Trent

Would that MY town in Texas was one of them. Apparently, elected idiots are scared of the lobby that wants us to NOT uphold our laws. Oh, hello again!

So, it's working already! Excellent! Other states and cities need to step it up. It is absolutely absurd to allow illegal immigrants any special protections or services. There just isn't a leg to stand on for "the other side" of this argument. Oh, hello again!

That's because we're just poor, hardworking country-folk. With LOTS of military bases. What better place to send your tax dollar? Not sure about the world meet. That's a long way off! Oh, hello again!

Meh... doesn't matter who we start with... at the end of the day 70% of them are still on the LEFT side of the aisle. And we don't tax income here in Texas... so Wyatt's income tax goes to the feds. Oh, hello again!

But now I have the knowledge that I made you guys do something. Like remote control skydivers! Muuahahahaha. Oh, hello again!

Interesting read from one of their own, in fact. I'm sure those here who should really read it, won't... but I wanted to share it. While I'll probably disagree with the author on almost all of his other positions... this one strikes home since it seems to me that many liberals are willfully ignorant about the subject. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/ Oh, hello again!

You nerd. See you this weekend. Tell Kim to bring some cupcakes or something. Oh, hello again!

Funny you say that because they actually told us at one point that the factory in Spain would be closed for a MONTH during the summer. I'm a DEALER for them and I'm having problems getting anything out of them. My DZ has 6 tandem canopies that have been on order over 6 months now. Still nothing. When I've called and spoken to them directly, they STILL can't give me an ETA. Something needs to be straightened out. Badly. Oh, hello again!

Thanks guys... I couldn't find any old SIMs laying around. I figured someone here would know... Oh, hello again!

Does anyone remember when the USPA changed the licensing requirements? Like the whole 200 jumps to 500 jumps thing to get your D? Just curious and have a friendly bet riding on it amongst instructors.... Oh, hello again!

Thanks, mama. Gotta strive for something though, right? Oh, hello again!

Thanks! But no, it was only 17 in time. With all the sloppy points though... it COULDA (woulda shoulda) been 21. Another time.... Oh, hello again!

Depends on who the judges are and if they're from hand-holding-pointing-toes areas! But seriously... Thanks to all for the comments. It's always nice to see that people actually like the jump you work all year for. Hopefully it'll get some of you guys to realize that if 3 chumps like us can do it, anyone can! We still need more participation in 3-way freefly... even though we DID have more open teams than 4-way VRW did.... Thanks again! Oh, hello again!

I wanted to post this here because I figured it would be the one thing that *almost* all of us could agree on. Basically congress and the senate will be deciding how to fund aviation in the US very soon. The airlines want to make it easier and cheaper for them (if you think that'll make YOUR tickets cheaper, think again) at the expense of practically killing general aviation (including skydiving). Basically, the airlines want much of the burden of funding to come from general aviation, which would make it so expensive that it would kill off much of the "fun" flying and make it inaccessible to much more of the population. No, it's not about helping rich guys keep their planes and keep it cheap to operate their private aircraft, it's about keeping one last vestige of the American "pioneer spirit" alive. (IMO). Check out AOPA's position (they're on our side) and sign their petition if you're so inclined. It might end up saving all of us from losing a hobby or job! All the pertinent info is available via links on the right of the page. https://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/petition_form.cfm Oh, hello again!

Hmmm... you must not get it. Guess that happens when PC is most important. Because many terrorists are named 'Mohammed' does not mean ALL 'Mohammeds' are terrorists. That should have been pretty simple to figure out. I have the sneaking suspicion that you and others are intentionally missing the entire point of Mark's "pool" because it isn't PC to say that islamic fundamentalism is a problem and is a major cause of terrorism. Oh, hello again!

Right, you got me. There is no link between islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Clearly it is all the West's fault. How could we be so blind? Cultures that TRY to accept different people and religions are clearly the bad guys when compared to those who would behead anyone who thinks any differently. And here I was thinking that the world was turning upside down, when all along it was just me!! Oh, hello again!

The article about the names link is dead. Just a question though... if 'Mohammed' (or some other spelling of the same name) is in the top 10... wouldn't we be MORE likely to see the names above 'Mohammed' in the list as part of these terror groups? Wait, nevermind, islamic fundamentalism ISN'T behind most terror acts. We should look elsewhere. This is the time where someone brings out every liquor store hold-up as an act of terror so we can all feel comfortable with the fact that islamic extremism isn't REALLY a problem. Oh, hello again!

Thanks for coming to Skyfest and shooting pics for us, brother. Glad we met back on the 42-ways... won't be a whacker-line like that again! Remember, when you get there... speed up. Thanks for being one of the coolest guys I've known. Oh, hello again!

PART OF THE PROBLEM! Hmmmm, maybe those whack-job scientologists are right about shrinks.... Oh, hello again!

I never said it was. But asking unrealistic questions in an attempt to prove a point is much less effective than saying, "here's why I think you're wrong." I've never gotten the impression that Pajarito wouldn't be able to reason with an argument like that. That's his belief. He's responding to a thread that asked "Where did God come from?" Again, if you don't believe in it, why do you care? Is he coming to your house saying "sinner, repent!"? I'm gonna guess not. Do you take issue with anyone who is religious because they, more than likely, have some belief of what happens when you die that you will not agree with? I just don't see Pajarito as an "in your face" type of religious guy ala Fred Phelps. He responds usually when someone's asking or getting something wrong or attacking his beliefs. You get into a conversation with someone about their beliefs and they're gonna tell you what they think. That can be done without being completely rude or antagonistic. That's all I'm saying. Oh, hello again!

Like I said... it says more about the person employing that tactic than it does about the opponent or his beliefs. Thinking something is ridiculous and being decent to a person are 2 different things and can be done simultaneously. No one said religion deserves special treatment, but Pajarito deserves to be responded to in a manner that he responds to people in. If he says you're all heathens and that he'll laugh as you burn in hell, respond likewise and no one could fault you. If he responds with honesty and efforts to explain and help people understand (not necessarily agree with, but understand)... I feel he deserves similar responses instead of the usual, "You're stupid because you think we were made from dirt" style ignorant arguments. Oh, hello again!

And yet you feel an attempt to call someone for being biased is anything but hypocritical? Guess it was just a non-point then. I will tell BillVon that being confused or ignorant is not an insult if he asks. I'm sure he has his own ideas of what constitutes an insult. I will not, however, whine about how I have been insulted if someone calls me confused or ignorant. Especially if they're talking about biochemistry or Aboriginal beliefs. And I am as ignorant of it as you appear to be about Pajarito's religious beliefs. I say "appear to," because you MAY actually understand but you chose to put forth the same drivel that many people use when attacking Christianity. Hahahahaha, whatever dude. Try this. If you think his beliefs are utterly incoherent then I'm afraid it is YOU who have not spent enough time studying them. We can play that game all day long. What I think of his beliefs is irrelevant to my posts. How people choose to address his beliefs is what I wrote about. It says more about you than it does him. Even if someone is wrong, his ability to be civil, rational, and not attack someone speaks volumes about his character. Oh, hello again!

Oh, I get it... I'm biased because I don't think like you, but even though you've obviously taken a position... you're totally objective. I see. This is typical. If I were to replace "you" with "one", would that make it clearer? You assume that I'm biased because you think I'm religious? You don't know what I believe. Objecting to people being assholes to someone who seems to be a genuine and honest guy does not make me biased. In case you're wondering, that was an extention of me asking why I'm biased. Hahahaha, priceless. Being confused or ignorant of something is NOT an insult. Biochemistry confused me, so I defer to those who have spent a LOT of time studying it. I'm ignorant of the indigenous beliefs of Aborigines in Australia, so I'm not gonna go and try to convince them that THEY'RE stupid. Yeah, I'm the bully here. I post to say I object to people's snotty attitude towards Pajarito, and I'm the asshole? What's next? Oh, hello again!

Thinking a belief is stupid is one thing. Having the decency and class to avoid ridiculing someone to make yourself feel superior is another. You CAN do both. I don't care if you call any religion stupid. My issue here is with how people treat one person who makes an effort to explain himself decently. But this point seems to be going WAY too far over the heads of everyone. Oh, hello again!

So I can learn more about religion by giving as much weight to people who insult, antagonize, and ridicule someone's religion while he makes a very honest attempt (IMO) to explain it? If people disagreed respectfully and rationally, it'd be different. I interjected because I thought many of the responses were far from that. Oh, hello again!