winsor

As I stated, any God, that you choose to worship. I didn't see anywhere in the article where it specifically said only a christian God. I think it is safe to say that when God is referenced in that article that he is probably speaking to those of the christian faith as well as all the other faiths we have in the USA and on the planet. Since everyone that believes in something works on the assumption that they know The Truth (tm), they tend to treat people who think differently as misguided and show "tolerance." It rarely occurs to them that this attempt at tolerance comes across as small-minded and patronizing. Fairy tales have a long tradition in human society, and occupy a key role in our culture. Fantastic creatures such as dragons, gods, leprechauns, elves and so forth come alive in the telling, and many people lose track of the fact that these beings are but figaments of the imagination. Much though I think belief is an occasionally useful substitute for rational thought, I think it is a wretched basis for a system of government. If I want to indulge in fairy tales, I can go to Disney Land or church or something. By the same token that I don't look to the Seven Dwarves for leadership, I can do without governmental authority being used to inflict fantasies upon me. If you want to talk about Zeus and Odin, keep it independent of US Government activities. It's a different chain of command. Blue skies, Winsor

When I went to the American Imperialist War Crimes Museum in Saigon (aka Ho Chi Minh City) they had a big display on the Song My/My Lai 4 massacre. The gist of the presentation was that innocent people were killed, who were, BTW, to a very large extent "Heroes of the Revolution" - Viet Cong. Were women, children and the elderly killed? Yes. Were most of these women, children and elderly active participants in the preparation and implementation of booby traps/mechanical ambushes, and pivotal infrastructure to the insurgency in the area? Yes again. Were the actions of the Americal troops justified? Not by any standard other than removing a real and present threat to their continued survival. All in all it was a propaganda coup for the opposition. The seeds of the conflict go back many, many centuries. General Vo Nguyen Giap used the same playbook that defeated Kubla Khan's forces when they tried to subjugate the same real estate some time back. Our idea of "History" doesn't go back much further than 1776, and we appear to think that our country was created from a vacuum. Thus, we tend to try to put the puzzle together with only a small subset of the pieces, and the resulting picture is just plain wrong. In "Blazing Saddles" The Kid hung up his guns after he reflexively drew on a six year old - and the little bastard shot him. In Vietnam it wasn't a joke but an ongoing reality. For Kerry or anyone else to take such a simplistic approach to the Southeast Asian fiasco is absurd. If you want a simple take on the subject with any merit, it was Truman renegeing on the agreement that had been struck between Ho and FDR's people that set the wheels in motion for the disaster that resulted. Had Lee Harvey Oswald been unsuccessful in 1963, JFK would have pulled out in 1964 after the elections. For either party to bitch about the other getting the country mired in pointless overseas adventures is absurd. They are both guilty as charged, and should pick other issues to define themselves. If people caught on to the fact that war IS an atrocity by its very nature, rhetoric to the contrary would get short shrift. Blue skies, Winsor

I, too, am ADHD/Aspergers, and am very easily bored (to say the least). The only programs I was able to tolerate were those that let me go at my own speed and/or came so thick and fast that I didn't have the chance to drift off. As far as online college goes, it's not all one way or another. I have seen people with "online degrees" that were wallpaper. University of Phoenix, OTOH, seems to be intent upon offering real degrees. If the University of Phoenix is accredited (IIRC it is), I say go for it. If I'm hiring someone, the fact that they scratched and clawed their way to degree requirements goes a long way to granting them an interview. Go for it, and don't get discouraged. I didn't complete my Master's until I was 42. Blue skies, Winsor

shoot, kill, and after that put a gun in his hand. Then you don't want me on the jury. You are within your rights to shoot someone who makes a move that may be construed as going for a weapon. If you tamper with evidence, your rights go out the window. Blue skies, Winsor

A) Unless you're using a Garand, Mannlicher or something similar, odds are you have a box magazine and not a clip. B) You should be able to stop them with three rounds or less. With a 12 gauge to the center of mass, one will usually do the trick. C) If it turns out that they have one or more friends that either take umbrage at their demise, or perhaps have to get past you in order to depart, you may not want to find yourself with an empty firearm. Blue skies, Winsor

As Bat Masterson said, "take your time, and don't miss."

Are you going to give them the opportunity to demonstrate armament if it is not immediately apparent? It has been my experience that you are better off assuming that they have deadly force available and to deny them the opportunity to use it. If a cop is going for ID, he will usually move slowly, saying "badge, badge...." while extracting it with fingertips. If someone starts grabbing for a pocket after being advised that they are facing deadly force, shoot to stop immediately. Blue skies, Winsor

The procedure is to hit the lights and yell "FREEZE!" or some other one-syllable instruction. "HALT!" is just as good. If they turn into a statue, fine. If they turn around and run like hell, with their hands visible at all times, fine. If they do much of anything but freeze or flee, stop them. An effecitve combination that's likely to remove them as a threat is two shots to the top of the sternum and one between the eyes. In general, a warm 35 caliber (.38 +P, 9x19 JHP, .357, etc.) is a recommended minimum as a social piece; a short 12 to 20 gauge will do in a pinch. Make no followup shots (NO coup de gras). Do NOT put a knife in their hand. Do NOT rearrange the body to suit a better story. Do call 911 immediately, and indicate that the homeowner is the armed survivor. Do call a lawyer immediately. Some municipalities will give you a medal for taking out the trash, but some elements will be ripshit that you interfered with someone's line of work and thus represent a threat to people plying similar trades. Thieves and Villain's Local 406 might file some sort of grievance, and you might be up against the Union. Oh, and if they do comply with the order to freeze, instruct them to lie face down with their hands stretched out. Stay out of reach and call the cops while keeping them covered. If they move, shoot them repeatedly and go back to "you just shot someone" mode. Cause of death - suicide. Blue skies, Winsor

Looks like a CRW dog to me.

"Do you smoke after sex?" "I dunno, I never looked."

A group of infantry who'd been out in the boonies for a couple of weeks came upon a ville, where they managed to stock up on such things as fresh eggs and marijuana. After a hearty breakfast, they got silly and started a food fight. It got a little out of hand, and one guy was treated by the medic after being hit with an egg with his eyes open. A couple of weeks later, back at base, he received a Purple Heart on the basis of the medic's writeup. The treatment for "shell fragment in eye" was apparently enough to generate the medal. What the hell, the chicken WAS Vietnamese, and who knows what were its political leanings? Blue skies, Winsor

And FTS before that. I have an FTS 7-cell and an APS 9-cell.

Valerie, Your comments are generally true for someone who is in a moderately stable environment, with demographics suitable for finding someone appropriate and available. The dictum "to thine own self be true" tends to be a good policy. Unfortunately, many women (quite rightly) have criteria that may be impossible for some guys to meet. I have been told "I want a guy who is going to be around," and that ruled me out. I have had work assignments in many exotic places, and have yet to come across a career option that would allow me to stay in one place. Another issue is that there are so few women who are worthy of interest. I've been told that the key is to lower one's standards, but that's hard if you know how good it can be. Mediocrity is not an option. On a cynical note, the guys that women bitch about are generally what they really expect guys to be. For example, someone married to a nine-to-five Joe-six-pack couch-potato once-a-weeker that fits a standard condom and lives an entirely predictable, boring existence would typically be put off by an ovesexed overachiever who doesn't watch teevee. Not always, of course, but all too often. In any event, there is a significant difference between men and women regarding love/sex and whatnot (I'm not likely to get pregnant any time soon, for one thing). If you look at the difference between "romance novels" and "men's magazines" you can get some idea of how different are the fantasies upon which each gender thrives. There really is no male analog to the concept of "don't touch me there! I don't touch myself there!" Blue skies, Winsor

I would replace prejudices with preferences. I prefer to avoid: =>Democrats/Communists/avowed Liberals. =>True Believers or anyone obsessively dedicated to a cause. =>New Jersey natives. =>Lawyers. =>Therapists or anyone who patronizes a therapist (if you think you're crazy - you're right). =>Low libido types. Contrary to the contention that "there are no frigid women - just lousy lovers," there are women who have such a long goddamned fuse that it isn't worth the trouble. =>Dullards - brilliant women are MUCH better in bed. =>Timid types - if it takes a lot of cajoling to do something that's zero fuss in their absence, they are soon absent. =>Princesses - no matter how good looking they are, the high-maintenance attitude wears thin fast. These are not hard and fast rules, since I've broken every one of them at one time or another. Any time I have thought "I'm going to regret this," I've been right. Blue skies, Winsor

1) I don't drink, so you can keep the beer. 2) People who look better clothed should keep clothes on. Women who look better naked are welcome to be naked in my presence.

Given its fuel, "Plastic Fantastic" kind of applies. Old surfboard maker, and part of a Jefferson Airplane title, but what the hell.

My parents had a co-op on the 31st floor of the Connaught Tower on 54th St. in Manhattan in the late 70s and early 80s, and I was in and out of the place a lot. One day I got on the down elevator with my father and there were a couple of guys on it already, one tall and one short, both kind of mulatto looking. They were speaking to each other in another language that was like Spanish, and I guessed it was Portuguese. Since they didn't look like the Portuguese guys I knew, I guessed they were Brazilian. Wanting to verify the acuity of my powers of observation and deduction, I asked them "where are you guys from?" Sure enough, the short guy grinned and said "Sao Paolo." I told him my roommate in Germany was from Sao Paolo, he said that was very nice, and we left the elevator. As we walked away, my father said "you know who that was, don't you?" "No, who?" "Pele." "Jesus Christ! You're right!" So much for the keen powers of observation...

Ditto.

Not according to what I was taught. I was taught, "Regardless of the malfunction...look red, grab red, look silver, pull red, pull silver." Period. I was told ALWAYS to cut before pulling reserve. (ONLY exemption is an out of sequence deployment, where you pull the PC out before beginning EP's).. That's what most students are taught in their first jump course, primarily because it's best to teach one response to any malfunction to someone who has no experience. Opinions differ on whether someone who is not a student should take the time to cutaway before pulling the reserve on a total or not. If I have initiated deployment, I always pull the cutaway when going for silver. I use the one-hand one-handle approach, and have successfully executed a gunslinger cutaway (deploying the reserve simultaneously). If I'm rolling out of an airplane that had an engine detonate down low with the pilot yelling "get out of my airplane!," I'm doing so with reserve deployment only. Otherwise I'm going for the main first, and cutting away the main when going for silver. If you make your decision above your hard deck, you should have plenty of time to use the two hands par handle approach, pulling both handles, for any and all emergencies. In any event, having one procedure that provides the greatest likelihood of success beats the hell out of blowing altitude deciding which approach is appropriate. Blue skies, Winsor

Oh, I guarantee you can outdrink me. I was given a waiver on the initiation, because the last thing I drank was tequila - in 1987. Gonzo

The post was a definite brain-exerciser. And while Jan is one of the most qualified in our sport to comment on most any aspect of it, I don't understand how she can presume to know it was someone's "pride" that was the contributing factor to someone's bad decision. They are dead and they are the only one able to explain their actions or lack thereof. This is wild, broad speculation at best. While trying to figure out ways to make the sport safer for all of us, let's try to focus only on the things we know, not guesses or presumptions. Blue 111- Jeff I know what she's talking about, because I know people who barely survived who did exactly what she described. In the case of some people who did not survive, their stated and observed attitude before bouncing was entirely consistent with this observation, so it's a good call. Blue skies, Winsor

Val, Your question is much more complex than it might appear at first blush. My mother was once complaining about how men view women as objects and whatnot, so I asked her what the most attractive part of a woman's body was. She knew better than to fish, so I told her - a radiant smile. Be advised that, given two women with equally warm smiles, the choice is going to be the one with the fantastic body. There's only so much for which a wonderful personality will make up. However, the observation that lawyers' preferred means of birth control is their personalities has some basis in fact. I have known women who might look good in photographs, but were truly repellent in person. The idea of giving them pleasure was entirely unacceptable. Other women might seem entirely unremarkable in a picture, but are truly radiant in person. As far as intelligence goes, smarter women are better in bed. Sensuality is more cerebral than physical, and a woman who shows the capacity for ingenuity and creativity - as well as adventurousness - is a hell of a lot more interesting than one who treats sex as a chore. So it isn't all one way or another. Looks are important, but don't make up for someone who is stupid, nasty, neurotic or some combination thereof. Staying away from booze is helpful. In the days that I drank, I found it too easy to wake up with someone and realize that we basically didn't like each other. The biological part of the deal works just fine, but being around someone you can't stand out of bed wears thin pretty fast. So yeah, there is definitely a threshold of attractiveness before going further is a consideration, but personality is critical for anything more than a one night stand. Blue skies, Winsor

Okay, so attention deficit rears its ugly head. I missed it.

I wouldn't make this up. clicky

I'm grateful for every minute I get to spend with my father. He was a Gunners Mate in the Pacific, 1943 - 1945. He and his friends are simply marvelous people, and I was extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to grow up in their presence. If your grandfather was of their caliber, his loss is irreplaceable. Blue skies, Winsor