Andy9o8

I was wondering how many posts it would take before someone was classy enough to use that to hit back at him. Five.

Gotta love that George was jumping in his Topsiders. Always the preppie!

Curious, based on something in another thread: is the stalker who's creeping you male or female?

Why? - he's made it to age 90. What's the worst that could possibly happen? Seriously. Yay George. Former president of the US dies while skydiving. Bet that would make the news. Heh heh, yep. But at this point I don't think most people would say "Oh, that's horrible" - bet they'd say "Yay George!"

Why? - he's made it to age 90. What's the worst that could possibly happen? Seriously. Yay George.

That's not fair. South Vietnam is an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against Communism.

No. You do not. You may think you know, but it is impossible to know until you're actually put in that situation. Believing you think you know is living in a fantasy world. Maybe for you. I am certain I know. http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm316/uryu911/turtleswithguns.jpg

You realize this is just the Internet, right?

Well, just like the old days: this is what happens when you're passin' - sooner or later, you get burned.

"United" States?

Like it or not, ridiculous or not, there's a lesson in that: Just don't do that at work. Ever. Period. Anything other than that is less safe. I invite you to slightly edit that. If you dare.

Incorporating oneself (or forming an LLC, etc.) may indeed offer some level of protection of one's personal assets from liability, if it's done right. It varies with the state and the circumstances. If the worst case scenario is an instructor or rigger having his/her personal assets, real estate, etc. placed in jeopardy due to an incident, incorporating or LLC'ing may act to lessen or even avoid the worst case scenario. I'm purposely speaking in broad generalities. The best way to decide what, whether and how to do, is to have a live sit-down with an attorney who practices in your particular state. (Taking legal advice on this from anyone who is not an attorney may lead you in a harmfully wrong direction for your particular circumstances.)

Did the doc opine on whether you might take an OTC non drowsy decongestant?

Hey, nice shirt.

Ha haaa!!!! Those are great. Here's one from my own life: One time I was engaged by a firm as a trial consultant, to take over and try an international law case they had started against defendants in Iran. Our side had been required to get all of our (voluminous) legal filings translated into Farsi and then serve them on the Iranian defendants. This had already been "done" before I came on board. It appears that to save money on translation costs (it gets really expensive) the boneheaded managing partner of the firm got a "friend" of his to do it at a "discount". Problem is, her native language was Arabic, not Farsi; they're completely different languages that happen to use the same alphabet (you know, like, say, Italian and Norwegian do...). So as I was prepping the case, my Iranian expert witness looked at our copies of all the "translated" documents we'd already created (at considerable expense) and pointed out the problem to me. I then went to Mr. Partner. Me: Uh, your interpreter translated all these documents into Arabic, not Farsi. It's the wrong language. Partner: What difference does it make? It's the same alphabet, they can read them just fine.

Maybe so, but sometimes subjects compel themselves, and "The witness will simply answer the question asked" is not always the best policy. Like when your 10 year old kid calls up from the basement: "Dad, how close can a can of paint thinner get to a burning candle without blowing up?", a responsible reaction on Dad's part should probably be something more than just calling back down, "Oh, I'd say about 30 feet should do it."

Interesting. 5 years ago, I was: Economic Left/Right: -3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05 Today I am: Economic Left/Right: -3.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41 So, a statistical wash. Obviously, I have already achieved perfection.

You spend millions on a silly and corrupt royal family, you have bad teeth, your food tastes like donkey dick, you have a nanny-state BPA, you don't know how to say the word "shit", you use rocks or something as a unit of measure, and you have the Welsh. So don't be throwing stones. Rocks. Whatever.

We just call them the grammar/spelling nazis I'd recommend capitalizing the "N" in "Nazis".

I know you mean well; but with all due respect, you're on the wrong side of this, as to the "proportionality" issue. Except for the wealthiest (who are able to buy all their gear new if they wish), our sport depends on people being able to buy used gear long-distance in private sales. That leaves all of us particularly vulnerable to fraud. Gear-sale fraud is an ongoing scourge to the entire sport, and needs to be treated, especially among ourselves, with zero tolerance. That means, if need be, being reacted-to robustly, not necessarily in proportion with the dollar-value stolen. I also concur with the others that, ultimately, the OP's personal level of reaction is for him to decide for himself.

The reason in defining them that way was so we didn't have to treat them like POWs, which they are (IMHO). It was bullshit when Bush did it, and it was bullshit when Obama continued it. Word. To summarize my several previous posts on this: They're either POWs, in which case they're entitled to Geneva Convention protections, or they're criminal defendants, in which case if they're in US custody they're entitled to US Constitutional and statutory protections. There is no third category of "unlawful combatant, or what-have-you; that's a fiction created to rationalize torture, indefinite detention without formal charges, and informal extradition (see "extraordinary rendition") in violation of US laws and treaties. Utterly shameful.

Oh. I take it you're a married man. Testify, brother!

Obviously your x-ray vision is better than ours, Superman.

Your agenda is obvious: a backdoor entrance to re-open a discussion on a thread that you started (the 5th option on your "list"), has been utterly exhausted, and was eventually locked by the moderators. You're being a pain in the ass. Let it go already.

Ok I can see this but a law was broken No doubt about this anymore Do we just ignore this as well? Legally, this is another grey area. In short, the law might be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Even though this President signed the legislation into law, at the time he did so he also issued a formal Presidential Signing Statement (frequently done by presidents of both parties) saying that he felt the law risked violating separation of powers and that he reserved the right to act quickly, without prior notice to Congress, when urgency called for it. HERE is a NYT article about Bergdahl's release; it discusses this issue here: Here is the full text of the Presidential Signing Statement, which I suggest one read in its entirety: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/26/statement-president-hr-3304 .