goose491

I had a tendency to be a little fast... On the attempt prior to this one, I burnt out and could not be caught up with. This was better and I could feel as though I was hanging from my legs however I had to consciously "spread 'em" a bunch o' times to keep from sinking on my coach. This jump was in August. Well that's not ever going to be an issue for me. I'll post a pic of the exit when I get home... I've been made fun of quite a bit for having my eyes closed. I maintain that I'm not that resilient... they were open a crack Thanks man, Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Glad to hear it... from you. Well-done and congrats.

Yeah, that's a cool shot cutie!

Could be anyone! That's why Americans right to bear arms should not be revoked simply because they board an airplane. They should be free to carry on the plane too! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Looks to me like he took pictures of his TV with a digicam. Cool pics though!! [touches nose]

Postin' 'em for fun. Enjoy

Sharp rig Beth. I rather like the gloves actually.... but then... I'm sorta into tha sorta thing. Should post one of those to Alanas new thread hottie

I'm in!

This one's a bit of a brain teaser.... to the secratary! hehee. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

"Well you got me there." says he. "I still think it's a shark. That page is not real." says the girl next to him. hehe. Thanks and good night! Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

NICE! That link worked for me! Thank you muchly! Will update with whuffo workmate response. hehee. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Nevermind... the name of the photographer is in the page I can get to. UREEEKA!!! I know. Can someone post a 'print-screen' for me? p.s. I love you guys! So accommodating... look how many people jump to my aid in debunking my whuffo workmate! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Thanks Turtle. No luck though. Strange... I've seen people post pictures... and then someone else would reply saying the pic wasn't real using a link to the snopes explanation... I usually access it, and have a laugh like the rest of you. Today, I go to Snopes, do a search...everything works accept the last link. How frustrating. I'm like: "Dood, look at the dorsal fin!... Look at the tail!" It's not a shark. Is this the picture on that site? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Could you post a link to the page you opened? I want to see If I can access it through here. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Can sombody please Check This out? I click on the first link but my work won't let me through... I'm trying to disprove this picture a friend sent me. "Dude, It's a shark!" he says. Anyway, I've seen others post 'Snopes' things before and opened their links succesfully, however, I cannot do it with my own search... does that make any sense? I'm hoping someone can get through for me and post a link I may be able to access from here... so that I can send my buddy the appropriat "In your face!"

[Scottish mans voice] Ark! That's olright lass! I've dun tha same thing me-self! One time, I walked into tha loo marked 'laddies' [/Scottish man voice] Edited to add: silly me ... spelled the same... much funnier phonetically (i.e. Lad-ies?) My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I've done that a few times... but I'm SO ashamed that now, I resort to the hand-stand. "Why's everybody always picking on me?...'cause you run like a girl and you sit down to pee!" -Bloodhound Gang My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I see what you're saying... and yes 'tis the downside. But those 4 million Americans have every right to inquire about their concerns. And vote according to how their inquiries are met! There is a difference between 'voicing concerns' and 'putting a party down' on tv. What I'm reading, is more to prevent people outside the campaing from backing parties during election. Example: Well, let's use your NRA one: If someone you were voting for (because of his/her stance on gun control) suddenly did changed their stance on Gun Control, the NRA's comercial making reference to that party would not be 'to inform the public of this'... we all know it would be a mud-sling at that party. And who's to say that a change has to take place? What if one party promises certain things to a large private company if they agree to fund ads of their own? Doesn't that defeat the purpouse of having capped the campaing budget in the first place? True it's too bad that some, truly objective, parties will be denied their public say but to me, the pros outweigh the cons. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Nice thread! I thought about creating the very same poll when that post came about. I voted the last one. The firefighter example provided in the other thread was the best one I can think of. You are required to be able to pick up a body (well, hopefull an unconscious person) and run up/down stair with it to be a firefighter... If you can't do that... then you can't be a firefighter... I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It does mean that more women get turned down then men. But should the standard be lowered because of it? I say HELL NO! If you got to be strong to do the job, you're going to do a poor job if you're not strong. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Kris, I could kiss ya! (but not marry you ) This isn't far from my concept... it's much more feasible though I think. In the states eyes, two consenting adults in "civil union" would mean the same as a man and woman in "marriage". They can be treated the same pollitically. However, to both couples, their union is still specific/tailored/special to them.

Sounds good. (Other than the fact that we've already stepped in that pile a long time ago. When in was declared that a couple could be married by the state and not a church.) lol. "Religious sensibilities are irrelevant when it comes to a religious ceremony that the state has decided to perform." doesn't sound as cool though. But anyway, if common law couples got exactly the same benefits as truly married ones did... Would gays still be pushing for the right to be married? I think so. Common law couples almost do get the same rights. And fighting to obtain the remaining ones, imho, would be less of a battle then fighting for the right to be married. So why isn't that what's in the press? Because it's not as dramatic... it's doesn't seem as oppresive. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

There are a few states now where gay couples can get married, and have. What have you had to alter to accomadate that? Me? Nothing.. as I said, I'm not married. Married people, may have to change their view of the institution they form a part of. If I was married, and beleived a marriage is between a man and a woman... then I would have to change my view. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Ok... but why would you tokenly toss 'religous sensibilities' away like they don't matter? Especially considering the number of people that DO see marriage as a highly religious ceremony and a "union under god" ? I mean, what do you tell those people? That's really the reason I suggest a new type of union. Let's not kid ourselves, homosexuality may have been around ever since there was life on the planet... but it's only now becoming socially acceptable on this large a scale. There should be something NEW and Exiting to mark a new era. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Bill, you know the answer to your question is no. But you also know what he said about the purpose and basis of marriage is true. Man and Woman United is the MODEL of a marriage... the reason behind the model may be the getting pregnant part... as well as other "family values". Not being able to get pregnant is not the same thing as not conforming to that MODEL. And I was surprised to see you unsing these examples. Sure women can be firefighters... But NOT if they ain't strong enough. I don't think it's even remotely sexist to tell a woman she can't be a firefighter, if she can't pick me up and carry me up/down a bunch of smoke filled stairs. Sorry ladies. There are some Men that don't make the cut either right? Custody shouldn't just arbitrarily be awarded to the woman... but it is awarded to the woman in more cases than not... and that is because they nurse the children. As for the gays being parents? Well, obviously they can! They can adopt, they can have children via surrogate mothers or in-vitro furtilisation.... But, they still fall outside the MODEL of a marriage. Cool cool, I'm down wit dat So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Yeah, I guess so... but I'm still confused. I always thought, generally speaking, that being married always helped out at tax time. Of course, I'm not married.... and can't do my own taxes worth a sh*t lol My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!