Jeff.Donohue

Bud? huh?

Hey, man, real Buddhists don't do drugs (or drink alcohol): it's one of the five precepts espoused by the Buddha. (1) Abstain from harm of other living beings; (2) Do not take what is not given to you; (3) No sexual misconduct; (4) No lying or deceit; and (5) No alcohol or recreational drugs. /not Buddhist (I violate #s 3 and 5 daily).

That part that cracks me up is that he EDITED it. Like, he read through it once or twice and thought to himself, "no, that's too confusing, let me fix it... Ahhh! That's it... Perfect!"

Yeah, yeah, I'm not too swift with the "Reply" button. Sorry about that. That's the second time in two days I did that.

I did. I just don't like humans.

Not true (at least in the US). That's what happens if you, or instance, consent to a search of your house by the police (Amend. IV) or knowingly and voluntarily confess in response to a police investigation, after being warned of your rights (Amend. V). There are a bunch of other similar situations in which you can waive constitutionally provided rights, but those are usually with respect to the government, not a third party like a DZO. What you might have meant is that you can't waive your right to bring suit, which is technically true. But it's a distinction without a difference. You can waive the right to recover for the thing you're suing for. So, for example, if I waived my claims against you, I could still sue you, but the first thing you would do is file an an answer to my complaint that attached the waiver, and my lawsuit would likely be dismissed. Additionally, I could have signed a a covenant (promise) not to sue, which would basically say that if I sued you, after having waived my rights, you could come back and (a) get the court to dismiss the suit, and (b) counterclaim for all ths costs you had to incur in hiring a lawyer to deal with my nonsense. * * * In most US jurisdictions (it varies by state), you can waive your right to bring suit against a third party (like a DZO) for tort claims (which is what injuries generally are), so long as the waiver is knowing (in the sense of both "I know what the risks are", and "I know that I'm waiving my rights to sue"). Some states don't let you waive "gross negligence". (Negligence is when you don't use at least the amount of care that a reasonable person would when doing something; gross negligence is when you really do something well in excess of "mere negligence" -- much less likely in any given situation, and certainly harder to prove. Examples might be: forgetting to buckle a student's chest strap might be negligence; telling a student she never needs a chest strap might be gross negligence. The line is a little fuzzy, but for the most part, for it to be "gross negligence", it needs to be extreme.) Most states don't let you waive "intentional torts". An intentional tort could be, for example, I intended to punch this guy in the head, and I did. There are obvious exceptions to that exception, though (e.g., if you both agree to a legal boxing match). Having written all of this, I didn't do any independent research on it and this isn't legal advice. I taught a law school research class a year ago in which I used a bunch of torts and waivers as a homework assignment, and I'm basing my response on my students' responses. I am allergic to plaintiff's lawyers.

Coffee? Yes, have some... Yes, have some...

I second Bill's slate.

You mean, like, mesons? I'm a fan of the stuff it's currently made of, thanks.

Oh, so you were one of those guys who could run fast... Never could get the hang of that...

Well, rasmack, they'll be separated until somebody measures them... Then they won't be...

Nah... Bill Cole has the timing of that all worked out in another thread. But, in all seriousness, in doing a search, I see you're right. I guess a thread whose topics are supposed to be limited to conversial topics is likely to run over the same old ground again and again. Maybe I should have posted about cloning or stem cell research or something. I guess I'll stick to S&T.

Some people use the distinction that you're talking about (basically, "agnostics say they aren't sure, atheists say they are sure"). But I think the terms are somewhat confused. If you're an theist, you believe in God or Gods. If you're an atheist, you believe that there are no such thing as God or Gods. Note the common thing between them (belief)? An "agnostic" would say "there is simply no way to definitely know one way or the other." Note that I don't use the word "believe" in the definition of agnosticism -- it has nothing to do with it. The source of the word helps make it clear. "Agnostic" comes from Greek "a" - meaning no, or not, and "gnosis" - meaning knowledge. Compare that with "atheism", which comes from "a" - no or not, and "theos" -- God. I can't speak for all agnostics, but I would say that my personal belief is that there is no evidence of a transcendent (which is a shorthand way of encompassing God/the divine/life after death/karma, insivible tree fairies, etc.). On that point, I'm a skepdic. To understand the way a skepdic thinks about the issue, there's a great story written by the late Carl Sagan at http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html But here's the tricky part. If we were only limited our discussion about "God, the divine, etc." (you see why I shorthand it with "the transcendent") to that which was physically proven, we wouldn't be talking much about it. The skepdics would be waiting around for the evidence. However, folks who say that there is a transcendent counter with the argument that, for example, "God exists beyond all physical laws," "God acts in the material world but is not part of it, and therefore you can't detect Him using scientific measurements...", or the even less provable "God is love." To that, I guess I am at a loss. If you have a thing which can't be detected (like a bowling ball) or inferred (like a subatomic particle), and which exists beyond the physical and all means of detection, then by definition there is no way to know whether it exists. You can believe if you want, or you can disbelieve if you want. But you can't know. Now, some have commented that all agnostics and atheists do is try to knock down other peoples faiths. That's an unfair generalization: it's the equivalent of "all Christians try to convert your or force their views on you." It's not true. As I've said before, I don't care what you believe, with the possible exception of if you are making social policy decisions that are based on bad science in the name of divine inspiration. As an aside, Kierkegaard -- a devout Christian -- went so far as to argue that if you could prove the existence of God, you wouldn't want to, because proof denies faith; you don't have "faith" in something like gravity, even though you might rely on it. Now, back to the question why I bothered to post it in the first place. I guess I have a couple of answers. Obviously, it is in response to (not a criticism of) the original post by Windcatcher. She announced that she had faith and was proud of her faith. I say, "good for her." First of all, I was wondering what the dropzone community would say to a somewhat less "common" religious perspective. Second, my point about being proud is precisely that: if Windcatcher can be proud of her conclusions, I can be proud of mine, can't I? If I missed something somewhere, somebody please let me know... Third, you folks are my community. I haven't posted much on SC or in the Soapbox because I spent a lot of time in Skydiving Questions and Training. I thought it was a better use of my time. However, I generally like other skydivers, and figure I might as well make a comment like Windcatcher did to say what I'm about. Maybe it would stir up discussion.

Hooker is an absolutely brutal position to play. I generally played wing forward. For those who don't know the game, the hooker is generally a little guy who is held between by two very large guys in the scrum. If you're not very careful, it's a great way to break your neck. I qualify as a little guy (by rugby standards) at 5'11" and 185 lbs, so I had to do it for three games. I was more afraid playing hooker the three times I did it (two in college and once just recently) than I have been in any of my skydives (not that there's all that many of those, yet).

This reminds me of a couple of guys and their girlfriends who came to our dropzone one day when I was on a wind hold. They were looking or a first tandem jump. All of the tandem instructors available that day (I think there were 4) were men. The guys hadn't quite understood the whole "tandem means strapped into another skydiver" thing, and spent at least 5 minutes asking around if there were female tandem instructors (including asking my friend who had just finished her 2nd AFF jump -- now THAT would have been funny). I they got over it, because all four of them went, but it was painful to watch how awkward these guys were about it....

And if you do it without protection, it's called rugby. Or unsafe sex. Take your pick.

I have no idea what the kid on Fox was doing. I didn't watch the show. My knowledge of George Bush's cheerleading at Yale was just that: he was a cheerleader at Yale. I don't know what his position was on the hotly contested pom-pom issue (was he "in favor of a woman's right to pom-poms?" or was he in favor of pom-pom cuts). "I guess you watched what he was doing" was originally referring to GWB, but equally true for the kid as well. Based on some of the college cheerleading squads I've seen, there are some moves in which the guys are carried by the girls. Usually these moves an the finales (the guy is sort of carried by a bunch of girls as if he's laying down -- I have no idea what the move is called). They look pretty hard on the girls, and require some athletic ability, I'd bet. Does that make them morally wrong or something? I'm just trying to figure this out. In thinking about it, using a smaller kid would probably make it easier to do those moves if the girls weren't quite as athletic. Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm not a cheerleader, and I'm not gay (which is I think what you're implying cheerleading will do to the kid). I'm just trying to work out what permitted behavior in your opinion.

I guess you watched what he was doing better than I did. Yes, this is infinitely cooler than pom poms... Oh, and not sure about "nice try..." I voted for him, after all. (Well, in 2000...)

What have you got against male cheerleaders? George W was a male cheerleader, and he turned out OK, right?

Rhonda, Thanks for the further clarification, and that is a fair point; you're right. But you'll note I wasn't saying (in the second post) that it was Jay that thought I was bad; just the authority on the page he sent. In other words, the theology on the page proposed that we're all bad, or at least inherently flawed (doctrine of original sin). I just don't buy that. I guess where I start from is (i) I see no evidence of a soul that anyone can point to (or anything else that I could point to as "me" that survives beyond my death), and (ii) I see no evidence of the existence of "sin", unless you want to define "sin" as "breaking cultural rules/taboos", in which case you're sort of changing the meaning of the word. I guess I am a little more optimistic about humans... I don't think we're perfect -- far from it -- but I also don't believe that we're utterly corrupt. People are capable of doing very good and compassionate things for one another, and very terrible things to one another. But I guess I believe, on balance, that people are generally good. Quite frankly, if I didn't have that belief, I wouldn't get into an airplane! I guess it just depends on what your starting assumptions are.

Pajarito, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what confused me was the link that you sent basically concluded that I wasn't a "good person" unless I shared certain beliefs... My mistake. - Jeff

I have a five year old daughter, and she and I (and her mom) will be visiting the wind tunnel in Colorado in March. Since we live about an hour from the one that is being built in Nashua, NH, we will also be there quite a bit as well, I'd imagine. My daughter has seen videoclips from skydivingmovies.com, and already has an idea of how it works, how to turn, etc. What's most amazing to me is how much she can arch, and how aerodynamic she can make herself. I suspect she'll have a blast, and she'll be better than me in no time (then again, that doesn't take much...)

Pajarito, I appreciate your concern for my well being. However, I wasn't raised in your faith, and I don't share your beliefs or faith now. I generally feel that one's faith is a large product of luck of the draw (where and when they were born). If you were born in the 800s in India, you would have probably been a Hindu; if I was born in the 1100s in the Ottoman Empire, I would have probably been a Muslim. So much is chance. I do believe, on the other hand, that you have every right to have the beliefs you have, which is a point I was trying to make with the "...and proud of it..." post. I simply don't share them. I'm just as proud of where I came out on the subject as was the original poster of the other thread on where she came out on the answer. You're also free to call me a "bad person" and not like me as a result of my (lack of) beliefs. That's up to you. Personally, I don't hold anyone's religious beliefs (or lack of them) as an indicator of much of anything. I've met wonderful atheists, and horrible, but devout, Christians. The converse is also true (i.e., I've met bad athiests and nice Christians). I guess I just haven't found much of a correlation between faith and whether I think people are "good" or not. - Jeff As an aside, my agnosticism isn't a response from ignorance: I've studied Christianity (read the whole Bible, including a lot of the apochrypha), Islam (the whole Koran), Judiasm (anyone want to talk Maimonides?), and a bunch of other religions, ranging from Zoroastrianism to Zen. I just don't feel that I have a need for the transcendent, at least as it manifests itself in religious thought. The only universal truths that I've found are math, and even that's up for debate.

Rehma, Your post wasn't the one that made me question some people's sanity. Sorry, it was inadvertantly "replied to."