mr2mk1g

how stoopid does he thing people are? Direct contact with Rumsfeld... right! If he [I]was[/I] working for the govt. (a possible scenario) I have a little difficulty in believing he was getting operational orders direct from the secretary for defence. Now if he claimed he was being given orders by some CIA spook or a guy at the Pentagon… he’d have some credence… but not like this.

hehe - seconds... only seconds...

yeah - they knew the cause before it even crashed. It was simply the pump installed to transfer fuel from the temporary internal long-haul fuel tanks into the wing tanks. The crash had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the plane.

but… but… I said I wouldn’t tell which two posters I saw getting/giving head in the Perris car park…

I think we're using the same figures - the ones on national news this morning? Local news broke them down by county and those round Bristol ended up with a reduction in crime. Besides... BIG guns are fun

Sorry no, that was a general comment. I just hit reply on the last post. I usually remove the name. My bad.

Looks like someone's given up on them... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=310&item=3688898742&rd=1

This one's funny too... of course, it's just a funny pic that probably lasted all of a second while some lucky journo got a snap off having no real implications as to the man’s intelligence.... still funny mind. http://www.anvari.org/fun/Political/Bush_Binoculars.html

Overall crime's up 1% and crime in three counties round me is down 3% 4% and 5%. I'm alright. Perhaps it's time we kicked the Yardies out of our cites... or just took their guns away... Who knows?

I’m more surprised people are still arguing over this than that it’s even still something people care about. More [I]people[/I] voted for Gore… but the rules of the election require the incoming president to win more electoral collages (is that the correct term?)… Bush won more of those. What’s not to understand? The same thing happened in the UK twice in the last century – both times completely legally. If you don’t like it try to change the rules, but don’t claim the presidency was “stolen” – it was won fair and square according to the rules. Sure the rules may suck, but thems the rules - live by them. It’s like bitching that basketball team A won by shooting 10 x 3 point baskets when team B shot 25 x 1 point baskets. Sure team B got more baskets, but team A won according to the rules. If you don’t like those rules either don’t play, or petition to change them.

Do really you believe that certain tendencies are not more commonly found in one sex over the other or over society in general? I think you find yourself in something of a minority (certainly from a scientific point of view) if you believe that both sexes exhibit equal tendencies… If such differences in general terms do exist, why is it wrong to discuss them? (sorry all to wreck a "joke" thread with a serious discussion)

Would you prefer it if the poll was re-titled “pet peeves I have about certain tendencies which are more commonly exhibited by a specific sex over either the other sex or society in general” ?

I think the force must go straight down the MLW. Think about it - the canopy connects straight to the MLW via the 3-ring-circus. Your weight connects straight to the MLW via the leg strap articulation points (or simply where they are sewn on). This buckle is in the middle. The MLW must take virtually all of your weight, the container is simply there to hold the canopies.

Ok, scratch the fanny fart thing… I have a worse peeve: [rant] Treating sex as if it’s some kind of reward for my doing something nice. It’s not supposed to be a commodity to be traded, if you think it is then get out of my life. I’m not going to do something nice for you [I]because[/I] I want to get laid; I’m going to do it simply because I want to do something nice for you. If you want to screw me then screw me, but don’t require payment in kind as if you’re putting yourself out for me. If you feel you are putting yourself out for me, then get out of my life - that's not the sort of partner I want to be arround. If you don’t want to screw me simply for the pleasure of it, then again - get out of my life. [/rant]

1) Fanny farts. They're just not as endearing as they would like to think. (edited for clarity - in the UK the fanny is not the 'ass'). 2) Whining about the fact that I have ex-girlfriends... a) WTF has it got to do with the relationship I'm in now? b) like as if I have a problem with the fact you have ex-boyfriends?

Is "Man - Just naked please" for men to vote on or for women to say how they want their men?

I once caught two regular DZ.com posters getting/giving head in the Perris car park. Not tellin who mind. They knew they'd been spotted by me as I walked back to the IHOP, but I doubt the figured I realised what was going on in the twilight.

I loads would go for as little as $30 - $35. Like everything on e-bay... there's the standard price and there's the price you pay if you hang round a month waiting for one to go out cheap. I waited and paid $30 inc shipping. It arrived with a $80 price sticker on it.

Do you think a goldmember would work for your requirements then?

I know what you're saying, but my comments were simply based on what common tort law would do with the situation. I was just surmising what would have happened if this had ended up in a court room as people had already made the "product fit for purpose" analogy. FAA rules are not law. The court will recognise them as the regulations under which the sport must be conducted but they are not laws under which people can be sued. The fact that there is an FAA rule mandating that colour must be visible in the window is a compelling argument for saying ONLY that is reasonable when packing. BUT the fact that this is often ignored is also a compelling argument for saying that only just in the window (or even perhaps only just outside of the window) is packing with [I]reasonable[/I] skill. If you see a post above there was in fact colour visible in the window… but only just. Remember the law will rarely impose perfection on people – it recognises that people are not perfect. The law usually only imposes “reasonable care under the circumstances”. The fact that parachuting is potentially fatal and that there exists FAA rules to govern this question are circumstances to take into account in deciding what is "reasonable" but a packer is still only required by the law to exercise reasonable not perfect skill.

Front mount the video (sorry - couldn't resist). I'd re-drill the L bracket so it sits lower as opposed to re-drilling the helmet. A replacement L bracket is much cheaper than a replacement helmet!

There are a couple of product purchase analogies in this thread that aren’t quite correct. Paying a packer isn’t quite the same as paying for a product where the product must be fit for the purpose etc. Rather you are paying for a service. With a service the rules are a little different, as it simply has to be executed with “reasonable” skill. Now what is considered “reasonable” skill for a packer may be quite a high hurdle (risk of death and all), but that’s not to say it has to be perfect… just done with reasonable care. IMO, where the pilot chute is cocked and the window is only just showing blank, (as here), that’s a pack job executed with reasonable skill. He got what he paid for, and the packer carried out his job with the level of care required of him by ordinary tort law. Now if the pilot chute was not cocked…. perhaps there may be an argument that the packer had not exercised reasonable care…. but that’s not the case here. I can’t see an issue – he should have paid up. (Comments based on general legal principals and not the relevant local jurisdiction)

I had a sabre 190 and never had a hard opening on it.... sorry. I now have an EXE (sabre copy) which slams me to the chiropracter and back again. No conventional solution worked and it already has pockets on the slider. I take the whole nose and role it all tightly one way. I role the tail very tightly round the whole pack job. This has solved the hard openings completely. So much so actually that I have tamed down how hard I roll the nose as I actually feel myself speed up again after the pilot chute colapses! (so I figure I've slowed my opening down too much... I tell you, my hands went for the handles the first time that happened!). I've not found this causes any form of off heading opening, but I would be hesitant to try it with anything twitchy. And don't do this without oking it with an exp packer, rigger or instructor. It works for me but that could be luck.

It says: I take that as a strongly racist comment and there are many others dotted throughout the text. It is true that in the beginning the author draws a distinction between terrorists and Muslims, but later the author either purposely or accidentally blurs that distinction. I accept that there is a possibility that the author is simply racist and does not seek to promote that opinion but does so accidentally. There is also the possibility that the author is attempting to discreetly sell that concept to the reader. Either way, my [I]subjective[/I] take on it is that there is racist hatred of Muslims (not just terrorist Muslims, but [I]all[/I] Muslims) bound up in that text.

I don’t think the footnotes aren’t original. The body of the text goes to great lengths to distance itself from a domestic political standpoint. The original author knew that if it took a side on the domestic agenda, it would lose half its audience. It therefore simply said it would support whichever president was in office on an international matter. That’s a popular position, one which wont lose many readers. Then the footnote blows all that away by saying “PS, vote Bush”. Doesn’t add up. Plus there are a couple of clues that the footnotes are added as the letter is passed around, eg: “(The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)” That sounds like a note added by a previous reader to me. It looks like a very well crafted letter that someone has gone to great efforts to make look like a genuine letter. They have kept it just toned down enough for it to be [I]just[/I] plausible. Later additions to it though have undermined the original authors work. I think it’s very racist. I do not see our current terrorist predicament to be a racist thing. Sure, the terrorists are Muslim, but they do not want to destroy the west [I]because[/I] they are Muslim. Likewise we do not need to combat them [I]because[/I] they are Muslim. We need to combat them because they are terrorists. They attack the west because they are terrorists. Saying we should wage war on Muslims is like saying we should wage war on people with 10 toes. And it’s racist.