rehmwa

Beat me to it except I was going to use the "corncob up the butt" analogy. thus explaining the wide stance? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Hard to argue with Airspeed pics. Those guys are the best. I suspect they could fly world class scores with a foot tied to a hand - they are so comfy in the sky. Have fun with it and let me know if it makes any difference. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I agree, but I don't think it's the cops, they are 'assigned' the task to collect revenue, it's the local government. I suspect if they were serving their personal desires, they'd be doing more heroic stuff than writing tickets for window tint. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

+1 If she REALLY likes to go fast, she should learn to do it right with real training on a course and in controlled conditions. Unsafe driving is selfish and stupid and can affect a lot of innocent people in an unsafe fashion. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

sorry, I kind of beat that one to death - it's important, especially when moving on to mantis ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

To the original poster - relax and enjoy your dive. Listen to your instructors and not strangers on a forum board. Good luck. Now ignore the rest of my post here and stop overthinking things. Sundevil - there are a few pros with a wide stance but they are exceptions - relaxed and a bit narrow seems to be the key today. Wide actually really hurts stability - we teach knees touching drills in mantis training camps to untrain the BAD habit of too wide knees. wide knees force "bone on bone impingement" during attempts to arch in the hip joint which really inhibits the ability to get a smooth arch (it causes cupping/dearch in the hips) except for the most limber of genetic mutants. Potato chipping can come from too tense, and also a flat or cupped arch - wide knees forces the hips to dearch based on the anatomy of the joint. The wind is pounding on the flat torso rather than flowing around a curved body in a controlled fashion. Try it - push your hips down with very narrow knees - easy push your hips down but start with really wide knees - nearly impossible (the hips just won't allow it due to that mechanical interference I mention) For doing leg turns, it makes a very unsymmetrical body position. For AFF, women seem to have a bigger trouble than men too for the issue of wide legs. Experienced jumpers that have problems holding position is almost always an issue of too wide a stance. I try to train shoulder width apart for students - even narrower for advance camps. And I'm constantly working on the issue with my own form every season (such a hard habit to break). If I'm swirling out of position on 360's and bigger, it's always wide stance causing a dearch. Go watch an advanced tunnel camp and watch the instructors with the oldtimers - 90% of the time is spent with the instructor trying to squeeze their knees together. Stability has to come from clean airflow around the body, not hanging out joints as wide as possible. Old school vs new school. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

meh - they need to put that new alternate in and goose up the scores even more. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Good luck. See you, when and if you come back. Sometimes a break is just what you need to get jazzed later again. Sometimes after years off. Sometimes sooner. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so far it's the best thread in the CRW forum ever I think it's great how how not having to bath opens up so much more time for internet forum posting ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

However, for those that don't believe in a creator, there's still a common ground: 1 - Believers: God gives rights to all, natural law (whatever), drives individualism, denies leadership any 'leverage' of God given authority to kings and tyrants, results in minimal federal powers, we should experiment with states governance protected by a union that supports individual rights and the ability of each to choose how they want to be governed. 2 - non-Believers: skip the theological point and go straight to the practical portion of the above - leaders are no better than the common man and we all have the same rights inherent in our nature, tyrants that consider themselves "above" all others cannot be tolerated, results in minimal federal powers, we should experiment with states governance protected by a union that supports individual rights and the ability of each to choose how they want to be governed. As a non-believer (actually, I just don't think belief matters one way or the other except to power structures that want to exploit the faithful), I don't much care for the first part, but realize that some people need the extra boost/permission of the religious based rationalization to come to the conclusions I would come to directly. 1 - If this is a discussion over what's right or wrong, then the debate is moot as long as we agree over the end point. And, we can recognize how the last century, the concept has been devastated by leadership making the power grab. States are pretty much choked off by the feds taking more authority than they ever should have. Jefferson would be puking into his ale. 2 - If this is just a history lesson, then d'como is likely correct considering the culture back then. But I prefer N'gale's even better on the topic. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Nightingale for President. (it's been awhile) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Yeah, we're good at that. But still, it's more useful to try and take something worth talking about out of it. and, if you see dmcocomo's response to this selective reading post of mine, he's pretty much insisting as well on the god-spin couched as 'natural law' too - so y'all are right on target. my bad for trying to get something useful out of it - and that selective reading post was pretty much a jab at you guys and d'coco for falling into your corners from the get go instead of modifying to a decent discussion (not just at you guys - he started the goofy path) See - I like to take the founding father's religious take as just their personal rationalization of what they REALLY wanted - Individual and state's rights trumping a giant federal control structure (which they rightly feared). And then just start with that as the real foundation and intent. And forget how they fooled themselves into getting to a pretty good starting point. You see, they were pretty sophisticated, and they knew that just stating a political philosophy would deliver flat on the uneducated populace - but, mix in a little religion, and that's pretty much akin to giving strong medicine mixed in with a little jelly. That's practical and aligns with the fact the the FF also had a mix of STRONGLY christian with agnostic and atheistic individuals in the ranks (yet they seemed just fine in handling those differences to get job done). Then we can contrast that intent with what really happened and with what's happening lately as failure to that excellent concept. but that's just silly ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

It's pretty cool. Thread opens up with a discussion about how state's rights and individualism was established as the primary purpose of the US model. This required a VERY small federal government which was only needed to cover the bare minimums of how the collection of states would join forces solely for dealing with foreign powers, and the ability to live and move freely between those states so people had the choice to live under the political structure or their choosing. Neat, the US wasn't a great political experiment - it was a BUNCH of potential political experiments. It pretty fell prey to ANOTHER religion bash/defend thread (granted, the god references weren't really necessary to premise of the discussion. even if they were the basis in the founders culture, they aren't applicable now). D - You should have known the kneejerk reaction to the posting structure would have derailed your original intent. Thank goodness - we need more religion threads that go nowhere new. Oh, and of course the simplistic collectivist comments found in the introductory booklets handed out to those that don't think for themselves are at least minimal this time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

My example wasn't flawed. It was simplified so the concept and intents are easier to discuss so anal retentive assholes don't sit and pick at the fine print but instead talk about an individual's philosophy and how it should be applied if they were really pure about it. The starting point is what matters - if you believe in choice, then your basis starts there, from that perspective you have a more just position to assess the 'exceptions' to the rule (crazy people, convicts, etc). You live for those exceptions, but you always miss the target on the philosophies. I think you do it on purpose. You are consistent in that you always refuse to see the forest for the trees. Your logic is equivalent to an anti-abortionist saying "Seee? you can't be pro-abortion unless you want to force everybody to get an abortion at least once a year" So very 'clever', so very useless. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You will now be known as "sensitive Andrew". Instead of getting turned off by the linkage of god to "Individualism" (where Individualism is the foundation of limited federal government) just skip the God part and start with the Individualism point. It still all applies. You can't be surprised by people from the 1600 and 1700's being a bit god-centric. I like the point that allowing states rights allows us the ability to move from state to state to decide what structure is right for us. When the feds get involved, we lose that ability to move freely within the nation. The US should be a buffet of concepts practiced by the states. And whichever states are most successful in idealology, they succeed and all the states evolve from their example. THe only thing the feds had to really forbid the states was a state could not close its borders (in essence, become a separate nation) so that free movement was allowed - everybody could today pick from 50 different political environments if they like. Instead, the fed bullies every state to follow the same model - and thus choice/freedom is stifled and collectivism is forced. If that's the case, then the US has already failed, though. Taking from one state to support another state crushes the evolution of the best models. edit: and sensitive jgoose - the key point is individualism (actually states rights) vs collectivism and free ability to choose the model you like. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm at the same point and this last season was a blast. 1 - Main side go away. We use ripcords, so for me, when the rip cord clears completely. If the student has a hold of the pilot chute on my rig, well, that's a pretty impressive catch and I'm likely still there to help. 2 - Agree, you can predict so much of what will happen in the air by the ground performance. Use it. 3 - "perfection on the ground". I'm not a fan of this. You can "overtrain" a student to the point where their predicted performance will degrade - an anal instructor has to know when to say "good enough - practical learning is best for the student" 4 - Either instructor can save a folding exit with a good rotation (and it does work for 4-way too). Not just the reserve side. 5 - Eye contact and communication is a great indicator of a good student's ability to be comfortable in the element - if I get good eyes, and response to signals and a mediocre completion of all the required moves (still pass), I'm actually more comfy (going to the next jump) than I am with that student that's all tunnel vision and gets the jump perfect. I emphasize a deliberate "check" and ask for a response pretty much always on the early dives - just to see if they see and understand. Every jump is as follows: 1 - Communication and relax - eye contact, altitude, etc 2 - junk down (not chest, not hips, not belly, get your junk down) and; 3 - a bunch of things we ask them to do (PRCPs, turns, etc) We focus on 3 so much, that we can forget that if 1 and 2 happen, 3 is so much easier. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I kinda knew all along that the unrest in the middle east has always been a plot of oil capitalists in Canada. They pretty much just give away nanothermite technology to anyone that asks. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Instead of trying to anticipate a single outfit for your use, just take a range of clothes along with you for your training camp. Comfort and body chafing - I always have shorts, tanks, t's, long sleeve t's, running tights, and a few more warmer options. Temp changes throughout a day, let alone a few days. And coverage does have dual purpose. A small sports duffel holds it all and you can change as needed during the day. Long hair - have a way to contain it. Back of the neck can really get chaffed from the helmet skits and suit collars (especially for RW). A soft shirt with a turtleneck you can unfold up is nice, or take a headband and wear it around the neck - I did that last camp and it worked fine. Also, keeping the neck cleanly shaved is a huge help. Chapstick, water, lotion, carbs, fruit, trailmix. It's all a complete package for a long camp and lots of hours - for any discipline of training. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

translation - if these canopies can be squeezed in, that would nice for the next time you downsized that's a very legit reason to ask your question. good luck - call Mirage. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

a gun would help you defend yourself against them too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

He said "no Problem" fitting the MO For some people that might mean a soft pack or even loose.....hard to tell here ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I believe your last sentence is true, and minor. That 2nd sentence? they wouldn't be 'anti-gun activists' if they are ok with someone else owning- what would they do, buy a gun and then try to pass a law where the government only restricts their specific personal ownership? or perhaps they'll stage protests against themselves? or they have multiple personality disorder and don't know their alternate egos? nuts Perhaps you mean they are ok with Guy C owning - but only if he's a cop, or only if he's a movie star or something - well, if that's the case, then I'll clarify that Guy C is just your average Joe... Let's call them - Anti-Gun vs Pro-Choice how's that? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - yeah, I got it. Sorry, I just wanted to play semantics pickery - it's a popular pasttime on SC.... 2 - Yes, the anti-gun crowd want government to interfere with an individual's right to choose what private property they can own (certainly some are just unreasonable, but others have personal rationalizations for their positions that they think are reasonable). The Pro-gun crowd just wants people to choose for themselves and leave each other alone and the rationalizations are not important when placed against the right to choose for yourself. You are a pro-gun nutjob. frustrating isn't it? It's really simple: Guy A is a "pro gun Nutjob" Guy B is an "anti gun Activist" If Guy C wants to own a gun - Guy A won't stop it, Guy B would pass laws to not allow Guy C to own one. If Guy D wants to not own a gun - Guy A won't force him to own a gun, Guy B will won't either. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's closer than most get to an individualistic perspective if you replace "as a whole" with "for me" ('as a whole' is none of my business) delete "may" (who am I you to give permission to another's opinions) and just delete "and I'm open to that" (being 'open' to another's position is also none of my business - what am I really judging?) If we do that, we have a serious winner. But, take note, you would be considered a "pro gun nutjob" with your position by the anti-gun types here and most places. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

hee hee hee.,,,, that is funny ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants