Andy9o8

Great-Gramps used to say that about Kid Gramps.

Your blanket indictment of "the people of the city" is highly presumptuous and probably quite unfair. Jersey City has a population of about 250,000.

It's just not very fashionable these days... They've been saying that since the days of Socrates. Viewed truly objectively, it really doesn't vary much from one generation to another.

Yes! - but the factors that affect the deadline vary from one state to another, and one insurance policy to another, among other things. She should consult with an attorney immediately! (with respect to all insurance policies and any other issues)

Remember the good old days when we (especially you ) would go into other countries and just take all their shit? It was called "imperialism" at the time. Even accounting for the occasional write-offs (like the Colonists opening a can of Whup-Ass on you), I'll bet that on the overall it paid off on the investment at least 10 to 1. Yeah, back in the day.

Uh oh!

It's protected because it's private property and the city does not have the legal authority to take unilateral action like that on private property, without even trying to get an authorizing court order, in the absence of some sort of true urgency like a public health menace or something like that. Your local police have the right to intervene to stop me if they catch me spray-painting your house. And/or, they have the right to arrest and prosecute me for it after-the-fact if they have the evidence to do so. But if they went ahead and painted it over without your permission, they're leaving themselves open to you suing them for it. ETA: Morally, I understand your feeling. But technically, that would violate criminal law in most states; and if the evidence was there, the state would be duty-bound to prosecute them for doing that.

I guess it's predictable I'd agree with you on this. To me, that's quite possibly the most powerful aspect of the US's First Amendment; for the popular opinion arguably less urgently needs protection of the rule of law. It's why, for example, the courts properly directed authorities to permit local Nazis to march through a mostly Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL back in the 70's. It's why Fred Phelps (burn in hell) and his fellow pigs were permitted to do what they did. In just about all other Western democracies such expression would be legally banned as disruptive of public order, etc. In the US, it's referred to as "constitutionally protected speech". I'm proud of that. What the city did was unconstitutional. ETA: weekender raises a fair point about graffiti. If it was on private property without the owner's permission, the owner had the right to take it down. If the owner made a formal complaint to the city, then maybe it would have been ok for the city to essentially act on the owner's behalf to protect the owner from physical harm. But absent that - if there was no request from the property owner - then the First Amendment would trump the graffiti issues, and the city's unilateral action would still, on balance, have been unconstitutional.

This has already been replied to, and replied to. It doesn't get better with repetition.

And that's worth repeating. I'm tired of subsidizing Western Europe's socialized medicine and security umbrella, while for so many Americans decent (or even "any") health insurance is so hard to get and so easy to lose, while the Dick Cheneys and Halliburtons of the US pay Fox News to convince good-faith (albeit gullible ) conservatives that any other alternative is Communist.

I'm neither distinguished nor a skydiving instructor, but the one who "totally screwed it up" was the instructor. Fortunately, no incident occurred. Had there been one, it would have been entirely preventable - by the instructor.

He neither said nor implied that. He was simply one of several voices in here rebutting your revisionist history.

(FWIW: I've handled a lot of insurance claims law, on both sides. The following is not legal advice.) If the main stream policy had language that excluded skydiving, then it did, and that's hard to fight. But to be sure, a lawyer should review every word of the policy from front to back; one should not rely on a layperson, and certainly not on the say-so of an employee of the insurance company. BUT - and it's possible there are more factual or technical details of which you're not aware - IF the USPA's insurance carrier is claiming the drowning was an event that was technically separate from the skydive, my default reaction, even without reading the policy (though that still must be done) is that's bullshit, and your friend should consult a lawyer with an eye toward fighting it in court. Of course the cost may be a deterrent. But although taking cases on a contingency-fee basis is usually only done in personal injury type cases, some lawyers do handle certain types of insurance claim cases on contingency, too (though many do not). Except for the most rural areas with very low population density, almost every county in the US has a local county bar association that provides attorney referral services to the public. And every state has a state bar association that often provides similar services. Your friend should look them up and speak with them, with an eye toward getting at least an initial consultation with a lawyer who handles insurance claims. She just might be able to find one who'd be willing to take her case on either a contingency or a "blended fee" basis (i.e., part hourly, part contingency) that she'd find affordable.

Nonsense; that's a culturally-centered perspective. Just because JC (so legend says) used the format skillfully and often, doesn't mean he or his devotees either invented it or cornered the bulk of the market on it.

Or, if you prefer, learns Spanish using the Immersion Method.

Chicken wings.

Amazing, isn't it? One would have to live in a shell to not see the up-side of that.

Well, the recent coup and the country's sketchy human rights record have me concerned. Of course I recognize that, especially nowadays with such a global economy, it's not practically possible to keep all one's money and purchases out of the pockets or economies of other countries' governments that I object to, but to the extent I can do some selective avoidance, I try to.

I will never trust him to be a TI.

In fairness, a number of us have mentioned just that in other threads on here. That (what you said), plus the fact that if you as a tourist get caught up in their their byzantine legal system you are so, so majorly fucked. I really can't see myself ever spending my tourist or skydiving dollars in Dubai (and possibly Thailand, too, for example), and these are the reasons why.

Popular subject today; we've already beat you to it. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4652636;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread So anyhow, they backed off once the story went viral. I guess they got scared... stiff.

Simply put, I have always felt, and still do, that legal liability for actual or potential military conscription should be gender-neutral. The 3 of us are about the same age, so you understand how my thinking is influenced by having grown up in the US during the Vietnam war era.

That from 1961 through the present day, really without pause, Ike's warnings have been honored only in the breach, and the US could cut one-third of its military budget, and use that money at home (so that you and I could fight over who gets it ), and still keep our children safe in their beds.

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant." You know, as much as the Internet has enabled the propagation of douchebaggery, it does have its benefits. Seems nary a week passes when you don't see a story outing some local govt or school authority pulling this brand of outrageously oppressive shit. A lot of official assholery that used to go the full 9 yards w/o challenge a generation ago is stopped in its tracks nowadays thanks to stories going viral on the Internet. God bless it and all its works. Booze, guns, lawyers and the Internet: The Four Essential Freedoms.