jfields

James, Interesting point. If one accepts the existence of a supreme all-powerful being into their mental framework, then certainly anything can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways while remaining consistant within the individual framework. When one attributes infinite power to something, it transcends the limits of common human experience. Christians can believe in their version of history and natural law, while other religions can believe in completely different versions with equal justification. Others, including myself, can unequivocally state that there is no God and that religious history is nothing more than a children's game of telephone gradually garbling the truth over the millennia. No individual perspective can be "proven" in any way outside of the individual framework in which it exists. It is unlikely that you and I will ever agree on cloning, abortion, history or science, because we have different internal, personal definitions of fundamental things like "truth", "life" and "fact". We will not agree about "proof" because we cannot establish enough commonality within our two worldviews to have a proof maintain validity in both. Science and logic work the same way around the planet to the degree that the people participating accept particular statements into their personal belief systems. For example, most people are okay with the simplified concept that gravity makes things fall. For the large group of people that have such a common belief, a consistent body of related facts can be supported. Where people do not accept the underlying premise, they may not ascribe to the premises based upon it. For example, I do not accept the Bible as a factual or historically accurate document, therefore the events it recounts are meaningless to me in the context of a persuasive arguement with them as a foundation. Anything extrapolated from the Bible fails my personal logic test at the outset, when I ask, "Is this based on fact?" To me, it is not. One thing that bothers me is when people state that their personal belief is a universal fact, rather than the more accurate statement that they believe it to be true. I'm guilty of that on occasion too, but it is the cause of a lot of problems, especially when someone acts on their beliefs to subjugate the beliefs of another. When a fundamentalist states their God told them I am evil because I am a non-believer, that is fine. I just don't accept it. When they try to impose their will on my by converting me or killing the heathen, I have a problem. Where you say that the Bible may serve as a "textbook" of scientific principles comprehensive enough to explain all the data of science and history, I disagree. But I can accept that you believe that. It is as valid for you as my personal belief in evolution as concluded based up my own view of the facts as I see them. The whole point is that we will never merge our perspectives enough to agree on most of the issues we have brought up. But at least we can disagree politely.

James, While I respect your religious beliefs, I feel they are just that, beliefs, rather than proofs. You are entitled to them, but forgive some of us if we don't acknowledge them as secular, provable facts. Likewise, I feel that much of the Bible is well-intention myth and fable, with a good moral. It is an instructional fairy tale, in a manner of speaking. If "proof" is based on correctness of prediction, then I'd nominate Jules Verne and Leonardo da Vinci as equal "proof" of the secular nature of the universe. Jules Verne predicted atomic power, submarines, and lots of other things that have come to exist. da Vinci's drawings of science, invention and biology were omens of the future. He just painted religious scenes to pay the bills.

James, I don't see this as a logical conclusion that can be reached from the issue of stem cells. If we can agree that neither a sperm nor an egg are themselves complete human beings, what is the instantaneous metamorphosis that happens at the second they meet to turn it into a human? What is a "human"? I'll agree with you that sometime during pregnancy the change occurs, but I don't know when to pin it down. It is a pretty gradual transition from a couple of genetic blobs to a miniature person. Justin

kmcguffee, Sure. Although it isn't my position or my beliefs, I can see how people might justify that seeming contradiction to themselves. Perhaps they don't believe the baby is yet really alive, but the adult criminal is, regardless of their criminality. Not my train of thought, but it is one possibility. Justin

Whoops. Forgot to add the rounds.... Army T-10 - 30 jumps 300 sq. ft. - 1 jump 260 sq. ft. - 5 jumps 230 sq. ft. - 10 jumps Sabre 190 - 50 jumps (current canopy) No plans to change any time soon. Justin

James, That all gets back to the issues of when life begins, and the ultimitate definitions of things like "thought", "soul" and "self". I don't pretend to have all those answers. Would I do what that family did? I don't know. I don't think anyone would until they've been in that situation. Similarly, I don't think some people that are anti-abortion would honestly birth and raise a child if they were raped, yet they oppose the rights of others to have an abortion in those circumstances. Abortion is tied closely to cloning by the similar questioning of the circumstances of life and human rights. I object to arbitrary rules being placed on people and their personal choices. One rebuttal might be, "What about the embryo's choice?". I don't know. Do they have one? Are they alive in the sense of having enough thought process to answer, even if they did have the means to answer? I don't think an outright ban will work, nor do I think we should have a cloning free-for-all. We can't stop the progress being made in this area. If we manage to slow it in our country, it will still proceed around our little island of denial. We would drive our scientists overseas, and cut ourselves off from the potential medical benefits of this research. One way or another, we will have cloning. It doesn't matter what you, I, or George Bush think. There will be failures and things morally objectionable to some. There will also be lives saved, quality of life restored to the crippled, and hope given to the hopeless. Our job isn't to refuse the inevitable future, but to try minimze the negative repercussions while maximizing the impact of the beneficial aspects of progress. Justin

Damnit, found out again! Justin

Personally, I think it is fine. Using some brains, some science, and some test tube cells, they saved their daughter's life. Who outside of that family stood to be harmed in any way? Just my $.02, of course. Justin

In the back of your mind, you know you are thinking of ways to use that idea. Justin

LOL! Nice one, Wildblue!

Is that when you mistake the Icy Hot for KY? Justin

Actually, the joke is on all of us. "Quade" is actually the evil, lurker, alter-ego pseudonym for none other than President George Bush himself. He spends time in the forums doing research and we have been nothing more than an underpaid focus group all along. Those who expressed dissent with his policies will be audited by the IRS, conscripted by the Marine Corps, shadowed by the FBI and sent to an undisclosed laundry hamper along with Dick Cheney's dirty underwear. Those who supported his ideas will get real tax refunds, insider information on the next Enron-like scandal before the crash, a valid "Get out of jail free" card, and likely a cabinet position or two. Does that explain everything? Justin

Dave, From what I understand (usually very little), the comments about people not understanding science were aimed generally at the public at large, not simply at those who disapprove of cloning research for religious reasons. I'm in favor of cautious use of cloning, but I self-admittedly fall into the "damned ignorant" category myself. I don't know squat about the science behind all this stuff. I'm not going to get into debates on what precise point after conception a "life" is created, or at what point we lose the right to it. There will always be debate on the ethics of medical research. That is nothing new. The debate itself is healthy, because it focuses people on the issues and tends to steer us back toward something in the middle ground, rather than at either of the extremes. Justin

Since this video is a keeper, I mirrored it here. You're welcome, Skreamer. Anything for you, buddy ol' pal! Justin

A paltry 20% addicted, despite having AIM, MS and Yahoo messengers. I guess my addiction is to Dropzone.com, rather than instant messenging.

Heh. Be thankful your taxes weren't like mine were last year. Between state and federal, I owed $6,600. Ouch! That sucked big time, but I managed to pay it on time without having to borrow any money. Needless to say, I changed a few things around to make sure that crap didn't happen again. I don't know what will happen this year, but I'm betting on a refund. Justin

Aren't those characteristics taken for granted with civil servants? Justin

I think I'm good on everything else. I'm just trying to visualize how the elastic goes. Also, are there any downfalls to it? Is it something that a rigger can do fairly easily? Thanks! Justin

Those of us at work are useless, mooching slacker bastards... and proud of it. Justin

Viking, It doesn't have to be you that we find the picture of on the internet. Just a random TV and a bit of Photoshop magic.

I just had to share... I got a PBJ this morning. For those wondering, I'm not talking about a sandwich. Probation Before Judgement on a traffic violation. It was worth my while to go to court. I had to pay the fine, but no points and my insurance won't go up. A little polite "Yes, Sir" and "No, Sir" to the judge with my explanation and my little mistake has all but evaporated into legal nothingness. What a good start to the day! Justin

I second Dove's suggestion of Terry Arnold as a rigger. From my dealings, he has been straightforward, honest and meticulous in his work. His home office is in Darnstown. Justin

I haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. Granted that I don't jump a lot, but my pop top is rock-solid through the whole repack cycle. I've seen people whose pop tops are so loose you could easily grab a fist full of fabric. I wouldn't jump it, but they do. Sometimes my leg straps slide down when I'm sitting and shifting around in the plane. I always double-check to make sure they are in the right position before exit. I can see how they might do the same thing sitflying. What are the pros and cons of pull up cords and bungies. How exactly do they both work and what are the risks associated with using them? Thanks! Justin

A member of a skydiving e-mail list I subscribe to wrote up the following account of a jumper who was injured. I'm posting it here to get additional feedback and suggestions, and as something to learn from. Justin

After you have stopped laughing at the thought of me trying to freefly, please contemplate the question.