davjohns

Why are there no black skydivers? Help a bratha out I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Jerry: In perfect agreement with everything you said. I'm just trying to find the justification for the "98%" quote. I tried Kallends' first link. It didn't work. I read the article at the second. It was very well written and I don't disagree with it at all. But it doesn't mention climatologists or 98. I ran a search after I read it to make sure I didn't miss it. I'm really just recommending that a little more persuasion and a bit less Chicken Little might be in order. Changes need to be made. Sooner is better than later. There are sound arguments and reasoning. Put down the baseball bat. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So...a whole new division of government with a budget that would never fall prey to the general budget...sold to us on the basis of a better future for all? Great idea! Can we call is Social Security? Sorry. There are some rational arguments there. But the Federal Government has proven itself incompetent to make it work. It's a great topic for discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. But my skeptic meter pegged on this one. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's worked well in Central America, where armed guards are common. Wendy P. Wow - with all those armed guards, central america must be rolling in freedom! You misunderstand. Armed guards provide security. Armed Citizens provide freedom. There is a huge difference. Sometimes, they are mutually exclusive according to Franklin. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks for the link. Sadly, it says the search has timed out. I'll take a look at it later if I have the time. Ideologically, I'm a bit divided on legislation like this. I'm all for protecting women. I'm a man raised in strict Southern traditions of opening doors, standing up for any woman, etc. But if we are all really equal, why do we have laws that imply otherwise? Some of the retoric about the law specifies that women don't have the courage to talk to the police when they arrive. Seems we are collectively heading in two different directions. We claim women are equal, but have legislation that says otherwise. It starts looking like that definition of 'fair' that means "I want more". IDK...when I was a cop, we didn't need special laws to tell us what to do. We removed the weaker party from the situation and created breathing room. Maybe cops today are too afraid of getting sued. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Lieutenant Colonel - Chief of Current Intelligence, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe BS (CJ / Psych) MS (Business Mgt) MS (Intl Rel) JD (Law) I avoid trade related skills. It would only end up in more work. But my fun skills: SCUBA, Hang gliding, sportbikes, Japanese Swordsmanship, TKD, HKD, BJJ, archery, small arms marksmanship, rock climbing, kayaking, mountain biking...whenever I try to remember all of my hobbies, I have to mentally walk through all the gear in my garage. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The case is not closed and it is not settled. 98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc. As do I. 100% of real scientists would agree - including you - that predictions of the future as so ripe with uncertainty as to be scientific wild ass guesses. Has anyone actually ASKED climate scientists? Is there a poll somewhere? I'm curious where this statistic came from. One one site, I found, "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." with no source or rational explanation for where the stat came from. It did quote a study that said a researcher went through peer reviewed papers and since none of them argued against, the theory, they must agree. Not the greatest logic. On the SAME site, I found, "Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Source: DailyTech)" Still not astounding logic, but it LOOKS like something closer to a rational approach. So, where does this statistic come from? Was there a poll that I couldn't find? Just for fun, what the heck is a BONAFIDE climate scientist? One that agrees with the speaker's views? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I haven't seen anyone put forth the proposition that humans have NO effect on the environment, there is absolutely NO problem, or that they want 100%ABSOLUTE proof. I think this is an emotional reaction on your part. Please direct me to where someone has these extreme hyperbolic positions. I think most people would agree that human activity MUST have SOME kind of effect. The disagreement is in how much, how well the planet handles it, whether money should be sunk into it, how to measure it (vice normal environmental changes), etc. Like many of the disputes on SC, if people would be a bit less argumentative and a bit more persuasive, I think fruitful discussion would bloom. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me there was a credible reason to rain lead into that vehicle. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It's possible. Since I see it on both 'sides', I presume it is about equal. Any disparity is most likely to be my emotional desire to side with one end and villify the other. That's what Kallend does. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Kallend is condescening and prone to insult people who disagree with him. If you were inclined to search, you would find I don't bother with threads he starts or responding to him. I see no value in it. I don't insult his intelligence. I just don't get anything useful out of interaction with him. I see plenty of conservatives (with whom I often sympathize) who will declare their opponents bereft of intellect. They are equally wrong for doing so. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I find that flaw of logic quite prolific. I can not attribute it to one end of the spectrum more than the other. I would suggest, however, that 'extremes' in any direction commend themselves to reduced logic and more emotion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I disagree with the Senator's socio-political views. I do not suppose she is completely stupid. So, I was not surprised to find that she did not go that extreme in public. I am not surprised that people with a legitimate fear for their rights were pushed by an untrue article to share their fears. Kallend declares anyone who disagrees with him a 'moron'. I do not. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Does anyone really claim that humans have NO effect? I haven't seen that position. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I support climate change. It sucks in Belgium. I want to see a change. Isn't that what POTUS ran on? CHANGE? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't have a side in this argument....but.... If you think the world is coming to an end (for whatever reason) can you send me your rig first? I'll pay shipping. When I was younger, the big thing in the pentecostal christian movement was that we were living in the 'end times'. Every preacher liked to talk about how we were so close to the end of days. Some of them still go on about it. My question: why do you have a retirment account if you believe that? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've learned not to get too excited until I have read the act. Everyone mis-represents what the act says for their own purposes. And the names of acts almost never represent all the little extras that can kill it's value. Anyone have a link? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think I've answered your question. I don't care if the club wants to exclude people due to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social status, or size of the big toe. I think they will lose out on many valuable members, but that is their call. I don't know why people who don't meet the criteria want to waste their time trying to get in. Yes, it is a few more years down the line...critical years. Today's world is so much more accepting of so many things. Comparing homosexuality today with racism of the 50's is apples and oranges. I think you've taken the teaching point in a different direction, but I can't see what was written before and I can't recall what it was about at this point. I'll go back and check it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

English humour can be very dry. No shame in not picking up on it. OK. You got me on that one. The Brits I work with have a rough time with my humor as well. Crack on. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sweetie, you really are blonde, huh? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

A few years ago, there was a golf club that didn't have any black members. I'm pretty sure there were unspoken rules or something. The PGA had an issue with having a tournament there. I think Tiger Woods was involved. At the time, like now, I maintained that the organization could do what it wanted. If it wanted to exclude people for whatever reason, so be it. I have no problem with organizations that want to exclude people. I don't care to join them. That's my call. Knights of Columbus doesn't allow women. I support their right to do as they please. I just don't care to join. Answer your question? You bring up the race issue purely because it is an emtional issue. It makes no difference to me. Just for fun...the part of my post that you called a non-sequitur was completely consistent if you read my post. I was responding to Wendy's concern for the raising of children at that point. Please read a little closer. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Meh, you're a southerner. Not too much of a shock that you're supporting bigots. I was just about to the point that I couldn't see any point in responding to you anymore....then you posted this. I actually laughed out loud. Your statement is bigotted toward Southerners! You don't even see it. Killing me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Admittedly, I'm a good bit on the 'odd' side. lol I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The more times you say that the more it starts to sound like a challenge... I, too, nominate Promise5 to take you down. You guys do realize I'm a bit of a prude, right? I say things for amusement value. Hell, I've given guys lap dances just to see them blush (fully clothed). But when it comes down to it, my personal life is pretty conservative. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Home DZ. Currently in Belgium and haven't jumped yet. Country: US DZ: Skydive Alabama Packing price (excl. tip): $5 Typical tip (if it applies): Jump ticket price: $20 Exit altitude: 13,500 Price of ave. 6 pack of beer: $4 At $5 to pack, I may never pack again. I did it once for my A license and then packed one and jumped it. Haven't done it since. I really should practice from time to time. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.