mr2mk1g

Does it come in a 190 or a 210?

One of my friends told another of my friends that if Wales won he'd shit in his hand and throw it at him. It was an amusing party that night, that's for sure.

I would review my home DZ... but it's not there.

Cool, you called it Kevin.

No idea - that depends on your local legal system. Your first steps though should be to make full use of the permit system that's supposed to be in place. Working with the other side is always going to produce far better results than trying to force them into letting you do what you want. Only if the NPS proves themselves to be entirely unwilling to ever consider BASE permits should you even think about how you can prod them into thinking out the legality of their policies. With any luck even if they do have an arbitary rejection policy, a stedy stream of sensible and well worded applications as detailed by lawrocket might make them re-think the issue.

I'd name it Kevin. ok, seriously - I think it's an A or B line on the right hand side over the top of the canopy. The last two shots show it best - you can see a line going from the slider gromet (front right) at an odd angle up to the right hand side of the canopy when it ought to be going more towards the front... at least that's my guess. edit: Actually I'm probably wrong - the lines going off to the side because the nose of the canopy is folded to the side. Ah well... still think it should be called Kevin.

The above answers are correct, but it's also attributed to fact that the hilt of your sword won't get caught up on your shirt buttons during the draw if you button your shirt like a man.

If such a principal exists over there it probably couldn’t hurt to point out to your Congressman that they’ve adopted a blanket policy, together with a little paragraph noting why such a decision is unlawful. As for the content of that paragraph though I’m afraid I can’t help you. I wouldn’t even know where to start looking for such a principal in the US jurisdiction – as I said I don’t even know if the concept exists over there. Putting it in a letter to your Congressman probably isn’t the “correct” manner in which you’re supposed to challenge such action… but the NPS might just get a little concerned if they started getting phone calls from disgruntled Congressmen. Just note that one rejection letter doesn’t show a blanket policy – just that they’ve rejected yours. Many or dozens of rejections could though… especially if no one ever gets a permit except for bridge day. Do I remember hearing about someone having an internal policy statement about not granting permits?

I talked about this the other day in a thread about the Australian NPS... under UK and most likely OZ legal systems, a public body given a discretionary power to grant a license can get itself into one hell of a lot of hot water if they adopt a blanket policy, (depending on the exact wording of the discretionary power of course). Basically the govt. gave them a discretionary power for a reason... if they'd have wanted a blanket policy the govt. would have simply made one. Thus the public body is essentially breaking the rules the govt. has made for them. Can anyone confirm if such a concept exists in the States? Can anyone confirm if the wording of the BASE legislation places the NPS in such a position? If it does, a steady stream of permit applications may well be a very good thing indeed. If the NPS has any idea what it's doing they will start to get quite edgy about continually applying a blanket policy in violation of the legislation. Perhaps such a blanket ban only exists at moment because they feel comfortable in the fact that hardly anyone's forcing them to use it… thus there’s no chance they’ll get caught doing it. A constant stream of applications would therefore force the NPS to repeatedly apply the blanket policy and have them build up a history of essentially breaking the legislation under which they're operating. That could either draw their own attention to the risks they're running or, if the worst comes to worst, be used to twist their arm into acting in line with the legislation. That’s if this all works in the States and actually applies in this situation. Anyone?

The club I jump with had an issue just like this on an old club rig. The boc was a replacement after the last one wore out and was tight to say the least. We had a rigger show us a way to pack the PC so that it took up much more of the length of the boc, disbursing the material as much as possible so the pull force was managable. That may be a way forward for you. Or you can just have a new, loser boc put un... just remember they're tight for a reason.

You don't have to be a BASE jumper to apply for a permit. There's a lot of people outside of BASE who would support you it was easy enough... even people overseas too. Expand your catchement and there's the potential to change the few dozen applicants into a couple of thousand.

In all honesty it is GTA San Andreas on the PS2 (XBox and PC release date later this year). Kinda sucks to know that the best skydiving game is actually all about stealing cars and the skydiving feature is only an aside.... kinda best as BASE anyway. There's a kinda cool flash game on the net where you have to spot Daffy... great for that one skill... but overall it only vaguely fits into the category.

IIRC, that got repealed after the cease fire in the 90's. There used to be legislation relating to broadcasting tapes of Jerry Addams... if you remember you used to get a still and an actors voice or some such whenever he had something to say for himself. Now he now just pops up on telly telling everyone how he knows the IRA had nothing to do with Britain’s largest robbery in history and that he knows this because Sinn Fein has no links whatsoever with the IRA. The IRA's enjoyed a somewhat unique position in UK legislation throughout its history – it’s the only group for which membership in itself was actually an indictable offence. Probably understandable under the circumstances.

Our rights are to be found in a combination of places. A hodge-podge of documents dating back over a thousand years; constitutional conventions (nothing written down anywhere but that's just the way we've always done it so that’s the way it’s done) and more recently the Human Rights Act 1998. That’s probably the one source you guys from over the pond would most identify with and enjoys an unprecedented degree of protection from implied repeal. The thing you won’t be familiar with is the constitutional supremacy of Parliament. Nothing binds Parliament but the rule of law. Even that could be overcome if the people allowed it. The biggest restraint on the powers of Parliament is the people themselves… an we have a proud history of letting Parliament know if we don’t like what they’re doing… much more so than even in the States. As for government control of the press… try to listen to less propaganda. The only government born restraint over here is with regards to the incitement of racial hatred. Simply put, this means you can’t tell people to murder blacks/jews/gingers etc. That’s also banned in the states – just it’s hidden amongst the rest of your inchoate offences. Personally I’m not sure why we even needed to create the offence – the actions the legislation covers were already illegal in just the same way as they are in the States... But hey – it made good PR in the run up to an election. The only other restrictions we have over you guys is an archaic one relating to offending public decency and blasphemy which the Bible bashers wheel out of the library and blow off the dust of years every now and then. Since the 50’s they generally get laughed out of court though. Britain is such a secular society that no one gives a damn if someone blasphemes and most laugh at the concept of having a law against it. This legislation is dead in the UK… but don’t be too surprised if you see a movement to bring it to the States – you guys have almost as much of a penchant for religious fervor as they do in the Middle East… beware your heartland! As for offending public decency this was only ever applied to porn… the BBFC stopped giving a damn about that in the late 90’s.

Hmm... this got me thinking... to me, what they describe in the article was the Dolly technique which was what I thought sparked the legislation against cloning... so it seemed odd that act wouldn't cover the situation. So I went and looked it up. That's pretty much all the legislation says. I guess then the argument would be that the "Dolly" embryo has indeed been fertilised in the natural way (albeit probably in vetro - but that's legal anyway because of fertility treatment legislation). Sperm was introduced to egg and normal fertilisation occurred. The fact that the egg itself was created in a non-natural way doesn't matter, as this legislation only covers the creation of the embryo itself, not the precurser building blocks. As such I can see the argument that this legislation would miss it. Sounds like a pretty big drafting boo boo to me. I suspect a swift amendment would follow any attempts to slip through this loophole. Robert Winston is pretty hot on this subject and sits in the Lords... I suspect he'd be able to alert Parliament to the problem before the papers even got hold of it.

Don't confuse privileges and rights.

Has anyone considered going to the NPS with a package to see if there’s a way the BASE community could possibly work with the NPS in getting permits issued? The concept I have in mind is somewhat similar to how skydiving legislation works. The NPS would grant a permit to anyone who holds a BASE “A license”…. Now who grants these licenses is a matter for the community to consider – you’d have to set up some kind of national body similar to the USPA or simply just administer it yourselves. Now I realize that’s one hell of a step and probably not something everyone’s gonna like the idea of. At the end of the day though you wouldn’t need to have anything to do with such a body if you didn’t want to jump in the park. That body then says to the NPS “we have the knowledge to certify these people, you just issue the permits”. That keeps the newbies out – no one gets certified until they’d undertaken an FJC style camp or demonstrated their ability, the BASE community is the judge of that. The NPS is just there to grant the permit and should hopefully feel shielded from legal liability because they have delegated any duty re the jumpers suitability to the BASE community / national body (whatever). If the permit holder screws around the NPS can always revoke their permit… thus BASE ethics aren’t lost as there’s still the threat of having your park taken away from you. The NPS would also be able to put whatever restrictions on you they required – such as no trail blazing or whatever they deemed necessary to preserve the parks as they are. I’m guessing most of this is not exactly ideal – but the point is you’d be in the park jumping whatever you like legally and they way would be open to further extend your jumping rights with the NPS in the future. Perhaps then this would be a way forward? Not further underground, not breaking the system… coming out of the closet as it were and working with the system? I’m guessing I’m about to be shouted at that this gives way too much power to the NPS which is probably a valid concern… but it’s only an idea. That or a simple “they’d never go for it”… but has anyone ever asked? At the end of the day I guess I'm just thinking out loud.

kindof a half mouse, half bird freak....

Yes - so long as they're inputs... and so long as you have a way of selecting those inputs without the head unit wanting to find an auto changer or something. eg a sony head unit with auto change control won't allow you to select that input unless it has an auto changer pluged into it. Other models/brands may allow it however so fiddle with your head unit.

German invention from WWII which fitted onto their fantastic MP44 (less commonly other weapons also). It was basically a bent section of barrel and prism which allowed you to see and shoot round corners. I other words, someone who is permanently fitted with a krummerlauf would be incapable of shooting straight.

I read the book (or at least a book on snowflake physics) - fantastic information in there... some truly stunning photographs too. Some amazingly complicated structures. Good book.

hehe, yeah... IMO she's permanently fitted with a krummerlauf.

it's still relative work... just upside down

That's exactly what I'm saying because that's exactly what the law sought to achieve. Remember - I'm not a proponent of this law... I'm just correcting people’s misconceptions. The law did nothing in the first two circumstances because it never sought to... in the last, yes it took weapons away from the innocent... but those people also belonged to the guilty group. At the end of the day, that’s what the overwhelming majority of people wanted... we live in a democracy - seeing as we were dealing with a privilege and not a right - the majority got what the majority wanted. Whether I liked it or not.

I'd suggest this requires a thread all of its own. There's been an awful lot of discussion on the topic in the UK recently. Just to be sure - I ought to point out that there's a big difference between "the government" and "parliament". Just because the govt. disagrees with an initial vote of parliament doesn't ness. mean the govt. can't make its mind up. The quoted magistrate is quite badly misinformed. Sadly that's not exactly uncommon - magistrates are not legally qualified but are lay benchers who deal with the simplest of charges. Such an error ought not go unchecked though. [edit]The magistrate is sitting in Derry - I'm not certain of the law there so I can't be sure he's misinformed.