timmyfitz

I think this would be considered a full face (without a shield) with top mount. I guess our idea of what a full face is differs. http://www.skysystemsusa.com/helmets/vapor_wes_pro.html

Sorry for the thread drift but what are "friction lines".

This all just sounds like another excuse to justify someone(TI or DZO) to skirt the law. Just my opinion. Take it as such. No reason to get upset.

That's not a priority, that's just gravity.

I'm in agreement with Andy and mjo. Nearly everyone else has found a nice way to justify breaking laws, especially Dave.

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture. Says the guy that posted a link from the Onion and called it legit and an Republican rag. (Remember that you referred to that Onion video with this: "I think it is real and legit".) Ah yes, more dishonesty from the source of lies; you. See how you have my supposed quote? Of course it's incorrect how you have the period outside the quotation mark, but I think even the most uneducated know what you mean. When you take a partial sentence as a quotation, you need to place, "..." on the front and/or back end if it to show it's a partial quote or it's a blatant lie and misrepresentation. This is the entire quote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. By that I meant that the feelings were real, but used satire to hide them. I wrote: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. By 'real' I mean is this a real site espousing their typical racist, homophic BS; you know, good Republican Christian values. The whole thread was started as I was under the impression that the Onion was a RW rag, as I had rarely seen it before and then just glanced at it. I see vile hatred and I think RW rag, my bad. I don't care if you said it was hidden behind a shrub. The point is you said "real and legit". The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Spin. spin, spin. Yes, I understand. Here, little kid, is your free grammar lesson for the week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context Fallacy of quoting out of context The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position. That's just taking a complete passsage out of context, let alone not, "..." for teh missing part. I've written several legal docs and if you change anything, whether a peson's assertion or a passage of statute from a book, you must indicate that you emboldened or shortened to focus on whatever you're tyring to exemplify. I don't practice or expect that level of professionalism in a posting board, but basic honesty requires the, "..." I wrote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. If you're honest, you can't take a part of that, you must represent the entire meaning. Funny how your types usually want English-only, yet you don't practice it yourself. So you admit that you thought it was real and legit. Thanks. That's all I need to know.

I like this to http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52916 Yes, I'm not surprised you like RW rags. Like the Onion.

No, you were being made fun of because you posted something from the Onion and refereed to it as "real and legit but hidden behind satire". You didn't try to researched the Onion at all to know that it is a satirical website(not real and legit) and not a "RW rag", as you refereed to it. But you have no problem demonizing others because they post something and don't do their research. It's amazing that you are still trying to defend yourself. Here comes the spin. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3728265;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Here are a couple of your statement from that thread.

Hmmm...one wonders why you'd be so offended Dude...you were in such a hurry to do some right-bashing that you either didn't notice it was the Onion or didn't care. Either way...you came off looking foolish and the more you try to defend yourself the worse it gets. I guess that's what bothers me about your ILK, as Jeannie puts it. Even the most simple error on your part just can't be admitted. KEWL... I learn't yall a word.. all three letterrs of it..... want to work on some bigger words next week? Typical...if you only realized how small and bitter responses like that make you look. Oooooohhhh touchie arnt we. Talk about lack of a sense of humor... I think we had a some other fucknugget accusing me of that recently.... Even the slightest dig and you are getting all BUTT HURT... Yep, very typical.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. He must have thought it was a serious site like the Onion. Amazon doesn't seem to have a sense of humor either.

Yep, that's the kind of response I expected. Attack me personally because you can't defend what you have posted along with your obvious bias. Keep that spin going. Throw in a little back peddling for good measure too. Pswah - If the past is any indication . . . what he'll do is ignore the subject/post/thread for now because he would have to admit he is wrong. THAT won't happen. His self image is WAY to Godlike to allow that. Perhaps it should be interesting to see which avenue gets traveled.

Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin. I see you don't want to address your dishonesty in mis-quoting. It has already been addressed. You just choose to ignore it. Begin the spin cycle.

Yep, that's the kind of response I expected. Attack me personally because you can't defend what you have posted along with your obvious bias. Keep that spin going. Throw in a little back peddling for good measure too.

Did anyone see the SNL skit with Fred Armisen playing Obama. It was hilarious. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/china-cold-open/1178451/

Are you one of those people that don't understand the concept of analogy? Are you one of those people that don't understand when you have screwed up. I guess so. Maybe we should bring up the thread that you started about Palin getting preferential treatment at a restaurant which never happened. Here, let's try reviewing this thread. Post #5 Quade says:And what leads us to believe any of this is real? Post #6 1969912 says:You could start by reading it. http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206 (I guess he was asking you to read it based upon it's information, not the fact that it came from a torrent) Post #7 Quade says:My understanding is that I can also download a story about Vulcans and Klingons via torrents. Doesn't make them real. (So you don't read the info that can easily be downloaded but you just dismiss it because it can be downloaded as a torrent. Cool) Post #8 Me says:That's the best use of a straw man argument I have seen in a long time. Thanks for the laugh. (I guess you are unfamiliar with what a strawman argument is: A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Sounds like you. Bad torrents!!!) Post #9 Quade says:Great. Then defend your case. Why do you believe that anything about the messages is real? What evidence do you have?(At this point I have not agreed with or denied if the info is true, just that you have dismissed it solely because it is a torrent) At this point I believe most people can see that you are trying to cover your ass to avoid saying you screwed up. There are many things you can download as a torrent but you have made the assumption that a torrent is bogus information. Very wrong assumption. Have a nice day. (Why do I have a feeling that it is going to be a Lucky response....spin, spin, spin.) I'm going out for the evening but I can't wait to see your spin the next time I read this thread. (Edit to add bolding)

Since you seem to be the self appointed safety police, I'd like to see that video also. How could you say that Timmy? Clearly Chuck is concerned about protecting the tandem profession as a whole I guess to me it's not as clear as it is to you. There are a couple of items in the original video that Chuck dislikes and complains about but to me are not a problem. There are also the other things he complains about that I totally agree with. He just seems to be singling out this DZ. Just my opinion. Take it as such.

My guess would be That's why I ask Chuck, so there wouldn't be a guess.

Languages and the program Rosetta Stone exist outside of the internet. They are verifiable facts. If a person believes everything they read on the internet, then they are probably wildly misinformed. Which is why I was asking the question to begin with. But you still originally discounted it solely based on it being downloadable as a torrent. Something about Vulcans and Klingons? Try again.

You could start by reading it. http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206 My understanding is that I can also download a story about Vulcans and Klingons via torrents. Doesn't make them real. That's the best use of a straw man argument I have seen in a long time. Thanks for the laugh. Great. Then defend your case. Why do you believe that anything about the messages is real? What evidence do you have? Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I didn't say the message was real or not but you discount it solely because of how it can be downloaded. As a torrent. You can download the Rosetta Stone language learning programs and a story about Vulcans and Klingons as a torrent. Does that make the Rosetta Stone fiction? Try again.

This may be old but try this to see if your answer is predictable. http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humorm208.htm

Caption this: Have you notice that all the student we get lately are real chicken?

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with why unions strike as I have stated several times. Completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. Please try to pay attention. (You're playing in the wrong league.) Completely relevant. Another swing and a miss for Kallend.

You could start by reading it. http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206 My understanding is that I can also download a story about Vulcans and Klingons via torrents. Doesn't make them real. That's the best use of a straw man argument I have seen in a long time. Thanks for the laugh.

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture. Says the guy that posted a link from the Onion and called it legit and an Republican rag. (Remember that you referred to that Onion video with this: "I think it is real and legit".) Ah yes, more dishonesty from the source of lies; you. See how you have my supposed quote? Of course it's incorrect how you have the period outside the quotation mark, but I think even the most uneducated know what you mean. When you take a partial sentence as a quotation, you need to place, "..." on the front and/or back end if it to show it's a partial quote or it's a blatant lie and misrepresentation. This is the entire quote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. By that I meant that the feelings were real, but used satire to hide them. I wrote: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. By 'real' I mean is this a real site espousing their typical racist, homophic BS; you know, good Republican Christian values. The whole thread was started as I was under the impression that the Onion was a RW rag, as I had rarely seen it before and then just glanced at it. I see vile hatred and I think RW rag, my bad. I don't care if you said it was hidden behind a shrub. The point is you said "real and legit". The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Spin. spin, spin.

Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin.