muff528

Members
  • Content

    4,127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by muff528


  1. Also, targeting objectives determined how the bombs were to be released. Sometimes a "salvo" was required. This meant that all bombs were released "at one time" (as closely as possible). Sometimes they were released sequentially but spaced differently depending on each mission objective. I think, at least for the B-17s, that the release mode was "preset" by the armorers prior to each mission as determined by the mission planners, but I'm not sure about this.

  2. First, I'm not sure I get it. Is it the dancing guy or is it the person he's dancing behind who is supposed to be the silly looking one?

    Second, that fall really looks like an NBA flop. If I was a ref, I'd have to fine him. Maybe it's just the angle of the video.

  3. Fresh white bread. Sometimes, toasted is good.

    Peanut butter must be one of the Jif, Peter Pan or, Skippy "full flavor" varieties (no sugar free, natural, organic or otherwise pasty or bland "healthy" types for me, please). Creamy or chunky is OK ...surprise me! Doesn't matter whether it's on one or both sides. Just don't overdo it.

    Jam or jelly or preserves are OK. Choose from grape, strawberry, guava or apricot. (Again, use only the "good" kinds.) Don't overdo the J, either. Sliced bananas are good, too, although I have used the whole banana as is. No over-ripe nanners, please. Any brown spot will define the limit of ripeness for me. (If any bananas have brown spots, use them in banana cream pie or something. Just don't tell me you used rotten bananas and I'll probably eat it.)

    The sammich can be cut or not. I will not notice or give it a second thought either way. But, if I make the sandwich, I probably won't cut it.

    Most importantly .... Don't get PB in the J jar and don't get any J in the PB jar.:P Besides being nasty looking, it reveals a cavalier attitude towards food preparation and will make me wonder if you accidentally dropped the bread on the floor or licked the knife or something.

    Other than that, I'm not picky.


  4. jumpsalot-2

    Five liter V8 sounds kinda small for racing ( 302 cu in "Ford"). I would think more like a 6.3 or bigger. ( 383 cu in "Mopar")



    Different sized engines ran in different classes, more or less. But the 302 engine for the Z28 was not your average stock driving-around-town production engine.

  5. SkyMagilla

    ***Yep. Who decides which citizens are too mentally unstable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? Who appoints or allows that person to make that decision? Who decides what parameters must be met to allow or disallow rights? What political views might be deemed to be too extreme to allow gun ownership? By whom? Too much room for persecution. Then there is the whole question of reinstatement of rights and who might bear responsibility for the consequences of any decisions made, one way or the other.



    We already do that kind of thing with parole boards, which release former criminals from prison back into society. They don't always get it right, but at least we recognize that some people have earned and deserve a second chance at freedom. Gun rights or any other kind of rights should be no different.

    Whether we do or don't restore gun rights, or any other rights, to convicted felons who have committed known, specific crimes is another question altogether.

    I'm more concerned with by what measure, and by whom, a person is denied rights because of alleged/diagnosed/deemed mental "issues" ...whether caused by brain damage, drug abuse, genetics, etc. or whether it is decided, by "someone" that a person is mentally unstable because of some event (restraining order), lifestyle (dz bum), or belief ("kill all the rich people..."). I'm only saying that it's probably easier to deny certain rights than it is to restore them because no one would want to take responsibility for deciding to restore those rights at some future time knowing that "mental instability" was the original alleged reason for denying those rights. Just look at who is now being sued in the Sandy Hook case ... an example of suing anyone who might have even a tangential connection to those murders. A person, who signs off on restoring even an unjustly-accused "crazy" person's gun rights would also be exposed, whether that person is a medical/psychiatric professional or a 9-5 paper-shuffling, rubber-stamping bureaucrat.