RhondaLea

Tom, What wwarped said is that Bryan swore an oath to the United States, not to the "land down under." Our country chooses its allies and supports them--with the occasional reward of being spit upon by those allies. The fellow up above mentioned Vietnam. Very recently, the French spit on the US with regard to Iraq, but it was on behalf of our allies, the French, that the US went to Vietnam. Alliances do appear to change based on the need of the moment, don't they? Today, the US and Australia are friends and allies, and yet, here in this forum, an Australian is spitting on an American soldier. It's one of the freedoms that American soldier is sworn to uphold--your countryman's right to spit on him. For all that, as I said above--and I do think this was the point wwarped was making rather than the point you attributed to him--alliances do change, and if the US declares war against Australia tomorrow, Bryan's sworn duty will be to come to your country and fight against you who were our former (for the sake of this example) allies. Do not make the mistake of believing that I'm a flag-waving, "my country right or wrong" type. I'm not. If someone wants to be critical of my government, it's fine with me. It's a far different matter when that someone impugns the honor of the men who give their lives as a matter of duty to my country. I spit back. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

The proper target for your wrath is your government and that 53% of your people who "voted for the war" not the soldiers who do their duty, regardless of their own feelings about the specific things they do. It's all well and good that you have been to the American war crimes museum in Vietnam. I grew up during Vietnam, and I'm pretty sure the museum doesn't come close to telling the entire story. Maybe you should talk to some of those who were there-- starting with our guys who managed to make it back, and the Vietnamese people who came with them. I don't think anyone will argue that Vietnam was handled badly by the governments involved, including the United States government (no, we weren't on our own over there, but we were the major presence, so we take the major heat for the failures), but unless you have a wholesale solution to war, I suggest you try a little gratitude toward those who serve. Ultimately, they protect your freedom too. There will always be sociopathic individuals who are unfit for anything. To attribute their crimes in war to the whole of the military is like attributing their crimes in peacetime to the whole of the citizenry. And that is simply ridiculous. And trying to pretend that the money for the war is taking money away that could be used to rescue injured base jumpers is simply laughable. War or no, it would not be a priority and one has nothing to do with the other. Don't say you support the troops. Your own words say you don't. Supporting them means just exactly that--through thick and thin--even when they are performing the parts of their job that you don't like. They don't like it either. The difference between you and them is that they have honor and they do what they have sworn to do, whether they like it or not. And never forget that part of what they protect is your privilege to do what you feel like doing, including the writing of ill-thought, illogical and inflammatory-for-no-reason posts like this one. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

It's all well and good to be oppositional-defiant in the face of a bonafide tragedy, but there are a lot of bodies floating around in what used to be New Orleans and is now the Gulf of Mexico. Does anyone have any real knowledge of the jumpers there and if they made it out safe? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I feel I must spring to the defence of one American. - Trucker BASE, the ONLY quiet American. Not a chance. He even talks in his sleep. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I finally had a chance to sit down and discuss this with my boss. Leaving out the legalese, it comes down to this: litigating a complete ban (as it was written) was not only feasible but very likely winnable. The new language nips that right in the bud. His assessment of the new language is almost exactly as I have already stated, except that he's even more pessimistic about it. Essentially, now that they've opened the door, they're standing behind it with a 12-gauge, waiting. The conditions are impossible. As for Bridge Day, I'm not going to get much help from him because he would be quite happy to see it cancelled this year--I'm blowing off his biggest event of the year to go, and he's not happy about it. But when I mentioned the demand NPS has made for the background check information, and my take on the fact that they do not require this of anyone else in the landing area, he started to nod, stopped himself and looked at me deadpan. The corner of his mouth, however, was twitching. So, Jason, I know it's not your biggest problem, but now that I know there's something that can be done, I will see if I can get one of the other guys to give me some direction on what that "something" is. I also briefly mentioned the permit increase, but I'll need to talk to him about that again when we have more time, after he's over being annoyed with me. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

This has been bothering me for several days. I'm not sure I've got it entirely worked out in my own mind, but I'm going to post anyway. They can remove the policy conflict and impose even more restrictions on Bridge Day all in one fell swoop. Nick, you'll need to correct me here if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that jumping at Bridge Day continued after NPS acquired the landing area in large measure because of local pressure, i.e., base jumping is the big draw to the Bridge Day event. It seems to me, however, that the requirements have grown ever more onerous over the years, even without the impact of 9/11. Now NPS is on the verge of putting into effect a policy that will allow them to exert additional pressure on the organizer, and if anyone complains, NPS no longer has to justify an arbitrary stepping up of their requirements. They can point to the language of the policy as reason enough. Please tell me how everyone who jumps at Bridge Day is going to obtain a safety certification? And that's only one of the issues. I haven't quite thought all this through (and I know it's not very clear the way I've written it), but the more I look at it, the worse it looks. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

You're right. That's exactly what it is... ...but boycotting Bridge Day is a bad idea for the long-term good of the sport. The solution to the problem of access will not be found in piecemeal, random actions. Eventually, a broad and cohesive plan to attack all the issues needs to be put into place. Disappointing people who support the jumpers--whatever their reasons for doing so: entertainment, news value, whatever--is not the way to go. Protest only works for an idea whose time has come. BASE ain't quite there yet. Almost, but not quite. Plan now quietly, Abbie. When you're done, you can hit them with both barrels. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

In case you didn't know... My guess is that NPS reg writers wrote it under the direction of what the policy makers wanted. First, I thank you for the very helpful information. My only experience related to the drafting of legislation is as follows: Nevada SB 179: Mike Hawkes "assisted" with the drafting of the proposed bill, the passing of which would have made him the only dzo in business in the state; and, a New Jersey bill regarding billboard advertising drafted by an attorney for whom I worked with the assistance of one of the largest billboard lessors in the state. My concern is that someone who has knowledge of base jumping and very likely, base culture, had a hand in the drafting of the language. It would be interesting to know who that is. To me, the whole thing looks like a trap. I hope I'm dead wrong. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Well, Jimmy, I don't know that this has much to do with moral relativism--which was the point of the examples I used--but okay. I did leave Lodi right after it all happened, so you would have no way to know. And I did actually mention her in one of my posts to Skolls; the same post where I pointed out that someone whose child is not yet old enough to be resistant would not know how resistant children can be. I never said anything about parenting skills, because of course, my point had nothing to do with parenting skills at all. She spent several months in the county jail. She has been out for more than two years, and she's fine. Thank you for asking. Four threads to rec.skydiving, all started by me, since you're not clear on the details: December 31, 2002 "Becky" 3 messages January 13, 2003 "Thank you (was Re: Becky)" 268 messages January 22, 2003, "Becky-Thanks for mail" 91 messages January 14, 2003 "Becky loves..." 8 messages If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Does the NPS require this information of everyone who goes down to the landing area? If not, what is their stated reason for demanding this information of jumpers only? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Would it be better to use a nameless, faceless example? I write what I know, Faber. As I said, it's the writer's curse: everything I see, everything I do, it's all fodder for the pot. It isn't traumatic for me. If it is for you, then I'm sorry you're upset, but I don't really understand why it would be any more upsetting than what you read in the newspaper on any given day. All that said, the point is not my experiences, the point is that "perception is NOT reality." The question to ask, always, is this: "Is it a fact?" People can and do spin everything. If you were to ask the first person I mentioned, he could justify what he did. So could the second. I know this because they tried to justify it to me. But no one's right, so my position that they were both wrong is just my opinion, and it has no greater weight than their position that they were justified. Right? In which case, I take back everything I said. Jimmy should feel free to take Clair back to the tower right now and do anything else he feels like doing, as long as he thinks it's okay. Because all that counts is what he believes. There is no other standard. rl P.S. Yes, Faber, I post in the other forums. I also post in other places that have nothing to do with dz.com. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Try the search feature. I don't know if it's possible for me to judge that, Faber. The old saw goes "every time I open my mouth, I offend someone somewhere." I just say what I think, and I'm prepared to argue my point of view. I'm also prepared to change it the minute I get new data that says I'm wrong, and there is evidence of that all over the internet and usenet, if you know where to look. As an argument against the idea that "everything is just a matter of perspective" it certainly does have relevance here, Faber. If everything really is only a matter of how an individual sees something, then it is quite all right to do harm to others. If it is not all right to do harm to others, then everything is not just a matter of perspective. If one is going to make an analogy, then it needs to be one that makes the point. As a therapeutic device, being non-judgmental is a great tool for helping someone work out their issues. I don't think it was ever intended that it should escape into the real world as an ethical principal, but it did, and it's a real hot button with me. Just as an aside, people who try but fail to suicide are often committed to psychiatric facilities. No jail time, but involuntary committment is no different, practically speaking, than incarceration. I wasn't looking for it. I think I've got a pretty good idea of the law as it applies to BASE. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that BASE is illegal, per se. It doesn't matter, however, because if someone trespasses on private property for the purpose of putting a minor off a tower, there are many charges that can--and likely will--be preferred against the adult. actualy i see alot of adults not even thinking that about skydive.... I'm not getting what you mean with this comment. No reason to flame you, Faber, but I'm not sure why you started your post the way you did. Was it to try to get me to react? Where I post and my posting style seem irrelevant to the discussion, but maybe I'm missing something. rl P.S. You spelled my name wrong. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

The term, more specifically, is circumstantial ad hominem. For example: The original poster's lack of BASE experience, or the age of his child, has no direct bearing on the truth of his statements. If you want to question what he has said, question what he has said. Attacking only his qualifications is tacky. Skolls kept using the word "force" in the context of the activities children participate in. My point was--and continues to be--that with a 22 month old child, he has no personal experience about how a child reacts when a parent tries to force that child to do something the child doesn't want to do. (Although, now that I think of it, most children go through a stage earlier where they won't go to strangers--and sometimes even to one parent--and they scream and struggle if you try to make them.) But having taken the position he did re "force", it is factually demonstrable that he has not researched the issue. If he had an older child whom he had been able to force to do things, then he might have a fact in favor of his argument, but he has neither the personal experience nor has he done the research to back up his argument. In my post, I put specific emphasis on the word "make" which is missing from your quote. If the meaning wasn't clear, then I'll work on being even more pedantic than I am already, but I think that broadening the application of my remark or responding to it as an attack on parenting skills (as he did) is a little over the top. I would also like to note that you missed another fallacy because I sat dumbfounded as my assertion that Skolls is ignorant about a subject was converted into the assumption that I was calling him ignorant as a blanket statement. The first can be demonstrated on the facts--and ignorance about a subject is relevant to the discussion of the subject--the second is an attack, plain and simple. I was very careful about what I wrote, and I do not like having my words twisted. rl Edited to add: To assert that ignorance about a subject disqualifies one from arguing that subject, is not, as far as I know, a fallacy. Edited to add: A more precise definition of ad hominem. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

We need to get that provision rewritten. The first step is to find out who proposed the specific language. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I remember you quite well, Jimmy. Bill Booth recorded the waiver video back when tandem passengers were required to be 18 years of age. And most of the people watching that waiver video today are 18 years old, because most dzos are aware of the liability issues. Just because there are some dropzones that allow minors to jump doesn't mean its a good idea from a legal standpoint. 2004 dz.com discussion RWS letter w/attorney opinion attached Philosophy was my major field of study, Jimmy. An analogy has to be analogous, and for logic to be sound, it has to be free of fallacies. I saw a lot of fallacies in your arguments--which is why your "logic" is lost on me, and apparently at least a few others--and your ad hominem directed at Amanda is the least of it. As for Skolls... Who cares whether he has jumped or not? Not me. I do care, however, that his argument seems--at its core--no more than justification of a personal decision to put his kid on a dirt bike. I also care that the therapeutic standard of being non-judgmental has made its way into the real world as an ethical philosophy. "No one is right." Sheesh! Edmund Burke is spinning in his grave. Finally, I subscribe to the writer's theory that "it's all material." The events of my life more than 40, 30, 20 years ago--even some of the events of the last 10 years--are what I pull out for the sake of debate, not what I agonize about in the middle of the night. So I'm feeling quite well, thank you, although I appreciate your concern for my well-being. rl Edited to add: Critical Thinking on the Web and, particularly applicable to some of the posts in this thread, Conversational Terrorism If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Please google ad hominem to gain a better understanding of "personal attack." Ya think? I think you're wrong. Once again, you are wrong. But you keep saying it, over and over again. When I was very small, an adult thought it was okay to use me sexually. But it's all about perspective. He had one. I had one. But neither of us was right. Right? When I was seven months pregnant, someone bounced me around the kitchen, dragged me up the driveway, and pounded my head into a wall. But it's all about perspective. He had one. I had one. But neither of us was right. Right? When I was... Fuck it. I find moral relativism sickening. The day that someone hurts your kid--and believe me, someone will, because all of us were hurt one way or another as children--you come back and tell me about how it's all perspective and no one is right. I'll be waiting. Finally, I find your wholesale attack against this forum unwarranted and unconscionable. I'm the one with whom you seem to have a quarrel, and no one said anything about your having jumped or not--except your mystery supporter in a PM--most especially not me. My post had nothing to do with your ignorance of jumping, but was wholly aimed at your ignorance of child psychology. Take note: I never said anything about your parenting skills. You're the one who brought up that fact that your own parents criticize yours. But under your theory of reality, it's no big deal anyway. Because no one's right... rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

You have me for someone else mistaken. I was never the "grammar policewoman." I was $kin's spellchecker. I believe he referred to me as "some busybody in Florida." Congratulations on being post #250. Think we'll make 300? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

BASE jumping is not a Crime, though tresspassing is illegal... Agreed Totally disagreed, or drugs would be legal, drinking and driving would be legal--there's a laundry list if the sole criterion is "enough people are doing it." There was a time when children were not protected. And from a very early age, they were given hands-on education in those things they were not protected from. For better or worse, those days are gone. Kids are actually pretty smart and capable. But they are not capable of understanding consequences simply because they are kids. I see a lot of putative adults posting on these forums who don't truly comprehend that parachuting can kill them. If they don't, why would you expect such comprehension of a child? It doesn't matter whether BASE is legal or not. Until the fatality rate comes down a whole lot, it's not going to become an acceptable pastime for children. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Let me rephrase it then: You don't know what you're talking about. I was trying to be kind about what is a factually ignorant statement that you've made more than once. Your reaction--and your explanation therefor--indicates you have an issue that has nothing to do with me or the topic of this thread. As for the rest of your post, I find it unworthy of comment. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Your child isn't old enough for you to know that you don't make a kid jump a 30 foot gap. For example, if you offer a child a choice between something s/he really does not want to do and a beating, the child will take the beating. It is possible for parents to lead their kids into areas where they would not go on their own, and even to obtain excellence from those kids in whatever it is they've been led to, but a child who doesn't want to partake, won't. I speak as the mother of a now 21-year old girl-child who never gave me any choice but to read all the books I could find about child development and psychology. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Now they're just being cute. BASE is no longer prohibited, but given the language of the policy, NPS will never have to issue a permit. It's all a lot of weasel words: "consistent with park purposes" "not pose an excessive risk" "if permitted" "safety certification" (I especially like this one--as others have noted, who does the certifying?) "associated recreation fee" (How much, do you think?) It also looks like they've given themselves the means to routinely press reckless endangerment charges (in addition to the usual charges) and make them stick. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I use stevia concentrate (the dark kind, not clear) in my tea. I love it and I won't substitute anything else even though it's sometimes hard to come by. That said, there are potential issues with stevia. Stevia is linked to fertility problems, particularly in men. Stevia may be linked to cancer, however, the jury is out on that one. Stevia inhibits carbohydrate metabolism. Not a problem for adults, of course, but you need to be careful about giving it to children. Some of this may just be part of the campaign by adverse interests to prevent stevia from being approved as a sweetener (right now, it can only be marketed in the US as a supplement). On the positive side, Stevia (extract) is apparently good for your skin. I think it's too sticky for topical application, but hey, if it works for you, go for it. It also lowers both blood pressure and blood sugar. For most, this is a benefit. If you have hypotension or hypoglycemia (I have both), it can be a problem. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

That's a nugget if ever there was one. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

And, on the flipside, a 16-year-old is definitely more mature than a 5-year-old. The 16-year-old owns his or her decisions about as much as anybody does, while the 5-year-old likely wouldn't have given dirtbikes a second thought if Mom and Dad didn't like 'em. I expect, too, that your average 16-year-old has a better understanding of the risks of falling hundreds of feet without a functional parachute than your average 5-year-old has of the risks inherent in supercross. I think we've addressed this to some extent. It's the difference between being taught to swim and being tossed in to sink or swim. No one puts a kid on skis and sends him down the expert slope. No one puts a kid on a dirt bike and sends her around the track. For that matter, no one puts a kid on a bicycle and sends him out on a four lane highway. Furthermore, statistically speaking, none of these activities are as dangerous as BASE or skydiving. If we're going to make analogies, they have to be analogous. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb