Andy9o8

ROFL. Both of him be laughing at you. You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? That's ok, hims does.

"Hey, I can make you a great necklace outta that bullet!"

The big island is 90 miles across. Yeah, but it's 4,000 miles away. And with wind drift, rotation of the earth, etc., that's a heck of a small target. They're gonna need a GPS guidance system. programmed with the coordinates. 'In one hundred miles you will hit your target' "Turn left at Samoa." Shit! We just passed Samoa!

I get email notifications of responses to my posts, and then I click on the link. All normal people do that. They all dress like me, too.

You only have yourself to blame for clicking on it. You are 101% correct on that. Lesson for the future.

This is stupid on about 12 different levels. I want my 20 seconds back.

I think it likely that one of China's various regional strategic contingency plans is effecting essentially a coup d'etat in NK if NK takes things too near to a serious conflagration. I also presume that China has both placed and cultivated considerable covert human assets in NK toward this end. But in any event, NK engaging in serious warfare would be very destabilizing to China strategically and economically, just as China's development is showing some major success, and its international economic engine is really cranking up in earnest. The China of today is parsecs removed from the China of 1951, or even the China of the 1970s. I do not see China willing to get sucked-into using its own military against NK's enemies in a war that NK starts - or for that matter, tolerating NK starting a war in any event, even if China sits it out. Thus, means and methods aside (i.e., whether it be via coup or more conventional military means), I just don't see China sitting back and allowing NK to do that. (But wait! On the other hand, it would make a great novel, or conspiracy theory, if China was secretly either colluding with NK or deliberately trying to orchestrate NK going over the edge so that China can step in as the international savior and effectively leapfrog itself to world domination. Hmm, I'll have to get to work on that.) Didn't China have a major role in helping North Korea (well there wasn't a north and south Korea at the time) fight the US during the Korean War? Yes; that was the China of 1951, which I mentioned. And I'm pretty sure Korea was already formally divided by then.

Similar to what you are posing Dude, I'm still trying to figure out why there are so many homicides in Greenland. Polar bears?

I think it likely that one of China's various regional strategic contingency plans is effecting essentially a coup d'etat in NK if NK takes things too near to a serious conflagration. I also presume that China has both placed and cultivated considerable covert human assets in NK toward this end. But in any event, NK engaging in serious warfare would be very destabilizing to China strategically and economically, just as China's development is showing some major success, and its international economic engine is really cranking up in earnest. The China of today is parsecs removed from the China of 1951, or even the China of the 1970s. I do not see China willing to get sucked-into using its own military against NK's enemies in a war that NK starts - or for that matter, tolerating NK starting a war in any event, even if China sits it out. Thus, means and methods aside (i.e., whether it be via coup or more conventional military means), I just don't see China sitting back and allowing NK to do that. (But wait! On the other hand, it would make a great novel, or conspiracy theory, if China was secretly either colluding with NK or deliberately trying to orchestrate NK going over the edge so that China can step in as the international savior and effectively leapfrog itself to world domination. Hmm, I'll have to get to work on that.)

*Sigh. Well this entire thread was a waste of effort. Awesome. If your fiancee disagrees with anything I've posted, tell him to feel free to post here or PM me if he doesn't want to do it in public. I'm sure he thinks he's looking out for you, but just burying your head in the sand doesn't make some of the advice (that you asked for) any less valid or true. Stay safe. All this presumes he grants her permission to read it. Maybe he has one of those "parent's filters" installed on her computer and TV.

Who took that picture? Same guy who films Bear Grylls.

So in other words, he's decided to be your thought police censor, and you're dutifully obeying, like a compliant member of the congregation. This might as well be a religion thread for all the difference it makes. Well, actually, it will make a difference, for all the other novices, especially female ones, who will read this thread. I don't post much in the skydiving threads, and when I do, I rarely go out on a limb and express disgust. This will be an excpetion.

Not in the slightest. Your selective attack on a certain segment of the education profession, cherry-picked specifically because you think it represents one particular regular poster here, is ignorant and juvenile.

Why is ours so low? Aw, see, now I'm all distracted. No It was a serious question Can your question really be answered? Any more than my question to you? We can guess but that is about it It does put the rates in a different perspective however But again Can either question be answered? Depends. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Why is ours so low? Aw, see, now I'm all distracted.

Almost a religion.

John, why is the homicide rate in Greenland so high?

Why is the homicide rate in Greenland so high?

She isn't half the musician John Mayer is, and she broke his heart.

attachment no workee, John. Reformat, please.

Not everyone is an old bold skydiver like you, John.

If you think sfzombie is in denial, tell him so directly. http://www.africansafariclub.com/images/egyptpics/map.gif

I don't think you do. No time to post at length now, but I think you're greatly over-simplifying. I thought it was because of politics... Sorry if I got it wrong. Well, in large part it was, but it surely wasn't all Congress. A lot of it was Presidential - first LBJ & McNamara, and then Nixon & Kissinger. Some criticism is fairly directed at the military itself, too. And I disagree with those who think that the US military would have achieved "victory" left unhindered. Wish I could post at greater length now; fascinating subject; just don't have the time now.

I don't think you do. No time to post at length now, but I think you're greatly over-simplifying.