dorbie

Members
  • Content

    3,980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by dorbie

  1. OK, here's the thing, I like the Havok, it is exactly what I have in mind and it would be my choice except that my current helmet is a bonehead mindwarp and the padding seems a bit slim and easily compressible. Probably the same for most skydiving helmets but that's my concern.
  2. What are the thoughts on jumping with a full face motorcycle helmet (I have a flip up chin configuration in mind)? I have a big brand open face skydiving helmet now (probably one of the most respected names but I'm not going to get into naming) but its minimalist internal cloth padding is making me consider the better protection of motorcycle lid. Are motorcycle helmets considered too bulky or heavy or inadequate visibility for skydiving? Has anyone tried them? Would anyone recommend a full face skydiving helmet manufacturer with a bit more robust blunt impact protection.
  3. Thanks for the advice, I've made maybe 30 jumps since the injury and things are fine despite there being no ACL on the MRI images. Once the joint swelling and the briusing on the Femur went away things were actually OK and the knee feels pretty tight for every day use, I'm doing physio for it too. I realize I'm risking a miniscus tear or worse if I put too much force on it the wrong way. It's something I'm always aware of now and if I need to run out a landing it is always with my 'good' leg on the first step. It'll probably affect my choice of canopy forever. I saw someone recently who had the op and recovered from it pretty quickly, made me think seriously about getting it. It's elective so I'll deffer for now.
  4. My chosen use of word, from the dictionary: falsehood: Lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy I never called anyone a liar. If I can't post reasonable observations without intimidation I'd rather not post at all. I pointed out a clear falsehood here in terms anyone can understand, the latest of many. Bye.
  5. What! Newsflash, Kerry wasn't opposed to the war in the end (he took several positions). Where would your representation have been with Kerry? Kerry claimed he would fight a more effective war. Maybe you should have voted Libertarian or Green Party. Many Kerry voters were not opposed to the war hence Kerry's calculated position of sticking at it, you co-opting them all to your side of the "split" on your pet issues is just another falsehood among many.
  6. Yea Bush should announce he's gonna reach out to work with the other side. Oh wait he did that and you attacked him. He should have worked with you guys last term on common issues to gain credibility in magnanimous cooperation. Oh wait he did that. Well he should have tried to change the tone in D.C. Oh wait, he did that and even kept Clinton appointees and you've been calling him and half the country idiots for four years and the appointees stabbed him in the back just before the elections with lying expository books. If there's a split it's caused by the radicalization of the left by partisan bile like Moore's film. Your arguments are just more of the partisan nonsense we've had for 4 years attempting to delegitimize Bush as a leader. Like I said if you'd won split wouldn't be in your vocabulary. Look at what happened when Ross Perot shut out Bush, Clinton got in & did as he pleased. Now you're waffling on about a split with an absolutely clear majority. It's laughable, and the fact is the side with a majority doesn't have to listen as much to the other party for now. It's Democrats who need to reach out instead of constantly attacking the President, but I doubt we'll see that. I don't get to vote in the US and I'm not a citizen, but the antics of the left here are downright hillarious when it comes to accepting a valid election result. Admit it, you miss the manufactured ambiguity of 4 years ago and this talk of a split is just a symptom of your yearning for it.
  7. Yep, I saw that & almost posted it myself. It's pretty interesting IMHO. Definitely paints a different picture from the county map with red vs blue.
  8. You maintaining that the country is more split today than 4 years ago despite the numerical evidence and the lack of a prolonged recount is spin. You made an accurate observation on votes in Ohio but it applies equally well to Bush winning even more states elsewhere. When you say split I always assumed you were referring to the plurality that Bush won. Elections in the US can always be boiled down to a few votes in swing states, that's the nature of the electoral college. If you're talking about the electoral college now then Bush won even more handily. It is interesting that American elections match American sporting events in that the rules are rigged to bring it down to the wire. The closest states are always called last and it always seems like there's a few thousand votes in it even when one of the candidates gets a spanking. In this case Ohio should have been called hours before it was but OK it was close. I look forward to 2-4 years of "close" votes in the house and senate.
  9. I don't think it's about wanting war, it's that war is the only apparent means to freedom, most other options are just wishful thinking. Do the people in Iran want 'freedom' and do they have the means to secure it? It's very easy to sit here and say "No War" but sitting here living the good life protesting intervention while people in Iran are governed by a minority of religeous zealots is a cop out. Inaction has consequences too and the situation may be deteriorating. I know that if it was Scotland that was run by some despotic theocracy building nukes and rattling sabres at the USA I'd want the USA to go in and impose democracy before it was too late. It has nothing to do with wanting war, it has to do with wanting freedom & stability in the long term.
  10. True-the Taliban were not reviled for their faith, but the manifestation of it, and their quest to force it on the civil affairs/everyday life of others... Which is EXACTLY what the Christian right is doing by codifying their religious beliefs into civil law. They're Equal. The only difference is what name they use to address God. That's just unfounded bigotry. Everyone has a right to vote their conscience. Nobody today is proposing putting a theocracy in charge of America (except OBL et.al.). The flashpoints I see are Christians being forced to remove symbols from all government lands despite the historical context or the views of the community. All of this on bogus pretexts. Your view does not explain how men of faith came to found America or were inspired to produce parliamentary democracy. Your irrational fear does not make Christians Taliban oppressors. Almost all Americans believe in and desire a country governed on democratic principals, the same democratic principals that Christians brought to the nation. Those early Christians were of course much more radical w.r.t. their puritanical views than any today, just visit Salem for a refresher, yet even back then they built a great nation instead of dragging one back to the Dark Ages.
  11. Seems it's just fine to post bigoted diatribe against Christians by some. I suggest a crash course in strict sharia law as applied by the Taliban. The founding fathers of the USA were Christians who did a pretty decent job of creating something of merit. The founders of British parlimentary democracy did a pretty decent job considering and they were nothing short of puritanical Christian fundamentalists. Many notable historical figures such as Sir Isaac Newton were deeply religous. In fact Newton might have discovered the atom if he hadn't spent so much time studying the bible which he saw as an effort as worthy as studying physics. All of those dead men would undoubtedly be in the camp you label Christian Talliban if they were alive today, but they accomplished things the Talliban could never dream of, nor would they even aspire to it. You're confused about why the Taliban wound up so reviled, it wasn't that they were men of faith.
  12. You missed the mass graves link. But taking your post at face value, give yourself a test, look at the mutilated bodies hanging from the bridge and pretend it's your father or brother. For the record I'm not American and I never thought the injured baby was funny (don't know where you got that from). I think it's morally bankrupt to look only at that baby and say that this war must be wrong while ignoring the context. It's tragic for sure, but there's a bigger picture. The terrorists in Falluja are ultimately trying to suppress other Iraqi's. They don't want democracy in Iraq.
  13. I don't forget the human cost, but I weigh it against the human benefit. Should we tollerate endless attacks from terrorists in an untouchable enclave because they hide among civilians? Post a few images of car bomb and IED victims around Iraq and we'll all have a clearer picture of what this is about. Or how about the gruesome images of the crowds of Falluja residents mutilating the corpses of four Americans. http://massgraves.info/ WARNING: **VERY GRUESOME FALLUJA IMAGES** Do not click if you may be upset: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html It seems to me the US has tried everything with Fallujah including putting an ex-Saddam era general in charge. Now it's time for the last resort.
  14. "Seem" has got nothing to do with it. We had an election, the results are in and it is clear cut, we can compare results with 2000 and arrive at well founded conclusions. What cracks me up is thoughts of the arguments you'd be putting forward if Kerry had won Ohio and the presidency on a minority of the popular vote. Split wouldn't be in your vocabulary.
  15. And why almost just as many voted against him. The country is still split. It seems a lot less split than it was 4 years ago, or even after many recent elections. Some folks passions are running high though, I think that's a fair observation but we heard statements about leaving the country the first time Bush ran. I think it's a symptom of the left believing their own propaganda. It's unfortunate, it's going to make a lot of people miserable for at least 4 years.
  16. Yes, that's one of the main reasons so many people voted for him. Other people perceive these events differently from you. They actually *agree* with the decision to go to war as did the majority of the population at the time. I might add that they also appreciate Bush's consistency on the issue, they even remember what they were thinking at the time and what their leaders were saying. As for going on TV and saying he hasn't made one mistake, it was actually in response to a reporter's question in a news conference at a time when the media was clamoring to pin something on him. The reporter asked him to cite one mistake, an obvious and transparent trap. He should have deflected the question but he shouldn't have thrown the reporter the bone everyone on the left wanted him to. It's not a matter of claiming infallibility, it's a matter of avoiding a political stunt from a partisan hack.
  17. You visited "old Europe", that's where you went wrong. You want to try that there "new Europe" next door.
  18. And that is where you and the Evangelical Christian Taliban part company. You realize it is not your place to judge, they don't... And there I was thinking it was the moderators that did the judging.
  19. You need to lighten up, you also have a strange concept of seniority when it comes to posting.
  20. Jeeze it was a joke and a funny one IMHO. P.S. I might understand if this was some high brow thread, but consider the context.
  21. Male lions fight for ownership of the pride. So do many other species. Primates definitely fight for control and territory. We're just one of them. Ahh, I feel obliged to point out thet male lions are much worse than this. They'll slaughter the cubs of any lone female lion they encounter in the hope of mating.
  22. If Bush had gone into Falluja before the elections you'd be calling it a ploy. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The state of emergency is to check the irrational whack jobs while they deal with an enclave of irrational violent whack jobs for the greater good. It's all about a silly little thing like delivering freedom and democracy. I don't think there's any historical precedent for this, with the possible exception of Napoleon posturing as he invaded Egypt (he was unsuccessfull and the rest is history). It's just amazing how folks in America distrust their leaders despite it all being out there on the table. You saw the ellection and you have the expressed intent ahead of time, you even got to vote on it. you know why we're there and what the intention is but you'd rather believe rumour & speculation about darker motives.
  23. Nice use of color to make your point! He misses his crayons when he's at the computer.