mr2mk1g

Religion maybe... Islam on its own? Nah. Sorry - your statement is ridiculously off target. There have been plenty of wars and vast amounts of violence nothing to do with Islam.

It's that attitude that would get you snubbed.

How about this for a con. - you spent so much on your AAD you can't afford canopy control training. THAT is far more likely to kill you than not having an AAD. The best situation would be both an AAD AND canopy schooling. If you can only afford one, you might get mixed advice on which will keep you safer.

According to Christians... but the hobo isn't a Christian. The argument does not follow. Trouble is that's not the rules of the country in which you live. You have a constitutional separation of the church and the state. You can't simply say - it's illegal to commit suicide because it's an affront to God - that's against the law of the country in which you live. The constitution guarantees individuals won't be told what religious beliefs they must follow. Either amend the constitution to allow your leader to force his God onto everyone or accept that you're not allowed to do so.

Thought you might... problem is... this hobo doesn't belive he exists. Who are you to tell him he does and that he must abide by his laws when as far as the hobo is concerned - those laws are a figment of your imagination. How many rules of other religions have you broken? Are you to be bound by the rules of a religion to which you don't subscribe? Should you be held in eternal damnation because you don't face East to pray?

Guess it depends on the subject whether some people want a nanny state or not.

Take family out of the picture. They're a hobo or an orphan and have no friends. Who else are they living through it for?

That's kinda the point.... what if she hadn't? How would you have coped with that?

what d'you think propels the blade through the loop?

hehe - and avoid flipping him the bird back - it might make you go unstable...

They're called Nimby's.

The legal issue in the UK has been avoided by the courts and requires legislation on the matter. Problem is that there’s no clear consensus on which way direction things ought to take. I suspect that we’re close to having a form of euthanasia legalised but there’s much concern as to how in the hell it’s supposed to be regulated or protected from abuse. The situation at the moment is that it is illegal to actively do something that will lead to someone’s death (obviously) but that people aren’t generally under a legal duty to actually do something to prevent someone’s death. Thus if you have someone in a vegetative state, you are not allowed to inject them with something that will kill them (that’s murder) but you are allowed to simply stop feeding them or otherwise withdraw care (ventilator whatever). As you have no duty to feed them etc, you’re not breaking any rules by simply not doing so. The patient still dies and no laws are broken. The situation becomes more difficult where the patient is self aware, as it can be terribly traumatic for them to go through the physical difficulties that may be associated with the withdrawal of care. That’s not exactly what the concept of euthanasia is about now is it. Then you have grey areas around what amounts to care given to relieve pain but with the side effect of possibly shortening lifespan – such as massive amounts of morphine. It kinda depends on how the court thinks you were intending to act. Intention to relieve pain – not liable / intention to kill – murder… yet the act is identical. It’s a difficult situation to deal with on the legal side and a difficult situation to be in on the medical side. I’m sure it’s an even more difficult situation for those involved personally. Hence the need for legislation – but as I indicated goodness knows how you can legislate on such a grey area. Legislation is great for creating fixed boundaries… it’s not so good at creating flexible rules that work with the situation for an outcome that’s just. The courts are much better at that, but they still need that framework… We’ve had a number of instances where individuals have come to trial and essentially admitted euthanasia. In these instances we’ve had quite a few perverse judgements (but not all). This is where the jury is directed that in strict legal terms the defendant has committed murder… but they come back and deliver a not guilty verdict. They’re not saying that the accused didn’t do it – simply that in the opinion of the jury, their actions don’t warrant punishment. There are no easy answers to the legalites of it I'm affraid. As far as the morals are concerned... I guess I don't really have time to comment.

Orrin? Monar? Mullardoch? Affric?

News just in – Daisy-Cutter Dropped on Virginia. Dropped accidentally near a previously unheard of range, this massive bunker buster caused no casualties officials claimed. Reports indicate only a charred parachute was found.

It's always legal. Just we can't normally be arsed.

Janitor was probably Kerry - he's gotta be looking for work now right? GWB was just trying making sure there could be no challenges to the election no matter what irregularities turn up.

Useless trivia hat on.... One of the UK's most popular DZ's is one of the UK's biggest fireworks stores. Old WWII Hurricane base see (clue) and they're stored in one of the old concrete semi underground bunkers. I expect it's near empty this time of year though.

They gonna expel the pilot for breaking the zero tolerance policy on bullets on school grounds?

You spend up to $5000 on gear, at least a week on basic training, $1000 on that training, 20 minutes packing and 5 minutes gearing up and checking our gear. You then spend time visualising and practicing emergency procedures you're only likely to use once every few hundred jumps. You wear two parachutes in case one fails - each with 70 years worth of D&T in them - in a state of the art rig designed with safety at the foremost. You have a computer in your rig that electronically measures your rate of descent and altitude and triggers an explosive charge to activate your parachute in case of emergency. You might wear up to 3 different altitude-measuring devices - one visual and two audible just in case one fails. You'd wear more if you could make em fit. You deploy your main parachute 3000ft before necessary just in case it fails - even though this is unlikely. You do all this at a place where your safety is cared for by professionals with years of experiance. Everything you do in the sport is regulated by both governmental and non-governmental bodies and you have to be licensed before you can do it. And they think you're suicidal????

Look at it logically people. The shoreline is very narrow. Thus it's unlikely to be tidal. There are trees and grass very close to the shore - so it's freshwater you're looking at. Therefore rule out any firths, islands and estuaries. You're looking inland. It's too big to be a river (in Scotland at least) and far too clear to be an estuary. Given the clarity of the water it's likely to be a lake or loch (but not one linked directly to the sea). That's as much help as I can be. Could be any-fecking-where in Scotland...

ahhh - I seemed to remember something of the sort... but they kinda stop teaching this stuff after about primary school age. Fucker! - let's create effigies of him each year and burn them! That oughta show him.

Yeah, he was a professional soldier – a mercenary in the Catholic Spanish Army fighting Protestants in the Netherlands. He was a religious zealot who travelled abroad to fight against people because they were of another religion (or hell – another version of the same religion). That’s linked to his reasons for trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament with the King in them. The Pope had excommunicated the King and thus placed a mandate on all Catholics to remove him from the mortal coil. At least that was what he told the King immediately after his capture. As to whether or not he could have escaped the blast of 2500kg of gunpowder I have no idea. It would have been a biggy… although no doubt he had intended to make off unharmed. By the way, we’re not celebrating Fawkes’s death – more the thwarting of a major terrorist attack designed to take out the seat of our government and legislature. I’m sure 9/11 would be a national holiday in the states if we had managed to land all the planes safely and capture the terrorists. The attempt was thwarted on the 5th of November – thus we celebrate that day. Fawkes wasn’t executed until the 31st January the following year… if we were celebrating his death surely we would have a January holiday? How did Fawkes escape punishment by the way? Didn’t we hang draw and quarter him? That’s gotta be a bit of a pain no matter what you do about it.

well it is a friday after all.

I just posted this in the thread started up about a terrorist attack on the houses of parliament (400 years ago - "bonfire night"). Thought it was equally relevant here.

"Bonfire Night" is reference to the capture of a Catholic suicide bomber from 400 years ago. He was carrying out the mandate of the Pope who had excommunicated the King thus ensuring reverence for whoever killed him... hmmm... does that not sound a little like a Fatwa urging Jehad?