Nightingale

of course "legally" is the issue. you're signing a legal document, and are bound by what that document says. the document does NOT say that you will not sue the DZ under any circumstances. Should you CHOOSE not to sue for circumstances not excluded by the waiver, that is your choice.

what I understand is this: the waiver is a legal document. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the terms used in said document are using the legal definitions thereof. legally, negligence and gross negligence are two different things. the waiver says I can't sue for negligence. And I won't. it does not, however, say that I cannot sue for gross negligence, which is a different thing entirely. The legal definitions: "Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances; it is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the circumstances or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence would have done under similar circumstances. Conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others is unreasonable risk of harm; it is a departure from the conduct expectable of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances." Negligence is characterized by the failure to act with the degree of care ordinarily expected of the average person. "Gross negligence" is sometimes compared with "willful and wanton misconduct," and involves an act or omission in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the life or property of another. a different example: Suppose a public riding facility or horse owner has carelessly forgotten to adjust a horse’s cinch before sending him out on the first ride of the day. If the saddle slips and the rider is injured, that facility or owner will probably be found negligent. However, if a facility or horse owner saddles a horse with broken cinches or girth straps, knowing the equipment could fail at any time, that facility or horse owner will likely be found to have committed acts of gross negligence when the equipment breaks and injures the rider. edited cause I can't spell.

I didn't. I had a lawyer read over the waiver and tell me exactly what I was signing before I signed it, both what it said and what it actually MEANT. Perris was happy to fax it over to me to look it over beforehand. I can't sue for negligence. That's what it says. Ok. I won't. I probably wouldn't win anyway, so why bother? I can, however, sue for GROSS negligence, which is a very different thing. The waiver says "negligence" not "gross negligence", which, legally speaking, are two entirely different things.

not a problem. Google makes it easy.

if you're looking for someone to paint it for you, Robert over at GroundZero in Elsinore does some AWESOME work! He donated three custom paint jobs to the Elsinore fire raffle, too! Two got raffled off, and one was sold in the silent auction.

well, I would say gross negligence would be knowingly packing a reserve with a hole the size of a watermelon in it. however, the interpretation is up to the jury to decide. Its also up to you to decide if you want to risk it, because if you lose, you're paying the DZ's legal bills as well as your own (its in the waiver!)

its called a dogloo http://futurepet.com/cgi-bin/search.exe?SEARCH=dogloo&OV=G10 http://www.petplaypads.co.uk/Indigo_Kennel.htm http://petfoodexpress.com//shopping/prod_detail/main.asp?productID=3010&catID=NaN and, of course, petsmart http://www.petsmart.com/global/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441782047&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=2534374302023689&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302025741&bmUID=1077312797586 http://www.petsmart.com/global/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441780374&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=2534374302023689&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302025741&bmUID=1077312836587

BUT- You sign the waiver in good faith that the dropzone will do their part. It is reasonable to believe that the dropzone will be providing their students with properly maintained equipment. Should the dropzone do their part and do everything reasonable to keep their students safe, of course I wouldn't sue. However, if they gave me equipment that they knew was faulty, and I had no way of knowing that, hell yes, I'd sue.

Waivers do not apply to gross negligence. Gross negligence cannot be excluded by contractual agreement. Gross negligence can be defined as any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another. Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others. Also known as the Latin term culpa lata. How this definition is interpreted by the court would decide whether or not the dropzone would lose a suit about improper aircraft or equipment maintenance or usage.

its always been easier for public figures to get CCWs. Simply by being in the public eye, they are in a situation where they are more likely to need them. However, I think any non-felon adults should be granted a CCW after proving a mastry of gun safety and a reasonable marksmanship skill. Kinda like a driver's test, but for gun owners. What the hell's the point of carrying a weapon if you're either going to shoot yourself in the foot because you don't know any better, or can't hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces?

what the issuing of licenses did was provide a swift kick in the rear to both the government and the wronged parties. the wronged parties now have even MORE of a vested interest. they're not going to sit back and wait for someone else to do something now that they have even more of a personal stake in it, because they now have that little piece of paper that says they're married. Its not going to change what would happen eventually anyway. It'll just make it happen faster.

do NOT call me "dear." The marriage licenses issued in SF will give the plaintiffs a stronger legal position. if you are so certain about your legal "correctness" then why are you so worried? if you're correct, the courts will simply uphold prop 22, and this whole thing will be for nothing. and, if I'm correct, frankly, its not going to affect your life one damn bit anyway. go marry whoever you want. I can marry whoever I want. I just want others to have the same right that I enjoy.

You are deliberately missing my point. I don't care WHAT the law says. Only that it be applied EQUALLY to all ADULT HUMAN BEINGS. If you're going to pass a drug law, go for it. Just don't say "only gay people are prohibited from using drugs" or "only black people are prohibited from using drugs" or "only women are prohibited from using drugs" A law must apply equally to all people. If you're going to allow men to marry women, you must allow women to marry women. If you're going to allow women to marry men, you must allow men to marry men. Otherwise, its gender discrimination, and granting a priveledge to certain groups based on gender, which is illegal under the 14th amendment and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

just talked to the city attorney... its not the constitution, but the Unruh Civil Rights Act. My bad. So, basically, we've got two laws that contradict each other. Follow one law, break the other. Cities have traditionally chosen to follow the law established by prop 22, and disregard the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The mayor of SF simply did the reverse. From the California state website: Question: Can an establishment deny service to individuals becase of their sexual orientation? Answer: No. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by all business establishments in California. Unruh Civil Rights Act This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of: Age Ancestry Color Disability National Origin Race Religion Sex Sexual Orientation* *The protection afforded under the law is extended by case law to include sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation includes persons who are homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Also, it seems as though Prop 22 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US constitution (amendment 14): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

simple. the court cannot throw out a law until that law is brought before them. the law must be brought before them via a lawsuit. San Francisco has simply provided the plaintiffs for that lawsuit.

of course you can argue against poligamy, beastiality, and pedophilia. those laws apply to EVERYONE, the same. NOBODY is allowed to marry more than one person, or molest children or animals. the argument for gay marriage is that it denys a status to TWO consenting ADULT HUMANS that is permitted to two other consenting adult humans. Either let nobody do it or let everybody do it. Either way, the law must apply equally to everyone.

We have two conflicting legal documents. The first, Prop 22, says marriage is only between a man and a woman, which denys a certian status to gays and lesbians. Pretty clear cut. HOWEVER... the california constitution (which overrides laws, just like the US constitution... a law can get overturned because it is unconstitiutional in that state because of what the state constitution says) says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. We have two conflicting documents, and the document that takes precedent by law is the state constitution. The position of the San Francisco Mayor is that a law is not valid if it violates the state constitution, and that he is in violation of the state constitution if he continues to allow the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He does actually have a fairly good legal leg to stand on. Looks like about the only way conservatives will get their way on this one is by amending the state constitution, which probably, like Massachusetts, isn't going to happen. From what I can tell through my research (and perhaps Lawrocket can weigh in on this if I'm not correct), to file a discrimination suit, you must have a plaintiff. The plaintiff must be a human being, or an entity (state, organization, etcetera...) filing on behalf of a person or group of people. Regardless, there must be an actual person involved who is being denied his or her civil rights. The city can't simply randomly sue over something they don't like. the PEOPLE have to sue. What the mayor of San Francisco has done is create a giant pool of plaintiffs. The City can now sue on the behalf of those plaintiffs. At least, that's what I can figure out without going down to the City Attorney's office and commandeering their law library for a couple of hours.

the difference between the two situations is that California law is not clear cut. We have two conflicting legal documents. The first, Prop 22, says marriage is only between a man and a woman, which denys a certian status to gays and lesbians. Pretty clear cut. HOWEVER... the california constitution (which overrides laws, just like the US constitution... a law can get overturned because it is unconstitiutional in that state because of what the state constitution says) says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, color, religion, family status, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. We have two conflicting documents, and the document that takes precedent by law is the state constitution. The position of the San Francisco Mayor is that a law is not valid if it violates the state constitution, and that he is in violation of the state constitution if he continues to allow the city to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He does actually have a fairly good legal leg to stand on. Looks like about the only way conservatives will get their way on this one is by amending the state constitution, which probably, like Massachusetts, isn't going to happen.

nope. You're responsible for where you get out of the plane. You have eyes, use em. now, if they'd knowingly given you faulty equipment, that's another matter entirely.

nope. not even tempted. I don't cheat. Never have, never will.

www.babeland.com probably nsfw.

That is sooo not true. I have met one at Perris (name eludes me), who also teaches AFF and one at Elsinore (Ellen), who also does video. They freaking ROCK!!! There is one female instructor at Perris Valley Skydiving School. Her name is Shelly Crowell, and she does AFF only. She does not do tandems or video. PVSS has no female TIs. I was under the impression that there were no female TIs at Elsinore as well, but apparently I was incorrect.

Rem- Stay FAR away from the Hotel Pennsylvania (right next door to the big Macys). I stayed there when my choir was singing at Carnegie. It looks nice from the outside... but... we had exposed wiring hanging out of our ceiling. The boys found moldy french fries under one of their beds. one of the elevators, instead of taking you to the floor you requested, would drop several floors down into the basement and open up to a cement vault door with a tiny window that you could see the subway through, and then take you up to your floor. The staff were rude. The whole experience was awful enough to prompt some of the guys to write a song called "The Pennsylvania 6-5000 Hotel Blues" do NOT stay there.

I go for something kinda in the middle. I went on a cruise once. was bored out of my mind. Nothing to do but wander a big boat and see lame-o shows. :( In Ireland, we stayed in Hostels and B&Bs, had a very loose itinerary (sp??) and probably had a budget of around 60 Euro per day, including car rental. we had a lot of fun. However, I also don't mind doing the live out of a backpack and rough it stuff either. I volunteer on a dinosaur excavation with a paleontologist friend of mine every chance I get, and that's two weeks in the middle of nowhere living on mac and cheese with no hot water. and I have a great time!

What Michele said. I'm not far from Palm Springs either. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. in the meantime {{{{{{{{{{{{VIBES}}}}}}}}}}