mr2mk1g

I thought it was piss funny and I only know what little of the history I've been able to pick up on today. Remember there's a difference between laughing at and laughing with...

Think how much buying a copy of all that technology, design and research would cost if they were made in the states and then subjected to the same rigorous inspection process at every stage. You can't just skip the inspection bit just because the govt. makes you pay your workers more... and without the R&D bit you end up jumping an old round in a chest mount sold off by the army because it's obsolete.

EXACTLY This is one of the things I have been saying all along - since a thread on this subject a couple of weeks ago. The real argument about WP resolves around technicalities involving whether or not the chemical injuries which WP can cause when fired at people really matter in the grand scheme of things. The argument is not that all weapons are made up of a series of chemicals thus its silly to say WP is a chemical weapon simply because it is also made of chemicals as you rhetorically argued in your first post here. It is not even about whether or not WP can cause chemically induced injuries on the people you fire it at – it can; you yourself post the studies that proves that and it's very simple science that WP readily turns into phosphoric acid which will irreprably damage the lungs if inhaled. Remember the treaties to which the US and Britain are subscribed don't require that a chemical kill for it to be a chemical weapon – just cause harm. Phosphoric acid can do both. The argument is simply around whether in the scale of things that actually matters. The risk is there – it's just whether or not that risk is great enough to cause these weapons to be classified as a chemical weapon or not when taken in conjunction with its primary use (when fired at troops) as an incendiary weapon.

The Times. Sometimes erroneously referred to as "The London Times" in American popular culture. It's name is simply "The Times"... the rest are just local knock-offs.

Less developed countries often offer far better products in situations like this. Where a large skilled labor force exists you get employers who can drive up standards very quickly. If you screw up or around or your work doesn't come up to scratch you simply don't get to come back on Monday morning. Then a new skilled worker is brought in instantly and trained up to fill your slot. Everyone works harder so they get to continue taking home their pay packet. In first world countries this doesn't work because: 1) unemployment is low - you can't necessarily instantly fill the empty position. 2) skilled workers are few and far between when it comes to manual jobs - few people dream of a career as a seamstress. 3) labor laws prevent on the spot sackings – you've got to give notice and have a really good reason and even then they sue you. 4) all the best workers go to jobs which pay better than sewing – you have to resort to employing the worst quality workers available. 5) the families of sacked employees don't starve to death so there's not quite the same incentive to keep working as hard as possible and stay in your job no matter what. None of these problems apply to developing nations. The conclusion is: Want quality goods at prices you can afford? Send the work overseas. First world nations just can't afford to produce items at a quality which competes. Besides – all the reserves are inspected in the US. They're inspected by PD before they get to no near a customer. Then your rigger inspects them before it goes near your rig. If there's something wrong with it you don't get to jump it. The quality of inspection does not depend on where the thing was made.

Actually - if you read that Dan Brown book, "Angels and Deamons", CERN apparently already have their own wind tunnel for employees to relax in with drogue fall.

hairy muff. Was only poking fun in my posts anyway To be fair when I joked about yanks being behind the times on this "news" there was a copy of the Times staring at me with the same story on it's front page.

With this quote and your one about how TNT is a chemical thus must also be considered a chemical weapon by some people standards you are completely missing the point. TNT may be toxic with long exposure but it kills you by blowing you up. You don't die of TNT poisoning. Bullets may be made of lead but you are killed because they blow a hole in you. You don't die of lead poisoning. These principals apply to WP. It kills you generally by burning you to death in a thermic reaction. Since this is thermic, (fire) it is legal. It can also kill you buy burning you in a chemical way though and that’' where the arguments start. WP is highly hygroscopic meaning it will readily combine with any water particles. This means the moment you introduce it into the air it will combine with the water particles which are present in all air and form phosphoric acid. If it lands on your eye, it forms phosphoric acid with the moisture in your eye. If you inhale it, it combines with water molecules on the surface of the inside of your lungs and forms phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid does not blow you up. It does not burn you by catching fire. It does not punch a big hole in your side. What phosphoric acid does do is produce chemical burns. Producing chemical burns in people is banned by treaties to which the US has subscribed. That is why some people have a problem with WP. It produces chemical burns when you fire it at people. Those chemical burns are generally in the subject's respiratory system causing death as you yourself prove in all your quotes from the CDC. The Pentagon has admitted US troops have fired it at people. Those who complain about WP are not doing so because it is a chemical and thus bad. They are not worried about it because it is toxic if you eat it. They are worried about it because they know that when you fire it at people you can cause them chemical burns. Do you understand the difference now? As I note in my first post however – I don't know if this means WP is illegal – many of the people subjected to its chemical burns will also be on fire anyway. It's a question the international community will answer.

Funny that - because the passage the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists rely upon when they say that the bible condemns homosexuals is also from Leviticus. The same book which states that people must not eat pork because it is unclean, nor shellfish because they'll go to hell or even shave the sides of their beard. I never understood why one passage in the book is of vital importance and others are to be ignored. Who decides which bits of the Bible we should all throw out? Or are you now saying that all of the book of Leviticus should be ignored... because then there's nothing really stopping the Vatican from letting in gay priests is there?

No, absolutely not. It's quite a serious question.

Remember you're talking to a lot of people who believe the only natural law is "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest will favor those who put it about the most... thus it's highly likely that when we were living on the plains of Africa we lived in family groups where the dominant male maintained a harem of females - just like virtually all modern apes. Of course this was hundreds of thousands of years before God created the Earth 6000 years ago though so the point is probably moot from your point of view. BTW - is there anyone who is able to answer my earlier question about Priests being allowed to eat pork or shelfish?

***What if, the person who packed the parachute, harness-container is a citizen of a foreign country and holds an FAA Riggers certificate? *** I've not seen anything before which precludes foreign FAA certificated riggers from recognition within the US. I presume that if you hold an FAA rigging ticket it doesn't matter where you were born or where you happened to pack the rig. If you've got an FAA cert you've got an FAA cert. But then I'm not an authority on this - I've just read the FARs. I've posted a run down of applicable regs here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=936836#936836 (As I said though, not that I am in any way an authority on this issue - I've merely posted exerpts that would appear to be of relevance).

Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it.

That's a totally different phenomena though. This current thread is all about the threat that melting ice floes down the Eastern Seaboard of the US will divert the Gulf Stream Southerly which currently hits the UK broadside. Take away the Gulf Stream and London's on the same latitude as Moscow. You're confusing two different mechanisms. The ice age this thread is concerned about would come about as a result of global warming - not global cooling.

Ok two I can remember... although I'm sure I've done far worse and repressed the memories. Thankfully neither anywhere near as bad as RevJim's. 1) Snipped right through the web of skin between my thumb and forefinger on my left hand with a pair of scissors. I was supposed to be opening a pack of coriander naan bread. 2) Sliced a chunk of skin off the first knuckle of my left thumb using a shoreform (the one I was using looked like a wood plane but instead of one blade on the base it's basically a giant cheese grater). I stupidly used it one handedly using my left to hold the item I was working on. Was a nice deep wound too right down to the bone. When I looked inside the sureform there were all these little curls of skin and flesh. Neither healed up fully. I've got a pic of injury one after a month or two... it was still open and looked like a little mouth... I could make it "talk" by moving my hand. Injury one has just resulted in a scar a little smaller than my fingernail.

Ya just covering up for a latent feeling of inadequacy because you would have shit yourself if your first jump was a solo at 3,000 ft.

According to the regs technically no - if the container or reserve is TSO'ed the reserve must be packed by an FAA rigger... in practice though yes, people are usually permitted to use their rig with a re-pack from home although US repack cycle is generally applied.

So is checking someone's IP address. Sure, more intelligent trolls will get round that... but then I suspect there are a lot of trolls etc who don't really fall into that bracket. Those genuine users simply banned for rule breaking generally value the fact that people know their user ID and or history... keeping that would, I'm sure, be worth the tiny amount of money HH might ask for under Dave's scheme... at least for most anyway. Those who don't fall into one of those two groups... well... no system's perfect.

I think that could actually work. That's possibly the first real mechanism I've seen to stop people constantly breaking rules all the time and could even do a lot to keep some of the trolls out. Whether or not HH wants to take that step though... it is kinda draconian... but I agree it could work. Hell, maybe if he wanted to avoid accusations from aggrieved parties that it's merely a money making scheme he could have them donate to his favorite charity?

Who'da thought it. American's being 10 years behind the times on climate change news. Christ, Bush Senior was in office when the rest of us heard about this.

Sorry - is there anyone who can answer my earlier question? Are priests allowed to eat pork or shellfish?

Nah - that was the first one - in 91. The sequel is called "George and Dicks Bogus Journey".

Another reason people are getting upset about US use of WP is that in 1995 the Pentagon produced a report entitled: "POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ". I can understand that people will be somewhat upset that the Pentagon now says that US forces have also used WP. 10 years ago the Pentagon says that WP is a "chemical weapon" and condemn Saddam for its use. Now they say WP is not a "chemical weapon" and that the US should be applauded for its use. I can understand some people's confusion on this point. I can understand why they want some answers. I can understand why some might be a little mad at the Pentagon et al about this flip-flop.

It's becoming painful watching people run around like a bunch tards on this subject whacking themselves in the face with their ice-cream encrusted fingers. The reason some people complain that WP is a chemical weapon is that when WP particles are dispersed in the air they form phosphoric acid which is then lands on or is inhaled by bods on the ground who suffer from chemical burns to their lungs just as if they'd inhaled mustard gas or any of the other nasties out there which we all abhor. Now that is not the primary mechanism of injury or death but it will happen. The primary mechanism of injury is by causing serious burns as WP burns very hot and cannot be extinguished except by starving it of oxygen. This means if you get a bit on your shoulder it will burn right through the skin, the shoulder bone, your lung, your kidneys, your intestines, then your hip bones and then out of your arse. Sounds nasty but as it's a thermic reaction causing the injury it's not illegal - just nasty and nasty shit happens in war. The illegal part comes if people are being subjected to chemical burns. WP can do that if you fire it at people. The PENTAGON has said US troops have fired it at people. Not as a marker. Not as illumination. As a weapon. The Pentagon said US forces fired WP at insurgents as a weapon. Dispute that if you like, but you'll end up arguing with officials at the Pentagon about what they say their forces did... and once more you'll look like a tard. Now is WP an illegal chemical weapon when fired at people? I don't know. I can see that it will cause chemical burns when fired at people... but they're probably not going to care that much because they're also on fire. I don't know if that means the chemical burns don't really matter - I can see why some would say so.

no no; the guy in the picture definitely has bear arms.