DanG

What the fuck are you talking about? I must be stupid because that comment made no sense whatsoever. I'm only responding to try to figure out if it was a lame attempt at an insult or a lame attempt at a joke. - Dan G

I suppose under the legal definition of assault you are right. I think if this were a case of one person throwing their shoes at another person in the street (and missing), most real world cops would not bother arresting the shoe thrower for assault. One of the reasons I find dropzone.com so entertaining and irresistible is threads like this, where we have had people quite sincerely comparing shoe throwing to the Holocaust. There's nothing on reality TV nearly as good as this stuff. - Dan G

Huh? Where did I say that? That is what rehmwa kept trying to put into my mouth, but I never said a simple assault is permissible. What I said was that this incident wasn't an assault at all. Regarding where this may go, if the Iraqi authorities are smart, they'll let him go with no sentance at all. If they want to undo any credibility that they may have developed over the last year or so, and if they want an escalation of anti-US and anti-government violence (I mean real violence, not "violence") they'll punish him severely. - Dan G

I voted OIF because the true cost needs to include the 4000+ US servicemen killed, the $1T spent, the reduction of military capacity to deal with real threats, the distraction from the War on Terror, and the erosion of US standing as a world leader. No monetary value can be assessed for the whole shebang. The War on Drugs comes a close second. - Dan G

To quote you regarding the first part: I guess you're right, he could have been trying to kill Bush with a sandal hurled from 20 feet away. That's possible. I think it highly more likely that he was hurling an insult, especially given his statement of, "This is a farewell kiss, you dog." If he was trying to kill Bush, he was wrong. If he was trying to speak out by using a local symbol of filth and disgust, then he was morally justified. It all comes down to intent, but if you arguing that his intent was to injure, then I'll concede the moral point. Injuring Bush would have been wrong. Unfortunately for you, most rational people realize he was not intending to injure, but to insult. - Dan G

I respectfully disagree. There are lots of acts of violence that I can understand but still feel are wrong. Killing a rapist who attacked your wife is completely understandable, yet still wrong. You're putting thoughts in my head that aren't there. I personally don't think that the throwing of the shoe was a violent act at all. It was a form of expression with no intent to cause physical harm. It is therefore not needing the moral justification that other "violent" acts would require. I was just trying look at the issue assuming that the act was violent. I still think it is justifiable in the same way that our invasion was justifiable. If you take the position that we invaded Iraq to free its people of Sadam's reign, that you are justifying a violent act. I believe the reporter was trying to free his people from Bush's invasion, but not having the most powerful Army in the world at his disposal, he used the only tool available. If you disagree with his goals, that fine, but I think his motive (and justification) are the same. - Dan G

I am amazed that people like you who opposed the violent acts of Saddam Hussein against his people, supported another violent act, namely the invasion of Iraq by the US. Can you not see where this is going. "All violence is wrong" is really not a tenable position for someone who supports war. Try this one instead, "Some violence is justifiable given the context." - Dan G

If your point was that actions must be viewed through a contextual lens, then yes, I guess I was reiterating your point. I suspect that your point was more along the lines of, "Whiny liberals are not Platonic moral absolutists like us tough, manly conservatives." Although that point is absolute bullshit you are certainly free to make it. My point was a little larger. I was attempting to explain that everyone is a moral relatavist and that there is nothing wrong with that. I submit that a moral absolutist would quickly find himself lost in any society of real people. And to the rest of you, he was not trying to hurt Bush. Give us a fucking break with that. He was making a point using his culture's version of flaming dog shit. If he had thrown a handful of shit at Bush his point would have been the same, but maybe more accessible to a Western audience. - Dan G

You two sound like an old married couple. Have you heard of this new technology called the Private Message? It's awesome, you can continue to ignore any semblance of the issues at hand while still hearing yourself type. And here's the best part: the rest of us don't have to wade through page after page of your posts to find any meat! I know, PA, not on topic. Sorry. If these two haven't been warned for continuous PA's against each other and rarely posting anything about the thread topic I figured I could get away with one, too. - Dan G

My first jump was static line, July 9, 1995 at Skydive Orange. My best friend Hank wanted to make a skydive before he turned 30 and asked if I wanted to come along. My first tandem was around jump #1000 when Hank was getting his rating. Also at Skydive Orange. Neither one of us does tandems any more. They're scary regardless of which harness you're wearing. - Dan G

All this crap about the act of shoe throwing being a violent act, therefore a priori "wrong" is quite disingenuous. I think we all agree (whether we will admit it or not) that the moral standing of certain acts of violence are dependant upon circumstances. For example, killing someone in one context (by a criminal during the commission of a robbery) is undeniably "wrong". Killing someone in a different context (by a police officer to stop the imminent murder of small children) is undeniably "right". To accept that, you must admit that certain acts, whether violent or not, can be considered acceptable or at least justified in certain contexts. The fact that shoe thtowing is a violent act is not the point. I admit that throwing an object at someone else in anger is a violent act. The question is one of context. I do not believe that the throwing of the shoe by the reporter at President Bust was "right" or "good". I do believe, however, that it was justifiable given the context. In a perfect world, the reporter would not have throw his shoe at President Bush because he would not have felt the anger and frustration felt by many of his countymen regarding the state of their nation. Whether this anger is President Bush's fault or not is the subject of many debates around the world. Perhaps, the argument can be made, and I believe it has here many times, that the violence committed by the US on Iraq is also justifiable and "right". But the validity of that argument notwithstanding, the reporter was in fact angry at the President, and did believe that he was the cause of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Throwing a shoe at him was, in my opinion, not a morally right way of expressing that anger, but it was also wholly justifiable. - Dan G

Actually I suspect you are quite well versed in Article VI of the Constitution, which states: The Treaty of Tripoli, therefore, is legally equivalent to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. I guess we weren't founded on Christian religion after all. Did I ruin it? Sorry. - Dan G

I can't believe I'm back in this thread, but here goes: As chuck has repeatedly quoted, one of the purposes of USPA is to "promote safe skydiving". Why do you (not necessarily you, Paul, but folks in this thread) feel promoting skydiving to people who have already jumped is somehow not "promoting safe skydiving". I'm pretty sure this effort falls within USPA's purpose. Also, when Randy or Ed go to the FAA and lobby, you're right that having 30k voices behind them is probably no different than having 35k voices. But if USPA shrinks to 10k or 5k people, who will be the voice then? You think the dues generated by 10k people are enough to pay for lobbying efforts? If USPA membership shrinks, the staff will have to shrink (even more than it already has) and eventually our voice will disappear. My Mom worked for a couple medical associations for about 20 years. One of the organizations she worked for is essentially gone now. Once the membership started to drop, for whatever reason, there came a critical level where staff support could no longer be afforded. Once that happens, the organization dies. I see the Solo Challenge as more of an effort to maintain membership levels instead of increasing them. There are a lot more activities out there competing for people's time. "Back in the day" if you wanted to experience the thrills of speed and adrenaline we get you pretty much had to choose between sking and skydiving. Now you have tons of other "extreme" sports that have become popular and are competing for the same people. Even if you disagree that the Solo Challenge idea is sound, we have to do something to get people in the door. "We" are USPA. - Dan G

A friend who's a BASE jumper also mentioned something that I had not really thought of before. Cutting a steering line is not the same as letting the toggle go. When the toggles are connected, the tail of the canopy is held to a maximum deflection. Even if there is "slack" in your steering lines they are always pulling on the tail. Cutting one line will release all that tension and let the tail on one side literally flap in the wind. After cutting one steering line (assuming you can do it at all) your canopy may not fly straight or even fly well, depending on many variables. - Dan G

If you've asked the same question of me three times, I may have missed it. If you've asked it of USPA three times, then I agree that you deserve a response. If, on the other hand, you used dropzone.com to ask USPA instead of the USPA blog, website, MySpace page, e-mail, or telephone, then you should expect the lack of response that you received. I never said I didn't have a problem with people misrepresenting things. The only evidence we've seen here that HQ misrepresented the program is a cut and paste from Jan. Up thread Ed Scott wrote a rather lengthy post that explains the program is fairly good detail. If that same level of detail were not given to the Board prior to a vote, then that is a problem. But it is problem both ways: HQ should have been more detailed, and the Board should have demanded more detail before voting. - Dan G

I guess I just don't see the fire. All I see is a little smoke coming from a trashcan. Jan chose to call the fire department and the evening news, and accuse the manager of arson instead of throwing some water in the trashcan. The cards are voluntary, if the students don't want to fill them out, they won't. There is an opt-out link on the e-mail. If you're concerned with data mining of selling the names to third parties, I think that is a legitimate concern and should be addressed, but I don't think that question has even been asked. The statement in the magazine is inaccurate, I agree. I would be willing to bet that the USPA Board can get that changed in about five minutes with a phone call. Of course, it creates more drama to go on dropzone.com and yell fire. - Dan G

He was trying to get the whole world to listen to him. He succeeded. - Dan G

Let me try to explain. I don't see what you could possibly misunderstand about my position, but maybe I haven't made myself clear. If you and I worked for the same organization, and I had a problem with something you did, how would you suggest I handle it? Give you a call and discuss the matter, or try to throw you under the bus on a public chat forum? Which would be the professional way of dealing with a disagreement? Which is more likely to get results? Your OP was not really written as a request for information. Sure, you ended it with, "So what do you think about this," but if you were really just seeking information you wouldn't have laced it with your own inflammatory position. What you really wanted to do was show how messed up HQ is. From your OP (emphasis added): That is not something I would expect to see from a sitting member of the BOD, especially one who didn't take the two minutes needed to call HQ and say, "Hey, what's up with that wording?" You were trying to make someone out to be a bad guy from the get go. Don't even pretend that all you wanted was some member input. I call bullshit on that. If you had a problem with HQ, you use your position on the BOD and get it fixed. If you wanted information from the members, ask them what they think without jumping to a conclusion before anyone responds. I never said you needed to get "approval" to do anything. You are reflecting your own biases there. What I said was you should have the common courtesy of contacting people before trying to screw them publicly. I don't have a personal dog in this fight, it just pisses me off that the people who are supposed to be running my membership organization can't pick up a telephone before starting a flame-fest on dropzone.com. And finally, Don't you think you might be more effective if you tried working with people instead of always working against them? I don't know what your beef is with the other people at USPA, but it's clear that you can't deal with anyone without assuming they are up to no good. Not everything is a conspiracy. Why do you even think people at HQ care if DZ's sign up for the Solo Challenge? What's the motive behind this nefarious activity? Don't you think they have enough work as it is? Get real. - Dan G

Maybe it's a little late, but you should worry about self-induced line twists on all canopies. The canopies students jump today are low performance only compared to what more experienced folks jump. If you want to see a high performance canopy in action, just look up during your next jump. Chances are if you are jumping something built in the last 15 years, you have a high performace canopy over your head every time. - Dan G

Although you didn't answer my question directly, I appreciate the response. It appears that you did not bring your concerns up to Ed (the ED) prior to bringing it to the public. If you didn't like the way the issue was handled, then by all means bring it to the membership, but you obviously didn't even try to deal with the issue before coming here. I think that is improper. I also agree that the Solo Challenge concept may not be a good idea, but I think it is taking an unjustified leap to assume (as some have done) that there is anything but the best of intentions behind the program. If it is a flawed concept, work to improve it, or work to kill it. Don't go online and try to besmirch the integrity of your staff in public. That is not only ineffective, it's unprofessional as well. I don't think that decisions at USPA need to be made in a Star Chamber, but neither do I think they need to be made by using dropzone.com as a bully pulpit as the first course of action. There is a middle ground. People who want to run effective organizations need to find that middle ground. - Dan G

I don't have a problem bringing it here. I have a problem bringing it here FIRST. If she contacted Ed and he refused to address her concerns, then by all means shout an alarm. If she bypassed proper protocol and went public with allegations of HQ impropriety without basis, then she's guilty of the same machinations she accuses other members of the Board of committing. My question hasn't been answered yet, so I don't know what the real story is. - Dan G

I never said she wasn't welcome. I'm a concerned member as well, but my concerns include the potential actions of the Board as well as of HQ. There is a right way and a wrong way of dealing with problems. I'm just trying to find out which she has decided to use. - Dan G

Why is this discussion between a USPA Board member and the Executive Director occuring on dropzone.com and not in private? Is the Board/HQ relationship so broken that this is the only way for a Board member to express themselves? Or is Jan just stirring up shit with Ed in public for some other reason? I tried to ask this before and got no response: Jan, did you express these concerns to Ed prior to your post on dropzone.com? Thanks. - Dan G

Did you go through an ISP program to get your A license? Reverse turns, such as you did, are covered in the later stages of the ISP to help jumpers recognize this very situation. I'm just curious if you had instruction on this or it was a complete suprize. - Dan G

Yeah, you're right. The 2006 Subaru Forester is a piece of crap. Those Japanese car makers are so good at marketing that they even fooled Car and Driver and Consumer Reports (both picked it the best small SUV on the market). Again, if the US built a small SUV that was nearly as good as the Subaru, I'd buy it. They don't. They probably never will. I won't buy American just to help union workers on an assembly line make as much as doctors. - Dan G