nbblood

Not replying to anyone in particular. I had two Katana 120s. I regularly jumped them back to back. I could tell noticeable differences in the way each of them flew, even though they were the same size and neither had excessive jumps on a lineset. Although the differences weren't huge, I could tell minor differences in how they performed in riser turns, openings, flare responsiveness, etc. They were simply slightly different. Sometimes all things being equal, even the same canopy models will differ slightly from one to the next. Comparisons are merely generalizations. Just something to keep in mind. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

You didn't read my whole post did you? If you had you may have read this: or this: or this: or this: Under different circumstances I never would've done that. If you read beyond the point that pisses you off, you might have got that. This case was me telling a friend, "you're putting other friends at risk. Stop it." In other circumstances, I wouldn't have done it. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Did you miss the part about this being a German court? This WAS you "Europeans". If you're saying that the sentence wasn't appropriate, you'll have to take that up with the EUROPEAN court that administered it. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I have pulled another jumper's reserve handle on the ground on purpose.....once. It was quite different than what we're talking about here though. This jumper was jumping an expired reserve pack job....for quite a while. He was aware of it. I told him beforehand that if he didn't get it repacked and I saw him jump it again I was going to pull it. He was putting the pilot and the DZ at risk for disciplinary action. You could make an argument for cheating the riggers out of what should be work for them too but primarily it puts others at risk of disciplinary action. Anyway, he got down from a load. I knew he hadn't had a reserve repack. I met him in the landing area. I discussed it with him. I pulled his handle. Now, he knew it was coming and I didn't approach him with a physically confrontational attitude. We talked and he took it like he should have. He let me pull the handle without resisting at all. If it had been confrontational I doubt I would have done it. I would've pursued other measures. But he knew he had it coming. What's different about this situation is that I didn't disable his otherwise operational rig. It was already out of tolerance and needed to be repacked. I just ensured that the rig's next stop was in the rigger's loft. And no, I'm not a rigger so I didn't stand to benefit from the repack financially. This, I think is an example of how pulling a handle may be used effectively. But I don't advocate pulling handles on an otherwise operational rig to make a point. I think the points on how this could be construed as vandalism are merited. I didn't cost this jumper a dime that he didn't already need to fork out anyway. I don't feel the need to post name, date, and witnesses. I could but it's not necessary. That problem is resolved and I don't need to embarass anyone to prove a point. It happened. Oh yeah, the S&TA was standing there with me. The jumper took it well and we're still good friends. I'd jump with him tomorrow. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

You do realize that that "owner" of the wall has the ability to remove any posts he/she deems inappropriate, right? So my answer is the person that wrote it is an ass for putting something inappropriate on somebody else's wall. The owner of the wall is an ass for leaving it there once they've noticed it and not liked it. Personally I'd appreciate it if people would realize that my family, including my mother and children could potentially read what is on my Facebook wall. If somebody puts something inappropriate up one time, I'll delete it. Another time, I'll remove them as a friend and they won't have an opportunity a third time. Not all my friends are Facebook friends. There's a reason for that. Some of my Facebook friends are content blocked too. So take control of your Facebook account. It's quite simple to remove content you don't want. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Perhaps the government should send them a bill for promotional services for promoting his name in a highly successful operation to capture the world's most-wanted man. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Yep. That last sentence is the dinger... Yeah, ok. How about this? Is the WBC taking the appropriate legal action to peacefully assemble? I don't know the answer but I could speculate like you are. I simply don't interpret this as a "freedom of speech" issue. Rather I see this as an "inciting a riot" issue. If I'm practicing my freedom of speech and inciting a riot at the same time, whose rights do you protect? the public? the perpetrator.....yes, I said perpetrator. I'd still like to see some facts. Now I'm way down the road of speculation. I've wasted too much of my life on this thread. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Right. You missed an important piece of my post. If I rent or purchase time and space at a particular venue, does that venue not, at least temporarily, become private for my particular event? Don't I have the right to invite and not invite those that I choose? Why is a funeral any different than say, renting a building to have a party? My argument is that WBC is showing up uninvited to private events. Ok, sure, they stand across the street in most cases. But they are very intentionally interfering with that event. Where do you draw the line on a "venue" that is purchased/rented? Virtually impossible to determine or really enforce. Got it. In many cases groups are required to have a permit to assemble and protest. Is that applicable here? I don't know. Did they apply for a permit? Was one required? If they did submit a permit and the city/county denied it because of the potential for disturbance at that particular place and time, is that infringing on their rights? No. They can peacefully assemble at an approved place and time. If I'm the government official that puts an approving stamp on a request don't I have an obligation to consider public safety and the possibility of disturbances/violence before I approve that action? I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be, so these are merely my take and my interpretations. [Reply]people at a time that is inappropriate. I cannot have respect whatsoever for their actions. I agree. I think I said that. [Reply]If you stir a hornets nest, don't be surprised when you get stung. Again, this rests on the supposition that the article is accurately reporting the circumstances. Really, how accurate do you suppose this article is? I'd like to see some cold, hard facts before I accuse the government/police of inappropriate action here. There's not enough evidence here to do anything but speculate. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I think there are a lot of people here basing what was right and what was wrong on a single, clearly-biased media source, accepting this single article as fact. I suppose you can debate rights and wrongs given the supposition that this article is entirely accurate, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's more to the story than is published in this article. Keep in mind this is the same media that does such a stellar job in reporting the facts of skydiving-related stories. Perhaps there was a perfectly valid reason why police questioned these individuals. Perhaps that didn't happen at all. Perhaps somebody did get beat at a local convenience store. Perhaps that is quite a distortion of the truth. All I'm saying is people are pretty quick to jump to conclusions and condemn this side or the other, based solely on a clearly-biased source media article. My take on the 1st amendment rights is that, sure, they should be protected. I also think that rights to privacy, i.e., families conducting a funeral have just as much right to be protected. If WBC practiced their "rights" in a manner that didn't infringe on the rights of others, I imagine we wouldn't see such extremes as allegedly occurred here. Fact is they don't because they wouldn't get the reaction they seek. They know that and they purposefully intend to offend people at a time that is inappropriate. I cannot have respect whatsoever for their actions. If you stir a hornets nest, don't be surprised when you get stung. There's no amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects funerals or internments. So the 1st amendment-at-all-costs proponents are going to argue there's no legal basis. On the other hand, didn't the family pay for the location of internment? Dind't they in a sense rent or purchase that time and space? Shouldn't their rights of privacy be protected? Bottom line, I support WBC practicing their first amendment rights as long as they don't infringe on others'. Their tactics and intentions are clearly aimed at purposefully attacking other people under the guise of the 1st amendment. I don't think this is at all the spirit of the 1st amendment. At the same time, my 1st amendment right allows me to call WBC the losers that they are. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Probable cause for another. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I was wondering how many folks jump while having medical insurance that does not cover skydiving. Anyone ever just tell the EMTs that they "tripped and fell" if they know they are not covered? I'm wondering if a good lawyer could convince a court that a dropzone IS a commercial airline that maintains regular pubished schedules on a regular established route. It kind of depends on how you define that. Note: I am not a lawyer and certainly wouldn't want to find myself relying on the outcome of that debate. I have medical insurance (military) that does cover skydiving. I have some free screws and plates from a free surgery to prove it. I also had a free emergency room visit. I also had numerous free follow-ups and physical therapy sessions. I wouldn't risk financial catastrophe by not having adequate insurance for the sport. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

JohnRich, my dear, I did not. Usually, when replying to a thread, I MEAN THE ACTUAL THREAD. Like everybody does. I do not refer to the post anyone made with his very *first post since joining the site* .... Man, you really must be lost. Sorry dude, you're not half as smart as you think you are.... bwahahahaahaha .... Ok, so now I'm really confused. You said: So you referred to him as just joining the site and his first post. You certainly implied that this was his first post on the site, intentionally or not. So, now you say you're referring to the thread in particular. Ok, so apparently you wanted him to start a thread in Speakers Corner, in which he wanted to poll opinions about weapons, with a skydiving-related question? What in the world was your point? If this wasn't his first post on the site, which I think we've established, then how many skydiving related posts should he make before he can start a thread about guns in Speakers Corner? or Obama? or whatever in the appropriate forum?......and.......why do you care? Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

This illustrates my point at the beginning of this thread. Is it not ok to be undecided on an issue or particular portion of an issue? Can't somebody decide, "that really is not for me to decide?" It's ok for a person to not be as passionate about a particular topic as yourself and therefore be undecided. It is rarely a good way to promote your argument if you attack those that are supporting your stance (at least mostly)......unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever. I support your stance too. Fire away. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

So you don't think a person could be undecided on a particular subject, seeing pros and cons on both sides of a particular issue? Rather you would demand that every person take a stand on one side of the line or the other? I have a lot of issues with which I "straddle the line". This just isn't one of them for me. For others though, I could certainly understand an individual being conflicted and not have a straight-forward opinion. That's ok. That doesn't mean they're lying about their beliefs. They just weigh pros and cons or consider circumstances. Those are good things if you ask me. Not all issues are black and white. In most there's significantly more gray area. I wouldn't penalize somebody for being thoughtful, even if they didn't agree with my opinion. Just my .02. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Because it would be the right thing to do. No, refusing to shoot on citizens is an example of the right thing to do. Refusing to shoot off a bunch of ammo: 1) could get you sanctioned 2) could put you on the outs with your squad 3) could get you assigned to shit duties 4) could result in your outfit getting less munitions (the fear behind the order in the first place) 5) could hurt your career. solving waste issues like this need to be solved from the top down, not the bottom up. The military is not a democracy and its not the place for grass roots movements. Make no mistake. Confronting a superior officer or NCO over a waste, fraud, or abuse issue most definitely IS the right thing to do. The problem is these issues are rarely clear-cut enough (such as the shooting civilians example you use) for people to be comfortable confronting because, as you state, there is significant risk of retribution. Also, in a lot of cases somebody may construe as waste, fraud, and/or abuse, there are circumstances or other parameters that they may not understand that makes it NOT waste, fraud, or abuse. So this brings forth a multitude of potential ethical dilemmas. But, confronting clear waste, fraud and abuse is most definitely the right thing to do. It's just not easy and it's easy to be wrong. That's why it is so often ignored or overlooked. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Yes, it happens. It doesn't make it right. Let me say, I am most certainly not trying to speak authoratatively on your particular scenario either. Rather I'm just saying generally that expending ammo for the sake of expending ammo is waste, fraud and abuse. That said, I'm gonna guess there was more to the scenario than just that. You've already addressed training value obtained during this "spendex". I don't know the circumstances. I wasn't there. You were. I'm not trying to speculate on your specific circumstances and I'm certainly not saying you followed an unlawful order by any stretch of the imagination. Just to be clear. OK, fine. No big deal. Absolutely not. I would've found the training value personally and for my Soldiers and done what I was told. Not arguing your point here at all. Again, I'm not saying this was an unlawful order because I don't know the circumstances. I'm guessing though that the 1SG had more in mind than just "go blast AT4s", but I'm speculating. Maybe that is all he had in mind. Probably not though. And yes, it happens. I know that. You know that. It's a result of poor leadership at many levels when it happens though. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I did what I was ordered to do. Again, you have no clue about the military. Instead of admitting that, you go off on some tangent. And who is to say there was no useful skill learned? You? I now know that skipping an AT4 is not something that would be a good tactic. I know that I can throw 4-5 grenades before the first one goes off.... so I could decimate a large area without getting myself fragged. Basically (once again) you are talking about a topic you have ZERO clue about. When your 1SG tells you to do X, unless it is illegal, you do X. Sure it does.... As I have shown (which you ignored on went off on some tangent) when you increase funding you increase waste. So if you want to make headway, you need to cut waste FIRST. You are like the guy that wants to get out of debt... So he gets a second job and then buys a flat screen TV with the extra money and then wonders why he is not out of debt yet. I am the guy that sees my budget is not working, so I drop my cable TV, I stop eating out, and THEN I get additional income. I DO have a clue about the military. What you describe clearly falls into waste, fraud, and abuse. You even describe it yourself as "waste". So, expending ammo for the sake of spending ammo, without clearly defined training objectives would certainly be an unlawful order. Now, that said, you and I both know it happens and it is common. There is pressure to expend training ammo. It is a cultural expectation to expend training ammo. Though the ammo allocation process is certainly not what you explain, i.e., you don't just get more ammo because you spent all you had this year. If you don't expend all training ammo "x", then a unit could certainly expect to go through pains to justify maintaining an ammo allocation when they didn't use that particular allocation in the previous year. Ammo allocations are based on STRAC training requirements, number of units and soldiers, and the particular requirements for that specific unit based on training and deployment missions. Training ammunition allocations are at Division level and often there are blanket allocations so each subordinate "like" unit allocation looks the same, at least initially. Those allocations are managed and re-allocated based on unit-specific missions. With all the deployed units lately there has been an abundance of training ammunition available to units not deployed. There has been pressure to expend all this ammo for fear of reduction of allocations when there are more units in training. But expending ammo to expend ammo is waste, fraud and abuse, no doubt. I have personally stopped actvities of that nature on several occasions. I then counselled leaders to find ways to extract training value out of the ammo allocation and was able to find creative training value and still expend the ammo at the same time. Personally, I'm more concerned about the training value than the ammo allocation. If you give me X ammo I'll find a way to extract training value that may potentially save a Soldier's life someday. You even mentioned potential training value from the scenarios you mentioned, viable training value, though I could develop that value further. Any leader worth his weight in salt could do the same. Hard right vs. easy wrong. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Yes, I know. My original comparison was very tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I should've used [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]. P.S. You know I love you Wendy!

Here's a little more credible and thorough source than Wikipedia.....ok.....a significantly more thorough and credible source than Wikipedia (and a little more recent than 2003 and 2004). See pages 41-43. According to the National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC, in 2009 there were a total of 12,224 deaths related to firarms including accidental discharge (588), homicide (11,406), and undetermined (230). There were 36,284 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents, not even to bother accounting for vehicular homicide which isn't clear in this report. What's killing our teenagers? See

With the recent murder/suicide actions of Lashanda Armstrong , and the similar Susan Smith murders, I believe it's about time we do something to protect our helpless children against violence from their supposed-to-be-protective mothers. I propose an immediate restriction on sale of automobiles. All potential customers should be required to pass a background check with approval through NCIS. Any purchases should be held for a 3-day "cool-off" period. Only residents of each individual state should be allowed to purchase automobiles in that state. Since sports cars are simply not necessary and pose a significantly larger threat due to potentially higher speeds, they should immediately be banned. High capacity gas tanks that would allow murderers to travel further distances should also immediately be banned. I'm thinking maybe a national registry would be in order too, although you could argue you already have to register these violent instruments of murder. Let's protect our kids! Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I don't have a problem if you don't find information "logical". I don't have a problem if people reject the principals and teachings of the church. Ultimately every individual will make up their own mind, and that's fine. I understand and respect others opinions and beliefs. But I do take issue with someone trying to speak authoratatively on a subject when clearly they have no clue what they're talking about and providing false and misleading information. That doesn't just go for this, but any subject. (Imagine the guy that just made a tandem trying to speak authoratatively on skydiving.) My point is merely to clarify false and misleading information. Material was presented as "from the LDS church" and it very clearly was not among other problems with what was presented. If you don't care or it doesn't change your opinion, I'm ok with that. Although if you can't see the difference between the posted video and statements and actual principals and beliefs, I'd argue you didn't look very hard (and I'm ok with that too). Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

With this single paragraph you quite clearly illustrate how little you know or understand about the LDS church. If you want to speak intelligently about the what the church does and doesn't teach/believe you're going to have to get past the myths and fallacies that you are proclaiming as truths. Your statements on the position of the church and its beliefs are totally not credible and that is clear to anyone that does know what the church teaches/believes. You have posted several inaccuracies and outright misleading information about the LDS church. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Just for clarity, Mormons are very much Christians. I don't know why you'd imply (or outright say) differently. Second, the clip you linked here is NOT from the LDS church as you state. Terrible misinformation here. If you want to see what the LDS (Mormon) church is about, visit mormon.org or lds.org, not some Youtube video that has an ulterior motive and clearly is not from the LDS church. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

I am from Utah, although not living there right now, and I am also Mormon. Personally I think that you're giving yourself way too much credit for being controversial. Do you really think that it would be the first time? LDS members have always been under constant scrutiny. That's fine. If you're looking for a reaction, here you go: Eh....whatever. Even the personal attacks and gross misconceptions in this thread are nothing new. A fundamental precept of the church is the importance of agency and for each to "worship how, where, or what they may." I am certainly not going to worry, even a little, about actions/words that have no purpose other than to incite reaction. Of course, somebody will always get their feathers ruffled and provide the response you're looking for. So if that's what you seek, knock yourself out. Have a nice day. Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.