SBS

I hate post whoring.

Ooooo...I like... :-) -S

what exactly qualifies someone for collegiates? Obviously being in college...but is there an age limit, unit limit, etc? Lemme know...I'd be interested to find out details. Steve

Ok, so I talked to my ex today (we're really good friends), and she's found herself a new boyfriend. She's going to do a tandem with me for her 21st birthday, he'll be here, and may jump as well. He's scared, but what I think would be stranger is to be attached to your g/f's ex while doing it. Anyway, guys are already intimidated, cause we were together through high school, lived together, etc., so they always want to make sure the ground is set and that I clearly understand that she is with them now. So, we (the glorious Square One staff) came up with a couple of ideas for the tandem... 1) As we are already attached and heading to the door of the airplane, we get down on a knee to exit, or just walk out if we are in the skyvan...in any event, just before leaving, I mutter..."That bitch said she'd love me forever", and lunge out of the plane. 2) For some of my students, I do the old 4 questions in freefall thing...once we are attached and ready to go (sometimes while they are staring out the open door on a goaround), I tell them, "We are attached at 4 points...in freefall, I'm going to ask you a series of 4 questions (I've got them serious to this point)...for each one you get wrong, I'll undo one attachment point...JUST DON'T GET THE 4th QUESTION WRONG!!!"...I was thinking I could tag onto the end of that..."Here's a hint...all of your questions will be...DO YOU LOVE HER???...there is no right answer," and then lunge out of the airplane. Any other ideas? :-) Steve

take your height in inches, subtract 20 inches, subtract your inseam measurement (crotch to floor), and you should come up with what Sunpath would give you for a harness size. One inch larger would fit, just not snugly, and one inch smaller would fit, but might be considered uncomfortable to some. Steve

Yes, by my definition above, these all would be skydiving related. The would not, though, be skydiving fatalities necessarily. The insulin one would depend...did the person die from insulin shock, or were they rendered unconscious and killed on impact? The others, yes, I would say are skydiving fatalities. In a true description of how they died, I don't think there is a way to not mention skydiving. If someone dies of a heart attack in freefall, I would say that he/she was killed by a heart attack that they could have had going to the bathroom the next morning. So, taking the insulin shock person... If the shock killed them, the cause of death was insulin shock. If they were rendered unconscious and didn't pull, the cause of death was impact (a skydiving fatality) If they were rendered unconscious, their cypres fired, they landed in the water and drowned, the death was a result of the landing, which would make it a skydiving fatality. There are too many variables to mention them all...I think, though, that it's a place to start. Steve

That show did rock. There were a couple of different versions, there was one where it was a car and the other where it was a canoe. I don't remember which one was which, though. I always remember the episode where they were going to get back home, and the way to do it was through a pool that was in the lair of the hibernating bad creatures...those guys freaked me out. :-) Steve

I'm with jhus on this one...it's definitely something that we would learn from and discuss about not jumping in questionable weather, but is not something that I think should be classified as a skydiving fatality. If the person were in freefall, yes, I think that could be considered a freak skydiving accident, just as if the person who was climbing was killed in a storm. I would not consider it a climbing accident, though, if the person reached the top, a gust of wind came up and pushed him/her over the edge. I'm going to completely contradict myself now... What about looking at it as as "skydiving accident" as something that could happen no other way than skydiving itsself. i.e. - If you could describe someone's death by no other way than to mention skydiving, then it is a skydiving fatality. If someone asks how a person died, though, and the answer can be that he/she had a heart attack, was struck by lightning, or anything else that could happen on the ground, then it may be related to skydiving, but not a skydiving fatality. This would be referring to the actual event that lead to death. Just a thought. steve

Anyone remember Land of the Lost, where there was a family driving along and an abyss opened up, swallowed their car, and they were taken back to prehistoric times? Should their auto policy have covered that? ;-) -S

The Church of the Sacred Threesome That Does Not Involve Livestock or Other Men It's a long name, but we thought it important to be specific as to quash any rumors before they got started. :-) Steve

In my religion, it's part of the first commandment. :-)

I love the unitarian method. :-) -S

Ok, look at your original post, then read this post by someone else... ------------------------- Since you asked, my opinion is that this post is kind of sick, especially considering the past few weeks the skydiving community has seen. ------------------------- Same sentiment, two ways of expressing it. -S

You are correct. When most people have accidents when trying to use rear risers, it is for one of two reasons...they have not executed a good approach (the rear risers should not be used to try to pull someone out of the corner), or they use the rear risers like toggles, in giving a lot of input. It's amazing how little input you have to give on your rear risers. I litterally hook my thumbs on the risers, and barely give a little pressure outwards. Honestly, when I release the rear risers, it doesn't feel much like they move, and when I am coming into my swoop, my thought is always that I can't possibly be giving enough input, cause I barely feel it in my hands. What I am doing at this point, is adjusting with rear risers before the swoop, and carrying it through...meaning that I am not waiting until the last second, so that I can get a feel of landing on the rear risers and still leave myself the time to stab out of a situation if need be. Landing on rear risers is dangerous, and I have known plenty of people who have had incidents in attempting to do so...people with thousands of jumps. It's something that is, as far as I am concerned, an extremely advanced technique, that should be tried only after a great deal of experience, and then only after the best of the best approaches to start. That's the only time that it is really going to show benefit anyway. When I say experience, I mean experience landing. Canopy control up high is great, but there is no substitute for judging an approach for landing, and doing it time and time again, and that is exactly what we are talking about...a lot of judging before and during an approach, and during the swoop itsself. Steve

I think most of the reason for people lifting their legs in a distance event is to not touch the ground until the last possible instant. In theory, during a swoop, the less surface area you have, the faster you will go. Thus is why someone loading a canopy at 2.0 who is 5'7" will go faster than someone loading a canopy at 2.0 who is 6'3". Thus is why cyclists and Jim Slaton wear spandex. Seems to me, though, that in cycling, you are talking about a huge amount of drag over a long period of time in a race...the amount of actual energy that is gained by wearing spandex or lifting your legs on a swoop is minimal in comparison, but still exists. In the intermediate speed event a couple of weeks ago, the difference between 5th and 10th place was about half a second. I would have to say that had the 10th place person been wearing something with slightly less drag or lifted his legs a little bit more, the final standings may have been influenced. Steve

Gee Richard, little harsh? Damn. -S PS - Your question would parallel saying "if you have a malfunction and go in, is it a fatality". I think a closer approximation to the original question would be...If a car runs over your toe and in hopping up and down in pain you fall off a cliff, is that a traffic fatality?

Paul - A) He asked "To be or not to be? What do you think?" He did not ask "What did Hamlet mean by these words?" (In which case, I would not have posted anything, cause I don't know shit about Shakespeare). B) If one is contemplating suicide, then they can choose not to be alive, but they cannot choose not to be. Even that which is imaginary "is". So, even if Hamlet chose to kill himself, he would not not be, but would simply be deceased, just as a unicorn cannot not be...it "is" imaginary. I would venture to put a definition on "To be" as that which can have a definition. ANYTHING that has ever been so much as imagined can have a definition, thus making it impossible for that which has occupied a fraction of a thought to "not be". :-) Steve

TO BE OR NOT TO BE? -------------- There is no choice...anything that is cannot not be. The choice is whether to acknowledge the truth of what one is, or to deny the self. :-) Steve

I know, I know. :-)

I love how they all start their stories with: "Wall, iz like dis Jurry" he he he

ah! ah! he's proposing!!!

Save us some good seats. :-)

Gotta love Springer... "My grandma stole my man!" Apparently the grandma got the boyfriend drunk...it's not his fault. Ah, and the girlfriend won't even listen to his side of the story...what a heartless bitch!!! OOO...he slept with the mom too!!! Ewe...she's nasty. Oh, it's ok...the whole reason that they did it was to show their little girl that her man was worthless...I guess it was all ok, then. What wonderful people to make such a sacrifice. :-) OOO...the mom's in love with the boyfriend... I'm so confused... :-) Steve AAAAHHHH!!!! The daughter's pregnant now too!!!! Ah, the drama!

good point...it's not an issue in itsself, but a symptom of something greater. I don't mean it's not an issue, just that it's not the end of the story.

Cheating is lying to your SO about your relationship with someone else. To me, it's simple ---------------- If you have had sex with another while in a relationship in which you are not free to do so, and you are on your way home to tell your SO, you have still cheated, even though you have not lied as of yet. I would say that cheating is being untrue to the commitment that you have made to the other person. It's picky, but figured I'd throw it out, if we are looking for a definition. Steve