mr2mk1g

You think he's wearing a red fez and stands there going "just like that, hehehe" ?

yeah I should really: a) stop drinking so much b) read your whole post

Do you have home insurance? Generally the cheapest and best way by far to insure your kit is simply make sure it's covered by your home insurance.

Yes! Every time I get down I find someone has collapsed my pilot chute! I always un-collapse it so that it will work when I next jump but then whenever I check my gear after a jump it's been collapsed! This is really scary shit man! They must be following me under canopy or something because it always works when I pitch out... I've never managed to catch them at it though. I think this is really dangerous because if I didn't undo their sabotage I could have a high speed PC in tow mal! I'm worried someone is out to get me because this has happened now on every jump since I got my own kit! I think maybe I'll have someone video my whole canopy flight to see who's doing it cos it's really freaking me out.

hahaha - I did pretty much the same thing. I copied it onto my cursor because I knew I'd be taking issue with it if I chose to reply... then I got bored with the post.

I've been real tempted to post that he'll get a crick in his neck watching it back... but I suppose it won't really matter that much if it's 4 way... would be rather odd to see FF, tandems or canopy stuff like this though...

Yeah I know man, I'm only half commenting to you and half to everyone who bothers to bumble through. That concept though is very much linked to your belief that this guy was killing Americans - more on why they're linked below. yup, we all agree on that one, we figured that out earlier. I don't know. Seriously, I have no idea. I'm surprised you feel you do - there actually isn't that much information out there about him. I figure he probably wasn't just hung around Kabul driving taxis (although some folk already released from Gitmo were actually just hung round driving taxis, got picked up randomly and suddenly found themselves in Cuba). But then maybe he was just driving an aid truck. We don't know. We won't know till he's put on trial. See that's why we need a trial (or hearing/tribunal or whatever the military's going to call it). Then the evidence against him will be tested. If their is no evidence or no evidence strong enough to be put before a tribunal then, as my learned friend points out, there ought not be a trial at all. That's why your presumption that he was doing something wrong is linked to slinging people in jail without trial. It is such a presumption that got this guy in Gitmo for 3 and a half years. I very much doubt this guy is a saint who just got caught up in things through bad luck... but to treat him as otherwise means he gets slung in jail for years without a lawyer and without any formal charges... because we're just allowed to assume he's guilty. That really sucks if you're not. Well I'm not a citizen of the US and I would hope that if I were ever arrested in the states I would be treated in line with your constitution. In fact I know I would be because I was being held by citizens of the US whos actions are bound by their constitution. I actually also believe that the chances are this guy does indeed slip through a crack in the Geneva Convention. I'm not personally convinced he is afforded any rights under it. That doesn't mean though that I think the US is justified in chucking him in jail and throwing away the key. I think the US ought to live up to the moral standards it has set itself even if it's not required to by some treaty it signed. It's a case of conscience before contract if you like. As for your constitution applying I don't know. I think the case is certainly more arguable than the convention... but then I'm most certainly not an expert on US constitutional law. Didn't the US Supreme Court rule that they were to be given trials as required under the Constitution and that it did apply? His position at Gitmo though, if indeed outside the reach of the US constitution's, is by virtue of a most contrived attempt to ensure he remains outside the protection of the US legal system and the rule of law I hold so dear. Personally I think that attitude stinks. I think the US govt. has purposefully attempted to make sure these prisoners have no right to fair process and are completely outside the protection of any rule of law. They've succeeded pretty well too... or at least they had till the Supreme Court reined them in. I think such an attempt to usurp the principals of the rule of law is deplorable. That is a direct attack on the ability of your justice system to protect you from unjust treatment by your government. Such attacks cannot be allowed if you want to maintain the freedoms you hold dear. If not, one day you might just find they've come for you. We here are not immune to such attacks on our freedoms either. Last year our govt. was holding people without trial. Our House of Lords (court not legislative body - same position as your Supreme Court) slapped the government down good and proper when they ruled that the holding of people in such a manner was entirely illegal and they had to release everyone. That's where the bigger picture argument comes in. While those people were a threat and could have been released (in the end the govt. found a legal way round the problem) the threat posed by the erosion of the rule of law was far greater than any threat those suspects could have posed to our populous. Speaking of the UK anti-terrorism legislation which allowed imprisonment without trial, Lord Hoffman of the House of Lords stated: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." Personally I'm inclined to agree with His Lordship.

I can't promise anything man... but since you asked nicely I'll try real hard not to die in 2006. In fact I'm glad you asked 'cos I probably wouldn't have thought of it otherwise.

If you want to reduce it to maths, look at the bigger picture. What's more important, the lives of 3000 people or the lives or 300,000,000 people who depend on the rule of law every day of their lives to protect them from the possibility of unjust persecution? If we are happy discard the rule of law there is nothing to stop you from finding yourself in camp in Cuba waiting 3 years without access to a lawyer before you're even told why you're there in the first place. You should hold dear the concept of the rule of law and indeed hold it higher than even your constitution; for without the rule of law there would be no mechanism through which you could apply the protections afforded you by your constitution.

Exactly.

We don't know until he's had a trial. If the prosecuters say there's not enough evidence to even try him... what the hell is he still doing in jail 3 years after he was picked up? There's no reason why they all shouldn't be given hearings. You and I both agree on that. The Supreme Court even agrees with us. Everyone agrees. Why hasn't it happened yet - they've been there years!

sure it can... it won't tell you much about what altitude you're currently at... but you can stick it on your hand all the same. (leg pulling - the protrack doesn't have a display that would be of any use during ff, it's used purely to set the device and access the data it records)

I didn't say he was innocent. I said he should be tried and convicted. Is there a valid reason why he should not be? I mean, the evidence is all there right or you wouldn't be so sure he's guilty. Dunno - maybe he was there to make a deposit. What we generally do under those circumstances is try them and find them guilty if they were a robber. In fact that's exactly what both our countries constitutions say we must do.

dunno. If he had a trial we'd find out. If he's got no explanation he'll be found guilty. Why ought he not be tried and convicted?

this'll be out shortly: http://www.l-and-b.dk/altitrack.html

You are making excuses for your errors and this is very concerning. Making them to us really doesn't matter much in the scheme of things; what really worries me is that you are making them to yourself. Please accept responsibility for the screw up, at least privately. It wasn't the fact that the bat-man was not there. It wasn't the hanger moving or the crosswind blowing you anywhere. It wasn't because you were on a hand deployed PC. Whilst your downsizing could be a contributing factor it in itself did not cause the accident. Flying into a hanger isn't something that "just happens" – it only happens if you the pilot screws up big time. The simple fact is you injured yourself because you made mistakes. That's cool; we all make mistakes in life. The key is to accept reasonability for those mistakes and learn from them. Please don't take this as me ragging on you, I really am not – I'm trying to help. But until you accept that as a skydiver you alone are responsible for yourself and any injuries you sustain are your fault... your doctor's right. You're not ready to come back. Don't excuse yourself; learn, change and next time you won't make that mistake. Next time with any luck you'll be flying safely to the ground to the arms of your current fiancé.

shit dude, you realise his new employers are going to give him a gun right?

nah - he thinks it was the Jews... (no seriously, he actually does!)

hehe - I don't think you could pay me enough to want that job. I was just posting here out of frustration with the blatant trolling elsewhere... guess that was kinda the right thing to do. I see they lasted less than 24 hours this time round. Presumably their next return to the forums will be heralded with a full dozen nonsensical posts. Should be amusing at least.

Another option to consider would be to look into a bullet camera on your head plugged into your existing PC105 worn on your waist. You may find you are able to buy a bullet camera which provides little perceptible loss of quality over the camera alone and it would obviously put much less strain on your neck.

in the picture to the left of the article.... anyone else think Bolton has been drinking a really big glass of milk?

ha - we were managing 14 a day... and damn it was hot in June!

I've flown the first three but not the last. They are very similar indeed. I would say the safire2 and pilot are more similar to each other than to the sabre2. Of the three I decided to buy the safire2. I ended up buying a pilot as an interim because I got an amazing deal on a second hand but brand new one. I still intend to buy a safire2 but it can wait till I downsize next in another few hundred jumps... assuming there's nothing I like even more out by then and I don't choose to go eliptical instead of downsize. The sabre2 I would happily fly if I'd found a killer deal on. I distinctly preferred the other two over it though... not that it's in any way a bad canopy - I just preferred the other two. If I were you I would demo each of them and try them all. The difference between these canopies is so slight that it really does come down to a subjective decision regarding how you want your canopy to open and fly. They are all (well at least the first 3 I know about) fantastic canopies and you would enjoy any one of them.

Those who read the speakers corner might well already know what caused me to post here. Those who hang out in the bonfire will probably think I'm talking about someone who couldn't get any sleep last night because they were being poked in the back by a penis. Now they're giggling because I said "penis". As you were folks. Is it possible to take a pro-active approach towards people who sign up here for the sole purpose of disrupting our little community? We have had a couple of instances in the past, for example people who claimed to be at deaths door and played us all for fools over the course of a week or two. They were swiftly dealt with and the problem disposed of. Is it not appropriate to deal in a similar manner with those who come here purely to cause as much of a stink as possible and who, on their first day back from a 14 day ban for making a personal attack on a moderator who wasn't even involved in the thread, post half a dozen threads at once, all broadly connected and all filled with the most monumental nonsense you could imagine. This is someone who you just know is going to be attacking people and breaking rules again within a day or so. It's obvious they're not here to discuss, or learn or any of the other reasons people come here; they're just here to troll. So why not simply cut a long story short and get rid of bad news now? Surely they can only be banned so many times before you start to look at blocking them... so why not just cut the loop short? It's pretty obvious that's what's going to happen in the end anyway. I say: ban them, kill their profile and block their IP. We don't need people like this on here... we're argumentative enough as it is.

The best bit about this thread though is that about 230 people so far have completely wasted their time by clicking on it.