SudsyFist

Just For You

At Otay?

Excellent point. Bad Viking!

You've got a lot of assuming going on there, kind sir. First, this was a freefly dive with a fast base, with the significant difference between this and other "normal" freefly dives was that the base was on his belly. Second, that difference was taken into account in planning, briefing, and execution, with the most significant issue being rapid changes to fall rate (including possible "corking"). The precautions are similar to when flying with someone, say, who's working on taking docks: a no-fly cone above them, e.g. Third, the freeflyers were all very comfortable flying with each other, fast or slow, with dozens of freefly jumps *together* (not to mention hundreds otherwise). One exception was a single participant on the tube dive, who got extra extra extra briefing and contingency planning. Fourth, although he was admittedly chipping on the second dive, he's successfully pulled this off on two-ways prior to building it up on a bigger dive, so there was definitely a progression, further reducing risk (not at all eliminating it) of big bad things a-happenin'. I could probably spout off a dozen or so more points about this, but my basic position here is this: was this more difficult/dangerous than just a regular old freefly dive? Absolutely. Was that additional risk taken into account and mitigated? Yes. Would it have been less risky if the base had 10,000 jumps? Of course, silly! Did the flyers on this dive walk away both having learned some things as well as having a good time? Yes. Do we also see other routine freefly dives that similarly incorporate more risk which we try our best to mitigate? Yes. Please, before you start pointing your finger and accusing something of having an extra 21st chromosome, ask some questions first and show not only that you care, but you also are interested in knowing what really happened. Then you can argue the individual points with which you disagree, without having to taste your own toe jam.

But doesn't it help that most of 'em are yes/no questions?

Airwhores depart in one hour.

I share your frustration with this. The media will pick and choose which scandals to put in the spotlight, but I don't think it's purely partisan -- although I do not entirely rule out partisanship as a contributing factor. Instead, I think a bigger factor in their decision making is the volume of reaction they can stir with the story. In your example, a lot of people might hear the name Pelosi and think it's a pasta dish, but the name Tom DeLay definitely is associated with politics. Pasta scandals don't get the best ratings. During the Clinton-Lewinsky shindig, I recall the networks, including CNN, going on a feeding frenzy. And why? Because they were right-leaning at the time? I think, for the most part, whoever's already more-in-the-spotlight is going to get covered more when shit goes down. Not that I think that's hugely better (maybe a tiny bit) than being purely partisan about it, though. It still frustrates me. Don't feed me sensationalism. Inform me. I promise to sit through your goddamned commercials if you do. Take time to consider, though, that when people do wrong (break laws, violate trust, etc.), some get away with it better than others, either in general or on a case-by-case basis. If Clinton had really taken the time to plan and cover his gallavanting with the young sow, then there would have been no "facts" (tadpole graveyard, e.g.), and there would have been no perjury, and there would have been no admission. If anything had arisen about it, it likely would've been relegated to a he-said-she-said. Case dismissed. But the shaft-slobbering still would have occurred. He just would have gotten away with it better. A lot of folks tend to spout bullshit along with some of their more valid criticisms, and I agree that destroys the credibility of those individuals. But... Baby. Bathwater. Let's not do that. I think public criticism of our leaders is one of our most effective methods of keeping them in check, lest they run amok unfettered. And, taking into account just how much power tends to corrupt, I don't think anyone wants that to happen.

Not sure where this is going but........I really don't know. He was found not guilty by a jury so I have to go with that. As for my feelings........if you think I will say the bastard is guilty, I can't, I don't feel that way. Same for M. Jackson......I just don't know. I don't have a feeling he is guilty either. Just checking, that's all. Good on you for applying your logic universally, and not being hypocritical.

rushmc, I'm curious... how do you feel about OJ Simpson?

And this is different from most politicians in what way? Seriously, can you point to a presidential administration in the last century in which corruption/abuse of power was non-existent? Enquiring minds want to know! I'm growing tired of political fanboy bullshit, from all sides; it really strikes the same dissonant chord with me as WWF fans' zealous support of their favorite wrestler. Why? Because you like his colors? Or he says cool stuff that makes you feel cool? Or he's from your hometown? Or you think he's *really* a better wrestler? DUDE, THE WHOLE THING'S A SHAM! I'm kinda glad that the media train keeps rolling along. If it ever stopped, and people suddenly realized just how much they're being pandered to and patronized by their favorite politician, fashion label, rap artist, beverage company, etc., there'll either be mass suicide or a new renaissance. Both of which are scarier than just maintaining the status quo. EDIT: Oh, shit, I went off on wrestling with Auntie Christ in da house!

Everybody who's aware of Godwin's Law *loves* to bring it up, as it seems that whenever someone has little to stand on, or when they wish to invoke the highest level of fear-uncertainty-and-doubt (FUD) in order to convince people of their way, out spews the Hitler and Nazi and Germany and Hut comparisons. This is regardless of affiliation, membership, or sexual preference. So, I wouldn't say it's particular to a specific group. After all, when Godwin typed his divinely inspired words (and their invocation proliferated like wildfire), methinks that "Ultra Righties" were a tiny, tiny minority on Usenet. If you wanna use Hitler to stir up someone's emotions, you're a target for invoking Godwin's Law. Without prejudice. That being said... what whole conversation?

Have you been sneaking in on my showers?

Pardon me, but is there a difference between bash and criticize? Or is one a subset of the other, perhaps? Does that mean there's anything wrong with it, cos it certainly appears that a lot of people feel that there is?

HOLY SHIT!!!

I comb fast.

I was moreso looking forward to how many new high school cheerleaders would be legislated into the age of consent overnight. EDIT: Priorities.

Actually, that is quite believable. First, because that could be an anti-abortion move to change the mindset of the public into believing that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. And second, because it is my understanding that some Oriental cultures, like the Japanese, date their ages in that exact manner. They consider you to be nine months old at birth. Freaking excellent points. And I was about to contribute the latter, but you beat me to it.

Actually, during the invasion, I was pleasantly surprised by how our troops were treated by their regular forces. It seemed much better than what it was like in the first Gulf War, but I didn't compare the nitty gritty. The way the insurgency operates, though, is despicable. And a bad strategy for them, at that, because it garners them nothing. Tit for tat is a dangerous game of escalation, though, and I, for one, don't want to play. I'd rather we hold our moral ground and stick to *spirit* of the treaties to which we agreed in the first place, and show the world that their negative assumptions about our country are wrong.

And that's why I believe that blacks have a higher rate of *violent* crime. Not 100% certain, because there's still some possibility of skew, but enough for me to believe so. I'm right there with you. But as I've also tried to point out earlier, I think it's important to note that this might be circumstantial, and there may be more significant factors to point out than this. See what I posted upthread to give you an idea what I mean: No, that's not what I was asking. I was asking a very specific question, the answer to which will help me better understand your definition of racism, as well as better understand how you feel about something. If you could please answer the question directly, I'd be much appreciative. I agree with the truth of your crime statistics, and I haven't even gone to the trouble of verifying them: I trust you on that. I don't, however, agree with your *conclusions* about those statistics, because of what I described in my previous post. Please differentiate between the two: the statistics, and your conclusions about the statistics. I can see the truth behind his remarks, and I can also see how crass they were. Believe me, I know crass. See my beaver modeling post in Bonfire. I also can see, however, how someone can interpret his remarks as indicative of his being racist. And for someone in his position, he should know better, regardless of whether he is racist or not. See? It's helpful to be able to see other people's perspectives, isn't it? That's precisely why I brought up this slight change to his quote: Do you react differently to my version than Bennett's? If so, how?

Rock! Nope. I'm saying that I believe that the citizens of our country wouldn't stand for that. Ever. Blue or Red. Ass or Pachyderm. We've *had* approved methods for a long time now, which have been refined over time by very smart people in the Intelligence Community. What concerns me, however, is that knee-jerk reactions from gun-slinging political appointees can override what's been determined to be effective and cooperative with international relations and treaties, all in the name of appearance: looking like we're doing *more*. Have you ever been in a job where managers made stupid changes to an efficient machine, just for the appearance of progress being made? And then when shit starts breaking down, the heat oftentimes hits the workers? This doesn't only happen in the private sector. Setting up in Gitmo to avoid judicial oversight and sidestep domestic law, as well as creating new labels for things (an *often* used political tactic) to further avoid liability is a fucking political circus stunt to show, "Hey, look, we're gonna kick some ass! Woohoo!" And so many people buy it. What's so much more effective now with Gitmo and new permissions of what we can do to prisoners, versus what we had before, hmm? Talk to a veteran interrogator or two, and ask them.

I am so sorry if I somehow gave you that impression, because it's not at all what I was saying. What I *am* saying is that we don't know whether blacks commit crime at the same rate as whites, because we have no way to know. That being said, I've stated in this thread that I believe that blacks have a higher rate (per capita) of *violent* crimes than whites, because the data from which to deduce *that* conclusion are much less skewed (still skewed, though) than that regarding criminal acts in general. Does that help clear things up? Never said anything remotely of the sort. Sorry, again, if somehow I implied that. You say, "only reason." I say, "lots and lots of reasons most of us are not even bothering to look at right now." Just like how people were steadfast in their belief that the Sun rotated around the Earth some time ago: they just didn't bother to look deeper and simply got stubborn with what seemed so obvious to them (and what everyone else around them thought). It's not my theory at all, but I agree that would be silly! You presented evidence to support your claim, and I disputed the applicability (not the authenticity) of your evidence to your claim: arrest and conviction statistics no more represent the rate at which crimes are committed than divorce statistics represent the rate of marital infidelity. Sure, they're related, and I'll totally give you that. But you absolutely cannot rely on one statistic to proportionally represent the other. You keep bringing up this racist conspiracy stuff, and you really have me wondering why. John, I'm going to ask you a serious, tough question here, and I'm not trying to rile you up; I'm honestly trying to better understand where you're coming from, so that we're on the same sheet of music: How would you react if your daughter brought home from college a black man, with whom she had obviously been having sex, to meet you and the family? How would your reaction differ if the only other difference was that he was white? Try to open your heart and honestly ponder this question. Regardless of your answer, I promise not to berate you or think any less of you. Cool?

How do you feel about those kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq? Shed a tear for them? Why? Under what conditions is barbarism against an individual justified, in your opinion? And can you stand behind your opinion as universally applicable (hint: move roles around in the situation, loved ones, etc.)? If not, then you're guilty of hypocrisy. I know a lot of people who are just fat happy about being hypocrites, but I'm figuring you care enough to not be among them.

hehehehe, Speaker's Corner will do that to you. #1: No, one of the greatest things I love about my country is that if you don't like what you see, you *can* speak up. That opportunity was bought for us with the red blood of true patriots. Why don't you support that, I wonder? #2

OK, take your attention off of Bill and his cat o'nine tails for a moment. I asked you two questions which you haven't answered...

I doubt that this is the de facto popular opinion in our country (poll, anyone?), but I agree that the media does desensitize the masses to methods like this. Here's some more fiction vs. reality, though. In movies, torture is an effective method of gaining information. In reality, it is HUGELY ineffective, mostly resulting in terribly inaccurate intelligence. So not only do we have a desensitized populace, but they also believe you can have drawn-out arguments about who's going to pull in freefall. Torture *is* effective for one thing, though: getting people to tell you what you want to hear. Great for prosecuting the innocent, propaganda, etc. But I don't think that's what America stands for. Do you?