immanence

Again, couldn't the control panel / unit be re-routed, or the Cypres redesigned, to allow for a manual shut off under a good, soon-to-be-swooped canopy? Still not really registering this news "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Oh no! Adrian, I never met you so now I can never tell you how much one picture of you spoke to me. You helped me so much. My deepest condolences to friends and family "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

?? I don't understand. How could I do anything but try to view this problem from my own understanding of the "so-called complex issues"? Wrong. Nowhere in the Qur'an is Palestine given to the Muslims. Material substantiation of this is that Al-Qaeda, while speaking about justice in Palestine, is much more concerned about American military bases in Saudi Arabia. Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem; that's a different story. The State of Israel will fall just like every other political system in history, eventually. The way it is going, it may be sooner rather than later. The Palestinians I have talked to know that this is a conflict that will be going on for hundreds of years. Until justice is done — real justice, not justice imposed or defined by power — the resistance will never end. The State of Israel outmatches the Palestinians by a factor of 10 in every direction: economic strength, military strength, political rationality, savvy, organizational capability, instrumental, calculated behavior, etc. But if history teaches us anything, it is that people never entirely resign themselves to defeat. Only justice — equal and human rights — can end conflict. Unfortunately, the State of Israel was not founded on justice, and equal rights is inimical to its very rationality as a "Jewish state". That's why no one in Israel speaks of a one-state solution, though it is the only solution. You make them sound like a rabble of beggars. True, Arab nations, bought off by Western imperialism, have dealt horribly with the Palestinians. There is a "Palestinian problem" in the Arab world. And yes, the picture looks increasingly grim. But the Palestinians have resilience I have rarely witnessed in life. And these "leaders" in the Arab world who bow before the West: they are not unopposed within their own nations. History is open. We don't know where it will go. We do know, however, that the current status quo — whatever it is — won't last forever. That is exactly what will ensure the conflict lasts forever. What on earth does this mean, "Just because I can"? In other words, the Palestinians can have a basement room in the building someone stole from them if only they will stop protesting outside and making a big fuss about it. Perhaps you can pin this statement on a positive meaning, because you totally lost me. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

The failure of Camp David II has to be set carefully within the complete framework of the conflict. We're never going to be able to establish that here. I'm already weary of this discussion. You and I both know that the right of return was not on the table. This was a red line for Arafat. And what was the concession tabled by Israel? The end of the occupation? You see? Camp David II didn't address the fundamental issues of justice. It was doomed. This was Clinton's failure, not Arafat's. Barak offered next to nothing. But of course the world condemned Arafat. By the way, another issue which I can't get into is the next layer to the whole puzzle: that Arafat was not an agent of national liberation, as the West begrudgingly regards him. Rather he, and the PA, have been a surrogate arm of the Israeli state, progressively leading the Palestinians through one defeat after another. An interview I conducted with one of Palestine's most noted intellectuals, Abdel Sattar Kassem, outlines part of this argument and may make interesting reading to anyone who wants to delve deeper than we can here. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

There's only one reason, but do correct me if I'm wrong: you have never been there. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Not if that "return" is established at the price of the genocide (a carefully chosen word: look at the Genocide Convention of 1948 if you wish to contest this) of another people. You speak as though the Jews were original people growing up out of the stones. That isn't the case. It is the failure of Zionist Jews to understand this that has led to the conflict, added to the religious right that believe words written down from political struggles 2000 years ago (and which were themselves plays within those broader political struggles) are almighty truths: that the Jews, and only the Jews, are the rightful inhabitants of "Eretz Israel". Such truth claims are incendiary and unprovable. Someone comes to your property and says that in the Bible it is stated that God gave this land to them, and that you are occupying that land. Better yet, they come without discussion, in batallions or death gangs (like the Argon, Balmakh, Haganah, Stern or Kach). What would you do? What would anyone do? I'm sad that your family were forced out of Al-Khalil, to use the name given to it by the historical and constant Arab majority. That experience is as unjust to me as the massacres of Dier Yassin (1948: 250 villagers killed), Nasir Al-Dien (1948: 50 killed), Abu–Shosha (1948: 50 killed), Al-Tantora (1948: 71 villagers killed) and Al-Dawaimah (1948: 200 villagers killed). But who holds the balance of violence? Why were so many villages (531 in total) destroyed only to lie abandoned, fenced off? If this was a "land without a people for a people without a land", why was it necessary to make 726,000 Palestinians flee 1948 Palestine entirely, a further 32,000 internally displaced, never allowed to return? As simple as that, huh? And why would they refuse partition? Do you have an answer? I'll take a shot. Because the partition plan (UNGA Resolution 181) was fundamentally unfair and unjust. It was suggested, perhaps you are aware, first in 1937 by the Peel Commission. The plan granted Jews 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine at a time when they owned less than 7% of the land. Does that seem fair to you? The declaration of the state had nothing to do with the UN, as you know. It sure didn't declare itself on 56.47% of the land of 1948 Palestine, as was the UN's express wishes. This is what it always comes down to. "You started the war, and we beat you." 1) Zionism in the 19th century — or better yet, anti-Semitism that was pushing the Jews out of Europe in the 19th century — started the war, not the Arabs; 2) Under the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, the acquisition of territory by force is forbidden by international law. The State of Israel is founded on illegal acquisition. They have deeds? They have keys to the front doors of their family homes? Have you ever visited a home — there are many — that was originally owned by a Palestinian family and was taken over by a Jewish one after the Palestinians were forced out? I have. You're splitting my sides! Seemingly I know more about your country than you do. The idea that "Arab-Israelis" have equal rights with Jewish Israelis is so patently — and widely known to be — false I'm staggered that you even ventured to suggest such a thing. The detail is far, far too numerous to go into here. Suffice to say that in nearly every single respect, Arab-Israelis are second-class citizens in the State of Israel. You can get a lot of reliable information on this here. That's speculation. Let's stick with the facts. On the whole, covering the whole of the 20th century, Jews have killed a lot more Arabs than Arabs have killed Jews. Are you talking before or after 1948? If before, can you provide us some reference details? My information is that with the exception of the 1941 riots in Baghdad, Jews in Arab countries were not systematically persecuted. After 1948, there were attacks, in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia and Iraq, but one must put this in the context of the massacres Jewish groups and the centralised army were conducting in Israel against the Palestinians. Certainly I insist. But this argument is rather shaky. You're saying, on the one hand, that Jews have always been in Palestine while Palestinians are a 20th century creation. Okay, let's just say Arabs. As I said, you speak as if Jews arose from the stones — like they were the first people on the land. This isn't true. But they are the first people to claim God himself bequeathed the land especially to them. If you look at the run of history, peoples have been kicking other peoples out of Palestine for thousands of years. The point is to end that cycle, not perpetuate it. The founding of the State of Israel was based on yet another turn of that violent cycle, this time backed-up with heavy modern military arms. How's about taking our heads out of the clouds of theology and deal with secular equal and human rights? oh really? based on what? 1) The fact that not a single modern rocket (as opposed to handmade Qassam rockets) has ever been fired from Gaza since 1967. 2) The fact that Egypt, hands tied behind its back to the tune of $2bn a year funded by the US, would never allow such a thing. The Egyptian security forces are incompetant sometimes. Not that incompentant. So your claim that massive amounts of arms have passed over into Gaza in the last week is simply hot air. no, it would have ran out of bullets (at least you admit its not rocks anymore...) when the funds going to the PA will be used to help its citizens instead of funding terrorism I suppose the PA has a bullet-making factory? Please. You know full well that there is a total embargo on the PA (or any Palestinian group) from buying arms, even if they had the money. And yes, the Al-Aqsa Intifada was armed, unlike the first, which was of stones. That is not to say it was widely armed. Kids were still shot dead throwing rocks, and you and I both know this to be the case. Not having seen it, no. But the moral backbone of the IDF? Yes, I doubt that. It's absent. This is a child's army and the effects of the 2000-05 Intifada, and the operations mounted by the IDF against defenceless civilians, will come back to haunt Isreali society ...... mark my words. If we ever meet on a DZ we can share stories: you of your military service, me of my times watching Apache's firing missiles into refugee camps. True. I wish the IDF understood better this very same point. Even by Israel's logic — given that it has repeatedly denied the existence of the occupation — the function of the IDF should be left to the Shin Bet and the general police. Is it fair to match a smaller country against a bigger one, even if Palestinians declared a state and integrated the armed resistence into a uniformed military? Or would this just give the turkey shoot a veneer of legality? I hope that my friend Jonathan Cook, in this piece on the future of Gaza, is wrong. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I'll remind you that most of the native Americans didn't survive long enough to claim redress against the genocide that annihilated them and disposessed them of ancestral lands. The Palestinian case is different in detailed ways, but yes — if forced to take a line — reparations should be made for that half-millennium of slaughter and colonial domination that redrew the shape of the Americas. If your position is that it would be impractical to face up to that history you're basically condoning it happening again in the future. This, above all, is what I am against. And quite aside from anything, unlike the period of the colonial and imperial free-for-all, we have in the edifice of international law, customary and legal norms for preventing genocide and the acquisition of land by force. Some of these provisions were established before the State of Israel, yet conveniently ignored in this case. What explains this? In my view, the anti-Semitism that arose in the West with unprecedented violence in the 19th and 20th centuries. The founding of the State of Israel was an extension of the same logic of the "final solution" that led to death camps in Poland and elsewhere. It is anti-Semitism in the West that drove the Jews out, and it was a similar racism against Arabs that pushed them all into what is now the State of Israel. I want to confront this history not only because the collateral victims of it were the Palestinians, but because the Jews as a people have been manipulated throughout history and that experience has not abated. Do Palestinians have the right of return to lands stolen by the State of Israel? Yes. Do Jews in Israel have the right of return to cities and homes they owned in Europe during World War II? Yes. This did make me laugh a lot. I suppose if I was defending the Jews against the Nazis in 1939 I could be insulted in the same way. Apart from the point that I just answered, was their any point to your post? Or was it just aimed at ridiculing my effort to bring some balance to this discussion? By the way, I've never laid claim to the "immense understanding" or "enormous intellect" you so derisively asign to me. Let any arguments I make stand for themselves. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

First, huge amounts of land were stolen by the Jewish Agency when the State of Israel was created. There are deeds that go back before the British Mandate. It is a fact that prior to the 20th century Palestinians (i.e., Arabs living in historic Palestine) did own what would become Israel. I believe that what was taken by force should be returned, and that people who were forced out of their homes and off their lands in 1948 should be able to return. The State of Israel itself recognised this — or said it would — (embodied in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 on 11 December 1948) when it entered the UN. Why do you asign to me the argument that if the Palestinians "own" Israel (which wouldn't be my phrase; I'd say that the Palestinians are the incumbant inhabitants of Palestine), Jews would have no place there? I have never said any such thing. On the contrary, the basis of opposing the State of Israel at this juncture is to underline the fight for equal and human rights. It is the State of Israel that says Palestinians have no place within it. Look at the absentee law, or the law of entry to Israel. Do not asign to me Israel's racist ideology. So I would say this: Palestinians own "Israel" (as now called) but Jews have a perfectly defendable right to live there as long as they accept the principle of equal rights under secular law. That is not to say that Jews who inhabit lands that were stolen or seized in 1948 have a right to remain there. No. They should be resettled and the Palestinians in the disapora who are living in awful conditions in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, parts of Egypt, or in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, should be allowed to return. What made me sad about what you wrote — or what is incomprehensible to most people in the Middle East about what you said — is that you have it totally backwards. What I heard in your words was, "How can people think Palestinians own Israel?", where most people here say "How can people think that Jews own Palestine?" "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Most people in the Middle East can't comprehend how others outside can possibly say what you just said "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Unkind words, but they apply to you too. I don't want to get into a spat here. I see from your profile that you are in Israel. You can see from mine that I am in Cairo. But I cannot let slide some of your baseless assertions: Do you want to quote numbers? You probably know them as well as I do. Jews were by far the minority until, in the late 19th century, emigration, under the auspices of the growing nationalist ideology of Zionism, was encouraged by anti-Semitic governments in Europe. You're right. It comes out of the emergence of Zionism in the 19th century which specifically was aimed at dispossessing the existing inhabitants (non-Jewish, at any rate) of historical Palestine. You probably will balk at my use of this phrase, "historical Palestine". There was no state, you may respond. You're right. But there was ownership of land and hundreds of thousands of non-Jews living there, as they had for centuries, before, through force, the State of Israel was unilaterally declared. yes it was. and one side accepted it while the other (with at least 5 neighbouring countries) declared war. guess who? If your neighbour stole your house or your land and pushed your family off your lands, don't you imagine that your friends would say "No, we stand with you: this cannot be permitted"? This is a much-pandered and entirely baseless lie. Falxori, can you explain the hundreds of destroyed Palestinian villages? I have visited scores and seen them with my own eyes. Please don't erase history with such disregard. Some here are reading and know that what you say is slanted and misinformed. I'm not taunting you, but I, for one, would very much like to read your attempt. This is an utter falsehood. Everyone who lives in this region knows that no rockets could ever get across the Philadelphi corridor. I would not claim that light weapons (most likely useless from the ones I have seen arming the Egyptian military) have not been smuggled through before. This is almost certainly true. There have been smuggling tunnels: I do not contest this. But rockets? Please. The plain and simple truth — and you will know this as an Israeli, if you are being honest — is that the Intifada has been armed, largely, through corrupt Israelis. The Intifada would simply run out of bullets if all kinds of bribes and deals weren't constantly going on through intermediaries both in Gaza and the West Bank. Finally, let us not lose sight of the plain and simple and unrefutable inequality of arms between the Palestinians and the State of Israel. The IDF is one of the best-equipped armies in the world. The IAF is one of the best-equipped airforces in the world. Though it may not be seen often on TV, I have witnessed, first hand and live, the destructive power used by the State of Israel against a largely defenceless people. It has been, over the past 5 years, systematic, indescriminate and shameful. As a result, Israel became a society wracked with psychological distortions, horribly manipulated by those in command. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Your feeble question is set up as a foil. What would anyone sensible say? Do I believe that white Europeans who became Americans have an historical debt of restitution to pay to the memory of the millions of Aztecs, Mayans and "native Americans" they murdered? Yes. Do I have to defeat that moral point by falling into your specious trap, arguing "well, then, all the 'new Americans' should leave"? No. Unlike you I don't think in black and whites — at least I fight against doing so. "Yes" or "no" is a first grade response to complex historical questions. You may wish to hide behind easy answers, but thankfully you don't have the last word. Saying "No" would not free you of the dubious history of the forefathers of America. I'm not sure who you're referring to in Africa. Responding to the last point first, please point out to me where in my words I claimed to own the only opinion in the world. It is precisely because Bill used words, capitalised, like "NEVER" that I bothered to intervene. My self-editing is for the sake of transparency. I left it there as an admission. I'm not free of the kind of intolerance Bill clearly has either. But there is a difference between us: Bill's words betray his intolerance of any worldly claim towards justice. For him, the Palestinians are intruders (he used the word "occupy") on lands that were entrusted to Jews by God. My intolerance is of this kind of Biblical bigotry. In my response I vented some anger by using certain words: clueless, heartless, psychotic. On reflection I realised that such words were not helpful, if — in my view — true nonetheless, relative to what I read. But I didn't remove them entirely because I wanted a broader point to be noted by others: that there is a fascistic intolerance in his words which I find deeply offensive. I struggled against myself and edited my posts because I don't want to become what Bill in this thread is. So nice try, Trent, but your response is completely vapid. As for your "If you don't like his beliefs, get over it", am I to take it that anything can be said with any consequence and that others have no right to respond? I could say the same in reply: I found Bill's posts to be offensive and you should get over the fact that I am here to respond. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I'm an academic and have quite a lot of experience "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

In other words, should the acquisition of land by force be permitted? No. Should a sense of justice prevail in world politics? It would be better, wouldn't it? "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Can you name one? "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

He told you that? So He's a personal friend? That's great, because I always had a few questions I'd like to have answered about Him. What does He do with His leisure time? Does He play any musical instruments? Do you guys hang out often? He must speak a lot of languages. What is His cellphone number? Does He have a mortage? Or are you just some kind of clairvoyant that communes with the dead? [substituted the word "clairvoyant" for "psychotic" to comply with board rules regarding phrases or words that could be interpreted as personal attacks, though the tenor of your posts in this thread offend me personally] "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

The ignorance displayed in your question is quite something to see. 1) Gaza is part of historic Palestine and thus is part of their homeland. Are you ignorant of the fact that Rafah, the border city, was partitioned in 1967? For the most part, it is not Egyptians on the other side of the Philadelphi corridor, but Palestinians. 2) Gaza is a prison. For 38 years Gazans have been locked inside, only crossing into Sinai under very restricted conditions. Many Palestinians have family there, and yes, many were trying to break that wall between Gazans and the outside world. They could hardly break it in the north, at Erez. All other directions lead to Israel and a bullet to the head. 3) Palestinians have no real ally in Egypt. Look at the divisive role Egypt has played in the Arab League and you will understand that challenging Egypt is a way of fighting for their rights. 4) Have you any idea of the level of destruction and impoverishment in Gaza? Can you imagine living not 38 days, not even 38 months, but 38 years under military occupation? Wake up. Read more. You have an American passport? Get a letter from a local newspaper and go to the GPO in Jerusalem and get a press pass and go there and see for yourself. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Did God give them the title deeds, or He just said, "Here, take the keys"? I mean, did He legally dispense this gift, or it's just on loan? Do you have photocopies of the relevant documents? I'd like to see God's signature. Your nick is chuteless? Should be clueless woefully ill-informed .... or certainly heartless lacking in human empathy. [toned down in hindsight to comply with board rules regarding phrases or words that could be interpreted as personal attacks, though the beligerance of your posts in this thread offend me personally] "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Sweet

Any physical things you learn — exits, reserve drills, etc. — practice, practice, practice. Use all your time at the DZ. Between training sessions, be at the aircraft mock-up, practicing the exit, visualising it, running through the jump in your head. And take a good look at any pictures of the DZ that there are from altitude, so it looks familiar while under canopy. Get video, if you can. It helps to see the jump afterwards. Above all, have good and safe fun

Perfectly said. I never got into the sport to get pumped up. That's almost the definition of what I try to surmount. When I see other skydivers high-fiving and strutting around the DZ I yawn. To me it is the oceanic calmness that I feel during and after the skydive. It's deeper than relaxation. If I could just nail the floating bit I'd be all set "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

This is definitely a big part of it for me. It feels damn wierd seeing the top of a fuselage at 14k. I mean, we're not supposed to really see that, are we? And letting one leg trail, too, makes me uneasy about slipping off. In general, the plane looks like a mighty big piece of metal. I know the principles of aeroflight: how jumbos get off the ground, etc. It still makes me double take to be hanging off this wierd contraption in the middle of the sky ....... "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

It's such a funny thing in me, this climb out thing. See, I love altitude. Though I started getting out at 2000ft (round static line), nowadays that seems way low. Yet, in my head, climbing out on a step seems more natural and less stressful at 2000ft than at 14 grand, where, normally, of course, I'd much rather be. For some reason I'm happier on the outside of the plane when I feel a little closer to the earth than very far above it. What the hell is that about? Bob Dino: Thanks so much for digging out those threads! Both are great! As Skr says in one of the threads, "We're dealing with powerful stuff here." The other thread — on fear abatement — is a gem. To use the words of one poster there, I think on this I have been "thinking myself into a corner". I don't have a dog, so I can't think of his floppy ears (as that poster does) in order to relax, but I will find another mental image. It is all about being at ease. This is a big principle for me in life; I can extend it to hanging off the outside of a plane. "Leaning forward into the energy is how we transform the energy into joy." Right on, man .......... From Jules: "I think that standing up to your fears gives you something to look forward to." Word. And lest we forget, as Mike said: "Fear is a vital component to survival." I'd really like to find this book by John Derosalia which is mentioned on the thread: Mental Training for Skydiving and Life. I'm half way through reading this thread, but I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to work through a specific or general anxiety related to our beautiful sport. Riddler: Thanks for your reply. That video I mentioned in my original post — the guy getting on top of the plane — is not so bad for me now that I have watched it 2000 times. I do the same: try to find and watch video of crazy-assed climb-out exits, or just normal floats, full screen, and try to imagine myself there and undo the knots in my head. As one of the posters on the thread that Bob digged up says: "try visualising before your jump and then in the door, take a big deep breath." Finally, we've not heard yet from any 2000+ or 3000+ jumps skydivers. If you're one of them, I'd be really interested in your experience. Climbing around outside the plane: is it a matter of repetition putting one at ease, or were there mental adjustments that you made, or still make? And anyone who feels vertigo: let us know your feelings too. How I love this sport!

Good point. My first jumps were with an Islander or a PA-32, both of which are sit exits. My first step exit was jump # 23 on a C-172. Maybe if I'd have been forced — at a time when I knew no better — to get out there on a step on jump one I'd be more comfortable now. Possibly. I don't know. I remember, too, however, thinking that the step exits were kinda cool It's all screwed up in my head. I started jumping at heights of 2000ft. Somehow being on a step at 2000 is okay while being on one at 14,000 seems wierd. Go figure. I need a shrink! "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Thanks, guys, for these replies so far. It's good for me to think through what this thing is — this glitch or bug in my program — and your posts are helping me do that. There's a couple of things I'm thinking right now: 1) While I feel, like NWFlyer, some nervousness about the actual climb out — especially given that often the "rail" on a plane consists of a mere strip of metal sticking up on the top of the fuselage, as opposed to any kind of bar that one could get a decent grip on, while the "step" is often very short and wafer thin, and moreover that one doesn't often get a lot of ground practice on the plane itself before climbing out on the jump run, and this climb out, let's be honest, is not taking place under the least stressful of conditions (especially if you're the first group out with dozens of others in the plane waiting, anxious about their jump or the spot or looking cool for the videoman, or that last dodgy repack) — it's not so much this I have the problem with. At least it is not the origin of my anxiety (which I think is different to nervousness). Sure, I could slip off, be blasted off by the prop (I was jumping a Twin Otter last year and if they don't throttle down — which they didn't always — it's quite a hurricane out there, let me tell you), fuck up somehow, but so what? The question remains: why do I have a sense of vertigo (which, strictly speaking, is a fear of heights, which must mean a fear of dying from a fall), when I'm wearing a parachute? It just doesn't make sense. If I stood on top of a building, at the very edge, I might be worried of losing my balance and falling to my death. But I get in the plane because I want to get out of it, so what is it about hanging on to the side of the plane on run-in, or swinging off the strut, or belaying down a rope underneath the basket of a balloon, that gets my heart beating? 2) I've done enough floating exits so be okay with them. I prefer to dive, but I can do float, front or rear. Deep down inside, though, for some reason I feel anxiety. This is what i want to address because it pisses me off that there's a part of this beautiful sport that I don't like. Maybe it's a mix of nervousness, prop blast, engine noise, the rather unusual visual perspective of being outside a freakin airplane at 14 grand, the time pressure, expectations and needs of others, etc. Still, I wish I could unlock that moment. Maybe practice makes perfect. But maybe hearing others' views on this can help in the mental process, which I'm sure is part of it. I have no problem with near enough anything else. G-force in planes makes me giggle. I could hang my head out the door all the way to altitude. I always look out the window or out the door if I can. I have no sense of any fear of heights looking down at the ground from the inside. I love turning round and watching the plane disappear from me on exit, sticking my tongue out at some dude counting for separation. In most other aspects of the sport — at least in this regard; "proficiency" is a different bag of weasels — i'm fine. But I don't think it's healthy to want to get off the plane as quickly as possible, and to be anxious about floating or hanging of the strut, or whatever. I want to be calm, at ease and open to all aspects of the skydive. With most everything else I am ........... not this sucker, though "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

you know .................................. ...... you're totally f-cking right But for the purposes of learning ............................ anyone else here a big pansy? LOL! No, seriously folks, I would like to hear from others, either on this specific aspect, on people who feel height in the same way I do, or others with general comments about overcoming anxieties. Maybe it would help some of us newbies and not-quite-so newbies. And relative to me? Don't worry,