peacefuljeffrey

All the way to the bone. OUHGH that's fuckin' awful to think of!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"I'd like to see more fairy stories about the police!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"I have no idea whose this is, but I'm so horny I'm gonna suck it anyway!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I get some ladies in my office laughing hard when I do an impressionof Louis Armstrong singing part of that song, but I contend that when he sings, "...the bright, blessed day; the dark, sacred night" I could swear it sounds like, "...the bright blessed day; the dogs say goodnight..." Go listen to it yourself and see if you don't agree. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That was great! It's even better if you imagine the parrot talking with the voice of "Sonny," the robot from "I, Robot." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Some" were funny? They were ALL funny! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Is anyone else weirded-out by this monkey sniffing the ground where our butts have been, or is it just me? Duuuude, that's so gross! Get out of here!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exactly. You know, the viewpoint I expressed is exactly what Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist subscribe to. They are the "strict constructionists" and they will say, "They law says this. What it says is unconstitutional." They are likely to strike down laws that apply Constitutional intentions unConstitutionally. On the other hand, the others on the court are more likely to uphold "the spirit of the law" and let the law stand. It's a big source of controversy, and demonstrates two paradigms for how to assess it. I stand on the constructionist side - for the reasons I stated in the prior response. I have a hard time with judges holding that a law doesn't mean what it says it means. The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute. The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it. Take the well-known example of the "assault weapons ban." A bunch of ignorant anti-gunners wrote a law which, since they don't seem to know jack about guns, is very poorly crafted, from the standpoint of getting them what they wanted. They did not ban guns, they banned a certain combination of features; and then they stood by and whined that companies that utterly complied with what their law dictated were "skirting" it. Well, the anti-gunners maintain that the "spirit" of that law was to eliminate "assault weapons," and the pro-gunners maintain that the "spirit" of the law was to keep guns from having those various features in combination. Who's right? NO ONE. That's why we have to defer to the LETTER of the law. This "spirit of the law" is really, to me, a load of crap whereby people who wish to pervert a law for their own ends are able to do so by claiming that only they are able to make sense of the law's ambiguity. It's a scam. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

ICK! I never used to think much about it, but several posts including this one have made me realize what I had never considered: that having another person under canopy slide by you can leave you cut real nasty by his lines! Gross! Are we talkin' like inches deep or anything? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

All of this is true. Then add to it the fact that Moore is a pompous dickhead, and it's relatively easy to see why people detest the lying sonofabitch. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They probably just have a guy smack two paint stirrer sticks together, or maybe make a loop with a leather trouser belt and pull the ends of the loop in opposite directions to make a "SLAP!" Those silly brits! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No joke. I've come to let his condescension roll down my back. He does it to me all the time. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, I think it would be helpful to ask ourselves, "What has been the goal of the gun bans in England, particularly if they started out with such a low rate of gun violence in the first place?" In particular, I'd like someone to explain why the gun ban had to be so strict that the British OLYMPIC SHOOTERS must now go out of the country to practice shooting for competition! Was it so necessary to prevent even Olympic shooters from having guns? Were they ever a big component in your crime statistics? "Man Shot in Pub By Olympic Shooter with Olympic Rifle" Yeah, right. I think that the fact that British gun laws don't even distinguish between criminals and Olympians is a telltale sign that they are unintelligently crafted, and done in bad faith. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This thread made me think of the newspaper headline in "Johnny Dangerously": MORONIE DEPORTED TO SWEDEN; SAYS HE 'S NOT FROM THERE. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I was makin' out with a girl I knew in my old Hyundai Excel. She was getting pretty excited from me rubbing her crotch through her jeans, so she whispered urgently in my ear, "...Kiss me where it smells!" So I drove her to New Jersey. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Fellas, you're gonna want that cowbell!" LOL!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So that's why you've been so cantankerous in Speakers Corner lately!! C'mon, man, everyone including me's sending you so you'll be up and about and hoppin' into pants, jumpsuit, rig, jump ship and sky in no time! Feel better, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I didn't find a poll answer to suit me. I don't consider myself superstitious, really, but I do get sort of "ritualistic" at some things. For one thing, I try to be respectful of people who have had accidents or died skydiving. I don't go off on them the way I do when idiots die in rollover car wrecks because they were too stupid to wear their seatbelts. One ritual I do consistently is blowing kisses. This, to me, signifies affection and/or respect. With regard to skydiving, right after opening, after I've unstowed brakes and done a control check, I blow a kiss to each of my bare feet (my landing gear and a symbolic sense of my freedom in the sky), to the sky itself, and to my canopy. I don't know why I first did it, during AFP, (perhaps because I was glad to have a canopy inflated overhead and knew I was gonna live!) but it's stuck with me ever since. Okay, now thinkin' about it has me jonesin' hard for another skydive! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

But don't most Mooney's have autopilots? We paupers in our Cessnas will have to just trim for straight-and-level and endeavor to not change the CG too much while having our fun... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

But I mostly rent a 152!... I guess that when the time comes, I'll have to maybe turn sideways, door-to-door. That, or spring for a 172. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's some fucked-up shit. What's more fucked up is this nagging feeling like I wish there had been someone on-hand with a camcorder. ...Is that wrong? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Chris, I give you my sympathy. Blue skies, to your dad, indeed. It's a very sad story, but I'm glad that you focus on the more poignant and meaningful parts of it: it is clear that your dad was a responsible, sensitive person, unselfish, and courageous. Peace, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Correction: "African-American politics." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have never heard of any titanium alloy that had a hardness greater that that of stainless steel (of which I know there are many types). Not to say that I know they are not, just that I would have expected that high-end titanium knives, which typically cost $100-$400, still are not generally regarded as able to hold an edge (hardness is the factor here) as a high-end stainless steel. I thought that the strength to weight ratio issue still meant that if two pieces of metal -- one titanium, one steel -- are of the same size/volume/shape, that steel would still be stronger because there would still be much more mass (weight) there. EQUAL WEIGHTS of each metal would be a different story, as I understood it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure don't think so. My point exactly. Who's going to say that the airlines are somehow more culpable for the destruction and deaths just because this part was titanium and not steel? What else would be the point of raising the issue? I certainly am hoping that if, as I suspect, they are making an issue of this titanium part when there is nothing to it, that experts on the other side set the record straight regarding the relative strength of steel and titanium. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Titanium was harder than stainless steel would have been?! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All I've ever heard about titanium knives is that they are not as hard as stainless steel, for the most part. Now there is a current article (online and in the papers) that says the Concorde crash occurred because the tire was punctured by a piece of debris from a DC-10 that was soooo hard, essentially because it was titanium! Here's a linked article: Runway debris linked to Concorde crash I want to know what knife-people and metallurgists make out of these claims, which seem to come from the "experts" hired by people suing over the crash. Are they employing mysticism and myth about titanium in order to make illegitimate claims? Would a piece of stainless steel have been incapable of doing what titanium did? Here's a quote from an article I have clipped from the local paper: " 'The strip that should have been in stainless steel turned out to be made of titanium, a stronger alloy that made the plane's tire burst and set off a chain reaction that led to the Concorde crash,' said Jerome Boursican, a lawyer for a pilots' union that is a civil party to the legal case over the crash." Seems to me like it's typical B.S. from a hearse-chasing lawyer who is expecting everyone else to be too dumb to know that stainless steel is harder, in general, than titanium. He seems to have seized on the talk of titanium being stronger "ounce-for-ounce" than steel and turned titanium into some sort of super-metal. What do you all think? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"