AndyBoyd

SLAYER RULES

The DZ will be very busy this weekend. Lots of students, fun jumpers, and 2 teams training. The weather looks good. I'm stuck at work right now, but my guess is that there is plenty of jumping going on today as well. Head on out!

If I can't even get a rise out of NCclimber, I guess this is not as controversial as I thought.

Thoughts? http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/SCHOOLS/706050368 Sorry, not sure how to make it clicky.

No one does a first jump "alone." Even with SL or IAD, you still have a jumpmaster in the plane assisting the student with deploying the canopy, and a jumpmaster on the ground radioing the student down. Jan, why don't you take a break, and ease up on people a bit? As far as the OP's comment, as other posters have accurately pointed out, if you pursue skydiving as an avocation, you can't expect your old friends to follow you. I did my first jump with three buddies. Two never jumped again, and the other did maybe 10 more jumps and quit. I stuck around for a bit longer.

"Lawyers only detract from society and add nothing to the GNP or society in general thus all the parasite analogies." I was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2004. I currently work as a law clerk for a federal district court judge in Chicago. It's a nice job to have, although the pay is not amazing. For anyone out there considering law school, listen very carefully to people like Thanatos340. Many people dislike lawyers intensely, for reasons that are not always completely rational. "Lawyers only detract from society?" Try telling that to a criminal defendant accused of a crime he didn't commit. Or to an indigent person facing eviction from section 8 housing. But my point is not to quarrel with people like Thanatos. These folks simply hate for no reason, and this is what you will face as a lawyer. Not to mention long hours and terrible stress. Check out the job satisfaction statistics for lawyers - very low. Think long and hard before choosing law as a profession, folks.

In my humble opinion, it's not so much the photos themselves, but the fact that with the internet, the photos can be almost immediately available to anyone, including employers. It took folks a while to realize this, but people now are very aware that a couple of compromising pics on the internet can virtually ruin someone's career. Back in the old days, a racy photo might get passed around the DZ and cause some minor embarrassment. Now, the wrong pic can just about destroy someone professionally. Put the cameras away, folks.

Joker: You ever shoot women or children? Helicopter Door Gunner: Sometimes. Joker: How can you shoot women and children? Helicopter Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

"Looks like those camel spiders the guys in Iraq took pics of. Some of them are bigger than a mans boot." Camel spiders aren't that big. Just use google and you can find out about them. They are 5-6 inches at their biggest. Take a close look at that picture, and you can see it's a bit of an optical illusion. Look at the guy's sleeve who is holding the spider for a good reference point. These are scary animals, though. I'd hate to find one in my sleeping bag.

Hamms.

fuck that you guys are all crazy... regardless of how annoying she is..she IS pretty fuckin hot.. and if i had to choose between her forever or my hand forever...id most certainly go with paris for the win... +2

"I'd say a significant percentage of those potential employees will have a choice between feeding their families and working in a smoking bar/restaurant. Not really a free choice, which makes them very unlike customers." I find it difficult to believe that there is a significant number of people who MUST work in the bar/restaurant industry or starve. There are many other types of jobs out there that people can find. And if someone chooses to work in the bar/restaurant industry, I also find it hard to believe that this individual MUST work in a smoking place. (The previous poster's argument that workers in a rural area might have fewer choices is a reasonable argument, I admit.) For the most part, though, in a capitalist, free-market economy, there are always choices for both consumers and employees, unless we allow the government to take those choices away from us. My argument is that we ought to be very careful about when & where we allow government to restrict our freedom of choice, and when & where we allow government to criminalize certain behaviors. Especially when there are other ways to resolve problems - i.e. let the free market run its course.

I'm actually not as much of a "right-winger" as my post makes it seem. In fact, I get accused of being a dirty "liberal" all the time.

Seems to me the free market could sort this out in both the UK and the USA without government intervention. By now, everyone with half a brain knows that smoking, and breathing second-hand smoke, is unhealthy. Bars, restaurants, etc., ought to be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking. If the public really wants smoke-free bars & restaurants, these places will prosper, and more and more places will adopt non-smoking policies. But if there is a segment of the population that wants to have a cigarette or a cigar with their meal or drink, a certain number of places that allow smoking will remain. Then, people can (gasp!) decide for themselves whether to frequent the smoking or non-smoking places without having the government trample all over everyone's freedom of choice. I don't mean to be insensitive to the health issues involved here. I guess I just think that people are generally smart enough to make up their own minds about smoking and second-hand smoke, without the government making criminals out of smokers.

I admit that I haven't really thought much about defamation since law school, but I seem to remember that you don't have to prove up damages in a slander or libel suit. To answer the original poster's question, though, your best bet is to contact an experienced attorney. If the newspaper prints a correction, my guess is that the OP probably does not have much of a case. The OP does have my sympathies, though. Very sloppy work by the newspaper.

Just read the Complaint. Thanks for posting it. Just thought I'd offer a bit of insight, and a personal opinion or two. Section 537.053 of the Missouri Statutes is what is known as a Dram Shop statute. The basic idea is that if a bar or other establishment sells a visibly intoxicated person alcohol, the bar can be civilly liable for injuries to the intoxicated person. Lots of states have these laws. The point is to discourage bars from providing booze to people who are already drunk. The father may have a valid case on this count. As far as suing everyone else in sight for negligence, it's going to be very hard to win given the fact that the driver was so drunk. I'm a lawyer, and I completely understand everyone's frustration with this lawsuit. These kinds of lawsuits just cause people to hate lawyers more than they already do. My hope is that the judge will quickly dismiss everything but the Dram Shop count. Calling the grieving father a "scumbag" is pretty harsh, though. It always amazes me how easy it is to sit behind a keyboard and anonymously insult people and call people names. This man just lost his son. Have some compassion. To those of you who are doing this, please grow up and knock off the name calling.

I guess this sounds completely irrational, but I vote for both the top 2 choices. Tunnels are awesome because they give everyone the chance to improve their skills rapidly. Tunnels are a bummer because very soon (if it has not happened already) the only people able to compete on a serious level will have sponsorship or significant disposable income. But, as a previous poster said, this debate is moot. Tunnels are here to stay. If you want to compete, you'd best find a way to get yourself and your team some tunnel time.

"I've been chatting with a friend of my sister for awhile over myspace and the phone. We've hung out a few times, and there's an attraction there..." Forget the stuff about pot. Hitting on your sister's friend is not the greatest idea. Trust me...

"For those of you who voted yes - what do you think there is to learn by watching that video? (I'm talking about the random public, not law enforcement and/or those in the crime and mental health professions.) What should I have learned when I accidentally stumbled upon it - that I didn't already know?" I voted yes, and I'll try to explain why. In terms of new facts about this horrible incident, there is probably nothing that can be learned from these video and pics. But for me personally, the images helped me to understand how deeply disturbed this guy was in a way that words on a page simply can't convey. It's one thing to read in a newspaper about how crazy this guy was, or to hear a TV reporter talk about it. But to actually see and hear it for myself, I think I've got a much better understanding of this guy and his motivations than I had before I saw those images. In other words, without those pics and vids, I would not have been as informed as I could have been. So I think the news media did their jobs properly by showing these things. There are always limits, and I freely admit that I'm not sure where to draw the line. I don't need or want to see pics of the bloody victims, for example. Just my two cents. I know this is a very sensitive issue.

What in the world is funny about someone getting sentenced to 15 years in prison?

"other than that 'skin so tight' appearance and the whole stretched lips thing, you mean? still, pretty cute for someone in what? her sixties?" Not sure how old she is, but she silll looks pretty good to me. Here is a current pic of her from her website.

Thanks for the pics, Smooth!

Full Metal Jacket Original Star Wars Trilogy Lord of the Rings Trilogy I know, I know, that's 7 movies.

"In fact, any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If the owner does not want to do business with black people, foreigners, crippled folk . . . it's their right to make that choice." With all due respect to this poster, no, it's not a business owner's right to discriminate against racial minorities or disabled individuals. That's a violation of federal law, and will likely result in the business owner being on the receiving end of a nasty federal lawsuit. I know, I know, everyone hates lawyers, etc. Don't bother with the flames. I've heard it all before.

I've done almost 2000 tandems, many of them on hot days with small passengers. I have got caught in thermals, and it can be an issue on a busy day with students waiting on the ground. I do not claim to understand the science behind thermals, but my experience tought me that there are really only 2 solutions. 1 - spiral like crazy (like another poster says, as much as your passenger can tolerate). 2 - thermals seem to be concentrated in small areas over dark surfaces (i.e. runways or dirt fields), so try to move away from these areas if the spot allows you to do so.