VTmotoMike08

Please tell me specifically what that difference is.

Well, thats a pretty simple question when you consider the possible implications for society if (not that there is an if in my mind) religion is ever debunked and accepted as such. 1) Means that millions have died in vein over the course of history if every war ever fought over religion was, at best, a contest over who had the better imaginary friend. 2) What if we put all the time, energy and money that people put into religion into solving world hunger, fixing the energy crisis, intergrating sustainability into every aspect of our lives, preserving biodiversity, balancing the budget, and a host of other initiatives? I bet we could have made some pretty significant progress on having a better world so far! That is something worthy of getting upset over in my mind. 3) Consider that to most non-believers, belief in the Christian God (or any, really) is equally as laughable as believing in Zues or santa clause. And it is taught as a fundamental part of their cause that they should go out and make others believe the same. For us, thats a good harty laugh right there! Wouldn't you laugh too if someone tried to get you to accept Zeus as your personal savior?

Ya know, I think we should just all stop replying to chuteless. Kinda like a boycott. His remarks are like the troll that keeps on giving, but its still kinda funny because he _ACTUALLY_ believes everything he writes. Woah. I'm cracking up too.

Already been proposed by these people: http://www.vhemt.org/ Personally, it would be just fine with me...

A testable theory is generally not disproved by lack of evidence. We learn new stuff all the time. However, a theory can absolutely be discarded if it is impossible to be proven wrong. If it is untestable, it is unacceptable for even being considered on its scientific merit (or lack thereof). Nothing in the natural world can disprove the existence of "gods" or the validity of creationism, and it is therefore discarded as an impossibility by those who use science as the qualifier for believability. Again: we can never logically disprove religion. The religious person can always say "But its God, we are incapable of understanding his ways". The very statement that it is untestable disqualifies it from being considered. However, if you choose to believe in whatever makes you feel good, say that you have "faith" and do not feel the need to qualify your beliefs with even the possibility of evidence then religion remains a valid option. That is all.

O ya, good call I'll be sure to do that. I forgot to mention that I am actually pretty good for my jump numbers, kinda even ahead of the curve (some would say a natural) and everyone who knows me says I will be fine on it.

Hey guys, I've got 300 jumps so I figure I know a good bit now and its about time I buy a Katana 107, but its all good cause I'm gonna fly it really conservativly and only do straight in approaches with no low turns. What do you all think?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but its kinda a catchy phrase. And it is not as safe as we want to make it. I would like it to make it as safe as golf, but that will never happen. I guess my emphasis though is on the ones that do something they know will do nothing but raise the probabilities, putting themselves at risk, KNOWING about it and therefore making themselves and everyone else around them vulnerable to unnecessary dangers. You are still not quite getting it. Go back and re-read the posts about personal risk levels. Yes, those who swoop (etc...) know that it increases their risk level. Yet, to them, the risk is worth the reward. Your risk vs. reward level seems to be in another (lower) place, at least for now. Read this again in a few years and see if you are still in the same place. Most will not be. You fail to mention the rewards for taking risks. Those who swoop and do other riskier activities obviously find some reward in it. Even skydivers don't do dangerous stuff just for the hell of it (generally). Yes, but this statement has little to do with your previous ones. This swooper is infringing on someone else's rights, and no one is arguing that this should be allowed.

Kudos to you for seeming to be very aware and heads up! Here's a few pointers that you might already know, but that merit some additional attention: -Nothing is new under the sun. Things that people have died from this year are the same things that have killed people before. Undoubtedly, despite our best education efforts, people will die from them again. All you can do is make sure that you (and your friends) are practing the best safety measures possible. Or quit skydiving. -Your personal acceptable risk level will likely increase as you gain experiance. At 100 jumps, you may not think it is acceptable to collapse your slider, lower it behind your head, and loosen your chest strap. But you might feel differently in another hundered, or more. But you might not. That's fine too. For me, at 300 jumps, a full RDS is not worth the hassle, rigging concerns, etc, but I might feel differently at 1000 jumps. Surely, you cannot expect everyone to assume the same risk level as you. -Why does everyone not have every available safety measure (AAD, skyhook, etc)? Convenience and personal choice come to mind among others. I don't have a skyhook, but I sure think its a good idea. I would have been pretty unhappy if I was made to buy a new rig when the skyhook came out because "its just such a good idea, you would be foolish not to have one". My rig is still pretty good, although my next one will absolutely have a skyhook. Why do people do these things? Well, thankfully, most do not. And these, like most risky behaviors, will not result in a fatality or even an injury every time. While certainly a bad idea, once someone gets away with it once, history has shown that they will continue to do it until they do not get away with it. That's how people die.

Maybe its loose because his shoulders are curled forward like he is tracking? But his legs are not out, so that might not be it. However, I bet it would be snug if he was in a more arched position. All chest straps do that: tight when shoulders are back in an arch, loose when shoulders are curled foward in a track. I aggree that the leg straps could be tighter, or it could have a better overall fit.

Maybe I'm overly simplfying this but I see a pretty obvious solution to this "average" situation: SPEND LESS! Don't buy the 300K house, I bet they could still be comfortable in a 200K house or less. Drive your old cars for a little longer instead of buying two new ones. Ease up on the credit cards and don't take that vacation until next year when you have saved up for it. Put in a few more hours per week at work and get that income up to 50K/ year now then 60K in a couple years. Don't go on a skydiving binge using credit cards (can't say I lead by example here) It's not that hard... Duh! That would be the USA

Ya, I got that $3.5K was for a tandem, I wasn't sure if up jumper slots were available, I guess I didn't look around enough. I would still not do it for $350, but hey, good for those who want to

Can anyone confirm, deny or comment on this part: Related link: http://www.halojumper.net Would be kinda cool (except for the LO of HALO) part if it is as described. But no thanks for $3,495.

Are you measuring yourself? Best to have someone else do it for you. Contorting in different ways to self measure could easily yield a difference of 5cm, but if someone else is doing it for you and still varying by that much, then find someone else who is better at it. And the manufacturer probably has a measureing guide on their website.

I see that you jump a Wings container, which has an external pop top type reserve PC. It is probably custom colored for your rig so I don't think anyone else wants it

Thanks for coming out everyone, sorry but we already have the winner right here, better luck to everyone else next year! . . . . Look at the attachment first. OK, for those who could not get it, the "mountains" are knees and the "snow caps" are fingers and the... ya, I think you can get the rest

I get both email and snail mail from them regularly asking me to join. I would have been a lot more likely to do so if they did not send out junk. I assume that they got both contacts from USPA. Seems most likely, as I am not part of any other avaiation or similiar organizations. I have no idea where else they could have gotten my info from, although almost anything is possible. As for USPA HQ never selling email addresses, well, we cannot ever confirm that by an outside source, so I guess we will have to take their word on it while remaining suspicious.

I am sick of spam from AOPA! Do any other skydivers get this from them? I assume that USPA sold my address and email to them because I don't think that they send out totally random adversisments and invites to join. I know they are a pretty good organization, so I am disapointed that they resoret to this. I get several emails a week and also have gotten about 5-6 mailed solicitations in the last few months. I just don't want to join and I don't care if I get a free bag

I did read the whole thing. And the part about about truncated or out of context quotes serves to help frame the article, it does not totally disqualify the whole thing. What about the other dozens of quotes that you did not address? The point is that many leading Dems did believe Saddam to be a significant threat, although not everyone aggreed on just how much of a threat. The current position of the Democratic party seems to be that he was never a threat and "We told you so all along". This is simply untrue. Edit: It's worth noting that most of the quotes in that article are from the Clinton era. Saddam sure did not get more cooperative after Clinton left, in fact he got to be even more of a pain. Would have been interesting to know what those Dems who thought he was a threat in the 90's would have said about him in the early 2000's if a Democrat was in office.

GWB and crew are not the only ones that have thought that Iraq was a legit threat. Quotes from democratic leaders about Saddam's aquisition of WMD's (Snopes) So, if your perspective is selective memory, then those one sided quotes might be considered to put it "into perspective".

I will add that today I am eating lunch in my cubicle (again) to avoid the group of loud annoying fatties that infest the lunch room and stuff their faces with huge portions every day

You gotta watch out for those professors too, my buddy in Texas told me once that they got all the common sense educated out of them

See I told ya it wasn't that hard. I will admit that it took me a little while after the first time that I heard it too. Didn't know it had been posted here years ago.

"Three people check into a hotel. They pay $30 to the manager and go to their room. The manager finds out that the room rate is $25 and gives $5 to the bellboy to return to them. On the way to the room the bellboy reasons that $5 would be difficult to split among three people so he pockets $2 and gives $1 to each of the three people. Now, each person paid $10 and got back $1. So they paid $9 each, totalling $27. The bellboy has $2 totalling $29. Where is the remaining dollar?" Be back in the AM to check out replies. Like most riddles, its not that hard and I have the answer. Don't know the original source though, copied it from a friend.