wolfriverjoe

Parker & Stone, the creators of South Park were on "Fresh Air" on NPR a couple years ago. They talked a bit about the "Stuck in the Closet with Tom Cruise" episode that skewered Scientology. The part that I remember most is that they knew how the Scientologists would go after any critics. Lawsuits are pretty common. So they decided to bring the lawyers in from the beginning. They had lawyers advising them as the script was being developed. Apparently, the lawyers had a lot of fun helping the writers go as close to the "slander" line as they could without crossing it. And it worked. The episode blasts Scientology pretty hard, but they didn't get into any legal trouble. The episode ends with Stan inviting the Scientologists to "Go ahead, sue me." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

According to their website, 18 is minimum. http://www.parachutecenter.com/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

There are very few places in the US that will take anyone under 18. USPA recently changed the rules and now has a minimum age of 18, not 16 anymore. Sorry. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

If you read the thread over at BJ.com (linked in OP), the cops are part of the Bridge Day committee. The committee writes the contract that the organizers operate under. The old contract is up and they are negotiating a new one. The cops are insisting that fingerprinting be part of the new contract. It seems possible (probable?) that the cops either want to extend their authority over the jumpers just "because they can" or make the conditions of the contract so objectionable that Bridge Day "goes away." It doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual terrorism. The cops are saying that they want to check prints for "outstanding warrants and registered sexual predators." At least that's how I understood what I was reading. I could be wrong. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yea you said this, I stated the Jewish people, have found a way to move on, why can't black people? I would hardly say that the Jews have moved on. They had to fight to establish Israel, they have had to fight to keep from being annihilated numerous times, they continue to fight against Hamas, all while being vilified by the international community. And all while being accused of being the "Illuminati," secretly running the entire world. They have adapted and assimilated fairly well here in the US, but we've been pretty open to immigrants throughout our history... As long as they were white. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

OMFG! Now I'm gonna have nightmares. I looked at it, and thought: "It has bacon, looks good to me." Then I read the comments. First one. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, OJ was found not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent, but I think you know that. Our criminal justice system finds people "not guilty" for a reason, because that's really all it can do - make a decision that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proclaiming innocence would be a much different standard, and I'm pretty sure it's not one our system (or perhaps any system) is up for. And OJ was found not guilty (not "found innocent" as you pointed out) in a criminal court. He was found "liable" for the deaths in a civil court, which has a lower standard of proof. Regardless of what any court said, if he committed the murders (which I personally believe he did), he isn't "innocent." Similarly, one of Cosby's accusers went to the cops, went to the prosecutor. She was told that they wouldn't take it to trial because there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction. Cosby would have had a "rock star" defense team. Without (or maybe even with) an air tight case, he would have walked. Prosecutors hate to lose (for a lot of different reasons - some valid, some not so much). Rape can be really hard to prosecute. Often only two witnesses, with diametrically opposed stories. Forensic evidence proves the act, but can't prove consent (absent wounds from an attack). Vicious attacks by both sides on both the accuser and the accused. Throw in the fact that celebs are often targeted by false accusations by opportunists looking for a payout. Countered by the fact that some celebs are pretty sick and twisted people, who use their power and wealth to stay out of trouble. It's really hard to say what the truth in the Cosby accusations might be. But the totality of the claims is starting to add up. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Fucked up. Not funny at all. Pretty stupid too. I can understand a 12 year old kid doing something really stupid, not realizing the potential consequences for his actions (referencing the kid that got shot). But this is a (supposed) adult. Did he not realize that there's an almost certainty that someone wouldn't realize that it's just a picture on the tailgate? Around Halloween, some people hang a sleeve with a hand (or pants leg with a shoe) out of their trunk. Some of those get pulled over too. If it looks real enough, the cops aren't going to mess around. The ones I've talked to about it don't find it amusing. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Wait a minute. You mean a Republican congresscritter is actually suggesting working with Obama? And actually compromising to get some of the things that the Rs want? Actually accomplishing something? Passing real legislation? That stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of being signed? It sounds nice, but I'll believe it when I see it. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It's a private contract between a business and a customer. Legally, you can put just about anything you want in that sort of agreement (there are some restrictions, but not for stuff like this). Rule #1 - If you sign it, read it. South Park had a good one on agreeing to the TOS without reading it. And if you do find something like this in the TOS, then write an anonymous review. Or have a friend write it for you. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It was in the terms of service that they signed. It really isn't fraud. They should have read it before they signed it. It also doesn't fall under "freedom of speech" because it isn't the government, it's a private business. It is however, one of the most appalling, idiotic and, as Billy noted, "dumbassed" policies out there. And these guys aren't the only ones to do it either, NPR had a story on it a couple months ago. Same practice, hide an agreement to pay a penalty for a negative on line review in the TOS that everyone signs. Here's another one: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/tech/couple-fined-for-negative-review/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Bingo. Serious acrophobia. Ladders, roofs, cliffs, towers, balconies, all that stuff. Grated walkways or stairways (the ones you can see through because the stair treads and walkways aren't solid) are the worst for me. If I'm not holding onto something I can get some pretty serious vertigo. Far more an issue with edges than actual heights too. Inside the plane, inside of a building (closed window), no problems at all. Oddly enough, freefall or under canopy isn't an issue at all (back to the "edges" thing). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Very true. Unfortunately, 4500 miles is a bit far. Cyber-stalking will have to suffice. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, for the military, having a plan for everything, no matter how unlikely, is SOP. We've got contingency plans to deal with an invasion from Canada. They don't address the likelihood of AGW having serious effects. They just address what effects AGW might have and how to deal with them. To not have plans in place for things like this is negligent. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I'd argue no On what grounds would you argue that the camera does not have at least some positive aspects, including this one? I've put forward a real-life example in which a safety violation was detected after reviewing video, one for which a newer jumper was being unfairly scapegoated. It may not outweigh all of the negatives for flying camera, but it is something that goes in the + column. Cameras on skydivers can function much like the dashboard cam on a car might, in the sense that they can collect evidence from unexpected incidents that might prove useful later to help determine what happened. I would agree that having it "offests some of the disadvantages." Having it as a "Flight Data Recorder" gives unbiased, unarguable proof of what happened (assuming whatever happened was "on camera"). But I don't see that being the case often enough to make it a valid argument. I don't think it offsets enough of the risks to make it worthwhile. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yes. Prohibited by rules (not acro certified) Unannounced meant he didn't have "consenting" passengers. Shows some pretty bad judgement. Sort of like a TI doing CRW or that sort of "stupid stuff." I'd make sure the DZO and airplane owner were aware and would be very hesitant about getting on a plane being piloted by that person again. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

On your birthday? That sucks big time. Believe me, I know. BTDT. Who got custody of the cat? Sorry to hear this. Hope you get through it ok. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

What rights shouldn't they have? The right to vote? Run for office? Actually we could give them a path to becoming citizens, but not full citizens. They could become... (Wait for it) Second-class citizens. They would be permanent resident aliens. With no path to become citizens. But with all the rights of any other resident alien. Because they came here illegally, they shouldn't be able to become citizens. If they don't like it, they can always go home and try to immigrate legally. That would take away the claim that "The Dems are giving them 'amnesty' to get votes." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, we do have an "open door" of sorts. 12 million illegal immigrants. The majority of whom fall under the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and to have a shot at the "American Dream." If we did manage to "round them all up and deport them" like so many claim to want, then a parts of our economy would simply stop. There have been a few times where INS/Homeland Security have staged raids, and enough people didn't show up for work the next day (either in custody or scared of being caught) that whole factories had to shut down. Personally, I'd like to see some sort of path to legal status, but not citizenship, for illegals. If they are here, working and paying taxes, some form of application & payment for permanent legal residence would benefit everyone. So many people seem to forget that an "Open Borders" policy is what made this country what it is. And the xenophobia was present the entire time. I'm not suggesting fully open borders, but I do think that the system that pretty much only allows highly skilled or very wealthy people is needs to be addressed. And we really need to figure a way to deport that Bieber idiot. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I see two options: (1) You deport the entire family. (2) the child stays with a guardian in the USA, the rest are deported. In either option, the child will probably have a dual citizen status and be free to travel back and forth. The child can come back on their own when they reach the age of majority. Or, the child can travel back and forth as an unaccompanied minor to visit relatives. i.e., the child (a US citizen) stays with Uncle Juan and Aunt Rosa and attends school in SOCAL. The child travels back during Holiday and Summer to visit the rest of the family. Mom and Dad can still pursue Visa status from their country of origin. Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, just expanding on the point some. Well, as I understand it, you can't technically deport a citizen. But, as the legal guardians, the parents would be free to take their children along with if the parents were deported. The kid would retain citizenship and would be free to return to the US at any time (as any citizen would). I keep hearing the hue and cry about "splitting up families" and "taking parents away from their children", but I hear very little about this as an option. There was a case a few years back in Chicago where the mom sought "sanctuary" in a church. INS didn't go in after her for PR reasons (even though there's no legal "sanctuary"), but there was a huge outcry that she would be sent back and be forcibly separated from her young son. Kids usually accompany their parents when a move is made. Many kids aren't really happy about it. Sometimes the parents aren't either. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference between moving because of a job requirement or moving because the parents are being deported. Yes, one has more choice in it for the parents. One is being forced by the government. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

If you signed the contract, took the oath & put on the uniform, you are a veteran. I won't make a distinction between "peacetime" and "wartime" vets because everyone who served basically agreed to go get shot at if ordered to. And there are some places that are pretty dangerous, even in so-called "peacetime." DMZ in Korea comes to mind first, but there are others. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

101st Airborne "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Or Social Security. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, once you get divorced, you lose all the government provided advantages that marriage has. The government doesn't force people to get married or stay married. It just offers benefits to those who do. And there are circumstances where the government penalizes marriage. Welfare recipients are one. The "marriage penalty" in certain income tax brackets is another. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Actually, the government has some pretty good reasons to get involved in "mawwiage, that wevewred institution." Children do better in stable, 2 parent households. That's been shown pretty well. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to matter if the two parents are both men, both women, or one of each. Less crime (lower costs), Better education and future incomes (more tax revenue), more accomplishments as adults (economic growth), those are just at the top of the lists. More successful kids make more successful adults. The benefits of that cascade down for a long way. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo