mr2mk1g

But you won't. Know what that says about your credibility? Well if they're simply links to "mad-boy bob's bonkers ramblings page" then yeah I'd probably take issue with the credibility of the info... as any intelligent person would. Show me. As I'm sure you'll recall, the wager wasn't with you but with Errol. So sure, in the spirit of openness I'll stick a jump ticket on Errol's account at his DZ. Simply post verifiable proof you're a jumper and tell us where you jump and the jump ticket's all his.

Show me.

Show me... before a mod sees you posts and bans you.

Calling a moderator full of shit? haha - bye. Show me.

Who's the guy in the video's then? Show me. Cos it aint half odd how there's footage of them boarding the planes and then the planes flew into buildings. Most folk here knew all about how it's not possible to pull a DB Cooper these days... how come you don't? Cockpit voice recordings. Passenger phone calls from Flight 93. Both corroborated by CCTV of them boarding the flights. Similar thing for the London bombings - the police have CCTV footage of them.

The only thing we get from FOX is the Simpsons.

Just wanted to point out that this paragraph: Is entirely wrong. The BBC used the term "terrorists" maybe a dozen times during my drive home this evening. A check of their website will show they're using it regularly.

I'm not saying much at all. Just striving for historical accuracy by refuting Storm's assertion that the US made the first strike against Germany in WWII. I don’t think there's much at all to be drawn from that limb of the discussion in any event.

This is a list of US shipping losses due to German action prior to Pearl Harbour. Still think the US moved first? Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths 10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None 2/18/40 El Sonador Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk Shetland Islands Crew Approx 17 06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None 11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1 12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2 05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None 08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None 08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors) 09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None 09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None 09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26 09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13 09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3 10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors) 10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None 11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown 11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38 11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1 11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9 11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6 11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown 12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37 12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1 12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army 2

These two are good: http://www.werenotafraid.com/images/080/McCall.jpg http://www.werenotafraid.com/images/080/David_USA.jpg

Um... IIRC, Britain got Libya to open up to Inspectors, Europe has been talking to Iran and got them to allow inspectors in, and the UN got their inspectors into Korea. US involvement in each of the above appears to have been limited to posturing and playing the "bad cop" in a complex "good cop/bad cop" negotiation. But then I'm working from memory here.

If you look at the poll there's only 1 here in total. That's a ratio (according to this highly scientific and wide ranging poll.. hehe) of only 1 in 30 uncut who wish they were and 1 in 9 cut who whish they weren't.

Merely relevant to their motives. Most posters here come for the skydiving threads and end up contributing to the political / intellectual threads once they're here. There are the odd ones however who have an agenda and come simply to post in line with that agenda. They're not jumpers, they're here simply to stir the pot. That's the only relevance.

They did. By such a huge margin that it's hard to even comprehend. Sure they also won in the end on points and they gained more than any other country in terms of territory... but look at that cost. It's staggering. Of course there are ways in which they came out of the war the biggest loosers of all. Don't pretend that that was in any way gratuitous or out of the goodness of America's heart though. That was a pure business transaction for which the UK paid exceptionally heavily. Those goods sent over from the states were bought and paid for on HP by the UK. Running such a big tab caused the British Empire to crumble under the weight of the repayments after the war. The US made an exceptional amount of money out of selling war goods to the UK prior to their involvement in the war. All justified and certainly well received... but buisness it was. That's certainly a possibility, yes.

No its not, not to how much good the aid can do. But if people want to compare generosity, it is the relative value to the giver that's important. More aid is of course more useful than less aid even if the smaller amount was more generously given. That's not the comparator that's used incorrectly. If people said US aid did more good than any other country's aid that would often be correct, it often being a bigger amount. But what people say is that the US is more generous. That's not usually correct as generosity is not a measurement of the relative worth to the recipient but by the relative worth to the giver.

I don't. I do have a problem with someone who claims their country is more generous than any other. They are the one's making a comparison. If they want to compare generousness they should use figures which are truly comparative. That's %GDP figures. They don't show the US as being the most country. That's my only beef. Not how much countries give - but people being disingenuous over the matter. The US is of course more than generous enough... but that doesn't give morons the right to go round claiming they are more generous than anyone else.

No, exactly. It's somewhere in the middle. Most things are. If I'd said "every penny she'd ever had" instead of "life savings" it would have been a purer analogy.

Which posters support AQ?

Why don't you answer his question. Or you could even point out to him that your conclusions are not based on real world observations in your circumcised son and instead on bookwork. That would also be a reasonable response. Simply ignoring the question doesn't convince anyone that you're right. If you want to sway him or anyone else you've got to give him something to work with. As yet you've not done this, you've just lobbed insults and given some obscure references. Convince him. Or at least explain why you won't answer his damn question.

Yes. Regularly actually. He he yeah, all the time. The UK and Canada don't slam the US. The countries citizens may hold the US to account on a few things they're not happy about. The countries citizens may express discontent about some US policies. That I find perfectly acceptable. Like it or not US policies effect these two countries and we've a right to gripe about them sometimes. And yeah, sometimes citizens of these two countries slam the US. What can I say - there are asshats the world over. I think that's a fair comment don't you? Is not the %GDP a better comparator of how generous a country is? If bill gates gives $100 to charity that's far less generous than a 10 year old kid who gives their $50 life savings to charity. I dunno. Any giving's good and I personally won't "jump all over" any country who gives to charity. I would take issue with any country/person getting a hard on over themselves and saying they're really generous based on the pure $ amount though rather than the % GDP/earnings. As I point out above, % GDP is simply a much better comparator. The US is a big country... of course it's going to give more than a small country. The only way to level the field and get a useful comparative figure is to use %'s. That's simple maths/science. The reason some people have a problem with US giving is not because they feel it's not enough. It's because the US holds itself up as a really generous country when by the only truly telling comparator (% GDP) it often falls way down the list. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone bragging that the US is the most generous country on the planet. It happened again after the Tsunami, quite a lot. They then start shouting at people the moment it's pointed out to them that really it's not... in fact far from it... in fact usually the Japs beat them even on a pure $ figure.

Then argue about the comment. Personally I learn things from here and have had my opinion changed on a number of things because of discussions I've been involved with. I make quite a few posts endeavoring to keep things civil and diffuse arguments. I've found myself getting drawn into a conversation simply because I'm trying to convince two warring parties that they're both actually saying the same thing and yet are still yelling at each other (something that's oddly common on here).

How is it a "temper tantrem" post? All he's doing is asking you a question on a topic you've stated you have knowledge. He's done it in a prety reasonable way pointing out why you should know more than most on the subject. I know these things are subjective over the net and all but personally I detected no anger in this post. Why not just answer him?

Bomehead's are very nice helmets. Of the two I'd take the mamba hands down. Really, no questions asked in my mind it'd be a very easy choice. I suspect most would agree with that call.

That's a pretty good description. I always describe it as someone who wasn't born with the ability to smile and yet is giving it a damned good go by following someone else's instructions. They probably went something like: "put your teath together then pull your lips back to expose them. Try to pull the corners of your mouth back and make your eyes a little wider". Sounds all good in theory but just ends up making you look a bit demented.

whereas his wife looks like she has been punched.