idrankwhat

Don't forget that you probably already have a lot of good information in your reference library. I'm willing to bet that not many people read their SIM much past section 5. Section 6.10-6.11 has some good advanced canopy related info, especially 6.11-3 Have fun!

Thanks! Used you last year and I'm using you again this year. Of course I always tell people that I'm using you but I rarely tell you that you are being used. I guess you're used to it by now. Thanks again, it's good stuff. Matt

I'd rather be snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass.

Me.

If I tuck these wings in just a bit I might be able to catch up with Amazon!

Face forward (click) Ok, now lets get you finger printed and to your cell. You're rooming with Bubba tonight. Don't worry, he looks mean but he's reeeeeal sweet. edited to add: Looks like carrot top beat me to it.

I could have sworn that this worked when they did it on "Mythbusters".

I fart on the way to altitude.

NO2 deodorant! I'll make a fortune!!!

Pull my finger.

I put the ________ in lazy.

Honeeeeeey! What did you do with my penis?!?!?!?

Anybody seen my lips?

Best of luck in whichever course you find. In the meantime, it certainly doesn't hurt to dedicate a few jumps solely to canopy work. Most accidents in the sport nowadays are from people hurting/killing themselves (and others) under perfectly good canopies. It's best to get as much practice as you can, plus it's damn good fun! Also, check out this link. You'll probably see this again at safety day. http://www.uspa.org/safety/safetyday/RiskQuotient.pdf Blue skies (or at least a good GPS spot)

Hmmmmmmmmm. No sir, I didn't like it.

Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon?

Hey buddy! Looks like you've got a flat.

Try giving Jim an email at skydivewpsa@yahoo.com. I don't know how many slots are still available but I'm sure that he'll schedule another session in the future if there's enough interest. Hope to see you there!

DZ Club The course is being given by Jim Crouch, the USPA Director of Safety and Training. I took his course about a year ago and it was time and money well spent. After completing the requirements for the A license many people's canopy work consists of simply the toggle turns necessary to get back to DZ and land under normal conditions. Little consideration is given to experimenting and practicing maneuvers within the full range of control of your canopy. That can lead to problems such as reacting poorly to someone cutting you off in the pattern by whipping a toggle instead of initiating a flat turn. It's a great course from someone who knows what he's talking about. Here's the notice that he put up in the STP newsgroup. Just a reminder that I am teaching a canopy course March 1 and 2 for anyone interested in learning more about canopy control and landings and have a good time working on some drills that are not ordinarily done by the average jumper. The essential course is Saturday and includes 5 jumps from 6000 feet. The advanced class is Sunday with another 5 jumps for anyone interested in learning more about high- performance landings. The cost is $100 for each day plus the cost of the slots. Those who are interested in the advanced class need to plan for both days to go through the essential course. Jumpers with many years of experience and thousands of jumps have found these courses helpful, so chances are you would enjoy the course as well. Send me an email to hold your slot for the course, because if you tell me at the DZ you are coming that won't work, I will forget, and the course may fill up without you. So tell me in an email you are doing the course please. Canopy related fatalities are more than 50% of the annual total each year. We can all stand to improve what we do under canopy. One look at an Otter load of jumpers landing will tell you that! See ya, Jim Crouch Hope to see you there. Matt

Not entirely. That's where Gitmo and extraordinary rendition come in. Perino: "all the interrogations that have taken place in this country have been done in a legal way." And to answer your question, I don't think so. The current criminal in chief is a lame duck, one that hopefully Congress will be able to at least keep in check for the next few months. After that, regardless of which of the front runners wins the next election, we won't be condoning or redefining torture anymore. I hate the idea that we are now being lectured to by China regarding human rights violations. And because it's Friday, and I haven't heard his name brought up recently, at least Clinton didn't leave his stain on the entire country

Hillary as a galvanizing force would be a great asset to the Republican nominee. Obama can get more first time voters, independents and cross over votes and I see that as the GOP's biggest threat.

See attachment and cross reference with which party was holding the purse strings during that period. It's from the site you reference.

Thanks for a decent response. I typically get responses like warpedskydiver's. With a couple of exceptions it appears that you think she manifests the sleazier side of politics more than some of the other options. I can certainly accept that. I equate her "experience" to mean "experiences with lobbyists" which is a big negative in my book. I can't put much weight on her Wiki score due to the fact that she was a recipient of the Clinton witch hunt that was the 90's. That White House responded to 1089 subpoenas and unlike the current WH, they didn't misuse executive privilege. A lot was thrown at them trying to get something to stick. Personally I think that she's better qualified for the job than some candidates but I don't like her links to special interests, the fact that she'd be only marginally slower to go to war than McCain, the way she gave Obama shit for saying he'd pursue the terrorists where they actually are, and I thought her husband's middle east peace plan was crap. And I have a few other reasons but they're petty. The reason I'm most embarrassed to admit is that I don't want her as president because I don't want to have to deal with the constant din of the noise machine again, the one that drives the media to talking about her hair/clothes/laugh etc. They won in that regard I guess. And yea, we could go on. I just wanted to say thanks for being one of the few who seems to have actually thought about why they dislike the candidate.

That was my point, yes...especially when you take the "best" attributes from the Dem side and "worst" from the Rep side... But generally the main theme seems to apply, at least as far as the debates go. The right gets their panties in a wad when poor people game the welfare system to their advantage but doesn't complain about corporate welfare or, in some cases, what amounts to outright fraud. Billions spent on educating or keeping our citizenry healthy is terrible but billions unaccounted for through the DoD, even when thrown out of the back of a truck seems an acceptable expense. Spending billions to build a wall to keep people out is ok but using the same money or changing our trade policies to economically develop the other side of the border, thereby removing the incentive for illegal immigration is considered outrageous. Sending subsidies to companies whose products are the basis for international conflict and who are wallowing in record profits is ok but taking that money back and spending it on development of technology that will wean us off that limited and dangerous product is somehow unacceptable.

Can you be any more specific than a sound bite? Thanks by the way, for the answer though.