Jake Di Vita

They both have the capacity to confuse the hell out of people.

Same here man. Thought they did a damn good job.

Yeah, afterall the Manning family has crushed your hopes and dreams for a few years now haven't they?

I dunno what Titus is, but he looks like a brute.

Yep, my Father owned the same machine. I don't really care about their business policies...I will use whatever enables me to finish my job with the most efficiency. I should have stipulated that there isn't much difference when you get into the actual program (although macs are a hell of a lot less buggy, and there are also way fewer virus problems). In engineering environments, I really have no idea. As far as desktop publishing...give me a mac every time.

I've worked on computers literally for over 15 years out of the 25 I've been alive. Macs are much more user friendly and stable than PCs. And let us not forget what Windows was built to mimic.

lol I couldn't be happier. My two favorite teams are in the super bowl. I love the Colts, but on this one, I have to root for Drew Brees and company. I won't be upset regardless who wins.

In my experience, it doesn't matter how you pull the trigger as long as you can do it without disturbing the sights. Experiment with Duane's advice for sure, but remember that all that truly matters is that the sights are on the target when the bullet leaves the barrel. The means you use to get to that end aren't nearly as significant as ensuring you get to that end.

If your bullet is not impacting where you believe the sights were when you fired the shot, the sights obviously weren't where you thought they were. As long as the gun in functioning properly (99.999% sure it is), the bullet will go where the sights are when it leaves the barrel. There are no exceptions to this rule for the type of shooting we do in USPSA.

The thing is, when people complain about the difficulty of the shooting, often we tell them to practice until it is a non-issue. I don't see why we can't and shouldn't use the same response when people complain about the physicality of a stage and when you consider how long most people have been treating themselves like crap - well it just isn't going to happen overnight. Like anything worth doing, it isn't easy and isn't supposed to be. Oh I'm sure we'll hear every excuse in the book for why people can't do that, but the fact is it took me many years of shooting to become any good at all. Ron, Man, I'm proud as hell of you. PM on the way.

You'll get the most mileage out of practice, patience, and awareness. You might try increased aggressiveness in your stance as well.

The bottom line is the bullet is leaving the barrel when the dot is 7 o'clock low. It doesn't matter if you are shooting the gun upside down with your weak hand....the bullet impacts where the sights were when it left the barrel. Full stop. End of story. That just simply isn't true. There is nothing about an Open gun that makes it point differently than a Limited gun. In fact usually, it's the exact same platform. Any difference is in your head.

How does that create an un-equal playing field? Lowering course design to accommodate the lowest common denominator is defiant towards the purpose of competition; which is of course to divine the best performers through a series of equal tests. What constitutes an equal test? I'd say equality in testing is chiefly in ensuring all competitors negotiate the same course of fire. If some people can't do it - they quite simply aren't the best practical shooter at the match that day. They can either improve upon that if they desire to, or not. If shooter A is losing time on shooter B because he can't run as fast, how is that any different from a shooter being unable to make a 25 yard head shot? Remember, this is practical shooting. Can you think of something more practical than some physical stress while shooting? Wouldn't that physical stress create a bigger separation in competitors - especially at the M and GM level? Not to mention it gives stage designers a whole new array of options to use. Yes that makes it harder, and people who have issues with their fitness will have to take than into consideration when preparing to shoot a match. Some people will take that challenge head on and improve their fitness and ability level to where they can compete with the best shooters in their class or division, some people won't. That's fine...everyone can't (and shouldn't) win. But all of a sudden that creates a gateway for shooters to push themselves even further to be better. The cool thing is, this effects no one in an adverse way. People that shoot for love of the sport will be there regardless. They may or may not attempt to negotiate the obstacles, and would take their licks accordingly. I've seen many elderly shooters choose to take a penalty instead of going through a cooper tunnel. They didn't complain about it. I'd contend that the people who choose not to negotiate the obstacles, likely wouldn't be winning the matches regardless. People that shoot because they love competition will embrace this whole heartedly because it makes winning more difficult - and thus more rewarding. In regards to the Range Officers, the difficulty of their time running shooters can easily be mitigated by good course design. You don't have to make someone run 100 meters in order to make a stage physically challenging.

The intent is still trying to stabilize the arm....Illegal. What happens if a shooter tries to intentionally run into an RO during a CoF for a reshoot? Whether he succeeds or not, it's unsportsmanlike conduct right?

In theory it stabilizes your arm...in reality - it really doesn't. If the reason your are doing it is to help stabilize your arm, then you are by definition, defying the rules - regardless of whether it works or not. With that said, what other possible reason would there be for this technique? Personally I'd prefer all my competition doing this, but that doesn't make it legal.

Musings: Jets Vs. Bengals. Didn't watch much of the game...from what I did see, the Bengals offense just couldn't click. Bad day to have a bad day. Eagles Vs. Cowboys. Vick throwing a 76 yard touchdown was sweet, other than that the Cowboys beat them in every area of the game. Should be an interesting test against the Vikings next week....I wish they were playing outdoors lol. Ravens Vs. Pats. Man the Pats looked like whipped dogs. I didn't like Tom Brady before and that hasn't changed, but he's really gotta man-up next year. It makes me sick to see a QB complain to the ref about a totally legal hit (not necessarily in this game, but through-out the season). I'd like to see the Ravens go to the Super bowl just so I can see Ray Lewis foaming from the mouth. Packs Vs. Cards. Kurt Warner threw for more touchdowns than incompletions. 'Nuff said. If the packers scored 45 points on them...they better pray Drew Brees isn't on fire.

The QB is the only person who touches the ball every single play (except the center obviously). One person might not win the game by himself, but a team can definitely lose without their star player.

I believe that is called restriction of free trade, which if it is, is not binding. To my knowledge.

Split the discussion out of the hate topic.

Big words...better be willing to put the work in with them.

Hey man, I know of a very prominent shooter who's Dad used to slap him and throw rocks at him during practice in order to develop focus. He has a small flinch of his head before leaving every position lol.

...Does your head sway uncontrollably if you don't?

The other question is why do you feel shooting like that gives you an advantage?

The above poster's situation makes a lot of sense. Dairy causes an incredibly potent insulin response. Well let's see... The FDA is wrong about the food pyramid. This is quite easily conclusively proved (the research is out there if you are interested). We live in a society that prefers to medicate symptoms than treat causes. Why? See below. The prevention of disease is not good business for pharmaceutical companies or hospitals. When we consider these things and remember that most medical research is paid for by pharmaceutical companies...well - it seems pretty obvious to me. I never said dehydration isn't a factor, but it sure as hell isn't the baseline reason. For Christ sake, if you pee yellow you are dehydrated. That sure as hell doesn't mean you are going to get a kidney stone. Assuming that dehydration is a main cause of kidney stones just because some people who have kidney stones are dehydrated is not a really justifiable position. I bet if you were to take 50 people whom have had a history of kidney stones and had them log their nutrition for a month, you would see some stunning similarities. To use another analogy, if you don't want to get sunburned....stay out of the sun. If you don't want kidney stones (or the vast majority of other disease) don't eat a diet that creates the environment for those problems to thrive. Most kidney stones form from calcium oxalate correct? Where does calcium oxalate come from? Calcium oxalate comes from an excess of oxalic acid. Oxalic acid is manufactured by the oxidation of carbs and glucose. Lets go with uric acid stones next (which form in the absence of dehydration). Increased dietary acid leads to increased endogenous acid production in the liver and muscles, which in turn stresses the kidneys. The acid load to the kidneys is handled less than optimally because of insulin resistance and renal fat infiltration. Both of those things impair ammonia excretion. The result of this is that your urine becomes quite acidic. Uric acid is insoluble in this environment which in turn forms crystals and stones. Uric acid crystals also promote the formation of calcium oxalate stones because they act as seed crystals. So what do we see here? A diet high in carbohydrates and high in omega 6 fats (nuts, the fat from grain-fed beef) greatly increases the chance of kidney stone formation. Something that wouldn't happen with a low carbohydrate diet, a good omega 3 to omega 6 fat ratio, and lots of veggies.

How do you figure? It's easy to perform any movement incorrectly, but that doesn't mean it is inherently more dangerous than another. You can hurt yourself with anything....the formula is: don't know how to do it, and add a lot of weight. As I said before, the kip is a completely controlled movement and allows you to accomplish more work (force x distance / time) than deadhangs. That isn't to say deadhangs don't have a place, but you will be much more well rounded if you do both. What is meant by that statement is when it comes to the 10 general physical skills, whatever needs you have become degrees of each one of those skills. The movements never change. While a soccer mom may only be looking for functional competence throughout the 10 domains, someone like you may be looking for functional dominance. Either way, you are doing the same movements at high intensity - it just depends on how far you take it. I don't really have a problem with periodization...unless you are police, military, fire fighter and don't have the luxury of knowing when or where the fight will be or what you will be doing in it. CrossFit is not meant to build the strongest athletes out there, it is meant to build the fittest athletes out there. You and I both know that the guy with the 900# back squat will probably be finishing a mile in around 15 minutes while walking. I don't think that's what you need either. The idea of crossfit being an open source community is that all the other affiliates can decide what they want to do and see what works best with measurable, observable, and repeatable data. If you want to focus on strength, that's your prerogative, but to say that you can't get stronger doing crossfit.com wods, well that's just ludicrous. And for what it's worth, this: is completely untrue. If you watch the coverage of the 2009 games...the majority of competitors went off the main site wods. Once again, being well rounded is the goal - especially if you gotta go to the sandbox.