birdlike

If you can show me a thread where I stopped responding to actual bona fide discussion to digress into digs about grammar, punctuation and spelling, please do so. I don't think I ever "resort" to that, least of all if someone (for whatever reason) thinks they have me on the ropes in a debate. In fact, as I said (and you ignored) I have NOT been "my old self" picking apart spelling -- except, as noted, to point out the irony of Amazon doing it and making her own errors in the process. That kind of irony is acceptable to point out, I feel. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Would you care to point out where I've been making typo attacks all over the place? I recall a few sarcastic quips, but they were not originated with me, but instead were retaliations when I saw others pulling that kind of crap. What I mean is, like on Amazon, for example, I "jumped on" her case for attacking someone else's grammar or spelling or something but then in her own (short) post she missed an error of her own. (I'm not talking about proofreading a 20 page legal brief, here, dude. We're talking about maybe three to ten lines of text.) You seem to be looking to get into it over nothing. I think I'm just gonna leave it alone. You have fun with it; but we are not getting anywhere, so I'll invest my time elsewise. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?! (you'd better know I'm kidding!) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Saying that one feels that someone is "full of shit" (as in, saying things that are unbelievable and preposterous) is a PA? Well, if it is, I'll restate, and avoid saying it like that in the first place. I really don't see how that's a PA, though. It's not attacking the person, it's attacking the thing that was said. I'm not looking to get banned, so if you feel attacked, I'm sorry. I just was going for what you said. Clearly, all I expressed was the emphatic equivalent of, "You guys TALK about wanting 'change,' but when it comes down to it, when change is offered, you don't actually want it, do you." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I have seen a full year whiz by since my last jump (which was 8/25/07). Apart from a couple of gear issues (need a reserve repack, obviously, and need CYPRES2 4-year service), I feel like I could get right back into my rig, get right back into the plane, get right back into the sky, and be able to do everything I did a year ago (when I was working on my sit, and was OK on my belly, and was not yet involved with any serious coaching mostly because of money and time). But I know it would be foolish and brash to just hop up into the plane and jump without having an instructor give me at least the "once-over" and brush up on safety, technique, etc. My USPA is current, and assuming I get my rig all set soon, I want to know: - what should I go to the DZ and ask for? I do not want to be the kind of idiot who spends a year off playing disc golf instead of skydiving, and then fancies that he doesn't need refresher training. I just don't know what it consists of or costs, or from whom I should get it. If anything, I lean more toward safety nut than reckless nut, and am never opposed to erring on the side of caution. I just don't know what I should show up and ask for. I'll be jumping at Sebastian. I don't even know who's on staff there anymore, it's been so long. Recommendations, please? This is my first time being out of the sky for so long and I don't know what the proper course is for getting back into it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

This is where you are wrong. There is no better place to be than at the dz if you want to learn all you can about skydiving. And if skydiving is your dream, why wouldn't you want to learn all you can about it? Some things aren't about money... There are serious limits to what he could learn while neither jumping, nor earning enough to jump, though. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions. What are you talking about? If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short. That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is. OK, so you attacked me for pointing out your misspelling of "referred"; but what was the INITIAL meaning of what you wrote BEFORE that?! How are you getting this confused?? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I understand, and agree that the aggressor always has the advantage of surprise. But we're talking about a rape that is in progress. The attack has been initiated, surprise is no longer meangful. He is on top of her, attempting to throttle her as he rapes her. Let's say she has at least one hand free, perhaps both. He is counting on her being docile and submissive out of fear. She should be attempting to count the convolutions of he brain through his eye sockets at the first opportunity. Yes, sometimes he'll have a knife with which to threaten her, but that should be all the more incentive to fight like a demon. But in the case of an unarmed rape, or he sets the knife down or whatever, I can't see just doing the "lie there" thing and not go for the softest spots on his body and never let up. That's always true, but surely we should be able to expect more of a survival/fight instinct out of people? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I just don't see how a person who is facing death at the hands of a rapist would find harming him difficult. I would think that the circumstances would be a huge push past the blockage that normally would restrain us. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You know, all other civilized, industrial nations have rates of ink-pen murder that are far lower than ours. Ink pens are easier to get than a candy bar! There's NO REGULATION! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions. What are you talking about? If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yeah, it was pretty stupid to use that as a plot device, given that it is wholly unreasonable to expect that THE JOKER can be taken at his word! He was all about creating chaos. It would be just like him to pull that kind of "joke." I loved Ledger's portrayal -- it was masterful -- but the plot was just as inane as any other Batman film. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No. If you're referring to "first among equals", this concept is perhaps most strongly demonstrated in early societies where a leader was chosen from among a group of equals. The leader did not become more than or better than, only the voice of, as it were. The early Christian church also followed this policy. The pope was chosen leader as a first among equals, and there were two equal popes - one in Constantinople and one in Rome. The Schism can be rightly considered due to, in large part, the self-perceived grandeur of one of those popes, but that is a different topic on which I will abstain. In America the ancient custom was brought to the continent and practiced by the earliest settlers, whom we today call "native Americans". There are myriad other demonstrations of this policy, but I use these examples because I believe they clearly illustrate the point. I hope my example is sufficient. Nova No, it's not. I was asking for the justification for doing it. You just gave me examples about leaders. I'm not asking about leaders. I want to know why some woman -- no world or tribal leader, just some soccer mom -- should get into a lifeboat before, say, a male cardiac surgeon, or a male aeronautical engineer, just because she is female, opening the possibility that these males will not survive the sinking as a result of being deprived of her lifeboat space. You haven't gone anywhere near to defending that policy, which is what I politely asked you to do. I don't think we need to dwell on the notion that a "first among equals" has, in fact, ceased to be an "equal" by mere virtue of now being "first among" them. He has rights, privileges, and prerogatives that exceed what they have. He is their better, not their equal. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, YOU WANTED [I]CHANGE![/I] YOU WANTED SOMEONE WHO WASN'T A "WASHINGTON INSIDER![/I] Suddenly the prospect of getting exactly that has the Left loading up their diapers. She's a joke, a MILF joke, but still a joke. I guess you guys are only just full of SHIT when you all chirp about "ch-ch-ch-ch-changes! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Who's gonna wipe the drool off Biden's mouth the next time he has one of his brain aneurysms? I don't see that as probable, furthermore, he's #2 behind a healthy guy, not a sickly #1. Um, he's had TWO brain aneurysms already, but you have a crystal ball and you see a third one as improbable. Hmm... For that matter, Bush has made a lot of decisions you don't think were good. More decisions will be made tomorrow. But will they be bad? "I don't see that as probable." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Nor has DC cleaned up its act. But the difference is that at least she's been in a tough situation. What the hell use is that if she still didn't even dent the problem one iota?! (And the problem has not been dented one iota!) If you and I got into a street fight against a gang of thugs, would you be reassured if I said, "Don't worry, I've been in the ring with Mike Tyson! ...I got my ASS kicked, and almost died, and didn't get a single punch in -- but I was in the ring with Mike Tyson and I did my best"?? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't have one. I don't understand the legalese surrounding the issue enough to try to solve the problem. But I will definitely listen to someone who thinks they _do_ have a solution, rather than assume they either want to "take everyone's guns" or "arm all criminals." I have never in my life met a single gun-rights advocate who wants to "arm all criminals" -- or even any criminals. On the other hand, in word and in deed, I have met or seen many gun-control advocates who avow a desire to eliminate guns from civilian hands. And even if you say that most of them only want certain guns banned (the so-called "deadly assault-weapons," for instance), well, you still can't find a pro-gunner who says, "Let's just let the criminals have only these single-shot .22s..." The pro-gunners draw a 100% "don't allow criminals ANY guns" line. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Doesn't STOP CRIME though, DOES IT. You still have to HAVE that crime HAPPEN. YOU said it would help REDUCE CRIME. Besides, don't you have to actually have the gun to know the serial number to begin this trace? What do you do when the criminal shoots someone and walks off still in possession of the gun? Oh, so you wouldn't mind the fact that you were destroying an American tradition -- and trampling on the FIRST Amendment right of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION while you're at it?? There seem to be a lot of rights you don't mind eradicating in your quest to stop something under 100% of gun crime. What is your bottom threshold for still considering shitting on the Constitution worthwhile? Down as far as stopping only 20% of gun crime? 5%? How? Maybe we should just have the guns sold right out of government offices, to make sure accurate records are kept. Look, we ALREADY REQUIRE gun sellers to verify the things you are asking for. Every licensed gun dealer has a paper trail that leads directly to him for every gun he gets from the distributor. You cannot do more than make him aware that IF he sells a gun without the right documentation (forms, background check), he will face prosecution. The only other step is to simply not allow these folks to sell guns as a business in the first place. EVERY business is ON ITS HONOR, under PERIL OF PROSECUTION, to abide by the laws that govern its business conduct. To start with, I propose that we "better enforce" sentencing of violent gun criminals. Use a gun in a crime, even if you don't fire it, hell, even if it's a replica, and you go to prison, no parole, for thirty years. As they get caught, they disappear from the streets but they don't return. Before long, there are fewer and fewer of them because they seem to always get caught at least once. If they got a 30 year sentence, just like Jack Black's "cock-pushups," one's all you need. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Agreed. Clinton touted his Brady Law, and then when hundreds of thousands of criminals broke it, where were the prosecutions? Are you proposing we put metal detectors on the street?? Actually, we DO have tracking of ALL firearms from manufacturer to customer. If they find a gun, they use the serial number, make and model to go to the maker, who divulges records of the distributor, who divulges records of the retailer, who is obligated by law to keep detailed records of the purchaser, including the now-famous Form 4473. Of course, that leads to the last legal owner of the gun, not to the criminal who might have stolen it, used it, and then dropped it at the scene of the crime. You say your plan won't be 100% effective. Just like the laws you're not enforcing now, I guess. You treat it as a given that there would be a resulting reduction in crime. Since the majority of criminals with guns do not obtain them legally in the first place, tell us why you even think this would reduce crime. I guarantee you that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BOUGHT A GUN FROM A LICENSED DEALER showed I.D., and had a phone call made to the F.B.I. to make sure that the most current records indicate his eligibility to purchase a firearm. Anyone buying from a private owner, no, he doesn't have to show I.D. That doesn't change the fact that it is still illegal for him to buy a gun if he's a felon (or crazy, or a drug abuser); and it's still illegal for the seller to sell to a prohibited buyer. And that seller has the option (although not the legal obligation) to have a background check done just to cover his ass and make sure he's not committing the felony of selling to a prohibited buyer. Your plan still does nothing to defeat gun sales by unscrupulous but as-yet-unconvicted legal owners of guns to those who may not legally purchase them. You cannot get compliance from those who are simply willing to break whatever law you enact. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Socio-economic problems in Baltimore are also not even remotely close to being SOLVED, so what's the point of throwing up the "experience" of a woman who's been accomplishing nothing to fix them? You have to admit that either she's not trying, or she's trying and failing. Either way, no one to boast about. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Did that even make sense? Let's see . . . the First Amendment guarantees (among other things) freedom of religion. Why would a liberal assume that a creationist would want that repealed? Destruction of the First Amendment by a fundamentalist Christian administration would remove the obstacle to establishing a state religion, Quade. It would also enable control of the press, which is another bugaboo that the Left insists the Right is after (despite the fact that it's the Left that really has infiltrated the press). Just because the religious Right is religious doesn't mean you could discount the idea that they'd want to eliminate the 1st Amendment if they were in the power seat at the time. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, YOU WANTED [I]CHANGE![/I] YOU WANTED SOMEONE WHO WASN'T A "WASHINGTON INSIDER![/I] Suddenly the prospect of getting exactly that has the Left loading up their diapers. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'll admit that I have not bothered to pull out the bill and read it. I am sure like most bill it would be hundreds pages long. Then you're just like the congresscritters who didn't read it either but voted for it or against it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, if it doesn't work out, they can always starve a few million people like Stalin did in the Ukraine, and be done with the problem. Besides, they get to write the history, anyway. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh really? If someone gets harmed with that gun, watch how fast you get sued. Yes, even in Texas. You did nothing more than get briefly careless, without any intent to cause anyone grief - a very human thing which we all do. But that's exactly what negligence is: a simple mistake, without any malicious intent. And so that alone does not shield you from potential civil liability for negligence. (No offense intended.) You are aware, aren't you, that there is "negligence" and "criminal negligence"? You can say "watch how fast you get sued," but that doesn't mean anyone would get past summary judgment, when Doug925 demonstrates that someone criminally came into his residence and criminally deprived him of his property. A criminal act breaks the chain of liability. Don't you know that? This was not the same as recklessness, like leaving a gun on the table of the food court at the mall... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire