Andy9o8

From the perspective of someone who has no dog in the fight, it appears that in equal measure the Tories are acting like sore winners. Cameron on the morning after the vote: "Oh, one more thing...." Yeah, that really enhanced his credibility....

I could explain how you've missed my point(s) x2, but as I said above, I've already sucked enough air out of the thread with this side issue, and I don't want to detract from the thread - which I think was legitimately "bumped". Seems the Scots have made you touchy of late, John. Let it go.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that that only applies to instances when the witness invokes his right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I don't have time to look it up right now).

That's only half correct - and half not correct. Yes, there is eventual due process. But in the meantime - in the first instance - the DZO most certainly is able to act unilaterally: He physically marks the jumper's actual license card IN RED INK. Yes, there is an avenue for appeal, but does this appeal get at least a first-level, bi-lateral "judicial"-type hearing within a matter of no more than a couple of DAYS? - because, at least in most of the US, that's the general standard for a first-level bi-lateral hearing on an emergency injunction (assuming that an emergency injunction was issued unilaterally - which by my personal experience in handling many emergency injunction cases over the years, most judges are very loath to do without all parties present). And after that first hearing, how long does it take the appeals to work their way through the process? See, a 7.2 stamp on a phydical license is more than just a general, informal shout-out by a DZO to other DZOs in the region - it bears the imprimatur of written formality. And to protect themselves against potential liability, DZOs would be (IMPO) very foolish to allow a jumper with a 7.2 stamp on his license to jump at their DZ. So if there's not a really IMMEDIATE bi-lateral hearing, the practical effect of this happening in, say, June, would be to allow a single DZO who dislikes a jumper to effectively ban the jumper entirely from the sport for possibly most or all of the entire summer season, if it takes that long for the appeal to be heard, then appealed to another level, and then for the BPA's bureaucracy to get around to issuing a replacement pristine license - even if the jumper eventually wins his appeals. Plus, a 7.2 stamp on a license fucks a jumper up - pending the jumper working his way through the appeal process - not just in the UK, but anywhere in the world the jumper tries to jump (far more than just "the DZO's own sandbox). I can't say for certain how various European DZOs would necessarily react to a BPA license with a RED 7.2 stamp on it (probably negatively, out of either reciprocity or self-protection), but given how liability-averse the legal system in the US is, I'd predict that quite a few DZOs in the US would be pretty reluctant to let a "red stamped" UK jumper jump at their DZ even if "the case is pending appeal", because they feel the need to protect their DZ from potential liability if a red-stamped jumper is involved in an incident at their DZ. So much for his long-planned skydiving holiday in the US. I'm all for maintaining serious discipline to keep DGITs from ruining it for everybody. But the BPA's 7.2 option gives individual UK DZOs far too much power to unilaterally ban a jumper from participating in the sport anywhere, before any of the "due process" protections have a chance to kick in. And to my American-trained sensibilities, that's not sufficient due process, and it invites abuse. So poo on the BPA. ------------------------------------ **ETA: I think I've been too verbose. Apologies if I hijacked the thread with this distraction.

She's not that short.

Sorry counselor but your analogy fails on multiple levels. I'm on my phone now. When I get to my office on a computer I'll add detail.

Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.

Your last post makes no substantive points other than noise to try to shout me down. So, we're done; thanks for the fish, etc.

Exactly my point. Under BPA, any Brit DZO could conceivably abuse his position and unilaterally suspend a jumper from the sport immediately, without due process, in reality for any trumped-up "reason", just if he decides he dislikes the jumper. Fuck that.

Yes, 7.2 is what I was referring to.

Won't stop anyone. They'll just say they forgot their card and have the DZ look them up by their number... Or if they've been jumping for a while, they probably have more than one card. I have several with various ratings that show lifetime membership. There's also the problem in that that would deprive the jumper of basic due process: to have an accusation be decided by a neutral party, after both sides have been heard. Jumpers and DZOs can disagree; and while of course the DZO is the final law at his own DZ, extending that to a jumper's entire career is something else entirely. Allowing a DZO to unilaterally deface a jumper's credentials (as apparently the BPA allows in the UK) basically allows the cop to also be the judge, jury and sentencing judge. I realize that "informal regional bannings" have been part of our sport for the past 40 or 50 years, but doing it formally has some pitfalls to bear in mind. That's why the USPA provides for due process before formal disciplinary action against someone's license can be taken. (Hope I didn't misspell anything. OK, good to go.)

No I don't. I guess that means you assume I assume. Admittedly, not the greatest track record, but not the worst, either. Bottom line, though, is that I think on the whole America is a generally more humane society in 2014 than it was in 1964. It's multi-factored, of course, but I don't think the "social welfare" programs of the last 50 years have been a net negative contributor to that overall, I think they've been a net positive contributor. Franklin Roosevelt expressed an optimistic, can-do attitude when he was advocating his New Deal measures (to which conservatives of the time were apoplectically opposed): "There are very few things that we can know before hand. We will try, and if we decide that we are wrong, we will have to change." The point being, of course, the willingness to try, and if one thing didn't work, to try something else, and then try something else - but for god's sake, not just to stagnate. That was the spirit behind FDR's New Deal, and that was the spirit behind LBJ's Great Society, which took much of its inspiration from the New Deal.

On the bright side, that's how liberals survive so many gunshot wounds.

Which, IMO, she clearly did. Which was certainly her right, if my general understanding of UK law is correct. But she was spoilin' (one might even say "trolling") for a strident, video-worthy reaction, and she got one. Mission accomplished.

Very drastic and, IMO, totally improper. Problem is, the general rule is that it's procedurally difficult to get an appeals court to hear an appeal on an issue while the case in the lower court is still going on (it's called an "interlocutory appeal", for those who care). If it is immediately appealed and the Court of Appeals agrees to hear it, I'd predict it would probably be reversed. As the saying goes, there's no zealot like the converted. My Google-fu reflects that Judge Sam converted to the LDS church at age 18. Anyhow, whether converted or born-into, he's clearly biased, and should have recused himself, IMO. Augh. Horrendous precedent.

I've been around long enough that, to my life experience (both living and observing), what you're describing is pretty gender-neutral, and happens in both hetero and gay relationships. But in any event, life's too short, or at least too precious, to let a current or prospective SO drive you crazy. You've already done the marriage thing, moved on, and seem to have gotten on with your life. It's a big sea, with plenty of fish, and for all those whose personalities don't fit yours, there are plenty that do. Don't settle, and don't despair. Oh my fucking god, I'm Ann Landers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMIyDf3gBoY

If we're going to co-exist we'll need tolerance. I don't hear anything remotely close to that. Yeah, well, maybe you wouldn't mind dating a chick like that, but I'll take a pass, thank-you-very-much.

Wow, You're right, that pushy redhead chick is scary as hell. Hey, thanks for the heads-up! --------------------- Stacey: Oi! Off yer arse and empty the bin! Boyfriend: Wha? Bu' it's Sa'urday mornin'! Stacey: You fookin wanker! This is my flat, too! Don't you dare talk to me that way! BF: Oi, c'mon, luv... Stacey:

If you say so But you got to remember Many here get their thongs in a wad when someone points out this truth So correct me if I am wrong Blacks vote 97% democrat Right? And blacks were mostly who ritoted, right? So, it is what it is Democrats riot when they dont like something and the race baiters get them all stirred up Along with the media flaming the shit pile Hell, even those in Fergason MO agree the media made is worse You appear to right there with them 1. Pick up a dictionary. 2. Look up "correlation". 3. Now look up "causation". 4. Now understand the difference between the two.

Yeah, man, there's the proof: it was a Democratic riot. Case closed.

Given a choice between my money feeding a bum in my country or lining Hamid Karzai's pocket I'll choose the wino every time. I don't understand why this is an either/or proposition. It should be an individual choice of how they spend their own money. Andy - can feed a bum Rush - can line anyone's pocket he likes me - I might not do either, I might purchase bacon Billvon - might not do either, he might buy a solar panel, maybe bacon, or a new pro-track Wendy - she can buy whatever the heck she likes, I'd not be surprised if she feeds a good friends, or gets a present for her kid etc etc etc it crosses the line when I start to tell the other four what to spend on - for that matter, when people group up into two camps and the goal is spending OTHER'S money, that when it become a 'choose between two things and only two things' - it's sad that this is the place where some people BEGIN the debate. let alone the strawmen we see once it does devolve that way - "I'd rather feed a homeless child than buy a missile" "I'd rather defend a city with single moms from invaders than feed some freeloader that could get a job today" Since Day One it's always been about how to divvy up the pie. And your "strawman" point aside, there actually is a certain degree of zero-sum-ism at work. For example, I'll betcha that if the post-WWII USA (especially post-, say, 1963) spent one-third less on the breathtakingly massive amount it's spent on projecting its military power overseas and providing the security umbrella for other countries, the US would still be safe and prosperous, and it would have been able to afford a universal national health care system like every other industrialized democracy-ish nation on the planet has had for the past 40 years.

That's the way I see it, too, with emphasis on the text I've bolded above. See the last full paragraph in the FAA's letter (before the thank-you sentence). So it does allow a manufacturer to modify the standard for an existing design already on the market: it does so by means of an Airworthiness Directive.

Yeah... in this case, I'd have to agree with that... Jeez.

By all means and be my guest, spend your $$$ on whoever and whatever you like. I won't tell you how to spend your $$$. P.S. Likewise P.P.S. - Neither of us get much choice. Which is my point. For your reading enjoyment. Read any one you like. Hell, read 'em all: https://www.google.com/#q=%22hamid+karzai%22+wealth Those are your simoleans at work, my friend.