mr2mk1g

Buy diesel trucks. Put vegetable oil in them. Job's a good'un.

hehe, it's all fun till someone looses an eye.

The key word in your post is "perceived". i.e. your family's not actually safer... you just think they're safer. Unfortunately thinking something is true is rather different from it actually being true.

OMG, shit, now it all makes sense! He must have organized the whole thing! Hurricane Katrina is just a ploy by Mossad to kill Americans! Those damned Jews!

Probably the Jews.

Please please please get some decent canopy advice. You have no idea how retarded what you just said makes you seem. I doubt you actually are retarded though, you have either been given some very bad advice or you have picked up some very very odd ideas. Please talk to someone about your landing theories before you kill yourself.

Dunno. I want to know the answer to that myself. Looks like I'll hear soon enough from the IPCC what went on. Maybe he was a Jew?

Pus there's always the added advantage of being able to shoot at the helicopters and busses trying to save people's lives.

Show me where someone on here disputed that. I remember reports from the day after the shooting that he was wearing denim... I don't think that was ever seriously in dispute.... even though a passenger did give direct witness evidence on the day of the shooting that he was wearing a puffy jacket. Go figure - witnesses can be crap sometimes.

c'mon guys, calm down.

tis how I get to, nay have to, talk at work though

HMO... insurance right?... yeah probably; theiving bastards. Still... it's probably in the terms of the insurance contract somewhere... unless it's been mis-sold or the company's being a shyster I have a hard time finding them criminally liable.

I suspect my learned friend opposite has misunderstood my sentiment. I wished merely to indicate that I concurred with his previous submission.

It's fraud pure and simple. They're attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception. They lie to people in an attempt to get their money. They present false or forged bank drafts and default on the completion of legally binding contracts. They're thieves, the scum of the earth and they deserve to be in jail. Just because they do their thieving from behind a computer rather than a shotgun doesn't mean that they should be given any leeway.

Oh I agree, you've got to be a fucking retard if you fell for a 419 scam... but then the scammers are hoping to hit the mail box of some nice little old lady who might just fall for their sob story and think they're actually helping. There's a reason what the scammers are doing is highly illegal and I have equally no sympathy for them either should the local authorities track them down and sling them in jail for what they're doing.

hehe, nice rant. come on now... those bloody Nigerians have got more computers and e-mail accounts than I have!

That is actually pretty funny.

That's cool, the provision of free military bases is a two way street and the States benefit just as much as any host country does from the trade G.I.s generate when they spend off base. If you don't want the hospitality any more there's more than enough uses for the land. Removing your bases from Europe is a theat that will cause people to laugh at you.

Yup, that's the BPA rule - C license (which requires 200 jumps and at least two post qualification stickers (eg FS1 and... well it used to be IC1 so I suppose CH2 now...)). Plus you need to be "cleared" by your CCI... which could mean anything from saying yes you can jump it to a full camera brief from one of the staff flyers.

So essentially you're agreeing with the Badger (who IIRC pretty much did the same as you, just in reverse and moved from the states to the UK) that the best way to save gas money is to get a car with better gas consumption?

um... my very basic understanding of comprehension is that when Iraqis says they blame the "government and U.S. trained security services" the people they are blaming are: 1) the Iraqi government (comprised of Iraqis) and 2) the Iraqi security services (again comprised of Iraqis)

You plannin' on transitioning to a box or something? A 1:1 loading on a 135 is NOT the same as a 1:1 wingloading on a 190... and that's before we even get on to the type of canopy you're flying.

The purpose of a geography GCSE it to tell the world about how much this 16 year old knows about geography. It is impossible to tell how well the individual spells or even how well they communicate by looking at the results of their geography exam. Their poor mark might just as well have be the result of a failure to know what an oxbow lake is. Their mark in their geography exam certainly doesn't tell you much about their communication skills. The purpose of an English language GCSE on the other hand is to tell the world how much this 16 year old knows about the construction and use of the English language. The exam would have focused on such skills as spelling, grammar, syntax, parsing etc. Failure to know about one of these elements of the course will loose the candidate marks. I simply believe that if a school wants to test a 16 year olds knowledge of geography they should test their knowledge of geography. Not French, nor history, nor wood working, nor any of the other important subjects kids learn. If this is done, the mark in geography actually tells you something about how much they know about geography, otherwise the result is muddied by all sorts of other indicators about other subjects and the outcome is the exam mark is entirely meaningless. Maybe they know something about geography... maybe they don't... maybe they're just a crappy speller... who knows? The exam certainly doesn't help us figure it out.

As would I. Engineers need to be able to spell, thus it is appropriate that their spelling is taken into account in their engineering examination mark. But I'm talking about lower down the academic ladder when schools are examining individual basic subjects.

If a student spells badly, mark them down in their English paper. English papers test English skills, thus their mark in the subject should appropriately reflect a deficiency in the candidate's English skills. An inability to spell "inconvenient" does not indicate a lack of knowledge about glacial processes - so where is the logic in marking down a student's geography paper based on their spelling? Test the knowledge of the subject in which they are being examined, not the subject they took last Wednesday. To do otherwise is astoundingly illogical. When it comes to vocational studies the issue is of course slightly different. In such cases the examination does not test the candidate's knowledge of a specific subject, but their ability to perform a given task. Thus my spelling was rightly taken into account when I graduated from Law school as my certificate didn't say I knew stuff about the law but that I was a Lawyer – Lawyers have to be able to spell.