Airman1270

The poll failed to address what may be mitigating circumstances: Has the person being "cheated" on been freezing out the cheater, perhap encouraging this behavior? I think most of us would agree that it's wrong to cheat on someone who has been loyal to us. But if you've been pushed away for a long, long time it is much easier to fall into such temptation. Every woman I've ever been serious with has cheated on me. In return, I've passed up on some fine opportunities because I was too busy being loyal. I remember one nice young lady who began hanging at my home DZ in the early '90's and who seemed to like me. She didn't blatantly proposition me, but suggested in a roundabout way that I was welcome to pursue something if I was so inclined. However, I had been married less than two years and was simply not accustomed to such thinking. It took a few days before I thought back on that conversation and realized what she was getting at. "Oh!" I said. "now I get it. Boy, that was nice of her..." While all marital cheating is wrong, it is much easier to understand when you've been frozen out for so long you risk growing your virginity back. Cheers, Jon S.

...QuoteSure.... but dont be surprised if some skydiving bagage handler borrows your tequila... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This crap is just one of the reasons I will avoid commercial flying if at all possible. After your bags have been x-rayed and found not to be carrying anything lethal, why should they be allowed to get their hand inside for ANY reason? How dare they insist you not lock your stuff? It's nobody's business what you're carrying. Perhaps a few well-placed mousetraps might make for some interesting moments... Cheers, Jon S.

...Mom returns with a sword. Okay. Problem. Big problem. Major problem... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No. No problem at all. She was scared. She did not approach the other men. She stood at her back door while calling 911. Yes, she could have remained inside, but why should she have to? It's HER property. She had every right to demonstrate her willingness to defend herself if attacked. This is the kind of response I would expect from someone who has spent much of his life in law school and in courtrooms. However, most people don't interpret every detail of their lives through the prism of "How will this look in court?" ... This is a disturbing statement. Considering the events of two days ago, this is an EXTREMELY disturbing statement. ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The events that occurred earlier this week are irrelevant. I have said similar things over the years, ALWAYS in response to situations where the police respond in a heavy-handed manner to people who do not derserve to be hassled. Examples include the woman in Woodstock, Georgia in 1994 who was arrested for spanking her child in a supermarket, after a young clueless clerk interpreted this as "abuse." (Before you launch into some version of "maybe it WAS abuse," no, it wasn't. The charges were dropped almost immediately. If there had been an abuse situation, this would have gone further through the system before being resolved.) Another example occurred a few months ago when a 19 year-old recent graduate visited her former high school in Cobb County, GA to drop off some things for her brother. On the way out she saw some friends in the parking lot and spoke with them briefly. She was arrested by the school "resource" officer. SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE COP COULD NOT HAVE SIMPLY SAID "I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO MOVE ON." Need more examples? How about the people who leave their kids in the car while going inside to pay for gas. Even though they were inside just for a moment, with the kids in plain sight, some asshole cops interpret this as "child endangerment." I am very frightened by a police culture that is grooming young cops to operate without any regard for plain common sense. These guys are incapable/unwilling to use a little intelligence & discretion when confronted with harmless minor (alleged) violations. I stand by my statement. We've now reached a point where, upon hearing about a cop being killed, I wait to learn the details before deciding whether it's a tragedy. The plain truth is that it's no longer necessary to do bad things in order to be hassled by the cops. These bastards think they have the right to stop people, demand ID, and search their cars in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity. Furthermore, they make arrests when they could write tickets and write tickets when they could issue verbal warnings. So often they can get what they want without being pricks, but they'd rather put the screws to people, then claim that people like me who speak up about it should be disarmed and watched very closely. If next week they are ordered to round up the people in your community, march them to the train station and pack them in boxcars, how many would carry out the orders? Before you say it'll never happen, remember it HAS happened. 30 years ago it was inconceivable that people would be stopped at roadblocks or hassled for their ID simply because they were taking a late-night walk. Today this abuse is routine. In my sister's situation, if they really thought it necessary to prosecute her for possession of the sword they could have written her a ticket, requiring her to appear in court to answer the charge. At the same time, they could have taken seriously the original crime perpetrated against her by the other men. If you've ever been hassled by the police for doing something that used to be okay, thank a Democrat. Cheers, Jon

May 2006. Highlands Ranch, Colorado. 46 year-old mother of three at her home. Employees of a fence company installing a fence for the neighbor. Mom goes outside to move some plants and asks that they be careful not to damage her shrubbery. Later she finds thay have (apparently deliberately) destroyed a bush. She becomes angry and confronts the men. Rather than apologize or even acknowledge her loss, they begin yelling and/or laughing at her. She feels threatened and becomes frightened by their demeanor. She goes into the house and returns with a phone and a sword. Standing at her back door, she calls police. The bastard nazi cops ignore the trespassing/vandalism and arrest Mom on a charge of felony menace. Mom & family spend over $12,000 before giving up and pleading guilty. The main instigator is an illegal wetback with a long criminal history. Doesn't matter. Cops & prosecutors think a white American who might use a weapon to defend herself is more of a threat than an illegal alien with a violent criminal history. Mom tries to make contact with the owner of the fence company to discuss the matter, only to be further threatened by authorities who appear to be more interested in cultivating the illegal Mexican vote than in protecting citizens' rights. The Mom is my sister. (Aside - If you are a cop and you are willing to make such an arrest under such circumstances, you are a brain-dead nazi scumbag and you deserve to be shot.) What the hell is going on here? Cheers, Jon S.

Your question makes an incorrect assumption that it is not the company's fault. There may be a training problem, there may be a history of problems that suggests he should not have been driving the truck in the first place... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If the driver possesses a driver's license, it is presumed he understands how to operate a vehicle. If there in fact WAS a training problem, then perhaps some legal action against the company might be justified. Are you saying a lawsuit against the company would be the exception, and then only after a training problem had been identified? It seems to me that, given the current legal culture, a suit against the company would be considered routine regardless of any evidence of failure (or lack thereof) on the part of the company leadership. But perhaps I'm wrong. In the months after I broke my ankle on my first jump I was confronted by many people whose knee-jerk response was to suggest I sue somebody, anybody, because I had been injured. They held firmly to this attitude even after I explained that the accident was my fault. This attitude is frightening. Cheers, Jon

At a recent memorial service a lawyer spoke of the deceased, who himself had been a lawyer. He said something like "Oh, sure, you make your lawyer jokes, but you sure don't mind having us around when you need our services." I did not know most of the people there, and it was not the time for a debate. But my instinct was to shout "Don't forget - you guys are frequently the reason we need your services in the first place!" In a previous discussion about this topic I asked someone to explain why it is common practice to name people in a lawsuit who had nothing to do with whatever the mishap was that prompted legal action. Example - UPS driver runs red light & hits someone. Obviously the driver is at fault, not the company for whom he works. Why sue UPS when nobody other than the driver was in a postion to prevent the accident? Example - Student jumper dies after failing to react to a malfunction. Why is the pilot named in the suit when there was NOTHING he could have done to prevent the accident? Sure, the pilot would appreciate some help getting his name cleared, but why should he have to worry about it in the first place? Last time I asked I was reprimanded by people who have actually gone through law school and know the intimate details of how things work. But they could not answer the basic questions I have posed. This is confusing. Cheers anyway, Jon S.

If you knew him I'm certain you would have heard about the incident or at least recognized the name "Danny" from my post. You might have also read the thread in incidents, blue skies, and the sticky at the top of the page that says "DANNY PAGE FUNERAL ARRANGMENTS..." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thanks. I just checked out the Incidents forum. Haven't been on the internet since last weekend. I'm sitting here at the library, stunned. Don't know if I can make it Sunday, but I'll look into it. , Jon

QuoteBad weekend to go to the farm if you want to see people.. with Danny's memorial jumps at Thomaston and the memorial on Sunday... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Huh? Someone's having a memorial jump? Anyone I know? I really must get out more... Cheers, Jon S.

...IIRC this was a write-in process for nomination by Skydiving Magazine... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If that's the case, then why haven't I been nominated? Gee, I've been doing this longer than many of the people who receive such recognition. Sigh. Where's my grapes... , Jon S.

...Quote>Bullshit, they have equality . . . ...They cannot join the Armed Services.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes they can. They just need to shut up and keep private matters private. ...They cannot marry those they love... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ They CAN get married. There may be no point in doing so if they're not attracted to the opposite sex, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. They are NOT free to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that has meant a certain thing throughout several thousand years of recorded history, and then call people "bigots" because they hesitate to embrace this idiocy. Cheers, Jon

...>30 years ago we could go months without thinking about faggotry. Which is like saying "60 years ago we could go months without hearing about uppity negroes wanting to sit in the front of the bus..." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The analogy doesn't fly. There is nothing immoral about being a practicing black man. Cheers, Jon

...However, I really don't see the similarity to the gay rights lobby... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The tactic is the same. That's all I meant by this. We are being bombarded on a near-daily basis with news stories about this subject. Not once every few months or so, but several times a week. This tactic has been employed for many years now by the homosexual lobby. These are two entirely different issues being promoted by using the same means. The comparison was not only appropriate, but is obvious to anybody who is not driven by any ulterior motives. And, by the way, gays DO enjoy not only every right normal people have, but "special rights " as well. If you don't believe this, try celebrating your "pride" by marching naked down a city street (Atlanta, early '90's) or by invading a church, vandalizing the property, assaulting people, and scaring kids (San Francisco, September 1993) without fear of arrest. Cheers, Jon

First, if it IS happening it appears to be part of a natural cycle caused by fluctuations in the sun's output. Nothing to be concerned about. The scandal is in the way the political left is using this as another springboard to convince us to surrender more money and more freedom. Oh, sure, they might be sincere in their concerns, but something just doesn't add up... When you present them with evidence that the alleged "problem" may not be as bad as they thought, they don't say "Really! That's a relief. Tell me more..." Instead they become angry and even more irrational. People want to believe good news. If you receive a phone call telling you that you have inherited a bunch of money you may not be convinced right away but you'll want to hear more. You won't slam down the phone and demand they never bother you again. The left addresses the issue of taxes in the same manner. People who want more taxes claim they're concerned about the government having the money it needs to operate, that's all. But when confronted with proof that lower tax rates result in higher revenue collections, they become angry and irrational. Such a response indicates an ulterior motive. And if they can't be honest about their motives, they have no credibility. Notice the similarity between the global warming lunatics and the homosexual lobby. 30 years ago we could go months without thinking about faggotry. Yet in the past 20-odd years they have shoved the "gay rights" agenda down our throats to the point where we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality being brought to our attention. The same tactic is currently being employed by the global warming lobby. The question for the left, once again is: What's in it for them? What do they have to gain by creating the kind of world they're so hell-bent on creating? There are numerous countries around the world which are dominated by secular liberal philosophy. The common denominator is that none of these countries offer the same opportunities, freedom, and potential wealth we enjoy in America. Whassup? Cheers, Jon S.

...I have well over 200 LPs... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Same here. The turntable is in the basement room where I pack the rigs and keep my musical equipment & exercise thing. I put on an LP side and ride the workout machine in the morning. When the side's over I know it's been about 20 minutes and it's time to get ready for work. The music is still just as enjoyable as it was all those years ago. Recent forays into the past include Beatles, Moody Blues, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Return to Forever, King Crimson, Oingo Boingo, ELO, and Simon & Garfunkle. Cheers, Jon S.

That statment is not true. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh? Perhaps I'm wrong. I make my hasty judgement based on the history of this organization. They don't have a reputation for getting involved in an issue unless they perceive some type of "civil rights" trespass. (Of course, the victim must be black. A violation of a white guy's civil rights rarely prompts any action on their part.) From what I know of the incident, a bunch of skydivers drank some beer and had some late-night fun. Later, there was an accident and a guy died. It appears race had no more to do with it than does the eye color of everyone involved. I'm still bugged by the demand that an arrest be made in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity. Cheers, Jon

Once, but it was a hop 'n' pop anyway. One time the elastic was getting loose and they blew up my helmet on a two-way as we were preparing to do fruitloops. I nodded to the other guy that it was okay and we continued without incident. Cheers, Jon S.

Quote**First let me say what a terrrible thing that this has happened** ....Next, Justice has not been done? Don't do that to a dog? No arrest? How about taking RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions? How about looking at YOUR sons actions that led to this tragedy? NCAAP? They would not be involved if this happened at an all African American camp... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Well said. The NAACP would not be involved if they were convinced this was just a tragic accident. At the same time, where is the evidence that this was anything else? Note the totalitarian attitude on display here, the belief that an arrest must be made despite the lack of evidence supporting such action. This is frightening. Don't mean to caress the boundaries of Speaker's Corner here, but there seems to be an attitude among certain political activist groups that either 1) White people won't associate with black people, or 2) When this theory is obviously not applicable, it must mean that when black people ARE welcomed with open arms into the community, and something unfortunate happens to them, it MUST have something to do with someone's unkind racial attitudes. The NAACP cannot afford to acknowledge reality because the day they do they'll begin to see a dramatic drop in fund-raising income. Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Who gets the vodka? Cheers, Jon

Can't make Dublin, but will you be around in April for the Farm's anniversary boogie? What are the chances for an open-mic contest? Have a great time. Wish I could join you guys. One day... Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Agreed. This stuff has been bothering me for many years. When I began doing news at my first radio job they gave me a lot of flexibility in story selection, writing style, attitude, etc. I came up with what I called "News that Touches Your Life," basically focusing on stuff that could have an impact on you personally. A local traffic wreck may be newsworthy, but if it really affects your life (meaning that someone you know was involved) you shouldn't be first hearing about it on the radio. In contrast, if the Montana legislature is considering a piece of legislation it could happen here, thus the potential impact locally. Story: August 1998, the anniversary of the Princess Di auto mishap. Most "real" news operations in Atlanta lead with the story, using up much air time rehashing the accident. In a three minute newscast I mentioned several other stories, few of which were reported by the big boys. At the end, I closed with "Diana, the wife of Britain's Prince Charles, is dead and has been for a year. Local news organizations are talking about it." Then time, weather, and out. No emotional hand-wringing. No blather. just the facts. Of course, this might explain why I can't get many radio interviews... Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes. I should have been more specific. (Apologize for the delay in responding. Have been working more day shifts recently and don't get as much computer time.) Cheers, Jon

Got to admit he DOES have the right to refuse service. We've become so accustomed to our property rights being trampled in the name of well-meaning legislation. If you don't believe this try smoking a cigarette in a privately-owned restaurant. In fact, any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If the owner does not want to do business with black people, foreigners, crippled folks, or skydivers who do not use AAD's it's their right to make that choice. Of course, in most situations they are making a poor choice, one which will create bad publicity and most certainly hurt, not help, the business. The real scandal is the creation of these stupid laws which punish "free" citizens for exercising unpopular choices, especially when these laws are not applied with an even hand. Remember that string of accusations against the Denny's restaurant chain a few years back? Black people would act rowdy and create a nuisance, prompting management to refuse service. Then came the lawsuits accusing the restaurant of mistreating people solely for racial reasons when it was their behavior, not their race, which caused the problem. Meanwhile, I remember those popular nightclubs in New York City back in the late '70's that carefully selected the people they would allow to enter while rudely turning the others away. I don't recall any "civil liberties" lawyers threatening any lawsuits forcing these businesses to relax their policies and accepted everyone equally. But getting back to this doctor; He might be sincere in his desire to create a certain type of atmosphere but, as a previous poster noted, his actions do not fully coincide with the example set by Jesus. Cheers,. Jon S.

I was a student in upstate NY in the winter, real eager to get some sky and didn't care how cold it was. Oh, the memories of placing a kerosene heater on a platform to pre-heat the Cessna while we scraped ice off the wings. The real problem with winter jumping is arriving at the DZ in the mid-afternoon and being unable to find enough people to get the plane up because the others have already made a jump and are done for the day. Cheers, Jon S.

We all know that management does not condone threats, but what exactly is meant by this? Of course, making threats against each other is frowned upon. But suppose we're discussing stuff in the news, perhaps a story in which someone did something bad to a child. One of us might express our anger by saying something like "...If anyone did that to my kid I'd..." followed by a description of actions which might lead to an ambulance ride. In this example, we're speaking theoretically, not making an actual threat against a specific person. Would this kind of banter violate the official policy? Cheers, Jon S.

...In the UK, I haven't seen gear snobbery be an issue... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Um... If I have my facts straight, I believe gear snobbery is enforced by law in your country. If I show up with my old Wonderhog (complete with belly band) I will be told I may not jump this rig because others (more likely than not people who have much less experience than I do) will tell me it's dangerous to use this gear. When I ask why it's dangerous, I will be told some version of the fact that better gear has since been invented. In fact, you will probably not allow me to jump my new rig because it does not have an AAD. Again, I will be speaking with people who have spent much less time in the sport than I have. Nice work, Gary. Perhaps the reason SKYDIVING did not use your article is because they recently addressed the issue with a lengthy piece of work by Robin Heid. I began jumping in 1982 and have been jumping my W'hog for over 20 years. At first this was not unusual, but as time went on I received an increasing array of raised eyebrows, curious comments, etc. Mostly good natured fun, but sprinkled with those occasional snotty comments from people who had recently joined the sport and were able to spend much time at the DZ, accruing many jumps in a short amount of time. This was especially noticeable when visiting other DZ's. This did not deter me, but I can see how some poeple would be intimidated by such attitudes. As skydivers, we are the only people who understand what we do. If we can't fit in and be accepted at the DZ we are doubly isolated. This goes for currency as well. I've spent my share of soapbox time arguing that there is nothing inherently dangerous about being an occasional jumper. Sure, the learning curve is not very dramatic, but you can safely make a few jumps per year as long as you use your head and stay within your comfort zone. This does not necessarily require any extra training or expense, but it does require dealing with a growing mind-set among the skydiver population that worships at the altar of currency, without regard for other considerations. I've always been the guy who will jump with the recent graduates. However, we are sliding into a culture where I have fewer opportunities to do so because I have not purchased a "coach" rating. The fact that I have been "coaching" newbies for years is irrelevant. Thanks again. Cheers, Jon S.