nerd137 0 #101 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuote So they're suing the jump pilot too. It's about the money!! Sue everyone... you get a little from this person, and some more from another. It's never about right or wrong or who's responsible. It's always about the money. It's sad, but I completely agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #102 May 6, 2009 > and then be required to give the whole load a gear check before boarding? Quite literally, yes. The pilot is responsible to ensure that everyone on board has TSO'ed and in-date equipment per the FAR's. It doesn't mean he is required to physically check everyone, but he is responsible for ensuring that that happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,376 #103 May 6, 2009 Hi tom, I also found that argument interesting. IMO, the plaintiff's attorney threw everything against the wall to see what would stick. It looks like Strong's attorney is also throwing everything against the same wall to see what will stick. It would make a very interesting conclusion if this one gets upheld. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #104 June 10, 2009 QuoteBecause of the 'lady falling out of the harness' in Ohio, http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/185.shtml Ted Strong is once again having his ass sued off because of someone else's negligence and is going broke trying to defend himself. Please send some $$$ to Strong Enterprises to help him defend the case and save our sport (and your sport) from similar litigation in the future. Strong Enterprises, 11236 Satellite Blvd. Orlando, Florida 32837, USA I am doing this on my own accord, with no special request from Ted or anyone else. He is completely innocent, his gear is good, if not great, and he will likely spend $600K defending himself against greedy fucking slimey lawyers and people who cannot see justice, but only see money. Bill Booth also knows exactly what I am talking about. The TM has no money, so he is not getting sued I bet, and I think the DZ folded to avoid the same and are probably not touchable. This is an injustice and everyone who ever made a dollar from a tandem skydive owes part of that back to Ted for 50+ years of skydiving innovation and dedication to the sport. Thanks TK Hayes DZO Skydive City Update on this lawsuit. USPA has settled with the plaintiffs. SE and Dave Roberts are the only two defendants left and they are not getting an infusion of cash from USPA like the plaintiff. see attachment .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #105 June 10, 2009 QuoteUpdate on this lawsuit. USPA has settled with the plaintiffs. SE and Dave Roberts are the only two defendants left and they are not getting an infusion of cash from USPA like the plaintiff. see attachment. Jan, do we know the terms of the settlement?"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #106 June 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteUpdate on this lawsuit. USPA has settled with the plaintiffs. SE and Dave Roberts are the only two defendants left and they are not getting an infusion of cash from USPA like the plaintiff. see attachment. Jan, do we know the terms of the settlement? No. But I have not read all the court docs. There are thousands of pages in this case now. I just read a 449 page depo. The lawyers are winning so far. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 2 #107 June 10, 2009 QuoteThe lawyers are winning so far. . Don't they always? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #108 June 11, 2009 probably more like "USPA's INSURANCE company has settled with the plantiffs." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #109 June 11, 2009 Quoteprobably more like "USPA's INSURANCE company has settled with the plantiffs." No doubt the lawyers are cashing in - but at least they're providing a service. That USPA has settled is another blow to the Association, and moreso, the members. Slyde is looking more rational and better informed by the hour."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #110 June 11, 2009 QuoteNo. But I have not read all the court docs. There are thousands of pages in this case now. I just read a 449 page depo. The lawyers are winning so far. It sounds a large and time-consuming task. If you happen across the terms, I hope you'll post them for us. Thanks for all you do."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #111 June 11, 2009 QuoteSlyde is looking more rational and better informed by the hour. Slyde hasn't posted in a week - you reckon he got banned finally? And Amazon hasn't posted in a month - Speaker's Corner is fairly civil for a change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #112 June 11, 2009 QuoteSlyde hasn't posted in a week - you reckon he got banned finally? And Amazon hasn't posted in a month - Speaker's Corner is fairly civil for a change. Probably he's been banned, even the new fake names he was using. Too bad, I suppose. He's hard to follow, and has a high personal stake in things, but his message is nonetheless important. If only he would try to be less cryptic and better understood. As for Amazon - maybe she's joined the slutsketeers?? WTF?!?!?!?!?"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #113 June 11, 2009 Quote Quote Slyde is looking more rational and better informed by the hour. Slyde hasn't posted in a week - you reckon he got banned finally? And Amazon hasn't posted in a month - Speaker's Corner is fairly civil for a change. Yes, I'm very disappointed. Slyde was making the General Forum more entertaining that anything in the BF recently."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #114 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteSlyde hasn't posted in a week - you reckon he got banned finally? Probably he's been banned, even the new fake names he was using. Too bad, I suppose. He's hard to follow, and has a high personal stake in things, but his message is nonetheless important. If only he would try to be less cryptic and better understood. Yep, the "SlyD" messages are all in the recycle bin. The "Slyde" messages have fallen silent. QuoteHe's hard to follow, and has a high personal stake in things, but his message is nonetheless important. If only he would try to be less cryptic and better understood. I have a theory for that. His references were to people on the USPA Board. You have to know something about the members in order to make the connection. For example, the "cancer" person is a respected cancer doctor, who also owns a drop zone, and serves as a board member. The "trained killers" are one or more Board members who are retired military. It seems cryptic, unless you know enough about the individuals to realize who he was actually talking about. And perhaps he didn't come right out and say their names, because the things he was accusing them of are so over the top, that it would subject him to slander lawsuits. So to insulate himself from legal counter-attacks, he had to be cryptic and non-specific. So is he really crazy, or just sly as a fox? Or both? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #115 June 11, 2009 Quote So is he really crazy, or just sly as a fox? Or both? Well, John, you're right, about the BOD members, and I try to remember the names that go to his comments. It's the references and the jumbled tie-ins (multiple threads, discordant messages) that keep one working to understand him. I think you're right, as well, about his trying to keep himself shielded. Nonetheless, it is my belief that in this forum, especially in regard to elected individuals, that open discussion of topics is not only OK but beneficial. Despite all the remarks and questions about his sobriety and lucidity, I consider Mark to be a smart guy and right on the money in regard to his complaints. If he were direct I think he would be better received and he would have people openly on his side. But on the other hand, what skydiver isn't a bit crazy???? .02 N"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoom1 0 #116 June 12, 2009 is dropzone.com connected to the uspa? does uspa have the power to censor the media? when hugo chavez tries to supress free speech people call him a pinko commie. if he has no credibilty nobody will listen to him anyways. i thought dropzone.com ran a forum where you can say what you like, even if some other people don't like it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #117 June 12, 2009 We're not talking communism or politics here, Zoom. That's SC. We're not even talking about Slyde and his situation. I didn't intend my comments to move the discussion from SE, Inc v Asswipe, which case and relateds is what this thread is about. Dizzy and USPA have no direct connection, obviously, but it seems you have the mistaken belief that free speech has no limits or constraints. It does. In America, our Constitutionally guaranteed rights (viz the Bill of Rights) are limited by their effect on another. My rights don't outweigh another's, so I am limited in my ability to express or use those rights. In America, free speech, as one example, is limited by a standard of injury and liability: slander and libel. So while the Internet gives some a feeling of anonymity and invincibility, that feeling is false. Unpopular speech does not equate to libelous speech. and one can be held accountable for things posted online. The discussion of elected representatives and their policies &c. can and should be done in the open. That is the position I stated so I don't understand your post anyway. I support Slyde's and anyone's right to free speech. I support their right to hold unpopular (if sometimes ignorant) opinions. I support their right to hold opinions that differ from mine, even if I oppose their view. Specifically, I support Mark's position and hope he is successful against USPA. Edited to correct misspelling"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #118 June 12, 2009 QuoteDizzy and USPA have no direct connection, obviously, but it seems you have the mistaken belief that free speech has no limits or constraints. It does. More relevant, this is a privately-run community, run by a South African with servers in Canada (? I think). Of course even if it were run by an American in the U.S., it's still a private community and as such the owners (or their representatives) can enforce standards of behavior and conduct, and can edit or delete whatever the fuck they want. Don't like it? Go start your own online community. (That was meant to be a general "you," not necessarily you specifically, NovaTTT)."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #119 June 12, 2009 Quote Go start your own online community. Yeah - like I don't have enough headaches in my life already! Great point, though!"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikeb 0 #120 June 12, 2009 If Ted Strong has $600,000 in legal fees he will need to do $60 million dollars of business at 10% net profit to break even. I think he could use some help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #121 June 12, 2009 >is dropzone.com connected to the uspa? Nope. >does uspa have the power to censor the media? The general media? No. Their own website? Yes. >when hugo chavez tries to supress free speech people call him a >pinko commie. But when a US company does not allow competitors to put negative attack ads on their website, they are just plain smart. >if he has no credibilty nobody will listen to him anyways. Right. And if this were your website, you could decide that you were OK paying for the storage space for any sort of nonsense you like. >i thought dropzone.com ran a forum where you can say what you like, >even if some other people don't like it Uh, no. You are welcome to post here provided you follow Willem's rules. If not, then you are free to go to other websites, start your own website, write letters to the editor etc. If all that is too much hassle, you are still 100% free to stand on a street corner in the USA with a big sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boyd38off 0 #122 June 12, 2009 QuoteIf Ted Strong has $600,000 in legal fees he will need to do $60 million dollars of business at 10% net profit to break even. I think he could use some help. Is this Enron math?? $54 million mistake for a $600k problem... awesome.Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting, ".... holy crap....what a ride!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #123 June 12, 2009 Hey math genius, 10% of $60 million is $6 million. 10% of $6 million is $600k. If you all think that the lawyer is a worthless piece of shit (like pretty much all contingency based plaintiff lawyers), give him a call with "information pertinent to the case". His number was listed in the complaint, and I am sure he would love to speak with a few thousand experienced jumpers, that is if his lines were not so jambed that he could not conduct other business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikeb 0 #124 June 12, 2009 I stand corrected. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #125 June 12, 2009 Quote If Ted Strong has $600,000 in legal fees he will need to do $60 million dollars of business at 10% net profit to break even. I think he could use some help. 10% of $60M is $6M, not $600k. Edited to add: I see it's been discussed already. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
