Airman1270

Uh, Chris... you DO mean the "grammar" police, right? , Jon S.

...Jon, one thing I have learned on these threads is the atheists are fundamental and can only interpret scriptute one way ... literally, just like fundamental Christians. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This description of some Christians as "fundamentalists" (used in a negative manner) has puzzled me for a long time. "Fundamental" means "basic" or "essential." The issue is not that some Christians might be fundamentalists, but that there are many self-described Christians who apparently reject the fundamentals of their faith. If a pilot loudly proclaimed his contempt for the fundamentals of powered flight, would you fly with him? This debate is portrayed quite effectively in "The Simpsons." Nearly the entire community attends the same church. Presumeably, they all believe the same thing. Yet Flanders is portrayed as some sort of buffoon because he takes his faith seriously. Pesonally, I believe atheism is simply a crutch relied on by people who cannot accept the reality of God's eternal existence. Cheers, Jon

You'd feel quite welcome at our church. We don't usually shout things out from the congregation, but one day last year the speaker was describing marriage issues and said "Men are argumentative." I was working the sound board that morning. Without missing a beat I shouted "NO, we're not!" Another source of laughter occurs on stage with the band. Most of the time when we blow a song it's the kind of situation where only the band knows about it. We're up there smiling and trying not to laugh too loud & cause a distraction. What a hoot. The funniest band siutation occurred a few years ago at an outdoor Easter sunrise service in the gazebo at a nearby park. The lighting was not very good and it was chilly & my fingers were getting cold. It was a very sensitive moment, as I was playing solo acoustic guitar during a quite part of the song. I think I played an F#m instead instead of a C#m. (Note to non-musicians: This is not like playing an Em instead of a G. There are few moments in music history when F#m and C#m can be interchangeable.) That horrible sound wriggled its way out of the speakers and lay there like a turd on a hot sidewalk. The singers kept up the momentum as I briefly stopped playing to get my bearings. Through it all, the drummer, sitting right next to me, looked in my face and laughed so loud he almost drowned out the singing. It was wonderful. Cheers, Jon S.

Quote"Study the New Testament. Please report back and show us where Jesus instructs us to mistreat others. sure "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This language was used as an illustration to explain the eternal ramifications of rejecting God. Some such texts desribe an eternity apart from God in firey terms; others refer simply to a solitary existence defined by angst, regret, etc. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus encouraged humans to mistreat other humans. Cheers, Jon

...Let’s consider some of the worst crimes in history; Genocide – condoned in the bible Slavery – condoned in the bible Brutal Invasions condoned in the bible Repression – condoned in the bible I would suggest the problem is that people do follow the bible. Yes Hitler was a Catholic, the actions of the Nazi were inspired in part by the New Testament... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Study the New Testament. Please report back and show us where Jesus instructs us to mistreat others. The bad things you cited occurred as a result of people acting in ways which contradict Biblical teachings. You cite violent Islamic terrorists to support your claim that all "religion" is bad. Meanwhile, you list slavery as a bad thing but fail to understand the role religion played in putting a stop to the practice. Slavery had been practiced throughout the world for thousands of years. It was religious people, who understood the value God has placed on humanity, who were able, over time, to gain more influence and convince a growing segment of society that enslaving one's fellow man was an affront to that man's God-given dignity. Cheers, Jon

First we must understand the terminology. Many people use words such as "religion" to mean "belief in God." It's more complicated than that. From a Judeo-Christian Biblical perspective, "religion" is a word that describes mankind's attempts to make itself acceptable to God. Christianity, in contrast, describes God reaching down to a human race which is incapable of meeting His standards. Thus the teaching that Jesus is a gift to humanity, that bridge which enables us to approach a perfect God despite our imperfect state. The problems in the world can be traced not to religion, but rather to human nature. It is the teachings of many religions which seek to persuade humans to adopt their guidelines for the purpose of creating "better" societies. The fact that people who align themselves with various religions, yet continue to do bad things, is not a reflection of the religion in question, but rather that human nature which made it necessary for God to cut through the noise and reach out to his imperfect children in the first place. We can spend hours cataloging various bad things that humans have done to each other throughout recorded history, but it would be difficult to identify bad things which have occurred as a result of people obeying the teachings of mainstream religious organizations. Atheists cite wrong things that have been done "in the name of religion" as an excuse to avoid any serious discussion of God. However, a glance at the evidence suggests quite the opposite; That is, that these bad things occurred as the result of people failing to live up to Biblical teachings. Nazi Germany. Soviet Russia. China. Cuba. North Korea. Etc. Etc. The common denominator in these governments is an institutionalized atheism and a brutal hostility to a Judeo-Christian world view. (Please spare me the "Hitler-was-a-Catholic" idiocy. If you have any evidence that Nazi philosophy was driven by a commitment to New Testament teachings please make your case. Frankly, the treatment meted out by the Nazi government to clergymen who spoke out against ol' Adolf pretty well blows such arguments out of the water.) In other words, "religion" is not the problem, but the solution. People who subsribe to wrong religions might go to hell when they die, but while they're still here they tend to be much better citizens & neighbors, further evidence of religion's positive effect on the human experience. Of course, there is one religious viewpoint which does not fit this theory. The religion of secular humanism has led to the brutal treatment of millions of people by their own governments (see examples cited above.) However, for the purpose of this discussion, we are defining "religion" primarily as a belief in God. Hope this helps. It damn sure can't provoke any dissent. Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn, this looks like it might have been quite entertaining. Oh well... Cheers, Jon

This is directed mostly at newer jumpers, however you'd like to define it. (This is prompted by the recent series of threads by that guy with 75 jumps who's hell-bent determined to prove he can handle a 120-something.) Why do you want to downsize? What's the point, and why is it important to you? A couple of years ago I "downsized" to a 220, plenty fast enough for my skill level & current jump schedule. Fortunately I have no desire to become a world-class swooper, as I'd have no business flying some medium-size anything, let alone one of those tiny things that look so cool when other people are landing them. I'm interested in the mind-set among younger jumpers who see downsizing not as a possible option, but as a milestone no less important than one's graduation jump, first pack job, first 8-way, etc. If you see downsizing as another inevitable step in your skydiving career, the odds are you'll feel pressure (even if only from within) to downsize, regardless of whether you even need to do so. At this point the choice appears to be 1) Absorb as much information, guidance, and training you can while beginning to downsize gradually & safely, or 2) Jump in with both feet and show you're ready by going through the motions of seeking advice while listening mainly to the people who are telling you that you can do it. (After all, it worked for them, right?) Meanwhile, option #3 sits forgotten on the shelf. That is, continue flying a larger canopy because there's nothing wrong with flying a little slower and landing last, all the while enjoying that extra safety margine if the wind picks up, or you have to navigate a tight out landing following a bad spot, etc. On a related issue, Has anyone ever experienced any criticism for jumping a larger main? (This includes good-natured kidding among friends, as well as those more hostile comments, raised eyebrows, etc.) Just wondering whether the peer-pressure thing is alive & well. Your thoughts? Cheers, Jon S.

If the weather cooperates I'll likely do a drive-by. Oh by the way, I know how shy you guys are. If you wanna borrow the Strato Cloud just ask. It flies like a real fast round. Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wait a minute here - I thought the legal limit IS .08. That means the driver who blows a .08 is LEGAL. Why are we demanding that people who obey the law be arrested & otherwise hassled? A few years back in my radio days I was checking out the reports at the city police department & came across a report of a guy arrested for drunk driving. He had blown something like a .03 or so. I asked the desk clerk why he had been arrested, given the fact that he had complied with the law. (The report did not indicate any other behavior that would have justified police action.) She gave me some line of crap about being "less safe" to drive. Either 1) she was bullshitting me, 2) the cop did have a valid reason for the arrest but didn't think it necessary to write it in the report, or 3) this guy was being hassled for reasons only the cops will ever know about. Neither choice inspires confidence nor respect. This is the same kind of hypocrisy we see regarding statutory rape laws. Whatever you may think the age of consent should be, the legislature should decide on an age and stand by it. If the law says 16, then people who mess with anyone after their 16th birthday should not have to worry about arrest & prosecution. (I don't give a damn how old the guy is, nor whether he holds a "position of authority," etc. "Age of consent" means the girl is supposedly responsible enough to make such decisions. Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to legislate morality, remember?) How can we respect the law when people who obey the law end up in the back of a police car? Cheers, Jon

Good point, but as you already have noticed you will be misunderstood and accused of "cop bashing" and/or of advocating dangerous behavior. I contend that we would all be more free and no less safe if we repealed every law passed in the last 30 years. The blood/alcohol standard that was in place in 1980 was perfectly reasonable. It allowed people to "party" within certain limits without risking arrest and without posing a threat to public safety. Back when groups like MADD began making noise their only purpose was to persuade people to obey existing laws. They were not demanding that the BAC standards be changed, nor were they demanding roadblocks, "open container" laws, etc. I do not accept the premise that alcohol is to blame for every unfortunate event that occurs in its presence. Show me a guy who is a dangerous driver after two beers and I'll show you a dangerous driver, period. As far as the police are concerned, their profession has been hijacked by liberal politicians who pass these stupid laws which either make it illegal to do things we were previously free to do, or which further criminalize behavior that is already illegal. This puts the cops in the position of hassling you for doing things which used to be okay. And they wonder why there seems to be declining respect for law enforcement. This is not necessarily their fault, but it would be nice if they'd have the guts to speak out publicly when these laws are being proposed. How refreshing it would be to see some letters in local newspapers from police personnel who stand up and say "No, this is not why I became a cop!" Sure, they help people and they chase bad guys. We appreciate them for this service. But it is difficult to have any respect for the police when they are willing to arrest a guy for sleeping in his car in the Wal-Mart parking lot, or think they have the right to stop you and demand to see your ID simply because you're walking along the roadside late at night. (Full disclosure - I've never yet been personally hassled except for minor instances which did not result in being ticketed or arrested, and, yes, I do have a cop in the family. He agrees with me about this sort of thing.) Cheers, Jon DAMM Drunks Against Mad Mothers

Hopefully. I packed this week so I could jump today, but the money/weather thing didn't work out. Sure miss you guys. It's a damn shame I can't jump often, but the good news is that after all these years I still like everybody. Jon

Hee hee hee... No, did this for a few years back in the mid-90's, and have been doing it for about a year now since losing the radio job. Apparently a normal rite of passage in the broadcast industry. The money's not bad, but being a 48 year-old pizza guy is real low on the list of attracting women's attention due to the prestige associated with your job. Hell, I can't even get any at home. But one nice thing about this job is that people are glad to see me. (Nobody ever says "Aw crap, the pizza's here.") A few weeks back I delivered to the local college. One young 20's something woman saw me and said "Yummy!" Obviously she was responding to the idea of pizza, but I told her "Lady, it's been 20 years since a woman has talked to me that way." Of course the meth dealership is quite lucrative, but that's something I don't tell too many people about... , Jon

...He knows where you live. Other rules: Don't send your kids to the door with the money unless you've explained tipping. Please make an effort to have the money on hand when he arrives. Dammit, you've had at least a half-hour's notice that he'll be there. Leaving him standing at the door while you ransack the house looking for loose change is just plain rude. Don't disappear into the basement, the bedroom, etc. Keep an ear out for the doorbell. (One driver told of the time he stood at the door, trying in vain to contact the customer and noticing the trail of clothing leading up the stairs...) Fix the damn doorbell, or leave a note asking him to knock loudly. Restrain your dog. You would not believe how many people cannot control their annoying yappy dogs. On the subject of dogs: If you have one of those cute mats that say something like "wipe your paws," fine. But don't delude yourself into thinking you are soooo clever. These things are ubiquitous. If you live in one of those snooty gated communities, be sure to provide the gate code when you place the order. Decide exactly what you want before placing the call. Keeping the employee on the phone while you try to figure out what toppings you want is a waste of everyone's time. Thanks. Glad to clear this up. Happy new year. Cheers, Jon

However it was defined 30 years ago. One of the reasons we have been sliding away from freedom & liberty toward a more totalitarian society is the constant redefinition of terms. Things like drunk driving and child abuse have always been wrong. However, we have redefined these terms to the point where people who are not driving drunk nor hurting their kids can find themselves sitting in the back of a police car because some vocal social activist group has been demanding that their personal preferences be codified into law. The current time-honored term which is being forcibly redefined is "marriage." The soundtrack is the same: Small minority of political activists demands that changes be imposed, and accuses anyone who disagrees of "not caring" about (insert victim group du-jour here.) Cheers, Jon

I'd have to vote for that moment in 1997 after I had chopped a high-speed malfunction and had just pulled the reserve handle. At this point there was nothing more I could do but wait for it to inflate. Meanwhile I checked out the view, noting where I'd land (in/near a neighbor's pool) if this one also failed to open. As far as the main point of your question is concerned, the takeoff & climb have a way of keeping my attention. I'm much more at ease with a pilot who does not seem concerned with showing us all the neat things he can do with an airplane, i.e. a hard, sharp bank moments after takeoff with the treetops just inches away. Cheers, Jon S.

Okay, whip out the grain of salt. I had a thought regarding student retention. (Disclaimer: I've never run a DZ or any other business, so I'm prepared to be shown that I have no clue what I'm talking about.) If economically feasable, would it be possible to offer a free static-line jump to any first-time tandem student who expresses interest in continuing? My hunch is that people who made two jumps, and having experienced a "real" jump, might be more motivated to return than those who just made the one tandem. If this is a good idea I ASSume someone else would have already thought of it. Pros/cons? Cheers, Jon S.

...If you want a better analogy, it's like going to a restaraunt that a friend of yours runs, one where you help out cooking when there's a shortage of cooks, and in return he gives you meals for cost. One night you come in, he's in a tearing hurry, and you don't want to help out. Instead you order a steak. You get it (for $5) and complain about how it's cooked. You demand another one RIGHT NOW. Your friend is harried and can't do it. So you demand your money back...I'd suspect you'd get it. And what you would lose there would be far, far more than the $5 you might have lost had you not been a pain in the butt... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Well said. I've been treated well at almost every DZ I've visited. I didn't break the rules, but at the same time the "rules" were nothing more than the basic survival stuff we learned as students. If the DZ asks for an unusually high opening, is this policy posted in large letters somewhere near manifest? (And, as an aside, who came up with this policy and how long has he been in the sport? This reeks of the same mentality that demands mandatory AAD's...) I used to visit a northeast DZ that forbade off landings in a certain area due to neighbor issues. I learned this at the end of the day, and wondered why this was not posted conspicuously. As an occasional visitor, it would have created hard feelings if I had been reprimanded for choosing a safe "out" instead of risking the more dangerous choice of trying to navigate obstacles while trying to make the airport property. On the plus side, it appears that Florida residents can find a DZ in any direction without driving more than 20 miles. Cheers, Jon S.

...spending federal money to teach religion in schools is unconstitutional... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fine. Get the federal money out of the equation. There are numerous reasons to return the school system to local control, reasons that have nothing to do with the origin-of-life discussion. I sure wish you'd be as passionate about federal money being used to impose things which contradict MY values and priorities. Jon

...Teaching religion in public schools is clearly unConstitutional... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wrong on several fronts. First, teaching "religion" is NOT unconstitutional. To prove your point, you must cite the actual text of the Constitution to support your argument. I'm waiting... (I concede that atheist bigots have been successful in inventing court precedents which give the illusion that such information is prohibited, but there is no constitutional evidence to support the claim.) More to the point, teaching about creation is not, in and of itself, "religion." The fact that a piece of information happens to be in agreement with certain "religious" teachings is not reason enough to demand it be censored. If this were the case, it would be unconstitutional to teach kids they should not lie, cheat, steal, or mistreat their fellow man. After all, these teachings find their roots in Judeo-Christian Biblical philosophy. The real issue here is that you do not want your children to be exposed to both sides of the debate, period. You can't explain why, so you hide behind this "separation of church & state" fabrication. Cheers, Jon

...Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally... ...I'm interested to see where you have evidence of this..I'm not seen it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There was a HUGE public debate regarding this issue not to long ago here in Cobb County, GA. The story made national news. A large group of citizens insisted that the topic be presented in a more balanced manner, and the school system was responding. Enter a single Jewish atheist with a bug up his ass and an attorney with nothing better to do; They were able to IMPOSE their narrow beliefs on everyone else by FORCING the schools to recind their modest attempt to insert a breath of common sense into the discussion. These pathetic attempts on the part of the pro-evolution crowd to portray themselves as reasonable are most transparent. Oh, how logical they sound, claiming that evolution be taught in a "science" class while creation is explained in a "religion" class. Meanwhile, we all know damn well that they will fight to the death to make sure their kids are never exposed to anything resembling a "religion" class. These people are far too intelligent and superior to understand that evolution is not science, no matter how often publishers insert the topic into a "science" textbook. In order for something to be accepted as sciencific fact, it must meet several standards. Among other things, it must be predictable, observable, and repeatable. Neither evolution nor creation meet these criteria. The real question is: Why is such inordinate priority assigned to this matter? As is the case with discussions of slavery, why are some people so hell-bent determined to make sure kids are exposed to saturation coverage of these issues at such a young age? How much worse off would society be if we placed such topics into the "oh, by the way" category, allowing the kids to grow into young adults before learning about such matters (when they will be better prepared to understand the details?) Cheers, Jon

Ah, yes, the Onion. Lots of funny stuff there. I used some of their material on my radio show a few years ago. It was generally understood that some of the things they "reported" were actually true. What's not funny is the blatant double standard that surfaces whenever this topic is addressed. Evolution supporters insist that the schools present only one side of the debate and withhold information about the other side. Meanwhile, creation supporters ask that both sides be presented equally. Guess who ends up accusing who of "censorship" and "ramming your views down my throat?" And you thought all the hypocrites were in church. Cheers, Jon S.

...Most (practically all) homebuyers have a choice. Yeah, I know what you mean, but it's all a question of degree. If you're getting transferred to a new city, and only have a few days to find & buy a new house, and all the available homes in decent school districts have HOAs, then as a practical matter, that's somewhat less of a choice... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes! I've noticed that all the new housng construction seems to be these cookie-cutter neighborhoods wih the covenants, HOA's, etc. Where is the corresponding new construction of "regular" neighborhoods that don't have such petty restrictions? Kudos to that previous dose of common sense about HOA's only being used to enforce the basic stuff (cars on blocks, etc.) But how is your property value affected if I paint my mailbox orange? Why do you care whether I park a boat or an RV alongside my garage, or allow visitors to park on my lawn? And why is that extra automobile perfectly fine if it's currently registered, but an "eyesore" if it is not? I want to make a joke about HOA's dictating the type of Christmas decorations you may use, but I'm afraid someone will tell me they are only allowed to use white lights, or about some otherwise petty regulations. Who comes up with this stuff? Are these absurd regulations really so popular, or is there a silent majority of people who live in these neighborhoods and put up with these restrictions not because they want to, but because they have little choice? Cheers, Jon S.

My older daughter had asked me about the 9-11 attacks and the current conflict. I told her about the London and Madrid incidents. She asked if the crash in NY involving the Yankee pitcher was also war-related. I said no, that was just an accident. My seven year-old was sitting nearby reading a book. As she flipped the page she said "Maybe he was talking on his cell phone." Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I got a laugh (well, many) during a "Simpsons" episode in the '90's. Marge comes home and announces "Homer, look! I got one of those 'Baby on Board' signs. Now people will stop deliberately ramming us." , Jon