freeflydrew

I figured I'd post a pic of my Rawa helmet.... I just had the box replaced with one that fits the PC101 and you can flip the camera inside it. The helmet has 2 dytter pockets, one on each side, and is wicked comfortable. edited: I changed this to a "post your Rawa helmet" thread...

Definitely a good job... The only thing that you want to be concerned about is the 2500 feet of altitude you lost while figuring out if you should chop the canopy. I'm sure that this will be heavily debated, but I was taught that if it hasn't opened correctly and is not fly-able, to try and remedy the situation, then go immediatley to the emergency procedures. I imagine this process taking much less than 2500 feet to complete. But, like i said, all in all a great job.

And this eliminates any credibility to the claims of John Kerry. Once again... Curious logic. No logic here, my friend... Don't you understand? Even though Bush has been the President through all this crap in the Middle East, let's blame the Democrats, who aren't in power, or the UN weapons inspectors, who were clearly doing their jobs, or better yet, let's blame the countries who didn't support the war in the first place. You know, the ones who saw no substantial evidence that an invasion was necessary. Remember folks, there were many more countries in the world opposing the invasion of Iraq, but there are only 5 Veto countries in the UN, and that's why we hear so much about the French, Russians, and Germans.. Like our own government structure, the UN is set up in such a way that no one country will take the organization in a direction that is not favorable to the international community. A system of checks and balances if you will. Certainly curious Logic around these parts... I've found it easier to have discussions different claims in the news with people who show a little more objectiveness in their stance, and education in their debating technique, than the people in this forum. So here's the obvious problem here, for those who need it spelled out over and over again: When the US ordered the Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq, there was no one monitoring the stock piles of Iraqi weapons. These were not Weapons of Mass Destruction as some of you believe... that has been made clear by the media and the gov't. They were normal munitions used by the Iraqi military, which they were totally entitled to. With no one guarding these stockpiles, they were there for the taking. Which is exactly what happened. they were taken. Literally, tons of weapons were taken, and we (the US) ordered the people who were monitoring them, to leave the country. Now that wasn't too difficult was it? Why is there any question as to where the problem lies...

Apple PowerBook G4 17" + 12" DVD RW 512, 768 MB 80GB Software: iMovie iDVD Final Cut Pro HD/Express Adobe Illustrator Adobe PhotoShop CS Roxio Toast

Don't tell me... another representative from the military, right? See, its always obvious by the things that certain people write, whether or not they're (ex)military... Remember, my friend, the Iraqis aren't the enemy... The terrorists are the enemy. To say that Bill should join the Iraqis would place him in the category of victim, not enemy. We, as the liberators of Iraq are on the same side as the Iraqis, not on the other side.

No tell me... a representaives from the military, right?

Iraq... I know we started out by invading, liberating, freeing the people, saving the free world from the threat of nuclear biological chemical weapons, democracizing the middle east, removing Saddam from power... Then the enemy over there became the old republic guards, then the insurgents, then the terrorists, then the Syrians are spilling in over the borders along with the Iranians, then the followers of that new leader, you know, the guy in the mosques in fallujah (Sadr maybe?)... I'm sure there were some inbetween, ok, but now we're talking about kiling an al-Zarqawi associate? Which associate is that, and how can we possibly know that a missile strike into a residential area killed someone who is an associate of someone else? Who's the next guy we're after, and who did I miss? I'm having a little trouble keeping up... is it because I read the news everyday, or because I'm not keeping a current enemy timeline? Little help here, por favor. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.main/index.html

Bush has never lied, right?

Hey Kennedy, thanks for making us laugh, again...

You can download it from the itunes music store for 15 bucks...

GO GET THE BOOK.... They're not going to research it themselves, so the point is pointless... Except for the Anvil, who definitely has researched it himself, and has concluded that Bush did everything in his power to decrease the chances of a terror attack within the US and to protect the US, both before and after September 11, 2001... Or did I misinterpret something? (Vinny, you know I'm just having fun with you)

I'm sorry... It's called common sense... You know what I mean? Besides, no one knows what the terrorists are thing. That's clearly a rhetorical question full of wit and enthusiastic scarcism. Did you saw yaw, yaw, yaw? ... yawn

Didn't you see the Fox News report that said that there never was a memo? C'mon Rhino, don't embarrass your self anymore... get in front of a Television and read...err, I mean watch! Must be talking about a different memo...

Please provide us with proof you know what you are talking about when you make statements like this. The only reason the WTC didn't fall during Clinton's Presidency is the terrorist f*ck'd up and didn't use enough explosives. That's it. That's the only reason. The fact the the 9/11 commission and the Iraq survey group both found no link between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam, and we invaded Iraq in response to 9/11 and their "imminent threat" is very logical proof that Bush's response to 9/11 was one that had nothing to do with 9/11. And yes, the WTC would have sustained more damage had more explosives been used, (obviously), and it would have sustained less damage if less explosives had been used... but what does that have to do with anything related to Bush? Nada mucho, amigo... Bush ignored the memo that warned that OBL was preparing to attack the country. In response to 9/11, Bush attacked a country with no link to the WTC. Everyday more soldiers are dying, and the civilian death toll in Iraq has passed 14,000!!! Hello? This election isn't between Bush and Clinton, so stop bringing him up... he hasn't been in office for almost 4 years, and it's time that Bush's reelection be based on his success, or lack there of, and the many mistakes and missed opportunities he's had as a president, and unfortunately, Iraq is quickly moving to the top of that list. To think that Bush's moves since 9/11 is protecting the US because the "enemy" is afraid of being bombed is simply naive and very simple minded... I mean, these guys are doing suicide missions... do you really think they're afraid of being bombed? I don't either...

Oh c'mon, we got Saddam!!! Rah Rah Rah! Hoo Rah, Hoo Rah! OBL is next... this is war... blah blah blah... Dude, check yourself and this US domination fear tactic that you think people are actually afraid... There are countries that are actively building nuclear weapons... there are more and more terrorist goups along with other countries angered by this US invasion on Iraq. The world is not any safer because of it, and if anything, we might as well count down the days to the next attack... You have the nerve to blame Clinton for 9/11 when we know that Rice had the memo and Bush ignored it!!! Where are you coming from? Bush's war in Iraq is quickly becoming a total failure and yet you question how Kerry will handle Bush's mess? Very sensible... Look broh', here's what other terrorist groups are thinking... you ready? If you mess with Bush, he'll bomb another country... or he'll go after the oil... or he'll do something that doesn't have anything to do with the real culprit... And you know why they think that? Because Bush focused on Iraq when there was never a connection with 9/11... A fact that will never change.

you should copy and paste your entire post into a classifieds ad...

And I think the liberals defend what they want to, turning a blind eye to the obvious. Such as a direct example, the NY Times publicly endorsing Franken-Kerry. This is a little too simple minded for me: Those who endorse/support Kerry are Liberal and turn a blind eye to the obvious, which is exemplified by the NY Times endorsing Kerry? This makes a whole lot of sense. I think that the NY Times represents the viewpoint of an Urban environment with a variety of opinions and viewpoints... The fact that they publish articles that includes a variety of viewpoints to a broad politically minded audience, does not make them biased, it makes them objective, and more rounded than most media outlets The fact that they've endorsed Kerry says nothing more than they believe that Bush is not the stronger of the 2 candidates, and that Kerry has more public experience, a better plan, and is better suited for the position of President. They're endorsing the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate, not the liberal candidate over the conservative candidate.

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/masaari/ufutrailer.wmv (12MB)

OK, but if they have writers that are right, left, liberal, green, etc, why are they bias?... It's more like liberal objective or some thing..

I'm not so sure that given the editorial commentary by certain writers like Safire, that it's fair to say that they have a liberal bias. But I'm guessing that you've never even read a piece by Safire, so you don't know what I'm talking about... The pieces that they print are often objective and well rounded, with interpretations and commentaries and articles from people with a variety of political opinion.

I would contact PD directly with this one...

If you disconnect the HD and try to go into the bios, and it works fine, then you know it's HD related... If you remove the RAM and have no problem, then you know it may be the RAM... trouble shootin Windows is relatively easy. I say you disconnect the HD first and rule that out immediatley, then go for the RAM. If it's still funny at the Bios, then you may be looking at a system board problem. Hanging at the Bios rules out software. I'd put my money on the HD or RAM.

i know he did a couple of seasons ago, but i haven't seen him since to confirm...

An honest attempt to being constructive... Obviously going to your rear risers when you're low was the wrong thing to do, as was going to double front when you think you are too high, so the mistake was more likely made before you even started to dive the canopy... Here's my advice: Go back to square one and figure out the right altitude to make a 90-180 degree turn and plain out at the right altitude... This means that when you are a little too high, you don't pull on both front risers, and instead learn to deal with the canopy and the way it flies when you are a little too high, and if you are a little too low, you react to it by giving a little toggle input further away from the planet so you don't go horizontal on it. You can still pull out a nice swoop if you deal with your error high enough. You will soon realize where that ideal altitude is, and the more effecient technique for you to fly from it. Second, don't fly your rear risers until you are totally dialed in on the right altitude to start your dive from. Using Rear risers is just one more thing to think about, and should be neglected when your not 100% without them. Third, Don't aim for the person with the camera... I'm assuming that it wasn't a coincidence that you landed right in front of the person videoing on the ground, and maybe that was a major part of the problem. If someone is going to video you to help your technique, then they should zoom in and out and let you land in a comfortable spot. If your going to try to showboat and be in the shot, then you're asking for trouble. There's a fine line between making people ask, how'd you do that?, and oh my go, are you ok?. Get totally dialed in first, and be a hot shot second.

I used to fly Charles Bryan's old Diamond stiletto... I think the woman who bought it from me still has it...