Bob_Church

Oh yeh, it's like "Please, not THIS person." It can take a toll. Fortunately the people who got in trouble over the years at Seigfred were people I didn't like. That helps a LOT. Bob

The nudity part does get complicated, but the masturbation was seriously screwed up. The most difficult part of my job at the Art School was to put on a professionally detached look when standing next to some of the most beautiful young women in the world while they weren't wearing a stitch. (one of my frequent questions to one of the Fashion shooters was "how is it fashion if she isn't wearing anything") but one thing for sure is that the frequent nudity didn't make for a locker room attitude, if anything, the opposite. I'm not sure if that's a good explanation or not. As far as him asking I think that made it worse because I don't get the impression that he said "would it be ok" then waited. It comes across more as "I'm going to do this." And frankly, having some guy meet you for a supposed business meeting with no clothes on while jerking off is not normal, so what's next? I think he needs help. The head of the photojournalism department went too far, having young women meet him alone in the small private studio then pressuring them to get topless. If handled correctly students being models and posing nude was an every day thing. But it wasn't handled properly and he was not only fired but it was national news because he'd been somewhat famous. He went from King of the Hill to lower than snake shit.

A couple of us caught it at a little theater (Lascaux Micro-Theater) in Buchanan Wv and it was a great experience. Being that close to the bridge added to the atmosphere. It was a trip to see that face again. He was a helluva nice guy.

He's definitely not the shy type.

Ha! That era? The guy wearing jeans with the pull up larksheaded to his belt loop? That's me every weekend still! One big change I've noticed from the mid-90s on is that gear doesn't age the way it used to. I'm talking fashion wise, for lack of a better word. Up until then getting on the plane with five-year old gear would get you stares. I know, because I always had old junk. But since then things seem to have stabilized. My Quasar 2 is 20 years old this year but it doesn't look noticeably different from a new one.

No, Jason is a fighter pilot I know who would and could do that.

I'd bet real money that the pilot's name was Jason. I'm not saying any more though.

A lot of people escape the winter cold by going to Florida DZs. Jumpers from all over the world, in fact. It's quite an experience. If you get half a chance go to Zephyrhills or Deland or some place. It'll open up a whole new aspect of the sport and be lots of fun.

That's got to be it. I was thinking in terms of cables and stuntmen, but unlike the trailer the scene has no cuts, it's all the way from the roof to the pavement and that last smack looks so real.

And it just never seems to let go.

"I know it is not easy turning in a relative." That's a spooky statement.

Please explain a litle? He got drunk with some friends and they broke into a house. He mostly went along because of the girls, but then one of the girls wrote all of their names on a wall with lipstick. We're not talking Bonny and Clyde here. What's the story on the accidentally killed his best friend while cutting firewood thing? He was up the tree with a chainsaw. Steve was standing away from the tree. Then Larry cut a limb, then looked over and Steve wasn't over where he had been a moment before, he was under the limb. There was a lot of serious talk about Steve doing it on purpose.He had a lot of personal troubles and there was no reason for him to go over there then. Larry is the sort to blame himself for everything so that's what he did. If Steve did do it on purpose it was a prick move. He could have done it in a way that didn't ruin a good friend's life.

Please explain a litle? He got drunk with some friends and they broke into a house. He mostly went along because of the girls, but then one of the girls wrote all of their names on a wall with lipstick. We're not talking Bonny and Clyde here.

This isn't about skydiving, well, maybe a few seconds of it but I was wondering is anyone else had seen the movie "Live by Night" with Ben Affleck. It's not all that good a movie but early on they have the standard montage of deaths as two mobs battle it out.There's one scene that I just can't work out. They toss a guy off a roof and he lands in the street. But short of this being a variation on Dr Kevorkian's practice I can't see how they did the shot. There's no cut, at least none I can see. And clues?

"My brother was with some other people 35 years ago when he was 18 and one thing stolen was a gun." About two weeks earlier he'd accidentally killed his best friend while cutting firewood. He went a little nuts for awhile.

Labels make for easy laws, but not ones that work. That's been mostly the point of this whole discussion. My brother was with some other people 35 years ago when he was 18 and one thing stolen was a gun. Now he is a felon with a gun spec. But despite that he's able to buy guns and does. So on the one hand the label doesn't keep him from getting guns. On the other hand, being with some other 18 years old who robbed a house that happened to have a gun in it 35 years ago doesn't mean he's going to shoot up a Mall tomorrow. The label has nothing to do with who he is. Besides, he'd be a new risk, mass shooters in a wheelchair. No, he wan't crippled in a gun fight, but a motorcycle wreck. I know a lot of people that I think are scary with a gun but there's no law keeping them from it. No label. The label makes for an easy law which does absolutely nothing except make us feel like we've taken care of the problem. Until we get reminded again that it doesn't work. That lasts maybe two weeks, tops. What I've said is I can't picture any law that would work. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it'll take someone else to come up with it and we've proven pretty well that what we're doing isn't working. As for my brother, there are few people that I would suspect less of them hurting someone. Despite his label.

My brother is a felon who did two years for a gun related crime. He has an arsenal. Most people who aren't into guns have no idea how those who do like guns think, and of course the sheer number of guns. This obviously isn't anything like automobiles, in fact I can't think of anything it is like. But it's going to take some new and realistic thinking to do anything about gun violence. I confess that I have no idea what would work, but it seems obvious to me why the current laws don't. They just aren't realistic. Gun foes don't understand the reality of guns or how gun proponents think. And just to be clear, I don't mean that to be a criticism of gun owners, just what I think the reality of the situation is. So your brother is a convicted felon and has an arsenal by your own statement. Have you alerted the LEO's about this? It seems you are concerned about people that should not have guns having them. I would think home is a good place to start. Ok, you can sleep despite being that sort of a person. I couldn't.

The elect a sleezebag who made jokes about which women at SNL had given him a blowjob and now they're "Shocked, shocked, I tell you..."

"posted a while ago that the NRA is a great example of this. They're great at seemingly giving up concessions on limitations that are either unenforceable or make little to no difference in the overall scheme of gun violence while simultaneously getting huge political returns. " But for real power, think of this. The companies churning out guns as though they were cell phones and selling them while most of us no little or nothing about them. I suspect that the NRA is really working for them.

I would disagree with that statement too. But as I've said, I believe it's going to take some new thinking.

I have come to the conclusion that nothing that remotely limits the access or use of firearms will ever be acceptable to the gun rights side - nothing. It will have to be forced on them. I posted a while ago that the NRA is a great example of this. They're great at seemingly giving up concessions on limitations that are either unenforceable or make little to no difference in the overall scheme of gun violence while simultaneously getting huge political returns. I completely agree with your statement that I have no clue how people who like guns think. I posted a solution that would stop public mass murders entirely, while allowing people to own whatever type of and number of guns they wanted, while also being allowed the ability to use them for hunting, home defense or target shooting. The only limitation is that you wouldn't be able to use them in an unvetted public space... That was the ONLY limitation. You wouldn't be able to fire your gun in a mall, or school - it just wouldn't work. That would stop events like these almost completely. One of the only 2 responses I got - 'I wouldn't agree to anything that stops me from being able to shoot whenever and wherever I want'. Think about that... That shows me that there is no real limitation that can ever be acceptable - if people want the ability to shoot whenever and wherever they want (even if it's insane to have that right) then there is no chance of a real compromise solution. I agree with you, except that I think it's even worse. Pretend for a moment that the Second Amendment doesn't exist and for that matter neither does the NRA. You still have over 300 million guns, many of them in the hands of people who will fight to keep them. Remember, "cold dead fingers." Unlike a car in the garage there are guns in the dresser drawer under the sweaters, guns on shelves in the closet and in the glove box. Cars are difficult to hide and more importantly very few if any people have a deeply seated aversion to registering their car. What can you do about guns, even with the (for arguments sake) ability to pass any law you want? I can assure you that if you tried to just take guns you'd have a war on your hands.

My brother is a felon who did two years for a gun related crime. He has an arsenal. Most people who aren't into guns have no idea how those who do like guns think, and of course the sheer number of guns. This obviously isn't anything like automobiles, in fact I can't think of anything it is like. But it's going to take some new and realistic thinking to do anything about gun violence. I confess that I have no idea what would work, but it seems obvious to me why the current laws don't. They just aren't realistic. Gun foes don't understand the reality of guns or how gun proponents think. And just to be clear, I don't mean that to be a criticism of gun owners, just what I think the reality of the situation is.

Personally, I think the idea of so many Christians being perverts is like prison conversions. It isn't that so many Christians are pulling felonies, just that going to prison is when they convert. A guy I was jumping with since 1982 is now doing 12 to 40 for felonious stupidity with a 12 year old. Now he plays drums in the prison's Christian band.

Thanks for the info. I weight 175 and jump a 210 Hornet. I can remember, long ago, when calling a canopy High Performance meant that it probably WOULDN'T kill you. Another problem with downsizing too much (or at all) is that even if you don't get injured it can suck the fun out of the sport. I've seen at least one jumper quit because of it. Her boyfriend convinced her she needed to downsize if she wanted to be a real skydiver. After a few jumps on her new smaller canopy and mentioning how much it scared her she just sort of wondered away from the sport. She started finding other things she needed to do that weekend. Bob

I'm just curious about something, no offense, no big thing. But how did you decide that you would get to 190? Thanks Bob