scottbre

If it's a festival about vagina's, what other reason do you need? "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Not positive on this, but I think that they just don't make them capable of being that loud. Would seem like sort of a waste to give them that capability and the put another component in that only lets it go so high. Plus, no normal consumer would ever want or need it that loud, so there is no demand for such a product. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

I don't think companies are allowed to make headphones that can put out 120db. Can you imagine the lawsuits from pissed off parents of recently deaf children?

Yea, I too am in the market for a helmet and I think I am leaning towards getting an Aviator. I haven't heard anything bad about those yet.

Ok, that's great. You've managed to quote him twice now. Thanks a lot. Let it go now. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

I have a Riovolt and they are awesome. It's a CD/Mp3 player, and probably the best one out there. Fill a CD with Mp3's or WMA's and you've got at least 10 hours of music on one CD if not more. Plus, the damn thing is firmware upgradeable so it never has to get obsolete or out of date. I have the first generation one with a 2 minute buffer, but there are newer ones out (I think they are black) that have like an 8 minute buffer. They are sweet. It's my favorite non-skydiving toy.

Just let it go rhino. You've convinced yourself, and you aren't convincing anyone else. So just be happy knowing that you are right and all the other people who disagree with you aren't. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Given a choice, I'd rather be skydivin' "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

That's fine, but the point I was trying to make (this next bit is a bit ironic

That's fine, but there are some people who want to try to explain what they are thinking clearly. And sadly, there are also some who just want to keep stirring things that have already settled. The biggest problem with posting threads is that there is a huge margin where things can be misinterpretted or misread. That is where a lot of the really nasty arguments come from. Just different people who may all have a valid point and just can't explain it the way they think about it, or people who just aren't capable of looking at something from an angle other than their own. But everyone is capable of using tactics such as name calling, or sarcasm, when they become frustrated with trying to articulate clearly what they are trying to say. There a huge well of information available from people who post on these posts, and it is good to have them around, even if someone who only has 28 jumps doesn't always know what they are talking about.

Yep. throw 2 students together. That sounds safe. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

I don't know. AM I? "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

"And in this corner...."

With ya 100 percent SpeedRacer. NASCAR = BORING. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Well put Zennie.

I can only speak for myself and my comments, but I don't see how I have said anything that goes against what either you or Lisa have to say on topics. However, sarcasm serves no purpose in a conversation where people are already having a civil discussion. Both of you have a lot of experience and advice to add to conversation, and a person would be plain stupid not to think about what the two of you have to say. But at the same time, you aren't going to get the whole world to see things your way. So try to be less thin-skinned and keep up the good advice.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I doubt you are going to convince others to see it your way. In skydiving you are putting yourself in a life threatening position EVERY time you do it. Not so with driving. Both can be dangerous, but there is much more of an immediate threat of death in skydiving, and that makes it more dangerous than driving a car. You can drive a car 5 mph, you can't go much slower that 120 mph (in most cases) skydiving. All that said, yea skydiving is great fun. But to have that fun, you have to be willing to accept the risks that come with it.

Lisa, I noticed you posted the same the exact post in two different threads. Both of which don't really apply to what you are saying in your overly sarcastic tone. What I said in this thread is that yea skydiving is dangerous, but as far as skydiving goes it can be done safely. As safe as skydiving can be anyway. That's the way every other activity in life is. People wear pads when they play football to make football as safe as possible. They could be unsafe and not wear the pads as well. Just like a skydiver can be unsafe (within skydiving) and overload a canopy before they can handle it. Your comment is simply pandering for everyone to tell you how right you are, in a very "I'm the victim here" sort of way. In a conversation such as these ones that are discussing safety, that brutal kind of sarcasm serves no purpose for either side of the argument but to get everyone riled up and emotional. Pretty much up til your sarcasm, everyone had been having a good humored discussion/debate. I am not personally attacking you, just pointing out that your last comment served no purpose but to upset people, and I believe the posting world's terminology for that is trolling. Just my opinion.

*Grabs a knife and cuts himself a piece of that sarcasm.* "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Maybe they were sort of going for a Dante-esque type punishment.

Other than your personal opinion, I don't know how you could possibly provide a better source for that comment, than all the research that the insurance industry does that says differently. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Yep. 54% of all people know that.

There is a whole industry/science that says your wrong. It's called Insurance/Actuarial. There is reason why you have to pay significantly more for life insurance if you are an extreme sport participant. That is because you are more likely to die participating in said extreme sports than you are doing other everyday activities, such as driving a car. That's all these people do. They figure out percentages on what is likely to cause a person's death and how likely that it. Just because more people die in car accidents than skydiving accidents, doesn't mean that skydiving is safer. It just means that there are a geometrically larger number of people who drive cars, than skydive. If you don't skydive, then yea your chances of dying in a car accident are higher than your chances of dying in a skydiving accident. But those chances are the same chances of dying in a car accident as they are for a skydiver who drives a car. It's just that the chance of the skydiver dying in a skydiving accident are much higher, because they skydive. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

This is not a personal attack on you, but that is such a stupid argument. If you want the two to be comparable, take all the people who have been killed by being struck by lightening and divide that by all the people who have been in any situation where there is even the remotest possibility of being hit. Then take the total number of skydivers who have "gone in" for whatever reason and died, and divide that by the total number of people who have done a skydive. Now you have 2 percentages that are functionally the the same. Compare those two numbers. You can't just go simply by numbers of people in each category, because the sample population of each group is vastly different. It's the same thing with comparing the safely of skydiving to driving a car. "Let the rabbits wear glasses. . . "

Why is it that when something goes wrong or isn't working, it is addressed as female?