nerd137

That's hard to argue. I'm no politician. And yet you expect sympathy.

> But many, many folks do not wish to be scrutinized by Uncle Sam. Jefe: I have put many beautiful pinatas in the storeroom, each of them filled with little suprises. El Guapo: Many pinatas? Jefe: Oh yes, many! El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas? Jefe: A what? El Guapo: A *plethora*. Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora. El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora? Jefe: Why, El Guapo? El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora. Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

Your diplomacy skills might need some improvement.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Don't forget Big Brother. He's watching too.

> I disagree. Yes she sighed a waiver. She also paid for a service. That service was done incorrect. Then what is the point of a waiver?

> I *think* that legally - negligence cannot be wavered. There are legal standards as to what can and cannot be waivered. However, they are not without ambiguity. Regardless, I think the spirit of the waiver we all sign prior to skydiving strongly indicates that we accept the risk of death in the process of skydiving.

Right. But who should be sued? The negligent party, right? How is Strong Enterprises the negligent party in this case? I take that back. They do not have the right to sue. The passenger signed a waiver forfeiting the right to sue if something like this should happen. The incident that caused her death was an accident. It sucks, but she was made aware of the risks before she jumped and signed a waiver releasing anyone and everyone of all legal liability. And from legally idealistic standpoint that should be that.

I think that's the real source of the problem: our cultural reluctance to take personal responsibility for our actions.

> How financially capable is anyone defending a lawsuit? Some are most certainly more capable than others. You seem to be attacking my position as if I'm making the argument that this lawsuit is somehow a good thing. What have I said to give you that impression? Regardless, you don't seem to know the answer to my question about Strong Enterprises' specific situation. While I agree a lawsuit like this may impact the entire skydiving marketplace, I think that's a separate (albeit related) topic. > but saying ya won't [help] because you think they don't need any assistance is somewhat naive if you've worked in the industry at all. I didn't say that. I'm very willing to help. But I personally would need more evidence that my help is needed than has been demonstrated here. You imply that you have experience within the parachute industry; I do not. Most of the statements made in this thread to encourage donations to SE have been highly rhetorical and emotionally angry. (e.g. implying that people who don't instantly see the NEED!! to donate are naive and insensitive.) Well, sorry, that's not enough.

> Have you ever BEEN in business?? Meaning what? That all businesses everywhere permanently exist on the brink of failure because of perennially razor thin profit margins? The question is, how financially capable is *SE* of defending against this type of lawsuit? Is its existence seriously threatened? If so, I'll happily write them a check, regardless of their annual revenue. If not, well, that's another situation. >eventually whatever manufacturers can stay in business will only do so by charging 5-6 times the current cost for a rig I'll agree that we'd all eat the higher costs of business, but estimating the actual increase in advance is pretty much impossible.

So then I wonder how much weight the waiver will have. My understanding is that waivers are usually upheld.

So does anyone have any further details about the suit? I mean, isn't there some precedent for a situation like this? What legal protection does Strong have from the waiver signed by the tandem student? Obviously, even if Strong prevails the legal costs will be considerable. But I'm curious about the likelihood that the lawsuit will be successful.

This post comes as a surprise to me as you are an instructor. A student with 11 jumps at 235 pounds (255 or so with gear) should not have a wing loading more than 1:1. IN fact PD would recommend a 260 for an intermediate level jump at this wing loading. Jump it a few times and down size to 210? Holy crap and we wonder why people die unnecessarily in this sport. To the OP: Talk to knowledgeable instructors in person. If the instructors at your dz are asses get to know some instructors elsewhere who can help and guide you. Please don't get advice from people you know nothing about and know nothing about you/your skills or your abilities. DustyStunts: the little lover's quarrel quoted above is exactly why dz.com often isn't the best place to ask questions like yours. It can be difficult for a student to discern the difference between rabid, subjective opinion and good, solid advice. And here you'll get a lot of both, all mixed together. Talk to your instructors; it's a better path to getting good information.

All the major manufacturers make equally awesome harness/container systems. Just pick a major brand that appeals to you, and you're virtually guaranteed to be very satisfied. Over time you will develop personal preferences (e.g. tuck tabs that face up versus down, etc), but from a safety/quality standpoint there's not much difference between the major brands. (Not that can legitimally justified, anyway.) One thing to keep in mind is resale value: A container that's popular in your area will be easier to sell locally when the time comes. All that said, I love my Infinity. Love how it fits, love how it looks, and love the customer service.

I just paid $180 for a complete assembly and scotchguarding of the rig. I have a high-end rigger.

No. Well, maybe. Okay, yes. Do a tandem. Then decide. That's my sage advice.

Which column (or columns) of data on the 'Data' sheet needs to be added up?

Oh yeah... EmpData, EmpNames, DataHeader are all named ranges I added.

Ha! That was like a test. You really don't want or need any macros to accomplish your goals. You just need functions. I did some stuff to your sheet to get you started, but it looks like that workbook isn't an exact copy of what you're using. (Of course a good idea... to protect your data.) Anyway, when I saw that, for example, cell D25 simply equals C25 on your Calc sheet, I assumed that's not actually correct. Those aren't supposed to be the same value... are they? What I did: -The name field on the calc sheet now has a drop down that relates the names in the Data sheet. If you add or remove names, the list will self adjust. However, these names *must* remain in Column B of the data sheet. -I created a formula, you'll find in cell B5... =INDEX(EmpData,MATCH($B$4,EmpNames,FALSE),MATCH(A5,DataHeader,FALSE)) ...this formula looks up the name selected from the list and the field name to the left (e.g. "DOB") and returns the appropriate value. This means that the field name on the calc sheet must be exactly the same as the header on the data sheet. So DOB must be DOB. (But it's not case-sensitive.) You can copy this formula exactly as it is written into any cell and it will look up the field name in the cell directly to its left, and return the value from the data sheet. This formula won't work for any of your cells below row 22 because those refer to the data sheet differently. Instead, use... =INDEX(EmpData,MATCH($B$4,EmpNames,FALSE),MATCH("fSalaryA"&A25,DataHeader,FALSE)) ...which looks up the name from the list and the year in column A and then finds the appropriate data for 'fSalaryA' + the year (e.g. fSalaryA2007, fSalaryA2006, etc.) Anyways, I hope that helps more than it confuses you. It would be easier to do this if I had real data, but I understand why you can't do that. Nick

Yeah... gimme a few minutes...

Can you be a little more specific about what you need done?

I always assumed that "one" meant an orgasm, not a load of cum. Maybe 'cause the first time I heard the phrase, it was from a girl referring to herself. Therefore, guys jerk whilst girls rub.

Some friends of mine used to refer to shaving one's pubic hair as "bleaching one's grout." (e.g. "Does she bleach her grout?") Long story how that came about.

Help settle a bone of contention between myself and a prominent female dz.commer who INSISTS on anonymity...