Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/08/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    And another pointless fight Trump can't drop... "Yes, I am currently suing various people for violating their confidentiality agreements. Disgusting and foul mouthed Omarosa is one. I gave her every break, despite the fact that she was despised by everyone, and she went for some cheap money from a book. Numerous others also!" So she's a horrible person, and everyone can tell she's a horrible person except for Donald "I'm The Best Judge Of Character" Trump who gives her promotion after promotion until it turns out everyone except him is right and she stabs him in the back because she's horrible. I'm struggling to see why he thinks it's a good idea to share this story.
  2. 1 point
    That chart shows a chance of just 5-25% for a tropical storm of 39 mph....
  3. 1 point
    Dude, how offensive! You can't even get their damn names right: Tim Apple, Mary Motors, Alan Qantas, Gail Anthem, Peter Paypal, Ginny Ibm, Martine Sirius, Indra Pepsi, Nick Gawker, Marilyn who, Inga Lloyd of London, Safra Oracle, Peter Prezi, Hayley Werkin, Phebe Dynamics, and Joel Grindr.
  4. 1 point
    Do you want to talk philosophy? Or do you want to talk about the issue at hand? And tens of thousands of dollars isn't a small amount of money. Our not caring or not speaking up is probably why this happened in the first place. -JD-
  5. 1 point
    I stand by my opinion on this matter. Five years, tens of thousands of dollars, and nothing. -JD-
  6. 1 point
    Lots of legal battles have been fought over similar scenarios. Four cancer charities were taken to court in 2015 for misappropriating donations. Government officials have also found themselves in deep water for the same. So you don't have to steal money or be a thief for the act to meet that definition, only misuse it. In this particular scenario, we have seen $87,000+ go into a project that has produced absolutely nothing over a long time period. If the USPA isn't misusing these funds by blindly giving them to another organization to build something that has yet to materialize since 1999, where is the proof? The BOD has kept largely mum about the accountability of those monies. And then come the comments about the USPA not being responsible for donated funds. Wrong. Take a gander on a reputable, legal website and you'll find a plethora of examples where organizations were grilled about where their money went. I've led large organizations for most of my professional life and money is something you must be careful with or people will grow suspicious and start pointing fingers. At the very least, this situation amounts to a bad optic with disastrous potential. Why not spend that money on something that will actually benefit skydivers? Like efforts to reduce canopy-related deaths or fighting to keep dropzones open at airports who have suddenly terminated their leases? Our sport just saw yet another canopy-related death (see parachutist). And several dropzones have been given the hook this year by their host airports. Yes, there is money going into related counter-efforts, but not enough. The USPA also has a mandate to "promote our sport." A museum that hasn't broken ground after five years and tens of thousands dollars isn't in keeping with that mandate. I'd go one step further to say that most skydivers neither give a hoot about a museum, nor want one. Our sport isn't on par with the likes of the NFL or NBA and much discussion about including several of our disciplines in the Olympics has thus far been for not. We need to be more realistic about our sport's goals. Why not promote it by funding AFF programs for college students - like I saw at one DZ a few years back - or something similar for service veterans with jump ratings to transfer to a civilian license after separation or retirement? I've witnessed DZ's funding such programs in the past, but what about the USPA funding something similar on a larger scale? Thoughts? Let's actually have a discussion about it rather than label one another. As far as my vernacular goes; yes, I feel I've chosen the correct word in light of the known facts. Having said that, I'm open-minded to any proof (facts) anyone might have to the contrary. -JD-
  7. 1 point
    Is what I said a fallacy because you don't agree with it? Or is there some valid reason why you think my comments amount to as much? Rather than use labels, why not open your mind a bit and engage in some meaningful discussion?
  8. 1 point
    Let's do some more math: what's $.75 multiplied by the USPA constituency of $39,827 (end of 2018)? $29,870.25 So it's OK for the BOD to "pass the buck"? How about $29,870.25 bucks? That's money we could have used for something that would actually produce something tangible, not some pipe dream that no one seems to "give a poop about." -JD-
  9. 1 point
    Really? Who? I think "lots" of BOD members - those in office at that time, anyway - supported this project. The mumblings I've heard at my previous dropzone, my current one and the one's I've visited on the road haven't been supportive in the least. And that bit about "complaining": it all depends on where you sit. I'm sure the BOD members and previous BOD members who supported this project would call it complaining. I would call it "speaking up." Bottom line: what the USPA is doing amounts to nothing less than embezzlement and we need to clean it up. 5 years and nothing? What a bunch of crap. -JD-
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up