wolfriverjoe

I know where you got that. It's pretty cool. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

He was the democratically elected leader, but he made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to follow the democratic process. He was doing a pretty good job of becoming dictator. I do agree that it will probably be fairly interesting and fairly loud in the near future. And, more importantly, Susanna Hoffs was a dominatrix? Wow. I never knew. I'm not into BDSM, but I'd let her dominate me any time. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Welcome. It's a really cool journey that you are about to embark upon. And don't focus so much on what you think your goals are that you miss out on the journey. You seem to think that "normal" jumping is falling straight down, and that wingsuits are the only way to "fall in a controlled manner" (or fly). You couldn't be more incorrect. In freefall, at terminal velocity, the control that we have is pretty incredible. Watch a few videos of Arizona Airspeed (world class team) doing their stuff. Check out some of the sequential freefly stuff. The skill required to do this takes a long time to develop. HERE is the YouTube channel from a guy known as "Trunk." he has compiled some pretty cool stuff. Make sure you watch "Silly Skydives From 2011" (it's in the "recent uploads" section). It has 9 girls in bikinis jumping with a giant inflatable... something. Far better than a wingsuit, IMHO. Seriously though. Don't get so fixated on a wingsuit that you miss how much fun it is just to jump. It can be done fairly quickly (if you have the money), but there's a lot of other stuff that's really really cool. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Which DZ do you plan to go to? Skydive Chicago is great. Chicagoland Skydiving is also good. Skydive Midwest (just across the border into Cheesehead territory) is also good. I've never been to CSC, but I've been to SDC and Midwest. Good people, great vibe. And SDC is having Summerfest from July 27 thru Aug 4th. It's a hell of a good time! "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

How much intelligence does it take to be born into a very, very rich family? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yes, it is still an FAA requirement. I received supervision when I started packing form a rigger. Now that I am a rigger I provide supervision for people packing under me. Could you extrapolate on your definition of supervision in this context? In other words - do you 'train' a packer on the intricacies of differing rig types, what to look for as far as wear etc.? Do you actually 'oversee' each packer & pack job under your supervision? If not, would you be willing to put your seal on a reserve a packer under your supervision had packed? I'm just curious...and I'm definitely not saying you're doing anything wrong, just asking if supervision means the same thing for BOTH mains & reserves? *If not ~ Why not? Kinda backwards, but no. I don't think "supervision" means the same for mains and reserves, for a variety of reasons. I didn't think I could put my seal on a reserve someone else had packed, regardless of the level of supervision (I could be wrong on that and welcome correction). Anyone who I have taught to pack is shown what to look for in wear, tear and defects (manufacture and assembly). Obviously I can't cover everything, but The fallback "If it doesn't look right, ask" is always there. Differences in gear can be a bit tough. Generally, students are taught how to pack the student gear, and then offered advice on whatever they purchase. Those who wish to pack tandems are given specific instruction on the tandem rig they will be packing. And my understanding of "supervision" is in the immediate area, immediately available if needed and keeping an overall eye on things. I should be in the building if not actually on the mat packing. I can go to the bathroom or go sit on the couch, but I shouldn't be going down the road to the corner store or even getting on the plane to make a jump. That's also how it's been at other places I go to. For the paid packers, many have their ticket, but for those who don't, there has to be a rigger on the mat. And in the "general silliness" category, I was helping a student pack when the pilot, also a rigger (and a major smartass) came over and stood right over us, arms crossed, looking very stern. After a few minutes, the student asked why he was doing this. He explained that he had to "supervise" us. I gave him the "I don't need no stinkin' supervision" response (as a joke) and he proceeded to quote the FARs on it. The look on his face when I said that I had my ticket too was pretty funny. So, of course, later that day, we both did it to one of the guys packing a tandem rig who didn't have his ticket so he couldn't make us go away. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Just out of curiosity, did they "secure" any other valuables? Did they, for example, take any jewelry for "safekeeping"? Coin collections? Electronics? Or just guns? And what degree of "proof" of ownership do they require? Sales receipt? Or just documentation of the serial number? And what if that proof was destroyed in the flood? And what will happen to all the guns that the owners can't prove ownership of? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, one of the reasons is that there are something like 1600 different laws, rules and regulations that use the words "husband" "wife" and "married." If you were to make civil unions identical to marriages for all legal purposes, you would have to change each and every one of them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, I still have the original axe my great-great-grandfather used to clear the family homestead back in the 1800s. The head wore down from repeated sharpening, so we replaced that. And the handle broke a few times, so we've replaced that a couple times... But it's still Great-great-grandpa's axe! "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Those are games, not sports. Mountaineering, Bullfighting and Racing. Those are the only sports. The rest are just games. Supposedly Hemingway, but there are doubts. Or... If it can't kill ya, it ain't a sport. And really, who cares? I enjoy doing it. What other people think about it really isn't something I care about. I get people asking why (because it's really, really cool) or if I'm scared (I jumping from an airplane 2 miles above the ground, of course I'm scared) but I've never gotten any argument if it's a sport or not. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Life without is cheaper? Piece of mind is priceless It might not figure into your decision, but it certainly closes the door for people 'like you' on the ability to do it twice. Where's the peace of mind in the very strong probability of executing the innocent? For example, the Innocence Project, part of Northwestern's School of Journalism, exonerated more people on death row than were executed in Illinois during the time between the SC allowing the death penalty and the Governor commuting everyone on death row to life without. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I believe the "empty" bag was basically one with enough crumbs in it to determine what it was, but not really a measurable quantity. What would a "Citizen On Patrol" be? What kind of duties/privileges/powers would one of those have? And I am really impressed at how civil and reasonable this discussion has been. Far better than the usual "I know you are but what am I" crap. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

My understanding is that he was staying at his father's house in that neighborhood. He had walked to the corner store and was going back to the house when GZ spotted him. So he was at least sort of a resident of the area, although a new and perhaps temporary one. And I could be wrong about this. If anyone has better info, please correct me. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, I'm glad you are able to keep operating. I was part of a small club that struggled for several years before we gave up and closed. Without the tandem income, we would not have lasted anywhere near as long as we did. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, according to a couple of firearms instructors that I know and the lawyer who advises them, yes it does. This case is being used as an example of what not to do in carry classes. GZ deliberately put himself into the situation. It was avoidable. He got out of his car. He didn't have to do that. He followed TM after the police dispatcher said that they didn't need him to do that. Both of those make it even more avoidable. The big question is whether or not GZ willingly abandoned following TM, or if he stopped because TM had disappeared. And did he directly return to his car after hanging up with the police dispatcher or did he continue to look for TM? Given the things GZ said to the dispatcher about the TM being a "punk" and "always getting away", I find it hard to believe he just gave up and walked away. GZ claims he was returning to his truck when TM jumped him. But that's what he'd claim no matter what really happened. In post 7, Mirage62 points out that there are two sides to this story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. We are only getting GZs side, and I tend toward taking it with a "big grain of salt", understanding that GZ is going to tell it from his point of view, putting himself in the best possible light. And RonD1120 wrote: I thought the investigating officers wanted him charged. It was the local prosecutor who decided against it. But I could be wrong on that. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I agree. This thread / poll is invalid until someone crafts a pair of pop-tarts into the shape of boobies and posts a picture of them here and skymama bans them! Why would Skymamma ban someone for posting pictures of Pop Tart Boobies? It is clearly stated that boobies are allowed. Although, now that I think about it, Pop Tart Boobies would be pretty disgusting. Pop Tarts as a bikini top might be interesting... That's probably the only way I'd eat them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

He doesn't necessarily have to have instigated the violence for it to be voluntary manslaughter. He did instigate the situation, by following TM. He further escalated the situation by getting out of his car and following on foot when TM tried to evade by going where GZ couldn't follow in a car. Regardless of who threw the first punch in the fight, GZ pretty much blew his claim of self defense by deliberately putting himself into the situation. At least according to the self defense laws as I understand them. I am pretty knowledgeable on them, specifically for Wisconsin, but also in general everywhere (each state has variations, but the basics are the same). I'm a little disturbed at how many people don't seem to understand the requirements for claiming self defense by a civilian using lethal force. They are written pretty clearly, and aren't all that difficult to understand. The situation must be "unavoidable" and not caused by the person claiming self defense (there are other elements to self defense, but this is the one that applies here). If I was to start a verbal argument with someone, and a fight resulted from that argument, I would have a very difficult time claiming self defense, unless I could separate the argument from the physical fight by showing that I tried to walk away, or in some other way tried to avoid the confrontation. It is possible that the defense will be able to separate the final, fatal fight between GZ and TM from GZ's following of TM, suspecting him of being "up to something." If so, GZ may walk. If the prosecution can demonstrate that the entire event was one incident, not 2 separate things, then GZ may well be convicted. And of course, he may walk or be convicted no matter what. Because your last statement is absolutely correct. "Truth" is often the first victim in a court of law. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The text said he was taking video cameras along with him, but I don't see any GoPros in the pics (they could be there and I missed them). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

WolfRiverJoe said it well, so I'll keep it short. Just because Zimmerman was on the losing end of the fight (that no-one denied occurred), can you not imagine any possibility other than that Martin started it? Have you never seen a fight where the instigator finds himself on the losing end? Don And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon? Sure, but it's no longer self defense. It's usually voluntary manslaughter. Just like if you are in a fight (no matter who started it) and your opponent dies as a result, you will usually face charges. If you can't show that you didn't start it, you didn't escalate it, and you did all you could to avoid the fight, then the odds are pretty good that you will go to prison for a couple years. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

NPR did a story on this a while back. They said that manuals make up about 9% of sales in the US. But that that 9% is very dedicated, and would not buy a car with an auto (and I am in that 9%, BTW). Because other makers offer manuals, they have to. The dealers and manufacturers don't make that much less on the manual cars, so they aren't losing that much on the sales. The dealers know that they are a small part of sales, so they may only keep one or two on the lot. And they may only keep them in performance cars, or economy compacts, not anything else. NPR Story: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=149398112&m=149412806 I looked for a written transcript, but I could only find the audio. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

No, it's been pretty well established that those injuries happened during the scuffle with TM. (pics are of GZ's head injuries for those who don't want to click). What hasn't been established is how the scuffle started. GZ says TM attacked him while GZ was returning to his car after losing sight of TM. That may even be true. But it may not. GZ says he returned directly to his car after losing sight of TM. That may also be true. But it may not. Is it really plausible to think that GZ would simply give up and go back to his car intending to drive off and forget about the whole thing? Or did he maybe look around a bit more to see if he couldn't find TM? Or maybe TM approached GZ and asked why GZ was following him, and GZ started the fight. Perhaps grabbing TM saying something like "I have you now, you're coming with me." I honestly don't know. I wasn't there. The only side of the story we have is GZ's. And he is most definitely going to tell it in a way that portrays himself in the best possible light. But I have met people that have the "vigilante" attitude. As GZ seems to have. And the scenario I propose above is a lot more plausible than TM simply walking up to GZ and attacking him. Although that is a possibility too. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yes. I'm rather flabbergasted at how the simple concept of "removing the requirement to retreat" has been twisted and perverted. Some of the cases clearly involved "showing up with a gun and starting a fight", but were considered self defense. Based on some of the cases in that article, GZ may well walk. Again, I wouldn't bet very much on the outcome either way. It will be interesting to watch. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I fly a Sabre2 170 at around 1.2. It's "sporty" enough for me. I've downsized once, from the 190 that was my first canopy, loaded almost exactly 1:1. I don't really plan on going any smaller. I don't jump enough to be super current. I like a bigger, slower canopy. I know my limitations. I'm approaching 50, and don't need to swoop or take any unnecessary risks on landing. I can penetrate any wind that I'll jump in. I can keep up with most of the others in the air, at least well enough to not be a traffic hazard. I bought a new container a couple years ago that fits the 170 perfectly. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

No. Even without a profit motive, without the income generated by tandems you can't keep your head above water. Even a small club DZ, with the building and plane owned free and clear, had incredible amounts of overhead. Property taxes (and the ground lease to the airport), fuel, maintenance, utilities, and on and on. If you want to keep even a 182 flying, you'd have to charge around $30 per slot, and fly every load full to break even. Been there. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo