Scrumpot

Bump! ....ONLY A FEW MORE HOURS LEFT! If you haven't yet (faxed your proxy) ...WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE???? Fax #: 410-715-3484 I will hand carry ANYONE'S PROXY, to ANYONE ELSE who you know is attending the meeting. Be a part of the solution. Be a part of the GMM! ...FAX THOSE PROXIES NOW! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

In Case any of you know him. I could not find him trying a look-up here, so here goes (cross-posted to wreck-dot): Tony, I received your fax this morning intending to be your proxy. However, ONLY THE COVER PAGE CAME THROUGH & your page 2 unfortunately was BLANK. If you would like to retry your fax to: 410-715-3484 I will look for it. If you use a cover page again, please put some sort of return contact information on it so I can contact you just in case your page 2 does not transmit again. Or, if you prefer, simply type your proxy statement ON THAT COVER PAGE (so as to send only 1 page, in case that is the problem), as it appears you have suffient room on there as well to do so. Again everybody, only a few more hours remaining! Remember that I am accepting proxies to HAND CARRY to the meeting via fax (clearly provided for and ALLOWED pursuant to NYS NCPL Article 6) right up until 4PM!!! If you would like to designate ME your proxy, and tell me directly, per bi-law ammendment proposal which way YOU would like to vote, I *WILL* REPRESENT *THAT VOTE* FOR YOU (individually, as if it were actually even YOU there), a sample of that proxy is already posted under the subject string "Proxies..Keep 'em coming! Plenty of time!" *(dropzone.com in talkback under "USPA Proxies a FINAL PUSH") I will also be happy to simply hand carry ANY PROXY to ANY OTHER MEMBER (who you know will be there) as well, including the USPA proxy to the president of USPA, if that is what you desire. Time is running out! So if you haven't yet, FAX THOSE PROXIES *NOW*!! 410-715-3484 And if anyone knows Tony Ross & would like to advise him of this post, please do so. ---THANKS! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

More bumping.... right up until the deadline! Seriously though, I've reconsidered the travel time-line, as well as the potential DC Beltway & Wilson Bridge traffic most likely to be occurring during this time, and I am moving up my deadline to receive USPA member faxes UNTIL 4:00PM (instead of 4:30) on Friday 7/11. Again, I will deliver member proxies to ANY MEMBER you know will be there (at the GMM), if faxed to me at 410-715-3484 BY 4PM. This is your last opportunity to put up or shut up. I am here to be used as the mule that I am! ;^) coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Your Total Score: 121 Adjusted by 10 - ( 0 * 3 ) - 0 Your Car's Coolness Factor Rating: Cool Car. Your car is probably great at picking up chicks. --------- No "rice-boy" factor here. My car's british, mates coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Bump! ...Shameless continual bumping STILL only a total of 3 proxies received. Are we all done/all in yet? So when I get to the meeting I'll find that already 15,000 proxies in total have ALREADY been provided to SOMEBODY?? I hope so, but I doubt it. C'mon people... and you know who you are. Get off your APATHETIC BUTTS & DO SOMETHING!! ...what have you got to lose? $1.23 worth of long distance fax charges maybe??? I'll be going to this meeting. ---USE ME!! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Okay, let's open up a little dialogue about this then. Let's say like you, for some folks who have already sent in their proxies they figure there is now nothing else further for them to do, right? I'm not so sure. Personally, I have been party to some rather direct and pointed debate which to date has STILL not satisfied ME that the USPA Proxies, if already sent in (as profferred in Parachutist Magazine) are foolproof and guaranteed VOTES in of themselves as the member may expect. This is the entire reasoning that has resulted in my "losing" my otherwise day-off Friday, to now instead be ATTENDING this meeting myself, personally. Unlike some others, I am not necessarilly professing anything nefarious in either these proxies, the procedure or their intent. However, quite clearly AS THEY ARE WRITTEN (and by their very nature) these proxies ARE NOT "ABSENTEE VOTES". In fact, absentee BALLOTTING for the purposes of effectuating CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS or to USPA BI-LAWS is strictly precluded! By giving the proxy, one has merely assigned the right (and then not even necessarilly the OBLIGATION either) to vote in one's stead, which in the case of the USPA proxy, grants that right to "the USPA President". Translation: Glen Bangs. The proxy also constitutes an individual(s) "count" towards the establishment of a quorum for that meeting. A quorum is needed for the vote to be even allowed to take place in the 1st place. Once the quorum is met (assuming that happens), Glen Bangs (or any of the present proxies for that matter) can be either VOTED or witheld in ANY WAY that proxy holder then sees fit! ...That is an "operation of law" (or at least protocol), as it HAS TO BE by DEFINITION, period. USPA through their publications & some subsequent postings by individual board members has stated and assured differently, and this is all well & good -and I guess for each individual person, decision maker & ultimately proxy-giver, that matter comes down simply to TRUST. But is is NOT a given/GUARANTEED! My only other contention has been that checking the "YES" boxes on the USPA proxies, per question ONLY results in you giving your proxy (yes- permission to VOTE ...NOT WHICH WAY TO VOTE) on a per question basis. In other words if you checked YES to question 1, you have then given Glen Bangs PERMISSION TO VOTE on your behalf on question 1. NOT that you have DIRECTED a vote to be counted as a YES on question 1. HUGE disparity there from what I think most actually "expect"! If you placed a "NO" for instance on question 1, that means quite simply that "NO, you do NOT give your proxy to Glen Bangs granting him permission to vote on that item for you", period. ...Again, it is NOT in of itself a VOTE! So what can be done about it now some might ask? Again, Jan Meyer, Mike Mullins and others (I haven't heard directly from Glen himself) have assured instead that actually those "yes" & "no's" WILL result in being tabulated into actual YES and NO VOTES. Assuming you are comfortable with that, there is NOTHING anybody needs to do relative to their already sent in proxies. They WILL be counted towards a quorum, and further if this is all you are concerned with supporting as well, then this is fine. This much we KNOW. If you are not fully comfortable with that however, you can still NOW grant your proxy instead to someone else. My proxy template as offered at the top of this thread WILL (GUARANTEED personally guaranteed -that's the best ANYBODY can do) give YOU A VOTE (yes OR NO, -per question)!! So what happens if you fax me a proxy, yet operatively at the meeting they DO decide NOT to accept "faxed" proxies? (something I contend they can not do) Well then, quite simply that proxy becomes invalidated. If you have already sent in a previous proxy to someone else (including the USPA one) that one will still remain "in force". Nothing ventured nothing gained. So anyway, just a few more options for everyone to think about. ...Well more than just .02 on my part this time, at least with THIS series of postings, eh? Bottom line: I think that faxed proxies ARE provided for and fully appropriate. So, if you have NOT gotten yours in yet (and even if you have as outlined above), please consider faxing over that proxy NOW. Again, even if it is the USPA "standard" proxy, or even a proxy to ANYBODY ELSE, ...I will simply HAND CARRY that for you, so as to ASSURE that it does arrive at the meeting in time for you! I think this is a "service" regardless of your position as to WHO should have your proxy, you ALL should take advantage of and NOT PASS UP!! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Grand total of 3 (yup that's right THREE). ...Pretty LAME (so far). -C'mon guys, let's get WITH IT!!!! USPA Proxies, proxies to "tree", proxies to me, proxies to ANYONE you want (who'll be at the meeting). Let's just get 'em in! I'll HAND CARRY 'EM!! Thanks Phree, for asking. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Bump! ....Keep'n it bumped.... GET THOSE PROXIES FAXED (no matter to WHOMEVER you may choose)!!! I'll carry 'em in & hand deliver 'em! Let's get a quorum at this meeting established & not let the opportunity just slip by!!!!! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's why I have posted mine here (as an option) with absolute VOTING DIRECTIVES attached to it. My (very early on) personal observation was that the USPA proxy did not necessarily assure VOTING in the manner that the proxy giver may (or may not have) anticipated, or EXPECTED. At this point, I am only sorry that I am getting "involved" only really at this LATE of a date. However, any proxies provided NOW would indeed SUPERCEDE any given earlier (so long as accepted as valid) -Hint, Hint Although once any proxy is given, it allows that proxy holder to then effectively VOTE any way they then (being the ones there) see fit -including mine really; the one thing I PERSONALLY ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE (and I assume there will be enough others there to witness this/"squeal me out" later if I DON'T do this -subjecting me to the wrath of our entire community, which I can assure you I DON'T want) -is that I WILL vote the VOTES (as & if indicated) that each & EVERY one gives to me just as if it were them there THEMSELVES to cast it. -Period. Perhaps I should have added yet another "check box" stipulating: Mr. Spurrell further has my authority to cast my vote as proxy in any way he sees fit and appropriate on any and all OTHER matters that also come before the meeting." YES______ NO______. If NO is checked, I will NOT in any way other than the 3 STIPULATED questions use that proxy (to vote). If YES is checked, then I may. In fact, if anybody would like to & feels more comfortable adding that (if you ARE going to use this) then be my guest. Again, it all comes down really to a matter of trust, but I do guarantee you that I have NO "personal agendas" or axes to grind at this meeting, and I *WILL* represent & cast your vote(s) however you so designate. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

For those of you who don't get over to the wreck-dot, there is now a revelation and FINAL PUSH to get proxies in, provided by fax. FAX COPIES OF PROXIES (so long as presented in their entirety -so be careful what you write ) WILL BE ACCEPTED AT THE JULY 11 GMM OF USPA!!! Here is a copy of a posting I have put up over there further explaining: ------- Jan Meyer wrote in message news:... > I hope we do get a quorum. > If we do, these procedures are what was sent to the BOD on 6/18/03. > If you have any questions about these - take it up with HQ - not me. > As for the date of record - it was June something. I do not remember & > can't find that particular email. The BOD did not select it (as > mentioned below). > As to the membership roster count - that's something HQ would know. It > is around 3300. > .... -Internal Memo Proxy Handling Procedures Memo posted Thank you for posting this, Jan! As I understand it, this is a document that was created by Chris Needels in order to establish (required) written/documented procedures, and intended meeting protocol as it relates to our upcoming GMM & the handling of these proxies, which has been solicited by the board. Where I see NOTHING in here that either countermands (not that it legally could) Article 6, of NYS NPCL (under which auspices our organization legally operates) or further states that FAX COPY/TRANSMITIONS of proxy statements would somehow otherwise NOT be accepted or allowed, we all MUST now accept that, clearly under Section 609 of that Article, paragraph 8 (subparagraphs b2, and c) indeed Jan that FAX COPIES OF PROXIES ***ARE*** most definitely allowed. Without quoting the ENTIRE paragraph (but it can be viewed by ANYBODY as previously pointed out & posted here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=76&a=7) specifically, subparagraph 8c of Article 6, Section 609 states (for the lazy one's of us who won't click & scroll through another link): "Any copy, FACSIMILE TELECOMMUNICATION created pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section *(which by-the-way absolutely allows for even other "electronic transmition" methods as well, so long as it can be "reasonably determined" that transmition was authorized by the member! ---e-mail? ...but I won't open THAT can of worms)* may be substituted or used in lieu of the original writing or transmition for any & all purposes for which the original writing or transmition could be used, provided that such copy, facsimile transmition or other reproduction shall be a complete reproduction of the entire original writing or transmition." Therefore, as indeed viable option to all you wreck-dotters out there, I will post-up my fax # here for you to use. I will be personally attending this meeting, leaving my office to travel to the meeting by @ 4:30PM Friday. If you fax your proxy over to this # anytime before then, I will personally guarantee that it gets HAND DELIVERED to whomever at the meeting that you so designate. I am not "taking sides" as to who your proxy should be given to. If you would like to fax over even your USPA provided proxy being given to the president of USPA, I will deliver that personally to Glen Bangs accordingly. Or again, anyone else that you KNOW is going to be at this meeting. Treetop included. ---I offer this as my "courrier boy" (or "secretarial bitch") services to you all. So if you have not yet, ...please DO GET THOSE PROXIES IN!! It does indeed look like it is NOT too late. My Fax # is: 410-715-3484 Please be sure to mark a fax coversheet to the attn of GRANT SPURRELL. Make your proxy out to ANYBODY YOU SO DESIRE, and on Friday 7/11, prior to our meeting being called to order, I will ASSURE that proxy gets HAND DELIVERED to whomever it is you designate. LET'S DO GET A QUORUM ESTABLISHED! SO THAT WE CAN FINALLY EFFECTIVELY VOTE ON THESE ITEMS THAT *NEED* TO BE VOTED UPON NOW. THIS TIME. AT *THIS* MEETING!! I await your faxes. Blue skies, -Grant ------------ I'll take this here maybe even one step further. Don't trust Glen Bangs? ...Or even Don "Treetop" Jardine? Here then is a proxy statement I will provide (where I am going to be there anyway) giving your proxy instead to me. What I will do, is I will 100% GUARANTEE that I will represent YOUR VOTE. I have even placed an actual VOTE DESIGNATION section on the bottom of this by which you can direct me. Just as another option, in case you-all would like a Dropzone-dot-commer instead (myself) to respresent you (or at least YOUR VOTE). Proxies provided on the USPA form have an exposure potential to NOT even represent your VOTE at all, and instead be used to merely establish a quorum. If you would like to 100% GUARANTEE that YOUR actual VOTE is cast, as YOU have cast it, feel free to fill out the below, and indeed I will be happy to do that for you. In either case, (even proxies being granted to OTHERS), please do get those proxies in!! Feel free to use my fax # (repeated below), and I will 100% ASSURE that they get HAND DELIVERED at the meeting on 7/11/2003 accordingly. Blue Skies all! -Grant Fax #: 410-715-3484 Sample Proxy Statement granting proxy to Grant Spurrell (cut-n-paste, print, sign & fax): ------- Statement of Proxy As an Individual Member of the United States Parachute Association, I, _________________________ (USPA member # _________) hereby appoint William Grant Spurrell (Grant Spurrell) ,USPA Member #127059, as my proxy; to appear and to vote in my name on any issue which I would be eligible to vote as if I were in attendance myself at the July 11th, 2003 General Membership Meeting of the USPA. This proxy may also be used as constituting my individual presence as being counted and valid by proxy, as if I were there in body myself for the purposes of contributing to and further establishing a quorum for said meeting and any and all matters that may come before it. This statement of proxy supercedes and invalidates any previous statements I have made assigning or granting of my proxy to any other parties. Name _____________________________ Signature___________________________ Date ______________ USPA membership # _______________ -------------------------- As to the following 3 SPECIFIC issues / motions for Bi-Law amendment, understood to be at hand during this meeting, Mr. Spurrell is hereby directed to cast my vote as follows: 1. To change the term of office for USPA Directors and Officers from the current two years to three, effective with the next election in 2004 & forward: YES________ NO________ (I am recommending a "NO" vote to this ammendment proposal) 2. To move the election schedule for USPA Directors two months earlier (process start date from October to August), and to then seat new board electorates at the very next scheduled BOD Meeting which follows the election: YES________ NO________ (I am recommending a "YES" vote to this ammendment proposal) 3. To eliminate the National Director nominating committee and the petition requirement for USPA Regional Director candidates: YES________ NO________ (I am recommending a "YES" vote to this ammendment proposal) coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Disagree. Not only does having a full face ONCE LANDED potentially limit your periferal vision, it most definitely limits your HEARING as well! Simply look where you are going. Keeping your head on a swivel does not (or should not) stop until you are safely back inside the packing hangar. My .02 on this one. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Guess I'll find out about that via FIRST HAND observation at the membership meeting this Friday. I plan to be there. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Who would EVER listen to anybody with just that much EXPERIENCE behind him anyway? ...What I'd like to know is if (whether) he has his COACHES RATING or not! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Guess I'm just not quite the famous skydiver as you are, ...yet. That's what I was getting at, and although I have been pressured, coaxed & lobbied (quite heavily at times) I have thus far, RESISTED. Yup. Same here. I've just been trying lately to put a handle on that and to maybe even understand (myself) why. Is it just because I am "anti-establishment"? I dunno. 'Cause I'm not (entirely). I had thought we ALL were to a certain extent at one time just by the nature of being skydivers in the 1st place. Thanks for the candid answers Winsor. You've definitely given me some food for thought/consideration. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The statement was merely an observation in EXPERIENCE. Anecdotal observations & detached statistics aside, I do indeed hope that you ARE around here after 10 more years as well to tell us all different. If you are, I hope that the newbies at that time indeed give you the respect and attention that you deserve (and will have earned), and that some snot-nosed kids don't just automatically dismiss everything then that YOU may have to say, arguing non-pertinent tangential data elements & hypothetical non-applicable mathmatical theories (etc., etc.) instead. We'll look each other up in July 2013 then! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Interesting. ...Did he say what the possible concerns/ramifications might be when doing this? Line "whip" (and thereby increased shock-load) at the canopy attachment point(s) perhaps? It seems if you ever just observe probably 9/10's of the packers out there, that one of the last operations, just before beginning your line stows on the bag, is the packer indeed "MILKING" the line slack back UP into the cocooned canopy! Hmmmm..... coitus non circum - Moab Stone

They are referring to ONLY installations where your control cable is routed along the outer edge of the soft-collar "yoke" area of your rig. Conceivably, for those when stowing their pilot chutes in such a configured rig/cypres set up, if they have the habit of pulling the rig UPSIDE DOWN with the yoke pressed against the floor, this COULD damage (crimp, bend and eventually snap) the Cypres control wire. I don't think it has anything to do with the "hitting" of the BOC in of itself. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I knew there just had to be at least a few kindred spirits out there! ...Finally, they come out of the woodwork! At least at my home DZ, I am "allowed" (your mother-may-I, I suppose Winsor -I liked that one) some case-by-case "work-arounds". However, the issue that will always seem to creep in though is that if there is a "rated coach" available ...simply because of the fact that they PAID for a course & met some MINUMUM requirements, the DZ/DZO will have an OBLIGATION to go to them 1st (and maybe even be downright INSISTANT). EVEN IF THAT "RATED COACH" CAN BARELY SAVE HIM/HERSELF, let alone become now responsible as well for another. I do empathize with the not interfering with someone's "earned" potential income (or cost recoupment) stream, but do wonder sometimes at what point it remains appropriate to simply step aside in such instances, or rather step UP? When travelling, and NOT being at your home DZ is when it becomes unfortunately even more difficult. Think about this in the context of the "friend dangerously downsizing" thread going on. I too, have never wanted skydiving to become a job for me. However, if you accept the premise that the more experienced skydivers amogst us have not only just a passing right, but an inherent obligation to impart some of their experience-earned wisdom on the noobs, how then do you appropriately balance this out? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Absolutely SPOT ON Winsor! ...SPOT ON! But (to quote a line I got in retort on one of my previous post/threads on the subject: See "low time coaches") ---aren't you NOT fulfilling (meeting) your full potential Winsor by not obtaining EVERY rating that would be available to you? ...DOH! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And somebody bent on buying that canopy will answer you honestly? These are the ones (that won't) that are "the problem" in the 1st place. Although these are all very nice & appropriate, good questions, in reality, a much sterner approach is needed in these cases, IMHO. The guy who gives you the HONEST answers to these already knows them himself and is not the person we are necessarily worrying about here. Find SOMEBODY that this jumper RESPECTS & if the concern is VALID, get them to talk to him (her) about it. That's really the only way. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

But based upon your proposal, just pass a certain # of jumps (ie: licensing) & you won't need it (the exemption) either. ...How does this make any sense? Personally, I'm beginning to lean towards the testing. Yes, of EVERYBODY. Even Luis Canni (sp?) Set the standards, pass the test (you've then proven yourself), do anything you want. Arbitrary #'s for "simple standards" sake alone mis-adresses the issue (at least as we are debating it here). That is unless it is only the "newbies" you are looking to "protect" only in the 1st place. In that case then fine. But NOBODY then has ANYTHING to say about ANYBODY with (what was it earlier agreed upon) +500 jumps jumping whatever they want (or augering in under 3.x-1 if they choose to)! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hey beav... (per your profile) Don't go down that trail. Methinks you were merely missing my point. Let's step out to the extreme here for an illustration: You said: And my point was only that although this may be true, it is not necessarily appropriate in the context under which it was offered. Let's say (again going EXTREMELY OUTSIDE THE BOX here) in every incident thread that comes up, even if it WASN'T a factor -I came out & said something about RSL's. Would that raise anybody's awareness of an RSL or get them to think about it? Maybe. But would it be APPROPRIATE? -Nope. That's all. I could aslo suggest in everything I write that running with scissors is bad, ---or more timely to the date now that playing with fireworks is dangerous, but I would NOT post that in "EVERY" thread! I know I was getting extremely piccaune, and trust me, I meant no offense. The debate is valid (and VALUABLE). Just not in the incidents thread, on EVERY CASE is all. -THAT, and ONLY THAT was my point. Hang in there bro. And keep the faith.

Okay, I know, now I'm replying to my own post here but.... If you impose rules striclty based upon jump #'s (or just labelled a little differently, but really the same -license held) are you really being effective? Consider: Have you ever seen anyone with "high" (I'll stick with the earlier +500 jumps, but that is debatable too) jump #'s that still can't fly worth sh**? -I have. Have you ever seen anyone with a D License who can't fly worth sh**? Again, -I have. Blanketly placing regulations based solely upon these criterion, I assert does NOT solve the (perceived) problem. "Testing out" quite frankly is the very 1st one (regulation option) I have seen here that might. Difficult to impliment? Maybe so. But if it is so all gosh-darn fired up IMPORTANT to do, isn't it then worth the effort? Slapping a regulation down just to say, "there now, we're done ---the regulation's in place" just doesn't (IMHO) completely cut it either. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Why? ...Why would that be so hard, and further have "no chance in hell" of passing? Please elaborate. The premise itself seems at least to make some sense. I'm just not so sure about the shooting it down with blanket statements like this. Aren't you now doing what you have accused others of doing to you? Seriously. If you can elaborate a bit rationally as to why this (if it does seem to make sense as even you say yourself -you might not be against either) would this option not be worthy of being seriously considered, and then in fact maybe even proposed further? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And please do! ...I have absolutely no problem with us disagreeing, or "debating". You completely misread (or at least mis-respond to) my point. My reply was based on the brief divurgence of this string into the "pro vs. con" of the (being debated ELSEWHERE) recommended wingloading BSR debate. I'm not even saying whether I agree or disagree on that! I do in fact fully agree that it is appropriately debatable ...but now I digress. My only point in this post was in support of a statement that I don't think was read very well. And that is that interjecting this DEBATE in every incident thread, whether it is applicable or not, would be beneficial just on the merits that if it helps even one person think about it, it has helped. And that is purely BUNK! That would be the same as bringing the pro-cypres vs con-cypres or RSL debate into this very same thread. It just is NOT appropriate! Someone else (not you) had said something in support of who cares if it was appropriate or not, as long as it "helped". My example points out how for instance in the Hazelton, PA incident it would NOT be, and I think you agree with me on that. Posting that a wingloading BSR COULD HAVE been a factor in preventing an incident, where that does appear to be FACT (ie: a 20-jump wonder pounding in under a 1.4 loading) is probably fine, and again I do not dispute that. However, it is NOT appropriate to post it to EVERY incident. Plain & simple. Get it now? Apparently HH did, as I see this has now been moved (where I was tangentially asserting it BELONGED), and that is in a debate thread itself in the 1st place! coitus non circum - Moab Stone