SudsyFist

I find your lack of hypocrisy disturbing.

"The passengers are in head down position..." That gave such an AWESOME visual!!!

ATLANTA, Georgia -- In an unsurprising move, CNN has delivered yet another unscrupulous blow to the Party, belittling good, humble, God fearing, locked-and-loaded American Christians in their time of need. Evident in the web article title alone, "Texans flee colossal Rita," CNN has twisted the story of the evacuation of the loyal, patriotic citizenry, attempting to paint their backs with streaks of yellow. "Residents in southeast Texas and coastal Louisiana scurried to get out of the way of Hurricane Rita, " the article begins, daringly drawing comparisons of the residents of our proud South to loathsome rodents. "CNN can say whatever the hell them [sic] damn Hollywood [sic] liberals want -- we ain't no [sic] cowards -- but let 'em try sayin' that to my face, praise Jesus," said Jed Zickefoose, Bayside resident and lifetime member of the NRA. "Besides, I ain't budgin' off this here porch... Tanga Ray, where the hell's my iced tea I told you to git me?" Other residents in the storm's path were just as insulted by the timing and harshness of CNN's attacks. "CNN's people have orders to slander us wherever they can, and right now they're hittin' us where it hurts. That's why I'm rabidly loyal to Fox News," cried Ronita Jo Eckert, a pastor's wife and mother of four in Galveston, as she packed her photo albums and stock certificates. "At least there, they stick by wholesome country boy Kenny [Chesney] instead of that liberal movie star bitch [Renee Zellweger]." (Article: Chesney Says 'I'll Be OK' After Split) "Hope you enjoy your all night creme brulee binges alone, you fat, gluttonous, liberal [expletive]!" Fox News leads networks worldwide in setting standards for accurate reporting, according to their proponents. "For example, all the other networks call them suicide bombers, but not Fox News. No, they've got the balls to call them what they really are: homicide bombers! I mean, that's what they're doing, committing homicide with their bombs. It's not like they're committing suicide when they do it, and that's what distinguishes them... from other... kinds of... bombers..." described one fierce loyalist, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Today, Fox News had a photo essay linked on their homepage with the title, "Hurricane Rita Menaces Texas Coast." In that title, "emphasis was placed on the evil of the storm, sharply contrasting CNN's master plan to disparage Americans who disagree with their disillusioned and unpatriotic socialist views," said Bob "Frank" Hatchett, a professor at Texas A&M. "No mention was there of fleeing, scurrying, or cowardice; rather, there was only the clear truth, which Fox News stands alone among news networks in being reputable enough to report: the strength of resolve of our people, our Party, and our Nation. "God Bless America, and may Ted Turner and the DNC rot in hell." EDIT: This was satire, folks, poking fun at both stereotyping and jumping to conclusions. It's okay to laugh.

My best result a couple of nights ago on my 10D was a 2 second exposure (Shutter Priority/Tv), ISO100, and firing the shutter as soon as I saw a flash. This worked very well considering I was pretty close to the event, and there was a ton of ambient urban light. I know some folks who have had great results with 10-15 second exposures when they're further away from the storm and in less lit, rural areas. My best 10 second exposure had more action, but ended up looking washed out in comparison. I also used manual focus, set just shy of infinity. I took a test shot and reviewed it on my laptop to ensure clarity prior to going continuing the shoot. Hope this helps.

Thanks, Nate. I hope at least the lightning in this storm somewhat lived up to what you've seen elsewhere... these things were hitting BIG every 20 seconds or so at its strongest point!

I'll have to give you a recap next time I see ya. Ok, remind me to bring the studded gummy worm. Consider yourself reminded, young lady. And I'll be sure to bring the steel wool, a case of fudgesicles, and one left-handed rubber glooooove... And don't you dare forget a word of The Iliad!

Much, much less time than that. And add the fact that their guns are tunnelled deep within mountains (thereby rendering airstrikes against them almost entirely ineffective), and you've got some serious hurdles to overcome just trying to maintain a force presence between the DMZ and Seoul, much less pushing forward (bye bye, 2ID ). I disagree with the starve 'em or take 'em philosophy. If you look at the evolution of the DPRK's policies since its inception, you'll see that they've been baby-stepping in a more or less positive direction. Some will point out the nuke issues, border incursions, missiles over Japan, arms sales, etc. (the list goes on and on), but if you compare the attitudes and frequency and magnitude of incidents between now and even 20 years ago, you'll see there's been some, albeit quite slow, progress, not to mention some of the more positive developments (family reunions, multilateral dialogue, etc.). The fact that the DMZ is so heavily armed has created a stalemate situation that, oddly enough, can be seen as advantageous to both sides. Chances are the stalemate will continue for many, many years to come, giving time for the two sides to foster closer relations and peaceful cooperation. Reunification, however, is another issue, and it will likely require a reculturing of the propaganda-driven DPRK idelology (Juche, e.g.), something we likely won't see until the young Kim is out and more progressive leadership is in place. A coup isn't entirely out of the question at this point, but it'd be tough as hell to pull off without the peninsula destabilizing (read: mad chaos). But that's just my uneducated opinion.

"Truly, truly, truly outrageous..." Yes, I can recite the whole fucking song from memory...

No, he won't. I was the one to make the first move. *Every* time? Or just the most recent?

Home... *sigh* I have to steal a few more souls from the ArrogantFucker first, though.

Shotgun: I'll have to give you a recap next time I see ya. katiebear21: Gosh, I miss you, Katie!!! MrBrant: Nice one!!! dunesurfer: No way, man. No way. Thanks to everyone else who gave me some love!

YES!!! And the film is pretty damn magnificent, as well. But, Deary, you need to listen to the whole album. It's like The Downward Spiral or Disintegration; you can't just pick and choose songs! "Don't Leave Me Now" is my personal favorite. The pain is so well captured in the dichotomy of the lyrics, along with the dissonance of the organ chords. EDIT: STOP IT! I really have to pee!

Greets, all, I just spent the last hour putting my groggy nekkid ass on the line (on my balcony, actually) taking these photos of the thunderstorm that had the gall to keep me awake tonight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudsyfist/tags/20050920sdlightning/ A HUGE bolt struck the building next door, at which point I casually strolled back into my bedroom (after screaming like a little girl ) and hid out for a few. Got a cool shot of a lightning strike reflecting off the balcony door before mustering up the balls to step back outside. We *never* get lightning like this in Sandy Eggo, so I'm glad I broke out the camera and risked life and limb getting these shots. Enjoy!

Zero. Onsite rigger and several other sets of eyes inspected the canopy immediately after the landing and found no burns or other obvious damage to the canopy. The jumper, after several debriefs, then packed (albeit more carefully this time) and got on the next load.

Totally agree with Ron, but I'd also like to chime in and add that there's a distinct difference between "kneeflying" in the freestyle/freefly context, and "bootie flying" in the RW context. I'll use these terms for the rest of my post. Kneeflying is something which I had been doing for years on freefly dives, including taking docks with people on their heads. The body position is vertical and straight, even at the hips, and allows for tons of fall rate control with just your legs, much less arms. Driving and turning is almost identical to sitfly, although you can get your lower legs involved if you wish. I often ridiculed the RW folks for using the term, "bootie fly," for what I envisioned as the same body position. And oh, how wrong I was proven once I got around to trying it in the tunnel: it took about 5 minutes of expensive flailing for me to dissociate my kneefly habits. Bootie fly (at belly speeds or below) seems like more of a crouched position (ass sticking out, torso leaning forward) compared to kneefly, where air is being spilled off both the front of the torso and the backs of the thighs (not to mention the booties), providing much more surface area to the relative wind than kneefly: hence, the slower fall rate. And don't get me started on maneuvering. Regardless of how folks label these body positions, they're different. I point out this difference because I'd hate to see someone who's done a few solo kneefly jumps (thinking they're bootie flying) come across this thread and consider deploying at what is essentially sitfly speeds; there'd be a bit more to worry about than a bridle wrap.

That's what happens to boys when they start getting laid. VIKING! Call me, fökker!

This is off-topic, but I am curious... Do some women really say this when they're having an orgasm (other than in porn or any other time that faking might be involved)? Yes. *SWOON*

Excuse me, Dougiefresh...

A bioluminescent Mexican houseboy?

oooooh ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhh uh... ok... hmmmmmmmmmmm . .. *panting* ... Somebody got a towel?

I agree with you! In this particular case I'd say you're right on the money (provided that the article accurately represented report, and that the report accurately represented the investigation, and the investigation discovered the facts ). As for all other cases of alleged abuse/torture at GITMO, I s'pose the jury's still out. My issue here was with the generalization. Picture someone's making a post entitled, "No corruption found in the DNC," in reference to the outcome of an investigation of a single corruption case, at a time when corruption allegations are numerous. That's all I was trying to clarify -- seems we're on the same page now.

No, the first line reads that it was an inquiry into alleged abuse, and that this inquiry uncovered an issue between MP's and interrogators. Reading further, it shows that the inquiry had nothing to do with alleged abuse by interrogators; rather, it was into alleged abuse by the MP's/guards, as reported by a particular interrogator: This article is about issues between MP's and interrogators which were uncovered during an inquiry, an inquiry into specific allegations of abuse by MP's as reported by a specific interrogator. Among the inquiry's findings and recommendations were the following: "MPs suspected interrogators gave their names and Social Security numbers to prisoners in exchange for intelligence"The "interrogator [is recommended to] be relieved of duty for 'failure to know his enemy.'""no evidence of abuse by the guards"To take that last statement and post a thread entitled, "No torture found at GITMO," is either deliberately misleading, or the result of simply misunderstanding the content of the article. With my struggling to be more optimistic on these sorts of issues, I'll assume the latter. But English *is* my second language, so it might just be my own lack of comprehension. EDIT: Spelling correction.

Rereading the article, it sounds to me like this investigation was focused and specific to allegations brought forth by a single interrogator. If that's the case, then the above conclusion pertains only to those specific allegations, and not to GITMO's operations in general. Note that when allegations like these are made, they must be very specific. "They do this sorta thing all the time," does not prompt an investigation. Dates and times and participants in specific incidents are detailed and investigated. If evidence is found that the incidents did, in fact, take place and that there is potential for there to be a trend, then the investigation usually continues in that direction. Is this the case here, or was this particular investigation comprehensive? Anyone? Bueller?

Says who? On what factual information do you base that claim?