Pubwoof

You can't do it, can you? I never said anything about being nice. If there is any overarching theme to attacks against Democrats it is that they're a bunch of pussies and can't be trusted to fight the good fight. Then, when the Dems show any spine when it comes to responding to the Republican smear tactics, then they're wrong for that too. Damned if they do, damned if they don't I guess. All I've gotten so far are a couple of red herrings to munch on (very tasty as they may have been) about two paid staffers being reported by their own bosses. It is quite common for an employer to pick up the tab for any legal fees, either by contract or because a single legal team handled any coordinated defense. You again failed to attribute this new claim you're making or post any links for fact checking. So, you believe attending protests qualifies for public service now? Do you actually have a citation for that one, or are you just making shit up now? Aside from the above, your last post is just a restatement of your earlier remark implying that no staffer would do anything wrong unless it was by order of Democratic leadership. So, if you really want to take this thread into the evil doings of staffers, I guess I get to talk about Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, the outing of Valerie Plame, the willful cover up of congressional pedophilia, anyone who arranged meetings with Abramoff, and/or dozens of other acts of misconduct perpetrated by Republicans. You guys won't be winning that argument either, especially if you just keep repeating what you've already said. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Read your own unattributed quote. It names exactly two people, the gal who got fired and prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining the credit report and the other gal who quit because her credit card was used. If we're trusting your source as you posted it, only two people were involved even if we assume that Barge was aware that her credit card was being used for a fraudulent act. Either way, when the powers that be within the party became aware of the incident, two people ceased being with the party. I find it funny you'd use this case as an argument that the Democrats play anywhere near as dirty as does the administration when the offenders in question were hung out to dry by the Democratic leaders. Are you angry they didn't try to sweep it under the rug like Republicans did with Mark Foley? It's way beyond obvious to anyone who follows politics what the DSCC is and that a Democratic Senator would be in charge of it alongside a paid executive director and other staff. This is exactly how the Republicans run their counterpart organization (in case you didn't know). How does your posting of a Wikipedia definition of same in any way establish that anyone else knew about this incident aside from the two people in your quote? If this weak "guilt by association" inference is your way of proving that the top leadership was necessarily involved, I can just change a few names to undeniably prove that President Bush should be impeached for ordering the outing of a clandestine CIA agent. I'll just bet that you've once taken the position (maybe even within this forum) that the President would never be involved in something like that even if Rove and Libby outed her on purpose. By the way, you should really get that cough checked out by a doctor. That, of course, assumes you can afford the insurance to avail yourself of the profits-first health system we have in this country. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I don't know where your quotes are coming from, but, assuming they're accurate, I am proud that the Maryland Democratic Party not only investigated the crime, but referred the matter to the feds for prosecution. Had the Rovester been running things instead, this idiotic junior-level staffer would have been promoted to a higher position and any embarrasing details from the report would've made it into a 527 ad paid for by his TX swift-boat buddies. Even though Barge resigned (probably for failure to keep tabs on her expenses), you'll need more than her name on a credit card to establish that this was anything more than the stupid choice of a single wannabe (ie. not an act by the party itself). Honestly, it was right that she quit over it and even more right that Weiner's ass got handed to her by the US Attorney. Why did those things happen? Because Dems don't play that! As for the actions of supporters, this isn't relevant to the challenge I made. Unless you can cite an actual party-endorsed ad calling Steele an "Uncle Tom" or something similar, we're talking apples and oranges. Even if there was, I could always counter with the racist RNC ad being run against Harold Ford in Tennessee which more or less advocates voting against the black man who goes after white women. If you really want to include the actions of supporters, then you'll have to defend things like pictures of fetuses, "god hates fags" signs, burning crosses, and the goons who recently assaulted someone at a Sen. Macacawitz rally for daring to ask a question. If you really want to have that debate, I suggest you pack a lunch. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

First of all, the attack does limit itself to the public duties of Ms. Johnson as a member of Congress. Secondly, the most that could be said of it was that it was misleading in regards to some of the details. The article you used even states; "The Johnson campaign asked Murphy to withdraw the ad after it began running on Oct. 8, but the Murphy campaign has refused, claiming in a statement that, "the ad is completely true." Maybe so, but only in the narrowest sense. The ad's carefully constructed language would lead any reasonable viewer to draw a false conclusion." If this is the worst a Democrat has done against a Republican this cycle, I'll stand by everything I said earlier. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

So far, the most insulting ad I've seen so far in that race has been her variation of the "Democrats want terrorists to win" argument as an attack against Chris Murphy. I'll presume that's the one you're referring to until I hear back to the contrary. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Thanks for being so helpful.

A citation would be helpful. Thanks The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Not so fast, Speed! While nobody could plausibly argue that the Democrats haven't gone negative, there is a huge difference between the insulting grade-school level personal attacks coming from the Rove/Mehlman cabal than from the Dems who at least limit their attacks to actual job performance and to positions/people their opponents have publicly supported. There is a good article on this here: http://www.slate.com/id/2152671/ In my home state, the attack d'jour against Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill has been that she advocates hurting old people in nursing homes. The basis of this attack is that the guy she married a few years ago once co-owned nursing homes that were cited for "serious violations" and were sued for stuff. There is no evidence that her husband knew of any of the incidents or that he failed to take the responsible steps of a co-owner to ensure that serious violations never occured. By all accounts, and like many owners of business, he had no role in any day-to-day operations of the units. Yet, the RNC is willing to use the misdeeds of the then-current employees of her then-future husband in some logically bizaare triple-twisted smear that she hates old people. Nice! My favorite example from the above-cited article is the Republican attack ad against Michael Arcuri which alleges that he spends tax money on sex hotlines. In a different article I read about the incident, a staffer of his was attempting to dial a long distance number to reach some administrative regulatory commission (don't recall the name of it) which happened to have a phone number one digit removed from being identical to the phone number for a sex hotline. Even though the incident and the details proving the inadvertance of the call were made public some time ago, RNC scum were still willing to smear Arcuri by alleging he spends tax dollars on phone sex. Is there anything Republicans won't do to win an election? I defy any of you right wingers posting here to come up with an example of a DNC-sponsored ad which is anywhere near as dishonest or as hateful as what the Roverites are willing to use to smear somebody. Happy hunting! The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I've heard the following hypothetical being used to test that assertion: You're in a large room inside of a burning building. On one end of the room is a petri dish chock full of human embryos (let's say thousands of them). On the other is a newborn human baby. If you had to choose between saving the baby or saving the embryos (not enough time to save them both), what would you do? This is an obviously far-fetched hypothetical, as most of them are. This scenario also sidesteps the moral question involving whether such embryos should be created for reasons other than the sole purpose of procreation (unless, of course, fertility clinics also represent a moral outrage). However, I'd fall out of my chair in shock to hear anybody claim that they'd save the embryos instead of the baby. Honestly, wouldn't saving the baby be one of the easiest decisions you've ever made in your life? How much time would it take you to weigh such a choice? Assuming you'd rightfully choose the baby over the thousands of embryos, how would you reconcile your choice against the "a soul is a soul is a soul" argument? If an embryo truly has a sole as many people believe, how would you justify your choice, in the eyes of your maker, to save one soul at the expense of a thousand others? If logic is to have any bearing here at all (not that I'm saying it does), you can't choose the baby and believe that all embryos have souls at the same time. The only way around this paradox would be to concede that the soul of an actual human being is indeed more valuable than any soul that might reside within the cellular structure of an embryo. If that is the case, how do we turn our backs on the lifesaving/soulsaving potential of the research that can be performed on embryos that are otherwise destined for the autoclave? How do we do so in the name of morality of all things? Is this really a tough moral choice, or am I just being manipulative and misleading like Michael J. Fox? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

The best opinion you'll get will come from the instructors who know you best. All you can expect to get here is a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter recommendation that may or may not be the best thing for you. If you get conflicting opinions from the people who wrote your logbook, do what makes you feel the most comfortable. There just isn't any one answer for that question. Good luck either way. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

You could name just about any type of activity, taste, or belief, and there will invariably be some asshole out there who will seek to exalt him/her self by contrasting their superior point of view to yours. Skydiving is irrelevant. Anything that attracts enthusiasts of any sort will likewise attract naysayers. You could be into golf, heavy metal, spicy foods, square dancing, bird watching, eating paste, poker, going to church, listening to NPR, crazy bowling, pre-marital sex, Tonka trucks, necromancy, spelling bees, etc., etc. ad infinitum, and there will be someone out there against you because that thing you do is too dangerous, safe, boring, scary, immoral, stupid, brainy, or whatever for them. If that wasn't also true of skydivers, there would be no such word as "wuffo". Some people call the above phenomenon jealousy, some call it self-righteous sanctimony, I like to call it player hating (thank you hip hop culture!). You could have called him a player hater, but I doubt the old fossil would have understood. Sometimes, I think the whole human race needs some serious counseling The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Let me get this straight. If the editors of a non-governmental organization's magazine prefer you not call private business owners "nazies" (sic) because they excercise their non-government-mandated right to require an AAD, this means they kneel before the altar of "diversity"? Have you paid any attention whatsoever to the cultural climate of Washington in the last decade or so? Exactly which branch of government or building on K street do you believe is dominated by anything remotely liberal anymore? Please, if you wish to make nonsensical ad hominem attacks, have the respect for yourself and for the rest of us to at least bother to know what the hell you are talking about. If you think DZOs shouldn't be allowed to require whatever the hell they want, wouldn't this put you on the side of more regulation and, ergo, bigger government? If you're willing to throw such a big temper tantrum because somebody didn't want to repeat your grade-school name calling, why don't you just take your crayons and go home? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Just an opinion, but the terms "self-supervised" and/or "self-jumpmastered" are too literal as they apply to unlicensed jumpers in actual practice. I say this because coaches are required to perform no fewer than three solid gear checks before letting any student jump out (at gear-up, before boarding, and before exiting). Even when not on a "coach jump", my home DZ requires the same treatment for anybody who is not yet licensed. This may differ from DZ to DZ, but all jumpers are effectively considered to be students until they earn their A-license where I'm from. The main difference during this transitional period between student-status and being licensed is that they're told it is their responsibility to make sure a rating holder checks their gear as required. While I require all of my students to perform "checks of three" whenever I'm checking their gear, they are not necessarily competent to do so until such time as they're signed off for same on the proficiency card. I understand that practices vary between dropzones, but it seems strange to me that we should fault any unlicensed jumper for missing something a rating holder had three chances to catch. The above notwithstanding, I ultimately agree with AggieDave in that we don't have enough reliable information to make any definitive judgements in regards to where our fingers should now be pointing. With what we do know, my advice for the jumper in question is to ALWAYS rely on yourself to make sure your gear is jumpable. If you don't know how, ALWAYS seek out somebody who does. If you can't do that, ALWAYS stay on the ground. My advice for the dropzone in question is to NEVER allow an unlicensed jumper to exit your aircraft until a trusted rating holder checks their gear three times. Anything less out of either party is simply a recipe for disaster. I'm concerned that someone fresh from a potentially life-threatening seems to be more worried about the cost of some lost handles than the underlying problem involving....what's the word I'm looking for?..., hmmm, oh yeah, DEATH! If this is nothing more than sour grapes about money, these parties need to figure it out amongst themselves. If they can't, who is the bigger idiot? The jumper who'd quit such a great sport, or the dropzone that would lose a potentially long-term customer. I can't decide. Maybe we should take another poll. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Uh, yeah. But, then again, $1147 for a 1-way system seems a bit more expensive than the $200 to $300 2-way systems to which I was referring. I've no doubt the purpose-built system might outperform something meant for motorcycling, but hand signals are starting to look pretty good again. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I was curious as to whether anyone has tried rigging up a radio system where a coach or AFF instructor could supplement hand signals with verbal instructions. I was tooling around on eBay and saw a ton of 2-way radios for people on motorcycles which are supposedly mountable inside a helmet and have a couple miles of range. The products I've looked at so far are designed for a closed-face helmet, which I presume is necessary for the microphone to work correctly without picking up too much wind noise. Assuming the technology works, I could install a mic and earpiece in a quality full-faced helmet, and then another earpiece in the student's open face helmet. Since the student wouldn't necessarily need to talk back (except for the occasional WOO HOO! ), they wouldn't need a microphone or the full-face helmet that it would require. Actually, any system that would require the student to wear something other than the typical open-faced Paratec would be a deal-breaker for me (not safe for a student in my humble opinion). It seems to me like it would be a good idea to try, particularly with the spinners who tend not to see as many hand signals as some other students. Before I started thinking about it more seriously, though, I figured I should fish around for reasons NOT to try something like this. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Forward movement, fall rate control, and tracking/swooping are all skills that you'll be learning long after you've gotten that coveted A-license (just ask around if you don't believe me). The point of the coach jumps isn't so much that you learn these skills the first time out, but to get you thinking about these kinds of things while still having a safe jump. Let me ask you, did you maintain altitude awareness? Did you have a safe wave-off and deployment at the right time? If you did have a safe skydive, then your coach jump accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish even if you weren't a brilliant tracker your first time out. Where students go wrong in their coach jumps is being overly fixated on the task at hand. When this happens, students and licensed jumpers alike fail to maintain altitude and situational awareness which is unsafe. What you should hope to learn from your coach jumps is the ability to think about these or other new concepts in the air without neglecting any of the things you need to do to stay alive. Until you can do these things without really thinking about them, focusing on whether you moved forward or not is contrary to the very purpose of coach jumps. From your description, I'd think your bigger issue on that jump was more relaxing than arching (which probably wasn't a problem unless you were spinning on your back). Relaxing is more than a state-of-mind thing in freefall, but also how you fly your body. The air in which your falling isn't perfectly clean in the same way a highway's surface is never perfectly smooth. Like the shock absorbers in a car, your limbs should have a certain amount of flex in them. The more tension with which you hold your arms and legs, the more potato-chipping you can expect to have. Stiff suspension, bumpy ride, stiff limbs, bumpy flight. Your coach should be your first source about these things since she was the one with you. Don't be so hard on yourself, good luck, and blue ones. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

After reading what everyone has said, I'm wondering if maybe you shouldn't consider going the other way in your thinking. What I mean, is that, around here, the better swooping canopies are considered to be the ones that generate the most lift during the flare. I'm also guessing that most around here would agree (I'm sure someone will jump in to correct me if I'm wrong) that the speed of your landing is so much more a function of your wingloading and approach/technique than your planform. So, if you're wanting to fly a speeding bullet up high and still have cushy landings, wouldn't you be better off with something that generates more lift with the toggles? Or, is there a reason you can't land a higher performance canopy more like you would a 7-cell by flaring sooner? If a canopy you're flying is wanting to plane out on you, have you tried adding some brakes on final? Also, "ground hungry" is a term more typically associated with long recovery arcs than short ones. And, for anyone out there, do canopies with flatter glideslopes typically also have shorter recovery arcs? I ask because I'm still not sure everyone is on everyone else's page when it comes to the terminology going back and forth on this thread. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

If you're just dying to kill some time on the ground, you could make sure you've memorized the signals your instructors are using if you haven't already done so. If you're into visualization, you can even imagine yourself in the air responding to the signs you're given. Arch, bend legs, circle of awareness, etc. If you can react to what your instructor is telling you while you're up there, you shouldn't worry about repeating anything. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

For those of us who like carving those crop circle patterns into farm fields, I'm thinking the 752-way-landing method would probably work well for that too. Of course, it might take a couple seasons for such a pattern to grow back over again, and the organizer better know his shit to avoid sending the wrong signals to the Martians. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Another thing to consider: Use a soft carry-on bag that isn't too much bigger than your rig. Pack only your rig in the bag even if it means letting your helmet/etc. ride in your suitcase down below. If the airline determines your carry-on bag is too big to fit in the overhead bins, no amount of complaining will prevent them from making you check it too, which means it'll be out of your sight. Had a close call once at MSP flying Northwest. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Here are a few names many might think to be cool enough for a PD canopy. For high performance canopies: Black Widow, Phantom, Banshee, Tempest, Fury, Falcon, Comet, or Hurricane. For canopies that are more 'all-purpose': Baron, Duke, Renegade, Constellation, Arrow, Bravo (kallend mentioned Mooney), Citation, Prowler, or Legacy. For a student/beginner canopy: Cub, Otter, Challenger, Vega, Husky, or Caravan. Just to be thorough, maybe we should come up with a list of the worst plane names PD could use. A canopy called the "PD Flying Fortress" would probably be a real bitch to pack. "PD Liberator," or, "PD Peacemaker" would probably only make sense for the military. "PD Puff the Magic Dragon," would probably be too long to stencil onto the end cells. And, as much as we may love PD, I don't see too many of us jumping something called the "PD Tri-motor" or the "PD Bird Dog." Feel free to use any of the above names since I just stole them from somewhere else anyway. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

During the pre-game show while Aerosmith was playing, I saw either three or four jumpers landing right by the stage with yellow canopies (couldn't see which models they were flying). If they announced who it was, I missed it. Did anyone see whether they were base jumping? I could have swore the roof of the stadium was closed when they came in. I wonder how tall of a base jump it is if that is what they did. Did anyone get a better look at it or otherwise know any more details? Also, did anyone else notice the rigs the band members were wearing? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Great post. While the IRS does, in fact, apply this test for the purposes of determining who owes them the most jack, it isn't necessarily binding in other types of matters. Each state, for the purposes of administering unemployment insurance, disability, etc., has their own set of rules which govern whether or not you're to be considered an IC within that state. While most states (30+ states if I remember right) apply the same common law test as does the IRS, the remaining states use a more simplified version referred to as the 'ABC' test. This test also seeks to classify ICs mostly on the basis of the relative degree of control their employer/contractees have over them. As a general rule, it is easier to establish yourself as an IC under the common law test than it is under the ABC test. Regardless of which of these two tests are being applied, the underlying factual/legal questions are easy to twist around. Administrative hearings that apply either test can easily last for hours and can also yield the most unexpected of results (if only I was allowed to share some of the lurid details). Long story short, the question of whether you're an IC or not is murky at best. Before concluding whether your 'technically' an IC or not, talk to an attorney. If that isn't an option, checking with your state's Employment Dept. (names vary greatly between states) would at least tell you what the rules are where you live/work. The herein contained posting is intended for entertainment value only and should not be construed to constitute sane legal advice in any way, shape, or form. The author of this post has no formal legal training, and probably ought to be incarcerated (case still pending) The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Anyone who has taken an entry level course in logic should also be familiar with the Latin term ad hominem. This term is used by logicians to describe what is probably the most commonly used logical fallacy. The idea behind ad hominem is that it is an error in logic to weigh the merits of an argument by virtue of who is making the argument. An example of this would be something like, "Don't trust that Christopher Columbus guy! The only reason he says the earth is round is because he wants Spain to build three ships for him." Even if it was true that Columbus had an ulterior motive in stating that the earth was not flat, it has no impact whatsoever on the truth value of what he professed. Ad hominem manifests itself in several ways, including blind credentialism. As it relates to the instant discussion, an example of this might go something like, "You want to know how I'm right? My 82,000 jumps and my half-bazillion certificates and qualifications proves I'm right!" Arguments, statements, and opinions either have merit, or they don't. It matters not at all by whom these ideas were given. For anyone who doubts the above-expressed position, just look through some of the earlier posts in this thread as they are replete with examples of sage advice being given by total newbies as well as examples of "expert" advice that is pretty ridiculous on its face. Relying on advice just because it came from these forums, an instructor at the DZ, or a particular publication is a fool's gambit. Just to be clear, I am not contending that a person's background should be given no creedence at all. In fact, consideration of one's background is a valuable heuristic to employ from an inductive point of view. It does follow that the best advice, more often than not, comes from those with the most experience, training, etc. It's just not always the case nor is it necessarily the case. Assuming the truth of what I've stated so far, it is axiomatic that we should focus almost entirely on what is being said as opposed to who is saying it. Long story short, it is up to the receiver of a given message to discern between gospel and bullshit, not the sender. Newbies should be actively encouraged to try to help others, if for no other reason than to correct them whenever they're mistaken. Same goes for the skygods as well, if for no other reason than to remind them of some of the things they may have forgotten from their training. Only when ideas are expressed freely without fear of humiliation from others can debate produce truth. Ultimately, the things we have all come to know or believe about our sport is a composite of the information we receive from everywhere. Because of this, skydivers need to be able to adduce information from myriad sources and weigh them accordingly. If you encounter someone at the DZ incapable of doing this, kindly suggest to them that they might live longer by taking up something like "Simon Says", painting by numbers, or even country line-step dancing (let me apologize in advance to anyone offended by my suggestion that line-step dancing doesn't require the capacity for intelligent thought). Contrary to the old cliche, we should speak evil, hear evil, see evil, listen to it, taste it, smack it on the ass a few times (I think you get the picture). The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

How long does it take for this plane to reach full altitude (13,000 to 14,000 ft)? Or, I wonder how enthusiastic upjumpers are going to be about this plane if its service ceiling is only 2,000 higher than a Cessna's. Tandems aren't likely to notice the difference, but I'm sure your local RW team will. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.