penniless

it is "A day that will live in infamy" J If you quote someone at least get it right. FDR said "A Date That Will Live In Infamy" (I've had dates like that).

Pre-emptive strikes by US or our allies - good and always justified. Pre-emptive strikes by our enemies - bad and always unjustified.

How would any proposed regulation have affected the outcome of your friend's jump? You can't legislate judgment. You can't legislate alertness. You can't legislate focus. You can't legislate common sense.

Thank you.

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported. No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries. If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong. I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell. Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all. You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line. Derek You are being a bit overdramatic here. No boat is sinking. In terms of fatalities overall, currently they are lower per skydiver than they have ever been. Barry Brummit's old fatalities page had a graph that shows this very clearly. I don't think the successor page has it, but the numbers are still available.

In Europe this is certainly NOT the case. My recollection is that in Europe age and gender are also the biggest influences on driving accident rates. Maybe someone that has been there more recently than me can confirm or refute. Besides, how do you explain the gender part?

So you have no actual facts either? You just assume, and go on from there. Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case.

Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? Surely YOU are the one obliged to provide evidence to support your own proposal. My question is very simple, what % of the landing fatalities over the last 2 years could have been prevented by a WL restriction as you propose? If you can't answer that, then be honest about it and not just lash out at those of us who'd like more information. I'm sure you are a very well meaning man, but your "I know I'm right so I don't need to present any facts and anyone that asks is an obstructionist" is an unhelpful attitude. I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too.

Right. Just to keep people honest, this BSR proposal is for the EXCEPTION and not the RULE. Don't pretend otherwise, it weakens your case.

A low hook will indeed ruin your life, but that applies to anyone on any canopy. There is no law saying you have to make low hooks if you downsize.

All of them that had a "B" license or higher. All of them that exceeded the WL chart. Derek That is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?

ROFL. We have some BSR proponents telling us we can't have the research to really find out what's going on, and now you claim to know what is the rule and what is the exception. How do you know what is "the rule" if the research hasn't been done? I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception. Yes, I HAVE read the fatality reports. One thing that jumps out at me is that jumpers of all experience levels and all canopy types and sizes are represented among the landing fatalities, with no one group prominent.

How many of them would have been affected by the proposal? Were they ALL inexperienced people with high WL? THAT is the critical question.

Did they say anything about the threat posed by the EU's massive WMD program?

Zutesuit is owned by Jenny Martin. She makes a lot of suits for females.

You are correct. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a total lack of awareness in a male dominated oligarchy to the needs of 51% of the human race. They just don't have a clue.

Sorry, that is an unhelpful attitude. The burden is on those proposing a new rule to show that it is needed, that it will do the job it's supposed to do, and that it is acceptable to the skydiving community. This continuing debate shows that you still have a way to go. With respect to criticism: The folks who noticed Newton's Laws didn't work for the orbit of Mercury weren't the same folks who came up with Special and General Relativity. But those folks triggered the search for the explanation. The folks who noticed that electrons didn't behave according to the rules weren't the ones that came up with quantum mechanics. But these folks triggered the search that came up with QM. The folks that noticed Uranus wasn't orbiting properly weren't the same ones that discovered Neptune, but no-one would have looked for Neptune unless the Uranus anomalies had been observed and written about. Just because Nathaniel sees problems with your proposal doesn't imply that he has to know how to write a better one.

This speaks for itself. ROFL. It's a leftist plot called "Speling Mi Wey".

The speech sounded like he saw it for the first time as he read it from the prompter. The presentation was stilted, the emphasis on the wrong words, pauses in the wrong places. Worst inaugural speech since Harrison. And there was no content, just platitudes. Other than that, it was fine.

What's "obscure" about them? Nearly all of the above seem pretty obvious to me. If you want something obscure, meretricious is a good adjective. It sounds much nicer than it is. I have written estimated tax checks to the "Infernal Revenue Service". They always accepted them.

Get ready for it - it's still here...so far its been snowing for about 15 hours. Guess I wasted my time shoveling last night The storm has passed into OH/PA, what you;re seeing now in WI/IL/IN is all lake effect.

So would that make the virgin Mary a lesbian? that would help the immaculate conseption therory along. Mary in all honesty could say that she had never had dick prior to Joesph, if God was indeed a lesbian ............. You have the wrong "immaculate" conception there. I love the part (Luke 1:29) where the angel impregnates Mary and she "wondered what such a greeting meant". I mean, come on now!

Well the owners hire the managers and the managers hire the editors and reporters. Ultimately the organization is run the way the owners want it to be run.

Perhaps you should look into facts before posting statements like this. .... I didn't see a statement worthy of your ridicule. I saw a question.