Nightingale

you're assuming that men have one set of tools and women have another. I don't think this is the case. I think that different parental styles/tools are dependent on the person rather than the gender. For example: I know when most girls want to talk about sex or relationships, they talk to their moms. Personally, I talk to my dad. My mom's a prude when it comes to such things, and when I just want advice or just to vent a little, I talk to my dad, and usually get some very good advice. Mom would judge me. Dad listens. In many families, it is the other way around. Mom would listen and sympathize, while Dad would go grab a shotgun. Not that my Dad hasn't WANTED to go grab a shotgun on occasion. I would agree with you that two parents are best, simply because EACH PARENT brings different tools into the mix, whether they're same sex or different. Because personalities differ, each parent is going to have a different kind of connection with their child, whether biological or adopted.

I wear a bonehead guner. I wear it because if every scratch on my helmet was a scratch on my head, well, that would kinda hurt. I wear a helmet pretty much for the same reason I have a cypres. I shouldn't need it, but its there just in case. Its there for two situations. 1. I did something dumb. 2. freak accidents.

if they stopped calling it a "legal document" and started calling it a "word of honor" that would make a difference. A legal document means what the law says it means, and when you sign it, you are agreeing to what the law says you agree to. You can give your WORD to anything you choose, and hopefully, choose to keep it.

The same way the Puritans should have been protected from the Church of England. They wanted nothing to do with the Church of England, and had to leave the country because of the persecution. The US government can't support or ban a religion.

AND it was designed to protect THE PEOPLE from religions they choose to have nothing to do with.

Life would be a lot easier if the "others" would mind their own business about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them other than offending their "delicate sensibilities"

but a representative democracy or republic is not the same as a true democracy.

there ain't a lot of technology involved if one chooses to use the "porno, plastic cup, and a syringe" method. My friend Felicia's daughter was conceived like this. The donor was her best friend, who was gay with a partner of 10 years, and she was 35 and single and not wanting to get married. They decided to go halves on a kid. They share custody. The father is "Dad" and his partner is "Papa", and she's one of the happiest, well adjusted little girls I've ever met.

Well, actually, marriage was originally for figuring out who got land and title, if you go way back. And with regards to the "children" thing, I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Any fertile adult, gay or straight, can have a child. Its a matter of biology, not legality. I know several gay people personally who have biological children from. Finding a sperm donor or a surrogate ain't that hard. Plenty of single hetero folks do it too.

why does what others think matter? I really don't care what anyone else thinks of me. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on how I live my life.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but here's the traditional reason: Marriage between closely related people can cause genetic problems with offspring due to the prevalance of the same recessive genes. (example: both brother and sister are carriers for sickle cell and hemophilia. They both have one recessive gene for the diseases, passed to them by their mother. If they have a child, they have a 1/4 chance of having a child with one or both of those diseases, as opposed to if they had children with someone not genetically related to them, as the chances of meeting someone with the same genetic defect is remote). However, now, with the technology we have, there really is no reason other than moral "squickiness" to forbid it.

The United States is a federal republic, not a democracy. This usage of the term republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the United States Constitution intentionally chose what they called a republic for several reasons. For one, it is impractical to collect votes from every citizen on every political issue. In theory, representatives would be more well-informed and less emotional than the general populace. Furthermore, a republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways (the President, House, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently), it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the government to infringe upon a minority

"I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

the "divorce rate" is a percentage. More people marrying and will probably not affect that percentage much. for example: now, you have 1000 marriages performed in one year in Nowhere County. 500 of them end in divorce. you have a divorce rate of 50%. Now, you allow gay marriage. So now, you have 1500 marriages. 750 of them end in divorce. You still have a divorce rate of 50%. Gay marriages may increase the number of divorces (of course some gay marriages won't work out. some straight marriages won't work out.) but they will probably have little to no effect on the "divorce rate."

I'm sorry, but in this country, majority does not rule. We are NOT a democracy. We are a republic. If we were a democracy, our constitution would be irrelevant, simply because it could be overturned or re-written simply by a 51% vote. We are a republic because of our system of checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority WHILE protecting the rights of the minority. See Brown v. Board of Education for more information on how and why this works.

hmm... do you do RW? give her a kiss pass on a creeper.

Who are you to judge who is and isn't a skydiver? That's just plain rude. Attack the argument, not the person, please.

lol... since I HATE leftovers, fast food is cheaper. Otherwise, I'll spend ten bucks on ingredients for one meal, eat a great dinner (I can cook, I just choose not to), and then the rest sits in the fridge til it turns green. much more economical to go over to taco bell and spend $2.00 in the drive thru.

I don't usually eat dinner... and if I do, its usually fast food. no fun cooking just for one.

I'll talk to students about my personal experiences, but won't ever give technique advice. If someone asks me "how do you get up the courage to go out the door?" sure, I can answer that. If someone asks me "how do you determine flare height?" I say "ask your instructor."

lol... Bill, I can't even do math on the GROUND, and you want me to do math at ALTITUDE?? j/k

Not if the canopy was made the way a canopy is supposed to be made. Hard openings are a fact of skydiving and fall under the category of "shit happens" If you hook in or do something stupid under canopy and injure yourself, you did it to yourself, and can't sue (well, you could, you just probably wouldn't win) on the other hand, if you're jumping a brand new canopy and pull, and the thing completely unravels (and you're jumping it within the manufacturers' specs), I'd say you had a right to sue. Its kinda like buying a car. if there's something totally wrong with it (gas tank randomly blows up or something) and you're using the car the way its meant to be used and it malfunctions and injures you, sue if you like. But, if you're stupid and drive the car into a tree, you're just stupid. stay out of court. And if you drive the car over a puddle on the highway and skid out, well, shit happens.

I completely agree with you. There is a time when the student's responsibility ends and the responsibility of the DZ begins. If they tell the student that there is a reserve in there, then it is their obligation to follow through on their word and have a reserve actually in there. When I asked, I didn't know about the implications of reserve repacks. I think I had like two jumps. The instructor let me look over the main (another student had just landed with it, so it didn't even have to be unpacked, I just got to take a minute and look it over before Jimmy packed it) and the reserve data card was explained to me, and I was able to speak with the rigger who packed it, because they could tell by the seal and all that. Having done that, I felt a lot better about jumping, and felt I had a much better understanding of the equipment. The DZ did take a lot of time with me (on a weekday, not a weekend) and went over what I needed to feel comfortable with the gear on my back, and that was enough for me.

I've sent flowers through 1800flowers.com and it worked great.

actually, no... Lesbos, I believe, is part of Greece, and subject to Greek law, which is largely influenced by the Greek Orthodox Church.