flyingferret

Being a young 'un, I don't really know the differences between the old suits, balloon, thunderbolt, RW, etc. However, I would love to have one, would be great for style value and free(k)flying too. Anyone know the differences? And if they still exist anywhere? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Something about logging a jump off a packing loft... He was my JM, I was young and naive too. But either way the stories were good and beer cold, and someday they will get reused as mine. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Wow...dave, I did not realize there was a april phase? I am searching all my memories now. As for Doc, he still bullshits pretty well on short notice. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Actually I totally meant Brains pic. That makes a big difference. I was thinking....he searched for a heritage and got that pic???? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yeah, I really want a buell firebolt just for a go fast toy. Maybe track it a few times. Thankfully, unlike a lot of 25 year olds who crave rice, my gf seems to love riding the HD, and makes a great riding partner. New buells: http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes_gear/ mmmmmm -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Amazingly, I agree with Quade and not Treejumps. Yet my agreement leads to the scope I think Treejumps was aiming for. I think the government has no business in the bedroom. However, the dillema occurs when the government choose to humanely support people who were produced via acts in that private bedroom. I am a very big fan of Adam Smith and Laissez-Faire theory. Pure supply and demand works in an almost amazing fashion. The problem is that with huge amounts of people, 'we' have modified and subsidized supply and demand to the point of a system with near incalculable inputs. As human nature is at a base level oriented toward preservation, if it was self inhibiting to have children, most people selfish people would not have them. Therefore, don't mandate birth control, simply don't subsidize indescretion. Now that is great in a closed system. Would it work in America? A few questions should be answered: How many people would in an amatuer from terminate pregnancies? Does it matter? Would they take BC if it were available? Would the American people support taking away benefits that are perceived as humane? They are difficult questions. In practicallity, western civilation has risen to a level of existence, where we are beyond survival and we ponder questions like this. When the shit is bad, people just want to survive, they don't care about environment, welfare, etc. Ancient history shows this. We are past that. Along with it comes tough questions and responsiblity. The compassionate answers are not always the ones that solve problems. Nor are the 'right' answers always practically applicable. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

If I had a limp wrist with some dallas movado on it, and a latte I would..... but you know....I dont'. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

umm...I am on the net a lot...and I still find myself asking, where in the world did that source pic come from? As for the HD debate, it is all jokes, just like RW vs. FF. 90% of it is just styling and preference. The one thing I will say is that the 88B is an amazing engine, and was as much my reason to buy HD as style. Additionally, resale on a harley is dang near constant, if you are looking at it from that point. Personally, as along as you are on two wheels, I will wave at you and share beer. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Anyone know what the chances are of ever doing that on a Twin Beech these days? I always thought the pics were awesome, although I have read some hairy stall tales. Are any TBs still flying? Any with pilots that would do it? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I will not bother at this juncture to discuss my background academically when dealing with Thomas Jefferson. I will simply state that there are a lot of more statements out there then the one you expressed. In any case it is moot, because Jefferson is not a politician, nor do we consult him directly in legislation. The fact remains: 1. We have laws on the books that cover this topic 2. Some people are trying to change them 3. As of yet, they have not been deemed correct by majority or by judicial branch The point is not to debate Jefferson, because then we can wander off into slavery, his practices vs. writings, etc. Then getting past the we could argue indefinitely about the words 'fair' and 'trampled' or 'infringed' That will not practically happen. On the other hand, we do have legal definitions of marriage in state offices, we are debating those, and so far they are not changing. At least you make the point of an abstract concept, although I think you were perhaps being sarcastic. In reality, I think that is the most striking sentence of your post. Consensual rights and infringements are in fact abstract and very hard to understand/define. In my opinion, the founding documents of this country were written in subjective language specifically to allow debate by the majority to instute future changes. Much like a palm tree weathers the storm, the founders realized the foundation must be able to be changed beyond their views to survive. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I would highly disagree with that, unless perhaps I misunderstand the wording, given the quotes above about majority and people rights. Perhaps I misunderstand. While I agree that government is overstretched, we are not a pure anything, democracy or otherwise. And in practicality outside the petri dish, the more people there are the more laws, caveats, and provisions there will be. It would be interesting to me to see if people with the views you state apply them to welfare, medicaid, and government subsidies. In a purist sense, I happen to agree with at least your concept. However, in our American experiment, I think it is impossible to go back to that point. The masses are too loud and unwieldy, they cannot self govern in an absolute sense, we see this repeatedly. While we valiantly quote Franklin and Jefferson, in reality we all make compromises to life, and reality cannot be avoid. Sometimes it is wiser to bart for the half loaf, then stone wall and leave with no bread. I still maintain this battle is over: 1. financial benefits inferred by legal status 2. the majority is not willing to be redefined 3. the far reaching implications of this are huge; the repurcussions regarding polygamy, incest, etc have been raised by educated scholars For those reasons, your intentions are noble, but I cannot find a practical method of application. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Still semantics. No one is fighting over the ability to 'associate' In practically, most people will admit the fight is for the legal and financial privileges that come along with marriage, namely employer benefits. You can associate with a life partner all you want. The state just says they will not term it marriage with a certificate. Additionaly, if Jefferson is the topic of the day, consider states rights. It has been attempted to keep this a states rights issue. This has arguably failed to due to 'legislation from the bench' However, had it not, it would be up to the states, and the states citizens. In any case, the majority once again disagrees with you. If I take your points literally, while I am sure they could be argued academically, you just picked a bigger battle even than everyone else in the thread. Not only do you want to include same sex in marriage, you want to get the government out of marriage altogether? I don't see any way that would practically happen. What about divorce? child support? alimony? etc. Whether it is laidout in the constitution, bill of rights, or in my bathroom copy of Parachutist, the majority of America views this as a favored institution. The decision to attempt redefinition is a long shot, no technical grounds you have. This reminds me of my German mother hollering about Van Gogh was pronounced Von Cough, not Van Go. Technically, correct, once it has been assimiliated into America culture, practicalty rules. You are arguing over a definition inferred in the constitution, rather than the definition currently held in justice of the peace offices throughout each state. That is the definition in use. You can try to change it. But my whole point was, there are more productive fights and the results show the majority does not want it changed. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Sorry, but that would be an opinion, not a definition. Which is almost laughably ironic considering the point I have been trying to make. Opinions+Emotions /= defintions. You must use Process fueled by Opinions + Emotions to change definitions. The definition of democracy is: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/democracy Or http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy Or http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy Additionally, you bastardaize Jefferson's inaugural address with no context. Perhaps, you would like to view these quotes: MORE http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm If you are going to quote a founding father, at least research his viewpoint, rather than a single statement. The inability to analyze things in a broad scope baffles me. [/url] -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Congratulations, the office of the motherland says you have done well and picked wisely according to all social monkey norms. Seriously, congrats. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Your parallels are crooked. We outlawed slavery, we did not change what it meant. From a societal viewpoint, whether you agree or not, definitions are very very difficult to change simply due to ingrained usage. What is being requested is the change of a definition of not just a word, but an institution in practice. Whether you think it is relegious or not, most Americans still do, and voted accordingly. So, the whole argument will be lost in arguing about semantics without ever really touching the underlying issues of rights. Someone should have decided to fight over rights, not words. Whether you like it or not, words and definitions die hard. And in a democracy, the majority does rule. Even without a vote, they rule through social culture. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Marriage is a definition. I can run around say I am homosexual. But unless I am solely attracted to other males. I am not. Just plain and simple am not. The law (for now) says marriage does not include same sex. Marriage. By definition, you cannot be married to the same sex. You can call a chair a stool all you want. But the definition makes it a chair. What you are really arguing about is should a stool be treated differently than a chair. That would be a much more interested argument, and one that I would at least academically engage in. From a strategic standpoint, whether I agree or not, I think the gay rights movement shot themselves in the foot, when they decided to try and change a current definition, rather than push for their own. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yep...that is exactly what democracy does every day. Majority rule.... -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

This is a HUGE misconception, because people seem to lack legal deductive reasoning these days. THe pig comment was not homophobic, in fact it was QED proof. Right number 1. You can marry the opposite sex Right number 2. You can marry the same sex Everyone has right number 1, nobody has right number 2. Therefore, the straight people have no different rights, we just happen to want 1. and gays do not. Additionally...marriage is not a constiutional right, neither is common provider benefits based on that union. The word right is used much too loosely. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

None of that has anything to do with the definition of marriage. Marriage is a legal union, the problems resulting during that union have very little to do with the legal bounds thereof. Nor did anyone ever say it should be this way because straight people behave better. These are emotional fringe issues always thrown in the mix. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

What very few people seem to recognize is that this restricted definition of marriage it required for long term legal reasons. If I am reposting, I apologize, I have not ready all 5 pages. If marriage is not defined it goes much further than gay rights. The next wave of lawsuits in 5 years will involve polygamy, incest, etc. There have been numerous legal opinions on this that just don't get much press. If you want to share government benefits with same sex partners then push for that. It may or may not happen. But I dont think re-definition of marriage will happen, and for the legal precedent that would be set, I dont think it should. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Bashing, smashing.... This has nothing to do with agreeing with his platform, it has to do with a politician representing a platform to his constituents and then behaving according to a completely different platform in DC. My hat is off to the citizens of SD, and this is actually a huge indicator for this reason: They willingly chose to unseat a politician that historically has always brought home the pork to their state, because in the end integrity mattered more than self interest, a lesson to be noticed. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Uh...yeah, actually I do. She is obviously well in control of the situation. I think she should use whatever gives her the most power to eliminate files she sees no need for...what's the worst that could happen? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Just for the record, this is often not the case with HDs. So research this if you are buying grips specifically designed for HDs. My aftermarket grips have cable guides on them. Not to say that some custom grips are a sleeve that don't. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I will make one post in an attempt to help, and then as I agree with dave, I don't think I will post to anymore spyware threads. My job duties include supporting users who are just now really using terms like spyware/malware. My personal duties include supporting parents in the same boat. Spyware is to this decade what viruses where to the last. This is a bitch to keep up with, and my hat is off to people that try to do so for free. In case you are not aware, the writers of programs like Spybot get routine DDOS attempts from people trying to stop their utils. Imagine fighting spyware without them. Additionally, Dell has stated that nearly 15% of all their support calls are based on Spyware, and I would suspect that number is conservative. That being said: Removing random crap is one of the most prevalent support tickets I get. Yet these same users love to have FreakyEmoticonHell plugins and HotColdUselessToolbar installed. Quite frankly, I am tired of it. Even for those of us that do it very frequently, it is still pretty time consuming. So, this is the bottom line: Ad-aware is tame these days. It removes cookies and some common stuff. The nasty stuff needs more. Spybot is pretty dang good, but even it sometimes misses the newest things. Pest Patrol, HiJackThis, etc all have their uses as well. But, It is always a possibility that you have that a until will not remove. You might have to get old skool, tear open regedit and play around. I would not suggest this to most users. And saying your computer is slow so something must be wrong, is like saying the weather is cold. Define slow. Until you can, all you have is a placebo perception. SO, You have a few other choices. And you know what, these are choices that paid sysadmins face everyday, and really don't have good answers. Perhaps the only good side, is that the common 'user' is starting to the crap that we as their IT guardian have been dealing for the last few years, while they obliviously surf. Choice 1. LOCK IT DOWN. Bugs need a door, no door, no bugs. Consider: NAT, blocked ports, alternate browser, limited jscript and active x controls, no MSN messenger, no toolbars. Most users will not like this, particularly family members dont like IT Nazis. Choice 2. Quarantine certain machines in a DMZ of sorts. Don't let a parents machine touch anything else. Don't let an internet machine host any personal data. Then reghost the thing once a month. This too is kinda of a pain if you are not getting paid to do it. Choice 3. Accept spyware as a modern curse, practice reasonable security, do what you can to stop the worst, and accept common scans to get rid of annoyances. In this model, the end user will probably always think something is slow or not quite right and you have ignore them 50% of the time. Choice 4. Protect your own crap, sqaure your machine away, and practice saying "No, I won't fix your computer" or "What are these computers you speak of?" for when questions arrive. I have adopted Choice 3 at work, due to limited resources and end user autonomy. I am damn close to adopting Choice 4 for my personal life. We spent hours of our time watching this stuff develop and fought against all the end users that wanted their fun like gadgets like Bonzai, cause they are "easy" Well system maintenance isn't in a Windows world. Welcome to the other side. So, with my ranting done, my ongoing advise is: 1. Compute with reasonable caution 2. Install utils like Adaware, spybot, etc. 3. If they don't work, there is no easy answer, use deductive troubleshooting or pay someone else to. 4. Don't ever go to an IT guy with nothing more than "It is slow" Computer are just like cars, rigs, and relationships. They require some maintenance and understanding. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

You in? http://www.mojosgear.com/hcp0home.sht I will be going sometime in this next season. I want to bad! -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.