Andy9o8

Ya think? Karasik gets today's "Captain Obvioius" award. No wonder I couldn't find them things in at Best Buy. Jeez. Actually, component wise you..... Uh....... Never mind. That would be Home Depot.

Your standard demonizing of anything you disagree with as "left wing" is a sorry substitute for adult-level thought and analysis.

Ah, but it does!

Ya think? Karasik gets today's "Captain Obvioius" award. No wonder I couldn't find them things in at Best Buy. Jeez.

Well, conservatives finally figured out the Democrats' agenda: they realize that the ash from all the flag-burning that occurs under the Democrats pours more particulates into the atmosphere than the detonation of Krakatoa, thereby contributing to more emphysema, thereby requiring even more health insurance. Of course, it also counters the effects of global warming; but what can you do?

His great-grandparents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh#Family_and_background

“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” -The Red Queen

I'm really sorry that you completely ignore what so many people are trying to tell you, Mike.

I started out by telling the OP to contact the seller directly. I also put some time and effort into answering his questions, and giving him useful information. I'm not going to waste my time defending myself any further to you. Lawyer-bashing is easy. Any random asshole can do it.

... is exactly why Marc is incorrect. Yes, I know the argument that the statute singled-out Sharia law only as "an example". That's what the state argued in court. But now four federal judges, observing that Sharia law was the ONLY religious law cited in the statute, have expressly, and unanimously, rejected that argument as a thin veil to cover the true agenda, as well as the true legal effect: to single-out Islam in particular for discrimination under color of state law. "True agenda", huh? Is this another one of those things you 'just know', like your Dad not voting for Obama? It's what the court knows. The court made it clear that it rejected the "example" explanation, specifically noting that only Sharia law, but not laws of other religions, was singled-out in the language of the statute. So if I "just know" it, well, so do four federal court judges. My Dad did vote for Obama. He told me so, and he told me why. You know, Mike, we all get a bit snarky in here, but a lot of people have called you out in particular for taking it to such a personal level so often. We're all subject to self-examination. Maybe you should take a breath and re-consider the manner of your approach.

... is exactly why Marc is incorrect. Yes, I know the argument that the statute singled-out Sharia law only as "an example". That's what the state argued in court. But now four federal judges, observing that Sharia law was the ONLY religious law cited in the statute, have expressly, and unanimously, rejected that argument as a thin veil to cover the true agenda, as well as the true legal effect: to single-out Islam in particular for discrimination under color of state law. It did NOT single out Islam It did use Sharia as an example So you are saying Sharia is a religion now? Only Islam Uses Sharia Law.

That really pisses me off.

The actual language of the law... ... is exactly why Marc is incorrect. Yes, I know the argument that the statute singled-out Sharia law only as "an example". That's what the state argued in court. But now four federal judges, observing that Sharia law was the ONLY religious law cited in the statute, have expressly, and unanimously, rejected that argument as a thin veil to cover the true agenda, as well as the true legal effect: to single-out Islam in particular for discrimination under color of state law.

None of this is legal advice. Consult your own attorney in your own jurisdiction. First, I agree with Lee that the seller done you dirty by not disclosing the true nature of the canopy, and should take it back and refund your dough. Good luck with that. But if he balks, maybe threatening to publicly out him by name might bring him back to Jesus. Yeah, you could sue him. If you did, and he defended, he might assert a "buyer beware" defense; but you may have a stronger case than his defense, as long as you can prove that he knew or should have known the true nature of the canopy, but failed to disclose it to you, and that the logistics of the transaction did not give you the opportunity to test-jump the canopy before completing the transaction. Re: You vs. Aerodyne: Your attorney might advise you to take a "product liability" approach: generally speaking, with any product, a manufacturer has a duty to reasonably anticipate the various ways any consumer anywhere along the "stream of commerce" (which means not just the original owner, but anyone who subsequently buys or jumps the canopy any time in the future) would likely use its product, and either design safety features into the product to take that into consideration, or to issue ADEQUATE warnings as to its proper usage AND especially potential hazards, i.e., how it should not be used. Many recent court decisions have ruled that merely putting warnings in a manual (i.e., "RTFM") may not be adequate, and that therefore adequate warning labels should be prominently posted on the product itself. In other words, the argument would be that Aerodyne should have anticipated that an unsuspecting jumper might think it's ok to take the canopy to terminal, and that therefore there should have been a prominent label on the canopy itself to clearly warn the consumer not to do so or risk serious injury. In your instance, this may be all the more so, as it could be argued that the label it did have was misleading: by saying it had a maximum deployment speed of 130 kts, without more information, that reasonably (mis-)led the consumer to believe that it was safe for terminal velocity openings. Aerodyne may have some arguments against this, but they might be reading this, so let them pay their lawyers for their services.

>>23% of employees say they have had sex in the office. Yeah, and 75% of them are lying. >> 85% of the men who cheat on their wives die while having sex. Actually (according to the viral blogosphere), it's 85% of men who die while having sex are cheating on their wives.

Thats interesting....does that mean they withdrew their action, or did the DZ actually pay out some money.... It sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out, "The details of the settlement were not released" implies a financial settlement in exchange for withdrawal of the lawsuit. What's not disclosed is the terms, e.g., amount, any other conditions, who will pay it, etc. Confidential settlements of civil lawsuits are fairly common these days, to avoid specific defendants, companies and/or their insurance carriers from being seen as ripe "target defendants" who will pay (rather than fight) if they (or their policy-holders) are sued. Sometimes plaintiffs' attorneys want it to be confidential too - not just to facilitate the settlement of a case; but if they're settling for a relatively modest sum, they don't want to get a reputation as a "lightweight".

Whoa. Too much screaming and frothing. Pass.

Could have been C-4. I feel safer. C-4 requires a percussion device. That would be the Cypres in your gear bag.

Relax, people. They're not going out of business. They're just restructuring so they can afford to stay in business. So you mean they're going to have to lay off some people and trim the fat so to speak? Those greedy capitalist pigs, they're supposed to run the business into the ground and then get a bailout. They already had the ability to layoff people, close plants, etc. But bankruptcy allows them to devise a plan to get out from under the crushing weight of debt: it lets them pay their creditors "X cents on the dollar", thereby (among other things) freeing-up a lot of operating cash. That, in turn, gives them the financial breathing room to try lowering their retail prices in order to re-capture their market share.

Could have been C-4. I feel safer.

No. Wow, that's almost dead.

And here I thought he was just glad to see me.

Relax, people. They're not going out of business. They're just restructuring so they can afford to stay in business.

No, the vote ruled out using a specific set of laws

Gotcha! That's an oft-repeated figure based on the 1960 Census. Heard it many times while serving time as an Upstate New Yorker (Buffalo area also has huge Polish population). But NYC's contingent surpassed Chicago's by about 3,000 people in the 2000 Census.