DiverMike

I think we can agree to disagree. Doomsday events can happen, but IMHO, the likelihood is not "very possible" as you assert. An event that can destroy society to the extent I wish I had a bunker full of food is in my opinion "not very likely". For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

I guess anything can happen anywhere, but it is unlikely Joe Sixpack in Midtown USA will experience what happened to the author of this webpage during the Balkan War of 1992. It doesn't make sense to me to prepare for an event that is very unlikely to happen in a short period of time. There was a lot of forewarning in the Balkans before the sh*t hit the fan. Maybe if our country collapses to that level, I'll start stocking a bunker. Until then, I'll just go skydiving and drink beer. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Hey - it is cold in the Midwest and my DZ is closed. I have cabin fever for the sky. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

But what about the politicians? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

From my point of view, the DZO has two priorities: 1. Provide a safe environment for skydivers. 2. Stay in business. Priority 1 may be more important, but priority 2 is probably harder. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

You are absolutely right. I need to tone it back a bit. My OCD kicks in when I see grammar errors that have a material affect on the interpretation of the regulation. Sometimes I forget I got into skydiving so I could 'dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings', rather than correct grammar. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Yea- I am probably being silly and will defer to a lawyer's opinion rather than a grammarian. Still, I wouldn't call the result totally absurd. Both groups are arguably less likely to give false witness than your run of the mill skydiver and could be conceivably given more lattitude to self witness. I would point out that in other areas the USPA has specifically stated there are certain requirements that cannot be selfwitnessed. (10 landings for a PRO Rating if you are an S&TA , I/E or USPA board member for example) in unambiguous language: "You may not certify yourself." And although it does not indicate you must be an eyewitness to the jump, it is a little absurd to think a hearsay witness is acceptable (but not as absurd as my pilot/judge scenario). For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

So you are ok with killing and eating a cow, but not having sex with it? In the grand karma scheme of things, the pervert who has sex with a cow is causing less harm to the animal than the person who slaughters it to make a hamburger. You are advocating that the animal has rights to prevent unwanted sexual advances, but no rights to life? (By the way, bestiality is pretty perverted - not my cup of tea, but do I have the right to dictate what someone can do with a farm animal behind closed doors?) We don't insist on the cow's consent to be slaughtered. Brother marrying sister or mom? Grandpa and granddaughter? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Or it could say: 3.1.C.2 Jumps for license and rating qualifications must be signed by another licensed skydiver, pilot, or USPA National or FAI Judge who witnessed the jump. But by saying 3.1.C.2 Jumps for license and rating qualifications must be signed by another licensed skydiver, a pilot, or a USPA National or FAI Judge who witnessed the jump. the "a" before pilot trumps the "another" before skydiver. "a" indicates any, and does not mean the same as "another". I don't know if this was intentional indicating that pilots and judges are more trustworthy than your run of the mill skydiver, but that is the result of the regulation. If the USPA did not want to allow pilots and judges to self-witness, all they would have to do is take the "a" out before the other witness types, or subtitute it with the word "another". It is grammatically incorrect to interpret it any other way. I suspect it is a grammar error, but who am I to judge their intent. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

You are arguing my point for me. The wording should be: Jumps for license and rating qualifications must be signed by: (i) a licensed skydiver; or (ii) a pilot; or (iii) a USPA National; or a FAI Judge who witnessed the jump. With the additional restriction: (iv) Under no case should the witness be the skydiver who performed the jump. The way it is worded now, the only restriction is on the licensed skydiver witness. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Sorry for the burden you carried. With 39 years and 4300 jumps, you know better than I that sometimes bad things happen to good people in skydiving. I doubt many experienced skydivers would think the difference between 93 and 100 jumps would cause any different outcome. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

I get that logbook signing parties are a popular way to appear to be legal. Pretending to see a jump is not that far away from pretending to make a jump (which I am sure some people do in their logbooks). I have a private pilot ticket, and if you misrepresent those logbooks, you are committing a felony where the conviction carries a possible maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and 3 years of supervised release. In the world of skydiving, there is certainly no jail time for falsifying logs. On the contrary, people snicker and have logbook signing parties. Done being anal. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Not to be too anal, but if you want to use the jump in the numbers required for an A,B,C, or D license, doesn't it require that the skydiving signing it witness the jump? From the SIM: 3.1.C.2 Jumps for license and rating qualifications must be signed by another licensed skydiver, a pilot, or a USPA National or FAI Judge who witnessed the jump. And while I am being anal, the way it is written a pilot, USPA National or FAI Judge can self-witness. It isn't likely that a Judge doesn't already have a 'D' license, but skydivers who are also pilots might not have 500 jumps yet. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

The way I understood the statement was the events are classified because they are embarrassing now. Given that time heals all wounds, they will eventually become less embarrassing and declassified. Few people alive today really care if J. Edgar Hoover wore a dress. Nothing in his statement suggested that this is not the way it has been since Adam kept secrets from Eve. I think you misunderstood him, but I will stand back and see which one of us understood him. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Just wondering why every week someone posts an url without making it a clicky?

They are talking about at time frame of 1000 BC and they are saying it is inaccurate by 'decades' for King David and centuries for the patriarchs. Not that I don't like a good bible-bashing, but this doesn't really prove/disproved anything. Saying it is the earliest known domestication does not indicate earlier domestication did not exist. Nothing to see here. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Also forgot to say something about 'retards'. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

+1 This is morally indefensible. We are supposed to be 'the good guys'. I know it puts more lives at risk, but it makes more sense to kidnap the American Citizen "terrorist" and bringing him back for trial. We didn't put a bullet in Noriega's head. We 'extradited him' with military force, gave him a fair trial, and put him in the federal pen. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Ah come on - I was much more subtle than that It wasn't like it was his first post and it was a direct link to a advertisement on a webpage. Er wait, it was. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not know that was against the rules. He also probably doesn't understand how much that pisses off people who look in gear and rigging for unbiased knowledge. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

As I see you just joined yesterday, welcome to the forums. It is a little strange to resurrect a 2 year old thread. When previous posters were talking about 'Liquid', they were referring to a manufacturer of sunglasses. It might be a little helpful if you filled out more of your profile, or indicated something about your expertise in either skydiving or optometry. Skydivers as a group are constantly collecting new information about equipment and appreciate any new knowledge. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

It is a little like the football being proud it was passed and caught for a touchdown. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

The real issue is the cost of developing the software and maintaining it. I am pretty sure Ebay has more developers on staff than DZ.COM. I write software for a living, and am slightly annoyed when other executives suggests I add additional features to the corporate web pages "like Amazon or Ebay has", without understanding the resources it takes to do it. It would be great to rate other users, other sellers, other buyers, dropzones, pilots, etc. It just might not be feasible with the staff and resources available at DZ.Com. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

I agree with everyone who says wait, as well as those who said don't buy new. I have less than 400 jumps and have bought lots of used equipment from the DZ.COM classified section. So far I have purchased 1 FF Suit, 2 RW suits, 1 Camera Suit, 1 Wingsuit, 2 Helmets, 2 altimeters, Container, Main, & reserve. The only 'new' items I have purchased were goggles and my first helmet. In my experience, skydivers tend to be honest and helpful when selling gear. It is a karma thing. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

I am all for strengthening the middle class, but couldn't we find some way to spend billions of dollars keeping people busy producing something we (or someone else) really needs? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Then only instance I know of where it goes outside the quotes is when the quote contains only a single letter or number. For example: What did you get on the final exam? I got an "A". For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.