Dagny

Thank god I'm not....twelve hours of fisting...ouch! Yep, no food or drink. Seriously, right about now...forget the food...I can't quit lusting after water fountains! Okay...so five more hours until the iftar. I turned down gum today, hell, I can do anything now!

...for Ramadan. That means no food, no drinks, no smoking, no gum, no negative thoughts or speech from sunrise to sunset. The Muslim student association at my school is raising money for hurricane relief by getting non-Muslim students to participate for just one day in fasting. Sponsors have volunteered food or money for every non-Muslim student that fasts for the day. Besides raising money, the real purpose of fasting is to be reminded of the poor and those who are suffering from the pain of hunger and thirst. It's also a way to cleanse the body and practice self-control. For me, it's a short twelve hours (of no WATER! How do I do that!?). For them, it's an entire month. There is an iftar to break fast at sundown followed by a meal contributed by local Muslim families. I have a lot of respect for anyone that can fast for an entire month. I'm struggling with the prospect of a single day!

Manatees are my favorite!! I dived with them once and I remember being really intimidated by their size. They were like gentle giants, though, and so curious! They kept surfacing to nudge up against us and check us and our gear out. I can't wait to get back to crystal river... Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Because my school schedule is so intense this week, I decided to take advantage of the early voting and drove myself over to the court house on Sunday to put in my two cents for the election. SEVEN HOURS later, it was all done. I seriously can't believe I waited so long, but when I first got there, they handed out numbers and told everyone it would take about 2-3 hours. I had to study, so I figured the court house was as good a place as any for it. After a few hours, I realized that I was there for the day, but I had already waited so long that I couldn't see leaving. The polls were supposed to be open from 1-4pm. I got there at 1:45pm. I was number 931 of 1187. I finally cast my vote at 8:50pm. The place was a total zoo. There were hundreds of people waiting and a never-ending barrage of campaigners....vote Kerry, vote Bush, vote No, vote Yes. The two best parts were that mostly everyone was really friendly and despite all the politics talk there was less fury generated than even our illustrious speaker's corner. People were handing out drinks...vitamin water in different flavors and bottled water for kerry. I even got tickets to an Edwards rally with Jimmy Buffett in Pompano Beach last night. It was an experience...one that I enjoyed, but wouldn't want to repeat for say....at least another four years! Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Hey, what can you say...GWB is a giver. When he said that I started laughing until I cried. Did you see the SNL skit of the debate? I figured he might have since he made a point of not responding to that question and covering the accusation with humor. But, do you have a link for the information about the timber company? How long ago was he an owner of the company? The transcript doesn't seem to make sense to me here. Bush received only $84 from this timber company? I'd like to read more about the company and Bush's involvement or lack thereof. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Passing my cardio exam on Monday and when the hell will I be able to jump again and today was beautiful and I wish I was camping in Sebastian right now...there's more, but the other voices don't like to share their thoughts Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Oh, the irony in that statement... Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

It will do wonders as long as you are certain the person is repentant and introspective. As Kallend mentioned, they may just spend 30 days being angry and blaming anything but their own actions for being responsible. (I know I don't need to talk about how many people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, or inaction, as the case may be.) Why wouldn't an AFF level 6 jump be an appropriate way to deal with the problem in addition to a grounding? I know it is redundant, as would be re-education of sky safety, but redundancy never killed anyone. If I go greater than 2 months without a skydive, I pay for a refresher and an AFF jump before being allowed to solo again. I have done a refresher and I hated having to put the money out because I knew how to pull for myself and set up my own landing and what a mal looks like, but it was good to get the refresher so that both the DZ knew I was ready for the jump and so I knew I was ready. It was a good thing. Why wouldn't this be a good thing for anyone, even the most experienced skydivers? We are talking about complacency here. The two problems I see with a 30 day grounding are these: 1. You cannot ensure that the suspension served its purpose, if its purpose is to ensure the fact that the skydiver was repentant, fully aware of the gravity of the situation, and preparing for the future to avoid the situation occurring again. You would need something else, maybe as simple as a lecture from the S&TA, maybe more. 2. Is it really enough? Is it enough to impact the skydiver and is it enough to remove liability from the DZ? I honestly don't know anything about liability and the dropzone. I can see that having a policy in place to reprimand the offending skydiver would be beneficial, but will it be enough to remove the liability should that skydiver return and then die from repeating their mistake? While this is a topic for a different thread, I would just like to say that there is a difference between dependence and establishing a system of checks and balances. And, truly, in skydiving, we are all ultimately dependent on devices. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

No worries. Thank you.

What I meant to say was that I feel the person who lost alti awareness is likely fully aware of this fact. It doesn't necessarily mean they were operating with a blatant disregard for the sanctity of their own life. My problem is that with a 30 day layoff, the skydiver may reflect on the gravity of the situation that keeps them from jumping, but a grounding by itself is not a guarantee that the person will both reflect on the incidenct and change their ways. Truly, nothing is a guarantee, but as you cannot control a person off the dz, why not have something in place on the dz (re-eduation, AFF level 6 jump before removing restrictions) that will allow the dz to assess the attitude of the offender. You don't just send a kid to time out and then let them go about business as normal without first determining the efficacy of your punishment in ensuring that they have seen the error of their ways. Not a skydiver, but yes I have. I'm well aware of the effect of blunt trauma due to a high speed impact. And I am certainly not trying to be cavalier, I simply want to understand the policy and discuss the implications and potential for it. Skydiving is a sport that will continue to pass from the hands of the older, more experienced to the younger, less experienced and, I believe, it would be a mistake if the reasoning behind the rules and regulations wasn't passed on as well. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

I respect your right to disagree, but I ask that you also respect mine and not trivialize my opinion as the rantings of a spoiled child. That being said, I'd like to say that the discussion concerning this issue has helped me to understand the need for policy to be in place. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

I know I'm a lowtimer and I'm not trying to flame the new rule, I'm just trying to understand how it can be efficacious by itself. I really believe that it would be better if, as I stated before, it included a re-education aspect on safety and a coach jump before allowing the offender to resume jumping. A little time away, a reminder about sky safety, and a some money out-of-pocket might serve as a better deterrant. If you're going to make the effort to penalize, then I think you should do it right. And, personally, I think a 30 day grounding is nothing more than a minor irritation to the regular jumper and essentially irrelevant to those who jump on only one or two occassions per month. I am well aware of the popular opinion here and that those of you who are D licensed are proponents of it. And I am well aware that as a low time jumper, my opinion means little to nothing around here. But, I am an adult and I consider myself to be a responsible skydiver, so I'd like to both understand upcoming policy in a field that I participate in as well as offer my constructive criticism of what I believe isn't a fully efficacious decree. I value the voice of experience as well as the merit of my own opinion. And, I appreciate the ongoing rhetoric concering this topic. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

You're absolutely right. I frequently go a month between jumps due to my school schedule, so perhaps that is one reason I feel less impressed by the efficacy of a 30 day layoff. So, it punishes those who get out more often and jump frequently enough to become complacent. And, I agree, when I am not current, I am very altitude aware. Then again, I am usually jumping solo and it's hard for me to become so distracted that I don't know where I'm at in relation to the ground. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Actually, no, he didn't. Edwards talked about it openly and Cheney thanked him for the comment, but Cheney never brought up his daughter's sexual orientation. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Thank you, I just found the answer to it, but I appreciate yours as being more definitive.

Though I disagree with your opinion of the Kerry comment, I respect your position. I do still believe the comment was unnecessary and that personal issues have about as much a place in political debates as the public did in Clinton's office when he took to a certain intern. I do want to clarify, however, that I was not calling you a democrat. I was asking if your earlier statement meant that one must be a democrat to comment on things democratic. Basically, I was wondering what gives someone the right to be offended or have a comment. It was only a question, not a label. Besides, *I* am a democrat and I don't find it offensive to be labeled one. Off subject...What does granfaloons mean? I've never heard of that word? EDIT to add: Perhaps you meant this..."One of the basic concepts of Bokononism, the secretive island religion of Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, is that of a granfalloon. A granfalloon is a recognized grouping of people that, underneath it all, has no real meaning. " I think you're onto something there. And, I'd like to postulate that all labels....republican, democrat, black, white, straight, gay is simply a series of granfalloons. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Sigh. Some people just insist on revelling in their ignorance. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

I am trying to understand what you are suggesting and I believe I'm coming up short. It seems as if you are insinuating that one must be gay to have a right to comment on all things gay? Or maybe it's that one must be democratic to comment on all things democratic? I have nothing to gain here, but I found Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter offensive. Just as I would have found any mention of personal, off-task issues by either party an offensive act of passive-agressiveness. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

I certainly don't believe you are being overdramatic. However, if a dz wants to penalize a skydiver for cypres fire, then why not also penalize for other risky behavior just as harshly? Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Complacency is happening, but no matter how much I think about a 30 day suspension, I still don't see how it is the appropriate way to effect change. I'm speaking almost specifically about accidental cypres fire, rather than intentional attempts to cause it to occur. I don't feel that a 30 day suspension will be an effective deterrant by itself. It is difficult for me to understand how 30 days on the ground will enable a skydiver to become more alti aware in the future. If we, as skydivers, have decided that it is our responsibility to save each others' lives by establishing that rule, then I think we have a responsibility to make sure the rule will be effective. For example, if I get into an car accident while I'm driving because I wasn't watching the road and I rear end another vehicle, I'm really sorry that happened. Take away my driver's license for 30 days and I'm still really sorry it happened, but it was an accident and no matter how much I admonish myself for lack of awareness, it doesn't mean I'll be a more aware driver when I get my license back. My point is, there should also be re-education for an infraction of this nature and a refresher skydive with the appropriately trained DZ staff. As SkydiveNFlorida stated, I hardly think the best way to handle a complacent skydiver is to make them less current. Why stop halfway? Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

The two people I mentioned who lost alti awareness during a carving dive both had audibles. I just wonder if there isnt a better way to handle the accidental cypres fire than a layoff. It does nothing to educate or remediate or remedy the situation, in my opinion. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Or "fair game" as one memeber of the Kerry campaign so succintly stated. There was no reason for Edwards or Kerry to refer to Cheney's daughter during the course of the debates. It served no purpose and did not answer the question being presented. That is why I have a problem with it being discussed by them. I would have found it far more acceptable if Bush or Cheney had referred to the daughter and Kerry/Edwards had simply responded. However, because they initiated the topic (twice!) and it didn't answer the question, I believe it was a more underhanded attempt to discourage conservative voters from the Bush/Cheney ticket. You don't have to be crude to make an underhanded comment meant to harm someone else. (the Bush campaign, in this case) Wrap up a passive/aggressive sentiment in a pretty, complimentary package and then you're true meaning seems a little more ambiguous, does it not? Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

I don't think it's fair to make this statement. In the short time that I have been a skydiver, the only people I've talked to that have lost altitude awareness are AFF students and advanced jumpers who were too intense with their jumps...like someone I know who was doing an intense carving dive head down and both people lost alti awareness. I don't think there is an excuse good enough for losing your life due to losing altitude awareness, but losing awareness happens. It's a mistake, but mistakes happen. Of course, I understand the possible consequences of these mistakes and I recognize the gravity of these situations, but it seems like a harsh rule. Grounded for a day, for a week, and requiring a refresher in altitude awareness and sky safety, and/or requiring a jump with an instructor before allowing the offender to return to jumping make more sense to me than a 30 day layoff in which the person will simply jump at the next closest dropzone. If someone did a purposeful action that resulted in cypres fire, I could understand a 30 day suspension to admonish them for their reckless behavior. But, an accidental occurrence doesn't necessarily warrant the same punishment, does it? Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..? Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all? I would think that establishing a general rule for everyone without regard for individual circumstances would discourage the use of a cypres at a facility where an AAD is not a requirement. Personally, I can't afford an AAD right now and, even though I know better, it would probably cross my mind when I am able to purchase one that an accidental low pull might have less undesirable consequences than an accidental cypres fire. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali

Cheney's daughter is a LESBIAN???? Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic. -Salvador Dali