GTAVercetti

Oh it was just a joke, I didn't mean any seriousness by the comment. Maybe I should a put a few behind it. Sorry If I labeled anyone incorrectly, I've always enjoyed reading speedracer's posts. I was just hoping for another smartass remark in return. Nah. You just got the brunt of my rant, but it was not really aimed at you. I just see alot of "the right sucks!", "the left sucks!", "Bush is evil", "Stop being a Bush hater", and my favorite, "If it was Clinton, what would you say then?" on this board instead of good arguments (luckily, there ARE just enough good arguments to counteract my head from exploding) Anyway, sorry for the continuing derailment. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

no he's just one of these rare creatures we call a "lefty with common sense." GAH, you left and righties make me want to throw up. Its always so EASY to say something and top it off with, "well, that is because you are a stinking conservative ( or liberal). bleh. And it was such a nice argument too. When I hear lines like that, I think of crap 24 hours news channels and I forget every relevent point you made. Speedracer, nice post. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Our goverment said that they see no connection to the Iranian government -- heard that on WTOP radio. Iran's own young population will take them down...give em some time. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Here is an interesting page (contains actual science and technical explanations) about radiometric dating(not exactly intelligent design per se but along the same vein of argument) ...by a Christian -- AND he is a proponent of it. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%204 It is one long page, but here, from "page 19" and "page 20": Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems? We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following: * There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. * All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude! * Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth. * Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. * Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. * The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple. The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time page 20 of Christ. Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives. Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays. Doubters Still Try Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods. Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

But there ARE subtle differences between translations that have "ripple" effects. One interesting proposition can be found here: http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html It deals greatly with the meaning of words in the greek and Hebrew and how they were altered upon translation. I do not know if it is ENTIRELY correct, but it makes some compelling points about a translator's influence on their work. When one complex language is used to translate a text into another, choices made by the translators can often have drastic OR subtle effects. Yes, the underlying message of Jesus -- do good, be good to others, and live in peace, are easy enough to determine -- but unfortunately, those with too much religious zeal insist that EVERY WORD has been translated correctly...this would be impossible for any work, let alone one so old and translated into so many languages Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

This thread is frickin awesome. OF COURSE the true version of the bible would be in ENGLISH. Duh. Everyone knows english is the true language of God. geez. That's why they had such a hard time understanding Him back in the old days. What with god speaking English and everyone speaking Hebrew or Aramaic and such. And that is why it took so long to get it right. They needed all those years to translate to the CORRECT language. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Dependence is different than experience. You can experience being drunk with having a dependence upon it. The experts do not disagree with me. Getting drunk because you like the feeling sometimes is fine. Doing it because it is the ONLY way to feel good is bad. Simple as that. If you NEED alcohol to have fun or get rid of stress, you have a problem. But getting really drunk does not automatically mean you NEED it. And what exactly IS a popular discussion for skydivers? God? Iraq? Bush? Left wing media? This SC. No discussion is a happy and popular one. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Then explain to me why someone needs to drink to get drunk, "shitfaced" is the word I believe you used, and others drink and never get drunk. Actually, it was tso-d chris who used it first...then you, thne I used it to quote you. Why do people drink to get drunk? I can think of many reasons other than because of dependency. Top reason: They like it. They enjoy the feeling. They consider it their way to let loose. Is it a need? In some, yes. in most, I believe no. But alcohol is there and they use it, sometimes excessively. As people will ocassionally do with anything. Asking why someone gets drunk while others abstain is like asking why someone rides a bike while another drives a car. It is personal preference. Not always, but most of the time. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

That is a hell of a lot more than simply drinking to get drunk. Bottom line getting hammered !== early stage alcohol dependency, but in SOME cases, it can be a sign. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Um, no, your point was 'People don't drink to get shitfaced drunk unless they are already in the early stages of alcohol dependency.' which is obviously false. This is true. I was refuting that statement. You made that statement and followed that it may be hard to hear in our skydiving community. The idea ws not implied; it was written clearly. You SAID that those who drink to get shitfaced are in early stages of alcohol dependency and it will get worse without help. I say, you are not correct. However, to go with your more recent statement. The number of people I know who have tried heroin is less (but not non-existent) than those who have gotten drunk. I know QUITE a few alcoholics (functional and not), but I know not a single heroin addict (out of the people I know who have done it). Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Maybe you forgot being a teenager, but I certainly wasnt doing it for the taste back then It might surprise you to know that most teens weren't drinking to get shitfced drunk. So whats your point? Well, i don't know where you live, but in my high school, town, etc, the teenagers drank to get drunk...mostly because we knew we didn't get to drink alcohol often. I remember going to Penn State one weekend Junior year of high school and it seemed like EVERYONE was drinking in excess. My guess is that the majority of those people do not have alcohol dependencies today. The same goes for my university. We got drunk ALOT and most of us have stable jobs, good friends, and no alochol dependecies. Getting hammered alot does not mean you are going to turn into an alcoholic. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Somehow I doubt that Senator Santorum has ever read The Declaration of the Rights of Man. The problem is, as an example, engaging in taking drugs clouds ones judgement. Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4 children to get addicted to heroin, which most likely would result in a loss of interest in working and supporting their family do you? I think the arguement comes down to whether a person has the judgement to decide for themselves whats harmful. You certainly wouldn't advocate allowing people to decide whether it's OK to run a stop sign or red light based on their judgement about whether someone would get hurt by their actions, would you? I think it comes down to where the line is drawn between personal freedom and personal responsibility. If life were so simple, everyone would use a condom and the spred of AIDs would stop immediately. Of course there is a line between freedom and responsibility. However, this is not the focus of Santorum's message anyway, from what I can see. The bottom line of his message, to me, has not been focused on breaking laws (traffic or otherwise) because you think it is your right, but instead has been on the idea of family (read: a HETERO family). ie. that a gay couple will DESTROY a child's life and their is no way they can be good parents. Which is total bullshit. Now, I have not seen the rest of this speech nor have I read his book...I am simply going on other interviews I have heard. edit: I just watched the interview. You would think, according to Santorum, that republicans NEVER to anything moral ambiguous. The last bit there is "look at the rampant divorce rate brought by the left." You hav egot to be kidding me. For every liberal gay democrat, there is some church going conservative sneaking late at night to look through his stash of porn. For every divorce between two democrats, there is a republican marriage being held together by bitterness and misery. And that works in the opposite direction. Conservative, liberal, these days, every one is morally wrong in some way. Santorum: just one more guy making certain we stay divided into primary colors. Making bank off our divisions. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Uh oh...someone seems to have missed the ENTIRE last paragraph of his post. Oh well. Here is what I think: Far Left = Far Right = wrong. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Nope it can be unlocked in the PS2 with a cheat machine like ARMAX...really not worth my time to buy though. Here are the codes for those who wish to check it out: http://www.gta-sanandreas.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46818 Anyway, it is silly to complain about nudity in a game where you can kill anyone. Especially a game where you can kill anyone AND base jump! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

That is the best thing I have read all day. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

ALRIGHT!!! We got the guns, we got Iraq. Now we just need abortion, the liberal media, the religious right and we will have included everything speaker's corner has to offer. again. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

you really should put an "in my opinion" on there because otherwise I could be incline to believe you are telling me what is acceptable to me. rehmwa - thanks for the compliment. And yes, he seems like a little bastard. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Not arguing with that. Theft and the like are good reasons for jailing. However, the title of the post focuses solely on flag burning so that is what I am talking about..

Anyone know what the recommended way to dispose of an old flag is? Burn it. Please see: http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/flagcode.html Section 4. part k. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Sorry for the long post:

Hey, there is a nice angry statement with no reason to back it up. Nice. Did I walk into SC by accident? Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, i know people with 1000's of jumps who have not yet mastered belly flying. In fact, a very excellent flyer just took out our 14 way not too many weeks ago. So you cannot wait till you have MASTERED it. Having said that, I only started freeflying about 100 jumps ago. I think i was lucky to have a great RW organizer and a 4 way team right off student status so I have always found someone to jump with and found that RW is fun. I will back up what was said. Doing group belly work allows you to get into good habits (break off, awareness, etc) in a more forgiving enviroment (speed change-wise, no corking, etc). there is no set number. I just did it (and still do) until I felt I could do reasonably well on the RW dives I have been asked on..and THEN I started freeflying. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I do not, in any way, believe that having skysurfing at Nationals will inspire someone to take up the discipline. Hell, when I started skydiving, I did not even know there WAS a National event. And even now that I know, I don't skydive to compete. In fact, most of my friends do not do it to compete. We do it simply because we love it. Disciplines and sport popularity are in constant flux and they come and go from competition (look at the skeleton in the Winter Games). To me, there are just not enough competitors to keep it around. Maybe someday it will be popular again, but I do not think the reason for that will be because it is a National competition event. Instead, it will be because someone sees a video and says, 'hey, that looks pretty cool. I should try that.' Even if it is dropped from Nationals, I believe it will still be used in commercials and film and whatever else. It just in not viable as a competition at the moment. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Not me personally, but there is a woman at my DZ who has around 800 jumps and still slides most in. They are never hard landings, that is just the way she does it.

I like skydiving and, for the most part, skydiver. They have been mostly cool. Sure there are pricks, but there are pricks in every walk of life. Find a new DZ. And find your return key and caps button. Vertical spacing and capital letter can be your friends...if only you let them into your heart. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.