Airman1270

I kinda had the same reaction at first, but they only held it for fewer than five seconds and there wasn't much time to maneuver for a better shot. Besides, the people citing the historical significance of the event DO have a point. Cheers, Jon S.

My Wonderhog/Strato Cloud/Strong lopo weighs in at about 40 lbs. The Infinity/Triathalon/Smart is around 25lbs. Suddenly I'm not going low as often as I used to. Cheers, Jon S.

I have a theory: Recent attitude changes in the sport have created an atmosphere in which people can feel they are expected to jump a lot or not jump at all. People who came into this sport in an era of mandatory AAD policies and strict currency requirements have been led to believe that someone, especially a novice, who hasn't jumped in a few months has forgotten everything he learned and is a hole in the ground waiting to happen. In some circles, jumping without an AAD is thought to be no less risky than jumping without a reserve. (Side note-I visited the Ranch a few years ago and overheard a novice jumper, who had about 70 jumps, express concern about doing backloops with a rented student rig because the rig did not have riser covers. The rig seemed to be at least a mid '90's model, modern enough and in fine shape. It was far more state-of-the-art than my Wonderhog or any rigs I rented as a student. I don't remember any stories of people having problems doing safe backloops with this gear. But this young jumper had absorbed enough current day DZ culture to actually be concerned about doing backloops with that rig.) Add to this the pressure to buy the newest gear & all optional accoutrements, and we have priced the sport out of reach of many people who might enjoy making a few occasional skydives, but who are unable to spend every weekend at the DZ. This means that most of the people you'll see at the DZ are the ones who can afford to be there often. These are the people a first-jump student will be interacting with, and learning from, etc. The cycle continues... Cheers, Jon S.

...Things go much smoother when you are being nice. They respect that... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't live a lifestyle that results in much contact with police, but on the few occasions I have interacted with them I have been firm and polite. There have been a few times where I could have received a ticket, but did not. A few years ago I passed a Georgia Trooper while going about 72 in a 65 zone. I thought he was concentrating on the guy in front on him in the left lane and, besides, I had passed them at this speed while they were shooting radar at traffic and they never made an issue of it so I thought it was okay. Yeah, he stopped me. Apparently he was surprised/pissed that I had the nerve to pass him. When he said I was doing 80mph I said, firmly and politely, that I DID exceed 70 but did not go 80. I told my son that I'd be getting a ticket and would have to go to court and pay money. Instead, when he returned he gave me a smile and a warning and told me NEVER to pass a trooper. On another occasion back in 1997 I was stopped while going 45 in a 40 zone. I thought he was being a prick until he said his radar indicated 63! I later determined it was probably the Blazer speeding up behind me as we rounded the bend that caused the reading. Also, I was driving a Camaro, which didn't help matters. Once it became clear he was going to cite me I stopped telling him I didn't do it and asked procedural questions. ("What happens now, what do you think my chances are," etc.) He responded helpfully, suggesting the judge might question why I was calling him a liar. I said "No. If you say your machine reads 63 I take you at your word. But I didn't make it do that." After two court visits I was able to get the charge dismissed without hiring a lawyer, but I'm sure my clean record played a major role in that decision. If I'd had a string of convictions it might not have been so easy. The funny thing is that I'm sure I saw the cop in the hallway to the side of the courtroom. While I was waiting my turn he looked right at me. When my name was called I approached the judge with my paperwork with the circles and arrows and glossy photographs with the paragraphs on the back of each one, etc., ready to explain what I think happened. But she just said "The witness against you has not appeared and you're free to go." I almost said "No! He's back there, I just saw him!" But instead I just said thanks and left. I ASSume these guys develop that sixth sense which enables them to ferret out a line of bull, and my story had the ring of truth. I also suspect this is the way they handle these situations, rather than allowing the prosecutor to rack up a string of acquittals. Perhaps our cop friends can tell us whether my ASSumptions are accurate. By the way, while waiting in court I watched a string of people before me. Many of these people had accumulated quite a history in their short lives. Meanwhile, there I was, with a positive attitude, a clean record, and wearing my Rush Limbaugh "No Boundaries" tie, speaking quietly & politely with the prosecutor. Maybe it was just a bad day, but I stood out from the crowd. I don't know if this had any influence on these folks, but it couldn't have hurt my case. Cheers, Jon S.

I believe nearly ALL cops are decent folks, operating with the best of intentions. I also believe they are victims of a culture that leads them to act in ways that are offensive to Joe citizen. This is a culture in which they are trained to harass people in an effort to sniff out possible violations, rather than simply respond when they actually see evidence of a crime. Example: The increasing use of K-9 units has changed the rules regarding automobile searches. As far back as I can remember they have always had the right to search in response to evidence of a crime. However, now they stop people for the direct purpose of checking them out to see what they might find. Of course, they claim some nebulous violation, such as "failure to maintain lane," window tint, etc. but it's obvious they're stopping the guy because they think they MIGHT find something. If they find nothing, they let him go, perhaps with a written "warning." If they find something, they make the arrest, maybe steal the guy's car (if it's worth anything), and bray about how they're fighting the "war on drugs," etc. These K-9 units are expensive to maintain. They have to justify the cost to taxpayers, and there's pressure to generate income. This is offensive. So they are conditioning the public to accept such behavior by allowing themselves to be used by school districts to search students' cars & lockers, again without cause. Young people are being trained to accept random searches and constant police scrutiny as a normal part of life in America. When people like me speak out against this crap we are described as "paranoid" and dismissed as having "something to hide." In my radio career I spent over four years reading police reports, and am amazed at how many people are intimidated into allowing a warrantless search. People, if the cop asks to search, the answer is always "NO." If he has a valid reason to search, he doesn't need your permission! If he asks why you won't allow it, tell him it's for the same reason he doesn't want you looking through his stuff. You don't owe him an explanation. We don't have curfews in this country. It is not illegal to walk along the roadside late at night. However, they think they have the right to stop you and check you out, again without cause. I have read of numerous arrests that began with the cop stopping the guy, asking what he's doing, etc. Maybe the guy had been drinking, or had a warrant, etc. But the cop had no business stopping him in the first place. (If I'm ever on a jury I will give serious consideration to such facts.) I have been taking late-night walks for 30 years, and have almost never been hassled. Once I was stopped because I fit the description of someone they were looking for, but when they realized I wasn't the guy they said "thanks" and let me go. There was no demand for my ID, no "Why are you out so late?" But this was more than 15 years ago. Another factor is political. Liberals in both parties are constantly grandstanding about how much they "care" about (insert issue du jour here) and react by demanding more laws, making it illegal to do things we were once free to do. (See the "civil liberties" thread a few months back for details.) Police work, which once consisted of helping people and chasing bad guys, has been expanded to include the enforcement of liberalism. This results in cops harassing people who are not causing trouble and who, a few short years ago, would not have been bothered. Furthermore, economic pressure is forcing heavy-handed response to minor violations, such as making arrests when they could write tickets, writing tickets when they could give warnings, etc. Meanwhile, the litigation industry is pressuring these guys to over-respond so as not to be held liable for anything bad happening down the road should they give a guy a break. The education system is turning out ill-informed citizens who are ignorant of the priciples that led to the Founders' creation of the Bill of Rights, etc. Many of these ignorant people choose a career in police work. I don't believe they hold your rights in contempt. Rather, they are simply doing the job as they've been trained. The standard to which they answer is not "Is this Constitutional?" but rather "Will the courts let us do this?" This is the short version. Sorry about the limited response, but I have to go. Thanks for bringing the subject up. Cheers, Jon S.

Come to think of it, how does the designation result in anything much different occurring at the actual event? I attended some sort of "chicks" boogie at Rome a few years back, but if I didn't know the boogie had a title I would have thought it was just another day at the DZ, albeit with a bunch of people who didn't usually jump there. Otherwise, there was nothing "extra," such as special aircraft, big-name organizers, etc., that would have caused anyone to notice this was a "boogie" as opposed to a bunch of skydivers spending a weekend at the DZ. Cheers, Jon S.

My longest layoff was about ten months after my broken ankle on my first jump. Of course, I wasn't a seasoned jumper, accustomed to DZ life, etc. so there was no anxiety over what I was missing. (That came later when I realized that I would never be able to pursue the sport regularly for a variety of reasons.) There have been many layoffs over the years, usually due to economic and/or family priorities. This weekend, weather permitting, I expect to be back after three months off. Best of luck on your recovery! Cheers, Jon S.

Not that this will influence anybody's decision, but I think I'll be making the trip Saturday. Haven't jumped in three months; still have nearly two weeks left before the reserve needs an I & R. Anyone up for a night big-way with borrowed gear? Cheers, Jon S.

...I HATE having to manipulate women into seeing things my way. They should just KNOW what to do, and if not, then ASK. And they claim men won't ask for directions... Cheers, Jon S. NOt ask - but give . . . We give directions - like - A little to the left - Faster - no - slower - yeah - thats it - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ About the only directions I've been receiving have been such warm gems as "no thanks" or "I'm tired," etc. In fact, over the years I've learned that if I approach my wife in a husbandly manner and she says "I love you" it means "no." When I hit the jackpot and she is willing to spend some time together "I.L.Y." is not part of the equation. There's probably a reason, but I can't figure it out and, besides, I'm distracted for the next couple of minutes anyway... Of course I was only kidding when I made that comment about swallowing. However, I ASSume that would be my reaction if I were ever to end up in that position. Perhaps one reason life has been so dry is because I was never in the habit of saying "I love you," etc. unless I really meant it. There were a few times it would have been very well received (wink wink, nudge nudge) but I didn't want to deal with the subsequent "discussion" when she realized I wasn't being completely honest. Once again, none for the nice guy. But in a few million years the sun will blow up and it won't matter anyway. Cheers, Jon

Thanks Chris. My internet time is limited, and I'm not accustomed to lotsa website surfing. A month to plan for it, eh? Maybe I WILL be able to make it... Cheers, Jon

...So when do YOU tell your S.O. those magic words....if at all?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ When her husband is not around. Seriously, after she swallows. This way she'll know I mean it, and am not just pulling a line in an effort to manipulate her behavior. I HATE having to manipulate women into seeing things my way. They should just KNOW what to do, and if not, then ASK. And they claim men won't ask for directions... Cheers, Jon S.

Sorry about the incompetence, but I looked up RoamingDZ to find the dates for the Dublin event and cannot pin down the exact date. It was not listed on the events calendar. What am I doing wrong? Not so sure I can attend, but I'm finally working and will be falling again sometime soon. Cheers, Jon S.

...This is slightly off-topic, but now I am curious... How do you feel about people who are born with both male and female sex organs - do you think they should be allowed to get married? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Apologies for my ignorance on this subject, but I ASSume these folks make up such an insignificant statistical percentage of the population that it doesn't much matter. What are they with their clothes on? Which restroom do they use at work? Take one of each, let them get married, and just imagine the fireworks. Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again waiting for the Court to define common sense for us. If it isn't a search, what is it? Are they looking for something? If "yes," it's a search. If "no," what are they doing? By the way, I have no quarrel with a search under circumstances which would have been considered normal 25 years ago. That is, they have some solid reason to believe a crime has been committed. (In other words, you stop a guy for a traffic violation and, in the course of speaking with the driver, you smell pot, crack, etc., or see a roach in the ashtray. This is probable cause for a search. A "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker is not. Nor is two guys in their 20's passing through with out-of-state tags.) Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By declaring that "marriage" includes same-sex couples, they are engaging in judicial activism. It is not their job to "interpret" the meaning of common words whose definitions have been understood by all peoples, religions, & cultures since the beginning of recorded history. An example of judicial activism vs. "doing their job" is the Bush/Gore election in 2000. The Florida legislature had created specific conditions under which election results could be collected, counted, etc. These guidelines included specific dates & time frames within which this process must be conducted. 1) Judicial Activism: The Florida Supreme Court said the election laws could be arbitrarily ignored, and ordered the recount process to continue. 2) Doing Their Job: The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the SCOFLA, forcing them to honor the law as it was written by the legislature. The SCOFLA was trying to "interpret" the law to make it say the opposite of what it actually said. The SCOTUS looked at the law and said "you can't do this - it's not part of your job description." Again - Gay people can get married. If they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they are free to get married if they really, really want to. Why are they not content to live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone? Keep my nose out of your bedroom. Cheers, Jon S.

...Quoteit shouldn't be necessary to spell out every right that should already be protected. Doing so will only marginalize this concept to start with... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Very well said. Perhaps a short list of rights all Americans should enjoy, in keeping with the Founders' vision, might be the right to free speech & peaceful assembly, even if there's an abortion clinic nearby. It should also spell out that people running for public office are free to communicate with the public as often as possible, and that citizens are free to support such candidacies with their own money. How about the right to own & carry firearms without being hassled/arrested? Perhaps an amendment spelling out privacy rights regarding searches, seizures, etc. Of course, this will leave a lot of police departments with expensive K-9 units they won't be needing on a regular basis. In fact, if the Bill of Rights were formally repealed, how much different would our lives be than they are at present? Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me the "right" to do something means you can do it, period, without being hassled by the cops. It does not mean that that you are hassled, ticketed, arrested, etc., but the charges are later dropped. What am I missing? Cheers, Jon S.

Now there's an amusing misdirection. Or maybe I should say projection. One need look no further than the last presidential campaign to see that it was the right wing, and not either the left or "militant gay-rights advocates" who kept up the steady drumbeat of "gay marriage" as a political mantra, day after day after day. It was a classic example of making a "fear issue" out of a non-issue... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The Republicans were responding to the ongoing attempts by the gay community to force us to accept this concept of homosexual "marriage" as decreed by activist judges. The issue has already been raised; the Republicans were speaking out in an attempt to fight this idiocy. If the far-left had not brought up the subject in the first place, the right would not be forced to respond. It is not a "non-issue." It has already been imposed in some places, not by the people, and not according to the democratic system, but by liberal judges who see their mission as the destruction of traditional moral values and the imposition of a secular-humanist world view. As for your claim that the right has a monopoly on "forcing" people to do anything, see the thread entitled "Civil Liberties" a few months back, where we explored in detail the fact that it has been legislation pushed primarily by liberal Democrats which has resulted in a long list of things we were once free to do but are now illegal: Try driving alone in the left lane, without a seatbelt, perhaps with your loaded handgun somewhere in the vehicle where you can easily gain access to it. Or open a business and allow your employees & customers to smoke if you so choose. Maybe you'd like to ride a bike through Boston without a helmet, or refuse to put off that summer vacation because the school system has decided that imposing their year-round schedule is more important than your family's priorities. Just tell them when you'll be back and ask for a list of work your kid will have to make up... Or maybe you'd like to run for office, or support someone who does. Make whatever donations to the campaign you want, or accept whatever money anyone wants to offer. Don't keep records; after all, it's nobody's business. Buy whatever advertising you can afford. Run these ads every day, in fact every hour until the polls close on election day. If you operate a TV or radio station, accept these ads and run them whenever you like... Maybe you oppose abortion and want to speak out. Make a sign with a brief message and stand outside the clinic on the public sidewalk. Speak quietly with anyone interested; otherwise stand there for awhile and greet people warmly as they pass by... Perhaps you like to take late-night walks. Leave your ID at home. If a cop asks, politely remind him that he has no reason to ask your name, where you're going, why you're out, etc. Wish him a nice evening and continue on your way... When you find yourself in court, waiting for your name to be called and wondering why you're even there in the first place, remember to thank the Democrats for creating these stupid laws. And remember what happened to the politicians, especially the Republicans, who opposed these laws. Remember how you claimed they just "didn't care" and accused them of responding to political donations over "public safety" concerns. Then tell me again how the far-right is a threat to your liberty, while the far-left is all that remains to save us from the totalitarian gulag. Cheers, Jon S.

...Those who are so opposed to gays and lesbians having equal rights might as well get over it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You already have equal rights. If anything, you have more rights than I do. See previous posts for details. You have the right to get married. You do not have the right to change the definition of the word to make it mean something it never used to mean. If marriage is such a priority, then get some effective counseling, straighten yourself out, and get married. Piece of cake. Of course, I'm being flippant here to illustrate a point. I do not suggest "straightening out" would be easy, nor do I presume you'd even want to. The point is that marriage is what it is, and has been so for thousands of years. Making a loud noise, gaining the support of news editorial writers, and imposing your beliefs on the rest of us with the help of activist liberal judges will not change this reality. The extreme political agenda of the homosexual community has become a stain on the undershorts of America. Perhaps the most offensive outcome of their constant activism is that they have shoved down our throats a world in which we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality somehow, in one way or another, being constantly brought to our attention. I have some neighbors who I believe are lesbians. If they are, I don't care. The reason I don't care is because it took me six years to figure it out. Sorry, but I long ago lost my patience with continually being insulted, called a bigot, etc. Especially when I realized the only way I could "prove" my innocence would be by voting for liberal Democrats and accepting (insert "gay rights" demand du jour here.) I do not hate homosexuals, and I'm tired of being told that I do. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteI'm self taught. I think what worked for me to start off was a good chord book and a songbook. It's more fun if you can play stuff you recognize. You can get pretty good starter guitars for 200 or 300 dollars... Spend an extra 30-50 bucks on a "set up," too. It'll make it better for you immediately. For God's sake, start off on an acoustic. Electrics are easier to play, which means that you don't get the basics down as well. Now's the time to build hand and finger strength, and familiarity with it. Wait till later to get an electric. You can do everything on an electric that you can on an acoustic, but not the opposite...But don't set your sights too high too quickly...Get the basics down, and move on from there... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hmmm...Our backgrounds are similar, though I started out on an electric. Bought a chord book and a Beatle song book about 32 years ago and got started. Piece of cake. Except for "F." I hated "F." If you have a real passion for music that will help. Listen to, and learn to appreciate a wide variety of music. (Apologize for ASSuming you don't already.) Having time to play is key. Try for at least a half hour a few times a week. If you're having fun this will not be difficult, but I don't know your situation. I began when I was 16, and played a lot when I was in my early 20's, single, and had lots of time to play alone or jam with friends. In those years I'd work the midnight-8:00 shift and go home to an empty house after my family went to work/school. I'd party a bit and jam for as much as three hours at a stretch. Years later one of the other guys in the church band greeted me as I arrived for practice: "Jon, you're really wailing on that guitar. How'd you get so good?" "Drugs." Of course, this is optional. But seriously, have fun. Within a short time you'll see some progress, which will encourage you to keep at it. Sorta like skydiving. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteMarriage started out as a political institution used to sort out the distribution of property amongst heirs and political alliances between families, tribes, and states. The ceremony was performed by the church because the church WAS the state... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Umm... Marriage has been around since the times recorded in the book of Genesis. This was several thousand years before the creation of the Church. It may well be a political institution, but it is also much more than that. Cheers, Jon

Interesting. Another attempt to eliminate crime by applying a secular humanist legislative mind set. ("If we pass another law, drug dealing will cease," etc.) One point about pay phones that has bugged me for years, ever since they did away with phone booths and just have the phone on an open stand. These phones are frequently placed near a highway or other busy road. It is damn near impossible to hear the person you're trying to talk with while traffic is rushing by a short distance away. Doesn't anybody in a decision-making position even think about these things before installing these units? Sigh, Jon S.

...I am a Christian and belive its not my place to judge others... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You have every right to judge others. Jesus Himself told us to make judgements according to God's moral standards. ("...hate what is evil, cling to what is good...", etc.) Besides, everyone else gets away with passing judgements. Why should Christians be prohibited from participating? Homosexuals have always been allowed to marry, and many of them have. Of course, if they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they're free to marry if they really want to. However, they are not free to arbirtarily change the definition of the word, which has meant a certain thing throughout thousands of years of recorded history. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Period. This is the basis of the family unit, which itself is the basis of a stable, civilized society. Redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuals is like redefining aviation to accomodate SCUBA divers. Cheers, Jon S.

One in particular a few years ago: A bunch of us were flying in an Otter to a distant DZ. Inside, it's kinda like somebody's living room. Plenty of space, furniture, and we're all walking around, sitting on the couch, etc. Nobody's wearing rigs, as they're stored away with the luggage. As we approach the DZ, four people opened the plexigalss door and got into position to take the 4-way chunk out. Some of us see what is happening and try to stop them, but they call the count and pull off a stable piece. A moment later they realize what they've just done and the look of horror on their faces is impossible to describe... Another dream that has occurred several times is the malfunction/cutaway dream. The action begins plenty high enough, but it takes SOOOO long to pull the handles and wait for the reserve to deploy (sort of like those running-through-the-water dreams.) Finally, the (round) reserve begins to inflate and barely slows me down before I land. Cheers, Jon S.

...I am FAIRLY certain that I would not say, "well, their killer probably had a point.".. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Of course not. I was just injecting some tougue-in-cheek humor into this discussion. Jon

...Could you enlighten us all to what sort of special rights they want... I keep getting confused by this whole militant homosexual agenda... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The most blatant example is their attempts to redefine marriage. In addition, they have demonstrated an attitude of entitlement regarding jobs, housing, etc. If I want a job or an apartment, I can't just have it. The boss might decide not to hire me; the landlord might choose not to rent to me. This is their right. However, if a gay dude is refused, the case can end up in court with editorial writers across the county portraying the landlord, company, etc. as a bigot. There was a case in Georgia in the mid-90's in which a woman applied for a job with the state attorney general's office. During the interview procedure she volunteered that she was a lesbian. (Nobody asked.) The A.G. decided not to hire her. Not because of her queerness, but because she had demonstrated poor judgement and an in-your-face attitude. She sued. The case went on for months, with political activists portraying the A.G. as a bigot and smearing him personally by exposing imperfections in his own life which were irrelevant to the case. He eventually won, but the point was made: If a homosexual wants it, you had better provide it or you'll end up in court. In 1997 I had a letter published in the Atlanta newspaper in which I stated that gays deserve to be treated just like everybody else. I received a death threat in the mail, complete with the little rainbow sticker, from some faggot who called me names and described how he'd kill me and my family. The letter was not mailed; there was no stamp or postmark. The guy went to the trouble of looking up my address and placing it in my mailbox personally. All because I said he deserved the same rights I enjoyed, but no more. I guess he was demonstrating "tolerance." Queers, Jon S.