Shawndiver

Didn't watch it, just had to ask! _________________

Well, there are some signs of progress as well... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/politics/02pets.html?ex=1317441600&en=db14c9d4be4bf4d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss _________________

The pug wasn't Otis, was it? Hate to think Willy was conspiring against you... _________________

I went from skydiving to paragliding to hang gliding in 1991. Now doing all three again. As per some of the previous posters, if you are learning on a training hill (as opposed to aerotowing tandem instruction) you will be in the best shape of your life by the time you get off student status.

Gearbag, either tied down or shoulder straps. Do not ride with the rig on your back! Pilot chutes do work loose, and extra pins can be forgotten/overlooked. (didn't they do a horizontal extraction on the new Jackass movie? 'nuff said) _________________

Sorry for your loss, I have a couple over there myself _________________

Unfortunately in this global market it probably means he just has that much more to sell to asia. _________________

Careful with those opinions now, you just might get this thread moved to SC! And everyone knows that Bonfire is only sweetness, goodness and light... no opinionated or judgmental people here! _________________

Absolutely. Ass whuppin without citation = no county revenue. Definitely a fireable offense! _________________

Depends on the subject. These reporters took privileged information from a grand jury investigation and made it public. Their source knew that it was illegal, they knew it was illegal. What was the benefit to the public in this case by releasing this info? That professional athletes use drugs? Hardly a reason to break federal law. But it will sell a pretty good number of newspapers, so it sounds to me that this particular case is more about monetary gain than defending the greater good of society. The reporters say that this will prevent others from talking to reporters and they will not be able to do their jobs. But what about preventing people from talking to a grand jury when they know that the information they provide can be leaked to a reporter who will then use the 1st amendment to shield and justify that leak? If that information provides a clear benefit to society, (corruption, terrorist plot, etc) that would not be known otherwise, I can see the benefit of protecting the journalist who breaks the news. But in this case, I think it is pretty clear that the motivation behind it was just sensational gossip. _________________

My brothers cat is a prolific mouser who loves to play with his food first. Our family got a perfect display of this last November while watching a little mouse body go whirling past the picture window in the dining room several times outside, soon after sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner... _________________

So, as I understand how you wrote it, even if there is a true complaint it may not a problem for the officer. However, if this is enacted, a person without a lawyers knowledge of traffic law could possibly lose their house and assets if they are proven wrong. How can this be even remotely considered as fair? _________________

My question is: As you say, Roberts is an extremist with thousands of followers. However, his views do not reflect the majority of christians out there. But when he made his Chavez statements, his was quickly vilified by everyone from senior government to ordinary citizens, and those views were immediately and loudly made known. I do not remember hearing any information about any other extremist christians having so much as a backyard barbeque to call for Chavez's head in support of Roberts. Now assuming the same about Islam. There are extremists out there, but the vast majority of them are peace loving people. However, when the extremists in this religion speak, it seems just the opposite of the above example. Thousands calling for death and destruction, not a peep from the peace loving side. To the posters out there saying there are extremists on both sides, can you please explain the differences in reaction between the two? And we are talking cultures as they exist today, not going back for examples to medival times. Thanks! _________________

Nope. Never been done. Don't try it! _________________

Don't forget the Disney character.... _________________

Echoing above post, your SL will probably be from the Cessna. I have never seen a SL out of the Beech... Welcome to Lodi!

"Weaseling" would be to bribe or somehow illegally find a way out of the ticket. Hey! Something shiny!

True enough, just pointing out that there are some positive contributions coming from us, per Darius' request. _________________

They don't seem to hate the millions given by America in economic aid over the years. fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45198.pdf _________________

You should see the havoc they create when they decide to march through a hang glider setup area with 20+ gliders in various states of assembly. Thankfully no one was hooked into their gliders at the time... _________________

Hell, the Byron Boogie is the reason I locked myself up here in the first place!!

In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amazon (she can remove herself if she doesn't WANT to come) Elisha Feeblemind Fri. to Late Sat. Afternoon (Prior engagement that evening) McBeth monkycndo Shawndiver---> (peering out nervously from Lodi ivory tower) vdschoor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________

All Wake Island personnel were airlifted to Hawaii. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/08/29/wake.island.evac.ap/index.html _________________

Sorry, no. People following too closely/not paying attention cause accidents. _________________

I think it has to do with a little of both. Citations should be issued for safety violations, when safety is an obvious issue. Then there are the cases where safety is not an issue, but a citation is given regardless. Case in point: Only car on a two lane straight stretch of highway, clear weather. CHP coming opposite direction. After passing, swings around, comes up from behind and issues a citation for 70 in a 65. No safety issue in this situation, purely revenue driven would be my guess. Yes, I was there. How about: Local paper reports that officers handed out 40 citations (at $146 each) in a crosswalk "sting" operation. The police say that this is for "education" and "awareness" for the public. If that is strictly what it is about, shouldn't pulling the guilty parties over and warning them be sufficient? In my experience, just getting pulled over and the embarassment that goes with it is bad enough. I would say that it was more about the almost $6000 they generated in revenue than "education". Not revenue driven? Its all about revenue. 3 years ago, someone broke into my garage and stole a $5000 mountain bike. Police response? One officer taking a 10 minute report and a form letter. How many man hours spent on investigation? None. No bodily harm done to anyone, no threat to society. But they are there to protect and serve, right? No revenue generation, no service. However, when I got pulled over and given a sobriety test, no less than three squad cars with a total of five cops sat around for 45 minutes. I successfully passed the test, including breathalyzer, and was then informed that I had been following the car in front of me "too closely" and handed a citation for $150. Cop seemed pretty dissapointed that he wasn't going to be able to cost me thousands for DUI. (Sorry if I sound a little bitter) Yeah I would say more revenue than safety in my experience. _________________