DanG

Or just stay at Skydive Orange, where you started. We'll be jumping all winter, too, and the weather is essentially the same. - Dan G

This is Speaker's Corner. You're either a pansy, leftist, unwashed liberal, or a Bible-thumping, darkie hating, right-wing conservative. As Stephen Colbert would say, "Pick a side, we're at war!" - Dan G

Yeah, but Allah really cheeses them off. - Dan G

+1 Bob Barr is a Libertarian, but not a libertarian. - Dan G

#8, from chadkal, a rabid conservative implying that there would be riots in the streets, not a post supporting your idea that liberals think the Constitution should be ignored: #41, from Amazon, a rabid liberal, having nothing to do with ignoring the Constitution: #61, from Cari, I think she leans liberal, explaining that a writ of certiori is not the same as a decision, in fact supporting the idea that Constitutionality is important to liberals: #91, from Amazon, regarding who is bringing this to national attention, not regarding the desirability of ignoring the Constitution: #102, from ChasingBlueSky, liberal, made after my query, but also not making the point you want to assign, in fact making the opposite. Any other evidence that those skinky, pansy liberals want to ignore the Constitution? I'm bored at work today. Just give up. Your argument, as usual, is without merit and merely a knee-jerk recitation of the latest ultra-right wing claptrap. Liberals love this country and its laws just as much as conservatives do. In most ways, in my opinion, their views are much closer to the ideals of the Founding Fathers than the modern evangelical dominated Republican party line that you espouse. - Dan G

Good point. The "media" didn't make up anything about Obama's Muslim beliefs, his terrorist leanings, his abandonment of his own flesh and blood, his Marxism. We just made all that stuff up here on dropzone.com. - Dan G

Because people like you kept saying he was a secret Muslim. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. And thanks for completely missing my point above. It shows that you are not debating, just reciting. - Dan G

Right, like the hypocrisy of excoriating a man his religious convictions because he regularly went to church for 20 years, and then complaining about his lack of religious conviction when he skips church for two Sundays. If you don't see that hypocrisy, then I can't help you. - Dan G

Can you please point to the post where anyone suggested Obama be made President if he were found constitutionally unfit? I must have missed it. Or maybe you're just making that up because it fits your worldview of those stinky liberals. - Dan G

Well, it's so easy. All you gotta do is bring a white collar criminal to justice, save an innocent man on death row, pray in public to Allah, or choose not to carry a gun for lawful self defense, and the conservatives go all sorts of ballistic! For the other stupid stereotype. - Dan G

Jefferson, me thinks. - Dan G

Um, maybe you should continue reading. There was no evidence against these men. The only "evidence" they had was the word of a convicted felon, who was repudiated in another case by the government themselves as a liar. I think the question should be, "Would you be comfortable with men from YOUR neighborhood in Texas being held without trial with the same low evidenciary standards?" My answer is no. Maybe yours is different. - Dan G

Improper line stows according to whom? I once had a packer who was double wrapping my tube-stoes. After a couple of near bag locks, and a lot of broken tubes, I figured out what was going on. Was it bad packing? Sure. Would I expect him to pay for a new main if I cut it away and couldn't find it? No way. Brakes can unstow on opening. It's not necessarily the packer's fault. And brakes should be set by the jumper prior to being handed off to a packer. Excessive nose rolling? Talk about subjective! And I think bad line stows can lead to a line-over if the bag gets hung up long enough to spin through the lines, but that's just my guess, I don't have any data or proof on that. - Dan G

Lineovers are not always packing errors. Sometimes they are, sometimes there are other factors. Step-throughs and mis-routed pilot chutes are about the only malfunctions that can be directly attributed to packing. IMHO. And no, I'm not a packer. - Dan G

I agree that terrorism is unacceptable. I just think that prevention is a better long term strategy than reaction. - Dan G

Lambert wants to see boobies. If you are still a student, or don't have any boobies, beer is pretty good, too. Have fun. - Dan G

Here's some guidance from Uncle Ned: http://www.skydiveorange.com/acceptablefootwear.htm - Dan G

Man, I'm glad you had the balls to say it. I don't wave unless I'm on something larger than about a six way. In other words, I only wave if I can't actually account for where everyone else is during the track itself. If I've lost track of someone during the dive, I wave vigorously even after clearing my airspace above. If I know where everyone else is, I don't bother. I know I'm a bad boy, but it's the truth. - Dan G

Putting a bullet in a terrorist takes one man out of a fight. Winning the "hearts and minds" of a village takes a hundred potential terrorists out of the fight. We can kill as many as we want, they'll keep building new ones. We need to destroy the factory, and that factory is made of poverty, ignorance, hopelessness, and fear. - Dan G

I disagree. To avoid an unexpected obstacle, a turn over 15 degrees is rarely called for. If you have a pre-determined landing direction, then changing the direction of your final approach at the last second is never called for. I've pointed out a number of minuses to the first-man down system. The only plus you've come up with is: And in reply, I say it also has a good change of causing it. A tetrahedron or properly monitored pre-determined landing direction (change it when the winds change 180) is much more likely to prevent this problem. It's obvious you are set and determined to defend the first-man down rule and nothing I can say will sway you. To everyone else reading this, think about the issue yourself and talk with your DZO or S&TA if you don't like what's happening at your DZ. Thanks for the civil discussion, Bill. I think I've added everything I can think of to say about this. - Dan G

Huh? I don't get the question. And the first-man down screws the landing direction a lot more often than a strong wind does a 180 in 15 minutes. And if it does you shouldn't be jumping anyway. - Dan G

Totally agree. The first-man down rule is old school. We've evolved past that. So what? What if the first guy down lands downwind? Land off, right. Then if the wind does a 180 while you're in the plane, land off. Same thing. - Dan G

Time is not the issue. I, like most people, only have eyes in the front of my head. If I happen to be upwind and holding while the first guy is landing whatever way he wants, I can't both look where I'm going and determine the landing direction. And really, I'm not talking about me, Dan G, I'm talking about the newer licensed jumper or advanced student who is already dealing with a high mental load. Now you're expecting him to rearrange his landing pattern because somebody else decided to land crosswind. That's fucking hard core. At most DZ's if a jumper in on his base leg, landing out is no longer an option. He needs to land in the landing area. I'm not talking about the guy at 2,000ft who doesn't like what he sees, I'm talking about the guy at 400ft. Sure, but at DZ's with a first-man down rule that jumper must also be able to unnecessarily readjust his landing pattern at the last second on every single load. I simply don't understand the resistance to a set landing direction or a stable direction determining device like a large tetrahedron. And no one has yet to explain why the first-man down rule would ever be superior. - Dan G

I'm trying to look at this as a generalized DZ, not Elsinore is particular. - Dan G

If I'm watching the landing area, I can't simultaneously be scanning my immediate surroundings. I thinking about people in the first group down, before the landing direction has been set. I meant passed vertically. Let me be more clear: If jumper A is on final to land to the East, and jumper B beats him to the grounds by a couple seconds but lands to the North, is jumper C, already on a southerly base leg for an East landing, supposed to turn around 180 degree to land North? How are you supposed to plan ahead? How is jumper D (assuming landing in alphabetical order like most large DZ's dictate) supposed to be able to predict when jumper C is going to decide? First man down can easily result in bedlam for those already in the pattern before the first guy touches down. - Dan G