dorbie

Yea, you wouldn't want to arm those killers with firearms..... oh wait!

It's a common Americanism. Get over it; "We don't do *".

http://www.leftseat.com/blood.htm

My surgeon says my particular type of graft (patelar allograft) is at it's weakest in the 8-12 wk range then it starts to strengthen again. I feel very fortunate that my reconstruction has gone as well as it has. I'm concerned more about that window of weakness than other factors like mobility now.

Yea baby! Time to downsize!!!!

Would you go against the manufacturers recomendations and change the risers on your rig. PDF rigs all come with integrity risers, I have contacted them in the past about changing the risers and they don't recommend it, they don't even manufacture a standard riser. So if PDF owners were to change they would have to use a riser from another manufacturer. Mismatching gear is recipe for more trouble. If you were told that Aerodyne's miniforce system was the best would you rush out and change your risers even though the particular manufacturer of your rig told you not to. Ever jumped a demo canopy?

N/A

http://www.flurl.com/featured/Worst_Parachute_Ever_142.html

No, they'll die because they never read dropzone.com.

You have until the end of the month to get a free skyhook

Here's what I actually wrote: *** There are a heck of a lot of them around suggesting that they don't actually fear sex. The real issue for them is pretty obvious when you set aside anti-christian bigotry. Many parents, not just christians, want to control their kids exposure to sexual materials both in terms of content and the age at which they are exposed, and many object to some of the moral guidance passed off as sex education.

Are you going to attempt to counter any points being made, or are you simply going to accuse those who disagree with you of being bigots? There are two things that I have commented on in this thread pretty much from the outset, one is the influence over the curriculum, the other is saying parents are concerned because christians are scared of sex. The second part is bigoted, I'm not calling people who disagree with the first component bigots, I'm calling people who take potshots at their stereotypical christians bigots and justifiably. I do it with absolutely no apology. If the shoe fits, wear it. This debate is illuminating not because of the comments made but because of the many assumptions of the debaters, both about my faith and their inability to distinguish between what I think is right for my kid and the freedom of other parents to decide what is right for theirs. I actually started out explaining why parents are concerned and why the bigoted viewpoint was just plain wrongheaded.

Bill there are facts you would certainly dislike being taught in school to all kids at too young an age, or even any age so don't pretend that there's no additional component to this decision. And what I would teach my kid is a separate issue from what all kids are taught in school.

Your exact words, in the context of the entire paragraph: You are intentionally ignoring what I wrote immediately after that first quote and the context AND content of the second quote, you accused me of claiming the social plan was defaming christians and what I've said all along is that some remarks made attacking christians defame and are bigoted. Or don't you think an "or" smack dab in the middle of a sentence can list a separate issue? If you can't understand this this it's just hopeless, you can read whatever you choose into my clear unequivocal posts and think you've made a point. I mean really are you fricking serious? Do you just not understand what I explained it the sentence after that second quote? I'm done explaining this, I tried once, you're wrong, I explained what I meant and it's clear from my posts what I meant, there's not even ambiguity here, just confusion on your part over interpretation of my posts even with a clear explanation. It tells me you're not interested in the idea being discussed, you'd rather posture and attack someone you see as an enemy by misrepresenting what they wrote. No, but it's not about what I believe, it's about the parents who disagree with that conclusion and their right to make their own determinantions as parents. For some teens alternative approaches work and parents can choose context etc. You just can't seem to separate two issues, what you think is best for someone elses kid isn't the point, you're not the parent in all cases, and you paint with too broad a brush.

I don't believe the airlocked canopy offers immunity from turbulence, but I do think it offers some advantages. Yea, I think people need to be less absolutist in the absence of data. There's a difference between a canopy's tendency to stall in flight and it's potential to defalte. When you draw that distinction I think you get more agreement at least over where valves don't help so much and where the advantages if any start to kick in.

Good point, I too am a paraglider pilot, I think the dynamics are different because the wings are very different, particularly the aspect ratios. A skydiving canopy will pretty quickly recover from a collapse with no risk of a cravat, but altitude loss is the key concern in a low altitude scenario. There's a real risk of line twists and possible unrecoverable spin as a result so you can see that it's pretty different. The pendulum period is shorter and you don't need the same surge control to stay under your wing which has implications for inducing frontals. I'm pretty sure a skydiving canopy can handle shock reinflation, but either way shock reinflation in a rare collapse event (unlike paragliders which collapse regularly in flight), is much better than a shock impact with the ground

A faster canopy does not necessarily have the same stall speed as a slower one which has interesting implications for the fast vs slow canopy debate. By the same token any direct increase in the vertical air speed will affect the angle of attack on a faster canopy less. It's a head scratcher. In a wind shear scenario it's not the size of turbulence that counts but the severity (unless you just punch through something really small) causing the sudden transition in air speed and this is a scenario where the delta between your air speed and the stall speed will be important to you. You can fly and generate lift in any mass of air regardless of direction, eventually you'll reach equilibrium based on wing & loading, you can still flare in sink, and sinking air cannot sink through solid objects like the ground. You cannot flare when you have a stalled wing. So in general IMHO it's encountering changes in air that affect your air speed or directly alter your angle of attack significantly are the most dangerous threats, OK that's pretty much the definition of turbulence at any level but I think it helps to visualize the problem in that domain to consider the canopy characteristics you might be interested in. Answering the question as to what's the best canopy under such circumstances seems like a question that's way too complex to give a simple answer. Canopies have performance envelopes not single metrics. Valved canopies seem like an obvious benefit for mitigating the severity of the outcome if you hit bad turbulence, simply because airfoil integrity isn't compromised as much even when you stall, and lose the pressure maintaining flow into the nose. It doesn't necesarilly give you a smoother ride on an average flight (opinions vary), but that's not the only point of valves. The main safety feature is recovering with a flying wing sooner from a scenario that might otherwise have collapsed an unvalved wing, so don't be too swayed by those who claim a valved canopy never gave them a smoother ride, I don't think you can judge the usefulness of valved wings unless you're in REALLY rough air, and I wouldn't jump in air like that anyway because a valved wing is just as prone to stall as any other IMHO. Jumping a valved canopy and observing it flies almost the same as unvalved and concluding there is no benefit is a bit like jumping with an AAD and concluding it's no use because it never fired on that jump (thank goodness it didn't). That's an extreme analogy but IMHO the biggest benefit of a valved canopy is in conditions where you shouldn't be jumping or in the not so unlikely event that those conditions find you anyway despite your better judgement.

I'm gonna buy some t-bills just so I can tell all you yankies you're riding my coat tails as I kick back and enjoy the stability of the dollar and the nice interest rate you're all paying me. Just keep paying your taxes you coat tail riding slackers.

This is quite a bit like the Intelligent Design argument. No it isn't, not for me, like so many issues ID doesn't fall along the party or faith lines expected. If it helps imagine compolsory gun handling and target practice in school for young kids (or some other policy peccadillo), just because it's educational doesn't mean it should be a mandatory curriculum and parents deserve a say. And as a parent you should be entitled to take those beliefs you just posted and teach YOUR kids about all the birth control you like at an age you find appropriate to their circumstances, I know I will. Others who have differing opinions as to age and content for THEIR kids should be entitled to raise their kids their way. For many children it actually works and most of those parents and kids suffer no ill effects from your lack of interference in their "wholesome" upbringing. I never claimed that it was a defamation that would be bizarre. Saying all christians are afraid of sex because some parents of undetermined faith object to your policy on sex education IS a bigoted defamation of christians. That's what I actually claimed. But hey, anyone who points out this brazen bigotry and who is the only one in a thread full of such intelligent posters to articulate the real reasons some parents get alarmed by social agendas in schools must be a christian forcing their beliefs on others. Whatever you do, don't admit that parents of all stripes have some legitimate concerns about a social economic agenda (unequivocally posted in this thread) undermining their parenting choices.

What was being advocated earlier was a school program to push a social agenda for economics sake. It's my memory of earlier posts and not my failure to read later contradictions that are confusing you. You drag the teaching of evolution in schools into this and have the cheek to accuse me of not reading posts and picking arguments with positions that aren't being made. Your problem Bill is you see every poster through the prism of your preconceived notions of what you assume they think. Parents should not have to home school their kids to avoid them being taught about condom useage at an age and in a context which the parent finds inappropriate. There's a difference between teaching evolution and teaching the use of contraceptives, one is plain science fact and the ignorant go pound sand, the other is a social and parenting choice.

I think you meant to say "someone else".

It's pompous nonsense to advocate a school program of social engineering for economic reasons, attack & denigrate those who oppose it (as fearful christians) over concern about the impact they justifiably think it will have on THEIR children, then turn around and claim not only that you don't care how someone raises their kids but that anyone who objects to the grand plan for imposing this on schools is the one attempting control. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I actually favor this kind of education for my kid (although the devil is in the details). However others who choose not to support it should not be attacked & belittled as christians who fear sex, even when they live in sufficient numbers to send you packing. It's not about what your opinion is on the best way to raise a kid, it's about the freedom of people to raise their kids as they see fit and my position is a heck of a lot closer to advocating that freedom, despite the attempt by the pot to call the kettle black. P.S. if you didn't go around dismissing christians as afraid of sex and other such nonsense when they disagree with a policy that they have every right to influence then "they" might ragard your platform with less distrust & distain.

FYI I would insist on teaching my kid about sex and birth control. That doesn't mean I think your masterplan for everyone's children or your defamation of all christians is acceptable.

Hitchens continues to work to expose Galloway: http://slate.msn.com/id/2128742/?nav=navoa Although it's a bit closer to gloating this time around.