Andy9o8

Is first target go boom.

I think what you're saying is that this has all been engineered by China and India, who get to clean up. Sneaky little bastards.

pssst. Cameron.

And I agree completely with this. My post and yours are in no way mutually exclusive. It's all in the blend.

That's an unspeakably horrible crime committed by an individual 17 year old criminal against the most vulnerable kind of victim. All of which does nothing to bolster the unbelievably idiotic concept of a "war on whites". Your threads and posts on here bitch a hell of a lot about black people. That's your choice, of course; the forum's open to all of us. But black people clearly grind your mental gears in a major way. I urge you to examine why. I'll give you a hint: the answer is not with them, it's within yourself. Now you can either let yourself be propped-up by the typical responses (you know what they are) by the usual suspects (you know who they are) this post will inevitably generate. (They're irrelevant, but whatever.) Or, you can quietly look at yourself in the mirror and be honest with yourself. The choice is yours.

It's not hard at all. Just don't mention it, truth be damned. "heading out of town and seeing some friends" would work in a pinch Exactly. And to the OP: Talking (or not) to whuffos about skydiving sometimes progresses in phases, from telling people spontaneously; to telling them only if you're asked a question; to leaving visual or verbal "hints"; to hardly ever mentioning it; to never mentioning it at all, even if, say, provoked by dumbass comments about some incident, etc. This over-simplifies it a bit, but generally the only real way to avoid the insufferable conversations is to completely avoid - even evade - any discussion of skydiving with whuffos or even letting them know that you've ever skydived. You either make the choice to do that, or you don't.

It's not hard at all. Just don't mention it, truth be damned.

When John Coltrane (who often practiced 16 hrs a day) used to practice at night at home, he'd practice the fingering without blowing into the mouthpiece, to avoid disturbing the neighbors. Just an interesting fyi. Contrast that with Charlie Parker, who as a young virtuoso so antagonized the neighbors with his 24/7 practicing that more than once he almost got his mom evicted from their home.

As others have said, for most people it passes at roughly 50 jumps. That said, I can tell you from experience that currency also helps, i.e., if you jump very frequently it might pass sooner. For example, say you spend a weekend knocking out at least 4 or 5 jumps each day. By Day #2 you'll probably be pretty acclimated enough to not be very nervous during the rides up. At least that's how it was for me when I was a novice.

No.

Irrelevant. In the 1950s & 60s, my family and I traveled hundreds of thousands of miles in the family car without seatbelts. Without a scratch. Also irrelevant. With all due respect.

Hey. You clearly know nothing about the joys of pedantics. It's all about the journey.

Okay, so popes can be hilarius. Big deal. It is a big deal - a world religion based on the Book of Moron.

It could always be worse. Don Your article brings to mine the term, "Alienation of Affection". I wonder why the husband didn't bring civil action against the attorney. Maybe it wouldn't apply in this case, or maybe it was not allowed in this particular state. Only allowed in Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Abolished in all other states, either via statute or caselaw.

That's not faith; it's due diligence.

Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence. Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war. Forgive my droll legalese: So you think there's probable cause that Syrian govt actors did it, but the accusers must still prove their case beyond that to warrant sanctions for the specific offense of using chemical weapons in the most recent incident. That's pretty much where I'm at, too. Next: what standard of proof would work for you here? "Preponderance" (at least 51%) as in a civil case? "Clear and convincing" evidence (more than preponderance, less than beyond reasonable doubt), as in many administrative cases? "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal cases? Last I checked, the hurdle that must be cleared before going to war is laid out in Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. Take it to congress and put forth your case for acts of war against another country that's not attacking us. Let them decide how much is needed. You know, like a constitutional scholar would suggest. Yes, of course, and that's a very valid point. But Vietnam, as well as several more limited scuffles, exposed the existence of "military actions" which then-Administration lawyers argued fell short of "War" as contemplated by the Constitution. In response to this, the post-Vietnam war Congress enacted the the War Powers Act to help close the (arguable) Constitutional loophole. That's really the context within which I was speaking.

Wait, we need to fit your post into a neat little box: anti-liberal, or anti-religious conservative? Anti-media? Anti-matter? A friend of ours, very bright guy, is a chiropractor. Very anti-vaccination. Didn't get his own kids vaccinated. Don't know how he got his kids' public school district (which they attended) to tolerate that, but I guess he did. We've heard all his rationale for it. We still think he's nuts - about that. BTW, his objections are solely on grounds of chiropractic...ish philosophy.

http://squirrel-feeder.com/blogger/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rocket_J__Squirrel_by_amiwakawaiidesu.png

If you were carrying your weapon and saw somebody attacking another person, what would be your purpose of getting involved? "Retribution? Punishment? Deterrence?" Might I suggest, to stop it. Then the Syrian government officials and military better get all the Skittles they can. Thus proving innocence. Still - there are other factors in that. In Syria, as much as I THINK that Syria did it I am still not "convinced." And I think that convincing evidence should be there when performing an act of war. Forgive my droll legalese: So you think there's probable cause that Syrian govt actors did it, but the accusers must still prove their case beyond that to warrant sanctions for the specific offense of using chemical weapons in the most recent incident. That's pretty much where I'm at, too. Next: what standard of proof would work for you here? "Preponderance" (at least 51%) as in a civil case? "Clear and convincing" evidence (more than preponderance, less than beyond reasonable doubt), as in many administrative cases? "Beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal cases?

The difference is now we have the answer to "Do you still beat your wife?"

Oh, that's what they are! I always presumed they were tracking suits.

^ This. You're not minors in high school anymore, so stop thinking inside the box that controlled you for your first 18 years. Other than getting a smattering of funding, what do you need "recognition" for? "Recognition" is just a fancy word for "permission". Fuck that - just do it.

Rehm doesn't need me to be his advocate, but you're putting all sorts of shit in his mouth he didn't say, and didn't imply. And I have it on good authority he's even (recently) stopped beating his wife.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4531136;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread