BIGUN

OK. That cracked me up. Thanks. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

You might want to re-review Revelation 21:8 Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

I agree. Hence, the one month paid leave. But, it doesn't sound as though that's the case here. I've bent over backwards for employees and in the end, in each case, it came back to bite me on the arse. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Good ones can and do. There's a difference between a bad attitude and a bad circumstance and a decent HR department works to distinguish the two. If you don't care about retaining the good workers then you treat them both the same. If you want to keep the best people it's a good idea not to make exceptions but rather to have policy that can help in situations like this. If he can't do his job ONCE the child care thing is sorted then by all means, fire away. While I can understand your position and if they work for one of the mega-companies that can do that - those employees are generally not close to the revenue stream. Being a small business without an HR department where everyone is touching the revenue stream... the most important "good" is customer service/satisfaction. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

I watched it some years ago and came on here to ask WTF? It was suggested that I wasn't in the right "frame of mind." Guess I'll never get it.

To me; the issue is not about childcare - its about doing his job. The organization can't wrap itself around everyone's personal problems. If another employee were late or leaving all the time for other reasons - would you terminate their employment? Verbal, written, gone, right? Having said that; I once gave an employee a month of paid leave to get "passed" their issues and get them resolved in that month. It didn't happen and they were terminated anyway. I was chastised for my actions, but I knew I had done the right thing - they did not. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Banesanura got a promotion? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..." Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Quanto conficiamur moerore: It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in his supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin. Pope Francis has good news for atheists. Jesus died and was raised for them as well. His redemptive embrace was for all, not just a chosen few.The choice to accept its reach is our own. The Holy Father was not teaching anything new. In fact, this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient. The Church wants all men and women to be saved. And, since I've had many issues with the "construct" of hell over time; If Mr. Hawking can't go to "Heaven; then what chance do any of the rest of us have? Heaven would be a very desolate place. https://listverse.com/2015/10/03/10-biblical-reasons-why-hell-might-not-exist/ Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

I understand. So for those of us that have experienced what you have; this will not be your last witnessing account if you stay in the sport long enough. I hate to say this, but it becomes a part of the culture to accept it. Many of us have lost friends (and some have lost family) in front of us while pursuing our passion. And yet, we still get in a vehicle or on a motorcycle to go home. To add to Bob's advice of jump more; make sure your have no gear fear. Trust yourself. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

The best man for this job is: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1604885;search_string=fear;#1604885 Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Just had to pipe in.... The Falcon was not only my favorite canopy; but favorite reserve for years. It unfortunately had to go to the wayside for the then newer improved ZP canopies. Doubt many today (other than us older farts) know that a tippy-toe landing is possible without running one out or butt-sliding across the planet. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Perhaps our neighbors to the north could take a page from the Skyfest Boogie playbook. I am proud to have been one of the Load Organizers for the SCR awards (I knew Bill Newell fairly well, so I dragged him out of retirement to attend). I strongly believe that Skyfest's philosophy of "Pay it Skyward" is responsible for many of today's skydivers remaining in the sport. It doesn't have to get as big as Skyfest got. Maybe just a three day weekend localized to regional events around the country. Just a thought. EDIT: Very bad grammatical brain fart. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

To both your points and Rush's position. The fact of the matter is; you are correct about the hunting issue. I think one of the worst things done was lowering the caliber from .308 to .223 for both the hunter and the animal. We had a rule when I was Instructor at Bragg - If you're going to kill it; kill it. If you kill it; eat it and don't kill any more than you need to eat. And, the .223 round does not kill well. Unfortunately, many think it is modeled after the M-16 which is a different round all together and even it doesn't kill that well. I've always been opposed to feel-good regulations and to Rush's point; he's actually right about it being used the least to kill people. It's just that when it does; it's "mostly" a child issue and it get's more media attention than the number of handguns that kill children OR even for that matter - the number of child deaths each year from not wearing seat belts (that's a horrible number). Back on track... so when these things do happen it becomes an agenda and the agenda is the same each time. Even Feinstein's latest bill mimics the retarded 94-04 ban rules. It didn't work then and it won't work again. The really ridiculous part is that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama all endorsed an assault rifle ban. And, it did not work. Rush's point is that there are ~30,000,000 million AR's out there. At an average of $1,000/each - that's a voice of 30 Billion dollars screaming "don't ban my weapons!!!" (and, I might add that are both Democrat & Republican). That's why 15 Democrats crossed the aisle last time AND during a predominately Democratic house. I get that we're going to be on opposite sides of the fence on the ban issue. But, if the goal is to truly end this; there has to be a long-term goal. It has to start with a "Well-Regulated" system of registration. All weapons (every one of them) must first be registered. Caught with an unregistered weapon; confiscated, $10,000 fine and a year in Jail for the first offense. Downhill from there. People must be licensed - not the weapon. They must be educated on the proper storage, ownership, transport and transfer of those weapons (we can use the FFLs for this). There needs to be a cradle-to-grave ownership system for all weapons; not unlike vehicles. They need more training than a day in the class and a day popping off 50 rounds. And, I believe in armed campus police at the schools (I'll never understand why we have become so adept at TSA at the airports; but we can't do if for kids). Now.... how many jobs did we just create? IMHO - it needs to be a systemic logical, long-term approach; not an immediate feel-good approach. If we do all of those bullet items and then get everyone to sign an affidavit that you get to keep your AR's and if there's still an Assault Rifle issue - you agree to surrender them without a buy-back. How many people would do a much better job of keeping an eye on the AR's out of fear of losing them. We believe in policing our own. Why not use the same approach with some legal teeth to it and make people accountable for owning - not just AR's; but every weapon. Liberals can't shout "Banning doesn't work; look at alcohol!!" when it suits their agenda; then turn around and holler, "The only thing to do is ban assault rifles!!!" Have a great day. EDIT: oops, spelling Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

>>> You failed to include the most obvious and necessary step, i.e., reinstating the AWB, Pssst. Look up. I addressed that. >>>and you proposed arming teachers. No. No, I didn't. Keyword is "may." They have the freedom to choose. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Um, no, it isn't, not by a long shot. Um, yes, it is actually. The only thing missing is the assault weapons ban which hasn't worked; which won't work and is just a silly knee-jerk reaction after each act of violence in which it was used. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Morning Joe. The entire proposal here is based on the liberal agenda: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4876454#4876454 On a similar note, I watched the movie, "Miss Sloane" last night (Amazon Prime) regarding the gun issues. Good movie and pretty factual on how DC works. Something both sides of the aisle may wish to watch. I'd give it four Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

That's the point. Compared to total number, the rate, i.e., the number of gun deaths per 100K, is the more meaningful metric, allowing use to make meaningful, objective comparisons among locations of different population sizes. No shit. Did you read the whole thing or just the part you wanted to throw rocks at? Fantasies... it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence the emoji. Stop sitting in the corner ready to pounce on any little thing. I've been on the liberal side of this issue for days. Try to keep up. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

In most cases with technology; if you can think it - it can be programmed. Of concern would be the amount of human resources and subjective input by the "referees." IMO - your proposal doesn't provide for the existing amount of un-registered guns. That has to be addressed. Existing guns need to be registered or forfeited by incentive or law or a combination of both. If vehicles can be tracked from manufacturer to grave, insurance, and warrants by a database feed to LEO in the field; why can't the same be done for weapons. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Doubtful. We have reciprocity to carry with those states and I'm faster. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

We didn't choose the woof life; it chose us. WOOF!! My Brother, WOOF! Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

My observations of Trump to date (Each item on his agenda... Wall, Immigration, North Korea, Tariffs, etc.) has been his use of "The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the persuader's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique Remember when Kim's daddy was the master of saber-rattling? We always knew he was looking for more trade or less sanctions. Makes me wonder if Trump has used this particular strategy so much over the years that it's just muscle memory. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Well said.There's got to be some middle ground to reach that respects both sides of the equation. I'll tell you the same thing I told TK in a PM: I don't mind more gun legislation as long as it doesn't affect me. Keith Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

You must be still a bit of an outsider in America. I seldom hear native Americans expressing this obvious truth. They are too afraid of censure from their peers. I feel relatively safe in saying that TK has always been a bit of an outsider. We may not always agree, but his perspective is always welcome. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

I understand what you and TK are saying about highest population. But, then when we throw in the X in 100,000 model it kinda dilutes that overall number. One can read that two ways... If I go from Oklahoma to California; I'm still 380 times more likely to get shot. No, I don't like that representation either because there's a population density factor also. I'm probably more likely to get shot in Oakland than I am in Hillsborough. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

The reason I didn't address your cry for the AWB in several other threads was because: 1. Even according to the article you posted - 'Advocates on both sides of the gun debate often point to the same report assessing the ban published in 2004 for the U.S. Justice Department. One key takeaway: The report said it was premature to make a definitive conclusion about the ban’s impact. It said there had been mixed results in reducing criminal use of the banned guns and magazines. If the ban were to be renewed, it might reduce the number of gunshot victims, but the effect would likely be "small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement," the report said.' 2. The 113th Congress (the height of the Obama-Era) - An AWB was presented in the house. If failed. 15 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted against it. So, its been done - really didn't work well and when its brought up for vote - it doesn't pass. 3. I'm not sure if you know the real culprit in Mass Shootings. The handgun. Yup, a semi-automatic handgun. When an assult rifle is used - it garners a lot of media hype. It's popular to make that weapon the "demon" when its used. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ 4. You know the State that has the MOST Mass shootings? The one with the most laws regarding gun ownership. Yup. It seems that particularly motivated individuals will not give two shits about a law and figure out a way to carry out their plan. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/ 5. Offensive measures don't seem to be working. So, that's why several of us look to defensive measures.... as in the right to defend yourself and others. "We should also be talking about better securing our schools. Every child should feel safe at school without feeling like a prisoner. Many of the surviving students at Parkland have talked about the safety drills and procedures they'd been taught saving their lives yesterday. That's good -- but a shooter shouldn't have been able to get in in the first place." https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/opinions/democrats-spare-me-your-hypocrisy-on-shooting-cupp/index.html 6. In the "PROPOSAL" I submitted; I get that the poll was "Boolean." However, what I find astounding is that each point was from the liberal perspective. EACH one. The first one alone was a direct theft from the Canadian model. Yet, an overwhelming number of (mostly SC liberals) voted against their own platforms - in its entirety. I spent a couple of days packaging up that proposal and yet, no one did another somewhat similar proposal of their own, nor made it less "Boolean." Mostly liberals voting against their own platforms left me with the realization that SC is just about arguing. Its really not about solutions - arguing is just the SC sport. 7. You mention AWB and, "As for those "feel safer" fixes, I "feel" safer knowing that there are not automatic weapons on the streets." Are you under the impression that AR-15's are sold as automatic weapons? I may be over-reading this; but its used in the same thread. 8. On that note - "feeling safer" ain't the same as "being safer." I feel much safer knowing that SkyRavn is safer with her weapon than without and I have no doubt that the Mama Bear will unsettle the most aggressive acts of violence if our child is threatened. And, I feel safer knowing that our schools have armed police officers with a known history of response. Someone goes to our schools with the intent of doing harm to children - they're going to get a response. On a final note; I would "settle" for a 21 year-old law to purchase weapons. But, I don't think it would be effective. People who want to get around laws - will do just that. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.