Dolph

Thanks bro. I can also pull off wearing miniskirts. Draw the line at g-strings though, they hurt my balls.

I just love DZ Comics

Use him. Draw him into your lair and brush thickly a layer of seduction upon his bared, naked soul. Then, once all his energies have been drained and his innermost being is committed to you, you shall discard him like a rotten fruit, not even deigning him with a second glance or thought. The best of it is that you will actually be doing him a favour by making him understand the consequences of his behaviour. Remember to bring salt. In case his wounds need a rubbing.

Billvon owns the PD marketing people. |337! :D

It's pretty simple Steveorino. If my Flying Spaghetti Monsterism started to have real, tangible effects on your every day life, you'd start not to take Flying Spaghetti Monsterism seriously, but to take the consquences of seriously. I find it interesting to talk with believers of various faiths. I do not however offer their faith based belief any more slack than I would, say, a colleagues suggestion on the architecture of a piece of software. Might be rude, because one is supposed to be extra respectful of faith. Why this is so I don't know. Oh, and I am happy that you find comfort and aid in your faith. Respect for that. We're all different that way, though.

Aye, what they haven't learned on their own, their friendly neighbours have provided examples of.

No piss or drug tests here for normal employment. I don't do drugs. I still would object to a piss test. The whole "guilty until proven innocent" assumption of an employer is to me a clear indication that said employer is not one that is compatible with my personal values. Look guys, I don't mean to be disrespectful towards the US. But I do get the impression that things really aren't *that* great in the US, as far as freedom for the individual goes. Sure, you can have guns. But you have to put with a lot of crap that just doesn't happen in many other countries. This would be quite acceptable and not worthy of comment, had it not happened in a nation which prides itself regarding the freedom it offers its inhabitants. You guys never get worried about the development?

Two fold reason: 1. Who am I really to judge who is or isn't a "slut"? Even here in an "open-minded" forum we can't come to a consensus. If I can't reasonably define the word, does it have meaning? 2. The social implications or lack of effect that the word has. Some people look at the word as a negavative connontation, a break of honor.... but then others claim that it can be used common place. Archiac: having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses. Yup. Karen Good points. I think I need to expand on my earlier post a bit. Some dictionaries have it as "sexually promiscuous, one who commits adultery". In this sense, it is far from an archaic word. As far as special cases - the argument can be made about a great deal of words. The widespread use of the word also can be seen as an indicator of it being current. When I use it, it is usually to describe someone sexually promiscuous who's screwing someone behind the back of their partner. I don't feel even a tinge of bad conscience for doing so, but I usually have the decency (if you can call it that) to say it to the individual in questions face, rather than behind their back. The test for words I use, as far as whether they're accepted or not; would you use it in conversation with an important client or customer? Badge of honour or isignificant in the eyes of some nonwithstanding, I doubt I'd be looked upon favourably if I made use of it. As far as "hwo are you to judge?" - who else can judge for you?

Pajarito isn't judging whether you, personally, are good or not. Only God can do that, and the link in Paj's sig line merely takes you to a site that allows you to judge yourself, in a sense, by taking a test based on God's standard of the moral law. That's how Jesus helped at least one man we know of discover whether or not he was "good." [I realize that you weren't addressing me, but I wanted to jump into the conversation. I hope choosing this spot was OK.] This is where we disagree. He is judging me, using God as a proxy. He's a Christian, following Christian doctrine. According to it, anyone not adhering to Christian doctrine is a bad person. Now, everyone is a sinner according to this doctrine - but not everyone is a bad person. Even though Christians maintain it is solely God's duty to judge a man or womans moral character, this is just an idealized concept. Everyone has to judge others unless we want to come to harm because we let ourselves come into a situation where bad people (and I mean really bad people) have an opportunity to hurt us. This is done on a daily basis and I maintain that a non judgmental individual on earth wouldn't last long unless heavily protected by judgmental people. Like me. I discriminate when necessary and sometimes when it ain't. Paj's basis for judgement, for his whole life, is the Bible. If the Bible tells "A", then Paj, by virtue of wanting to be a good Christian, cannot claim to hold "B" to be true. The Bible is the written word of God after all. Bible -> God's words -> Paj's personal judgement criteria -> me a bad person (and to top it off, a sinner too!). You may claim that it is only God that views me and others like me as a bad person. I see it for what is is, however. To maintain that Paj is non judgemental is to attribute God-like behaviour to him - and even if he is a good Christian and good guy, I won't go that far. Judgement by proxy is another way of letting organised dogma dictate behavioral pattern.

I doubt you come off as arrogant (and I've even met you in person). Your approach is one that actually works at times (not all times though). It seems here in our country we have an issue with old time instructors adhering to the 45 degree rule. I've come across it multiple times in my short time in the sport. Of course, you could just deal with the issue like my sisters boyfriend - no matter the circumstances, the amount of people listening, the experience of the person uttering the 45 degree words - loudly say "THAT'S BULLSHIT MAN!". Not sure it solves anything and it may go contrary to AFF1s desire of a courteous community. But, he is right. And it usually spurs a conversation that has a wider audience than just two people. The two different approaches illustrates nicely the wide range of personalities involved - on one side, Rasmack has a low key approach to such situations, attempting to resolve them in face to face talk. J on the other hand just won't stand hearing what he considers unsafe advice given in public and will object to it there and then, immediate feedback. Neither is wrong per se, and each approach is appropriate in different situations.

I saw a 20mph butt slide landing. It was very impressive. And gives a new meaning to skidmarks (in- and outside ones). It can be done. Guy even managed to make it look semi-safe, although I am told the bruises on his behind indicate it was somewhat "physically intensive". Re: not turning low. Right on. It can get ugly.

You don't really want to go down that road. Anti-religious, quasi-pseudo Bobist atheists are a bit sensitive about those types of comments. Just like bald men who're told that bald is a hair colour.

How so? By the way... You ARE the "anti-paj." Becuase it's a circular argument Paj. A logical fallacy also known as "begging the question". In short, the propopsition is assumed to be true in one (or more) of the premises. It's a rather well documented (not to say well used!) one. I am always right when I write posts. I write this post on DZ.com. Therefore, I am right.

Why do you find the word archaic? Because enlightened persons with higher education ought to be reluctant to use it, given development in society since the late 60's, early 70's? I don't feel it's archaic - if anything it has involved to a genderless word. I apply it with equal force against men and women whom I feel meet my requirements for it. Mostly to acquaintances or friends and not always in a jokingly or friendly fashion. It's one of th cry wolf words though, so overused in general it has all but lost its meanings so to me its importance is directly related to who is using it and in what context.

Yeah and I won't click on those html attachments. Argue your own points hairyjuan At least have the courtesy to spend a little effort, instead of the bot-posting attachment. But we're at the same point we always end up at - the believers believe, the unbelievers don't. The believers are kinda miffed about the non believers mocking their faith and the non believers are pretty ed up with being told by the believers that the believers have all the answers in The Book. Kinda like the link in Pajarito's sig line - "Are you a good person?". It kinda annoys me that he judges me (using God as a proxy) and insinuates I am a bad person. That makes me prone to be harsher than usual regarding his faith. Then again, Pajarito himself is a big time sinner, no better or worse. Still, it irks me that he, and others of the Christian faith, has the nerve to call me "a bad person" based on scripture alone. If he at least knew me he could claim I was a bad person because I'm an asshole.

Hey Pajarito, a circle can be pretty one dimensional, no? The argument is stretching it a far bit. My friends have imposed a "only 2nd degree thoughts" rule on me. That means I am only allowed to take at hought to a 2nd tangent and not further because it confuses them and makes me go on and on long after everyone has told me to fuck off. Anyway; when I say stretching it, this is what I am talking about . I'm pretty good at drawing circles. They're not three dimensional though. Nor are they perfect. Are there perfect circles? Perhaps if there were, they would be divine. Perhaps the divine is a perfect circle. The creator, therefore, is a perfect circle, drawing perfect circles. Which would mean earth is a mini deity. Which won't fly, because the first perfect circle told us in some texts (which contain some symbols which are surprisingly not perfect circles) that there is only one perfect circle. Are dimensions related to perfections and if so, is time a dimension? What is perfect time? It must be related to perfect circles and that'd mean that a perfect circle also has perfect time - or timing. Maybe it's not about circles. How about strings? Let's discuss strings.... My point to this jibberish: to most, Bible quotes barely touching some topic followed by "See! It said so in the Bible, many years ago!" makes as much sense as my faith based "facts" about circles. There is a quote about the corners of the world in the Bible. Perhaps you can provide some context to that, especially in relation to circles (mine or the one in the Bible)?

I can see how it is more rational to think the earth is 6000 years old and that a deity planted dinosaur bones, messed with carbon dating and generally was a bit of a funny guy, misleading his poor creations all the way. I've studied enough religions to know not to be convinced by the degree of zeal any one individual practitioner is showing..

Hey Dave, Denmark met the target. That means I can moan and bitch about you American and your gas guzzling anti-environment destroy-mother-nature-gun-loving-war-mongering-imperalistic-crusading ways. Of course, I could just not do the fingerpointing stupid US vs EU thing that creates division when what is needed is unity. No fun in that though. Splitter!

Aue, but a body that is overly muscular will have a lot of weight, which translates to energy on impact. There's a golden middle ground somewhere. And there is pure dumb luck. While I personally believe fitness plays a role, it is hard to determine just how important it is in any given crash-landing. Too many stochastic variables. I'd say "reasonable fitness" is required, which to me means 1 hour of some for of exercise a day and a decent diet. One does not need to be a superhero to be a skydiver, although that does help.

With tracking being such an important skill, it's a bit worrying that a good deal of people are pretty bad at it. Or lazy about it. Maybe I am just spoiled from jumping with the same scrawny lightweight dudes though. I sure would like to see more emphasis on horisontal separation after breakoff - not to mention keeping track of the line of flight when tracking.

Heh, now that is just evil. Dance, puppets, dance!

Flying is flying. Freefly includes bellyflying. At the very least, your FS1 (we have a similar one here in DK) teaches you valuable survival skills, such as keeping track of others, break off, tracking, relative motion, coasting and whatnot - all which will benefit you as a freeflier. If you can't demonstrate safety on your belly, why should someone else risk his or her life taking you on a freefly jump where everything happens faster? Where collision speeds are much higher and instability more likely? I dunno. Makes sense to me.

Now that is what I call a throughout checklist. Apart from condoms, I can't see what ya need except more money. When I went to Russia for three weeks I had my gear, a bunch of clothes I wouldn't mind losing, sleeping bag and a toothbrush and toothpaste. Funny thing is that I didn't lack anything except maybe some sleep. You should be good to go, provided you actually can carry all that stuff without breaking something

Welcome Saw. I know ya from "The Other Forum", where bailing out is something done when the flying hasn't been succesful . Check out http://www.skydiving.org.vt.edu/goodstuff/dictionary.htm for a somewhat decent list of acronyms.

Except that someone who took a break from the sport for 10 years didn't practise, sweat, run the drills for those 10 years. Put in what you want and I'll take out what I need.