GreyLake

I was entirely dumbfounded as to whether or not God exists until I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI I've never known anyone to articulate on these matters so simply and convincingly. Let's go to candy mountain.

Definitely the Excalibur and indeed, get the extra teflex sheets. I have 5 trays with a timer and temperature control and it does the trick for me. Let's go to candy mountain.

I brought up those two examples specifically because it depends on who you ask! Some will say they're fine, others, not so much. The "Grammar Bible" says the split infinitive is a mistake (though acknowledges the occasional crafty use of them), and the NYTimes style guide says they're acceptable, but to avoid them. As for prepostions at the end of sentences: you're right. They're generally accepted, but there are many people who still believe that the structure is incorrect, and so you have to point them to the authoratative grammarians, whoever they are. Let's go to candy mountain.

It's a good explanation, but I think it's important that we pay attention especially to these lines (and the specific words I've made bold): In the case of of "I enjoy painting," you can use painting. (Yes, I can also "enjoy to paint," but since I can "enjoy painting," I use the first). On the contrary, in the case of "I decide to paint," I must "decide to do" something. I cannot "decide painting." (I think). Let's go to candy mountain.

I thought about that, but the infinitive "to paint" should also be able to serve as the object of the transitive verb "enjoy," just as it serves as the object for the transitive verb "like," which is why we can say "I like to paint." . . . (I think)! Let's go to candy mountain.

The explanation is simply that English has standard and nonstandard use, and nonstandard use is generally considered incorrect. . . Until mistakes becomes standard, in which case they become correct, and that is how the language evolves. Examples of "nonstandard use" of English include split infinitives and ending a sentence on a preposition. Both are generally regarded as mistakes, and most certainly the split infinitive remains widely despised. However, infinitives are occasionally split in literature so as to shake things up, to make things interesting--which is fine when you've got skill enough to wield the poetic license that would dismiss you from such a crime. Similarly, prepositions at the end of sentences grow increasingly common. I say if it's clever, keep it. . . But language learners will have a way to go before they can play with the language, so for them standard usage must prevail. To become familiar with the written language, a student does best to read it (especially newspapers, certain magazines, and credible literature). It's unfortunate, but true. Let's go to candy mountain.

Wow. This was hard, and the best I could come up with I found here: http://www.sabri.org/Grammar/Consider-L12.htm I don't know that I agree with the explantion provided, however, and it may be that the "mistake" is simply nonstandard use of the language. Phone numbers to grammar hotlines, in case the above fails to satisfy: http://www.tcc.edu/students/resources/writcent/gh/hotlinol.htm Good luck! Let's go to candy mountain.

I love the views. I know that's silly, but it's a beautiful world. . . (That, and I've done way too many solos). When I exit, and see the whole crazy vast landscape below, I know that nothing that happens down there really matters as much as we sometimes imagine--unless it all matters, but that's also comforting. I also love being on a skydive so fun (or ridiculously funnelled) that I laugh, and/or can hear others laughing. Something satisfying in the irony of cracking up whilst plummetting toward the (generally) imminent doom of earth. Skydiving just takes me into the moment; mostly, I enjoy those moments, and so keep skydiving. Let's go to candy mountain.

I just watched episode 29 and that was the coolest thing ever. Let's go to candy mountain.

They don't repulse me, unless maybe they're vast, and then I feel maybe sorry for them. I think it's a nasty cycle, sometimes inspired or perpetuated by ignorance or depression or culture or family or simply preoccupation with other concerns and interests. I've dated chubby people, and now and then I even find women or men who are clearly overweight--and sometimes doubtlessly obese--absolutely beautiful, though that has more to do with their energy, or something. Obesity and cancer both have disrupted or ended the lives of members of my family. So I try to stay healthy. My diet's (generally) exceptional, I think. I could stand to exercise more. But I remember once seeing a big, big woman at an amusement park smoking a cigarette. She turned to her children and said "Hay, kee-ids. Laet's go home an' order a PIZZA!" which I found pretty repulsive. I think the self-destruction implicit in obesity and smoking repulse me. (Well, and with smokers, the smell). If they love themselves, I can probably love them, too. Let's go to candy mountain.

I smoked when I was a teenager for 5 years, as much as a pack a day (I was a naughty girl). One of the things that helped me quit was smelling my hands after every cigarette: Nasty! I haven't smoked in almost 10 years, and it definitely repulses me now. Smokers aren't bad people, they just smell bad. I had two granddads on mom's side die of lung cancer (one smoked, one didn't), and my dad died of lung cancer last year (smoker). My mom and brother still smoke: genius! My mom's tried to quit, but I think she was only reinforced when doctors found that--amazingly--she actually exhales with the same air-to-toxic-crap ratio of a non-smoker. We think her lungs must be teflon-coated, or something. Nothing sticks. . . Or sticks so much that it doesn't come back out. Blech. You know what are fun and shaped like cigarettes? Crayons. If everybody just played with crayons when they wanted to smoke, there'd be a lot more art in this world and maybe some bellies full of wax but that's probably better than cancer. Let's go to candy mountain.

I'm a riser grabber, but I can't imagine how you might accidentally grab your toggles and release them. Was it just a matter of getting your hands or fingers in there just so? In both? Let's go to candy mountain.

I never felt (or feel) like any of the tandems I did (or do now when helping others get their ratings) were mere rides. I learned (and continue to learn) with every jump. I think that, since even before I made my first jump, I've respected skydiving, if that makes sense, as something greater than I can ever know completely. I think that keeps me pretty humble. That, and I'm still starry-eyed in love with it. Skydiving and I are BFF n Evur! There are some tandem students, whether they jump once or twice or go on to become skydivers, who, because they've learned something and enjoyed themselves, have both gotten something from and even given something back to the sport. Then there are licensed skydivers who still manage, even with good numbers of jumps, to be "tourists"--in this case people who reap the rewards of skydiving without respecting it, or caring to know much about it. But I've found a good number of people, I think, who genuinely love skydiving. So far there are enough to keep it rich. For me, at any rate. Let's go to candy mountain.

They've done studies (that I'm too lazy to research the titles of and cite, but you could dig) which indicate that people generally rated as more attractive fare better socially. People tend to pay more attention to them, and treat them in general with more kindness. But attractive people do suffer from other problems. They tend to stress or worry more when they aren't getting the usual attention (i.e, what's wrong with me?), and because they are confronted with more people have to deal with them more, whether they like it or not. Whichever side of the fence you're on, the grass is greener on the other one. Let's go to candy mountain.

Reading the untranslated METARS, TAFS, and PIREPS on NOAA makes me feel like I'm reading a super special secret code, and the message is vitally important. Though I can't say that any of the reports I use are ever correct with enough frequency to inspire much confidence in them. Let's go to candy mountain.

Twinkies? An anvil might serve you better! I weigh about 117 and the other day the boss and I were debating whether or not I should test jump a 170 for him. The ground winds got to about 16 kts or so, and I refrained from jumping the 170. I've gone backwards under smaller stuff. Of course, winds aloft are a different beast, but must also be considered when jumping something that's going to keep you floating up there a while! One of the most important things I've learned in skydiving is knowing when to stay on the ground. Let's go to candy mountain.

I'm also 5'0" and I've made 10 tandem jumps (at different times and for different reasons). Indeed, harnesses are adjustable. Today I jumped (at the same time, practicing for shooting video with) a tandem student and her instructor, and she was a few inches shorter than us! No taller than 4'9". It was her 2nd tandem jump, and again she had a great time. So go have a great time! Let's go to candy mountain.

I like this thread. It's unfortunate that some people are just there for a "ride." I do not call these people students. By the same token, a drogue chucker does merely that, and so may be called that. On the other hand, we do have genuine students (i.e., people who want to learn and know) who are most certainly better motivated, encouraged, and satisfied by genuine Tandem Instructors. Seems to me that a Tandem Instructor has more to offer to any of his "passengers," whether they be students or people just there for the ride. It's silly for us to generalize one way or another. The sport might be all the better (if somewhat poorer) if we had only the latter types, but we do not. That's people for you. Let's go to candy mountain.

I make it clear to students that once they've graduated AFF, they are still students, that they need a minimum of 25 jumps, and so forth, before they can become A licensed skydivers. I explain to them clearly when they begin the program and again when they graduate AFF that they are only permitted to jump with the appropriately rated or licensed skydivers. The AFF instructors at the DZ also make it clear that the AFF program is only the first in a series of student jumps during which the student learns to become a licensed skydiver, at which time they will be permitted to jump with other licensed skydivers. I make sure students understand these things, and let them know that if I catch them up to shennanigans, I will not deal kindly with them. Call it harsh, but I think that while we want to encourage and support our student's endeavors towards becoming licensed skydivers, (and I hope and believe that I do), we've also an obligation to recognize their inexperience and lack of knowledge, and deal with them appropriately. This means keeping them safe, and being so clear as to not let them screw up, where we can prevent it. By the same token, I hope that skydivers more experienced than me would do the same for me. Just part of the learning process. Let's go to candy mountain.

My friend says: "I was wrong once. . . I thought I made a mistake." If the mistake is naughty but delightful, then I permit myself to make the same mistake no more than 3 times. If the mistake is simply foolish, then I fix it (when and where I can), and laugh it off. Along the lines of a cat cleaning itself following an ungraceful plop or drop or scare. And sometimes I make mistakes on purpose, because they sounds so good to my ears. Let's go to candy mountain.

A recent related articles of interest: "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Rethinking+the+meat+guzzler&st=nyt&oref=slogin I eat maybe one meal with meat a month, always the same thing (disgusting and delicious comfort food. I enjoy it, but fundamentally hope to drop it). I rarely buy products made with animal, or products tested on animals. I scrutinize labels. I don't label myself a vegan anymore because I lately break often enough that I'm more of a vegetarian, but clearly can't even call myself that, legitimately. (All this because I've basically been a pussy: peer pressure, you know)? Mass slaughter is unnecessary. Factory farming destroys the environment. Sustainable farming practices and organics could improve the situation, but ultimately farming meat involves the use of vasts amounts of energy in order to produce relatively extraordinarily little energy sitting on my plate. Meat's tasty, sure, but incurably wasteful. I'm not a perfect environmentalist at all. I'm probably a pretty bad one of those, too, lately; I readily admit that I've contributed vast amounts of spent Jet A to our atmostphere. But every bit counts, and no genuine environmentalist eats meat. Those sorts of videos--and I've seen many--always sadden me. When I was younger, I hunted with my father (because game tastes especially good). But dad also, for whatever reason, emphasized that we had killed something that had lived, that we'd taken its life away absolutely; so we'd better appreciate it. It always struck me that probably the best way to appreciate life is to let a thing live & be. Then I've other ethical reasons for not wanting to meat; but since others agree, many of these reasons are readily found upon research, so I'll not detail them here. I've found that My body & soul do better when I don't consume animals. Everybody else can do whatever they like. I should point out, though, that everyone I know who's genuinely tried being a vegan--and maintained a healthy, balanced diet--feels much better for it. Let's go to candy mountain.

I was talking to someone about the use of the word "miraculous" and I meant to play less on its religious connotations, going more with the absurd: not outside the physical realm, but indeed extraordinary. That sort of "miracle." A miracle needn't be divine. (Indeed, science shows us otherwise). Of course physical reality remains what it is; whether or not anyone can determine in fact what it is, or how it works. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about the time before scientific evidence is produced during which a scientist believes that science can prove a thing. You still have to believe that science can prove things. In all likelihood it shall, as it typically does, but you still have to believe that it can and will explain the unknown. On another note, I've seen Jesus in enough grilled cheese sandwiches to know that there's no miracle in it. Again, I think words are to blame here: Faith (according to m-w.com) 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs I mean the word in the terms I've made bold. In this I mean that scientists have faith in science, or take science on faith. Let's go to candy mountain.

Another thing occured to me: There's that time between the occurence of some apparently absurd ("miraculous") event, and the discovery of the scientific reason for that same event. In that space, one believes--or has faith--that science can explain it. Wee! Let's go to candy mountain.

OMG, that article is so fun. Truly. Thank you.

Everything is questionable, and only by being as dogmatic as zealots can we believe that a thing is true just because it can generally be proven. (We can't say anything can always be proven. Man doesn't have the luxury of "always.") Apparent facts, I agree, we'd be silly to doubt. But science doesn't end there. How is the universe able to organize itself so tidily? Some people call it god, others call it science. I truly see little difference, depending on the function of the god. Semantics are everything, anyway. And as for my drift: I'm not confusing things. I'm attempting to remind us of the fact that people--biased, insane, and so frequently mistaken--are precisely those who use science. People confuse science, just as people confuse "the word of god." You can call it misuse. But again, the human element here will always prevent the "perfect use" or application of science. As for explanations in the physical realm: the entire physical realm is explainable by means of a creator, to religionists. But so long as scientists are unable to explain the reason for the existence of the entire physical realm, they will only have faith that science can explain it. Let's go to candy mountain.