Southern_Man

I blame Obama. And Hitler. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You're just upset it's not an Android getting all the free publicity. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You can't use a vood stamp card at an ATM. I don't know where you got that idea. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I would agree with that but would add that I don't think whether I have a partner or not should affect how I am treated under the law either. People should be taxed the same regardless of whether they are gay, straight, married, or single. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Isn't there a big problem in the Amish communities, which have interbred for several hundred years, and which all originated from only a few hundred members centuries ago? I still don't see that as a good reason to prohibit relatives from marrying, as long as they are aware of the risks. And since most people do not do that, it wouldn't become a widespread problem like the small Amish community experiences. http://www.biochemgenetics.ca/plainpeople/view.php "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You need to ask. I don't think anybody here can give you any advice without that information. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just think, if you handled that like Shah sounds to be handling his, you could still be working on an Apple IIe I still have a couple of those in my "collection" It's like the Pterodactyl or Paracommander of computers, isn't it? Don't you still have some of those hanging around, too? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Don't like state-sanctioned marriages? Don't get one . . . If I only knew then what I know now.... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Oh, gag me. How YOU doin? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

When I was young and foolish I thought that 'til death do us part thing was actually binding. It wasn't. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Marriage is a contract. To "end the legal ramifications" would mean either that contracts are from now on unenforceable or that no marriages can occur. Yup, I understand that. Marriage is quite a few different things to different people. For some it is a sacred religious institution, even a sacrament. For most, even those who are not religious, it is a promise or series of promises tied to a relationship. For all those who are legally married it is also a legal contract. There is no reason it has to be. Eliminate the nanny state nonsense of government regulating personal relationships between adults. People will still get married, it just won't be a contract any more. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

It may be a "religious/spiritual event" to you but others see it as a promise made in front of the entire community. That promise or contract does have legal ramifications if either party violates the contract. Considering the legal ramifications how could government not be expected to be involved and set criteria pre- wedding? End the legal ramifications. Legal marriage is just nanny state nonsense anyway. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Try decaf. If that doesn't work you may want to look into some olanzapine. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

And he had to drag his twin along with him, too. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Is the contest for 270 free hours of tunnel time? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Scary that these are the very people so many want to put in charge or allowing or denying people their rights, isn't it? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Great, what would the legal standard that the court would be evaluating against? Since we have already determined that the person is no longer a danger ot himself or others. Would further testing be required by mental health professionals? What tests? Who would bear the costs of these evaluations? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This is a criteria for an emergency psychiatric admission (or continued confinement). Everybody how is ever released no longer meets that criteria. Are you in favor of restoring their rights as soon as they no longer meet that criteria? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

What instrument would you have the mental health professional use for that evaluation? What is the standard against which that person is measured? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If the cost is innocent lives within our own borders, then the cost is far to high if only to protect the rights of the very few. We need to outlaw skydiving then. And driving. Both of those cost innocent lives within our own borders. Also bathtubs. You know how many people die each year from hitting their head in the bathtub? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Can you define highly unstable? Can you tell me what diagnostic criteria or test you would use for this? From my personal experience of being suicidal in 1995 - highly unstable. I'm not a mental health professional, yet I have experience in the system. When I was committed for observation, I did see a number of people who should not even have a plastic butter knife. As for criteria? Again, I'm not a mental health professional, but I would think what a person may say, post online, behavior in public... I believe these and other guidelines are already in place, just not being used to weed out the very few who are dangerous to themselves, their family, and the public. No need for more laws. Just use what is already in place. Well, it is not just a question for you but for all the people who are suggesting restricting gun rights based on expert testimony and testing. There are tests we could use, like the HAM-D or MADRS for Depression or the PANSS score for schizophrenia, etc. There are a couple problems with these. First, these scales give you a snapshot in time--they tell you what severity of current symptoms are. They do not tell you what they will be in a month, or six months, or six years. So, we may or may not be permanently disabling somebody's constituional rights for a temporary condition. Psychological condition is subject to a lot of ups and downs and misdiagnosis. People have temporary setbacks, sometimes they recover completely, sometimes they do not. Second, they are not designed to be predictive for violence. So it would be problematic to deny somebody's constitutional rights using an instrument which is not answering the question which is being asked--is this person capable of handling firearms safely. The MMPI might be the most widely accepted instrument which could? be used as a scale across mental illnesses. Widely accepted is sort of a misnomer, as its appropriateness, reliability, and accuracy are highly disputed and some clinicians will not use it at all. It does proport to be able to diagnose personality traits leading to antisocial behavior, however. That's a little simplified but I don't feel like writing a book. Even for those willing to use it suggest it be used in combination with other psychological tests, interviews, etc. It would also need to be administered by a certified clinical psychologist. Not sure what mechanism we are going to use to pay for all that testing. FWIW, clinical interviews are even less likely to result in any sort of accurate prediction of future violence, although they can be a valuable addition to test batteries. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Can you define highly unstable? Can you tell me what diagnostic criteria or test you would use for this? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Using the assessment of psychiatric professionals to determine status instead of physics professors watching Youtube would be a start. It's been posted before in this thread, but the truth is that psychiatric professionals have very poor ability to predict which of their patients have a possibility of violence. Prior history of violent acts is really the only reliable indicator. I would rather have gun rights restricted because of misdemeandor violent acts then based on psychiatric admissions. I simply believe it is a more relevant criteria and also has more procedural safeguards. I am not trained to do these sorts of assessments but I do work at a community mental health center. I would say with great certainty that because I have knowledge of the system I could succeed in having just about anybody I wanted admitted to the hospital against his/her will. Not that I would, but I have assisted in having people committed and know what to say and do. It's somewhat amusing to me to hear people who do not work in and/or have limited or no experience with psychiatric admissions and the system who somehow believe that "trained professionals" have some sort of magical power to say who is and isn't likely to become violent. It is a limited system filled with flawed people. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You asked what caused tension knots and I don't think anybody has addressed that question. I am a low timer so I am going to give one answer but hope it will also be supplemented (or corrected) by people with much more experience that I have. One cause of tension knots is that lines get twisted. There are a few reasons for this--one being that brakes are not stowed promptly upon landing. Brakes and other lines should be untwisted when packing. When the lines are not untwisted the lines can curl up on themselves and knot themselves. Can't find a picture, maybe somebody else will post one. It is not a problem that can be corrected in air. I am most familiar w/ it happening on brake lines (and because one end can spin it seems this is the most liable to twist) but it appears you had one on your control lines. Stowing your brakes upon landing (before releasing toggles from your hands) and performing thorough line checks when packing and untwisting any lines should prevent most tension knots. These are things you should be instructed on at some point. I believe that older lines may be more susceptible to tension knots, but I am not 100% sure of that. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

People refer to a variety of government entitlement programs as "welfare" so it depends on which particular program a person is on but generally eligibility determinations are conducted every 6 months or yearly. Honestly the caseloads are so large that the case workers don't have time to see people more often then that (although some specific programs have more stringent requirements). Also at this point a lot of the benefits are distributed electronically through direct deposit or through an EBT card, further reducing direct contact needs. I agree with you in general, I am not opposed on principle to the drug testing for welfare recipients but I suspect it may just be an added cost to facilitate political grandstanding. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"