ernokaikkonen

>In summary : If you don't like the chlorine, go piss in somebody elses pool. Ha! Well said...

Exactly! What's the point if you can't see where you're going...

Daymn! Where can you get a 75$ parachute??

2000 swedish cars isn't nasty enough for you??

>i think i'd just tie the figure * thru that harness rather than add a carbiner too.. But if you don't have a carabiner in the system you'd have to thread the whole rope through the 8 before you can start the descent... that or tie up the harness just before exit. Disclaimer: I'm no expert on the matter, the last time I've climbed was in '99 and the last time a rappelled with an 8 was in '96...

Since there'd be little point in buying a climbing harness just for one jump, I'd consider using a 'rope-harness', or what ever you really call it. Just a length of rope tied around you in a certain way, not as comfy as a real harness, but should do just fine for one descent.

>I know that rig does'nt have a cypres, or at least it did'nt >when i jumped it this summer. That's the point. I don't have a CYPRES in my rig, but I've made a habit out of keeping the rig on it's side while stuffing the PC in. That way when I'm packing a CYPRES-equipped rig, I don't have to change the way I pack. Actually I don't even have to think about whether or not there's a CYPRES in the rig.

The strength of the spring doesn't make it easier to pack a Wings in my opinion... Getting the reserve-PC seated nicely has never been easy to me with a Wings.

Just to remind people not to believe everything they read... How this was found out, I'd like to know. It sure would make a boring study... And how long would you estimate your average snail even lives? ?? They just mystically appear? How do the babies knees function before that?? Of course, such astronomical events can be calculated thousands of year in the past... I guess this one depends on the definition of "recorded history". Actually I think this should be a recurring event. Any astronomers out there, what's the exact length of the lunar cycle? "Inventing" words hmm... The ethymology of the word "assassin" is well studied, lots of references can be found on the web. Again, how did they come up with this figure? An average american lives to be 77 years old(according to this page). That comes to about 9 and a half minutes every single day of your life. Maybe? I haven't been driving much in the States... Interestingly, the only place where this is mentioned on the web, is on different "interesting facts"-websites... See Niagara Falls above. On a Commodore 64 it was(is) 1/60th of a second. At least that's consistent with the minutes and seconds. Please. Where so they come up with these? Snopes on the matter if common sense isn't enough for you. And the study that yielded these results was carried out how? Where is the final report?

Isn't anyone going to say that a Crossfire2 loaded @ 1.6 is a bit much for a guy with 150 jumps? Ok, I will: You're jumping a canopy too small for your experience level. You're likely to get hurt.

Flying the 170 should give a pretty good idea: -If it feels too fast for you, don't buy a 170 with hopes that "I'll get used to it", get the 190. -If you're comfortable with it, buy a 170. -I don't believe you'll feel the need to go for the 150 after trying the 170 for a few times; after a 230 it should be plenty fast.

Well, you're from Australia, and everone knows that all you aussies are crazy... Seriously though, there are big differences in the "downsizing cultures" of different countries. Here in Finland, it's much closer to Australia than the States; we downsize much faster. The maximum wingloading for your first canopy(under 250 jumps) is 1.2(and rounded down from 1.24). Pretty much no-one jumps a 170 here, and 190's are practically unheard of. I don't think we have any more landing accidents than the US(but I have no hard data to back that up, just a gut feeling). The advice I'm giving is to demo a 190,a 170, and a 150, and then decide what you're going to get. Don't buy a canopy that you'll be afraid to fly. And it's better to err on the safe side. Erno

So, to sum up what I was trying say: To use the Bible for any purpose, be it condemning or condoning homosexuality, you'll have to pick which parts to believe in.

"eye for an eye": Exodus 21, 23-34 in particular? I understand these were supposed to be the words of God himself.

Drinking and posting ROCKS! No way I'd fuel up controversial debates if I was completely sober...

>You are misinterpreting the Bible. Am I? I just mentioned a couple of examples I had heard somewhere. Would you like to correctly interpret the passages quoted on this page then?

>since everyone is debating in on other threads... feel free >to vote announomously or not. You forgot "None" I voted on "agnostic", though. I have this one rule I try to follow: "Do the right thing". As many of you will notice, it's from a Spike Lee movie. When I first saw the movie, it just seemed like a good summary of what I believed in anyway.

Hey man, I'm an atheist(or maybe a die-hard-agnostic, I've yet to decide) , but that doesn't stop me from taking part in a religious debate...

And my point? You shouldn't try to condemn homosexuality using the Bible unless you also want to condone slavery, killing of infidels, "eye-for-an-eye"-justice etc.

Those are great... Wait. That's CREATIVE! You're not a true geek.

>without healthcare we could eliminate the poor population. But poverty isn't in the genes...(I guess this could be debated as well) By shutting down ALL healthcare and hospitals we could eliminate the weak, the stupid and the sick. All joking aside, I'm afraid that in a couple of centuries the western man will be devolved in a creature that is unable to reproduce or even to survive without the aid of medicine. Medicine is an enemy of evolution.

The point is that since homosexuals tend not to breed, natural selection should apply, if homosexuality is in the genes.

Skydiving videos = Teletubbies.

I think there's nothing wrong with his post. The Bible is frequently used as a tool in gay-bashing, and it's the most controversial subjects that tend to spawn the most interesting discussions.

@chongololo... Nice telly, too. And oh yeah, the wee man looks like they should look like at that age. I think.