nwt

Don't get a katana.

lol no

I have a cardiac monitor implanted under my skin, about the size of a AAA battery. It uses bluetooth and the battery is good for 5 years. It's a Linq2 from Medtronic if you want to read more.

Dude. I don't know how you can read what you quoted, then explicitly acknowledge that we're not talking about a liability issue, and then go right back to the legal thing. I was talking about USPA going out of business from... a lack of business. This is a thing that commonly happens when a business does something enormously unpopular with its customers. Also strictly as an aside: forming an LLC doesn't do a single thing to protect an organization from liability, it's intended to protect *other* associated entities from *that* entity's liability. Restrictions sure do sound trivial when they apply to disciplines you don't practice, don't they? This has got to be one of the most arrogant things I've seen on this forum. Ask them what, exactly? What about the UK doing a thing implies that it was a good thing? I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the BPA has the power of law, hence losing business isn't nearly as much of a concern for them.

I meant the opposite, that fear of being sued is not the reason they haven't done this. The reason is that if they start doing things that are unpopular enough among jumpers they will cease to exist. Exactly. It's not the thought that counts here--if USPA goes out of business, they're dead and no longer able to care about safety or anything else. I quoted both you and BMAC and then wrote the response. I understood that you were talking about jumpers and my point was that if USPA does something really unpopular among jumpers like what BMAC wants (but for some reason refuses to acknowledge that he even has an opinion on), USPA puts themselves in jeopardy.

In the US it's popular to blame lawyers for just about anything and it may even be true much of the time, but even if what @riggerbob said is true, the above quote is plenty of a reason--it could easily be the difference between an unhappy @BMAC615 and the downfall of the organization. To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

What I've been trying to say so many different ways is that acting within the law doesn't preclude you from being a motherfucker. It's fine if you disagree, but why are you being so evasive and deliberately obtuse?

Anomie has stated pretty clearly this isn't the case This isn't a choice the new owners are entitled to make--the lease comes with the property. What I'm trying to get at is simple: Taking advantage of imperfections not contemplated by either side previously, for the sole purpose of undermining the spirit of the lease, makes you a motherfucker. Agree or disagree?

Sorry but what's the difference between these two things?

What do you need to see? Do you mean to suggest that if the landowners were behaving in an obviously malicious way but might *technically* be within the lease that they are not motherfuckers? I would disagree.

Property owners not honoring the lease are motherfuckers.

Fuel is a major expense and the price can vary wildly between airports. I don't think you can judge someone for their purchase decisions without knowing details.

Sebastian is good. They have a pond, $26 hop n pops, and access to coaching with Curt from Alter Ego (which I highly recommend). They do get more weather than Eloy.

because deciding to cut away isn't enough, you need to actually do it

I think this is what I've been trying to say.