DARK

Listen up Mr. 102 jump wonder, why are you replying to me like i'm the one who was asking advice, i wasn't. i was replying to the original poster. Or maybe you didn't realize that was one of the things to look for?? You should have addressed the Original Poster and exclaimed your youthful exurberance with "Art" @ Skydive Store?" "Word" overreaction of the year go jump and chill out

google ' people who want to have amputations'

weather or not it is obvious to you dosnt really matter imo i personally know someone who said they didnt know they were pregnant until 5 months in maybe even 6 i cant remember exactly(overweight person who suffered from what was described to me as phantom periods) now while that is an extreme case it is still the exception that disproves your rule of it being obvious after a month or so my own personal view is that until the baby can survive outside of the womb then i believe it is ok to have an abortion. i do not know when this is but i trust in much smarter people to find that out if someone asks me to vote for no abortion or for all abortion ill vote for all because i believe that having the choice is more important. but if im asked to vote on no abortion always ok to abort and abortion while the baby is not viable ill vote for the latter

have you read the entire bible? i find it very hard to believe that you have and still believe that every single word of it is true and correct and morally correct in fact i jsut saw billvons post........nuff said tbh

im open to correction here but dosnt the bible prohibit contraceptionof any kind and prohibit sex that is not for the purpose of procreation? assuming im right(and the catholic church definitely thinks this is the case) who decides which parts of the bible to listen to and which not to listen to?

Quote"In fact, I'm certain in his mind it's not only justified, but mandated." This is an important point to consider, I think. The fundamenttalist religous movement believes that the west is an abomination, if I understand the fundamentalist religous movement properly. It seems that a hard-core religous fundamentalist might reason as follows. how the west acts causes murder and suffering . this is no different to their own laws about murder the people of the country who support their goverment who murder are no different than the individual who shoots, stabs, or beats to death a fully grown adult. The laws of the USA permit the murder of millions of people every year. We (the the fundamentalist religous movement) have tried to get the laws changed to stop the wholesale slaughter of our people and we have tried to live peacefully in our own countries, but we have failed. Our other efforts, like picketing have also failed to stop the slaughter. There is no other way to stop the blasphemous ways of the west than to destroy the country and their people Therefore, it is my moral duty to blow shit up Would that not be a rational line of thought for the seriously committed terrorist? insert any terrorist organisation as appropriate im stretching but not by much

An answer to what? Quoting helps a bunch. i asked royd did he believe the doctor deserved to die which is implied from his post. you said that is not what he said. thats fine he did not specifically said that but he implied it imo so i asked him to clarify he has not

scientific theories by their very nature are falsifiable in fact it has been said that a theory is not scientific unless it is falsifiable people who like to believe everything in the bible use the argument that these things are theories and not fact all the time. that is one of sciences greatest virtues EVERYTHING is open to scrutiny and verification NOTHING in the bible is open to scrutiny or falsification apparently

and thats their problem right there

i asked the poster a question im still waiting for the answer

so he deserved to die?

You forgot one very important part that changes the entire meaning of the phrase. In the 1950s blacks were not denied the right to marry, they were denied the right to marry whites. That one little word makes all the difference in context. their trait means they will fall in love with someone of the same sex. your heterosexuality means you will fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. you are allowed marry the person you fall in love with because your trait falls in line with the law as it stands. homosexuals are not allowed marry the person they fall in love with because of the law as it stands. 2 simple questions each with a simple answer ....... do you understand that? do you agree that that is wrong?

i have ordered a wings and plan on putting a 190 on it at first my dealer advised me to buy it fit for a 170 and i shouldnt have any problem putting a 190 in it for a while(im a packer if that makes any difference). however i do think he mentioned the fact that pilots pack bigger than other similar canopies and i think he was implying that a pilot 190 would be alot harder to fit in that a sbare2 190 or similar

you dont seriously believe that do you? do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex or would you say that it is a trait? im going to assume that you agree it is a trait and not a choice if it is a trait then it is one that prevents them from being in love with someone of the opposite sex(if im saying any of this wrong or misrepresenting any homosexuals feel free to step in and correct me im straight) as in in-love in the way you are in-love with your wife / so now the law allows you to marry the person you love because it allows you to marry the person you are likely to follow in love with ie someone of the opposite sex the law does not allow homosexuals to marry the person they are likely to fall in love with simply because it is someone of the same sex. they are attracted to that person because of an attraction trait they have its not that difficult to understand and i think you are being deliberately pedantic just to piss people off

sorry bill you are right of course i completely forgot about all the denominations you have in america and how its not like here in ireland were its catholic and some protestants up the north :p i still dont think the major branches will be advocating same sex marriage in the next 20 years either way it has no bearing n me as im neither religous or gay i just think they are going to be sorely dissapointed if they are linking the law change to any sort of inevitable religous change but maybe im making that link up

he is saying everyone should have the same rights under the law, isnt that what the homosexuals want? i am completely pro same sex weddings/civil unions whatever you want to call them but besides use of a word what you quoted does not deny any rights. that word is typically a religous idea, if the homosexuals think that by changing the law they are going to all of a sudden be allowed have big massive church weddings they are dillusional. the catholic church or the protestant church or any other major division of christianity i can think of is not going to allow same sex marriages. if thats what you are fighting for then holding referendums or going to the supreme court is a waste of time so lets assume that is not what you are looking for and you simply want the same rights as anyone else as regards being recognised as life partners and all the legal rights and responsibilities come with it. whats the problem with civil unions? in ireland at least every marriage is a civil union. just because you stand in front of a priest dosnt mean you are married in the eyes of the state(which is actually what matters)

hopefully it means they are starting to move on which is a good thing

Why not? Israel is a market, and it has a well educated work force. Wouldn't it be more racist to refuse to employ them? i think he means israel should refuse to let them trade there due to their history

a company is its people back then it was made of people who were willing to take advantage of a horrible situation now it probably is not( or maybe it is but we wont know until it happens and i doubt it) there have been many and are many companies making billions out of americas numerous wars. are they all as bad as siemens? its basically the same thing it only differs because of scale as far as i know there are still companies who are making money off of americas domestic prisoners using them as very very cheap labour it is not that much different imo but obviously the large shadow of the holocaust will stand in the way of any rational discussion about it

you cant compare the companies of then to the ones that operate now i imagine you would be boycotting far far more companies than just siemens (bmw and volkswagen being the first two of the top my head) and for the life of me i cant remember the manufacturers of the crematoriums but i remember it was a very familiar name there are numerous banks / institutions / companies / organisations that were part of what happened on the german side in world war two. yes they should pay as a company for anything they did that was illegal but you cant imply that this is the opinions they hold now as iw ould be suprised if any of the decsion makers in the companies now were over 18 during ww2 edit; you also have to remember that apaprently hitlers domestic policy and general political ideas (if you leave aside the final solution) were quite brilliant and would be great for germany as a whole so it is no suprise that he had wide ranging support particularly in the lead up to him gaining power

the youtube link provided up the thread is one of them

so you think what the american soldiers did was worse? im not agreeing or disagreeing i just want to make sure you know that that is what is implied by your answer

my father was talking to a man only last week who was drafted into the wehrmarcht during the second world war along with his brother, he survived one night in camp his brother and 2 others were drinking and decided to go out after curfew. an officer caught them and asked them were they aware they were out after curfew apparently they said they were and he executed them on the spot if the german army told you to do something you do it. this only absolves you up to a point however as there are things you have to be willing to stand up to and cowardice isnt an excuse mass mass murder is one of them it is not as black and white as some in this thread would suggest also there was a documentary on the history channel that had the very first aerial surveillance photos of a concetration camp that the allies took i can remember when they said they were took but they had people being led of trains etc so when the allies received these they knew what was happening(the people at the top anyway) but what difference would this have made either way? the germans were winning the war for most of it afaik knowing or not knowing would not have changed that

why do you want to downsize but reduce wingloading? what is your reason for not buying a katana at the size you are currently jumping (i imagine you are jumping something along the lines of a pilot or sabre) one piece of advice on downsizing changing canopies is only to change one thing at a time. assuming your on a pilot or a sabre you are changing size your changing to a fully elliptical canopy and potentially(im not sure if the katana is cross braced) you are changing to a cross braced canopy even if you dont answer the above which is totally fine the reason people here dont accept 'well everyone can weigh up the risks and make their own choice and deal with the consequences' is because A) any death or serious injury is bad for the sport B) people who cant fly their canopies properly are dangers to everyone not just themselves just my opinion as a low number jumper

its a rubbish film but it does exactly what it says on the tin the vampires are lesbians and the heroes try and kill them