Airman1270

The desire to deliberately piss him off is about the most annoying thing I can think of. By the way, I read the instructions, ask for directions, close the seat & lid, place the remote where she can reach it, wash the dishes, clean the kitchen & bathrooms, vacuum & shampoo the carpets, and don't leave clothes on the floor. Oh, year, and accept celibacy most of the year. What am I doing wrong? Cheers, Jon

Over. What a stupid question. It's like asking "Sunrise: East or West." And when you're done, close the lid. Cheers, Jon

In the early-mid 1980's, when AIDS was generating headlines, my brother volunteered to donate blood. As the procedure was getting under way he leaned back and said, in his best "Fire Island" voice, "Oh, I went to a FABULOUS party last week..." "Joey, have you every been in a Turkish prison?" "Oh yeah, Homer, all the big industries are going gay. Steel, (several other examples), even...Broadway!" Cheers, Jon

...There are lazy sacks who don't so any drugs. They should be fired... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Perfect summation to the anti-testing argument. If someone is performing his job to the boss' standards, it doesn't matter what he may be doing on his own time. If he's not doing his job properly, the reason is irrelevant. The employer needs to focus the the performance and give the employee an opportunity to improve, or replace him. Whether the poor performance has to do with being stoned, hung over, or distracted by a personal situation really doesn't matter. In another post I told of the time in the early 80's when I single-handedly operated my boss' deli so he could go home in the afternoon instead of working 15-hour days. I did all of the cleaning, stocking, served customers, trained new employees, took care of the money (without any temptation to steal), and secured the store after hours. During these years there's no way I would have passed a drug test. I haven't spoken with him in nearly 20 years, but if he's still alive he's still telling people what a great employee I was. I don't know if he knew about the pot smoking, but if he did he didn't care. I was always sober on the job and performed excellent work. Again, the reason they test is for legal self-defense reasons. Hey Law, if someone wants to bring a suit against a company because of the actions of an employee, will you take the case? Cheers, Jon

...Not a bad stragtegy, but it's way too long. And you don't want to mispell, "blatantly" like that... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DOH! (Homer) Wow, I just noticed that. I'm sorry. This doesn't happen often. If I had a dollar for every word I misspelled last year I could buy lunch. Never said I could type, though. Cheers, Jon

...People who are in dire financial difficulties are more likely to steal than those who are not... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Only if they are the kind of people who have not developed a moral aversion to stealing. My own situation is getting pretty bad, but stealing is NOT an option. It won't happen. But, on a larger scale, we're dealing with a society in which a significant number of people have been brainwashed into thinking that the schools should not enforce moral standards. Thus, there is less stigma associated with lying, cheating, stealing, etc., because moral standards which prohibit such actions are rooted in teachings which can be traced to "religious" roots. Cheers, Jon S.

It's not about whether you use drugs. The fact that you're offended is enough to screen you out. A bunch of years ago I was confronted with this crap. I hesitated because it's an offensive insult, etc. The guy gave me his card and said to think about it. I realized that it was becoming more difficult to avoid this treatment, and the salary wasn't half bad, so I called back that afternoon and said I'd do it. He seemed surprised to hear from me and cut the call short. Even though I agreed, I was dismissed because I hesitated. A few years later I finally gave in and agreed to take the test at another company. The process was so damn demeaning. After filling out an intrusive form the nurse bimbo said "Empty your pockets." I said "NO!" This was too much. I took the cup and gave her the sample. She said "I can't process that." I said "Oh yes you can." and walked out. Of course, I didn't get the job. The company REALLY liked me. They wanted me to work for them. But they allowed their commitment to an expensive, insulting, intrusive policy to interfere with a business decision that would have benefitted them. Who benefits from this policy? It's nearly impossible to avoid this treatment, thanks to all the gutless wusses who agreed, back in the mid-1980's, to submit to this policy even though it was rarely imposed. These people had plenty of opportunity to refuse and find work elsewhere. But no, they were intimidated by the "something to hide" accusation and gave in. Back then, we could have nipped this thing early. But now it's too late. "Public safety" has been replaced with "It's our policy." Of course, they're doing this for legal self-defense reasons. If you're one of these people who supports the premise that a company is responsible for the actions of its employees, you're part of the problem. Cheers, Jon S.

...because one day you might be the person sitting next to the door and there is an aircraft emergency at 2500 feet and everyone on the plane is commanded by the pilot to get out quickly... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh, yeah. The engine on the Beech-18 popped and sputtered in June 1993 near Ellijay, Georgia around 1800-2000 feet. Half the load got out over a highway about five miles from the DZ, while the other half landed on one engine. One guy was an AFF student going up to 3500' for his graduation H.&P. He passed. Several people stopped their cars to watch us descend and land on the grass near the pavement. What a blast! Cheers, Jon S.

Oh yeah. Made plenty of 'em. Less time in the plane (less anxiety), no worries about blowing the exit or the planned RW stuff, etc. The drawback is it's another jump where I don't improve my RW skills, resulting in a guy with hundreds of jumps whose flying ability runs the gamut from "not half bad" to "well, at least he won't hurt anyone." My favorite hop 'n' pop was my 500th jump, open by 13,000. A nice 15+ minute ride, drank two beers on the way down. Beautiful hazy Georgia summer sky, big puffy clouds, no wind. Kept the main in half brakes & tugged on a riser once in a while to steer. Released the brakes at 3000' and pulled off a standup landing on target with almost no circulation in my legs. That was with my Wonderhog. The infinity is MUCH more comfortable. Cheers, Jon S.

...There are other ways to discipline with love and education. The simple act of hitting a kid will NOT teach them how to behave... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Spanking is not "hitting." And yes, it does work. ...I grabbed her, gave her a swat, and held her. She cried for a moment, and learned that what she did could have caused her great harm. Completley in the right, I to have used CP in that extreme case. However thats the exception rather then the rule... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No, that IS the rule. This is what we're talking about. This was one of those few occasions where it was necessary. It worked. I did not mean me personally I meant society, and how society sees things. I have three children and I take offence to you assuming I should not... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sorry L.M. - No personal offense intended. When you asked what the difference is between a loving swat on the behind and the other brutal actions you described, what reaction did you expect? It appears we're in agreement on this. You said you have used CP on rare occasions. As have I. It's not a common occurance. My kids rarely ever get spanked. When they do, it's a swat or two on the ass. Nothing more. The result is three fine, normally-developing kids. No goth, no trench coats, no going to school dressed like sluts. I think they're going to turn out okay. Cheers again, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I've been asking for nine years... Jon

...Bad credit most certainly is an indication someone is likely to do something illegal... ...Someone who is unable to handle their own finanaces is more likely to steal from a company... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't see the connection. People who will steal are people who will steal, period. I have committed minor legal/moral violations, such as small-scale traffic violations, dope smoking, sleeping with my girlfriends, etc. But I have never harmed anyone or taken their stuff. Despite a near-perfect credit history, I got into trouble many years ago and it took awhile to clear up the mess. Even so, it never occurred to me to steal from my boss or anyone else. I believe a solid employment history and a clean criminal record speaks far more to what a potential employer can expect than does a blemish in one's personal life. Cheers, Jon

...Spanking is violence... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nonsense. See previous posts. What really sucks is that you have more jumps in two years than I have in 23. Nice going. I don't spend much time drinking from the "envy" well, but I think I'll have a large glass right about now. Cheers, Jon

...Tech it is violence, it is using force to cause harm on someone... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Spanking does NOT cause harm. Define biblically correct spanking? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A strong measure of love and the intention to teach the child how to behave. An example would be the time we were getting out of the car in a parking lot and my toddler suddenly ran toward the restaurant, oblivious to the other cars. I grabbed her, gave her a swat, and held her. She cried for a moment, and learned that what she did could have caused her great harm. Spanking should be reserved for actions which can result in personal harm, or for deliberate disobediance. It is not to be used for such things as spilling a glass of milk or breaking a fragile item that the parents should not have kept within reach of a curious toddler. ...HOWEVER how does society tell the difference between spanking and child abuse?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If you have to ask, don't have kids. You went on to provide a list of behaviors that NOBODY is defending, and certainly has nothing to do with spanking. Cheers, Jon

...I got mad and decided to fire off a nastygram to the Pennsylvania state legislature and to Congress. Feel free to use this letter (modify it for your state and sen/rep) if you feel the same way... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Not a bad stragtegy, but it's way too long. Try to make your point in a brief paragraph or two. I'd also approach it from the position of the employer trying to protect himself from lawsuits. The issue here is the current legal climate and public mind set that believes it's okay to sue someone for somebody else's actions. This is why we have detailed background checks, drug tests, etc. If we can persuade more people, especially legislators, that it is wrong to blame an employer for the actions of his employees we might see fewer of these intrusions. Example: The UPS truck runs a red light and hits somebody. Obviously, the driver is responsible. No one else. But as long as there are people who will sue UPS, and other people who will sit on a jury and find the company "responsible," UPS has to walk on eggshells. This is wrong. If a skydiver has an accident, few of us here would claim it's okay to sue the guy who provided the airplane ride. But we are outnumbered. Additionally, there are already more than enough lawyers to handle the workload, and every year thousands more graduate from law school with bills to pay and families to feed. The only way they can earn a living is by expanding the parameters in which they can file lawsuits. Few of these suits are directed at people actually responsible for doing a bad thing; Many are directed at others who, well, maybe could have done something to prevent the bad thing from happening (such as refusing to fly skydivers.) This is how the religion of secular humanism is being imposed on all of us. The political climate is warming to some sort of overhaul of the legal system, but opponents will claim that, in the above example, it is perfectly okay to punish the company even though it had NO control over the circumstances leading to the incident. (What they're really fighting for is protection of an unfair system that benefits them personally.) Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Um, careful. I don't sleep around. At least not yet. So far I've been faithful for nearly 15 years. But I have reached the point where I'm vulnerable. I don't know if I'd actually be able to go through with it, but only a few years ago I wouldn't even be thinking like this. When your wife tells you to go to a prostitute, it's kinda hard to remain loyal. Jon

...Most of the people I've spoken to who're anti "traditional spanking" (whatever that is) object to it on moral grounds... ...Using violence... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - This is the problem! Spanking is NOT "violence." As for the moral argument, spanking is taught in the most influential book of moral teachings known to society. If normal, Biblicaly-correct spanking was harmful, we'd see plenty of evidence to support the accusation. Instead, we have the opposite: A society of millions of people who were spanked as children who have grown into normal, productive adults. I don't appreciate anyone calling me or my parents "child abusers." What's the point of creating a problem that doesn't exist? Cheers, Jon S.

...if you are a man: Don't forget the f**ing flowers for your wife when you come home tonight... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I tried that a few years ago; Sent her flowers for her birthday. She chewed me out for spending the money. The woman doesn't have a romantic bone in her body. Oh, sure, she used to. But in her world, romance is something you enjoy with a guy you're not serious with. A few years of marriage destroyed all that... I laugh when I hear these marriage/family discussions on the radio, with these women complaining that their men are, well, not like me. I do housework, make romantic gestures, and used to give her a hug without expecting it to lead to the bedroom. (I've given up. If she ever wants that kind of attention again she'll need to let me know.) After washing the dishes, cleaning the bathrooms, vacuuming and shampooing the carpets, and playing with the kids, it gets a bit old being told "No!" yet again. And again. And still again. Etc. Fleetwood Mac's 1973 "Mystery to Me" album is one of my all-time favorites. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteI'd have to say I agree. Don't plan it; never do the "wait until your father gets home then you'll REALLY get it" thing. Don't do it because you're pissed. It's a sudden attention getter, like making a really loud noise. My son probably got fewer than a dozen swats the whole time he was of swattable age. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Same thing in my home. My kids got an occasional spank; As a result it didn't happen very often. My oldest (12) is drifting out of the "spank" age, but a stage slap in response to a particularly snotty comment is not out of the question. Even so, It's rare, and I'm blessed with decent kids I can take out in public. When the anti-spanking nazies voice their concerns, they invariable describe some incredibly harsh and/or brutal behavior that has nothing to do with traditional spanking. Perhaps their own bad experiences motivate their crusade? Even so, I'd feel more at ease if they would simply tell us what they think, rather than demand laws making it a crime to discipline our kids. Cheers, Jon S.

I've been wondering about this for years, but a recent discussion here prompts this inquiry. My instinct is to believe that women can pretty much do anything a man can do, and might even be better at certain endeavors. But recent political trends suggest they cannot survive on a level playing field. I'm confused. What do you think? Cheers, Jon S.

I can enjoy the conversation if they're really interested, but it's a futile waste of time trying to describe what it's like to fly like Superman, diving down and docking on the formation while they're still stuck on "...what if the parachute doesn't open?..." True story (there I was ): My first Otter jump over Duanesburg, NY in 1986. I had about 100 jumps. Four way, last group out. After the previous group left, I walked to the door to take my grip, reached up, lost my balance and fell out. Got stable and looked up to see three guys tracking down to me... Told a friend the story, and when I got to the "fell out" part her eyes got real big. "Were you okay?" she asked. Now it's my turn for the big eyes. "Of course! I was about to jump anyway!" was about all I could say. Sigh, Jon

I won't reveal the info to a potential employer or during jury selection; In both cases it can potentially hurt way more than it will help. But I find it useful to admit to manifest that I skydive. That first jump of the day is so much easier and less expensive if they know about it. Cheers and apologies, Jon S.

QuoteI'm sorry you're in that kind of unpleasant situation...I think the most sensible and safe thing to do would be to extricate yourself from that relationship... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It can be an option, but I consider it a last resort. My parents divorced when I was 13; I'd like to spare my kids that situation if at all possible. Besides, there have been many couples who have been far worse off than we are and they were able to turn in a new direction. In the meantime, she sure is a damn good cook. At least a good meal is something I can get my hands on regularly, without having to leave home to find it. As far as any of this is related to skydiving, my biggect frustration is cutting way back on my jumping because of my job situation (barely 15 jumps this past year) while she complains about all the time & money I spend at the DZ. Cheers, Jon

...Children, however, have the right to be reared in a mentally healthy environment, and one in which parents are fighting as you describe is not it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I apologize for the delayed response, but I'm back today... Thanks. We can say we all have the right to a "mentally healthy environment," whatever that means. Of course, the absence of conflict would be just super. But conflict is a part of life, and it's better they learn to deal with it. Growing up with Mom & Dad making a little unpleasant noise is not going to scar kids for life, but it will enable them to recall how undesirable this is and try not to emulate their example. By the way, to the extent it's up to me, I DO usually react in a "correct" manner, but sometimes I don't. This occurrs after months of stuffing it down and responding with gentle kindness. (If you knew the details you'd be high-fiving me for holding my temper as long as I have.) As for the things I can't control, well, marriage counseling can be wonderful if BOTH parties are willing to accept this option. We're veering a bit from the original point of Jeffrey's post. We can pursue this topic elsewhere if anyone is really interested. Cheers, Jon

...You think that kids (or adults) who do something very serious and then receive a slap on the wrist "learn a lesson for life"? What lesson? That they won't be severely punished for severe criminal behavior?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't accept the premise that anything short of full-blown prosecution is a "slap on the wrist." The teen in question would not consider paying restitution a meaningless penalty. He WOULD emerge from the incident with a sense of responsibility and a grateful appreciation of being treated "as you would like to be treated" while still being held accountable. Society would benefit in the long run. Does that mean that a cop who comes to your door because the neighbors heard smashing sounds, your wife scream, you scream, her beg you to stop hitting her, and called the police, should fear a violent response from you? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Your premise is offensive; It's based on the ASSumption that my family is at risk. They are not. She has sceamed, after deliberately cutting me down and provoking me to anger. Not inadvertently; I mean she will try, on purpose, to say the most hurtful things she can to stick that knife in and twist harshly. Enough of this treatment and I will eventually respond with a loud noise, but when the dust settles nobody has been physically hurt, and I resent the accusation. Without airing the laundry, the short version is that she is a control freak who is never at peace and takes out her frustration on the family. She thinks she's the boss and if I get too close to challenging this idea she throws her higher salary in my face and again recites her "It's MY house, it's MY money...." crap. (Never mind that we are a churchgoing home, that we both claim to be Christians, and that the Bible has plenty to say about how husbands and wives should treat one another, and that this behavior blatantly contradicts Biblical standards. I've come to learn that, while she comes from a family that attends church, they never read the Bible and they never pray. She is spiritually illiterate. Not her fault, this is the way she was raised. This is one example of why pride is a sin, too. But I digress...) Furthermore, she has hit me on several occasions. Nothing to cause any damage, but the kind of thing that could get either one of us arrested, not because of any serious threat, but because recently-enacted "family violence" laws prevent the cops from exercising discretion. If they show up and are willing to be reasonable, that is a different story. But if their intent is to arrest me, regardless of the facts, then their presence is an unacceptable intrusion into my home. I WILL defend my home, and I don't give a rat's ass what the intruder is wearing or what he does for a living. The issue is not that I will defend my home against an intrusion that, only a few years ago, would have been considered unthinkable and was understood by all of society to be an unacceptable misuse of police resources. The issue is that the cops are being turned into a bunch of nazi scumbags who think they have a right to interefere in the first place. I have lived a quiet, peaceful life for nearly 48 years. I've never caused any problems or been in trouble with the law. I don't hurt people and I don't take their stuff. I have earned the right not to be treated like shit by the police. I will go another 48 years without bothering anybody, and if they think this is a good idea all they have to do is leave me alone. But if the day ever comes that some of these guys decide they might like a bullet in the head, I suggest they target me for harassment. I'll take it, for awhile. I'll put up with it, for awhile. But eventually I will react. It will not necessarily be the right thing to do, but as an imperfect, flawed human I can't claim that I will never have a bad day. Leave me alone. Cheers, Jon