mr2mk1g

Bad day? Yes - today. I've spent all morning arguing with and sorting out problems created by STUPID PEOPLE!!! If they don't find the paperwork they've lost I'm damn well going to drive over to their offices and staple their heads to their desks!

Both

hit me

Later versions of premier have that feature also.

On two occasions in the last 20 years, two otherwise law abiding individuals committed more than one third of firearms murders for that year with firearms they held legally. A whole third! Guess we took the guns away from the class of person who did do it.

Ok, it's a scam. I asked the question: "the item looks like it has a K-pax AAD... could you confirm if this is included in the auction?" I just got the answer: No licenced jumper is surely going to think their righ has something called a "K-pax" in it. The guy who's selling has to be a whuffo... as the real owner would appear to have at least done the odd skydive I would suggest that this guy is most likely a con-artist.

Several such comparisons came to the conclusion that these lenses could well be the same optics repackaged and re-branded... But I don't hesitate to add that this is based on no hard evidence at all, merely the fact that the products are all so strikingly similar. I certainly wouldn't be surprised. A couple of the manufacturers post on here... maybe they can be of some help.

It may well not be the case... but it’s the only advice I'm willing to stand by in writing. For example a dealer might be an excellent source of advice... but dealers don't have to have any instructional qualifications or even experience in the sport… so not every dealer will be somewhere I’d send a student for advice. Equally an experienced jumper may know tons about canopies flight... but they may not have any instructional qualifications or knowledge of canopies suitable for A license jumpers… thus again not every experienced jumper is the best source. The only place I'm comfortable describing as a "reliable" source, (without knowing exactly who they’re talking to) is their AFF instructor or whatever progressional instructor they've been designated. While others may also be perfectly able (if not sometimes better able) to provide such advice... I'm not able to guarantee that from my office in the south west of rainy old England... I can (at least I hope) be fairly certain of an instructor however.

That looks like it's the owner - the jumpsuit's the same. Only outstanding question is then if that is the same guy who set up this auction. Given all the "red flags" cloudwalking could well be right... but who knows.

I suspect the pictures are genuine - there's a protec and RW suit in one of them... another one has a home made pack-boy made out of a spanner and weights tied together al-la a DZ... the pictures are clearly taken in a skydiver's environ... the text though makes the seller look like a tandem pax or AFF student... The rest of the e-bay profile is highly suspicious.

hehe, I asked: Hopefully the answer will reveal if this guy's genuine...

Make him and offer he can't refuse...

It may well be. We're no where near being able to see one way or the other yet. Bush even accepts the fact that it may not work - we all hope it will though... so there's no dispute there. So that can't be what the article's about. Established US constitutional doctrine would beg to differ. Your answer even mixes semantics – you say Bush is answerable to the people of the US… a boss is someone to whom you are answerable… thus you are (cumulatively) Bush’s boss. That’s not where the big argument lies either. No one’s really saying that this way is not the “right and just” way to go. Sure – wading in and stopping the death over there is very commendable… few would disagree… but the big question is whether or not the US population think what we’re going to achieve is worth all the death and misery it’s causing – amongst our own troops alone. No one's disputing that - no one's saying Bush is wrong when he says that's a bad thing that ought to be stopped... the only outstanding question is whether or not that is worth the lives and limbs of our brothers and sisters, to say nothing of the $$ amount. The article only address's points which are not really in much contention... thus sure - there's going to be a lot of support for the position that Bush is right about them - no one's arguing with him on those points. The article fails to address points such as the cost of the war in human and $$ terms. That is the real outstanding question – that’s where people are saying Bush is wrong… not on the smaller details as this article talks about. Is Bush right about that? Is an Iraq which chooses to institute Iranian stile Sharia law an outcome which the US citizenry consider to be "worth" the loss of life and limb on the scale we’ve seen together with the crippling damage to the US economy it has taken to achieve? Again – I’m not purporting to know the answer to that last question – I’m just point out that to my mind THAT is the major outstanding question over GWB’s decision to go to war NOT whether or not it is possible to achieve the stated goals, or even if those goals are “right” and “just”. Everyone agrees that the choice is “just” – but not everyone agrees that its worth it… that simple distinction is something the article fails to consider.

I jump one. My previous canopy was a Sabre. I find them to be very comprable. The ZP perhaps has a very slight performance edge on the Sabre in my opinion but it's minimal to say the least. People often talk of them in the same breath. I would suggest that the ZP is marginally less 'radical' than canopies such as the Sabre II/Pilot/SafireII which are generally considered appropriate for A license's...

While I’m sure I could produce a list few would argue with, I’m simply not the person to be giving such advice. I’ll defer to others on the board with more exp. Give your thread a day or so - I'm sure you'll get the help you’re looking for from those who are in the business of giving it.

hehe, what you're primarily seeing is a reluctance to give bad advice. No one want's to go out on a limb and categorically say X Y and Z are good canopies for you as no one here as seen you fly or knows your progression. Whilst there are general comments we can make, specific recommendations have to come from your instructor. The only input I'm willing to give at my terribly low experience level is to say, stay away from ellipticals, learn about wing loading and stay away from anything loaded above 1.1:1 unless your instructor specifically tells you otherwise (and only then if you yourself are comfortable with it). While you may find someone here who is willing to list a number of canopies commonly jumped by A license holders, it is unlikely that anyone here is going to be able to give you specific advice as to which of those canopies is best for you. Sorry – that’s just the nature of the sport.

Your first, and ONLY reliable port of call has to be your instructors. This snippet from a gear FAQ ought to help you narrow down your questions to them, but rely on their advice over any you get elsewhere. A triathlon is a square canopy that is one of those specifically aimed towards newer jumpers (amongst others). It is unlikely that your instructor would have any issues with you jumping an appropriately sized triathlon. You should check with them with regard to what size they recomend you look at - that goes for any canopy design.

John; one more time. It is not possible to point to crimes involving illegally held firearms as an indication of the effectiveness of the 1997 legislation. The 1997 legislation was not intended to have any material effect on the rate of crimes carries out with illegally held firearms. Thus pointing to those figures, jumping up and down and shouting "SEE" while frothing at the mouth has absolutely no meaning. Since the 1997 legislation did not purport to have any affect on criminals, saying that criminals have not been effected shows us nothing at all about the effectiveness of the legislation. It’s like saying “the use of an AAD on the reserve has had no effect on main canopy malfunctions” – of course it has had no effect; it was never intended to have any effect. Go take a look at Hansard. Educate yourself as to what the 1997 legislation actually hoped to achieve. Don’t use newspaper reports or pressure group websites as a primary resource – go look at what actually came out of the horse’s mouth. Only once you have educated yourself as to what was hoped to be achieved can you say with any degree of certainty whether or not the legislation achieved it or not. As it is you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely.

Yes, I heard that... together with an audible stir in the membership when the Chairman made the comment. I think at best that has to be put down to an "optimistic" interpretation of the figures... although a cynic might well say they "glossed over" the potential link.

Even if it was possible... no one believed the reports they heard... I mean - seriously who would? The concept of putting of thousands of people do death per day using industrial processes is beyond belief... no wonder it took the actual liberation of the camps for people to actually realize it was all true. If the Allies didn't believe things on that scale were happening why would they allocate resources to it... even if they had resources to allocate? Anyone else been to Auschwitz? I went years ago when I lived in Poland. The family dog wouldn’t get out of the back of the car. This huge great Alsatian just cowered in the car shaking… was really odd. My mother put it down to some kind of sixth sense… I don’t have an answer. When we visited my mother was pregnant with my little sister. She had provisionally picked out the name Hannah if she was a girl. At Auschwitz there are rooms filled with people’s luggage, great mounds of spectacles shoes, clothes etc. One of the suitcases had the name “Hannah [my family name]” written on it. That was the point my mother abandoned the idea of calling my sister Hannah, as she would have always remembered that suitcase and the fate that befell its owner, and my sisters namesake. I'll have to go back there at some point...

I did read the article... but that's where I have problems with it. See there's not that much dispute about how establishing democracy in Iraq being a good thing. Everyone agrees that would be wicked… thus there’s no dispute about Bush being right there… thus surely the writer can’t be talking about that. Where people think Bush was wrong is with regard to whether or not establishing democracy had anything to do with why Bush wanted to go into Iraq; whether or not he communicated that thought process to his bosses, the public; and whether or not the cost in terms of the lives and limbs of coalition soldiers as well as the pure $$ amount was worth it. I see lots of people saying Bush is wrong about those elements of the situation… elements this article fails to address. So yeah - Bush was right - democracy in Iraq would be cool to achieve… but that’s not exactly the point now is it... that's not what your countrymen are complaining about. Now I'm not expressing a view on these points - just highlighting the fact that the article kinda glosses over them. In other words... the writer completely misses the point.

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins? Or that Sadam was involved in 911? Ok, seriously... right about what?

Re some ideas already floated, bear in mind that selling plasma may affect your susceptibility to hypoxia (even at altitudes frequented by skydivers) for a short time after donating… This is down to each individual though so is difficult to predict. I have a friend who participated in medical studies while at uni in order to buy his rig and fund his training. He later went on to be a national champion in a 4-way team. His advice is to not do medical studies – he says it was the worst choice he ever made and strongly warns against it – the pills he took seriously fucked with him and he feels the whole experience simply wasn’t worth any amount of money… then again – you may well end up in the control group taking tic-tacs.

Estimates range from 200,000 to a couple of million. Fact is no one knows and estimates have very little info to go on. Not that it's terribly relevant of course, as the 1997 legislation had very little to do with taking illegally held firearms off the streets.