dorbie

But of course the original statement didn't say "you're like a Nazi", that's just guilt by association with the law, you're trying to blur any distinction and indict by loose association. Again Godwin's law does not support the rest of your thesis either, you certainly misunderstand it even as you accuse others of misunderstanding it. Godwin himself has expressley rejected your type of claim on his original observation. You're using Godwin's law to try and imply that someone has said "you're [like] a Nazi" in a statement where they clearly didn't. You're merely using the cover of Godwin's law to divert attention from any distinction between your charge and the actual statement they made. Moreover you accuse others of defending the indefensible for merely pointing out the difference between your accusation and the actual statement. That in itself is worse than anything Rick Santorum said IMHO.

It seems that the early congress had no filibuster, it was always possible to move to the next debate and force a vote. In 1806 this was eliminated allowing filibusters. In 1917 a rule was introduced allowing two thirds of those voting to end a filibuster. In 1949 it was changed to require two thirds of the entire senate, in 1959 it was back to two thirds of those present, and in 1975 it was changed to the current three fifths of the entire senate where it stands today, that would be 60 folks. So here we are today, the inviolate filibuster of course now being a sacrosanct part of the republic according to some. FWIW, the "nuclear option" is about eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees only.

Please explain how requiring a vote by elected representatives on an issue, equates to totalitarianism? The very name comes from "filibusteros", pirates who held ships hostage for ransom. A filibuster seems like the ultimate totalitarianism, and while I can see the value in limited use of it, the repeated and systematic use or threat of use beyond any semblance of democratic intent makes it beyond repair. The more fascinating thing in all of this is how both sides appeal to precedent and statistics of various sorts, often completely rigged. Everyone's so blinded by ideology that you can't even decide if this is a unique abuse of the filibuster or not, but who can without research and knowledge beyond our means? Thankfully those stats have been produced online but what an effort just to cut through the crap. The capacity to misrepresent the situation seems boundless and now with talk of gassing and lampshades, we've hit rock bottom on this one.

That would be very interesting if that was Godwin's law but it isn't. All Gowdin's law states is that as an online discussion drags on a comparrison to Hitler or Nazis becomes certain. It says absolutely nothing about winning or losing, that's a secondary tradition.

My quotes are directly from the Red Cross, that's exactly what their own representative said including the timeframe and the fact that they're satisfied it doesn't happen, something that's overlooked in a lot of reports I see today. Moreover there are other explanations as in my additional quote. What's weak is once the shit hits the fan, blaming the administration for not foreseeing the consequences of something published outside their control. Newsweak actually blamed the administration for not censoring them as if they're obliged to proof read and respond to every article that any organization might publish.

Newsweak withdrew the story, it's cut & dried. At the time they published they had no evidence just a single incredible source. Since we're here, I don't have a crystal ball, we all operate on the information available to us, and when Newsweak prints a story they admit is false and then tries to blame the administration for the consequences of that then they have a serious accountability problem. The RC thing is a 2 year old report and after the allegations rules were put in place at gitmo to prevent any "desrespect" towards the Quran. We've gone from desecration to "disrespecting", here's what Schorno said He also specifically said that this was years ago has stopped: Nevermind that the "credible information" behind the accusations are exclusively from a bunch of guys many of whom profess to hate us because we're not devotees of their death cult. Allah only knows what disrespect for their holy book entails. I have no frigging respect for the Quran, that doesn't mean I go flushing it. And another interesting piece of writing from you know who, showing there are more forces at work behind these allegations than you or the RC would assume.

Oh, and what about the passengers on his next incident. Can you imagine it, pop goes the balloon and the pilot starts strapping on a rig as his customers watch in forlorn hope.

He he, I'm just trying to picture what would happen if you showed up for a fun balloon ride with your rig. Would the pilot take you up

Yup, that's because I understand the point he's making. It's easier to defend than lies about the statistics on judicial nominees. P.S. the point is not about something Hitler did, he's not saying you're like Hitler. It's about how ridiculous it'd be if Hitler did something like say how dare you invade after invading. Something Hitler never did. Shame I have to explain it really.

The real Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law It's an indirect analogy at best. His point is the Dems are breaking with house tradition and then saying "how dare you break with tradition". It's a good point, the Hitler analogy is totally redundant except to emphasize how utterly ridiculous the Democrat's position is. Godwin's law says nothing about the debate being over or conceded and infact Godwin explicitly said that isn't the case, he merely intended people to evaluate gratuitous citing of Hitler. You'd have to be a real Nazi to assume otherwise.

http://contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/von%20trier%20slams%20america Poor guy, his countymen like American culture so much that they import it, but then complain about the consequences of their own actions. This guy is a prize, he seems to be complaining that he doesn't have full citizenship . His confusion is really priceless. It raises the question though, how much stuff that idiots like this guy attribute to America is actually American? Doesn't it rub both ways?

Yea and in Britain they drive on the wrong side of the road, you've gotta do something about that!

I know the video you mean, scarey. The guy with the two out pulled his main when he turned belly to earth after seeing his partner's cypres fire, at around the same time he pulled his main his cypres deployed his reserve. This is a common way that two outs are caused. It looks like his cypres fired much later than his buddys. He chopped because his main was turnigng to the left and looked like it was starting to develop into a downplane configuration, watch what his canopy does before he chops. He may have made it do that himself it's impossible to tell from the video.

We best not agree on too much lest someone think we know what we're talking about, we don't really. Read the SIM, the advice is clear on this point. http://www.uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/SIM2005.pdf Page 30. I don't want to add to your confusion, talk to your instructor.

All theoretical thinking, I haven't tried this, so beware

The archetypal mythology crap has been debunked by tracking Lucas' own changing accounts.

Big time, I learned this lesson the hard way while I was taking canopy instruction(with my instructor telling me specifically to work on this). If you're on your last 20 feet of descent and wind sheer stops your canopy from generating lift (possibly causing a partial collapse) the only thing you have left is your PLF and you probably have less than a second to execute, even less than that by the time you figure out that your usual flare generates no additional lift. If you're not in a ready position you're really leaving yourself at a dangerous disadvantage, and that's just one scenario. It's not that uncommon either, I've read several similar reports, some way worse than my experience, wind shear on final even if you're straight in and in the clear can drop you fast with no warning.

You have my permission to throw rocks at me to knock me out of a tree if it saves me $750.

No wonder, have you seen the wing loading on a vending machine?

In practical terms, I think African American means you're a black American. Would a white immigrant from South Africa call himself an African American? Yup, and Irish American means your a drunkard. The actual prefix is a country but often identifies another characteristic.

Clinton is one of the fed Dems who've taken an honorable and consistent position on Iraq, he can afford to he's not huckstering for kallend's vote. He's actually been sympathetic of Bush on the Iraq issue, that's why the press doesn't like to put him front and center on this issue and why this comment might surprise readers of the NYT.

Why the bloody hell don't you (collectively) do something about it then? I keep hearing this "what can we do" crap and there's obviously existing remedies that you do nothing about except post here. Copyright theft and intentianally confusing trademarks are both very serious and skyride would get reamed by a decent lawyer, you just have to find one. Heck if the damages aren't big enough to attract a suit shark then get together and file a class action instead of begging for clicks on a web site.

What happened here should be a lesson to any US politician who dares challenge a U.K. politician in a live environment. We have some dummys but the more famous characters are routinely formidable, and Galloway is certainly a character. American congressmen have it damned easy, they're rarely asked tough questions or have to think on their feet. If it ever looks like they might be they just won't show up. Confronting Galloway ain't like a soft soap interview on the Dianne Sawyer show. The shouldn't have let him get away with half the bullshit he pulled, but then again I have no respect for these publicity hounds abusing committees to further their own selfish agendas either. At least with a Soviet show trial people were wise to the false veneer of propriety. Americans and their press seem to lap up these politicized soap operas like they were weren't the product of a panel of corrupt old farts jockeying for sound bites. I suspect Galloway had diplomatic immunity, so he could dish out as good as he got, you or I might have been silenced under threat of being hauled out in chains in contempt.

Unarmed combat, what's that? http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/weapons/weapons.html

The force of gravity is the same at 3000 ft from a balloon or a plane. It will take the same amount of time to reduce your altitude by 1000ft, assuming equivalent non tracking body positions. The forward inertia does not affect the force of gravity. There are two major forces acting on a falling body, the force of gravity and the force of air resistance. There is a difference between the force of air resistance acting on a body falling from a balloon and the vertical component of air resistance acting on a body falling from a plane on the "hill", it depends a lot on what the body is doing too IMHO but speaking in idealized terms you fall slightly longer from an aircraft. It's all besides the point though.