peacefuljeffrey

I answered "carry on," but that's IF I ever fly commercial again. I hate the idea of prostrating myself to the ABUSE and INCOMPETENCE and FARCE of the so-called "security personnel" that the airlines and the government employ. It's virtually tyranny, in my view. I spent $4000 on my rig. There is NO MOTHERFUCKING WAY I would let the shithead baggage people handle it, possibly losing, damaging, destroying, or otherwise unintentionally or intentionally harming my equipment. If anyone here is a baggage handler or close to someone who is, I do not apologize for this statement although I acknowledge that not all are guilty of malfeasance. I have heard too many credible horror stories to have any faith whatsoever in this system. I will drive cross-country before I will fly. If we could get past the idea of trying to LOOK like we're making flying safer, that might change my mind. But when people still get aboard flights with weapons that are discovered well AFTER they could have been used for harm, and I still have to pack my 3-inch bladed pocket knife (yeah, a real mass-killer) in my checked baggage, I realize the system isn't good for shit. I recommend against anyone checking their rig in, if they aren't willing to forfeit it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you know where that line came from? (Hint: "I didn't do it.") -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Mine's on the floor in my living room in a travel bag that serves as my gear bag, and it's desperately eager to go jumping with me on Sunday!

I answered "couldn't care less." I guess I don't mind either way, as long as I don't end up being made to feel rushed. Lately, I've been given the check just like Kev says above. That's fine. I have definitely been known to leave it for a good ten or fifteen minutes while I took my leisurely time finishing. It's not like they put it down five minutes after the meal's been served! It's usually when they've seen that eating has tapered off. As long as I've received good attention, had my drink refilled adequately, been checked on adequately, I have no problem with getting the check while I'm eating. I'd rather that than have to wait forever once I am ready to pay and leave! On a related note, what about waitresses who do NOT give all the change that you are due. I had this happen for the first time recently (many times I pay with my card so I don't run into change issues.) My check was, say, $14.73. Rather than be given five singles and a quarter and two pennies for a twenty dollar bill, I was given just the five singles! I thought this was presumptuous and rude. But then on the flip-side, recently I was given MORE change, in the form of whole singles, as in the example of being given six dollars back when the bill of $14.22 was paid with a twenty. Go figure! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey, what about Mao? You could say that he espoused the ultimate leftism, and when he got power he then MURDERED the intellectual elite! Leftists destroying themselves... Hmmm. We're no strangers to that notion: I just read today that Nader is thinking about running in November! I guess he likes handing the conservatives the presidency! LOL! Go Ralphie!!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey, I'm living in West Palm Beach! Well, I suppose I should not take offense, having been born, raised and educated on Long Island. I myself think the people who inhabit this area are fuckin' morons. You should see them DRIVE! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'll give YOU a finger... Um, seems the only people who were too dumb to figure out how to vote in Florida in 2000 were those dumb enough to try to vote Democrat. I had the sample ballot sent to me in the mail (I still have it). I voted in the election. I left the ballot box with NO DOUBT that I had actually voted for the person I wanted to vote for. There was no legitimate reason for confusion. The claim that the ballot was confusing came ONLY after the whiners' candidate was not elected. Funny, the same whiners had had ample opportunity to see that same exact ballot before the election, and at that time, all the way leading up to the election, no one stood up and said, "Hey, this is too confusing, let's get it reworked before the election." You know, for all the bitching about Florida blowing the election for Gore, why don't we hear about how if he had only been popular enough in his [I]own fuckin' HOME STATE to carry their electoral votes, Florida wouldn't have mattered?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow. That sure is some assertion! I'm "higher educated" and I'm a happy mix of "right" and "left" and "center" views... Sure as hell, though, the "logic" of prohibitionist policies is not owned by either the left or the right. The left wants to prohibit guns despite evidence of abject failure of such attempts to decrease crime. The right thinks we can use prohibition against drugs and abortion, despite obvious proof that those don't do squat, either. Both sides have no legitimate explanation regarding why they have failed to learn the lesson that "the" Prohibition should have taught us. There is no excuse for continuing to believe in that folly, but still they argue for it, left and right. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm cooking for work Not because I am a chef Pot luck dinner rocks! - Once in a while, each month or two, whoever wants to cook or buy brings something in and we all go nuts for about an hour when we otherwise should be doing work. I tend to go a little nuts on what I bring. Tonight: fettucini alfredo with chicken and vegetables, from scratch. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Chicken Quesadillas Boneless skinless chicken breasts Onion Green pepper Mushrooms Cheddar cheese Flour tortillas Lettuce Tomato Sour cream jarred Jalapeno slices Thoroughly cook boneless skinless chicken breasts in a George Foreman grill (or lacking that, fry them in light oil) Cube up the chicken breast Cut the mushrooms, onions and peppers into fine cubes, sautee until cooked through and sort of soft Mix the chicken and veggies together and make sure they're all good and hot Lightly oil the pan, place a tortilla on it, and scoop chicken/veggie mixture onto it, creating a layer. Shred cheddar cheese to coat the mixture, and cover with a second tortilla. Get the bottom tortilla browned, and then flip (I use a plate to cover the quesadilla, hold the plate and lift the pan and flop the quesadilla, then slide it back onto the pan). Brown the top and give it time to melt the cheese. Slice the quesadilla like a pizza pie and serve the wedges with chopped lettuce and tomato and sour cream and jalapenos. Guacamole is also excellent as a side condiment, as is pico de gallo (which I don't know how to make yet). The same mixture can be used as leftovers without having to cook up the quesadillas in a pan. I use the same flour tortillas and place a strip of chicken/veggie mixture, lettuce, cheese, tomato and sour cream, then wrap it like a burrito. Also, you can mix all that stuff up on a plate and crumble taco shells into it like a taco salad. That's awesome! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Angela, I hope you're feeling well enough to come back out and jump soon. You and Rory are a nice couple and I enjoy it when you're out there at SoBe. **vibes** - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You handled my um, outburst, in a pretty dignified manner. I appreciate that, and your decorum. I was a bit out of line there and kinda hot under the collar. Sometimes it's too easy for me to get that way when I don't have to be in someone's physical face in order to get in their face. Apologies for seeming like such an ass. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's all good! Beautiful Landings, Streaker I agree. I've never had one that was fully shaved, but I know I'd like it from having seen it "in the movies." That said, I kinda like the muff natural too. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How wasted can one even get on something made like that? Doesn't a lot of the alcohol evaporate, like when it's cooked? I guess I'd use vodka or something instead, though. The jello has the flavor, and the vodka is higher proof than Grand Marnier, isn't it? Thanks for the recipes, guys. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'd get a Spyderco ATR pocket knife ($180), a Chris Reeve Sebenza pocket knife ($300), a ProTrack ($300) and an Ouragan freefly suit ($300). OR I'd get a camcorder/helmet setup. Since I'm starting to freefly, I want to be able to video my fun. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I completely agree. Where I think there is a problem, of course, is that from my viewpoint (obviously the result, in part, of my conditioning and upbringing) people who do not see the need for being armed, and therefore do not arm themselves, are operating under a false impression of safety and security. First, they are lied to by anti-gun people who claim that you increase your odds of being hurt with a gun just because you get yourself one. (This "study" has been exposed as hogwash.) Then, they surround themselves with doublethink, assuring themselves -- against all reason -- that somehow LESS prepared is MORE prepared. If I DO own a gun, I can do everything in my own defense that I could do if I did NOT have a gun -- PLUS. However, if I do NOT have a gun, I have only those options open to me that the gunless possess. It's rather like if you encountered a fire in your kitchen. If you have a fire extinguisher, you can either flee the house, or fight the fire. If you do not have a fire extinguisher, you'd better have a clear path to the door because fleeing is the ONLY option you have. I'd prefer to have as many options as possible. Due to my "upbringing," I think that those who eschew additional options are deluding themselves. Yes, this is a matter of viewpoint. But if this subject is parsed along lines of rationality, I think that a much stronger argument is made in favor of being armed rather than unarmed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Erm, hundreds of thousands of guns, and 65 million population (ish). Sounds to me like the majority didn't want them. So that's how you justify taking away their rights? "They're only a pitiful minority!" How can you possibly justify this statement? "All the time" is a statement which has no place in what was an otherwise well-reasoned argument, however much I disagree with your opinion. I said it because while I know that gun-attacks have become increasingly common in England -- particularly due to increased drug gang activity -- I don't know the exact figures. I know that it is certainly more than was happening BEFORE your gun ban. So all farmers are hell-bent on GBH/manslaughter/murder? Come on. Perhaps I should have specified that I meant "of people walking the streets with guns, or keeping them in their cars." The guns your farmers are allowed to keep are hardly self-defense-oriented guns, anyway. Single shot .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, etc. Not what I'd want to repel a home-invasion robbery. And certainly useless for on-the-street personal defense. I'll take my Glock 27 for that, thank you. Since most burglaries are opportunistic, it's incredibly unlikely that such a burglar would have a gun. Plus, in most instances where a burglar is disturbed, they run away. Might be different in the US where, since they know the chances of a homeowner having a gun are much higher, they think they may be better off staying to fight. This is the most backward-assed logic I've seen yet. You appear to be saying that a burglar in the UK will turn tail and run when he meets the homeowner he KNOWS is UNARMED, but he will stay and FIGHT the AMERICAN homeowner who might very well be ARMED?! THAT'S ABSURD. Johnrich posted figures regarding the "hot" burglary rates for UK and US. There was a large gulf between the percentage of burglaries committed when the occupants are home or not home. In UK, more than 50% of burglaries occur on occupied dwellings, as opposed to 20-something% in the US. This is attributed to the notion that UK burglars have less to fear when they encounter a homeowner, since it's extremely unlikely that person will have a gun to defend the home. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It is my understanding that IF you own a gun in England, at this point it will not be one that is particularly suited to close-quarters (in-home) defense, as a handgun is designed to be. It must be a long gun (unwieldy in a household environment -- why do you think the FBI and SWAT teams use "entry guns"?) and it must be single shot, yes? Even if it doesn't have to be single-shot (the only part I'm not sure of), IT HAS TO BE KEPT LOCKED-UP, so it is nearly USELESS compared to an American's gun, which he can have on his person, or in a cabinet, or under a couch cushion, etc... The only gun that is of any use to you is the one you can bring to bear in time to adequately respond to a threat. One that's locked in a safe separate from any ammunition (as your law REQUIRES) is useless. Or are you advocating breaking the laws that govern storage of firearms, out of recognition that they are senseless and harmful? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is not so. While it is true that you have long been denied your right to own firearms by your government, the right has always been yours (as a HUMAN right to self-defense and preservation). In addition, your civil right to own arms has its root in the Common Law as well as the English Bill of Rights. Of course, at the time (I believe) there were restrictions based on one's religion. There is a big difference between your not HAVING a right, and your government IGNORING your right. The latter is actually what's been going on. Your rights have been trampled on, and continue to be. You are INCORRECT. Now do you see why I've been challenging alleged British posters about what they know about their own country?! That guy in Dunblane had LEGAL HANDGUNS. He had been VETTED BY THE POLICE PRIOR TO BEING LICENSED TO HAVE THEM. You are WRONG. And if those guns had been ILLEGAL, that would have made the hue-and-cry against LEGAL guns all the more preposterous. You need to check your facts more thoroughly. You are correct when you say that making handguns illegal was an irrational response to the massacres -- even despite being in error about the Dunblane guns being illegal. Your government took away a host of guns that had never been used in criminal attacks and likely never would have been. Those guns were already under strict control regarding purchase, ownership and storage to begin with. Now you have a situation where the ONLY guns left around in your country (except for tiny number of single-shot long guns still owned legally) are kept by CRIMINALS, from whom the government never could confiscate them because they had never been registered to their "owners" in the first place! Way to go, Parliament! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A person can still own a gun, just not a handgun. The vast majority of the population do not want guns in their house. Removing the right to own handguns was one of best things, and they don't do many good things, that our government did in recent years. Did the British population kick up a fuss and start protesting about their rights to own handguns? No. I can't see that same attitude in a couple of countries that spring to mind. "The vast majority of the population do not want guns in their house." That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns. And by the way, when your gun crime rate (and other crime rates) skyrocketed in the years directly following your gun ban, I think that proved that banning guns did NOTHING toward making your population safer from gun crime or any other type of crime (except maybe for price-fixing or gouging on gun prices). And you must have missed reports that I remember reading that several MPs have been discussing RESTORING the right to own guns in England, since observing the dismal and disastrous failure of the ban to make people safer. Your England is the perfect example of the truism: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." You are a living laboratory. If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now -- you can be sure that person is of a criminal mindset. Great on you! Your government has made sure that when faced with such an intruder in your home, you have to go at a gun-wielder with only a fireplace poker or cricket bat as a weapon. Best would be to lock yourself in a room with a phone, call the police, and have a GUN handy with which to shoot your attacker if he bursts through the door. (Note I am NOT saying your best course is to engage in a gunfight.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, I think you are missing my point. George Harrison was badly wounded and NEARLY DIED in the fight with his intruder/attacker. What I was saying is that had he possessed a GUN to use in home defense, he would likely have fared far better, because a gun means you don't have to get within striking distance of your attacker in order to defend against him. Anytime you must be within arms' reach to hit your attacker, you are within arms' reach OF your attacker. Harrison was badly injured, and as I said, he was near death. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The jello shots sound good -- it's been a while since I had those. I never have gotten the "recipe" for the right amount of alcohol and jello and whether you use water to dilute. Um, "grand marinara"?! That sounds reallly gross. I think you mean "Grand Marnier." (Mar-nee--ay) Ain'tchoo got the bottle around to know how to spell it?? Um, folks, I don't know if all of this is said tongue-in-cheek, but I can't personally get with the "drinking early in the day" thing. But I'm not much of a drinker -- as it seems a lot of other skydivers are... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I feel kinda weird about voting (for SoBe) because actually I haven't been to any other Florida DZ. SoBe is my home DZ. I think it's great -- I really feel at home there. I imagine that the view at Sebastian rivals that of SoBe, but so must many views at many DZs. Truth is, you'll probably have a great time at any of the choices. I myself would like to check out Sebastian and DeLand and Z-hills, just because they figure in so much of the important history of skydiving as I understand them. (Manufacturers and stuff at those places, and important instructional videos like Breakaway! shot at them.) Why not arrange to make a big circuit to a "big 3"? Ya owe it SoBe since they're newest. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Given that one does not have to go far to prove that violent crime victimization can happen easily to any person at any time in any place, that would be my justification for carrying a defensive weapon (and even a handgun qualifies) at any given place and time. Even in the supermarket, or the library, or on the sidewalk, or at the beach. People get victimized by criminals all over the place. It is not a fair presumption that just because an otherwise law-abiding citizen is carrying a weapon that that person intends to use it unlawfully. If that were the case, they could pick me up for attempted rape just because I have a penis, or attempted arson just because I filled a can with gasoline. What you're talking about, it seems to me, is a justification for "prior restraint," which is only legal in exceptional cases (and I can't think of one). Thank you. That's all I feel I should EVER have to say to someone about my choice to carry the implement(s) that I may one day desperately need to save my life. You carry them every day because you can't pick the day you're going to need them -- so they must be always present. It would be nice if I could somehow know in advance, "I will definitely not be the victim of a violent attack today, so today I can leave the gun at home." Unfortunately, that sort of foreknowledge is not possible. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Umm, why "dumb" to have items for self-defense in your home? Is it because "the police are supposed to protect you?" That's the logic some use, forgetting that every single crime and homicide that has ever occurred, occurred because it was not stopped by the police. (Tautology.) That means that many people who counted on the police and only the police to defend them died waiting for that defense. So I ask again, why is it "dumb" to keep items for self-defense in your home? If the above is your logic, I ask why anyone would keep a fire extinguisher in the home, given that it's the fire-department's job to keep you safe from fires. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"