Zenister

ive seen one or two visiting teams that were doing toggle turn approaches nearly every time and nearly everyone commented and cringed on occasion on them on the out going trams. I guess i'm lucky in that i have had people show me the difference in where you are in each approach early on, but it seemed like the toggle turners were clearly the 'old school' exception and that the people that were doing it had been doing it so long they were 'scary' but fairly proficient, but I'd never seen much more than a 180ish toggle turn. That is why it shocked me to hear she intentionally attempted a 270 toggle.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

efficiency. You can do nearly anything from some amazingly strange positions, the question becomes, 'am i flying most efficiently'? of course efficiency is defined by what and where your going to next and how long, how much energy and effort it takes to get there from where you are, how you are, flying now. Of course there is something to be said for aesthetics. Some fliers look more natural, fly more elegantly but sacrifice some efficiency to do so, ideally the most elegant position is also the most efficient, but that is what the freestylists work to acheive. Your ‘ideal’ body position is going to be specific to you, but that doesn’t mean you cant make improvements that give you more range and control.. if it only takes a ‘little bit of toe’ to get where you need to, why would you ‘throw your whole leg’ in and have to compensate elsewhere? I’ve seen lots of people flying headdown with their upper arms pinned to their torso and their palms at shoulder level…aka the pizza man.. how efficient is that? And it doesn’t even look cool ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

really? prove it. So if I took six beers from your fridge and left you three bucks on the table with a note thanking you for the two beers I took, you wouldn't come to me and say, "There were SIX beers you took, Jeff! I want the rest of my money!"? I mean, reality is subjective. How do we know -- how can we PROVE -- that the number of beers I perceive I took is the same as the number of beers you perceive I took? I guess we have to agree that indeed, as I first asserted, there are certain things in reality that HAVE to be objectively agreed upon. To insist otherwise is ridiculous. - the number of concepts about reality we would have already ‘agreed’ apon in your example in order for it to be relevant is staggering. as proven recently (and discussed here ) if my culture does not incorporate concepts greater than 2 i may perceive there to be no difference at all. We have to have agreed money is a fair exchange and that it represents a given amount etc…. American Indian cultures did not incorporate the western concept of 'owning' land such trades can be meaningless depending on how value is assigned. The differences are matters of belief and ‘shared reality’. There is no ‘objective reality’ we can discuss, we would not have words for it. The nature of language means all 'reality' must be 'shared'. Since when has religious, spiritual beliefs had anything to do with 'agreed reality’ at all? No, we do not have to agree on the fundamental nature of life, existence or afterlife, or on the relative value of green pieces of paper in exchange for beer that may or may not exist (I haven’t opened the fridge yet remember?) or any belief for that matter. There is no such thing as an ‘objective observer’. All observations are subjective relative to the observer and their cultural filter; anything that is not directly observed is interpreted through the observer’s frame of reference if you really want to get down to it, how can you 'prove' to me there are 6 beers in the fridge at all until you open it and we both look? Separate observations with a different frame of reference will have different results. Only by looking with agreed definitions (what is 6?) will we come to an ‘agreed reality’ as to the number of beers in the fridge. Bill's elephant example is apt in that having felt the elephant once, each individual will expect similar results again, results that differ from previous observations will be interpreted through their cultural frame of reference.. How exactly is one supposed to accept and rationalize any experience of divinity without resorting to their engrained frame of reference (religious, scientific etc)? How do you decide where to you put any piece of the puzzle when you don’t know how big the puzzle is? why would you expect that different cultures would always come to the same conclusions? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

after moving from Europe and DOD schools i was shocked to discover i was going to be tested on obscure details involving AL and the Civil War (some 2 weeks of class) and yet the political tensions leading up to WWI? 3 days, the war itself? 1 day... Mind you this is high school so that is less than 3 hours on the pre-war and 50 min on WWI... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Hmm...I wonder how I made out on that deal... depends, does the shoe fit on your head better than the helmet fits on his foot? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

you know i can remember at least one conversation where the girl i was seeing at the time, although otherwise completely apart of the conversation, totally missed that the term boyfriend applied to their (male) significant others...she thought they were both talking about a problem with their girlfriends... it caused an interesting argument later on and a really funny scene when i had to have her ask both of them if they were gay before she finally heard what they were really saying...sometimes people only hear what they expect to hear.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

in a market economy you get what you pay for... you can watch educational value TV 24/7 but youve got to pay for it...once they realized there was a market all the quality programers went to pay channels with the money to fund them.. i think there are 3 Animal channels now..... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

perspective. you can only define an event from a single perception of it. yours. Then why do religions claim to have the one single perspective that is valid and can tell you how the universe was created and how you should live, and the nature of god? Regardless of our limited powers of observation and experience, there still is one objective reality, at least in a material and energy sense. If/reply] really? prove it. 5 observations of a portion of reality do not make 5 sole truth, the problem lies within man and his limited means to experience and describe God. Take the sum of that experience and seperate the nature of man to exclude that which does not agree with individual belief and you'll be much closer to the nature of divinity. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

they've subdivided, you now have the Science Channel, the Medical channel, Wings etc.. so the content has spread... some of the other channels are quite good... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

perspective. you can only define an event from a single perception of it. yours. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

all other things are never equal. dangerous is a quality not a quanity. everyone always has 'everything' and 'nothing' to 'lose' everyday. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Ahem - shouldn't the balloonist be an MBA and the guy on the ground an engineer? No the ballonist is an Officer and the man on the ground a Warrant. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

horray!! someone finally remembered me... ans here i was feeling all heart (leg)broken and lonely... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

so much for freewill. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Due to man's own freewill. Man fucked up. Then Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden. After that they fucked up, down, sideways, upside down... per christian theology, Man was designed to 'fuck up' it isnt as if God were unaware of the flaws he built in his creation, or the temptations he placed before them....there is something pathalogical in a God who sets up unavoidable 'traps' for his loved creations... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

betsy? old enough to have children? no way......i dont believe you... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Not missing this one.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i see little point in intentionally derailing a discussion simply because you don’t want to participate...but i guess its not a 'serious' forum so anyone can hijack any thread they wish...... it just always seemed juvenile to me, if the topic doesn’t interest you don’t have to post (or read) at all…thread drift and side topics are one thing, but if people are engaging in an otherwise reasonably polite discussion, why scream BOOBIES and make completely off topic posts? Seems a bit rude and disrespectful to everyone else…but that’s just my .02 ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

if the topic doesnt interest you, you could just not post rather than whore.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

he didnt change his routine, the judges had the wrong routine in mind when they gave him his starting 'score'. It is completely a paperwork mistake on the part of the judges. Since it in no way affects either athletic performance it should be corrected, and the performances ranked accordingly. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i've never claimed to be anti religion..its facinating subject, you learn alot about humans buy studing what they believe about divinity and how those beliefs are used by other men to control them... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

when religions get really picky about their rituals, you have to wonder what industry they are really supporting? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Runners, swimmers etc are this much 'better' all the time. It depends on what 'measurement' is being contested. In this case it is the difficulty of the routine. Yang was attempting a more complex (higher multiplier) routine than the judges originally gave him credit (start value) for, so all the performances remain identical they were just incorrectly scored. He should give it back and take the silver he earned. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

are you positve they were using 2004 seconds instead of 1972 seconds? I'm sure if you factored the way time is measured today vs the way time was measured in 1972 you'd see Sptiz was still a muuuch better swimmer than Phelps....

some sects do exactly that, using the same scripture as reason... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.