metalslug

Well, you can't always believe people who promise you that the Czech is in the male.

Bruce Lee made some men great. John Browning made all men equal.

But it is a loss, isn't it ? Loss of income ? That's how I read it. As far as "cost" goes, one might say that an election campaign blunder can "cost" you the presidency, meaning that you lost something that you would have otherwise had. Sure I understand your sentiments, but then I reckon most people also know what government means when they use "cost" in this context. I don't think they are actually fooling many people.

Well, let's study that one; Insects and arachnids are animals too, albeit less intelligent and less cute and cuddly. I've killed hundreds of 'em, most accidentally but a few deliberately. If one would reason that a pig or deer has more "worth" than an insect, then even higher "worth" could be assigned to any human that has value to you or to third party that you find worthy. I have said or implied more than once on this forum that killing specific humans that I dislike would leave me feeling less morally compromised than killing most animals would. Indeed, I know of this too, although I don't think modern SA hunters are much different from modern hunters anywhere else in the world. Consider the "canned hunting" trade here, most clients are from the USA.

Could you do it if there was no meat and no fridge? I feel much the same way that you do about sport hunting and I don't think I could harm an animal in my current lifestyle, but I also think one's level of hunger or desperation could be a factor here. Priority. If my survival (or my child's survival) in a wilderness depended on how I use a hunting knife, I would make every effort to do what needed to be done, no matter how messy it needed to be. I think a lot of animal lovers would.

Well, someone was gonna post it...

Roger that. Saudi Arabia is a sizeable kingdom with sizeable resources. What is their military capability ? I'm inclined to think that if they pumped enough oil money into a war machine then they could take Iran themselves quite comfortably.

In as much as it is said that courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to overcome fear; I am quite sure that a sizeable middle-ground group of people exist that overcome some dark nature with nurture.

Don't go anywhere. I'm bringing my laundry over now...

Actually, I would think a royal gets less action than most regular folks do. Consider the scandals that would erupt when these lovers and ex-lovers start talking and publishing books and conceiving royal heirs out of wedlock. It's just not... proper. Even if we assume William and Harry have being doing their girlfriends exclusively, they would certainly have been cautioned to be very "safe", for the same reasons mentioned above. Hell yeah, Approaching my middle age, I'm more of a mercenary now than a romantic. The ££, the stature, the perks, the security, even the legacy. I want in.

Perhaps those that paid attention during their student program ? ..or asked their DZ instructor ? ..or did their own research and reading ? You seem to be asserting that those who do not ask anything, do not know anything. And you know this how? Because thousands of jumpers of all nationalities have told you this? I am not aware of a single skydiver who feels this way, although I admit I don't know as many skydivers as you do. You take a sampling of low-timer questions from an online forum, which represents a small percentage of all US skydivers and an even smaller percentage of skydivers worldwide, and you expand this to conclude that an entire new generation of low-timers is more ignorant than "your" generation of low-timers ? In the days when you were a student, and there was no DZ.com, how can you be sure that your fellow students had no questions that required an online answer? Sure I cannot prove that "new generation" students are just as knowledgeable as "your generation" students were, but I believe the contrary cannot be proven either, which is what you are claiming. If you ever do venture into Speakers Corner, you will find that there is very little non-US content in there. I just didn't have time to find a suitable analogy from a non-American source. That's a noble ambition. Good on you. Seriously. You might consider, however, that your advice can only help those who read it, and maintaining a thread tone along the lines of "Listen up bozos, you young pups need to defer to my next pearls of wisdom..." is less likely to grant you a bookmark in a students online reading habbits.

Yes, to be fair, I do know what you mean, but I resent the way that you present it. You have used words in this thread that include "bozos" and "..a generation of jumpers that haven’t got a clue.". You even accused another poster of being "full of shit" for stating that a mis-rigged AAD should be considered as negligence. These kinds of statements are are intensely patronizing (which you love to do on these forums) and quite possibly false in many cases. If you want to make these comments, then you need to have your ducks in a row. If you are suggesting that correct student-level gear knowledge could have saved the student with the mis-rigged AAD, then I think you might be full of something. The student did not pull, that's his fault, but it had fsckall to do with his knowledge of gear. A "basic understanding of the gear and how each part works" was already covered in my FJC, unless you would care to cite specifics that you believe the USPA FJC currently overlooks. You remind me of members in Speakers Corner who say things like "We need to cap the BP oil well now !" or "We need to do more to stop illegal border crossings." but come up short on fresh suggestions that have not already been considered, tried, and actively practiced at some DZs for the last decade or more.

Can you more closely define what "Total" is ? Total, to me, is everything that a master rigger would know, and then some. Is this the level of rigging knowledge that you believe all students should have before completing a student program? Keep in mind that the incident that triggered this thread was a student fatality; someone who would not have "Total" gear knowledge even under the best of student training programs. Then given your answer; What would be your suggestion on how students could acquire "Total" knowledge of their gear without extending the FJC ? True enough, but where would we set a feasible training balance ? How many incidents in recent years can be directly attributed to "bozos" that "don’t know their gear or how it works". A high percentage? Nope. More skydivers die under good canopies than under faulty rigging. Should we also add an advanced canopy control course to student training along with the extra rigging course and the FJC ? On planet Utopia, yes we should, but I'm pretty sure the extended time, expense and resources required from both the students and the DZ to go through all of this before completing a student program would significantly shrink both the community and the "business". When compared to a certified expert, I know little about medicine, law or parachute rigging. So, I get a lawyer to work my case, a doctor to perform my surgery and a rigger to pack my reserve. I do this not only because I trust them, but because I cannot legally perform their job myself anyway. If either of them make a mistake, I would not find myself blaming my own lack of medicine, law or rigging knowledge, but rather my lack of judgement in selecting these inferior professionals over more reputable one's.

In your opinion; how much gear knowledge should be enough for a student to complete a program ? Should we include a comprehensive rigging chapter into the FJC beyond that which is already covered ? From your own words in a previous post; even certified riggers can make "mistakes". All the rigging knoweldge in the world will not make one immune to a skydiving incident. Even the percentage chance of improving your incident odds through rigging knowledge is, well, debatable.

It was Governor Schwarzenegger leaving office. I'm told he'll be back.

Regardless of who is "right"; Which brave souls are planning reside in these "800 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel" ? Would insurance companies even cover them ? Seems like easy targets for rockets or other kinds of sabotage.

Well, here's a chocolate moose.

Well, if the top belonged to Dominic Cobb....

I can see another 'west wing' movie coming out of this; "An Inconvenient Convenience Store"

There is really no need for anyone to 'PA' you. You are your own enemy here. By your own admission from posts in previous threads; you are not here to add value to any debate, you just like to stir the pot and see what floats. Ideally, your threads here should be left alone as a running monologue of your own. For as long as members take the bait each time, you will continue to fish.

This is why I have no problem with 139,000,000 pigs, cattle and sheep from slaughterhouses. Better to have that than 139,000,000 orange vests behind ridges. Well, if they were voting in India, so be it. In your country, I wouldn't be worried just yet. Oh, I don't expect it to. I'm not lobbying for elk to get the right to vote either. What I am hoping for is a more measured dominance over animals that is based on necessity rather than sport.

Fenced hunting is an issue of controversy over here too right now. Many foreigners, mostly Americans, will pay up to $40000 or more to hunt one of the 'Big 5'; lion, african elephant, cape buffalo, leopard and rhinoceros, and do so in a confined space. I don't have as much of an issue hunting any animal that is efficiently processed and utilised after the kill, such as most deer. Trophy hunting, however, is a different bag of ethics and is regarded by many as a wasteful bloodsport, an unnecessary kill, and this is what makes it incomparable to the slaughterhouse floor. I believe that it's overly simplistic to reduce the matter to property rights over land and animals. Slaves were once property too in many countries until opinion evolved to afford them more humane circumstances. Eventually, these changes were written into law. Therefore; if I had to stock a hunting farm with a section of the human population that I dislike and kill them for sport, many trophy hunters would find my actions abhorrent, and I would find their reaction to be ironic. Without quoting scripture or law; who is to say that a randomly selected animal is more deserving of an unnecessary 'trophy' death than a randomly selected human is ? That's really what the controversy over trophy hunting is; an opinion over how much value we place on (animal) life and the quality of that life. This is why it's put to a vote, because voting is opinion.

....and yet in several posts you continue to provide food examples as evidence of multiculturalism ? Even in the darkest years of South African bigotry and isolation I still grew up with nearly all the foods you have mentioned, including nachos, but I had to travel to Mexico 20 years later to meet Mexicans for the first time. Would you suggest that Germans should eat more Turkish cuisine to show support for multiculturalism ? With regard to "...language, and family structure, and morality, and music, and popular art. Culture, in other words."; If the language is simplistic and lacks adequate expression, if the art is not aesthetically pleasing, if the music is unpleasant, if the morality and family structure is abhorrently 3rd world in nature; Would a reasonable person be expected to compromise on some of those areas in order to be "multicultural", despite their inner preferences ? How much would you compromise on ? ...or should I just pass you some more nachos ?

I wouldn't want you to leave, rhys, you're some of the finest entertainment that I see here. If we all agreed on every forum topic then there would not be any debate, and hence nothing to read here. As to nigel99's question; After X-many years of SC, those regular topics have been debated to death. There is very little new material to cover. If you miss the old threads, go back and read them, because re-posting an old topic will most likely produce a similar thread to the previous one on the same topic, interspersed with a few posts of "OMG ! not this again...". Indeed, some comments seen here can be insulting, but keep in mind that many debates have nowhere else to go when it emerges that the main parties (no pun intended) are on completely different levels of logic, knowledge and pragmatic reality. It's oil and water. The last word at that point is either; Remain silent, which variably allows the other party to note your lack of rebuttal and assert "victory". ...or Make some comment to discredit the other party which, if valid or even plausible, renders that party's comments on the thread moot. Such comments are, by definition, insulting. If it stays within forum rules, then it's valid debating tactics. Forum members who repeatedly dive into the ground will inevitably get dirt on them.