kbordson

Ha ha, dream on.... Doctors and lawyers are some of the most childish, irresponsible people in the world. they have an inflated opinion of themselves, based on the secular priesthoods to which they belong. Several years back, some doctor was hounding his ex-girlfriend, trying to FORCE her in court to abort the child she was carrying. He felt that as the sperm donor that he had some kind of right to demand she abort the baby, because HIS relationship with her was over. Never did hear how it turned out, only surprised he didn't persist and attempt to have the child euthanized.... And based on some of the responses of people in this forum... I would have to assume that skydivers are ignorant and cruel. Some of the most biased and arrogant people that I have ever "met." But the REALITY is that there are good people and bad people in EVERY walk of life. And in fact, some of the "good people" are "bad" by some definitions and some of the "bad people" are "good." Life is not black and white. To discriminate against an entire population based on your experience with a handful from that group is foolish. I believe that this PERSON is wrong. He is hurt and publicly humiliated. He is lashing out. Hopefully the courts will see this as the emotional outburst and drop that portion of the divorce. He obviously cared VERY deeply about his wife at some point. It's sad when love turns bitter.

Another question is "who capsized the get away boat?" Look at the pics of the landing of the ransom. That really doesn't look "so terrible." I wonder how long did the pirates take to leave? Why would they choose to leave a safe location that they had been on for months and had what seemed to be a rapport with the hostages in the middle of "terrible" weather? It really sounds to me like it was either some truly ignorant pirates (which is possible) or a "plausible" cover story

Mairzy Doats

Some museum ideas: Museum on 233 Fifth Ave Also ... the Met and MoMA

How about how many female skydivers have been caught wanking on the Skyvan bench? You don't have to be obvious on the skyvan. It's not like you have to even use your hands. Just move the leg strap over a touch and let the vibrations do the rest... Not that I know.

What does that do? It's tea made from the coca leaves. Also called Mata de coca. And if you do drink that, you will likely test positive for cocaine derivatives. Refer here for more info

Same here. Marty tends to use Hardigg cases - most durable, best latches. I like Pelican - especially since they re-designed the latches so that it won't tear up your fingers any more. Starlite works as well. A rather recent change is that the locks now have to be "TSA approved". (which curiously isn't on the TSA website yet....) It kind of annoys me that "they" now require that the case be less secured (IMO). If you examine the TSA locks.... scary to think that anyone with that "TSA key" can access your case.

Actually, a couple of years back, I had some rather similiar symptoms in Colca Canyon right close to there. It's kind of a sucky feeling. Hope you acclimate soon (that or descend a bit)

AAARRRGH! Happy Birthday, ya olde pirate!

Since this is flashback... I'll start with some earlier pics Jane - 1980's SunGlasses - 1990's BadGirl - 2000's - BUT NOTE, most of the time I DO NOT look that!! It's amazing what makeup and positioning and lighting can do! - oh and gonzo, bald is cute on you.

Kallend I'm done here. I have very little respect for your method of debate or discussion. Laugh over this, support those that laugh over this, condone whatever level of violence you find appropriate. I just don't care.

Why do you keep avoiding the self reflection?

Bush did not post an order to bomb women and children. You are demonizing him to justify your hate for him. He is a man. He has made some REALLY bad decisions and yes, people HAVE died because of his orders. But he did NOT order the Air Force to specifically target the women and children. You can be disappointed in the policies of this government, but when you then approve of violent acts yourself.... where do you stand?

It's better than bombing someone else's country that presents no threat to you, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, just because their leader is a bastard. Hard for women and children to argue with B52s. So... justification of violence with "but he's a bad guy" is ok for them to do against us, but not him to do against them? You do know that "bad guy" is just a subjective term. And when you advocate or condone ANY violence, you are placing yourself in to that category as well. Interesting that you consider throwing a shoe and carpet bombing to be in the same league.. Can you reference the Executive Order that had the B52's carpet bomb the women and children? I would have more respect for your statement if they were based in fact. B52s were used to drop cluster bombs during the Iraq invasion March-April 2003. Nice weapons, cluster bombs. Much of the world recently signed a treaty to ban them, but the USA refused. You're still not giving a reference to the Executive Order. And.... You know the joke about the man asking the woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars and she said yes. Then he asks "how about $10?" The "punchline" was - it's already established that you're a hooker, now we're just bartering. You seem to be condoning violence. Now you're just trying to bicker like that lady. You have lines that some violence is ok. Where are your lines? Only against certain people? Only with certain objects? Only if you're REALLY REALLY REALLY mad? What are your lines?

first the dd list/forum...i am betting speaker's corner is next You wish. Firstly, I'm glad that you're not drown in the sorrow of Coors Light and that the happy thong puppets are alive and well. B ...... I'll wait with asking more about the "how to" on joining said illicit list. Third, SC COULD be a helpful forum from which people could learn and grow..... could.... in MY reality, where everybody is nice and plays well with one another..... and doesn't throw things.... even shoes. D. Have I mentioned.... YEAH THE UNDEAD BOLAS!

Amazon Are you really understanding it that way or are you just trying to be cute? As Diablopilot pointed out... No. That wasn't my point. My point honestly is that NONE of the OBJECTS are violent. The act of the person throwing something is the violent part of it. But if someone thinks that shoes are ok? What else? Where are THAT persons limits? If someone thinks that attacking President Bush is ok then what about attacking a Governor or a City Official or a School Principal? Or what about someone bringing in a knife or a gun to take on the school bully? Violence is NOT the answer. If you condone violence, you are part of the problem.

It's better than bombing someone else's country that presents no threat to you, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, just because their leader is a bastard. Hard for women and children to argue with B52s. So... justification of violence with "but he's a bad guy" is ok for them to do against us, but not him to do against them? You do know that "bad guy" is just a subjective term. And when you advocate or condone ANY violence, you are placing yourself in to that category as well. Interesting that you consider throwing a shoe and carpet bombing to be in the same league. You know the joke about the man asking the woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars and she said yes. Then he asks "how about $10?" The "punchline" was - it's already established that you're a hooker, now we're just bartering. You seem to be condoning violence. Now you're just trying to bicker like that lady. You have lines that some violence is ok. Where are your lines? Only against certain people? Only with certain objects? Only if you're REALLY REALLY REALLY mad? What are your lines?

It's better than bombing someone else's country that presents no threat to you, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, just because their leader is a bastard. Hard for women and children to argue with B52s. So... justification of violence with "but he's a bad guy" is ok for them to do against us, but not him to do against them? You do know that "bad guy" is just a subjective term. And when you advocate or condone ANY violence, you are placing yourself in to that category as well. Interesting that you consider throwing a shoe and carpet bombing to be in the same league.. Can you reference the Executive Order that had the B52's carpet bomb the women and children? I would have more respect for your statement if they were based in fact.

It's better than bombing someone else's country that presents no threat to you, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, just because their leader is a bastard. Hard for women and children to argue with B52s. So... justification of violence with "but he's a bad guy" is ok for them to do against us, but not him to do against them? You do know that "bad guy" is just a subjective term. And when you advocate or condone ANY violence, you are placing yourself in to that category as well. You boggle too easily. all else fails, resort to petty comments.

I was reading in a different forum about a thread where a person posted that they were in a relationship and needed advice. That person mentioned that, in the course of an argument, certain events happened. BUT... it is mentioned that he/she was never personally hit or choked. The comments in that forum are QUITE different from what I see in THIS forum about what "violence" is. So I'm curious. Hypothetical situation (MEANING... NO. My husband does NOT respond physically when we argue) I'm in a fight with my husband. Very angry. Lots of emotion. Yelling. crying. He gets frustrated and grabs the closest thing next to him to pitch at me for emphasis. Which of the above objects are "violent"?

I have, through philosophical discussion, learned a lot about who I am and who I "think" I am. I have learned that I'm not always right. And I have learned that I get defensive about those issues that I do feel that I am "right" about. (For example, I strongly believe that everyone should be nice!) I am very willing to learn about other cultures, beliefs, and attempt an understanding of varied views. I have, at times, learned and changed my thoughts after discussions... but that would be discussions with those that show respect and help with growth and education. As you said... the lines get drawn here and no one will compromise. Black and White. Good and Evil. Republican and Democrat. In reality... the world is not so polarized. People just need to think outside of his/her box to try to look at the other perspective. But it's hard when all you see is an attack against YOU. So you lash back again. And the battle ensues. So... converted in SC? not converted, but some level of reflection. My post in the thread on vegetarianism kinda states my opinion

I am kind of surprised none of the other 21% has shown up yet demanding the death penalty for this attack upon their Glorius Leader You don't think that it's comments like that that might have driven some of them away?

Guilty too. But with my bitching, I'm really just asking: "Are you part of the problem too?" (not directed toward you jtval

Acts done in anger with intent of harm are different than acts of drunken misbehavior. (but... nice that you got the snipe in there about how your threshold is higher.... whatever that really means?) It wasn't just a verbal insult. It wasn't just waving the sole of his shoe. He pitched it up there to strike him. Had President Bush not ducked, he would have been thunked in the head. Major injury, no. And I'm not saying that it would have been. But it was a physical act directed toward another that had seemed to have the intent of hitting him with it. Do you guys SERIOUSLY believe that this should be condoned, encouraged, laughed with.... "cuz it's just a shoe" or "cuz it's GWB"?