base311

There are two issues here: 1) how to handle the transient BASE jumper, and; 2) growing local populations of BASE jumpers. In re: #1: There are two important elements to the "call the locals rule": someone has to make the call, and someone has to respond to the call. If either side fails to support the intent of the rule, then there's a breakdown which results in objects being potentially burnt. Plain and simple. If someone calls you 'cause they're coming to your town, it is important to take the time to find out their experience and be flexible enough to take them to an object that they're capable of handling... or hook them up with someone else in town if you can't take them yourself. Additionally, there are certain elements of courtesy that must be shown if you're the caller: give as much advance notice as possible and be flexible and respectful of what the locals have to say. If you just show up in a town and call the local and wanna jump then and there, it may not be possible to hook you up - understand and accept this, and be respectful of the objects and the locals and don't go it alone; the objects aren't going anywhere and you can come to town again and jump in the future. Similarly, if someone has shown the courtesy to provide ample notice that they're coming to your town and they'd like for you to hook them up, then hook them up! You don't have to necessarily take them to your primo downtown bldg the first time around... and in most cases they'll be happy enough just to have done a jump somewhere with you. The point here is that it takes both sides working together for this rule to work. To do anything to the contrary fucks it all up, and you risk placing your objects at risk by not responding. It takes willingness, courtesy, respect and understanding from both sides. In re: #2 The growth of a local population of BASE jumpers will happen. I've noticed that folks come and go - but the population of current jumpers tends to remain roughly the same. Attrition takes care of the numbers: either through injury, job assignments, a healthy scare that puts a jumper off... and a general "wisening" of jumpers (what I call those who have "kicked the habit" - in other words they don't have to bag 30 downtown jumps a month; they're happy with 1 or 2 a week). Then there always seems to be the resident jumper who is the 'glue' for the group. Usually it's the newbie jumpers with their newbie jumping zeal who haven't kicked the habit yet that provide the motivation to the group, but there's always someone (maybe even a few folks) who keeps the group grounded (not in the literal sense) in reason and ethics. A sort of what-do-you-think guy... someone who can say, "Hold up here fellas - let's think about this,"... someone who can say, "I don't think you ought to cut that lock off - is there another way??" Someone has to teach the ethics, and it's usually the elders of the group who pass along the lore and the reason. It has to be this way. But that requires someone seasoned to be around to do this, and the system breaks down without it (READ: old farts gotta get off the couch and jump every now and then). Hold on while I go look in the mirror. ok I'm back.. Sometimes a person (and it's usually a newbie) comes along who may want to go it alone on some ojects that they've been shown. Someone who knows enough to be dangerous to themselves and the local objects. An admonishment from the group to this person must be made: "If you go jump objects by yourself and burn them 'cause you were stupid, then we're gonna fuck you up". This generally puts their minds right and they begin to accept that this is the way it is. The group also must stand ready to respond if the person goes against the admonishment. It's like disciplining a child: if the parent isn't prepared to carry out the punishment, then it's pointless to warn the child of the consequences of his actions. Eventually, the renegade newbie becomes a part of the group and the group knows his skills and in time he can, of course, go it alone if that is his desire... and this just happens in time without any clearly-defined moment of realization - it's not like at some point the group just says, "you're cleared to self-jumpmaster" (although we took great pleasure in poking fun at B.G., who remained a student right up through just the other day when we cleared him to self jumpmaster ;) Jumping with someone else is fun. Generally there are always at least two folks in any given group who might wanna make a jump - go together. The whole group doesn't have to turn out every single time. Yes, there are jumpers out there who never make themselves known because they like to jump alone; these people aren't the problem - they're so stealthy, they're probably stealthier than the group. Don't worry about them 'cause they're not the ones burning your objects. Jealousy and "object ownership" are insideous things. If you want newcomers to play nice, then you have to be willing to take them places; putting them off (in the social sense) is not going to ultimately benefit your situation. Being pridefull and wanting to covet objects and keep them a secret will result in the objects being burnt by the newbie who comes to the point that he says to himself, "Self: these guys aren't gonna take you to their objects, so you're gonna have to figure it out yourself." To shut out the newbie jumper does a disservice to the local group and to the sport - an opportunity to show someone the 'right way' is missed and the system breaks down. There are always going to be new BASE jumpers - older jumpers must pass along their knowledge for this whole thing to work. Educate them - for they iz ignunt. Also, making an example of just one person who chooses not to play by the rules goes a long way toward letting others who would follow know that you mean what you say. And that's all I have to say about that. Gardner

Tree did you check out Johnny's super mushroom technique on the link he posted above?? Click super mushroom My response was regarding that technique. Your technique is the standard pc packjob - not the one we're talking about above. Just clarifying ;) Gardner edit to say: The question I had is whether folks see any difference in the outcome of my way versus his way. (Pack it each way - look at the results - see if anything is different) My description of my technique seems rather long, but it only takes a minute to perform - perhaps less.

I've tried to go through this in my head several times, but if I'm not mistaken, can't one arrive at the same packjob without the need for a flat surface? I guess an over-the-hand type super mushroom as opposed to a flat packed super mushroom? 1) Hold the PC by the attachment point with right hand and fluff by pulling it to inflate and then allowing it to come to rest in an inverted position. 2) While still holding attachment pt in right hand, run loosely-gripped left hand from attachment pt down to skirt/topskin seamline (making sure skirtfabric and mesh is evenly distributed around the PDA line). Maintain grip there with left hand. (At this point all of skirt/topskin seamline is drawn into center region of PC - this gets you to step 18 of johnny's pics (smpicture18.jpg)) 3) let go of attchment pt with right hand while still holding skirtseam with left. Reach around to topskin apex, grip and pull the centercap and PDA line all the way out (this causes attachment point and associated mesh fabric to be pulled up into the center of the skirt fabric/topskin fabric in the same plane (work attachment point into exact center with evenly-distributed mesh/topskin skirt fabric). When you flip it over (topskin on top), the thing resembles a mushroom for sure; mesh being the stem, topskin being the cap. 4)Stuff a little mesh - with left-hand still maintaining grip on skirt/mesh seamline - up into the cap to form johnny's "nug". Grip the "nug" with right hand from topskin side. 5) Maintaining "nug" grip with right hand, now release left hand and flip over and flake out both topskin and mesh evenly so you can see where the bridle enters the "nug". 6) while still maintaining right hand grip on "nug," S-fold the bridle into the "nug" at the attachment pt, sticking the ends of one side of the s-folds into the "nug" and running the other ends of the s-folds down to within ~ 1" of the bottom of the remaining flaked skirt (in essense it's the same as what johnny has done). The s-folding is done with the left hand while gripping each subsequent s-fold inside the "nug" with the right hand. 7) with the bridle s-folded, encapsulate the bridle within the mesh, followed by encapsulation with the topskin fabric. 8) Insert this package into the BOC pouch, dressing as necessary. Geometrically speaking, I cannot visualize a difference in outcome from this way versus Johnny's way. I did note that he made no mention of the PDA line. Is it ultimately the same? Agree or disagree? *Do not use anything other than your hands to control fabric while packing the PC; use of a packing aid and subsequent failure to remove said packing aid will ruin your day. Gardner

oh my god all sorts of things.... Gardner

yes I did, though not much and now not actively. It's fun, but it ain't BASE. gardner

LMMFAO @ that. Thanks. Gardner

man I don't know where to even start, so I guess I'll just ramble. I suppose I really need to weigh-in as perhaps my experience can shed some light on this, dunno. I was part of a five person grand experiment by Earl Redfern. He was called the 'wild one' by his skydiving/BASE peers at the time for basically "training" five whuffos to BASE jump. I put quotation marks around "training" because I would have to say that the training aspects differed for each of us in terms of amount of knowledge disseminated/imparted and/or absorbed. I must also state that there was never an absence of available information: one could basically soak up whatever amount of knowledge one wanted with respect to many things, BASE technique included, so in my mind the willingness of a student to learn and understand was the driving factor - not the lack of available mentoring/training/discussion. That said, three of the five of us managed to get our BASE numbers and two of us subsequently managed to rack up quite a list of objects that experienced jumpers would swoon to get these days. All with no prior skydives. Of the five, I'm the only one still jumping; the others gave it up when we went our separate ways, and I myself took a seven year break before coming back to it. I think it is/was probably one of the stupidest things I've ever done, but at the same time I'm thankful to have had the opportunity; I think a lot about how rare my opportunity was, and how grateful I am to have crossed paths with Earl. With the benefit of hindsight and some experience, I look back and think that it's a wonder any of us survived or at a minimum that none of us was seriously injured (speaking solely of the students). One of us almost drowned (ahem); I've seen miraculous saves (bellywart), and damn-near-death openings/saves. I really do at times feel the urge to lend some credence to the saying, "god takes care of fools and drunks." He must, because most of us should probably be dead. But I'm not the same kinda fool anymore, so I'm now exposed to the same sort of elements as anyone else. No...really, I'm not fooling myself - nor do I believe that god particularly pays any more attention to the safety of fools and drunks than he does to the safety of anyone; I'ze bein' sarcastic. So what's to be learned here? I don't really know; perhaps nothing. Perhaps there should be an analysis of us who were involved - or perhaps more broadly an analysis of all who have gone the non-traditional route. I can really only speak for myself, but I believe my experience up to that point had better prepared me for what I did than your average everyday garden variety whuffo. I mean I don't really believe that I was a total whuffo in the ultimate whuffo sense. I had a vast experience in model aviation (16 years at the time I began the grand BASE experiment - with literally thousands of hours of design and construction of scratch-built craft), had probably a total of 60 hours in full scale craft (not as PIC, but still doing unassisted t/o's and ldgs in the local pattern), a fair amount of mixed trad/sport climbing, 10 years of sailing experience, etc. I even came to the table already knowing how to sew fairly well. Anyway, I guess my point is that I wasn't your average whuffo: I understood how things fly, had done some amount of flying either remotely or first-hand, and I had some technical experience in design and construction of lots of things, a fair amount of trust in nylon, and I am nearly handicapped by my own attention to detail (that's another way of saying I never get anything done in a short amount of time 'cause it's gotta be perfect). Knowing what I know now would I do it again? Probably, but that's just me. I don't think you can really apply much from my experience to anyone or anything else - and certainly not with regard to the possible success or failure of others who would take this route. And it's not like I hadn't dreamed about BASE before I met Earl. I had already decided at age 12 that I would someday BASE jump when I saw Boenish et al doing their jumps on National Geo.(PBS mind), so it's not like the idea was novel at age 21; the notion had been bouncing around in the back of my head for 9 years. If someone asked me if it is possible to BASE without prior skydives, I'd say yes. Do I think it's probable that someone could do it that way and live? Probably. Do I think it's the most effective route to train someone to BASE jump? (effective in terms of turning out a quality BASE jumper) No. Is the learning curve about as steep as learning curves get? Yes. Do you stand a much greater risk of injuring yourself or dying going this route? Certainly. I've been approached by many, many people who wanted me to take them BASE jumping: both experienced (and inexperienced) skydivers AND total whuffos. Every time I'm asked, it makes my stomach churn to consider the possible consequences of taking these people to do these things. At least the experienced skydivers know - to some extent - what they're getting themselves into. Most whuffos have not a fucking clue. Hell most skydivers haven't a clue about what real BASE jumping really is. It's just not possible to explain how fucking miserable it is to have to climb a 500' ladder at night in windy freezing temps with the ladder bending/bowing back and forth with every step, or to slog up a miserable muddy slope up the backside of some mountain, or to wade through a mile of blackberry bushes to get to the base of an object - only to be miserable climbing for the next hour. All for a few fleeting wisps of pure ecstacy - only to find that you're hooked and ready for more. Sure, it is possible to BASE jump with no prior skydives. It's probably even very doable considering some of the places available to train someone these days. But consider this training scenario: let's say - hypothetically - that a skydiver first learns how to fly his body in a wind tunnel, so by the time they were doing their first real jumps at alti, they already know how to turn points, do big ways, etc. That tunnel time is probably money well spent. No, it doesn't train them how to save their own ass in freefall, but it does probably make for a safer student and, probably, for a more pleasant experience in skydiving later on. Now let's consider the norm: skydivers learn how to fly roughly a minute at a time, with big breaks in between each of those minutes. We already know this concept. Now consider that with respect to canopy control and BASE. Far better it is to learn canopy control over some bigass 1000 acre airport with a reserve canopy and 5-20 min. of working time than it is to try to put it all together with what? 5 secs, 10 secs.? okay maybe even a minute or two at a time in some BASE circumstances. True, it would be possible to do hop n pops from a tall tower (and one could even get about as much time as on a low plane hop n pop), but there aren't many tower locals out there who _really_ want you opening high on their towers. One could even tailor a program that might include paragliding a low-efficiency wing at first. But I don't think there's any question that prior skydiving exerience with focus on canopy control is of huge value in the BASE environ. So I suppose I've rambled enough for now. Doable? yes. Wise? absolutely not. Sheeeeit... now that I think about it - I think I'll open me up a BASE School. bsbd, Gardner dba Bubba's School of Redneck BASE Proud member of SERNBJA (Southeastern Redneck BASE Jumping Association)

that's why the good lord gave us 'baby wipes'. a.k.a. shower in a can. Gardner

um... nope.. because the markup adds 'http://' in front of 'rtsp://' I haven't been able to located a direct html link yet - hence my statement to cut n paste in to your browser for the moment. thanks, tho. Gardner

Hear Georgia Senator Zell Miller's statement regarding Kid Rock and his flag wearing event. okay, you'll have to cut n paste this into your browser... -can't get the html markup tags to work with me here. rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/miller021104.rm P.S. I snickered at his tar and feathering proposal edit: okay I've had trouble making the 'rtsp://' link clicky, so here's an alternative. Goto Zell's webpage and scroll down about half way to the "Miller on Super Bowl Half-Time Show: 'Stink Will Linger in the Nostrils of America'" press release. THere's a clicky link there to see the video release.

are you pregnant and want reassurance? it'll be the best-damned thing you ever did. -raising kids provides the chance to experience a part of life of which you have no recollection. -raising kids is one of the most satisfying human endeavors on which one could embark. -raising kids is one of the most challenging human endeavors on which one could embark. -raising kids separates the men from the boys. -raising kids is a full time job. -raising kids is the meaning of life. -the reason grandparents and grandchildren get along so well is because they have a common enemy. -kids will push every limit you set for them...constantly. -spare the rod; spoil the child. -watching your child grow and develop is one of the most fascinating things you will ever witness. -seeing your kids smile and laugh and want to hug you brings joy beyond your wildest imagination. hope it helps! Gardner

U DA HOE??

strongly suggest you get an experienced person to do your pre-flight and instruction. Most likely you will crash it when it starts coming toward you. I've seen planes go in for all sorts of reasons. once because the aileron servo-reverse switch somehow managed to get ''switched" - a problem where the natural reaction merely aggrevated the problem and resulted in a total - by a person with years of experience who didn't catch the problem in the pre-flight. Recommend having at least three sets of eyes on the initial pre-flight inspect. Its a lot of money to waste over a dumb error that doesn't get caught. Everyone I've ever known has provided instruction for free. I'd provide it for free if you were at my field, but you're not. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone to help you. Modellers are always willing to help. Good luck and have fun! Gardner

under the guidance of a mentor off of a non-local object. local to you, maybe, but not to me. and it wasn't the big one; rather, the small one. Gardner

Passed in the Georgia legislature last year: it's another added felony to utilize a bullet proof vest in the commission of an armed felony. Check your state's laws... it might vary from state-to-state as to whether possession of lock tools without appropriate license/bonding would constitute a crime. Similar with scanners and anti-speed detection devices. Right now Georgia's considering legislation to make it illegal to own the infrared devices that control redlights in an emergency (Makes the light switch in 2 seconds from red to green - normally used by first responders to control traffic control devices) Gardner Gardner

If a noggin' crashes into a bumper in the forest and no one's around to hear it... ...does it really make a loud noise for which internet heckling would be justified? careful what you say; just a few days ago I narrowly escaped a traffic situation on a major Atlanta interstate when a driver in front of me brainfarted and decided to pull into the HOV (high occupancy veh.) lane from a standing start (stop and go trafffice situation) and was forthwith creamed from behind (snicker) by a person minging his own business travelling efficiently in the HOV. I had pulled forward somewhat, so this happened right next to me. I commented to myself, "Self, you just narrowly avoided getting caught up in that mess." The next day I rear-ended a lady in an infinity while trying to merge into the next lane. I was looking back waiting for my slot to come by and the traffic in my lane stopped (a.k.a. merging madness). I hadn't been involved in an accident in 17 years. I guess the moral of the story is... be careful the comments you make. Gardner

I realize that I hijacked this thread (to a degree) last thursday, but... just as a follow-up to my inflammatory repost of an Atlanta Journal/Constitution article regarding the word "evolution" being removed from Georgia schools curriculum, I am posting another article that appeared in today's edition. IMHO, her actions could safely be called political suicide. We'll see if the voters agree next go-around. -Gardner ___begin article___ Cox will recommend 'evolution' stay in curriculum By MARY MACDONALD Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday she will recommend that the word evolution be retained in Georgia's proposed curriculum for middle and high school science. "I made the decision to remove the word evolution from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself," Cox said in a statement. "Instead, a greater controversy ensued." Cox had proposed the phrase "biological changes over time," a term that scientists derided as meaningless, be used instead. "I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation and I want to apologize for that. I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word 'evolution' be put back in the curriculum," she said. Her decision followed a week of withering criticism from a variety of sources, including university professors, the National Science Teachers Association and even former President Jimmy Carter. The superintendent's office received about 900 to 1,000 online responses to the curriculum changes, most of it directed at the biology proposal, a spokesman said. "We have heard from the people of Georgia," said Cox's spokesman, Kirk Englehardt. "We've been receiving feedback from everywhere." Controversy over the teaching of evolution surfaced afterreports that Cox proposed eliminating the word "evolution" from the middle and high school science standards. The proposal is part of a massive revision of state curriculum. Cox explained that she regarded "evolution" as a buzzword that causes negative reaction in communities, enough to derail teachers' attempts to teach the major components of biology. She identified "intelligent design" as another acceptable scientific theory about the origin of life. Cox plans to reconvene the teacher and science advisory panels that had worked on the proposed standards sometime this month, earlier than she had initially proposed. Cox made no statement on her decision to not include in the biology proposal several national standards for evolution instruction that many scientists say are critical for students to understand it. Those standards, culled from the American Association for the Advancement of Science benchmarks, include the explanation for natural selection and statements about the origins of life on Earth such as "life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago." Englehardt said the superintendent plans to put that issue before the curriculum advisory panels. At least one scientist hailed Cox's reversal on the word "evolution." "I am glad she came to her senses," said Jung Choi, associate professor of biology at Georgia Tech Thursday morning. "I expected she would. What I am concerned about is whether she will go on the other side and include creation science and intelligent design [in the curriculum], the so-called alternative theories that she has mentioned before." Choi said it is essential students study evolution before reaching college. "I think it is critical because biology does not really make sense without evolution. It is the very first topic that we cover in freshman biology. There's too many students that come to Georgia Tech that have not studied evolution before." Previously, Cox had said her proposed biology curriculum would allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution such as "intelligent design." She did not clarify that position Thursday. Intelligent design holds that living things are too complex and diverse to have evolved through random mutation. Its proponents argue instead that life on Earth resulted from a purposeful design by a higher intelligence. The proposed biology curriculum draws on national standards, but includes a truncated version of required knowledge for students on evolution. ___eof___

I was quoted $5000 for a ~300' freestander. This didn't include disassembly, transportation and reassembly. I've seen postings on towerdog listservs informing people of the existence of towers for tear-down. Basically, if you can take it down, you can have it. We'd need some land... We have some industrious riggers and tower dogs among our ranks, I think. Community effort? Hell, we could sell tickets to people to come watch to pay for it. Gardner P.S. My dream home is a 1/3 scale model of the Blankosphere... you'd be like the jetsons... Jane Jetson would help the kids don their rigs for school... stand on the hatch - poof! 2 sec. delay.. pitch.. land by the school bus stop. George dons his rig and lands by the Moeller Skycar. Doesn't hurt to dream. Can you imagine the ridiculous parties you could have with all of your BASE friends? Damn.. sounds like it's got bad idea written all over it. P.P.S. I'm aware of the home built on a water tower structer.. not the same.

if you've already watched it once and you're using Internet Exploiter, it'll be on your computer already in the temporary internet files folder. Probably the easiest way for me to tell you how is: from within IExploiter, click Tools, Internet Options, (general tab). Under Internet Settings, click the settings button, then click the View Files button on the dialog box that pops up next. You'll get a directory listing of all files in the tempinternetfiles folder. look for filename: SuperbowlBASE.mov right-click on it, click copy, then paste it into whatever folder you want to save it in. gardner P.S. helluva job by the crew.. Congratulations for taking 3 steps forward without the (apparently) requisite 2 steps back! YAY

Have you read Zell Miller's latest? A National Party No More? If not, see Chapter 18 for comfort/shared views on education reform. ...wish he'd stick around a little longer... -Gardner

just curious... what do you mean by sills? Rubber molding (er... moulding) around the windows? seals? as in front seal/rear seal? shaft seal? I mean.. you call it a boot fer crise sake. It's a trunk! I guess you're pretty good at turning a spanner. lol I suppose you've tried all of the owner's associations/clubs?? http://www.auto-makesnmodels.com/Alfa_Romeo_Clubs.html good luck Gardner

Well, I just hit the National Center for Science Education's website and found this (though it doesn't address your question entirely): Missouri House Bill Also found this: Ohio I'll spend a little more time and figure them all out and come back to update when I have less to do; there isn't an apparent handy list of the rogue states. Gardner P.S. just ran across this from Press Background: "Attempts to change the role of evolution in science standards, as happened in Kansas in 1999. Some attempts are more successful than others. In recent years, there was a significant amount of opposition (by the public and/or state Board of Education members) to inclusion of evolution in science education standards in: Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho and Kentucky, among others."

Since you're talking about education... and ways to fix it (fix as in restore/cure - not as to make firm, stable, or stationary), check out this mind-boggling bit of dim-witted poly-correctivity: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html I'm posting a transcript here as this will be moved to pay-only status after a few days. Maybe you don't care to have this much bandwidth wasted, but I guess it's better than a bunch of boobie pics. _____begin____ Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools Revised curriculum plan outrages science teachers By MARY MacDONALD The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class. New middle and high school science standards proposed by state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time," a revision critics say will further weaken learning in a critical subject. Outraged teachers already have told the state it is undercutting the science education of young Georgians. "Just like any major issue people need to deal with, you need to know the facts," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University. A member of the committee that worked on the biology standards, Bechler said he was stunned to learn that evolution was not in the final proposal. "Whether you believe in creationism or not, evolution should be known and understood by the public," he argued. Cox declined requests for an interview on the issue. A spokesman issued a statement Wednesday that said: "The discussion of evolution is an age-old debate and it is clear that there are those in Georgia who are passionate on both sides of the issue -- we want to hear from all of them." Cox, a Republican elected to the state's top public school position in 2002, addressed the issue briefly in a public debate during the campaign. The candidates were asked about a school dispute in Cobb County over evolution and Bible-based teachings on creation. Cox responded: "It was a good thing for parents and the community to stand up and say we want our children exposed to this [creationism] idea as well. . . . I'd leave the state out of it and I would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories." Gateway course Biology is a gateway course to future studies of the life sciences. And scientists consider evolution the basis for biology, a scientific explanation for the gradual process that has resulted in the diversity of living things. If the state does not require teachers to cover evolution thoroughly, only the most politically secure teachers will attempt to do so, said Wes McCoy, a 26-year biology teacher at North Cobb High School. Less experienced teachers will take their cue from the state requirements, he said. "They're either going to tread very lightly or they're going to ignore it," McCoy said. "Students will be learning some of the components of evolution. They're going to be missing how that integrates with the rest of biology. They may not understand how evolution explains the antibiotic resistance in bacteria." The state curriculum does not preclude an individual public school system from taking a deeper approach to evolution, or any other topic. And the proposed change would not require school systems to buy new textbooks that omit the word. But Georgia's curriculum exam, the CRCT, will be rewritten to align with the new curriculum. And the state exam is the basis for federal evaluation, which encourages schools and teachers to focus on teaching the material that will be tested. A year in the works The revision of Georgia's curriculum began more than a year ago as an attempt to strengthen the performance of students by requiring greater depth on essential topics. The new curriculum will replace standards adopted in 1984 that have been criticized by many educators as shallow. The state Board of Education is expected to vote on the revised curriculum in May. The Georgia Department of Education based its biology curriculum on national standards put forth by a respected source, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But while the state copied most of the national standards, it deleted much of the section that covers the origin of living things. A committee of science teachers, college professors and curriculum experts was involved in reviewing the proposal. The state did not specify why the references to evolution were removed, and by whom, even to educators involved in the process. Terrie Kielborn, a middle school science teacher in Paulding County who was on the committee, recalled that Stephen Pruitt, the state's curriculum specialist for science, told the panel not to include the word evolution. "We were pretty much told not to put it in there," Kielborn said. The rationale was community reaction, she said. "When you say the word evolution, people automatically, whatever age they are, think of the man-monkey thing," Kielborn said. Pruitt could not be reached Wednesday for comment. Cox released the state's proposed new curriculum on Jan. 12 and invited comments on all subject areas for the next three months from parents, teachers and students. She described the new curriculum as world-class and said it provides clear direction to teachers for the first time on what will be expected of students. Backlash a result The biology revision was eagerly awaited by a strongly organized network of scientists, university professors and classroom teachers. Several teachers and professors say they are pleased the state adopted large sections of the national standards, which include a strengthened explanation of the nature of science, the function and structure of cells and genetics. But the treatment of evolution prompted a backlash. More than 600 Georgians, including professors and teachers, by Wednesday had signed an online petition challenging the curriculum as misguided. If Georgia approves the revised curriculum, the state will be among six that avoid the word "evolution" in science teaching, according to the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that advocates for evolution instruction. Many other states, including North Carolina and South Carolina, have adopted national standards that cover evolution in detail. The word "evolution" itself is important because it is a scientific term, said Sarah Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University. "Students need to know the language of science," she said. "They don't need to know euphemisms. It's just silly." The proposed changes in the Georgia curriculum would leave students with tremendous gaps when they reach college, Pallas said. "The students from other states always perform better in my classes, and that's a real indictment of the state educational system," the professor said. "North Carolina, another very conservative state, adopted all of the benchmarks. If they can do it in North Carolina, why can't Georgia do it?" Debate over how and whether to teach evolution has divided communities and states for years. In metro Atlanta, the Cobb County school system became the center of national attention in 2002 after it placed disclaimers about evolution in science textbooks and adopted a policy that could have allowed discussion of alternate views in science class. The Cobb superintendent defused the dispute by issuing guidelines for teachers that told them to stick to the state curriculum. _______________ In the words of Sheriff Buford T. Justice, "What the hell is the world comin' to?" -Gardner

My babies... Abigail (9) and Amelia (7mos) Gardner

meeeeyowwwwww. captive pussy... gotta love it ;) sorry tom... couldn't help myself. Gardner