vonSanta

Yeah, "good reputation" equals goodwill. Goodwill is an actual asset that can pump up the price of a company. Hard to measure for sure, but it does play a role in terms of the value of a business entity. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Do you check by ways of a quick barrel roll or just by looking up over your left and right shoulders? I do the latter. Come to think of it, there might be a blind spot by doing this, but peripheral vision is quite extensive. What's the recommended approach? Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

I'm taking a canopy control course a little later in the season - there aren't that many around. We've had our landings filmed during the freefly seminar and discussed canopy control theory, but I haven't gotten dedicated training. Ended up doing Geek-At-The-Camera jump with my instructor which was pretty memorable, since the dude can dock with ya in any position . Landed, and the instructors walked up and said "my, that's a mighty fine canopy you got there" and, naturally, proceeded to wrap me in it. Getting your 100th at a boogie where there's 100's of people can get expensive. I've bought many beers and owe even more . Oh, AN-28's rock. Did my pre-second cartwheel today Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Scenario is you're out jumping with one or a couple of others, doing your thing. Suddenly you see the others wave off, go on belly (or stay there if you're flat flying) and track away with their arses on fire. I do take into account that sometimes people break off at a higher than agreed alti (or it was just miscommunicated somehow) Be honest

Not to mention my equipment would be less-than-impressive thanks to the cold . No thanks - I'm single and I don't want to make a falsely bad impression Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Ah, it was more of a tongue in cheek comment than anythign else. Should have added one of these: . Books are good. The title of your choice suggested a rather one sided source though, which in my mind warranted a cheeky response . The basis being personal faith. Wish I had yours, but I don't. I'm an odd combination of curiosity and skepticism, coming from a secular science oriented family (father, sis docs, brothers 1 mathematician, 1 computer scientist), so my faith abilities aren't that great and I tend to see everything in likelihoods, grounded in current scientific theories (which may very well be wrong). Where you see the presence of God, I see mother nature. It's truly mindboggling and fascinating, but there's no need for a god for complexity or "order" to arise. Pepples on a beach are ordered, with the lightest ones being on top, and they're ordered by simple wave action. How this apply to the "first cause" or the "uncaused cause" I don't know. Hope *you* are right though, but none of us know what's true. Hm yes, but this is circular in nature, this argument. God says the Bible is His words. The Bible says God exists.Therefore he does, because the Bible is His words. QED. I need to know it on a non faith basis. There are manygods to choose between, and I ain't making my choice based on cultural bias (i.e what religion I was born into). Sometimes it sucks to be me. Heh. Math and nuclear physics is beyond my grasp of understanding. It works though. How does adding a God decrease the complexity of the situation? One adds an infinite being that's impossible to exlain or understand, and then one claims this entity is uncaused. The complexity of this alone is greater than the complexity of a self caused eternal universe. Or just a universe for that matter. Add a god -> things get more complicated, not less Again, I'm sorry but I have to disagree (at least on a logical level, not so much on an emotional one). See above. . My comment is not grounded in faith based belief. It's evidence based, or at least rationally based. The facts: we do not know what caused the universe. Some assert it was a god - and use faith as "proof". The 'believe' this is how it is. Others believe it is Mother Nature, and we just don't understand the mechanisms yet. This is also a statement of faith. I settle for "we don't know", which is what the evidence suggests. We have a pretty good picture of how life evolved on earth (a whole other debate), and there's lots of evidence there. What do we have for the cause of the universe? Some theories supported by math and scant empirical evidence, and the God did it one. The facts we *do* have is that the universe exists (and let's not go into solipsism, I *really* hate solipsism). Has it always existed? Did it come into existence? If the latter, how? Facts are it exists, and we don't have much of a clue as to why or how it happened. You have faith that it was a divine entity, and I envy you in that regard. I can only go as far as current understanding leads me and an unable to make that last leap of faith. It's a possibility, just as the god one is. I just dunno which is correct. Possibilities, choices. Theories, facts, faith, all intermixed. The philosophical aspects of life are so daunting and overwhelming that it ain't odd I skydive Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Heh, when I started out less than a year ago, after my first jump (SL), with pure terror in my mind as I walked to the plane for my AFF1 I thought "go away brain, I'm going to do this 10...make that *20* times." After 20 jumps I was still skeered, so I changed the number to 50. Weather permitting, I'm doing my 100th today . It's gonna be the last jump (#8) of a freefly seminar (which has been *very* good), so I'm at odds what to do. Normal coached jump (working on flying backwards/forwards in sit) or something special? I know the people willbe happy to put together something special. I also know that if I tell 'um it's my 100th jump, they'll throw me into a very very messy, oozing cesspool as soon as I land. And it ain't warm in Denmark yet. But if I put it off, then they will for sure know at my regular DZ. There's an AN-28 at the eastern boogie there, and loads of people. And an even worse pool. And we're going there right after the freefly seminar. I dinnae get thrown in the pool when I got my license thanks to my DZ-hopping avoidance scheme. 100th is supposed to be memorable, so I'm ready to bring extra clothes. Anyone have any suggestions on what to do on this jump? Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

I'll offer some non-canned responses. Circular Argument, also known as Begging The Question. One of the things we're trying to ascertain is whether there is a God and what properties this entity would have. There have been no proof towards his being or necessity so far. Occam's Razor has cut 'im off. Doesn't answer the question. I mentioned the problem of infinite regression. THe author acknowledges this and, predictably, says god created itself or is uncaused. If God can cause itself/is not caused, why can't the universe have the same properties? Gimme an answer on that one if possible. After all, we know next to nothing about the workings of the universe. We know a little of what takes place on some rock out there, but to claim what's possible and impossible on the grander scale would be to extrapolate a bit too much. Occam's razor applies again. If God created all things, then how did he create himself? Ah, this is better. Uncaused, though, is just a change in semantics - an attempts to use the meaning of words to get away from the problem of infinite regression. My counterclaim, which is less complex (and thus Occam's Razor favour is) is that the universe is uncaused - it simply is. There's no need for a god so far. In fact, the no-god answer is just as believable and supported as the god one, with the added bonus of less complexity, and higher likelihood. No statements about existence are necessary. *** Some critics have attempted an ontological disproof of God by saying that we just can't talk about God in terms of necessary truths. However, the statement itself appears to be a necessary statement about God saying that such statements can't be made. Now either it is a necessarily true statement or it is not. If it is, then the act of asserting it proves it to be false, for it says that such statements are impossible. If it is not necessarily true, then some necessary statements are possible and the objection vanishes. Let's just be fair: if they can make negative statements about existence (God does not exist), then why can't we make positive ones? Saying "we do not know" is not making astatement of belief either way. Arguing that lack of faith is belief is like arguing bald is a hair colour. So, we're back at square one. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

I am not well versed in the art of turning occupation into something acceptable, even if it is short term. I don't know how to make countries democratic either. What I suspect could make a difference, or could have, anyhow, would be a UN mandate, so it seems less like they're occupied and controlled by the Great Satan, the USA. Too late for that. No, it's WMD, Saddam supports Al Qaeida, Saddam is a bad dude and we want freedom for the Iraqi people. There were more than one reason for it, and oil is only one of them. Our economies are driven by it, and by that I mean ALL western nations, not just the US. There were many other reasons too, some well founded, others not. The war on terrorism argument is BS though, especially if the US pulls out, since they'll then have created a haven for terrorists where there was none before. I don't get the reference. The GF1 was fully sanctioned by the UN. This one was not (and "serious consequences", as mentioned in resolution 1441 was NOT, according to US officials, an automatic go-to-war clause) Yeah, someone should have either done a lot more thinking or listened to dissenting opinions before pulling this one off. I mean, the problem,s that'd arise were obvious, but they were just ignored. And here we are... Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Yeah, supply and demand in action. The lesson being: don't try to sell your goods for a higher price than they're worth to the market. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Yes, getting out is the thing to do. IF you want an Islamic Republic Of Iraq, and a nice breeding ground for yet more terrorists. Think they'll sell oil to the US? The current situation was predicted by a lot of people. Mostly by people the Bush administration and its followers think of as cowards, hypocrites and "enemies" (such as France and Clinton), but also by people friendly to the current administration. The reasonable approach would have been to legitimize the whole deal a lot sooner. Done today I think it'd add nothing but blue helmets for Iraqi insurgents to shoot at. What a mess Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Hmm, I am still not sure I agree with you, even though I understand what you're saying and why. *If* the bible only laid claims to moral issues, I'd agree with you in a heartbeat. It is when it begins to make claims about historical "facts" and claims about the physical world and its properties I begin to object. And it has done so, or at least the people seeing this work as God's Word have done so, and continue to do so. In these situations, I think it's in order that science brings out the big Smack-Arse club, just as I think it is in order for the Bible if science (as it has done in the past) try to 'teach morals'. A number of scientist-dudes have had problems for saying "uhm, priest-dude, you're wrong and I can prove it". This happens when religious texts encroach on areas where science can be applied - and it does just that. Lately, the religious copout has been "oh, but you have to read it figuratively!" It's a copout because "thou shalt not kill (murder)" can also be seen in a figuratively way - and you'll be hard pressed to prove my claim wrong, as it is an interpretation. There'll be collisions in the future, because the two do encroach on each others domains. IMHO. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Great reply. We're basically in the same boat then. To many this isn't a big thing, they shrug and go "oh well". For me though, I cannot shake these ideas and concepts, and it really annoys me that all I can say is "dunno". Of course thousands of great minds have tried to answer the same question before me, and come up short, so I don't expect I'll have the one revelation that'll mean we all get free rides to alt for the rest of our (everlasting) lives Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Alright, I find this disussion interesting and thought provoking. I I am being too blunt or say something in an offensive manner, it's not my intent. It's just the way I discuss, so let me know if that's the case and I'll try to be more diplomatic. There's a leap of logic, or of faith here. You go from showing causality to a statement of faith - "therefore, Goddidit". There is an assumption that the root cause, if there *is* such a thing (we do not know), *must* be a supernatural being or entity. This is a possibility, but only one amongst several. Occams Razor says "go with the simplest explanation". The simplest explanation is not "someone did something". First of all, that puts you into the problem of infinite regression - who or what created that someone? You may argue "it created itself", but that would be a copout - you would not apply the same principles and thinking on this entity as used in the rest of your argument - or on your critique of mine. Furthermore, *if* you choose to use the "it created itself" argument, I can argue "but why can the universe not have created itself, if this thing can?" You'll have a hard time claiming that my assertion is absurd, considering you'd just have made a very similar one yourself - with the added absurdity that you've involved something supernatural. And this is where we use Occam's razor. My assertion fits the "facts" (which there basically are none, other than our very limited understanding of things so far). Furthermore, it's simpler than the supernatural deity one. The latter gets cut away. We'll either have to admit that causality isn't all encasing (and perhaps quantum theory has something to offer here, it is possible) *or* that we have a case of everlasting, ever-having-existed infinite regression. A sort of recursive call without a stop case. There might be other possibilities I haven't thought of as I write this. At any rate, any honest debater would have to admit that "Godidit" is not the only alternative out there - it is one many choose to have faith in, but faith does not add credence to a claim - not for those who are faithless, at least. This is a fun discussion. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Right, and as Dawkins pointed out, very religious people take it outside this realm and say "this is how it is! This is how it was done! Our holy text says so, and it is right by default!". The thing is, Gould says that the two fields are only valid inside "their own field of domain" so to speak - and Dawkins disagreed, pointing out how biblical claims are downright physically impossible (to the best of our knowledge). How they violate known and well supported scientific theories ( and I ain't talking about the ressurection or anything like that - am talking the biblical "science" if you will, such as its definition of the number PI). Gould is a lot smarter than me. So's Dawkins. I'm siding with the latter Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Religion invades science (or the other way around) when it makes and maintains claims that is contradicted by science. Throughout the years, there has been countless examples. As a result, the Bible has begun to be read less and less literally, and more and more figuratively. I can dig up a lot of links if needed. It is well documented that a stringent reading of the Bible will clash very hard with very well supported scientific theories. In general, the Bible adapts to new scientific theories and not the other way around. Used to be the other way around, but thankfully we've moved beyond that. Dawkins and Gould have had some interesting debates as to whether science can coexist with the Bible. Gould came off worse (arguing it can), and all Dawkins did was use common sense and examples - Gould's main strength was the use of a figurative interpretation of the Bible. Of course, throughout the years, many great scientists have been theists - Pascal for instance. Some have tried to wrap science to meet religion - others have found themselves having doubts due to their discoveries. It's an interesting topic, for sure. I ain't making judgement calls on the existence of god or gods - there might be a deity out there, and that'd be really cool. Just saying that science and religion do clash from time to time. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Well, I gotta counter your why with another why -and please excuse my bluntness. Why do you say "goddidit" when you have no answer? You have no indications for or against. An honest approach would be to say "I do not know". Humans have used Goddidit for so many things through the years - take Thor, God of thunder, for instance. I'll not go into the debate whether there is a God(s) or not - what I just want to point is that we might as well apply Occam's Razor to these types of arguments. Or I can add another why. Why does there have to be a meaning to things? How can you be sure there *is* a meaning to things? What is the meaning of coffee - is it to be consumed, to be snorted, to be thrown into the air? Or perhaps it simply is whatever it is, and why's and wherefores are simple results of meta-cognition, in whatever species it may find hold? And it is possible the same applies for life - or even worse, that Dawkin's is right - we're mere gene carriers, whether we like it or not. Individuals matter not - genes do. Who knows? At least Dawkin's argument is somewhat founded in scientific work. This is my territory, or where you'll find me anyhow. I'd fervently hope there is a god and all that, but I'd still maintain that if one is to be intellectually honest and apply the same standards to this philosophical topic as one does to, say, the evaluation of a rig, then "I don't know, therefore god did it" is far from good enough. Hope you're right though. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

ROFL JackC, that's succintly put Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Using MS Outlook, right? It's evil. The majority of decent mail programs don't allow VB scripting like Outlook does. That program s really the cause of most of these "from friends" email viruses. Get loads of 'em on my email addy, but none are sent from it. Eudora rocks :) Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Are they replacing Mrs. Skeletor Uma Thurman(Sp?) with someone who has enough muscles to perhaps, in theory, lift a sword? Mebbe I'll see it if that happens. Bad casting choice on Thurman IMHO. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Many claim the American system is the greatest justice system in the world. Me, I'd say there are some situations where it ain't that great. This would be one of them. You're saying that unintentionally arriving on a piece of land owned by someone else without this person's permission is trespassing? Hm, would suck to have a car accident, be thrown outta the window, land in farmer McNasty's field, survive that and then be shot to death because he can do that in Texas. Hell, we jump at an airfield used by both the military (F-16's, C-130's) and civilians. My sister landed off on a bad spot, inside the military area. Didn't get shot or interrogated, but they did note her name. Placing property over human life like that is not right. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Hm, kinda hard to ar4gue against BillVon's logic here - if you adhere to the "it ain't the tool, it's the man" philosophy. And I don't think his use is far stretched. It's the same kind of argument; just one word has been changed. This thread just handed the gun control people an effective reply to the "guns don't kill people..." 'infallible' line. Gonna be interesting to see what responses there'll be and how it'll be used. In the words of the British sitcom "Red Dwarf: Get outta this one, you smeghead!" Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Nah, witch hunts aren't that common here. With our rather diverse political landscape, it'd be pretty hard to define un Danish. Your point is well made, though. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

...I generally consider my life as a member of another species. So let's say life sucks and I hate just about everyone with a passion that'd make Gibson proud. Let's take wolves for instance. Interesting critters, and pretty macho and cool. If I was a wolf, chances are I wouldn't be the alpha male. At any rate, not from the start, I'd have to work my way up the corporate ladder. 1) I'd catch shit if I started eating before saying a prayer. The pre-food prayer is, of course "I must remember to get my arse outta the way when the more important wolf-ple (new word, blame the wolves, not me) are around. Bite one to the arse. 2) I'll always get the crap position when hunting. Why do *I* always have to be the one on the god damned muddy side of the prey? Why am *I* always the one running and running with absolutely no prospect of the more glorious part, that is, the actual killing of the prey? Tried it once; bite two to the arse. 3) DO not shag Mr Alpha's females. They may say no, but they really mean yes. Mr Alpha on the other hand, really means no, in a bite-to-the-arse-and-throat-and-goodluckyou'reonyourown sort of way. Bite three to the arse. Actually bite four, because the bitches (well, isn't that the correct word for a female of this species?) really DO mean no when they say so. Live and learn. 4) Puppies aren't cute. Especially when they get to the age where they dye their fur pink and blue and start growling "yeah, like umm" all the time. Do not 'put them straight'. Alpha female is of the opinion that *her* litter is the best ever. Bite four to the arse. 5) Rotting elk meat doesn't taste good. 6) If that cave is too comfy to be true, there's a bear in there. 7) Some mushrooms shouldn't be eaten. The resulting behaviour will give ya a bite-to-the-arse. This is usually where I stop - it's my equivalent of counting to ten when I am about to explode in rage Humans - such whiny, snivelly, lowly little creatues. How glad I am to be a slug. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

I'm free to kill people, but only as long as the gov't tells me to. Heh, this dude should get a job as an air warning siren thing. He's free to do that, if the gov't approves What a whine. Every little tribal group that has ever existed has had rules- perhaps not codified, but there nonetheless. You'll find "rules" of acceptable behaviour in just about any social species. This dude should go live with some wolves for a while assert his freedom there. A few bites to the arse should convince 'im that yeah, being a human may suck, but at leasst we can discuss the rules Seriously though, there has to be some checks and balances. Are there too many in the US? Dunno, haven't lived there. We could do with a lot less in this nanny state, but I'm fed and safe and the people representing me generally don't go around killing or torturing others, so it's really a 'luxury' problem, not something to get upset about. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst