distorted set of raw data from which some commentators may draw vastly incorrect conclusions. Where conclusions are drawn from such distorted data they either serve to exemplify the commentator’s ignorance of the subject or are indicative of a deliberate attempt to deceive. Now I’m not saying that the handgun ban was the cause of any of the above. The issue is far more complicated than that. What I want to achieve is merely highlighting the fact that stating overall gun crime has doubled is simply cherry picking the one statistic you like out of a whole gamut of those which do not support your theory. The overall picture is a little different. Once again; trends in statistics show little without evidence of causation. Those causes are far more complicated than one change and cannot be accounted for by a purely statistical analysis. Ultimately neither side of the argument is able to point to any one statistic without being confronted by a countermanding statistic disproving their theory. All of the above figures may be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004”, which is a Home Office study published in October 2004 drawing on figures from both police recorded crime and the British Crime Survey.

This is incorrect.

Authorised by Congress yes... but not "Constitutional" if force amounts to waging war (and most would agree a "war" has taken place). If a "war" has indeed occured and no "Declaration of War" has been issued there has been an unconstitutional act as per the US constitution. Now as I indicated above there may be an argument over "who" or "what body" perpetrated that act. Bush for going ordering the country to war without a declaration or Congress for authorising "force" but not issuing the declaration that would be required by the constitution to make it constitutional. Or both.

In an effort to whittle down the points of contention: 1) Do you both agree that the US Constitution requires a Declaration of War before US troops may be deployed? 2) Do you both agree that at some point (irrespective of its paper status) a defacto state of war existed between the US and Iraq? If above are agreed... then you have left to argue over: A) Whether or not "use force if necessary" [paraphrase] amounts to a "Declaration of War". B) Whose is at fault for the apparent omission of a Declaration of War if "use force" does not amount to such a declaration: The POTUS for going to war without a Declaration of War, or Congress for authorising the use of force without issuing a Declaration of War? Either act could be seen as damning IMO if the above is correct.

Not sure why there'd be no legal remedy... the radio station's waiver won't have any impact on a medical negligence claim against the doctor were something like that to happen. The fact that the woman involved won't have paid for anything herself has absolutely no impact on a negligence claim. Am I missing something odd about the US system? Still, I'm sure this isn't the first time an argument raised by "NOW" made absolutely no sense at all.

And who are looking to the UN to tell them how and where the money and aid needs to go. Except the Red Cross says this is beyond their means to deal with and that it needs to be handled by the UN.

when you say "roll out" did you lie on your belly and do a forward roll out so you ended up back to earth/relative wind... or did you try to roll out sideways somehow putting unequal force on one shoulder?

For comparison; in the UK more officers are killed by cars than guns too. Since the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act a grand total of 1 officer has been shot and killed on duty... that was by a visiting American in 2003.

At the end of the day I think you're fighting a symptom - not a cause. Insurance does not cause frivolous lawsuits - it is necessitated by them. An interesting if odd conversation - I shall now bow out as my office is departing for a Christmas meal curtsey of the partners. Merry crimble and all that.

This precisely what I'm talking about when I say you're working with a fundamentally flawed definition of negligence. Although I do now see where you're coming from - you think court awards are there to stop people doing negligent things.... that's simply not true. As far as negligence is concerned there is no difference between an "accident" and an "acute failure" as you term them. Clinical negligence is simply when there act (or omission to act) falls below the standard to be expected of a reasonable clinician performing that particular treatment. Damages are NOT to punish the negligent. They are to compensate the injured party. Insurance is not to protect again punishment - it is there to provide a pot into which the injured can dip. The mechanism by which you stop doctors committing "acute failures" as you put it is to make use of your doctor’s national governing body. In the case of the UK this is the GMC who strike doctors from their rolls or otherwise punish them. Civil courts on both sides of the pond are the same in that they DON'T punish people - they compensate. You've simply got totally the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what damages are there for. (note to all - the above definition of clin. neg. is a paraphrase of the UK definition - it may or may not be a terribly accurate representation of the US definition although I am lead to believe the two are not materially dissimilar).

You're working with a fundamentally flawed concept of what negligence is. Insurance is against negligence. Accidents can be negligent. Negligence is often an accident. Insurance doesn't protect the negligent against negligence - it protects the victim of the negligence from the consequences of the negligence.

That's simply not how medical negligence works. I think that's the basic misconception that forms the foundation for your argument.

exactly - and then sue the doctor when he's negligent. end result - no doctor will treat him.

That's basically what happens. The cost of the treatment goes up to cover the medical insurance. You've just got the name of the person taking the insurance out wrong. At present the doctor takes out the insurance and passes that costs onto the patient in his fees. How different is that in terms of the cost to the doctor or the patient to what you're suggesting here?

That's the point though - Doctors are not robots, they're human. To err is to be human. Humans make mistakes, ipso facto doctors make mistakes. No matter how careful a group of people are, someone somewhere will make a mistake. If that mistake ammounts to negligence and injury comes as a consequense of that mistake the doctor may be held financially liable. If the patient has insured against the doctors negligence the patient's insurance company will pay out and then simply then sue the doctor - that's how it works. The fact that the patient has insurance is no defense for the doctor against being sued by the insurance co. and when the patient takes out their insurance a term of the contrac they sign assigns their right to sue over to the insurance company. If the doctor has not taken out insurance against such a lawsuit then they're going to find themselves in possably millions of $$ of debt. Patient insurance will do nothing to adress that fact.