Airman1270

...As for your statement I haven't proved myself. It's all verifiable from multiple sources, including my family, government documentation, profesional wrestling fans, historians. In otherwords, far more primary sources than Jesus has available to him - whether you want to play the proof game or not... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ In just a few hundred years will any of these "sources" still be around? If people want to attempt to prove your alleged existence, what sources will they claim? And how will these sources be interpreted as being more credible than the sources describing the life of Jesus? I believe that nobody will question the claim of your existence, because, by proving you really DID exist, this has no personal long-term ramifications for anyone who might believe in or reject you. The reason people fight so hard to deny Christ is because, if He really is God, then they are obligated to either respond to Him or suffer consequences they don't want to believe could be possible. Believing in Alex will carry no ramifications other than the ability to listen to some cool music. Cheers, Jon S.

Nice question. I believe that I, as a "victim," should have some say in this, especially if we're talking about "crimes" that were recently enacted by well-meaning "tough on (fill in the issue-du-jour here)" politicians. A neighborhood teenager might damage my parked car while D.U.I., but maybe I'd rather accept his apology and his offer to pay restitution, instead of demanding he be criminally charged. He will likely have learned a lesson for life, and will forever appreciate me for not putting the screws to him. Another example: It seems that I should have the right to throw a chair across the room in my home. It's mine. But if I do this while arguing with my wife, it's recently been redefined as a crime. Something like "criminal mishchief," etc. And if I do it in front of my kids, it's interpreted as "cruelty to children." Meanwhile, if I do this while we're all in a good mood, and we're just having some clean, albeit unusual "fun," nobody will care. The police will not respond even if they find out about it. So, is it, or is it not illegal to throw a chair across my living room? If "yes," what difference does it make what's being said and to whom? And if "no," why do I face arrest and prosecution for it? God help any cop who interferes in a private family matter in my home. Cheers, Jon S.

...but of course your belief continues to cause you some internal confusion about the differences in 'evidence' and 'faith' ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The "evidence" is available if you're interested in searching. This process begins with "faith." We cannot "prove" Jesus is who He claimed to be, but if you give Him a chance He can "prove" Himself to you. By the way, if it were possible to prove this, would you receive this as good news, or would you be disappointed? Cheers, Jon S.

...Not once in the bible does Jesus refer to his Marshall stack or his 'axe'... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If He did, would you be spending time in Bible study, prayer, and Sunday church attendance? More to the point, if He did, would He be wagging his tongue like Nigel Tuffnel ("Spinal Tap") and complaining about the miniature bread backstage? (Just had a thought - a parody of the last supper with the guys saying "...but then you get THIS, and I don't want THIS, I want...large bread...") You haven't proven you exist; It could be someone else's post claiming you exist, and assigning a number of fictitious accomplishments to support the claim... By the way, nice going on the CD's. I've accomplished many of the things in life I've always wanted to do: Theatre, taught myself guitar, play in a band, learn to skydive, raise good kids, and do radio. The one thing still left on my list is to record an album of songs written by a friend of mine. Perhaps someday. Cheers, Jon

Jan Davis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thanks, Billy. I remembered the name a few hours after leaving the library. I have an appointment to call the guy at the station in a few hours. Hope it leads to a face-to-face session. If he a ctually listened to my demo, I have a chance... Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteLet us know what happens i would love to listen to a fellow skydiver on the radio... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ After Nate's accident at Cedartown in '04 I phoned manifest to get the facts, then reported the story during my newscast. No sensationalism, no "parachute failed', etc. Sometimes skydivers fail to modify their vocabulary to make the sport easy for non-jumpers to understand, but I'm a professional... Did the same thing in '99 after the accident at El Cap. (Tom Sanders' wife - forgive me for forgetting her name.) Reporters at the aforementioned large station also reported the event, but claimed the purpose of the dive was to "prove that base jumping is safe." I explained to my listeners that the dive was about protesting the park service's discrimination against jumpers, while allowing rock climbers and hang gliders access to the site. I also added that the reason she went in was because she was using borrowed equipment because of the the park service nazies' practice of stealing, er, "confiscating" people's gear. Cheers, Jon S.

Last spring I was rejected by one of the largest radio stations in Atlanta; Seems I didn't have the right kind of experience. I decided to wait until the program director got fired and approach the new PD and try again. Well, the old PD is doing something else, and a bunch of people got fired last month. So I called the new PD; He asked if I could get a demo in his hands. I did. I went back today to follow up. He's busy but asked me to call him tomorrow. The good news is he didn't tell me "No!" Need a job so I can jump again. And, of course, support the family, blah blah... If I can make enough money, I might eventually get some sex. (Romance is only as strong as the man's earning power.) If you believe in prayer, please add this to your list. If you work in Atlanta radio, please call me. I'm tired of running a meth lab. My wife is always complaining about the smell. It would be nice to make some legitimate money again. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteGuess Father Enrico Righi is screwed since there isn't any difinitive proof of the existence of Jesus... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is a dangerous position to take. Jesus is THE single most influential, most researched person in history. Quibble all you want about His divinity, but you risk trashing your credibility if you claim He never existed. There is more evidence that Jesus is who He claimed to be than there is proof that you exist. Cheers, Jon S.

What they said (the part about "Happy Birthday," that is.) Hope to see you soon, because that means I'll be at the DZ. Wow. Going to the DZ. What a concept! Cheers, Jon S.

He's a few Jews short of a boxcar. Cheers, Jon S.

After not having seen the film for several years I watched it three times during the past few weeks. Incredibly funny! I noticed some things I hadn't yet picked up, such as the part where he's talking about having "armadillos in our trousers" and causing the girls to "run screaming toward the exits." "We had to apologize for him with our set; they were still booing him while we were on stage." "There seems to be a problem with the arrangements backstage...I don't know where to begin...I don't want THIS, I want large bread..." "I don't think there's a direct flight - you might have to fly into New York and get a flight to Milwaukee." "Listen, we'd love to chat but we have to go to the lobby and wait for the limo." Several of the guys from the church band got together New Year's eve at the band leader's house for beer, snacks, and festivities. We went downstairs to jam, and cut loose in ways we'd never do on Sunday morning. I opened the set by playing "Big Bottom," and afterward said I wouldn't have played that song if the ladies had been down there with us. One of the guys said to turn around; It seems his wife had been listening and I didn't realize it. "My love gun's loaded and she's in my sights; Big game is waiting there inside her tights..." We gather for prayer prior to the 10:30 service, then walk along a narrow corridor backstage to enter from the opposite side. Every once in a while one of us will pump a fist into the air and say "Hello Cleveland!" This is not your grandmother's church. Happy New Year. Cheers, Jon S.

Way to go. I got mine about 18 years ago, and it still works! The subject never came up until I had about 120 jumps and was traveling from Georgia to New York. I stopped at a DZ in Hartwood, Virginia. Even though I was current, they made me do a supervised solo because I had no license. I long ago qualified for a "D" and will purchase one someday if I really need one. Until then, what's the point? Welcome to the sky. Cheers, Jon S.

Oh, I don't disagree with you in the slightest. But Rush STILL used to tell people to tune in so "we can do your thinking for you", etc. Fits right in with the dittohead thing... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I think you're taking the show-biz aspect of the program a bit too seriously. He does say stuff like that, but it's pretty well understood that he's having fun with listeners. As for the "dittohead" thing, he's explained this many times. "Dittos" is a shorthand way of saying "I like the show." It has nothing to do with agreeing with everything he says. As for a previous comment about crossing paths with "dittoheads": Rush has opened many people's eyes to political issues they may not have spent much time thinking about before. It's not news that many people might use some of the same words he's used to describe similar issues. I don't accept the premise that an idea is automatically invalid simply because Rush may/may not agree with it. Until my mid-30's I never spent much time absorbing political issues and current events, but I did read newspapers and was aware of whatever basic issues were being discussed. I tended to lean to the left, and just KNEW Ronald Reagan was an asshole but couldn't explain why. Listening to Rush was the first exposure I had to what conservatism was (and was not.) My ability to think and understand current events has increased since I started listening. Also, thanks to Rush, I finally understand what there is to appreciate about football. I still have no use for it, don't watch it, and don't know much about the rules of the game. But I appreciate it. Cheers, Jon S.

...But I disagree with your placing the blame on "creeping secular humanism." This doesn't have to do with belief in god or jesus. This is about attitudes toward individual liberty... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Many of the laws & atrtitudes we're discussing ARE a result of a secular humanist world view. This is a view that believes that mankind is the ultimate authority, that perfection IS possible, and that any failure to achieve perfection can be addressed by further micromanaging people's behavior. Example: Drunk driving laws. I've been driving for nearly 30 years, and drunk driving has been illegal for much longer than I can remember. It was easy to understand; The law established a standard, and any amount of alcohol that did not violate that standard was legal. This was fair. We were free to drink moderately and drive without having to worry about compromising public safety or getting into trouble with the law. Any problems that did occur were the result of people exceeding the legal limits. The secular humanist response was based on the belief that it is possible to eliminate drunk driving accidents by changing the standard and passing more laws. In recent years, laws have been changed ("toughened") to the point where the people who were not causing any trouble have been redefined as criminals. Meanwhile, serious tragedies continue to occur, not because some guy had three drinks in two hours, but because he got himself smashed way beyond what used to be the legal standard. The secular humanist mind set believes that we can eliminate these tragedies by passing more laws. The flaw in this world view is the belief that the law can change people's behavior. That's wrong. The law can only set a standard and provide for punishment of violations. Thanks to this kind of thinking, people are being arrested and prosecuted even though they did nothing that would compromise public safety. This puts politicians in a touch predicament, as anyone who believes the laws are already tough and don't need to be modified is accused of "not caring." Also, they're dealing with a population that has itself been trained in a secular humanist school system to believe the role of government is to "solve problems" and take whatever steps it can to eliminate all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience. The Judeo-Christian world view recognizes that perfection is unattainable and that mankind does not have all the answers. It accepts the fact that "shit happens" despite our attempts to keep it from happening. Under this world view, the old drunk driving standard was fine. People who obeyed the law were not causing problems, while people who violated the law were responsible for whatever drunk driving-related accidents occurred. It wasn't perfect, but it was as fair as was possible. By the way, when MADD began gaining steam in the early '80's, they were not demanding the laws be changed. Their entire focus was on persuading people to obey existing laws. And they have been very successful. But instead of congratulating themselves on a job well done, they became intoxicated by their increasing political influence and later started demanding more laws and ridiculously tight BAC standards. According to these people, the fact that any aclohol-related accident occurs anywhere is proof the current laws are "not working." Thanks to their (secular humanist) approach to legislation, those two beers you enjoyed with your buddies after the sunset load could result in your being arrested at a roadblock on the way home from the DZ. Sure, you may not be convicted; perhaps the charges will be dropped. But you'll still be hassled, despite the fact that you pose no threat to anybody. I've decided to organize my own political movement. It's called DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Our motto is "Don't drink and drive; you might hit a bump and spill your drink." By the way, if I buy a bottle of something at the liquor store and have a wreck while pulling out of the parking lot, was the incident "alcohol related?" Cheersh, Jon S.

I listened to Rush regularly years ago, and he did indeed literally tell people how to think, and to tune in so they wouldn't HAVE to think. Are you saying he no longer does that? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Generally, the kind of people who don't want to think are the kind who wouldn't spend much time listening to this type of program. Cheers, Jon S.

Not to cause trouble, but... I don't have much experience with firearms, but I was a shipping/receiving manager for a few years. What would be so difficult about packing the thing securely into a box, sealing it, and bringing it to the retail shipping service provider? Why does anyone have to know what's inside? Cheers, Jon S.

...I think he has a hard time differentiating between government imposed restriction and those imposed by others... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No, but I understand your point. I was mixing my examples to include both categories. Many of the privately-enacted restrictions are an offshoot of public policy decisions, and are based on self-defense. Example: In recent years USPA has "suggested" ridiculous currency requirements which are based on the assumption that a guy who has made a few dozen (or more) jumps will forget everything and go in without pulling if he takes a few months off. Many DZ's require this guy to pay for additional retraining, when all he needs is a quick gear check, a briefing on wind patterns, and a ride to altitude. This is not a law, with police and courts waiting to pounce on "violators." However, a societal secular-humanist trend toward punishing people for failing to prevent bad things from happening has forced many business owners to adopt this type of thinking. Lawyers will pursue lawsuits against the DZO, and will cherry pick a jury they believe will succumb to such arguments. Ergo, the DZO did nothing wrong but ends up broke and in court because, for whatever reason, his customer had an accident that was beyond his control. Just one example... Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteNow, finally a post worth reading and having a discussion. (Airman1270) That must be your AM freq.? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It was. Been out of radio for a year, but I have a few demos floating around Atlanta. Hope someone will listen to it... Cheers, Jon

QuoteAh, the education continues here on KPRC at 11:00-2:00. Yes sir, been a listener for sometime, although I will say when Williams subs for him I not much of a listener... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Williams is a funny guy. Too bad he can't teach economics to high school students across the nation. I love when he describes his life with "Mrs. Williams": "For Christmas I got Mrs. Williams a child's snow shovel. You see, she's getting on in years and can't easily lift a normal-sized shoven full of snow. The child size holds less snow, so she can more easily shovel the snow around my car." Cheers, Jon S.

...nothing at all to do with those being power making laws to benefit themselves... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is something I've wondered about for a long time. Must a politician support legislation that harms him personally in order to avoid this accusation? Example: Lawmaker supports laws which make it easier for companies to do business. This is interpreted as being "against" the average citizen. I don't accept the premise that the employer/employee relationship is an US vs. THEM situation. However, this world view is exploited by many office-seekers I am the little guy. I benefit when employers have more freedom to run their companies as they see fit. They are more likely to hire me if they know they're free to fire me if things don't work out. But when Mr. Democrat starts blathering about imposing more restrictions on "big corporations", forcing them to jump through hoops and justify every decision in court, the employer/employee relationship changes. I have fewer opportunities, and must endure an exhaustive, insulting process in order to get hired because they can be sued or prosecuted for MY actions as an employee, as well as for firing me if they decide they don't need me. As an an American consumer, I use oil; I benefit when the oil industry in able to operate freely. When a politician (who has knowledge and experience with the industry) refuses to support further restrictions on the industry, I benefit. But the politician is accused of being "in the pocket of" the industry, of using his official position to enhance his own net wealth. (As if there's something wrong with his net wealth being enhanced by wise public policy decisions that benefit EVERYBODY.) This is like saying that it would have been wrong to save the Titanic because "the rich" would have disproportionally benefitted from such an effort. Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ahh, Grasshopper - You have fallen into my trap. I wondered whether this thread might swerve into a Rush-bashing forum. I don't agree with him about everything. (After all, I DO wear blue jeans.) But it's a good show, and I learn a lot about things that are happening that have the potential to affect my life. You will hear far more newsworthy information on this program than you will by listening to most averages newscasts. My intention was to communicate with other people who enjoy listening and/or participating in such programs. If anyone wants to dump on the guy, insult him personally, etc., go for it. I'd be more interested in hearing someone explain why he's wrong about (insert topic here) than claim he has no credibility because he (insert personal imperfection here.) Sure, when he starts talking about football or golf I lose interest, but I've gotten my revenge on my own radio show by talking about skydiving. It was a way to attract callers: "I see the phone is not ringing. C'mon, this is a call-in show. If you won't pull your weight, I'm gonna talk about jumping again!" Sometimes it worked. Cheers, Jon

When I finally was able to order custom made gear, I chose a bright yellow main and had been planning this for several years. The reason is visibility; I want to minimize any chances of a low altitude collision. And, of course, to make locating a cutaway main easier. White might blend into a snow-covered field, but neon yellow will stand out against anything nature has to offer. The only drawback is when people think I'm riding a reserve and get confused because they can't see the freebag. Cheers, Jon

The subject has been coming up in relation to the Bush administration, the Patriot Act, etc. (In fact, whenever a Republican/conservative is in the White House, this dead straw herring is dusted off and waved in our faces, as if we're all very close to being herded into boxcars.) Yet, when I consider the long list of things were were free to do 30 years ago, but which are illegal now, I see the results of legislation pushed primarily by the Democrat left. A short list includes such things as HOV lanes, seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, smoking restrictions imposed on privately-owned businesses, the redefinition of what is considered "drunk driving," restrictions on political campaigns, restrictions on gun rights, restrictions on religious expression, campus speech codes, jack-booted political correctness, laws against using cell phones while driving, and a law enforcement mind set that believes it's perfectly acceptable to stop people and demand their ID simply because they happen to be walking along the road late at night. While the left is passionate about "free speech" as long as it has something to do with profanity, pornography, or blasphemy, they'll shout down opposing opinions on campus. And let's not forget that it was a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress that, in 1994, made it a federal crime to offer an opinion on a public sidewalk if there happens to be an abortion clinic nearby. I can't find very many examples of laws being passed forcing us to comply with the desires of the "far right." Conservatives, especially religious folks, are quickly accused of "imposing" something if they dare make a suggestion, but if you don't do what liberals tell you to do you end up in front of a judge; and if you resist, the police are authorized to shoot you. In fact, if the Bill of Rights was formally repealed, how much different would our lives be than they are at present? True, to date they're not quartering troops in our homes, but meanwhile you can get fired or prosecuted for saying something that someone else doen't like; you can be arrested for carrying a gun with ZERO harmful intent; you can be ejected from a shopping mall for striking up a conversation with another customer about Jesus; and while driving home you can have your car searched by a K-9 unit for something as innocuous as passing through the highway with out-of-state tags or having a "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker. True, many of these laws are passed with Republican votes, primarily because lawmakers who don't support such laws are accused of "not caring" about (fill in the blank - "women," "minorities," "the children," "the poor,", etc.) But the fact is that if Democrats don't want these laws, they don't get passed. You may not think your life is being affected by creeping secular humanism, but if your DZ requires you to use an AAD or won't allow you to jump a rig with a belly band or a round reserve, you're not as "free" as you may think you want to be. If you still believe the myth that we are a "free country," try riding a bike through Boston without a helmet or walking on a public beach at night. We may be more free than many other countries, but we're going in the wrong direction. It's not primarily the George Bush/Newt Gingrich/Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Rush Limbaugh faction of American politics that is doing this to you. Any thoughts? Cheers, Jon S.

I've been listening to the show for about 14 years and have spoken with him on the air six times, the most recent being last week. On two other occasions I was waiting in line but didn't get to speak with him before the program concluded. And, of course, there's the other dozen and a half times I got through but they didn't want to take my call. For a few years back in the 90's I was a regular caller to Hannity when he was in Atlanta, before moving to Fox. I've also been on both sides of the microphone at other stations in smaller markets. Any other talk show hobbyists here? Cheers, Jon S. Jon from Kennesaw

You can MIX vodka? Wow! I can get the buzz without that horrible taste? Horizons, open up - here comes Jon! Cheersh, Jon S.