Airman1270

Nice try. But I was only responding to how you say you are not bigoted and then show just how you are... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ How so. By using the word "queers?" This is the word they used to describe each other. Let's get the chronology straight: 1) I had no unkind attitude toward them, and in fact could relate to their desire to be left alone and live their lives in peace. 2) As I got older and began to pay attention to cultural/political issues, I noticed that they were becoming more aggressive, demanding special rights and special treatment. Furthermore, I noticed that they were making offensive accusations against anybody who did not agree with their political agenda. It became obvious that they were using words like "bigot" to describe ANYBODY who disagreed with them. Scenario: You and I are friends and have been for a long time. Suddenly I begin slapping you in the face and calling you unkind names, accusing you of doing bad things. You are taken by surprise and are somewhat bewildered. Any attempt on your part to ask for an explanation results in further attacks. You begin to deny the accusations and try to explain why you are not guilty. The attacks escalate. Finally, you become disgusted and quit trying. Eventually the subject comes up in conversation and you vent your frustration at being portrayed as a creep by someone you once respected. Other people interpret this as "proof" that the original accusations were accurate. Then some guy on a skydiving website assumes you're a bigot because you're not kissing the ass of the person who started the conflict in the first place... Cheers, Jon

...Whoever was calling you "open-minded and tolerant" 25 years ago may have simply been mistaken. I doubt they'd have repeated the comment if they knew you sympathized with a rampaging murderous nazi... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't. You are mistaken. Jon

Gee, maybe it is because you say things like this: Quote Likewise, a bunch of queers rioted at a church in San Francisco in September 1993, interrupting the service, damaging property, and scaring children. ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ They rioted, caused property damage, scared children, and were immune from arrest due to their favored political status, and you're upset because I described them as "queers." Amazing. Don't fall so easily into my trap. Jon

Are we defining "current" as the ability to fly our best, or to just jump safely? I've averaged fewer than 40 jumps a year forever. Last year I barely made 15. After a few months off I did a 6- or 7-way, swooped in last, and docked real nice. While I'll never make Jack Jeffries' rolodex, I'm so used to sporadic jumping I can take time off and return to my previous skill level without posing a threat to you. (One reason for this is that I don't get into situations that are over my head. Sure, I'll join you on that 20 way, but understand that I may not make my slot before breakoff. But at least I won't kill you.) I haven't jumped in three months. My reserve is in date until early March, so I'll likely make another dive before then. Probably a solo, but we'll see who's at the DZ and work from there... Cheers, Jon S.

Hey Jeffrey: The first I'd heard about the incident was when I saw this thread last week. I've since found the story, and was not surpised to see the phrase "hate crime" used within the first paragraph. Funny, I remember an incident in September 1999 at a chruch in Ft. Worth, Texas in which a guy entered the building and shot up a youth group meeting while shouting anti-Christian comments. Nearly a dozen teens and adults were killed. I searched a number of news sources in vain to see the incident described as a "hate crime" when that's clearly what it was. Yet, the only place I saw the term used was on my own newscast in Atlanta. Likewise, a bunch of queers rioted at a church in San Francisco in September 1993, interrupting the service, damaging property, and scaring children. The police were under orders NOT to arrest the demonstrators. And, of course, news editors nationwide did not think the incident deserved "hate crime" status, along with the usual concomitant saturation coverage and expressed concerns for the victims. Come to think of it, maybe the guy with the hatchet had a point. Seriously, I worked at a gay community on Fire Island in 1980, and remember when the gays' political agenda consisted of "leave us alone." They have since gone on to demand special rights and have created animosity among people who never used to have a problem with them by insulting anyone who questions their extreme agenda. My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this. Cheers, Jon S.

...Well, the first thing alcohol seems to impair is judgement, so the drunker you get, the better you think you can drive... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Really? This is scary. If I'm driving I'll stop after two regardless of how I feel, or I won't start in the first place. Once I'm into the third one I know that, while I may be able to drive a bit (30 years' experience) I will not pass a breath test at a roadblock and I won't place myself in that position. One thing that doesn't change is my ability to assess reality. The more I drink, the more aware I am of the things I cannot or should not do. (Three things I cannot do while drunk are play guitar well, carry on a coherent conversation, or the sex thing. And if #3 was available to me I would not be drunk in the first place.) Thanks, Jon Homer no function well beer without.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Y'know, I wondered about that... I thought this topic was benign enough for the bonfire, but I guess the intensity of any ensuing discussion might be the deciding factor. Cheers, Jon

A conversation about old logbooks has swerved into a debate about how much alcohol an average male can drink without becoming impaired to the point of posing a threat to public safety. The discussion emanated from an observation that many jumpers leave at the end of the day, rather than hang around over some beer with friends. In this corner, Airman says people who keep their drinking within the legal limit are perfectly safe to drive. In the other corner, challenger mjosparky seems to think that ANY alcohol consumption prior to driving home is a dangerous threat to public safety. A statistic was cited indicating that something like 35+% of traffic wrecks are "alcohol related." This means that 65-ish% of wrecks involved drivers who are perfectly sober. As I read this, I see that accidents occur for a wide variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with drinking. I believe that many "alcohol related" accidents occur for reasons other than the fact that the driver had been drinking, especially in cases where the driver had very little and was, in fact, within the bounds of the law. If a drunk guy is waiting at a red light and is rear-ended by a sober guy, the incident will be classified as "alcohol related" even though the wreck was caused by a sober driver. I believe the political witch hunt against drunk driving, while motivated by valid concerns, has been pushed to ridiculous extremes, resulting in a climate in which safe drivers who are obeying the law risk arrest & prosecution. Additionally, it is difficult to publicly question this situation without being accused of defending drunk drivers. (Throughout this discussion NOBODY has said it was okay to drive while drunk.) If mjosparky is correct, then the legal b.a.c. should be changed to .00 and the only people who should be enjoying that sunset beer are the folks who will be camping overnight. Your thoughts? Cheers, Jon S. DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I am able to drink a little and drive safely. I do not claim that I can exceed the legal limit without becoming impaired. Do you believe that it is possible for an adult to drive safely after consuming a small amount of alcohol? Or do you think driving after ANY amount poses a threat? We are left with a situation in which people can obey the law and still be hassled by the cops. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Jon

Three to date: 1) Jump #14. Chest-mount, non-steerable round (pilot chute removed) after failing to locate main ripcord. 2) Jump #142. Cutaway after a low-speed malfunction. Very hard pull, almost went in. Strong lopo. 3) Jump #540. Cutaway following a streamer. Got open at around 1000' and steered the lopo into a small clear spot in a neighbor's yard. My new rig has a Smart. Haven't used it yet... Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I know a lot of this crap is imposed on you from above, but I am distressed that a good many of these guys are willing to carry out the orders. The cop in the supermarket should have apologized to the woman and maybe cited the clerk for false report of a crime. At the very least, he could have written the mom a ticket instead of making an arrest. You claim you have no room for discretion. I disagree. You could refuse to make an arrest and deal with your supervisor later. Resign, if necessary, and find honest work, but don't tell me you have no choice but to hassle an innocent citizen because O.J. killed his wife and her boyfriend after he caught her cheating. At my last radio job I spent more than four years reading police reports daily. There were numerous situations where the cops would make arrests for minor, non-violent violations that could have been handled by writing a ticket. There is no excuse for arresting a carload full of people over a piece of marijuana as big as your fingernail. Neither is it your business to be randomly stopping passers-by on the interstate and searching their cars under the pretext of "failure to maintain lane" or some other fictitious "offense." In one case, the cop was trying to stop a guy for driving with a suspended license. He followed the guy into his driveway and right into his house. No warrant. No serious threat to public safety that would justify such an intrusion. He just walked in, and the Fourth Amendment be damned. Over a minor traffic violation. Many arrests began with the cop just stopping someone on the street and demanding to see an ID. I thought the difference between "free" America and a totalitarian society was that in America the cops can't just demand to see your papers without a valid reason, but police training schools have apparently failed to receive the fax. I have been taking late-night walks for 30 years, and don't carry my wallet. If you have a valid reason to check me out, you can begin by explaining why you're asking. (Example: I fit the description of someone you're looking for, etc.) But I don't owe you an explanation if you're request is motivated by nothing more pressing than "I wonder what this guy is doing?..." If a motorist swerves to avoid an animal and slips on wet leaves & ends up in a ditch, you can help by arranging for a wrecker to pull him out and maybe offering a word of encouragement. But if you are going to compund his misfortune by writing a ticket for going too fast for conditions" or some other nebulous charge that can neither be proven nor refuted, you are doing nothing to benefit society and very little to encourage respect for yourself or the agency you represent. And if you are REQUIRED to write that ticket even if you think its overkill, it's time to reconsider your career choice. My brother-in-law is a recently retired NYC cop. He mostly loved the work (and in his later years became the precinct's maintenance man - he could fix anything.) But years ago he told of a time when he stopped a guy for making an illegal turn. The guy was from out of state and was lost and confused. Bob understood how intimidating it can be for a visitor driving through Manhatten; he gave the guy a verbal warning and offered directions to help him on his way. That guy drove away with profound thanks and respect for the police and the city. Meanwhile, Bob was chewed out by his supervisor for not writing a ticket. We know you guys are under some pressures we can't always understand, but it would be reassuring to hear about the rank & file speaking out against being used in such a manner. When you find yourself arresting somebody who clearly doesn't deserve to be arrested, something's wrong. Thanks again, Jon

QuoteIn 2004, 39% of all traffic fatalities were found to be alcohol related. That’s 16,600 people dead because someone felt they could drink and drive. The affects of alcohol are like the affects of hypoxia, hard for the one affected to notice the difference. It has been proven in test after test that one drink will reduce your ability to make decisions quickly or at all for that matter. It is hard to believe there are still people so cavalier about getting in a 2 or 3 thousand pound vehicle after having “a couple of beers” and point it at others. You are betting you can pull it off. The problem is you are betting with other peoples lives. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ In the incidents you cite, how much alcohol was consumed? And does the evidence show that it was the alcohol that "caused" the accident? If the drivers involved were legally drunk, then this argument is irrelevant to this discussion. A drunk guy might be sitting at a red light and be rear-ended by a sober guy. You can claim all you want that the accident was "alcohol-related" but it is clearly the sober guy who caused the wreck. The alcohol was irrelevant in this case. (Of course, this is little comfort to the drunk guy who's in a heap of trouble regardless...) If you are claiming that even a small amount of alcohol will impair a driver to the point of becoming a threat to public safety, than you are suggesting that ANY alcohol consumption prior to driving should be illegal. My bitch about this subject is that it's possible to obey the law and still be arrested & prosecuted. If you're right, this means the only jumpers who should enjoy that sunset beer with their friends are those who are camping overnight. (Trying to keep this vaguely within the context of the "logbook" subject.) Try as we might, this is sliding beyond the bounds of "General Skydiving Discussions." Should we continue at the Bonfire? Thanks again, Jon

Good thread. Since my mid-30's I have developed what might be described as an attitude problem regarding the police. This occurred as I began to realize how far they are willing to go to do a job that includes offensive intrusion into our lives in ways that just 25 years ago would have been unthinkable. If there was one incident that finally brought this to a head it was in spring 1994 when a local cop arrested a woman in a Woodstock, Georgia supermarket for spanking her kid. (A young employee, who had obviously been brainwashed by the hysterical "spanking-is-child-abuse" community had witnessed the incident and called 911. After having 11 years to cool off and think about it I still believe that cop deserved to be shot dead in the parking lot. Damn nazi scumbag....) In the old days police work could be described as helping people and chasing bad guys. They still do these things, of course, but now their job description has been expanded to include the enforcement of liberalism (hassling people for doing things that used to be okay), coupled with a penchant for overkill, i.e. making arrests when they could write tickets, etc. I might add that I personally have no axe to grind: I've never been in trouble and as I celebrate my 48th birthday today I do so with a clean record. I can also site several occasions where the cops have helped me. But what really sucks is that, thanks to secular liberal laws recently enacted by politicians eager to prove they "care" about (insert issue du jour here) The cops have been transformed into an army of well meaning, constitutionally illiterate folks who think nothing of searching school lockers & automobiles without cause, stopping "free" Americans and demanding to see their papers simply because they chose to take a late night walk, and intruding into your home and arresting you because you had a fight with your wife (even if nobody has been hurt and nobody wants to press charges.) I never even used to have an opinion about them, and if I DID stop a moment to think about them my attitude was one of respect. A large chunk of that respect remains, but it's not the same as it used to be. Cheers, Jon S.

Don't john we want to stay awake all night. At the farm you kinda sent us early to bed with your guitar Thanks _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hee hee hee... The thought of anybody at the Farm going to bed early is just too much to contemplate... I'll be good... Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Again, my point is that the standard has been redefined. We did not have an epidemic of people causing tragic accidents after drinking a few beers, unless, of course, they were also driving in a hazardous manner to begin with. Obviously, a careless driver doesn't become any less dangerous after having a beer, but I don't believe it's necessarily the alcohol that would be the dominating factor in any subsequent incident. At the same time, I don't believe a careful driver necessarily becomes a threat after drinking a few beers. With a 30 year driving history and a clean record I think I can speak with some credibility on the subject. I have rarely jumped after ANY beer, and would not do so according the the conditions you posed in your question. I did, once, make a jump after drinking three beers in three hours. I did an easy small-way way, and kept the workload light with an emphasis on opening a bit higher than normal. In keeping with the purpose of this thread, I offer this discussion as a possible explanation as to why there might be fewer jumpers hanging around over a beer or two after sunset. The current political climate has many people believing that even a small amount of alcohol will turn a careful driver into an out-of-control threat to public safety. Many of the people who believe this work as cops and are willing to arrest you at a roadblock even though you're not impaired and that the case would stand little chance of ending in a conviction. Cheers, Jon S.

If I can make the boogie I'll definitely be bringing the guitar. We had a nice jam at the farm last August. Anyone up for the open-mic thing? Cheers, Jon S.

If you're suddeny struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you prefer him to be driving an SUV or VW? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I'd prefer that he be driving whatever he wants to drive, and that no busybody left-winger is trying to use the legislatures and the courts to impose his own preferences on other peoples' liberty in an attempt to further some secular agenda based on the vain presumption that we can legislate all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience. I'd also hope the guy is a careful driver. Cheers, Jon S.

Along this line, Law... I've wondered about the practice of giving the defendant a chance to make a final comment before the judge announces the sentence. What's the point? He should have been allowed a chance to say what's on his mind before the jury began deliberations, and given one last chance to influence the verdict against him. I've always had a problem with the current law tradition in which the exchange of information during a trial is so tightly micro-managed. How often, after a high-profile case, have we heard jurors lament their verdict after learning about information that had been withheld during the trial? Or worse, those who said something like "I wanted to vote "X", but felt I had to vote "Y"? It's not easy describing such a result as "justice." If I'm on trial for anything, I want the chance to communicate with the jury and be sure my argument has been fairly presented. If I'm on a jury and I sense that relevant information is being withheld, I will be less likely to take the proceedings seriously. Of course, I won't be telling anyone about this... Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteYou using IE or Firefox? And it's not closing anything right, it's just deleting stuff you've typed in?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't know, am doing this at the library. I'll be typing along, watching the keyboard because I'm not a good typist. Occasionally I glance at the screen to check my work and realize the computer has just stopped printing my stuff. I then have to click the mouse to place the little blinky thing back where I'd left off. It just happened again twice while typing this reply. ????????, Jon

That's a joke, right? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No. Silly question. If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit? (Remember VW Rabbits?) Jon

What the hell's going on here! I'm trying to post some comments and interact with other skydivers over a variety of topics. While typing, the damn machine suddenly stops printing my words. There's a brief, very imperceptible "flash" on the screen and I realize that I've lost the last few words, sometimes an entire sentence or two. This has happened numerous times in the past hour. I can't go five minutes without "Hal" here just deciding to go somewhere else and leave me hanging. Does anyone know why this happens, and how to prevent it? Grrrrr, Jon S.

It never occurred to me that it might NOT be okay. Hmmm...this might explain the cancelled invitations and the key marks on my car... As for the ride to altitude, I try to wait until the door is open. I once thought I was okay kneeling across from the open Otter door, but as watched the faces I could "see" my blast make its way toward the front of the plane. Anytime you expel something from your body it feels good. Cheers, Jon S.

Do you really believe this? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes. Throughout my adult life (graduated high school in 1976, drinking age 18) we were occasionally confronted by various sources (including p.s.a.'s on radio stations geared to young people) with the accepted alcohol breakdown stats which indicated that an "average" size male could consume up to three drinks in an hour without exceeding the legal limit. "Average" was somewhere between 170 - 200lbs. "Legal" at the time was .10 b.a.c. "Legal" was also understood to be safe. We did not have an epidemic of horrible accidents caused by people who honored this standard. The really bad stuff, the stuff that motivated MADD to get organized, etc., was caused by people who got smashed way beyond the legal limit, then compounded their behavior with reckless driving. The point is that I, at over 200lbs., can drink two or even three beers in an hour without losing control and posing a threat to you. Since the law has been redefined, making formerly legal behavior illegal, I can now get into a lot of trouble for two beers, despite the fact that I'm not drunk, nor am I driving in a dangerous manner. This makes it unlikely that I will hang around the DZ over a beer with my friends if I know I have to drive home that evening. Of course, accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, even to people who are not drinking. Equally obvious, one of these accidents can occur after one has had a beer. (After all, having that beer does not eliminate the possibility of one of these non-alcohol related accidents from occurring.) The trouble is that all attention will be focused on that beer; It will be considered by many the reason the accident happened in the first place. If you drink a beer, then are struck by a guy who suddenly pulled out of his driveway with his headlights off, you will be blamed even though the accident was clearly not your fault. Just pray you get me on your jury. Cheers, Jon S.

...I am so tired of SUVs being singled out as inefficient. What about pickups owned by people that almost never use the bed, or powerful luxury cars, or powerful sports cars?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Amen. I don't want an SUV, but if I change my mind it's nobody's business. Note how we keep modifying the meaning of "gas guzzler." In the 1970's we used that term to describe autos that averaged fewer than a dozen miles per gallon. Most SUV's can boast at least 20 mpg. Not too shabby, especially considering the added safety & cargo capacity. We skydivers have much to lose, and little to gain, by encouraging people to pass judgement on how much fuel we use, and for what purpose. Cheers, Jon S.

...Repect does not equal fear... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If you believe the two have nothing to do with each other, I suggest the next time you drive past a state trooper aiming a radar gun at your car you give him the finger. Spanking a teenage child for such an abusive accusation is not "domestic violence." This phrase has traditionally been reserved for such things as punching out your wife because she burned your dinner. How much you wanna bet that, when she was much younger, her parents gave in to this "spanking-is-child-abuse" mythology, which resulted in a snotty little teenage cunt who thinks nothing of pulling the stunt she did? Cheers, Jon S.