C'mon, PARACHUTIST Editors...

[Airman1270 0]

Sigh.

That's my letter in the October issue. I was describing the effect the "...equipment nazies, the mandatory AAD nazies, and the currency nazies..." is having on the sport. The editor changed the word "nazies" to "fanatics."

I've been published several hundred times in various newspapers and magazines, including a few full-length columns. I'm no stranger to the editing process, and don't take this stuff personally. I understand the need to edit for space and/or clarity.

Part of my letter was cut for space purposes. No problem. But my original language was crystal clear, and made the point very well. The final version sort of muddied the water a bit. (What, after all, is an equipment fanatic? Don't we all agree that having equipment is good, especially if we want to make more than one jump?)

A fanatic is someone who is enthusiastic about something. A nazi does not just make suggestions; he rules with an iron fist. There is a world of difference between saying "I use an AAD and think you should too" and "You MUST have an AAD to jump at my DZ."

The rest of the letter makes the point: These people are hurting, not helping the sport.

Sometimes I think the editors are unduly influenced by Washington's overall liberal, feel-good politically-correct climate. It has slowly dawned on me that there seems to be a specific effort to highlight foreign jumpers, events, DZ's, etc. As many of these overseas DZ's require AAD's and ban older rigs, perhaps the leadership is wary of "offending" them by allowing members to use strong words while criticizing their policies.

Then again, I might be wrong. Anyway, I appreciate their publishing my stuff, but I wish the magazine did not appear to worship at the altar of "diversity" and take on a PEOPLE magazine aura.

Cheers anyway,
Jon S.

[BigSky 2]

Maybe the word they were looking for was "Facioust" and not "fanatics."

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[steveorino 7]

Maybe because you mispelled "Nazis"

steveOrino

[indyz 1]

I agree that "fanatic" was the wrong word to use, but "nazi" is such a loaded word that I'm not surprised that any editor, at any publication, would use it unless absolutely necessary. "Fascist" would have made the same point, without all of the associated ickiness.

Quote

Sometimes I think the editors are unduly influenced by Washington's overall liberal, feel-good politically-correct climate. It has slowly dawned on me that there seems to be a specific effort to highlight foreign jumpers, events, DZ's, etc. As many of these overseas DZ's require AAD's and ban older rigs, perhaps the leadership is wary of "offending" them by allowing members to use strong words while criticizing their policies.

I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is none.

[riggerrob 558]

The problem is that the word "Nazi" is "politically incorrect" these days ....
.... as in "I will vote for the Canadian Nazi Party before I will vote for the New Democratic Party.

Next time, try using the word "fascist."

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

...without all of the associated ickiness.

Somehow, I think it takes a very sweet person to refer to Nazis as "icky"

Kevin

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[dharma1976 0]

they shoudl have changed it to Bushies and that woudl have caused a nother can of worms

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[AFFI 0]

Nazis were responsible for one of the most horrific atrocities ever inflicted against mankind. They attempted to and were nearly successful at a full out genocide against a peaceful sect of human beings!

I hardly believe that someone imposing a mandatory AAD requirement can be compared to a Nazi. For me, I do not see a good use of the term Nazi for the majority of everyday communication.


Seems like this is another BONFIRE issue posted in the wrong forum...

-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[DJL 232]

I think it's just impolite to Nazis to associate them with fanatical canopy restrictions and overbearing AAD regulation. Seriously, haven't they already gotten enough of a bad rap?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nazis were responsible for one of the most horrific atrocities ever inflicted against mankind. They attempted to and were nearly successful at a full out genocide against a peaceful sect of human beings!

I hardly believe that someone imposing a mandatory AAD requirement can be compared to a Nazi. For me, I do not see a good use of the term Nazi for the majority of everyday communication.

aye, I aww no problem with their decision to reword it. I don't think you lose any of the intended message with the change, either.

Safety nazi is the worst of oxymorons. Those people want to take away all your choices in order to save your life. Not at all like the real ones.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

I'm no stranger to the editing process, and don't take this stuff personally.

Your post seems to indicate just the opposite.

Quote

But my original language was crystal clear, and made the point very well.

Knowing that the term "nazi" is an emotionaly and politically charged descriptive, you should have realized it would at least offend 1 person and potentially bring heat on the magazine for using it. It could be argued that you could of choosen an equaly powerful descriptive that would of conveyed your point without adding the additional baggage that the word nazi brings with it.

If there is anyone who is opposed to all the PC bullshit nowadays it is me. However, one must recognize the environment,their target audience, and adjust accordingly if you wish for your message to be heard. If you look at it from the magazines perspective of why it was a good thing to change that word, it makes perfect sense.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[skrovi 0]

no soup for you

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

no soup for you

Exactly. Ever since Seinfeld's The Soup Nazi, North American lexicon has had a sort of acceptance of the term "[fill in the blank] nazi" to describe someone like...well, like the Soup Nazi. I freely admit to being a spelling and grammar nazi - haven't we had threads on that? To me, it's obvious that's the spirit in which "safety nazi" was being said.

I write & publish, too, and I don't like being edited that way, either. But it comes with the territory. You gotta let it roll off your back.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

a spelling and grammar nazi

Is a "spelling and grammar nazi" someone who murders every other person they can find in the world that does not pay attention to the details when they are composing the written word? Well, along with the Jews, homosexuals, elderly and crippled as well as every non member of their superior race?
Jeez, I betta nut maek anie miztakes wen riting den...


Just curious is all…

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Is a "spelling and grammar nazi" someone who murders every other person they can find in the world that does not pay attention to the details when they are composing the written word?

Hmm. Not really, I guess. We just want to murder them. I think we should be praised for our self-control.

[mrGuy 0]

Not a big deal...to you it is, of course...but I think it was a good letter, and you made your point.

I say "smoking Nazis" all the time and nobody but the smoking nazis themselves seem to have a problem with it.

• Quote

[Pubwoof 0]

Quote

Sometimes I think the editors are unduly influenced by Washington's overall liberal, feel-good politically-correct climate.

Let me get this straight. If the editors of a non-governmental organization's magazine prefer you not call private business owners "nazies" (sic) because they excercise their non-government-mandated right to require an AAD, this means they kneel before the altar of "diversity"? Have you paid any attention whatsoever to the cultural climate of Washington in the last decade or so? Exactly which branch of government or building on K street do you believe is dominated by anything remotely liberal anymore?

Please, if you wish to make nonsensical ad hominem attacks, have the respect for yourself and for the rest of us to at least bother to know what the hell you are talking about. If you think DZOs shouldn't be allowed to require whatever the hell they want, wouldn't this put you on the side of more regulation and, ergo, bigger government? If you're willing to throw such a big temper tantrum because somebody didn't want to repeat your grade-school name calling, why don't you just take your crayons and go home?

The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

[Airman1270 0]

...Please, if you wish to make nonsensical ad hominem attacks, have the respect for yourself and for the rest of us to at least bother to know what the hell you are talking about. If you think DZOs shouldn't be allowed to require whatever the hell they want, wouldn't this put you on the side of more regulation and, ergo, bigger government? If you're willing to throw such a big temper tantrum because somebody didn't want to repeat your grade-school name calling, why don't you just take your crayons and go home?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wow. "Temper tantrum?" Yes, the kettle is indeed black.

Many, many good points being made in this thread. It's no surprise the editors would be wary of using the word, but there's a different standard between using it freely in an article vs. allowing a reader to use it in a letter.

Yes, requiring an AAD or forcing an experienced jumper to pay for "recurrency training" after a few months off is far from mass murder. "Nazi" is a harsh word used to illustrate the enforcement of unnecessary regulation. In this context it was quite effective. Someone may be offended by the word; I'm offended that they're telling me I can't skydive safely without jumping through their short-sighted regulatory hoops.

"Fascist" didn't occur to me, in part because I've never bothered to understand the precise definition of the word. We hear it frequently in political debate, but the people using it usually cannot define it if you ask them to do so.

No conspiracy accusations here, just the belief that the people involved spend much time in an atmosphere where political correctness dominates the landscape. This is the sort of culture that has littered the national vocabulary with such linguistic roadblocks as "congresswoman," "spokesperson," "firefighter," "African American," "servicemen and women," etc.
Besides, I think I said that I wasn't sure and could be wrong.

I support the right of business owners (not just DZO's) to run their businesses as they see fit, and am not only opposed to more regulation but think we should roll back many existing regulations.

Whether it's a law or just a DZ policy, the effect is the same: I can't jump there. Requiring AAD's is shortsighted and is hurting the sport by preventing some people from participating, as well as creating a mind-set among newer jumpers that failure to use an AAD is dangerous. These are the people who will be opening their own DZ's in a few years. Since all they know is life with mandatory AAD's, they will likely carry on the trend. This will make it more difficult, as time goes on, for people like me to participate.

I gave some thought to posting in "Bonfire," but decided this forum would suffice. This is the part where I trust the moderators to make a correction if necessary. No blatant attempt to flout the rules here, just possibly some poor judgement. Apologies available upon request.

Thanks all,
Jon

[kallend 1,621]

Get over it.

I had a letter published last month and it was edited more substantially than yours. That's what editors do. I didn't come on here and WHINE about it.

If you don't like it, don't send letters to magazines.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Get over it.

I had a letter published last month and it was edited more substantially than yours. That's what editors do. I didn't come on here and WHINE about it.

If you don't like it, don't send letters to magazines.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Relax. It was just an observation.

Jon

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

That's my letter in the October issue.

October issue of what? Readers Digest?

Quote

I've been published several hundred times in various newspapers and magazines, including a few full-length columns.

If that was meant to empress you can see that didn’t work. If you are that familiar with having your work published, why are you surprised that it was edited to meet the publications guidelines? (whatever publication you were talking about)

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[wildcard451 0]

What the fuck? How did I get into SC? Surely I thought this was the bonfire.

Oh, yeah, btw, to the OP. Suck it up cupcake. You're not special and neither is your writing.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

That's my letter in the October issue.

October issue of what? Readers Digest?

Quote

I've been published several hundred times in various newspapers and magazines, including a few full-length columns.

If that was meant to empress you can see that didn’t work. If you are that familiar with having your work published, why are you surprised that it was edited to meet the publications guidelines? (whatever publication you were talking about),,,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No intent to impress, just to allow the reader to better understand my perspective. It's not like the guy who almost never writes and gets his first letter published, then freaks out because it wasn't exactly the way he wrote it.

Frankly, PARACHUTIST has treated me very well over the years. I have few complaints. Overall, I wasn't taken completely by surprise by the editor's decision, but thought it unecessary given the context in which my comments were made. That's all. It's the kind of "oh, by the way..." comment I'd have made to a group of friends hanging out at the picnic table over a sunset beer.

Some of the people responding seem to think I'm far more bothered than I really am. I think it's funny. While I think the original text would have communicated the thought very well, I'm not wandering the streets at night pushing my stuff in a shopping cart, muttering and drooling on myself over the matter.

And you're right: I did not clarify exactly which publication we were discussing. My error.

Cheers again,
Jon

• Quote