dorbie

Of course Southpark's message was somewhat mixed, so I guess for this thread this one is a bit more on target: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTs0wtemvU

Let's hum to the music, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum. http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark/ Apparently Southpark wasn't too far off the mark.

A good attitude in skydiving IMHO. I was going to say well spotted but you've gone and mined images from several threads on the subject, so I guess you've seen the extensive discussions there. I don't think you can make a modification to a rig like that, what happens if your bridle slips through whatever you add or there is some other untested consequence like asymmetric loading during opening or interfering with the normal operation of the adjustable harness connections, or wear on the webbing. Nice idea but that's a harness, they are tested in ways you can't imagine, don't screw with it, at least not until you get your master rigger's certification. You've presented some great reasons to adjust & fasten a correctly fitting rig, and to deploy on a good stable arch, so stick with that and talk to your instructors. I think it's unlikely you'll have a problem, if you look at the details that emerged from the incidents with the people slipping from tandem harnesses they were improperly tightened, or in fact not tightened at all in conjunction with physical disability or unusual body shape. Tragedies, but not of the sort you're likely to repeat jumping student gear. You might be better worrying about other factors, there's no shortage of things that can kill you skydiving.

Too Easy, but I won't spoil. I prefer the puzzle of two jailors guarding the prison exits one leading to the execution chamber & the other leading to freedom. One is guarding the left exit and the other is guarding the right, one always lies the other always tells the truth. You don't know which jailor is honest and you must determine which exit leads to freedom. You have one question before you must choose a door, what do you ask and which jailor do you ask it of?

Well it seems to me that it's all the prepared people that are the fearful ones around here. There's no end to badge wearing gun totting highly prepared people in the USA raising alarms, evacuating buildings, confiscating nail clippers and implementing any other half-assed scheme that pops into their head with the utmost seriousness and sense of self-importance. What's more they've used my tax dollars to do all their preparing, thanks! Preparing is a no-brainer when you get to play Roger Ramjet on someone else's dime.

Look at the 2k Composites helmets when you make the move. The FFX and FF2 have a snag-free design that doesn't present much if any additional malfunction hazard. Having purchased the FFX I'd probably recommend the FF2 as a bit more convenient for reasons of access & fit. There are helmets out there you could jump now and they're set up for adding D-Boxes etc. later. I think the pro-tec is a good stop-gap, just remember you may want to order your helmet ahead of time, they can take a couple of months for delivery in some cases. There are several helmets & boxes where you have to specify your camera gear for sizing, so don't jump the gun on your camera equipment, make sure you're getting gear that will work together. It would suck to get a helmet now only to discover that it limits your camera choices later. P.S. yup the Optik Illusion is an example of a helmet you could jump now and add your D-Box later when you were ready for a camera. Just remember that you'll need to purchase a box & attach it later and anything external to your helmet is a potential snag hazard that you should be confident in dealing with.

There are many good books, most of them will do, plenty of pictures. I could get by hunting & pecking on the menus and was self taught, but with the books there are still plenty of tricks you can learn. Online tutorials are ad-hoc but some are worthwhile occasionally. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-4724028-8840824?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=photoshop Of course I have to mention GIMP, if you're only scratching the surface with Photoshop then GIMP may meet your needs: http://www.amazon.com/Gimp-Photographers-Editing-Source-Software/dp/1933952032/sr=1-3/qid=1168023142/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-7055091-9019632?ie=UTF8&s=books

Ya think? What "church" is that? Well the date info rules out the Church of Scientology.

To perform or to watch?

Still no new videos available since Dec 22nd. Is it back down again or what?

Oh well then that really clarifies things. What the heck are you saying? You are no longer allower to whine about people not reading your posts, because you're reversing their meaning with your edits. Reversing their meaning? Sure thing. You're so cute when you try to play Thread Nazi. Covering your embarassment at being caught in a lie by attacking me as a nazi? I'm amazed you'd dare show your avatar in this thread again, but you did and stooped even lower. Unless... could it be you don't know what a physician is? I'll tell you what you can choose. Dumb or mendacious, which is it? No editing after you decide what you you were thinking this time though.

Oh well then that really clarifies things. What the heck are you saying? You are no longer allower to whine about people not reading your posts, because you're reversing their meaning with your edits.

A prophet is a fictional entity, a whackjob is anyone who believes they are a fictional entity.

Aside from knowing God exists and the claim that God IS everything (versus created everything), I'd guess a significant portion of Christians in this country would fit your description. To answer your question - most churches. Wrong, She made no mention of Jesus, you reversed her question and ignored a few tenets of faith. She is using the term God in a generic sense, but even if she weren't; Muslims, Christians and Jews all profess to believe in the same single deity but are obviously not all Christians, so even with belief in God by either definition you're still wrong. Your reply makes no sense. I stiil contend that a person who believes in God, and in the possibility of evolution and aliens, would be welcomed at most mainstream Protestant churches. I hate to break the news to you but a Christian believes in Jesus Christ. The OP made no mention of this, just a belief in God, now whether that's a large G or a small g, it's a bit naive of you to think that this means your version of God. She's only a Christian if you broaden the definition of the word. Belief in aliens & evolution does not exclude Christianity either IMHO, that's just common dogma in the U.S., but no mention of Jesus as a central tenet of faith most definitely excludes Christianity (even if some deranged Christians don't realize this). Otherwise we could give most people on the planet honorary membership of your club and be done with the whole debate.

Some would say the market is inefficient, others would say crude was historically underpriced anyway, still others would say oil is just one factor, another claim might be that oil prices were artificially inflated during that period, still others would say that by including oil companies in your calculations you hide the true impact. Oil did impact the market of you look closer, but the sky did not fall. A better question IMHO is oil prices ultimately came down, why?

I first heard your argument 25 years ago, but you could also have used it a hundred years ago. Technically though I think a depression is a prolonged period of negative growth. Economic growth does not come exclusively from natural resources, look at the software industry, or the chip fabrication industry (not a LOT of physical resources in each chip), or areas of intellectual property. The US economy has grown despite outsourcing almost all manufacturing, it hurts the trade ballance but there's still growth.

Aside from knowing God exists and the claim that God IS everything (versus created everything), I'd guess a significant portion of Christians in this country would fit your description. To answer your question - most churches. Wrong, She made no mention of Jesus, you reversed her question and ignored a few tenets of faith. She is using the term God in a generic sense, but even if she weren't; Muslims, Christians and Jews all profess to believe in the same single deity but are obviously not all Christians, so even with belief in God by either definition you're still wrong.

Doesn't happen with me, it may be ISP related.

Nope...sure doesn't. But when you take the rest of the information presented, it DOES make a case that there is a link there that should be investigated further...wouldn't you say? That would tell you what? That the terrorists in Spain are bad terrorists? Or give you some perverted sense of satisfaction through a tenuous association? Basque separatists have been terrorizing Spain LONG before AQ even existed, as usual Americans are largely oblivious to this; American casualties: 0. 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, or in those circles, 3 degrees of OBL. So, you're denying that there were meetings between ETA and AQ in Stockholm and Barcelona? There's a difference between meetings and your conclusion. The sad thing about this whole line of reasoning from the start of this thread is it's motivated by an infantile sense "I told you so" schadenfreude, when it is almost certainly not the case with a telephone warning and ETA bombing Spain for decades. But you're bending over backwards to ignore the elephant in the living-room in pursuit of a hair-brained claim because you would kinda like it to be true. That's even less becoming than your schadenfreude but it is telling.

Nope...sure doesn't. But when you take the rest of the information presented, it DOES make a case that there is a link there that should be investigated further...wouldn't you say? That would tell you what? That the terrorists in Spain are bad terrorists? Or give you some perverted sense of satisfaction through a tennuous association? Basque separatists have been terrorizing Spain LONG before AQ even existed, as usual Americans are largely oblivious to this; American casualties: 0. 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, or in those circles, 3 degrees of OBL.

So does the IRA link. IRA operatives trained in Libya. Doesn't mean the IRA are Islamic terrorists, though, does it? It would be more accurate to describe the IRA as American linked terrorists since that's where they did a lot of their fundraising. Of course Libya armed them well with tonnes of Semtex and other arms after Ronald Reagan bombed Tripoli from bases in the U.K. Gadhafi also blew up Pan Am 103 over Scotland for the same reason. Terrorists are opportunists when it comes to funding and support.

I just don't see this as a logical argument. There are people in the twin towers who jumped WITHOUT a rig. For those people this WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY have reduced the chance of injury & death, although it would not have eliminated it. There was also a group of people on the roofs of both towers who died with the collapse. This is a last ditch desperate solution for similar scenario. It's for when you have no other option but to jump & take your chances.

No skyhook... yet.

The OP is the basis for discussion, if you want to discuss a different scenario go ahead. It seems unlikely and borderline demented to me for anyone in this situation to go online and post a pack of lies that will have no bearing on his case, but I'm no a psychologist. Your line of reasoning seems a bit strange too, you are infact analyzing the situation presented to a judge, not the corruption of the cop in the scenario. Sure an objective outsider hearing the cop and the OP has to make a call and is blameless, but the cop lying as described in the OP is reprehensible for this very reason. I guess I'm just not buying your theory that the OP made the whole thing up and posted it online for our enjoyment including the elaborate belt on/off/on thing. If you want to think that go right ahead. Obviously any judge has a different dilema because he's going to start with different assumptions and the cop in this case was tempted to embelish with a lie which a judge willnot know.