jakee

The problem is that you waded into this thread under the misapprehension that Douggs was somehow in charge of the bridge, or in charge of what the idiot was doing with himself, when he wasn't. He had no connection to him whatsoever. Now you're too proud to admit you were wrong and you're just digging deeper and deeper into this irrelevant hole. Gear failure or misuse accounts for a very, very small proportion of BASE fatalities. And no-one is in charge who can enforce gear checks for those who don't want them or don't want to give them. Because there's no-one in charge who can write one, and no organisation who could insist that its members follow any procedures that might be laid out in said manual. Sure. And much of what they do is mandated by the FAA, manufacturers and airfields. Who can mandate it because they are in charge. And much if not most re-breather scuba is carried out under the auspices of commercial operators who are in turn accredited by international organisations. These operators and organisations can insist on rigorous, structured gear checks because..... they are in charge. Seeing a pattern developing here yet? And most people in BASE check their gear as well. But there are also those who don't, just like there are those who don't in every other sport you just mentioned, despite the fact that they are told to by people who have authority over them! So when someone rocks up, on their own, to a public bridge that no-one controls, to do a jump that he hasn't paid anyone for, it is absolutely no-one elses fault that he hasn't put his gear on properly. And it is especially not the fault of the guy (who has no cennection to him in any way) who spots it and saves his life for him. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why are you confused? I'm being pretty clear, to be honest. I'm ok with the message that you give a shit about human life. The rest of it is bullshit. Then you agree that the stuff you said about things reflecting badly on a dropzone, or what you would do if it happened at your dropzone was irrelevant and does not apply? Look, it's pretty obvious what's happened - you charged into the thread like a bull in a china shop under the missaprehension that Douggs was "in charge of, or at least participating in, what looks like at least some semi-organized thing going on involving many people" that the idiot was part of. But he wasn't. The idiot ha no connection with what Douggs was doing, and was not using, paying for or registered with anyone's goods or services. He just rocked up on his own and was jumping on his own. And now you're too proud to admit your mistake and you're ignoring the reality of the situation. You're basing your criticisms and your dropzone comparisons on the idea that "someone in charge" should have given him a gear check... when as far as the idiot was concerned there was no-one in charge. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And you're being a total fucking arsehole about it by making out that anyone else here doesn't, or that the guy who actually saved the idiot's life doesn't either. You're also judging the situation by a completely irrelevant set of standards by saying that a person who just happens to be in the same place as another person has the same duty of care and the same moral responsibility towards that person as you do to the customers who pay you money and enter into contracts with you for the supply of your services. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude, I don't know what kind of axe you have to grind against the base scene in general or maybe Douggs in particular but this is absolute nonsense. No-one has said anything of the sort and neither does it reflect what happened in the video. All that has been pointed out is that a bridge is not a dropzone, and Douggs is not responsible for or in control of the bridge in the same way that you are responsible for and in control of your flight line, your airplanes and your landing areas. The same standards, responsibilities and expectations do not apply. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Here's a thought: when your idea instantly garners a lot of informed criticism and essentially zero support the problem might not lie with your potential customers, it just might lie with your idea. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But it's not a dropzone. It's a bridge. The nearest analogy to a DZO in this situation isn't Douggs, it's whatever highways agency owns the bridge. And you can do that, because you know who they are, have taken their money, have entered into a contract with them involving certain conditions and safety provisions and are in return allowing them to use your landing area, your airplane and your services -all of which you control. And none of which applies here. So what action would you take to ensure that someone you don't know, have no business or personal relationship with, and who isn't using your business or services doesn't fuck up again on a bridge you don't own and have no authority over? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Is this the same argument you use when someone protests against when scientists comment on climate? I ask - Because . . . Well, you are wrong again. Um, only if you think the past is the present, and 'historically' means 'now'. OK - why don't you ask her then. Maybe - yeah - That has to be it! She LIED to me that she studies spiders. OR - Well there is a second option - maybe she isn't REALLY an entomologist. You can ask her. I have no idea what this person did or didn't say to you or what field they do or don't study. There are all sorts of possibilities. But I was simply replying ref the wikipedia article you linked to as if it supported your point, when in fact it doesn't. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Funny how things get changed when they are brought out in the open, huh. Cool, it's a CONSPIRACY! Better than pillowgate! It is a set of events that derived by excitement over and over again. After it was brought to light - the programming was changed. Pretty simple, even for you. So Turtle, how's that not judging something until it's proven in a court of law thing going for you tight now? Good? (And sorry, but what the fuck does 'set of events that derived by excitement' mean? It's a nice collection of English words but it definitely isn't the English language...) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Is this the same argument you use when someone protests against when scientists comment on climate? I ask - Because . . . Well, you are wrong again. Um, only if you think the past is the present, and 'historically' means 'now'. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Lol why? Because the NFL was otherwise so pure and uncorrupted before Kapernick got to it? Never mind that your first post called him an asshole for refusing to 'respect what the flag stands for and who died for it' (which I guess means that you don't mind people who disrespect dead soldiers away from NFL stadiums) I believe Kapernick said he would no longer stand for the anthem wherever it was played. Why is football so important that he should make an exception for it? Heck, why is football more important to you than america? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If it displeases you, I must be doing something right. If your goal is to displease me, then for the love of mankind, find something more worthwhile to do with your life. Boy, are you projecting. I have concluded that you are a marvelous baseline for whether or not a stance is valid. I thus find it reassuring if you take the time to disagree. Your progression (sorry, regression) towards simply being a more erudite version of rushmc is equal parts amusing and depressing. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm sorry, what is the 'it' that is done as a result of prostitution that people don't care bout? Are you suggesting that people who support legalisation of prostitution don't think those who rape, traffic or control prostitutes against their will should be punished? That would be like suggesting that gun-rights advocates don't think people who carry out drive by shootings should go to jail because 'meh, it's a second amendment right to have a gun, shit happens'. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Except for Hillary Clnton. See the difference is - that I admit it. You just did the opposite of admit it though, didn't you? Admitting it would have been saying "...but I reserve judges until all the facts come out and the jury rests - unless I really don't like someone!" Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Except for Hillary Clnton. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Of course that's how you see it. You only acknowledge facts that fit your narrative and discard the rest. Meanwhile, in reality, it was not only W. that invaded Iraq, but signed the withdrawal orders. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement Plus, the surge wasn't ever going to be a permanent solution. Sooner or later Iraq was going to have to stand on its own two feet and sooner or later it was going to crumble. You can go back now, smash ISIS militarily and leave a strengthened Iraqi government behind all over again... and as soon as the troop numbers die down again and the Iraqi government start playing factional politics again the next insurgency will rise back up and everything else will come crashing down once more. The neo-con hawks are basically just a bunch of addicted gamblers who can't see how deep they're stuck in the sunk costs fallacy. They keep thinking that if they could just throw another 20,000 troops at the problem, and keep them there for another year, that this time they'll finally get the flowers and parades that GWB promised frst time around. They just can't face the simple truth - their guy broke it, no-one can fix it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

On the flip side, this election could be the perfect opportunity to make a 3rd party statement for the future without the slightest chance it will effect the result of this election. If the polls keep crystalising as they are then come november there will be basically zero doubt that Clinton will win. So if a swathe of centre ground voters who hate Hillary and Republicans who feel betrayed by the nomination of Trump vote for a 3rd party then Hillary will still win but it could be the biggest 3rd party result in living memory. Might have the tiniest chance of shaking things up. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You tell me? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And as I said earlier, what is your point? Government funded healthcare is supposed to benefit those who can't afford private healthcare... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Because christians, atheists and average white people use all sorts of names, muslims mostly only that one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If a majority christian country wont vote for a christian theocracy why would it vote for an Islamic one? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So why are you pissing yourself in fear of Sharia law when it's never going to happen? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh, I forgot it was you. Benghazi. That's pretty much all you've got, so keep banging that worn out silly drum. Actually it's not all that he's got. Ron is so rabidly anti-democrat that he's started believing all the whacked out conspiracy theories about the Clintons murdering their political enemies, staging the deaths of ex-staffers accused of leaking information and generally being a mashed up hybrid of the MacBeths and the Corleones. Except that I don't think even he really believes it - but since it supports his worldview he's going to do his absolute best to spread it around anyway. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The Marxist/socialist/progressive agenda is totally incompatible with a Muslim Theocracy or the implementation of sharia Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that Iraq and the USA are the same thing. They're not. Iraq didn't spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, the U.S. did. But the U.S. doesn't control Iraqi airspace, Iraq does. So what's odd? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not neccessarily. I'm sure it usually does involve a fair bit of that - but the drugs themselves are incredibly easy to come by, most drugs currently being abused have extremely short 'glow times' (hence why they're still being used) and there's a lot of freely available information about microdosing, direct muscle injection, and all the other ways that can be used to beat the tests and the biopassports. It's not that difficult for an athlete to put together his or her own doping programme without the help of anyone else inside the official system. Do you want to have an ideagasm?