jfields

Quade, Freakin' hilarious!

I've been reading about people asking about downsizing and the responses from the knowledgeable canopy fliers (including the greenies like BillV). One of the criteria for downsizing has been the ability to land using rear risers. It would come into play if there were a problem with toggles or something, right? I have no desire to downsize from my current canopy, but want to continue expanding my knowledge and options under my current canopy (Sabre 190). How would I safely go about learning how to land using just rear risers? I can use them up high to some extent, but it is very hard to judge the subtleties of timing a flair without the ground as a reference. In general, what is the proper method for landing with rear risers? Do you just grab the rear risers and roughly approximate the same type of flair you'd do with toggles? I know how the Army instructed me to pull rear risers to land, but that was on rounds and didn't do much anyway. Thoughts or suggestions?

Evidently, it must work great on wool.

Somebody out there has a dark sense of humor. Like Alex said, both very funny and very not funny, all at the same time...

That's great. Healthy skin is important. Just decline when Clay offers you "moisturizer".

My morning shower has to be nearly scalding hot. My back always looks bright red when I get out of the shower. Then when I get to work, it is a cup of Earl Grey tea. I never developed the taste for coffee. Beer, yes. Coffee, no.

Sunshine, you have proven that you are a truly kind human being. That is to be admired. Really! Just make sure your vaccinations are up to date.

Oh hell. When he gets that authority to start giving out numbers and someone actually takes one, it MUST be the end of the world. That is even worse than the other indicators I've seen. >

Yup. Welcome to Psych 101. Ha.

I agree with Zenister about the double standard. Police dogs are dogs. In this country, animals do not have the same rights as people. If you start trying to give *some* animals the same rights as people, are you basically inferring that as a species, dogs are equivalent to people? I both disagree with and resent that. I'm not saying that police dogs aren't useful tools for the officer enforcing the law. They are. So are a squad car and a firearm. But they are just that... tools. Same with the dog. The dog is not an officer of the law. I don't accept that. The dog can not read me my Miranda rights. The dog can not evaluate a crime in progress and have the judgement to know how much force to use. A smart police dog can respond instantly and correctly to the commands of its human partner/handler, and act to project the human officer's authority. But the dog itself has no authority. Veterinarians in this country are not required to have malpractice insurance, because there is a very small limit to the liability they face, even in the event of gross negligence. The liability is limited to the value of the property, which is how animals are considered. Our legal system has reaffirmed that repeatedly. Is a police dog smarter than a brain-damaged human in a vegitative state? Perhaps, but the human is still a person and has rights accordingly in our society. The smarter dog does not. Like it or not, in the US, we've said that humans are more important than (other) animals. Personally, I like it that way. I believe animals should be treated well, but I don't put their welfare on the same scale as human treatment.

I finally have a decent set of weekend numbers to report.

Oooh, me, me, me! I wanna be a Trailer Trash Kid! Elmer Joe Fields TTK #21 (Cuz thats how hi I kin count with my overalls off.) Hey, Joe Bob, when we going out to put taters in them BMW mufflers?

Nathan, I had this very discussion with a friend a couple months ago. Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I sent him... -------------------------------------------------------- I made a list of some helpful links. You can sign up for free web hosting and then just start playing around. If you feel like investing in a single book to start learning, the O'Reilly HTML book would be my recommendation. There are lots of web tutorials floating around the internet. A little searching would give you more than you can possibly read. General Helpful Web Sites: http://htmlgoodies.earthweb.com/tutors/master.html http://builder.com.com/ Background Textures: http://www.grsites.com/textures/ http://www.ip.pt/webground/main.html Books: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript4/ http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/html5/ (I have third edition of the HTML book, but I'm sure the newer one is even better. This is a GREAT reference.) JavaScript Free Code: http://javascript.internet.com/ Software Tools for Web Editing: http://www.webattack.com/freeware/webpublish/ Free Web Hosting (but with ads) http://www.tripod.lycos.com/ One guy's site with phenomenal design and free code: http://www.twinhelix.com/dynamic.html Let me know how it goes. If you have any questions, just shoot them my way. I'm no web guru, but I'll do my best to answer. I've learned a lot through trial and error. Good luck!

I hear they were a man down on their creeper team, and were hoping you'd step in as first alternate.

Damn, Chuck, way to surprise me. I wouldn't have pegged you for an informative reply to that question.

I think it is crazy to jump without at least health insurance. Hospitals are expensive as hell. I can't imagine having one major wipeout and being bankrupted because of it. With a family, I can't take that chance. As for the life insurance, depends on the individual's situation. Personally, I currently have: Health insurance (through wife's work) would cover skydiving injury Short-term disability insurance (through my work) Long-term disability insurance (through my work) Accidental death & dismemberment ins. (through USPA, for $360/yr) Skydiving liability insurance (from USPA dues) Whole life insurnace - covers skydiving (was started when I was 16) Term life policy that does NOT cover skydiving Term life policy that DOES cover skydiving (I pay extra $2.50/$1000) I have a wife and baby daughter, and I have a bigger salary than my wife. Her father was killed in a car accident when she was 16. What allowed her mom to keep a roof over the heads of her 3 kids? Insurance. It wasn't her job as a social worker.

I'm with you Lummy. And now he can post the rest of the pictures... JUST KIDDING! That would be rude and insensitive. Kevin, e-mail them to me. I hope things start working out for you.

Wildblue, I'm not naive enough to think that most people will easily learn from the mistakes of others. But if 99 repeat them and 1 learns from it, hey, we just saved 1.

Lisa, But then again, we are seeing repeated assertions that shift blame all over the place and give the false impression about the risks of drugs and skydiving. Rather than second guess the medical examiner, the newspaper, the eyewitnesses, could it possibly be that this was simply due to colossal foolishness? Everything does not have to be a media/government conspiracy or a vendetta against SDC. Sometimes, things simply are what they appear to be. If you want, call me Drug Safety Nazi #1. I'm not against them all, but think that skydiving and drugs are a very bad combination. I guess common sense isn't that common. ~ DSN #1

I think that this situation was beyond the level of a small mistake. We all make small mistakes and try to learn from them, instructors included. They deserve that much slack as much as I do. This was another league entirely. We weren't discussing the merits of doing a low turn to avoid powerlines. We weren't talking about pros and cons of RSLs. It wasn't an issue of canopy transfer vs. low cutaway. All of those issues can be debated with pros and cons on both sides of each decision. The issue of "Should I jump while stoned?" shouldn't be in the brain of any responsible jumper (let alone instructor) for more than the half a second required to decide that it is absurd.

You can't make anyone use good judgement. But by discussing the issues and making strong points about the relevent facts, more people will see it than if we gloss over it with a "Too bad." Out of the people that see the discussion, some of them WILL learn from the mistakes of others. You can't teach the judgement, but you can pass along the information so that the receptive may avoid repeating the same mistake. While it may be too late for one person, another person may be saved when they recall us flaming each other over what some of us consider a senseless death, and decide not to jump when they are still drunk/stoned/whatever.

I don't know, Johnny. Since I don't work for the police, or the medical examiner, all I could do is speculate. Maybe because of past history of the DZ, or maybe it is just at the examiner's discretion. You raised a good question though.

I don't think Christoofar was saying the guy "deserved what he got" at all. I think he was pointing out that marijuana was a pretty compelling factor in the incident. I think he was being sarcastic in response to an earlier post. We can't very well ask the deceased what happened, so it is all about guessing at this point, using the available clues. I'd say the toxicology report is pretty damning. Still, I feel sorry for him, his friends, and his family. Even if it was due to poor judgement, it is still tragic.

We don't "all know that", because we don't all smoke pot. That is about the least credible link you could have given. If you really want to back up your case, find some objective documentation. If you call the lab director and the toxicology report into question, please provide alternative authoritative evidence to the contrary.

What about Chromey? Search for Extra Terrestrial...... Intelligence. Whoops. I guess they do need to keep looking.