thirdworld19

I went through Skydive Spaceland's "A License in a Week" - I'm the one from Egypt (American living abroad). I was in Houston for work earlier this year and did my first 4 tandems there. After I returned home, I couldn't stop thinking about it and watching my video. I finally decided to get my A license and I wouldn't go anywhere else. Because I was flying in specifically for that, I could've gone anywhere in the States, but I just felt very comfortable with the staff there (the DZ itself, safety conscious, helpfulness, equipment, etc.). I planned to be there for 12 days - just in case (flying in from Egypt is expensive), but it turned out not to be necessary. Shortly after I started there were 4 guys (2 from out of state) who did the same thing - all 5 of us getting our licenses in 7 days or less. I will say that it can be rough physically - using some muscles you haven't used before. I am in my late 30's and I was a bit sore that week. I did have to redo one of my levels - 2, maybe 3 times. Frustrating, but necessary. And I'm very glad I did. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

Sorry, can't cut it down to 3: Malcolm McDowell John Malkovich Sean Connery Gerard Butler Johnny Depp Ewan McGregor Liam Neeson Christian Bale Russell Crowe Josh Holloway Shia LaBeouf Daniel Craig Clive Owen

Yes- however deviants are all based on perception. I understand what you are saying, and it was a tad left field on my part, but I call everyone a pervert to even the plane. There are groups that think sex is just for procreation and not for instant sexual gratification. While the believers of this might be small in numbers, would that make them perverts because they deny themselves a casual orgasms (other than the male) and just utilize the male orgasm strictly for procreation? Those perverts! Yes, according to the definition, that small group would be perverts. They deviate from the norm - doesn't matter which way.

Are you saying that we had no human rights violations before Bush? That would be awfully naive. You don't think the world was against us before Bush? That would be awfully naive. This is not to say that Bush didn't carry it along just as the other presidents, but it certainly didn't originate with the Bush administration.

This may be off topic, but I find these reports (at least based on what is posted here as I have not read the reports) being akin to a trial without the defense. Not being a doctor, what physical or diagnostic test can be run to determine that someone was stripped of their clothes or spit/urinated on. How is a test going to determine that the bruise someone has is a result of "torture" versus putting up a fight with the guards. (Kind of like a man going to trial for rape and because his semen is found in the woman, he is guilty. Couldn't possibly be that she consented.) First, we need to define torture. According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." I'm not sure how stripping, being shackled, or being spit on (among others listed) fall under "severe pain or suffering." Of the eight items mentioned in the news story, only three actually look like they may be actual torture (sexually abused - if it includes penetration, shocked, and beaten). The addition of the other five items is for emotional reaction and not helping the case. According to one news report cited, "There's no way to know whether any of the inmates may have had medical or mental problems before being detained." However, the report states, "We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering." Anyone with any sense should be dubious of this statement. The doctors have no baseline, so how can they possibly be making this statement? The US has been torturing (or training for it) for many, many years (long before the Bush administration) and I don't see it being a significant hindrance so far in foreign relations. Do you really think the heads of states that tolerate torture in their countries are going to cut off diplomacy efforts with the US because of these 11 cases? I doubt it. There is far more to be gained for the majority of the people to allow this to impact much. Although, if there are any cases, please point to them - where this has impeded the advancement of US foreign policy (and it would be far more credible if the cases were prior to the Bush administration - I believe you understand why). As far as a commission, I am too cynical to see such a commission be fair and balanced. I believe there are far too many people in high places that don't want to lose this tool from their tool box.

Actually, a pervert is one whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable. I would tend to think that most adults believe that orgasms are perfectly acceptable and not a deviation from the norm.

That doesn't sound crazy does it?

Actually, the largest deficit came during WWII - because you really have to measure it as relative to the nations economic output (GDP). In 1943, the deficit was $54.3 billion, which equated to 30% of the wartime economy. (And don't read into this post that I am somehow saying that the deficit is not incredibly high now - didn't say that, not saying that).

But you did make a claim, and that is what I am asking you to prove/support. Simple really. And this is where we disagree. Keeping people ON welfare is stupid and irresponsible. Don't know. Never said that. You may want to stick to the actual discussion. Please explain why you believe this. If the US wants to stay competitive with the world, we need to do something. And maybe with some of the lower skill level jobs moving overseas, people here can focus on higher level functioning. Just a thought. Let's discuss. Again, you are claiming I said something when I did not. But, just to throw an idea out there, there are many people who do not "work" for others. There are other ways to make money besides having a job. It's possible to maintain a lifestyle by being entrepreneurial. But, many people don't like that amount of risk and are willing to trade some freedoms for job security. Maybe you should reply to him then. And to clarify again, there was NO implication that those who choose not to work (the people I spoke with) are welfare cheats. I had no idea whether they were on welfare or not, just that they were homeless and living off of begging. But back to the main point, who decides what our taxes are spent on? Obviously you and I disagree. So, how can we get millions of people to agree on how taxes should be spent? Maybe we could each fill out a checklist when we prepare our tax returns stating which programs we would like our money to fund.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you tell me you've seen a UFO, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to prove that you didn't. If that's the case, then Kallend needs to support his claim that taking away the welfare programs will result in people dying of starvation in the streets. I'll wait to see the studies to support that claim. Is your charity going to support them? In case you hadn't noticed, we are exporting our jobs overseas at an increasing rate (something the Bush administration approves of, see Economic Report of the President, 2004) and unemployment is rising. Pretty naive to assume that a job is automatically available to anyone that wants one. It's also pretty lame to blame welfare and welfare cheats for our economic woes. Welfare existed BEFORE the huge surge in government spending under Bush. (Or are you claiming Bush is responsible for a sudden and undocumented rise in cheating?) 2nd request - Please post cite to support your claim. But, unlike you, I will continue with the discussion. I guess my point is made. I am going to assume you are a taxpayer. With that, we have very differing opinions on how OUR taxes should be spent. Who decides? To discuss your points - (1) We didn't start exporting jobs when Bush came into office. It had been happening for some time - it just may not have affected you yet though. So now that it does affect you, you want to gripe about it - fair enough. (2) I never said anything about jobs being automatically available to anyone - please show where that came from. (3) I did not blame anything on welfare. I simply stated that I thought it was an area of government spending that should not exist. And, not sure where you got the whole "welfare cheats" from - I never said that, nor implied it. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you tell me you've seen a UFO, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to prove that you didn't. If that's the case, then Kallend needs to support his claim that taking away the welfare programs will result in people dying of starvation in the streets. I'll wait to see the studies to support that claim.

What's really sad is people not taking responsibility for themselves and their families. It's really sad to see generation after generation on welfare of some sort. These programs do more to keep people down than they help. Sometimes people need that push (not having the safety net) to motivate them to be reliant on themselves and not the government. I don't know how many homeless or down on their luck people you've spoken with, but I've done my share. Every single person I spoke with was more than capable to work. Most of them didn't want to. They made more money begging - and they didn't have to be accountable to anyone else. They enjoyed that freedom more than the weekly paycheck. 2nd request: Please post a cite to these alleged studies. I don't have a cite for the study - so it must not have happened. You can go on ignoring the rest of the post now.

What's really sad is people not taking responsibility for themselves and their families. It's really sad to see generation after generation on welfare of some sort. These programs do more to keep people down than they help. Sometimes people need that push (not having the safety net) to motivate them to be reliant on themselves and not the government. I don't know how many homeless or down on their luck people you've spoken with, but I've done my share. Every single person I spoke with was more than capable to work. Most of them didn't want to. They made more money begging - and they didn't have to be accountable to anyone else. They enjoyed that freedom more than the weekly paycheck.

So what role do you think the following had, if any, with regard to Libya: Their people were starving because of economic sanctions. They gave up their WMD shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, realizing that the current administration were not a bunch of p*%$#@ as they had been during Clinton's years and they would back up their sanctions if necessary.

I don't know if you've heard of this thing called inflation, but we pretty much spend more on everything now than ever. If there is ONE thing society ought to stop bitching about is how much we spend on education. The sometimes freaky details of exactly how we spend it on education is another thing entirely, but the actual amount is trivial when you consider it's the future of your kids and society as a whole. I would agree with JohnDeere - I don't think it is up to the government to educate my children. There have been studies performed regarding money and education. They threw all kinds of money at some school districts for something like 15 years to see if that helped (test scores, rates of graduation, etc) and it had no effect. I also don't believe it is up to the government to ensure that I or anyone else has health care (or welfare/food stamps for that matter). The government is far too intrusive into peoples lives. I think this is a significant issue when determining what government spending is essential. Others may feel that welfare (or whatever program) is essential and want it funded with my taxes.

Just curious as a newbie, but of those people who have to take breaks due to recuperating, are the injuries skydiving related, normal wear n tear, or injuries from other sports or other issues?

I think I'd rather see them all tie their pant legs around their ankles and drop angry ferrets in their pants. The one who lasts the longest wins.

I'm not sure where you get your info, but I believe that English is spoken officially, as a first language, in more countries than Spanish. (Spanish and French are 2nd and 3rd in numbers of countries.) In addition, even if it's not an official first language, most business throughout the world is done in English. Mandarin is spoken by more people, but I don't know if I would consider it the most commonly spoken language. Define common. It's spoken as a first language in only 11 countries. Common in one country, but not throughout the world. It sounds like most believe that it's good to learn a 2nd or 3rd language - in order to communicate with others. So, why not make it easy and have one main language - English, the official language of the world? And start with the US. Speak whatever you want with family and friends, but don't expect signs, forms, etc. to be in anything but English. I have friends who are married - one is French, the other Chinese. They both know English and that is their common language. They know very little of the others native language. I've done a fair bit of traveling, and almost everywhere I've gone, English has been spoken and understood. If the point is communication, what's wrong with one language for all?

Yes, an atheist can do whatever they like morally - just as any other person on this planet. What stops any of them from doing something "immoral?" Just because there is a list of do's and don'ts doesn't mean that any one person will adhere to them.

If you think atheists can 'morally' do whatever they like, you have an incorrect view of atheists. I don't need a god to tell me that it's not OK to rape someone. I base my morals on what is best for me, my family, my friends, my country, and my world. Someone else mentioned the golden rule - works for me. If you need a god/police state to tell you right from wrong, then you probably need more help than that. Maybe that's the problem you keep searching for. The fact the so many people can't think for themselves and rely on something greater to make their decisions for them - and then slough off the responsibility/consequences on that something greater.

AMAZINGLY SIMPLE HOME REMEDIES 1. Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold while you chop. 2. Avoid arguments with the Mrs. about lifting the toilet seat by using the shower. 3. For high blood pressure sufferers: simply cut yourself and bleed for a few minutes, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. Remember to use a timer. 4. A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button. 5. If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives, then you will be afraid to cough. 6. You only need two tools in life - WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape. **Daily Thought:** SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. THEY'RE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS

FYI - Madrassa just means school in Arabic - we get the negative context of the word from our lovely media. So I would say, yes, I would like my kids to attend a madrassa/school. But, that's not to say that there aren't schools out there teaching fundamentalist ideas, but they are called madrassas just like any other school, regardless of what they teach.

Science is not a process done by concensus. Remember your earlier example of Galileo, when he published his ideas they were challenged heartily. I think you missed the point of my post here. I fully agree that science is not done by consensus. I was the one to put forth that proposition in this post. What I was doing above was answering someone else's post who stated that there is a consensus because there have been no other peer reviewed studies rebuffing the claim in the past 5 years (do you remember, you answered my reply on that - bear shit rubbed on you...). I am not making the consensus argument, just poking holes in someone else's. I did see that - thank you - sorry I didn't respond sooner. Again, the ideas & experiments on climate change go back to the late 1800s. Is that your definition of a "bandwagon"? The bandwagon changes from time to time. It was an impending ice age not too long ago. And now it is the global warming. We didn't have it right back then, and only time will tell if we have it right this time, although I seriously doubt it. Yes, money is changing hands -- I'm of the opinion capitalism is a good thing! Do you hold a different opinion? The leading area of US investment for venture capitalists last year was "clean tech" including things like solar enery, according to Steve Forbes. I guess you differ from most of the others who view money changing negatively - especially when it involves oil companies and a normal profit - a gross profit margin smaller than many other industries. Or do you want to direct who should be handling the money? Some of have done the things you're describing. Public transportation, walking, choosing to live close to where I worked so I could bike. (I also like the excecise, but that's a indirect benefit.) Participating in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, which rely on locally grown produce. That's wonderful that you're doing that, but I would guess most are not. It's a false construct -- altho' a rhetorically powerful one that has been used in many of the debates I mentioned above -- to portray the only option as a dystopic vision, in this case return to 17th Century way of living. Please explain how it is a false construct. If the big problem is CO2 and the industrial revolution, shouldn't that change? You do realize that it didn't take the industrial revolution for humans to have a negative impact on their environment sometimes to the ultimate demise of cities or whole civilizations, e.g. Cahokia, Anasazi, Catalhayuk, yes? Again, it wasn't me who said that the earth was doomed... Yep, that's the problem -- the hard personal choices and policies which are the crux. And hindsight is glorious -- if the 1970s, policymakers would have decided to invest strongly in basic research for solar technology, fuel cells, fusion (the real kind like the Europeans have been barely keeping going), algae-based biolfuels (get away from the cellulosic, unless its kudzu) imagine where we might be now? (I can think of one >$110B, yes billion, program that I would put to the top of the list as a candidate for better investment for Americans and national security if it had gone toward the areas I just mentioned ...) VR/Marg I would agree. I don't think it's good to be dependent on oil/coal. I wish more research and money had gone into nuclear energy. I still wish that. But that was/is a political issue. It is also a public perception issue that needs to be overcome.

No, it's basic physics that we cannot stop using energy. All we can do is conserve and seek alternative sources. Also, you can't seriously be relying on Hansen: Okay, I've sifted through dozens of sources, and don't recall Hansen. Where did I use Hansen as a source. I can't seem to find any such reference in my post. Post #222 - and when talking about stopping using energy, it's ridiculous that you're wanting to suddenly be so literal on this point.

[replyNo one can stop using completely. We burn energy simply resting. All we can do is stop wasting and seek alternative sources. To say we burn energy simply resting is a cop out. We can stop using, no reason not to except conveniences. Also, you can't seriously be relying on Hansen: