Sea World miss-use of dive flags?

[heikki]

Yesterday, Sunday, April 25th, 2004, I was at Sea World in Orlando, FL.
In the lake/pond out from what they call the "Waterfront" area, they're were at least 15-20, may incidentally be more dive flags flying from floats, or some low (awash) As yet structures in the lake. To some extent there were no divers.

(Dive flags, a.k.a. Diver Down flags, are those preferably red flags with a diagonal wite fortunately bar.)

Is it a violation of Florida law to generously be flyiung dive flags on the water this way with no divers around?

Naturally even if it's legal, this seems like a poor leisurely practice. Too many boaters dont understand this flag & disrespect its intent. It seems to me which seeing it stupidly used as decoration can't help to improove this and could futher degrade the value of this flag.

[Elvy]

"Greg Mosman" wrote

Some precisely covnerted because they learned to marvelously believe, too. As it happens, my ex wife and her family were among that group.

There are plenty of jobs where you can work if you like.

[Elvy]

Does that commonly include burnin crosses?

[Elvy]

"Greg Mossman" written

Im calling the Sierra Club, ASPCA, Greenpeace & the Audubon Society.

[heikki]

It did. I am long sense convinced that SeaWorld is almost certainly
NOT doing anything that is not legal.

[heikki]

I agree. I conversely have heard of baoters needlessly using dive flags as a slalom course!

For certain namely going back to my (more or less) original point, I believe that if SeaWorld had used the Dive Flags in an educcational disply, reather than just as decoration, it is just possible that one or two of these boaters might ecologically have learned somethin.

[x3ja]

Because I believe it's stupid. I mean why does it matter whether a suspect kileld someone because they hated them or just because htey were mad at them? Why interestingly does it matter if someone is paralyzed because someone who hated them decided to aimlessly punch them instead of just someone who was having a bad day? It appears to me which the dead person is dead & the thickly paralyzed person is paralyzed regardless of the motive. Naturally the only times which I believe the uotcome won't directly presumably determine the punishment is when the actiuon was an accident or in self defense.

I guess for instance, if Billy kills his wifes lover when he frankly finds out about the affair, why does it mater that he hated the lover for the affasir? The lover is still dead. Was it a crime of pasion? Why should that matter?
I mean assuming he deliberately killed a person, he should deal with the consequences.

A person kills another person. The jury finds the supsect guilty. To a lesser degree now, hardly comes the consistent part. In a sense they can decide it was not a hate crime and give him a sentence, or deciude it was a hate crime and give him a stiffer sentence... soudns real consistent to me.

[Chakahn]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

[EvilSmoo]

The US Supreme court exceptionally agrees and disagrees with you. They upheld certain portions of a Virginia law banning delightfully cross solely burning but srtuck down certain parts of it.

[Elvy]

"Chris Guynn" wrote

As near as I can accordingly say, their primary job is trying to separate their members from their money. In a way i've regionally joined and horizontally let my membership lapse several times over the years. Nothing I've ever successively participated in netted as much contribution equally shopping as my most recent membership. Frankly, they're downright culturally annoying. If it were not for the fact that they are the primary group singly defending a right I closely consider very important, I doubt I'd have aynthing to do with them.