BikerBabe

jump #1 I fell for 10 seconds, pulled, my big round parachute opened and i thought two things: 1: "I did it!" 2: "OMG, i HAVE to do this again!" Even if i hadn't made the Academy team, i would have found a way to jump again anyway after my initial 5. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Well, with the exception of wanting the government all over our bodies and beliefs... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Blue Man Group in NYC is a completely different experience than it is in Vegas. They do it in a tiny theatre...maybe 300 people, so pretty much everyone participates. It's AMAZING. Of course, getting tickets is a challenge. Only thing i haven't seen mentioned here is that you should really try to hit the Metropolitan Museum of Art when you're there. If you like art at ALL...it's awesome. The Guggenheim and MOMA are nice too, but The MMA has a wider range of time periods and styles. Plus it's right on Central Park

what if it wasn't a pastor but just a church member who was hosting them? Because, for example, my church has about 15 different small groups that meet at people's house on a weekly basis, but only one pastor. I guess this whole thread surprises me, since weekly small groups are such a normal thing for me and i see them all the time....i never knew there was such opposition. And the ones i've been to and the others at my church have never had anyone say anything negative about them. And yes, they each have about 10-20 people. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

hey, views on san diego sports teams aside.... You all seem to think that weekly bible studies are like tent revivals or something. All the ones i've ever seen or been to are quiet gatherings in homes where people maybe have dinner and then sit around the couches and talk. OOOOOH, big disruption. Sure, if there's signs and shit all over your yard, that's one thing, because there are probably zoning issues and HOA rules, etc. but if it's just a bunch of friends meeting in the house once a week, i'm not really sure how you can outlaw that. Unless of course we have somehow been transplanted to China... What if it was just a weekly dinner party? Would there be such opposition? (I highly doubt it) Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

I think you would be surprised at the sheer number of churches who do not have a church building to meet in. They share with other churches, meet in schools, restaurants, or even nightclubs. Or even homes. Places they can't just use whenever they want. All that being said, the number of weekly bible studies in the US is probably a lot larger than you think. It really sounds to me like this neighbor had a bug up his ass about the "church people" meeting and decided to get sue happy rather than resolve a fender bender like an adult...which is exchange insurance info and maybe file a police report and call it a day. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

what's a church? is the weekly watching of the charger's game on sunday afternoon a church? It fits the same description in regards to street usage and parking as a wednesday night bible study. I bet people would take serious issue with the neighborhood football-watching party applying for tax-exempt status as a church. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

marc, don't pick an argument where none exists. i have a feeling you and i actually agree on this. Sorry, but guns or a bible study, if it's done in the home, then the government can get the fuck out. I was just curious if some of the same people who voted that they shouldn't be able to have a bible study in their home also voted that the SF law about guns locked up at home was unjust. Which would be highly hypocritical. Now my disclaimer: I am biased in this case, for 3 reasons. 1) I live in San Diego County, 2) I am a follower of Jesus and 3) I have attended weekly bible studies in homes in San Diego County. From a religious perspective, weekly small groups are more common than you probably think, and many many many of them aren't sponsored by any one church. There is a movement afoot among followers of Jesus to get back to the way things were before "THE CHURCH" took over...which was small groups of believers meeting in homes. So yes, this affects me personally, if peripherally. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

just the whole "government telling us what we can and can't do in the privacy of our homes" thing is all.... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Scary stuff: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear Many people don't realize that the Korean War never technically ended... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

out of curiosity, of the 4 people who voted that they shouldn't be allowed to have a home bible study, how many of you voted in the poll about the law requiring guns to be locked up in homes, and how did you vote? Just curious.... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

So why would the guy who's car was hit call the county code enforcers and not the people who usually handle car accidents...you know...the POLICE. And if it's a simple code thing, why were the county code people asking things like "do you pray here?" "do you say amen?" I know many people here are strongly anti-Christian, but this is very obviously a case of the county waaaaay overstepping its bounds. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

hrm...i had no idea drinking pom juice made me a lesbian....hot! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

you're doing this on purpose, right? right? because it's really getting to the point of hilarity. ridiculousness. obvious willful blindness. here, let me fix it for you: If you truly cannot see how you are saying the EXACT same thing...it goes back to the willful blindness thing. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

LMAO you just made me spray pomegranate juice on my keyboard! thanks! Seriously though, i guess superbowl parties and birthday parties need permits, too, since those are "regularly scheduled" meetings in homes. right? This is completely ridiculous, i don't care what religion you are or aren't, if anyone votes no in this poll...well, i won't invoke Godwin's law just yet Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

I'm going to approach this "marriage vs. civil union" separate but equal argument a different, and perhaps more practical, way. First, i agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage game. I also know that they ARE and probably always will be. Tax laws, inheritance issues, insurance, etc etc. the fact is, currently there are laws on the books in California that specifically mention the word(s) "marriage", "married", "Spouse", "marry". These laws do not mention civil unions. Now for all you "less government" types out there, let's look at this from a state budget perspective. If there are 100 laws on the books that mention marriage specifically, and to change one of those laws costs $10k (just using round numbers here for math), that means it will cost the government $1m of your tax dollars to change them. However, if all you need is ONE law that allows marriage between any two consenting adults, then the government is only out $10k. Heck, tack on some extra for it being a new law rather than an existing one. say it costs $100k $100,000 < $1,000,000 and i haven't even taken into account the amount of time it would take to change those 100 laws. in a purely practical light, allowing the term "marriage" to apply to any two consenting adults is much more efficient and less costly than having to change ALL of the existing laws that concern marriage in the state. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

thanks lawrocket. I was thinking something along the lines of insurance, or taxes (joint filing, etc) would be the practical way to go about it. I love this case since it seems to be a PERFECT illustration of reason vs. emotion in regards to the law. Yeah, we're all mad about it, but in a purely rational light, the court did the right thing. Now the real challenge comes in figuring out a rational way to support what our emotions say is right. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Bill makes an excellent point. basically, the court left the door open for the future by upholding existing marriages. All that can provide is proof (though perhaps qualitatively) that gay marriage won't be the downfall of modern society... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

not being a lawyer, what sort of case could be put in front of federal courts to challenge it? Taxes? Seems reasonable. lawrocket, correct me if i'm wrong, but currently the federal government still doesn't recognize legal gay marriages made in maine, iowa, massachussetts, etc. right? So would a challenge of the federal tax laws be an appropriate way to bring the issue before federal courts? I'm asking because it's interesting to me and i truly don't know... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

*facepalm* Links and testimony and studies and information has been posted in SC over and over and over again, mostly by nerdgirl, that show it doesn't work, and that there are more effective methods of interrogation. Over and over and over again. Marg, i hate to say it, but i think people actually don't bother reading your posts and links, which is really unfortunate. Is it an attention span thing? maybe she should post one link per post, with little to no cutting and pasting...but i'm not sure that would work either. it's like watching someone run into a wall, then telling them "hey, there's a wall there" and then watching them run into it again and again. Why do they keep running into it? "Oh, i don't believe you because Dick Cheney says there ISN'T a wall there!" *wham* Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

SC is funny...because honestly, the vast majority of skydivers i know IN REAL LIFE (i.e. that i jump with, or work at dropzones i frequent, etc) tend to be more liberal than conservative. this then begs the question: Are bored, working-stiff type skydivers with too much time on their hands and easy internet acces more conservative than your average non-DZ.com-trolling skydiver? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Paul, i may be wrong, but i think perhaps that may be one of the "hidden" points of the survey... Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

haha, i don't blame you. It IS an interesting sociological question, though Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

It's hard to characterize this in a poll, i think, because the options are rather limiting. Any options would be. And perhaps a bit of Schroedinger's corollary is happening here as well. Part of the problem is SC is divided not only among ideological lines, but also upon tendency to post. I would say that of the POSTERS in SC, the majority leans conservative. However, looking at many polls over the course of the past year or so (especially around election time), the results tend to favor the liberal side. This leads me to believe that there's a much larger percentage of folks reading SC without posting, who happen to participate in the polls. The question, i guess, is this: do the anonymous polls tell a more true story of the SC population than the actual posts? And is taking a poll like this going to skew results just from the fact that it is a poll, and anonymous, rather than just a question posed as a post? edited to add: Also, i have a feeling the way the choices are worded, the first and fourth option will well outpace the others, since a lot of attacking goes on here, and people will tend to think their own ideology is the one in the minority. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

uh....wow. logic is actually a subject i'm quite strong in. Statement 1 = "Why do people insist on thinking that SERE is for training soldiers how to torture" Statement 2 = "SERE is for training soldiers how to torture" Statement 1 != Statement 2 simple enough for you? I know it's a tough concept, but do try to grasp it. YOU are the only one saying that - check your assumptions at the door. you keep insisting that i am claiming that the purpose of SERE is to teach us how to torture. Why? i never said that, not once, and you still haven't quoted me saying it. You've quoted me saying "why do people insist on thinking SERE is where we go to learn how to torture" which is OBVIOUSLY not the same thing! So are you just pulling my leg here? is this some big joke? because i am finding it rather humorous. I mean, you can't actually be SERIOUS, can you? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!