BikerBabe

honestly...one of the worst of my life. I had to say goodbye to my oldest and dearest friend, Leo, last night. He won't be coming home from the vet this time So yeah, pretty much spent the day crying. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

When i started jumping at Perris, Eli and Sarah were some of the first people to make me feel welcome, even though they were freeflyers and i was a hardcore 4-way geek. Truly a kind and caring family, with a kind, caring father/husband. Eli, you will be missed. Andi Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

My other pet peeve that will cause me to actually pull out a pen and correct it should i see it on a sign is the misuse of "broke". As in: "Please use other door, this one is broke." The door is brokeN, not broke! If someone says "my leg is broke" I will wonder how it had any money in the first place. To me, nothing makes people seem more like an uneducated moron than when they say something is broke when they mean it is broken. Ugh. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

+1,000,000 The mangling of the poor apostrophe always makes me sad, also. Poor, misunderstood, misused apostrophe. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

thanks...my friend actually lives in WA state, and is looking for contacts for people who could incorporate an old design into a new one. This isn't for me, nor would it be skydiving related, i guess i'm looking for lists of artists that he could contact. Kind of like how this site has lists and reviews of DZ, gear, etc...is there anything like that for tattoo artists? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

If so, i need some help, mainly on where to go to look for good artists that might be able to help out a friend of mine. Trade organization, online databases, whatever, just a place to start for him to find a good artist who can do what he needs to do. Thanks! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

femur rod here. the only time i ever beeped was when i was on crutches at the airport. I think they are set to not see medical grade titanium or something. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

this. But then again, I'm a misanthrope. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

First. And this is going to sound super simple and pedantic and stupid and condescending, but it's NOT meant to be: can you drive a CAR with a standard transmission? If not...go learn right now. I know you use your feet instead of your hand/foot, but the timing of the clutch/gas operation is the same. If you can do that, you can learn the clutch on a bike. It's really the same rhythm, just different limbs, heh. I like the rental idea, or find a cheap used 125cc somewhere that you won't mind dropping a few times. Take it to a large empty parking lot and just practice until you get the rhythm of the clutch and gas operation. If you're nervous about getting it off the lot, borrow someone's truck or trailer and haul it out. (not sure how feasible that is in the UK, but yeah...) as to the dirt bike question, supermoto bikes are rising in popularity, and they are designed for both the road and the dirt. But they are taller and tend to be heavier than a small displacement bike designed solely for the road. You are lucky you live in a place where 500cc road bikes and lower are readily available...in the US they are rare, and "starter" bikes are 500cc at the smallest, usually. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

can someone give a quick recap of what horrible thing he did? I wasn't watching that day and can't find a straight answer. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

lmao, you need to watch the video, turtle...you totally don't get the quote. here: http://www.youtube.com/jimathers#play/uploads/149/Xi9BRgjvOlk Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

my all time favorite is the starbucks one. "Forgive my squirrelly ignorance, but isn't 'small' the opposite of 'tall'?" Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

warped, i think you might be reading that wrong (NOT a PA) I think the parenthetical means that military or diplomatic service during that time qualifies, NOT that it is required. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

I have been venturing out of the bonfire lately .... I spent most the day in SC.... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Oh i know what he's doing. So it's time to devolve the "argument" into simple yes or no questions. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

i must be stupid...because i don't get you. so once more...are you hypothesizing that the empirical world IS NOT REAL? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Marg, I think you are arguing with a pure existentialist (experiential? not sure of the terms here, i admit), and my suspicion is he will say that no, the jovian moons did NOT exist until we "observed" them. I am sure i could be wrong, but after putting together all of his posts, this seems to be a description of his underlying personal philosophy. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Cliche, perhaps, but this particular philosophy that answers the question with an emphatic "no" is very difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence that yes, the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves, thus creating a sound. As you can probably tell from my tone, i think this particular philosophical bent is, to put it bluntly, pure bunk, however, i will freely admit that i don't have the philosophical education to effectively argue against it. My brain is bouncing around the ideas that the existentialist ideas are as much of an "irrational" belief as religion (or science, according to chasteh), but i don't know how to nail it down right now. this is not a PA, just a funny: i'm thinking of the old joke right now about what did the philosophy major say after graduation? A: Would you like fries with that? (please no offense...if i could have minored in it, i probably would have) Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

all right. new question for you chasteh. If everything you say is 100% true (*poof* I am now an existentialist), then what - using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

He's bringing it up because he probably assumes (and i would guess quite correctly) that Bill was NOT born in Hawaii, thus his birth certificate will OF COURSE have significant differences to one issued in Hawaii. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

not a PA...a blatant generalization to ALL philosophy professors and abstract discussions. Apparently you missed the tone of my post, but OK. so if science and faith are both "irrational" (apparently we DON'T agree, my mistake), then what human endeavor IS rational? Or does rationality exist at all, according to you? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Chasteh, can you succinctly (and distinctly) state your personal position for those of use who aren't philosophy majors, as you apparently are? This is what we care about in SC, not esoteric definitions of philosophical terms. I seriously cannot pin it down. What, EXACTLY are you arguing, here? All I see is someone playing "devil's advocate", and not necessarily on the underlying issue of the thread (faith, science, and the relative mutual exclusivity of the two). I see someone who is arguing about the methods of debate, which is probably a most fruitless endeavor here in SC, and more than a little nitpicky. I am truly interested. from what i can assume (and we know what that does) you seem to be arguing against the OP's premise, though when i did that, you seemed to want to argue with me as well. Which is funny, since from your initial posts i got the impression we agreed. It's really quite baffling. Are you actually a philosophy professor? Maddening. Quite maddening. But i'm just an engineer who has bad memories of philosophy 101, heh. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

The trouble is, i'm pretty sure there are people on this forum and in this thread who don't see the real implication behind bill's posts...and they would answer my question with an emphatic "yes". I do it too...i forget and start using level 2 or 3 thinking and it just doesn't work. It might in a vocal debate where body language and expressions are visible, but on a forum, it's tough sometimes to get subtle meanings across. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

weird. Chasteh, i really don't think i'm the one you need to be arguing with, since i'm pretty sure we basically agree. Unless, of course, you are like the radical Christian right, and are trying to make the argument that faith and science can't coexist because science undermines God. But whatever. I shall remain confused at you... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

See; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm I remind you that as "sarcasm" has more than two syllables (perhaps depending on regional inflection, but at least in my pronunciation), I am not able to comprehend it. Tom's just hurt because it happened to be his post i replied to (i kind of hate this forum software, TBH) even though there were several people who obviously took bill's post seriously. And none of them have answered my question...do you HONESTLY think Bill believes that McCain wasn't eligible to be president? Honestly? Or like i said, those of us who read a little bit more into the meaning of Bill's post could easily see that he was providing an exaggerated counter-example to make the conspiracy nuts in this thread look silly. Bill, i think you need to reread Wendy's "rock" thread, actually. And no more level 2 thinking out of you! Bad boy! *slaps hand* Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

The question is though, faith in what? Which creation myth? Which prophesy about the end of the world? Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude that there can only be one true answer, but faiths around the world and throughout time have many different beliefs about them. Since only one can be true, all the others are logically false. There is simply no way they can all co-exist. Who cares? You are trying to do what my post says you cannot - because it makes no sense - and that is to apply science (or logic, if you will) to faith, which by its very nature is not based in the realm of logic or the scientific method. And don't get me wrong, BOTH sides try to do this, most unfortunately. that's why it's called FAITH. My problem with this entire line of "debate" is that it's like trying to describe a computer in terms of a fish. Try it. Describe how to build a computer but you can only use fish terms and parts. It makes no sense. None at all. Science tells us how, faith tells us why. and it's faith because it's based on belief, not proof. If you so choose to believe that there is no "why" or that the "why" doesn't matter at all, then that's fine. What i don't understand is this insistence on telling those who do choose to believe in a "why" that they are wrong or stupid because science says so (which it really doesn't by the way). Science has absolutely nothing to do with it! Just because faith falls outside the realm of rationality does NOT mean that it's existence is not valid. Or would you say emotions are also invalid for the same reason? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!