Airman1270

- - it's really pesky to read posts which do not show who is replying to whom at which post ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sorry. Still mostly computer illiterate. I admire the people who make this look easy. Cheers, Jon

...Well you do not live in free country and it is impossible for a civilised society with more than 200 people to exist without rules (laws)... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Are you defining a free country as one without any laws at all? Of course we've always had some basic laws designed to enforce basic standards, such as laws against stealing. My point is that every year we are faced with a new list of things we were once free to do but which are now illegal. This is the direct result of a secular humanist mind set, one which believes we can remove all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience if we just pass enough laws and tightly regulate people's behavior. Thus it has become a crime to allow smoking in a restaurant because liberal Democrats want to prove how much they "care" about your health. The alternative would be to prove how much they care about liberty & freedom, respect private property rights, and treat you as an adult capable of deciding whether you want to do business with the restaurant. ...where would you draw the line ?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If you had some basic knowledge of our nation's Founders & the Biblical principles which motivated them you would not need to ask this. This stuff used to be taught in our schools. Everyone understood them regardless of their personal religious attitudes. In recent years the schools (tightly controlled by the left) have not been teaching these principles, thus creating a historically ignorant population that has been conditioned to accept secular humanism as society's "norm" and is more willing to accept increasing erosion of freedom in the name of "helping" people. As an arbirtary benchmark, I say we repeal all laws that have been imposed during the last 40 years. That way it would still be illegal to hurt people or take their stuff, but cops would not be harassing us for sleeping in our cars or for not wearing seat belts or smoking in a bar. ...And I don't mind anyone jumping without an AAD as long you're licensed... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn, here we go again. What does being licensed have to do with it? I wore an AAD on most of my student freefalls. When I was a few jumps away from graduating I bought a used rig and completed my training without one. The DZO simply reminded me that if I had a problem I would have to pull the reserve myself (something I had already done on my 14th jump.) I had over 100 jumps before I bothered to get my "A" license. Use of an AAD should be no different than use of a helmet, audible altimeter, or booties: completely up to the discretion of the individual. An AAD can be helpful in certain situations. It can also be harmful. Misfires are rare but can happen. I don't want my reserve firing as I'm climbing out to float, nor do I want the added expense & maintenance hassle that AAD's bring into our lives. It is the height of arrogant hypocrisy for a DZO to require AAD's for "safety" reasons, yet allow people to jump tiny fast mains that can kill you if you misjudge a landing approach. ... Come on man, I thought you were smarter than that. What you are implying happened three to four generations ago. If we go even further back I can think of a nice little story of conquest, where immigrants almost erased an entire indigenous population for their land... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ahh, left wing history revision. This crap is being taught in our schools, too. We err when we assign current societal standards to past historical events. This land did not "belong" to the Indians. They just happened to have arrived here prior to the European settlers. Shit happens and there were some unfortunate events, but there was also plenty of blame to go around. The Indians were a violent primitive people who were killing each other long before the white man waded ashore. At the time this was just a land mass, not an established country with borders & official immigration policies. Anyone had the right to come here and make a life. The civilizing influence of European culture, based on Judeo-Christian principles, produced far more good than bad. I don't even want to start with much more recent history, the last decade, where the US illegally invaded two sovereign country's, illegally detained and tortured hundreds if not thousands of citizens of foreign country's, without any form of trial... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Stay away from the left-wing hate sites. We do not "invade" countries unless the objective is to stop bad people from hurting others. After fixing the problem we seek to pull back and return home, not take over. Yes, we used some very strong interrogation measures on a handful of high-level terrorist leaders for the purpose of gleaning information which SAVED many lives. We did not "torture" anyone, let alone hundreds of thousands of innocent people. ...So please cut out the cheap shots... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I understand why you say this, but it wasn't a cheap shot at all. You are articulating very well the secular humanist mind set, one which accepts without question a government which micro-manages its people and punishes them for refusing to comply. Many years ago I heard someone sum up the German attitude toward government authority thus: (Paraphrase) "If an elected leader in Germany imposed a 60mph speed limit on the autobahn, the German people would hate it but they would obey the law until the next election when they would vote out the people who imposed the law." ...Who decides which religion offers these basic moral standards? This still implies that there is a set of basic moral standards, which there is not... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ God decides. The basic moral truth to which you referred in your Old Testament example has to do with respecting parents. My comments have to do with the role religion has played in America. We were founded as a Christian nation based upon Biblical principles. This provided a strong foundation of liberty & freedom. This foundation is being eroded due to the growing influence of secular humanism & its concomitant hostility to any suggestion of God. I have no use for Islam or any other false religion. Can anyone demonstrate how Islam or its followers have made the world a better place? Look at the way people live in Arab countries. What technology have they produced, what improvement in living standards during the past dozen or so centuries can be attributed to followers of Allah? If I want to strap on a bomb and kill a bunch of people at a bus station I must act contrary to the teachings of my religion. Muslims who do this stuff claim their holy book teaches them to treat people in this manner. Frankly, who cares about that worthless Allah or the losers who take him seriously? Christian America has provided a land where Muslims enjoy more freedom than they'll find in any Middle East nation. People who wish to pursue other religions have always been welcome here as long as they respect our culture & live their lives in peace. ...is it not better for her to know that there are risks and dangers involved? STD's, unwanted pregnancy just to name two ? Why are you denying young people very important knowledge?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nobody is trying to deny knowledge. The issue is the way the information is presented. It is important to teach this stuff within a context of basic moral standards consistent with our Chrisitan-based culture. Young people who understand the ramifications of sexuality (including God's moral standards) are less likely to have to deal with stds, pregnancy, etc. But there are greater issues having to do with such things as self-respect. One reason we have statutory rape laws is that young people, particularly girls, have not developed the maturity to understand the ramifications of their behavior. If a woman likes a guy when she's 20 she'll probably like the same guy when she's 50. But a girl who likes a guy when she's 15 can look back on it just a few years later and say "Why'd I ever want to do that with him?" How does society benefit by having millions of young women growing into adulthood carrying the burden of a cheap sexual history on their resumes? ...I would not want her to go out with someone who likes to impose a belief system on her... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again with the terminology. How is encouraging young people to respect basic moral standards "imposing?" Any young woman who looks back on her life and regrets being pure & honorable can always change her mind and become a whore. But the woman who regrets the complications that come with being a slut cannot go back and get a do-over. ...Where do your morals come from? And I am still waiting for a reason for 14 olds not to have sex with each other. Other than crying: AAARGH IT'S MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE ! I am not talking about adults having sex with 14 year olds... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Huh? What's wrong with this? If a 14 year-old wants me to teach her what it means to be a woman, why not? You are rejecting the very authority that allows you to claim this kind of thing would be wrong in the first place. ..Can you tell me why this bad ?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I just did. Cheers, Jon

...some of your examples are plain ridiculous. Having laws enforcing people to buckle up which without a doubt saves lives... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ So would banning the wheel. Nothing wrong with seat belts, I've been wearing them for over 40 years. The issue is liberty & freedom. Either we're a free country or we're not. If we are, why are we hauling people into court simply for refusing to do what Democrats tell them to do? (Please don't tell me I should not be allowed to jump without an AAD...) ...car accident, caused by someone who had the choice of driving drunk because following your logic that should not be illegal either... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No, never said that. Drunk driving (as defined by legal standards in place 30 years ago) should be illegal for obvious public safety reasons. My quarrel is with all these stupid ancillary laws which do nothing to enhance public safety but are driven by politicians trying to prove they "care." Thus we have introduced the whole concept of police roadblocks into "free" America, coupled with laws criminalizing such things as open containers and passengers drinking. (As long as the driver is sober there is no threat to public safety.) ...Here in Germany Children have to wear a bicycle helmet until they are 14.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Um... At this point in history, there are many, many people worldwide who, when discussing matters of freedom, liberty, and public policy, might not respond with enthusiasm to any argument that begins "Here in Germany..." Do you make your kids wear a helmet while riding in the car? If not, why not? Don't you love your kids? Etc. etc. etc.... ...Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Why not? Seriously, where do you get your moral standards? You offer knee-jerk rejection of "religion," but if someone enters into a business agreement with you, or a marriage, or meets you alone on a dark street late at night, and does not treat you according to Biblical moral standards, you are going to be pretty upset about it. ...Are you not shoving an even narrower religous brand down their throats?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No, I'm not. I'm defending a standard. I mentioned several examples of how the secular left is "shoving" its narrow religious brand down our throats through legislation, litigation, and other public policy decisions. You missed it. ...Unwanted Teen pregnancy is much bigger problem in religious comunitys because teens tend to fuck around, there is no stopping them... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Don't know how you're defining "religious," but the fact is that young people who understand and accept Biblical standards are less likely to get involved in such behavior. (Not that it can't happen, as sexual temptation is one of the oldest temptations known to mankind.) A teenager who has been raised to respect Christian standards might still be tempted to get involved with a steady boyfriend she loves, for example, but will not be as likely to give herself away to a stranger she meets on vacation as another teen who has been raised to believe that there is no God, no absolute moral standards, that people who believe this stuff are clueless idiots, and has been given a pack of condoms by her parents (or teachers) to celebrate her trip. C'mon, think about it. Twelve years later you're dating her and thinking about marrying her. To which would you rather be committing the rest of your life? ...What right do you have to deny teens the pleasure of sex, based on a ridiculous moral code... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hmm... Any chance you might have a real hot teenage daughter or sister I might take out for "pizza?" I'm sure you'd have no problem with this. You have forfeited your right to declare this behavior wrong in any way. ...please elabroate with a single reason, not implying the belief in God... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ That's really the most important issue, isn't it? ...I live in Germany, according to statistics german Teens have their first sex at the age of around 14. I don't see Germany morally decaying... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The fact that you speak so casually about sexually active 14 year-olds speaks volumes about the level of moral decay in your neighborhood. Cheers, Jon

In other conversations I have listed numerous examples of laws being passed which take our freedoms away and force us to do what the secular left thinks we should do. The left does not make suggestions. They make laws. If you don't do what they tell you to do you appear before a judge, and if you resist you can be shot by police. A short list would include such things as seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, anti-smoking restrictions on privately-owned businesses, anti-gun laws, open container laws, HOV lanes, anti-"discrimination" laws which overrule private property rights, laws forcing business owners to keep track of & report employees' racial information, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize spanking, etc. If you look at the long list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but which are illegal today, you'll see the fingerprints of liberal Democrats all over the place. Yes, these laws frequently are passed with Republican votes, but these ideas are driven by the left. The culprit is the religion of secular humanism, which is based on the belief that there is no God, and that mankind can be perfected by tightly controlling behavior through legislation & litigation. When the schools refuse to acknowledge basic moral standards regarding sexuality, and instead impose the "safe sex" dogma on my kids, they are forcing their secular religion down our collective throats. When they send police after me for driving alone in the left highway lane without a seat belt, they are imposing their narrow brand of religion on me. It is the left that supports a legal system which uses lawsuits to punish people not for doing bad things, but for failing to prevent bad things from happening. If you slip & fall in Wal-Mart it's your own damn fault for not watching where you're going. If you think Wal-Mart is responsible for failing to prevent you from your own carelessness, you probably voted for Obama. Remember this the next time you have to fill out a multi-page waiver when you visit a DZ because the culture has been brainwashed into a knee-jerk anti-business mentality that believes that businesses (or "corporations") are responsible for every unfortunate incident that occurs on their property. We are a much less free country than we were in 1980. It is not the Robertsons, Falwells, Reagans, Bushs, or Limbaughs that are responsible for this. Every time you cast a vote for a Democrat you are voting away your money and your freedom but you'll keep doing it because the alternative is to accept that you live in a country with a strong Christian heritage and stop treating this as something to be resisted at all costs. Liberals are pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice about everything else. Cheers, Jon

...The religious types often want their particular brand of morality forced upon everyone else... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ More hostile stereotyping. Telling someone about God is not "forcing" anything. I could provide numerous examples of how secular humanism has been forced on us via legislation, court rulings, and other public policy decisions. It is not the Christians (at least not the ones on the right) who are demanding new laws making it a crime not to follow their advice. Over the past 30 or so years I have spoken to people about skydiving, often with enthusiasm and detail. I have invited people to visit the DZ and check it out, and have encouraged some to give it a try. Frequently the topic came up in the form of responding to their ignorant stereotypes. Many of these conversations involved people who were not at all interested in participating. But in all these years, nobody has accused me of "forcing" skydiving on them or ramming parachuting "down their throat." Cheers, Jon

...You have just replaced mood altering chemicals with mood altering religion. I have no problem with that, but don't try to pretend that your extreme religious beliefs are anything more than a different drug of choice... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ My goodness. Let the record show that you are the one who introduced religion into the conversation. And with hysterical knee-jerk hostility, as well. The question is "Why?" Cheers, Jon

While I have tasted the party and will probabaly do so again, count me among those who think the government has a legitimate interest in keeping illegal drugs illegal. It sets a standard: This is not a good idea and is not acceptable. (After all, who ever looked back on their life and said "Damn, I wish I had done more drugs..."?) People who wish to participate should respect this standard and be discreet. The real problem is the increasing totalitarian police state, and the role played by drug laws. Some of the most offensive police conduct can be justified by claiming they were looking for drug violations. Behavior that was understood to be unconstitutional 30 years ago is commonplace today, and the primary reason given has to do with drugs. Police roadblocks, automobile searches, property confiscation, workplace drug testing, etc. are far more offensive and far more dangerous to a free society than the guy who has a bag of weed in the glove compartment. Small-potatoes violations should result in a ticket, not an arrest. This policy would enforce the basic legal standard while still keeping things in perspective. Cheers, Jon S.

...God says homosexuality is wrong. He also says we should treat homosexuals with civility & respect. "Respect" is a strange way to describe stoning them to death..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Um... Real quick, check the New Testament some time his weekend and report back soon: Where does Jesus say we should do this?? Cheers, Jon

...Marriage is a manmade concept... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NO. Marriage was invented by God. As was gravity. However, you raise a salient point. The reason we're even having this debate at all is because of the growing influence of secular humanists who abhor the very suggestion of God and will do anything they can (such as vote away their freedom by electing totalitarian Democrats) to eradicate Him from public memory. God says homosexuality is wrong. He also says we should treat homosexuals with civility & respect. They, in turn, have an obligation to respect the normal social standard and keep their private behavior private. If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard. This makes it more difficult to condemn the punks who beat up a gay Wisconsin man, tied him to a fence, and left him to die. If anyone wants to claim that the guys who did this sang in the church choir & regularly attended Bible study, go for it. Cheers, Jon

Then you're a queer... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Um... I was hoping to keep this private, but it's becoming impossible, so... I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Cheers, Jon

...I am looking for a valid reason, particularly from those in the crowd that are blatantly against gay marriage... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage is, by its very definition, a union between a man and a woman. The whole concept of "gay marriage" is a left-wing political invention. When legislatures and/or judges can order the sun to rise in the west, or water to flow uphill, they will have acquired the authority to redefine marriage. Cheers, Jon

...but i'm actually curious what charges you're leveling against russia, china, and cuba. fine if you need to call me uneducated, but then briefly, educate me... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Just like nazi Germany: If you didn't do what they told you to do, you could be arrested and/or shot by police. Or worse. Kinda like today's Democrat-controlled America. Cheers, Jon

...queer adj... ...mentally unbalanced or deranged. 5.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a.homosexual. b.effeminate; unmanly. 6.Slang. bad, worthless, or counterfeit. 10.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a homosexual, esp. a male homosexual. i only added the emphasis. this is from dictionary.com, if you'd like to look for yourself, which i doubt... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You already have. Nice work. Cheers, Jon

...It is as accurate as characterizing lesbians who want to marry as criminals... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If a lesbian wants to marry, she has that right. Simply find a guy who wants to marry her and go for it. Don't know what the point would be, but she is free to marry if she wants to. Nobody is trying to make this a crime. Cheers, Jon

Hint: Wrong. History not your strong point, eh?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It sure isn't yours if you're claiming that the nazis were driven by commitment to New Testament teaching. Hitler may have attended church as a kid, but as a young man he turned his back on his faith. Exactly what nazi policies are you saying were consistent with the words of Jesus? Cheers, Jon

...Depending on circumstances I might file a discrimination suit under the current system . . . Which is precisely what Robin Shahar did. Sounds like you would agree with her that filing suit is the appropriate response to such discrimination... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ She was not denied the job because she's a queer. She was denied the job due to her poor judgement, combined with an in-your-face attitude. No employer is obligated to hire someone simply because they claim to be gay. Revealing irrelevant personal information during an interview is a huge red flag. She was treated no differently than I could expect to be treated if I had done the same thing. This wasn't "discrimination," it was plain common sense. Cheers, Jon

Quote>I have applied for jobs and was not hired, but I never considered the >courts an appropriate response. OK. Let's turn this around. You are hired for a job that you are qualified for. You show up for the first day of work, and your supervisor sees you wearing a cross. He tells you "you're not welcome here; no doctor-killers are going to work for me." You are then told you no longer have the job. Would you be OK with that? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Depends on what you mean by "OK with that." If you mean would I be annoyed, yes. If you mean would I have a legal case against the company, perhaps, but mostly no. But what are the ground rules? Depending on circumstances I might file a discrimination suit under the current system, but at the same time I'm all for discarding the current legal climate and restoring full rights to business owners to hire & fire as they please. This means that the boss can decide who will and will not work there, for any reason, and doesn't have to explain his decisions to a judge. He would be free to refuse to hire me because I play in a kick-ass church band. He would also be free to refuse to hire someone for ANY other reason, including the fact that the applicant listed his First place finish in 2007's Miss Fire Island contest on his resume. Quite revealing is your description of someone wearing a cross as a "doctor killer." Interesting that this is among the first thoughts that come to mind, given the lopsided ratio of Christians who have committed such violence vs. those who have not. Kinda like claiming that a dozen or so skydivers have behaved poorly in local pizza restaurants on a handful of Saturday evenings over the past 40 years or so, therefore all skydivers should either be banned from pizza restaurants or at least watched very closely. Cheers, Jon

And on the other side you have Christian nutjobs who murder doctors... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh. Atheists never commit murder? Ever hear about the delightful people who ran Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Hint: Atheists. Secular totalitarian murders: Millions. Victims of abortion clinic violence: Several dozen, if that. Cheers, Jon

...your use of the word "queer" is what made me think your information might not be correct? are you the same guy who claimed to work with gay people one summer, but are angry cuz now you're being called a bigot?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The case did indeed involve Robin S. My information was accurate. She wanted the job. She volunteered that she was a queer. She was not hired. She sued. I have applied for jobs and was not hired, but I never considered the courts an appropriate response. Yes I am angry at being called a bigot because it is not true. You can call me a guitar player or a skydiver or a broadcaster or a pizza guy or a non-teetotaler, or a father or a guy who likes anchovies and I won't be offended because it is true. If you call me a doctor or an air traffic controller or a teenager or a meth addict or a cross-dressing fruitcake or a USPA "coach" or a queer I will be offended because it's not true. Especially after I have explained that it's not true but, for whatever reason. you continue to pursue this ficticious slander. And please don't get your panties in a wad about the word queer. It simply means "unusual." I don't do political correctness. Cheers, Jon

"I Do." Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteDid you hear about the recent case where a Christian guy was fired after he told his lesbian supervisor that he was not interested in hearing the details of her private life? If he had been the one yammering on & on about his "lover" and she didn't want to hear it, HR would have reprimanded/fired him for making her "uncomfortable" and creating a "hostile environment...." Ok. now, assuming that a) you haven't made it up and b) the one side of the story presented is accurate - you've still only got one case... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If I hadn't mention it, you would have claimed that I was making things up because I didn't provide any examples. Here I provided a recent example and you're dismissing it as irrelevant because I haven't provided any others. Secular logic is so cute. Earlier in the thread I mentioned the Georgia woman who sought a position with the state Attorney General's office, volunteered that she was queer, didn't get the job, then sued, claiming "discrimination." The fact that she 1) even thought a lawsuit was appropriate, 2) a lawyer was willing to take the case, and 3) a judge did not immediately dismiss the case and reprimand the attorney for wasting court time is yet more evidence of the war against traditional Americans. A short list of other examples would include the determination on the part of the entertainement industry to keep writing gay characters into TV & movie scripts (always portraying them as sympathetic victims of society's flawed moral code,) or those cross-dressing fruitcakes who invade churches and interrupt services. Oh, by the way, did you hear that they're trying to change the definition of "marriage?" How many more examples do you need? Close eyes, stick fingers in ears, and make a loud noise. Keep pretending it's not really happening. Cheers, Jon

...I can see for myself how the secular humanists have taken over the government every time I drive past the federally funded Easter Cross on Mount Soledad... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You dismissed the examples I mentioned of Christians & other traditional Americans having been abused by secular policies. Just ignored them. Meanwhile you think a memorial cross on a hill, or ceremonial observance of the nation's Christian heritage, somehow violates your rights, or at least is equally dangerous & offensive. Amazing. It is precisely this kind of thinking that led to people being packed into boxcars. Cheers, Jon

...route your chest strap through the D-ring a couple of times. Now the effect of an accidental pull on the handle is minimised... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I've been doing this for years. I don't travel (unless by car) but it occurred to me years ago that the best way to avoid an accidental reserve pull was to wrap the chest strap around the lift web inside the handle and fasten the strap normally. It can't be pulled. You should have seen my rigger's surprised look when I forgot to tell him what I had done. Cheers, Jon S.

...Ron, we understand all the various groups you don't like. Really, we get it. But if you're going to start taking the "war on straight, white Christians" line, it really does insult our intelligence... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ THIS IS PRICELESS! Oh the irony... You're accusing Ron of hating various groups of people, then go on to claim there is no "war" on straight, white Christians. This offensive accusation is a blatant example of the attacks (war) against Christians and anyone else who does not habitually vote for left-wing candidates. How does Ron explain that he does NOT hate people, as you claim, without his explanation being interpreted as "preaching" and the conversation being derailed down that path? Other random examples of the war against Americans who hole traditional moral/cultural views: The kid who is told by his teacher not to pray at lunch; The school that allows the chess club use of the bulletin board but denies access to the Bible club; Left-wing totalitarian laws which criminalize the landlord who would rather not rent to unmarried couples; The guy who offers his opinion on current events, just as his co-workers do, but is reprimanded or fired because his opinion is based on a traditional Biblical world view; The growing segment of society that has had very little exposure to the Bible, but has been conditioned to react in a knee-jerk negative manner when the subject is brought up. Did you hear about the recent case where a Christian guy was fired after he told his lesbian supervisor that he was not interested in hearing the details of her private life? If he had been the one yammering on & on about his "lover" and she didn't want to hear it, HR would have reprimanded/fired him for making her "uncomfortable" and creating a "hostile environment." (Side note: During the interview with the victim the news anchor kept using cliched terminology, such as asking him if he had been "prosyletizing," etc. The guy was not media savvy and didn't articulate very well, so I'll do it: "No, Mr. Reporter, look at the facts. It was the supervisor who was prosyletizing, repeatedly discussing her immoral personal life with someone who didn't care and took no interest and had asked that she stop. She brought up the subject of gay "marriage," asking his opinion, then sought to punish him for holding to the normal time-honored definition of the word. For this he lost his job. Where is the sense of professional righteous indignation regarding the way this guy was treated?") Since homosexuality is the catalyst for this thread I'll present my credentials: I like Broadway show tunes. My family was involved with a theater group on Long Island. I was interacting with gays before I knew what it meant. I never had a problem with them. My school years were typical among those of us who were targets of troublemakers and I could relate to people who just wanted to be left alone. (This summed up the gay political "agenda," to the extent that there was one: Just leave us alone. Kinda sums up my political agenda today.) In summer 1980 I worked in the gay community of Cherry Grove on Fire Island, NY. My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 30 years ago are calling me a bigot today and I don't appreciate it. Cheers, Jon

If I may get personal, what is it with this compulsion to share a residence? Almost all relationships eventually end. When the time comes that one of you is beginning to see an eventual split coming, it's difficult enough to deal with these issues without the added complication of sharing a bathroom sink. If you don't love the guy enough to marry him, why give up the sanity of having your own space? If you're already having doubts it seems that it would be stupid to go the living-together route. Cheers, Jon S.