mr2mk1g

I didn't realise I was odd because I can separate my emotions and my thoughts. I'm sorry you don't feel that you can.

well unless we get into an argument about synaptic response and how the electrical signal is actually an ion exchange controlled by chemicals... Thinking is (essentially) electrical impulses (or at least we commonly think of them as electrical impulses). Dreaming is effectively you thinking... what causes dreaming I don't know... if that was your question. Emotions are by and large created by chemicals and hormones, perhaps released as a result of an "electrical" signal or "chemical" signal. (ps joke - Q: Hoe do you make a hormone?)

So you're telling me your body was not saying something like "oh my god I'm going to die" while your mind was saying (something to the effect of) "the statistical likely hood of death is low"... ? Do you at least get the message behind my analogy? That you emotions can be as a result of a environmental stimulie as opposed to being purely as the result of your thoughts. Do you at least get the point that your emotions might say one thing and that your mind might say another? Do you dissagree that it is far easier to control your thoughts than it is to control your emotions? What exactly are you arguing about?

Maybe more people in the world should take the university courses I've attended on differentiating between opinion evidence and a factual account.

For "I'm not going to get hurt" read "the statistical likelihood that I will experience a physical injury during this jump is far lower than my whufo brain had been let to believe – I should not be as scared as I feel – death is NOT a certainty just because I jump out of this plane”… but of course in the heat of the moment you express it slightly more concisely.

After your FJC you would have done your first jump. You know you're highly unlikely to die doing it but you're still scared. Your thought process is "I can do this, I'm not going to get hurt". You can control that, so you jump. Your emotions are screeming "SHIIIIITTTT I'M GONNA DIE". You can't control those... no matter how much you KNOW you are going to be ok, you still got the butterflys in your stomach. One set are chemical, the other set are electrical... (mostly). Emotions are not alwasy determined by your thoughts - more often, they are environmental.

no - it's essentially electrical NOT chemical.

Wasn't the consensus of opinion the last time this subject came up that these were a bunch of whack jobs hiding behind a story that Donald Rumsfeld himself was personally giving them their orders!? Get real - I said it last time and I'll repeat it here. If they'd said they were fed orders by a CIA spook I could believe them, but claimaing they were in direct contact with the SOS for Defence just highlights them as nutters.

Nope - set on my old analogue... will be interesting under canopy given they're accurate to +/- 3ft. But in essence it's just a toy and nothing more. There are GPS units also - just google suunto and I'm sure you'll hit a page with a run down on a lot of them. There are better ones out there than the Observer for jumping as they have a larger face. The observer though is stainless and looks good (the rest are plasticy) which for me was more important given that its just a toy. ps - it was $200 - ebay

And I'm told I have a drink problem... Sheesh.

I got a Suunto Observer arriving... maybe today.

It's got everything you love... guns, big guns, automatic post-ban guns, conceal carry pistols, terrorists, Bush, more guns, a bazooka... man this game was made for Speakers Corner... Just goes to show - you should never misunderestimate ol' Georgy... http://www.miniclip.com/bushshootout.htm (title edited for a laugh)

Raynox make this: http://www.digitaletc.com/go/item/2569 My opinion is that it's pap... certainly no good for skydiving without modding (which I've heard about and seen done).... but you can find them VERY cheap on e-bay. It doesn't have threads but has a clip on thing that bites into threads if you had them... might just work for you if there's a lip or something it could clip into. Go down to your local camera shop and feign interest so they'll let you take a look and handle one... then walk away ("till payday") and go buy one off the net secure in the knowledge it'll work for you.

Eugh… I’m saying that just because he did X and Y does not necessarily mean he was definitely motivated by the fact that he had WMD. There are OTHER possible reasons for his actions. Your argument is A possible reason, but not the ONLY possible reason for his actions. As such it cannot be proffered as absolute PROOF of your argument. This is the only flaw in your reasoning, and that is all I was saying. For example: Possibly, but not necessarily. That would be ONE possible reason. But it is also perfectly possible that he defied the UN to remain strong and in power at home because to bow to the UN would cause his people to topple him. Another possible reason for defying the UN was because he liked to play that game. Another possible reason was that he felt he was not going to be dictated to by anyone. These are all POSSIBLE reasons. You can't say that your reasoning points to anything because we are far from sure that your reasoning is correct - there are many others to chose from, all equally compelling if not more so.

Middle one... or the one on the right if you take the razor blade encrusted vibrator out of her ass... man she looks in pain. yup - I'd go with Caroline - Amy just doesn't appear to know how to smile properly. http://es.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/alejandrock2001/detail?.dir=45ed&.dnm=3438.jpg&.src=ph

a) who knew what was in his fany pack b) who knew what he was a diversion for c) I'm guessing that in reality it was an idle threat (probably true given that they eventually waited for a cherry picker before they got him down). The one thing we could worry about though - what if genuine terrorists start dressing up as super heros? No one would shoot them on sight as they would just figure it's a protest group - then BANG. (to take this back to a bonfire post - it's the terrorist dressed up as the invisible man you need to look out for ).

I took out the errant "S" before you posted

My new home DZ is a home to the regiment listed on the linked web page. The page lists the Roll of Honour of those lost by the regiment in Korea. http://members.tripod.com/~Glosters/korea.html The last weekend I was there I helped in a couple of young lads with their gear who had just arrived back from Iraq.

ah... "Katie, 23, Southend"... those three simple words warmed the cockles of a Nation.

Sorry - I was responding as much to all those who were talking about appeasement as to you. Yes I note the many subsurface things France did to try to prevent us going back into the Gulf. I don’t know if they did those things to protect their interest or because they thought the US way was the wrong way. I’m surprised some claim they do. I also don’t know if their deals in the region were motivated by greed or through a desire to provide a carat for compliance as opposed to the whip offered by the US. Again, I’m surprised some claim to do so. All I am saying is that there is more to the story than the “public” is fed by the mass media. I do not know the answers to the story – It’s unnerving that the media claim to be professing the answer.

I’m thinking of instance where European countries have tried for years to sort out an Arab country and failed. Take France for example in Algeria. They were there for nearly 200 years. They were not trying to make it into a colony or simply bring peace and democracy, or even just to root out terrorists – they were trying to make it a piece of France, every bit as French as Brittany or Normandy. They were offering the Arabs full french citezenship. And yet they were still not able to do it. Not through a lack of force or will – at the time France was amongst the most powerful nations in the world and threw it’s weight around like the US might only dream of doing today. It was something more fundamental, something discovered by every European country that tried to fight over Arab sands since the time of the crusades. Some people would point towards this experience and say that France doesn’t think it is possible to bring peace to Iraq by force or occupation. They’ve abandoned the tactics they held to for going on half a century and are now trying something new. People may disagree with France’s conclusion, but trying to work with these regimes as opposed to fighting them it is no less a bona-fide method of dealing with the problem than going in guns blazing. It might work – it might not, I certainly do not suppose to know. Some may even say that being based on nearly 200 years of direct experience that the US has not got and refuses to acknowledge it is probably even a better thought out idea. Some people are fond of saying on here “come back in 200-300 jumps and tell me that I’m wrong”. Perhaps some countries could level the same comment at the US? Maybe France might wish to say “come back in 200 years of bloodletting and tell me that we’re just appeasing them”. Appeasement? I certainly do not know. It troubles me that some think they do when they haven’t sought to look into the matter.

I pick on Chamberlain simply because his actions were THE ones which actually coined the phrase "policy of appeasement". Not my assessment of his actions - history's.

I think actually the US has a history of [I]supporting[/I] dictators for the furtherment of their own cause. Europe could be seen to be appeasing, (they certainly have a history of it) although another take on it could be that they’ve learnt from their vast colonial exp. and learnt from it. It could be said that they’re trying a new tac of working with these people to make change through incentives as they’ve already spend centuries trying the route the US is now marching down. If it didn’t work for them over the course of 200 years why should we expect to convince them that it’ll work for the US before the next election? As to where the UK stands I’m not certain. But for Mr. Chamberlin I certainly can’t think of any appeasement in our history… which I guess would put us in the supporter category (where I can think of examples) alongside with the US.

One thing I get really confused about. Why is it unacceptable to use the masculine form of the noun to describe either sex except when it comes to actors and actresses? In this case it appears the use of the therm “actress” is frouned upon and is being phased out to the point that some people hardly recognised and certainly never use the it. Why are female thespians happy to be referred to as “actors” when they are blatantly missing the requisit organ?

They did notice. He set off alarms the moment he touched the grass on the inside of the wall he scaled. Why no one noticed his ladder or came to shoot him before they did is another question. I figure his fanny pack is a reference to batman's "utility belt"... probably the closest thing available commercially barring geak websites. lucky he didn't get himself shot... in fact they told him they would if he didn't come down. edited to add: as an asside - his cause is very just.