Southern_Man

Beer Light at my DZ goes on at Wheel up on last load. My personal beer light doesn't go on until all the packing is done. I guess I would pack my own rig while/after drinking a beer but not anybody else's. Hasn't come up since I am usually on first load, not last. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Hey, I was at that boogie! "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Glad the problem was worked out to your satisfaction. Would also add that if you bought through a gear dealer (most do) they are often helpful in getting service. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

We all have to work through this. No, we don't all have to. Stopping jumping because it is not pleasurable or enjoyable is a perfectly valid choice. I jump because the benefits (to me) outweigh the risks (to me). I never dealt with paralyzing door fear, although I had a pretty usual and normal amount of anxiety on my first few jumps it went away pretty quickly. It I have door fear to that degree my whole calculus about risk/benefit would change. It is a personal choice. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

There are no damages. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This seems consistent with other rulings I've seen on reporters being forced to testify. A number of reporters have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources. I support them in doing so. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Then what you're referring to essentially is jury nullification as a form of deliberate civil disobedience. And a hallmark of civil disobedience is the risk of punitive consequences (and I say that purely academically). As I pointed out above, a juror who deliberately engages in it runs the risk of contempt of court or even perjury. On a practical level, it may be hard to catch a juror at it, but if he's sufficiently open about it in the deliberation room, and another juror reports it to the judge, those consequences could occur. I don't believe that is necessarily true. I do believe it is within the jury's purview to say that "this law" applied to "this case" produces an unjust result. I'm sure you know a lot more about the theory and practice of jury nullification than I do But it happens, and I don't see jurors going to jail, so as a practical reality... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think this used to be true, but I'm not sure it is any longer. I consider myself libertarian leaning and identify about zero with the republican party. It is the worst of all worlds for a libertarian--they are big tax and spenders and also want to meddle in personal liberties (civil rights, anyone?) I know a lot of other libertarian leaning people who feel the same way. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, counselor, it is a part of this thing called checks and balances... It is an important right of the people against an overreaching government. The ballot box is not the only place the people are allowed to disagree w/ their leaders. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Did he tell you he did that intentionally? Did he tell you why he did that? I don't know the answer to your question but that just seems bizarre to me. I've only been rigging (and really even in the sport) a short time, though, so maybe I'm missing something. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You made a good decision. This is a dangerous sport. You are the one who has to live (or not) with the consequences of the decisions you make. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm with you. Every activity or hobby I've ever participated in had people continuously entering and leaving, and sometimes re-entering. Nowhere have I seen the sort of attitude towards those people that I see in skydiving. Life changes, priorities change, assessment of risk change, etc. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That is only part of the point, but you do know me well. Why should inheritance, visitation, custody, etc. be limited to two people? Why privilege two person coupling? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Why should the state recognize that, Bill? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Wow, if the facts alleged in that complaint are even close to true, wow. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sorry, been busy and didn't check but I'm happy to answer the question. I'm a new rigger, so I am not in the business of training other riggers at this point in time. I would not seal another person's reserve pack job who was training for his ticket. It is not the way I was taught, the pack jobs we did under supervision were not put in service. Supervision of the main packing floor is a job I take very seriously. All packers, students as well as packers for hire, are taught to inspect for wear as they pack. All packers are taught to ask questions if they don't understand something. I do show packers different kinds of equipment--different stowage systems for breaks, different riser cover configurations, etc. As far as supervision, it is on a sliding scale based on experience. I have been teaching my 13 year old daughter to pack. She has been getting a lot of hands-on supervision and help and she will for quite a while. I've had other packers on the floor who have worked packing for a number of years professionally and have a lot more pack jobs than I have. I supervise them too but not at the same level. I am on the floor while there are things being packed. I am spot checking the pack jobs, which could vary from observing the whole thing start-to-finish for a new person to observing a few steps on more experienced people. I would personally feel comfortable jumping anything that is packed on my floor--which is the bottom line as far as I am concerned. If there was somebody who I would not feel comfortable jumping his/her packjob, then we would be doing re-training or some other arrangement. Honestly I am at a smaller drop zone and most weekends I am the only paid packer but at times I have people packing under my supervision as well. I think the whole experience would be different if there were, e.g. 7 packers under my supervision. I started packing at a larger drop zone and my supervising rigger observed my pack jobs--start to finish at first and then some steps from time-to-time. He was always helping fine-tune some things so that was a good experience and I largely developed my philosophy/practices from that. I will also observe experienced jumpers packing for themselves and offer tips when I have time. It does surprise me that jumpers, for example visiting jumpers, will walk in and throw down their rig and get a pack job without asking any questions about qualifications or experience. I personally don't let anybody else pack my gear (except for earlier mentioned 13 year old daughter). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Congratulations John. My father is also retired FAA. He was an electronic technician, repairing and maintaining radar that you rely upon, among other duties. He has been retired for ~8 years now. I still have a long way to go before retirement arrives for me. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, it is still an FAA requirement. I received supervision when I started packing form a rigger. Now that I am a rigger I provide supervision for people packing under me. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The DOMA decision is one that should be applauded by strict constructionists and conservatives. There is no authorization in the constitution for the federal government to define marriage. In the case law the definition of marriage has been a place for the states to make the laws. According to the 10th all rights not explicitly assigned to the feds are reserved to the states or to the people. So in one swoop the Supremes limited the Federal governments authority to overrule the states and also upheld a strict constructionist interpretation of the separation of powers under Federalism. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Is this true in Texas? Not that the debate over the death penalty morality should be of cost savings (see China), but if it's still costing more to execute in Texas where 500 have been so punished, then it's never going to be cheaper than just jailing them on Alcatraz 3000. According to this article, the trial costs alone far outweigh the costs of life imprisonment, and that doesn't include the costs associated with imprisonment during the often lengthy appeals process, or the execution itself. Blues, Dave Yes, and it is extraordinarily likely that any steps you take to reduce the cost will increase the rate of erroneous convictions. That is not an acceptable trade-off to me. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I fail to see how the decision has anything to do with being cuckolded. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If it can be and is safely performed in an outpatient clinic why should the government dictate that it be done at a more expensive and less available facility? I thought Republicans were supposed to encourage the free market? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just wanted to address this--last time I started dating somebody we both agreed to get tested, which in my mind is the only responsible thing to do. Made an appointment w/ my PCP and she discouraged me from coming there to get tested again. According to her if I went and applied for insurance and the company saw that I had a history of being tested they would likely deny me coverage. That is craziness. She encouraged me to go to my local health clinic and get tested there instead. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That's a fair question. I doubt drugs being used to treat are the only factors involved, but if there is a list of ones that would be considered prima facie evidence of disqualification to own, then it would be a good idea to publish it along with the statute. Yes, because what we want is gun owners or potential gun owners avoiding treatments and medications which could help them. If a person would rather have a gun than be treated for his dangerous mental health issues (which is the only kind we're talking about here), then he shouldn't HAVE a gun to begin with. That's a great theory, and I actually agree with it. However, it is totally irrelevant to the dynamics the law creates. The guy who gets treatment will have his gun taken away. The guy who does not seek treatment or refuses the medications when offered will get to keep his guns. Less people will seek treatment. Less people will accept the doctor's suggestions. In other words you have created a larger pool of people opting out of treatment with guns. Good luck with that. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"