Re: [nicknitro71] Fatality - IL - 26 July 2006

[notaccountable 0]

Specifics about hosing down the truck and subsequent biohazard treatment of the blood-sodden ground are part of the aftermath of the accident, and are legitimate aspects of the discussion. Mentioning them is a matter-of-fact recognition of some ramifications of what happened, acknowledging the potentially traumatic after-effects for those who witnessed it and the onus for those responsible for the clean-up process. To criticize and attempt to censor references to such details obstructs and detracts from the purpose — and usefulness — of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future.
__________________________________________________

You have misunderstood my rebuttal to your earlier statement. I am not about censorship. I live in a free country, with little censorship so I have no case to argue with that point.

You made the statement about

"of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future."

Please explain to me how someone who chooses to hang around well after the incident to watch this process and sharing it with others will achieve the goal of this forum as you've defined it. I fail to see this point.

With relation to Bill; I've read his "surviving the WFFC" articLe. I found it very informative and educational, but my concern is more in the title. "Surviving"? It seems to be a derogatory comment in it's own right. If you would like to increase your chances of survival it seems you would continue to do some of the same things you've done and been trained to do your entire skydiving life, I don't think it's some black hole that sucks people in, Up is still up, and down is still down. This would pertain to ANY venue anywhere.

You seem to be a very insightful and pleasant person. This sport could use more people like you.

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[anita 0]

Quote

>Actually, he was at WFFC in Rantoul last year, so it wasn't a
>new and unfamiliar boogie environment for him.

Bad phrasing on my part. A less-familiar environment. I don't even consider Rantoul "familiar" to me, because I jump there at most 10 days a year.

Yes, i see your point, Bill. Sorry for splitting hairs.

<3 anita

[Ron 7]

RON - ENOUGH!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Thanatos340 1]

I posted this earlier and it was lost in the deletion of several Threads. BillVon has sent it back to me so that I can repost it.
*******************

You compared the WFFC to the "Vegas" of Skydiving. I agree that is what it used to be. But not the past couple years.

The crowds are not there anymore. The madness that was Quincy is not there like it was before. but you refuse to believe this because you still have vision of what the convention used to be like. The “Vegas” of skydiving as you put it. Now it is more like the “Indian Reservation Casino” of Skydiving.

Have I seen People Land against the Pattern there?? Yes. Just like I have seen at every other Boogie I have ever been too.

Do people Swoop the main landing area there. Some do.. But not as many as I have seen at other places. It happens there just like every other DZ I have been to.

It seems clear that no matter what, there is a large group of Respected Jumpers on here that are going to bash the WFFC every chance they get even though they havent been in years.

In this case.. a Guy made a Low Hook turn and died. Unfortunately, This happens at least once a month in this sport. At Home DZ`s, Competitions, Small Boogies and now it has happened at Rantoul. The sad reality is that within 30 days it is going to happen again somewhere else. The incidents forum is full of these accidents. Most say the same thing.. He wasnt a show off.. He normally didn’t do that. He was a safe swooper..

I completely agree that he should not have been swooping in the main landing area. But this exact same things happens at every DZ I have been to in the past couple years. We should address this problem and more aggressively stop jumpers from doing this. It puts us all in danger. But in no way is this just a WFFC problem. In fact I saw less of it at Rantoul than I saw at other boogies.

This thread is now going in circles and turned into a bunch of pointless name calling. I apologize for starting it. "Know it all Skygod" was a poor choice on my part.. But it was the term that best described someone that chose to criticize an event they haven’t been to many years and justify their criticisms with their Jump numbers as opposed to first hand knowledge.

Ron: I normally completely respect your opinions and have found great insight and knowledge in many of your past posts.. But on this issue, Bashing an event that you haven’t been to such a long time.. it is hard to give you the same credibility.

Again.. I do apologize for the Skygod Comment.

I am in no way suggesting that the WFFC is a SAFE place. No Large Boogie is a Safe place. I am just saying that it is no where near as bad as many here would like to make it out ot be.

[billvon 2,434]

>but my concern is more in the title. "Surviving"? It seems to
>be a derogatory comment in it's own right.

I used it because people die there, every single year (with very few exceptions.) The trick is making sure you're not that person - which is what the article addressed. I'd like to think that we can just eliminate the fatalities, but we've been trying for a long time now, and no luck yet.

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

You made the statement about

"of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future."

Please explain to me how someone who chooses to hang around well after the incident to watch this process and sharing it with others will achieve the goal of this forum as you've defined it. I fail to see this point.

Simply stated, it brings to attention the effect it has on the people who were there, which subsequently affects the community in general. If the spiritually damaging effects are what it takes to galvanize people into action, then let's not sweep it into obscurity. As i said, the people around Tent 3 — and anyone using those port-a-potties — had to contend with the vestiges of physical evidence from the fatality that were still visible. It has an impact on people — even the ones who were not "hanging around" because of "morbid curiosity" (as you referred to it earlier), and that impact, in turn, produces a lingering effect on the morale of the skydiving community at large.

To take this to a personal level, i'll divulge a thought process that has some bearing on this. I have been known to say that i'd rather die jumping than wasting away in a hospital or just vegetating at home because my body has become too old and decrepit to still be jumping (may the powers that be forbid that). And i confess, i still feel that way. I know ... it's a cavalier attitude, and we're all aware that fatalities are a very bad thing for the skydiving community — in terms of emotional/psychological trauma as well as the negative impact on public relations with the non-skydiving world — but i admit that i'm not above having selfish thoughts at times. I truly would rather die doing something i love — such as jumping (and there aren't too many other things i love doing that are conducive to creating conditions for dying while engaging in them) — as it would be far more preferable than dying via those other options i mentioned.

However — having said that — i'll also disclose that the *rational* part of my mind would really prefer that i NOT die jumping, because fatalities are so damaging to the morale of the skydiving community, and they inflict such horrendous spiritual burdens and ghastly after-effects on witnesses, bystanders, survivors, as well as medical and clean-up personnel. And that's what i'm talking about when i say it's valid to acknowledge the nitty-gritty unpleasantries that are part of the aftermath of a fatality. Perhaps it can help spur people into action toward trying to find ways to crack down (sorry for the hard-nosed phraseology) on the cause(s) of these types of preventable incidents. Or to re-state it using the wording you quoted from my earlier post: to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future.

Quote

Quote

With relation to Bill; I've read his "surviving the WFFC" articLe. I found it very informative and educational, but my concern is more in the title. "Surviving"? It seems to be a derogatory comment in it's own right. If you would like to increase your chances of survival it seems you would continue to do some of the same things you've done and been trained to do your entire skydiving life, I don't think it's some black hole that sucks people in, Up is still up, and down is still down. This would pertain to ANY venue anywhere.

On one certain level (maybe semantic?), i can see your point about the title, while on another level, the basic goal of "Surviving" skydiving—in and of itself—is a key factor in what we do, don't you think? To me, Bill's article is more along the lines of the mentality behind "Safety Day" procedures, with emphasis on precautionary measures we can take to try and protect ourselves, and i don't think too many people—including you (i imagine)—would consider "Safety Day" principles as being negative or derogatory.

And lastly, thanks for the compliment.


pax,
<3 anita

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

In fact I had fun at the conventions I did go to...But that does not mean there was not increased danger there than at my home DZ...A concept you ignore.

Ron, i know you directed that statement at "notaccountable" — but — it seems to me that you're missing (or ignoring) the point that so many of us have already acknowledged, namely: that safety levels at your home DZ are not going to be existent at ANY boogie, whether it's WFFC or some other boogie event. From what i've been seeing here, "notaccountable" is NOT ignoring that concept. So yes, there is increased danger at any boogie as compared to a typical day at your local home DZ, but why do you keep harping on that, as if were feasible to expect a boogie to achieve the safety levels of local home DZs? Even the WFFC detractors (or most of them, at least) have conceded that ALL boogies are more dangerous than a local home DZ environment, so why do you keep insisting on bashing WFFC because it's not as safe as your local home DZ?

Quote

Quote

And I think maybe your level of safety is questionable...From YOU:

"In 95' I was driving to Las Vegas from Eloy. I got bored and took a break by stopping at a bridge (Burrow Creek). I decided to tie off my reserve free bag and take my chances(skydiving rig). I had no idea how high the bridge was or how fast my reserve would open"

Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something?

pax tibi,
<3 anita

[Ron 7]

Quote

The crowds are not there anymore. The madness that was Quincy is not there like it was before. but you refuse to believe this because you still have vision of what the convention used to be like. The “Vegas” of skydiving as you put it. Now it is more like the “Indian Reservation Casino” of Skydiving.

Thats kinda funny

I do agree that the WFFC is smaller than it was. I will even agree that the parties are not like they were. I know this from people who did go.

So the convention is SAFER than it was, but that does not mean that there are not still dangers there.

This ia an example right here :"In this case.. a Guy made a Low Hook turn and died. Unfortunately, This happens at least once a month in this sport. At Home DZ`s, Competitions, Small Boogies and now it has happened at Rantoul. The sad reality is that within 30 days it is going to happen again somewhere else. The incidents forum is full of these accidents. Most say the same thing.. He wasnt a show off.. He normally didn’t do that. He was a safe swooper.. "

But if he normally did not do that....Then why did he do that here, more than once according to a few reports?

This is what I am getting at...I listed these things before and even stated that they apply to ALL boggies, the longer and more people there the more the danger level increases. People ignored that and thought I was just jumping on the convention...But here they are again.

1. Un-familiar area. It is a well know risk factor to jump at a different DZ that is unknown. My thoughts: No one is a local at the WFFC. It is not a DZ the other 350 days of the year, and I would not consider having been to a DZ last year as being familiar.

2. Many days...Most boogies seem to be weekend affairs. This one is 10 days. I know how I feel after several days of jumping...I KNOW my awareness level has dropped some after my 4th day. When training we often take the 4th day off due to it. At a 10 day boogie I could understand some people will be weary and tired.

3. Boogies often get people to jump outside their comfort zone. Not just here, but all boogies and even some regular DZ's all the time.

Now can we agree that those three could be danger factors?

Now my only point is that since the convention is so big, draws so many people, and is so long...That those factors are more in play than a 3 day boogie at ANY DZ. Or any boogie that is smaller.

I am not trying to bash the convention...I am pointing out what I see to be potential danger areas. The convention has ALWAYS been controversial. Some love it, others hate it, and it has been that way for as long as I have been jumping.

Quote

I am in no way suggesting that the WFFC is a SAFE place. No Large Boogie is a Safe place. I am just saying that it is no where near as bad as many here would like to make it out ot be.

And I just want people to really understand that and know WHY it is not as safe. Then they can make an educated choice, not just buy into the hype from EITHER side. I know there are people that hate the convention no matter what it does, just as some blindly love it no matter what.

Some people claim it is just as safe as their home DZ....That just is not true.

I enjoy our talks...I agree the convention is not what it used to be no doubt, no argument. However, I still see how the danger level is higher than most other boogies, due to the things I mentioned and the overall scope of the convention.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ron, i know you directed that statement at "notaccountable" — but — it seems to me that you're missing (or ignoring) the point that so many of us have already acknowledged, namely: that safety levels at your home DZ are not going to be existent at ANY boogie, whether it's WFFC or some other boogie event

Some frankly DO ignore that is more dangerous than a home DZ of even a local boogie. I just don't get how people can not understand that.

1. Its no ones home DZ.
2. It is a LONG event.
3. It is LARGE and therfore more people to make mistakes.
4. People push the envelope when at boogies more it seems

I don't think the convention is evil...But the factors above do make it more dangerous than a 2 day weekend boogie at an otter DZ with over half the folks there being regulars.

Quote

"In 95' I was driving to Las Vegas from Eloy. I got bored and took a break by stopping at a bridge (Burrow Creek). I decided to tie off my reserve free bag and take my chances(skydiving rig). I had no idea how high the bridge was or how fast my reserve would open"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something?

One of his other posts...In that post he was defending Peek. So this guy has less than 13 post and ALL are in defense of the WFFC, or one of the leads of the convention.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[notaccountable 0]

In Reply To
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I think maybe your level of safety is questionable...From YOU:

"In 95' I was driving to Las Vegas from Eloy. I got bored and took a break by stopping at a bridge (Burrow Creek). I decided to tie off my reserve free bag and take my chances(skydiving rig). I had no idea how high the bridge was or how fast my reserve would open"

------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------

Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something?
__________________________________________________

First of all please note the date of the stupidity, second of all you did not copy the rest of the posting stating that it was one of the dumbest things I've ever done.

The name I'm posting with is a play on words. It seems that so few people are accountable for their actions in this sport. It was meant to be an attention getter.

If me sharing this situation leads you to question my concerns for safety, then for that I'm sorry. My intentions are pure.
__________________________________________________
On one certain level (maybe semantic?), i can see your point about the title, while on another level, the basic goal of "Surviving" skydiving—in and of itself—is a key factor in what we do, don't you think? To me, Bill's article is more along the lines of the mentality behind "Safety Day" procedures, with emphasis on precautionary measures we can take to try and protect ourselves, and i don't think too many people—including you (i imagine)—would consider "Safety Day" principles as being negative or derogatory.
__________________________________________________

I do not recall "Safety Day" being labeled "Surviving Skydiving Day". Do you feel that if the same information was provided, yet having a different name could put a negative spin on the topic at hand? Maybe I see this wrong. It was just my perception when reading the information provided. I like and agree with most of the content. I also thank Bill for taking the time and caring enough about this sport to present his article.

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[notaccountable 0]

I used it because people die there, every single year (with very few exceptions.) The trick is making sure you're not that person - which is what the article addressed. I'd like to think that we can just eliminate the fatalities, but we've been trying for a long time now, and no luck yet.
__________________________________________________

I do agree about eliminating the fatalities there as well as everywhere.

How can we, as a skydiving community, stop a person from doing a hook turn into a truck?

How can we stop someone from cutting away from a spinning mal and spend the rest of his life trying to get stable?

Do we just bash the event out of existence (as some have stated). If that were the case we would have very few dropzones to jump at.

It seems this event has been the subject of many debats, but few willing to make it a better/safer place to be.

Is it a mystical place that we must remove our heads prior to jumping or can we as a community (EVERYONE involved) work together to make it a safer place for people to jump.

Just a thought, but isn't the convention made up of skydivers for skydivers. It almost sounds like it's us against them, but who is the "them"? It's US.

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[Ron 7]

Quote

The name I'm posting with is a play on words. It seems that so few people are accountable for their actions in this sport. It was meant to be an attention getter.

And this is really funny. You are jumping all over me, and insulting me for trying to let people know of the potential dangers, yet make claims that I am not trying to promote safety. How does that work? Everything is OK except don't touch your sacred cow?

If you had really ever bothered to read my posts....You would see most of them are focused on safety. And that I am big fan of personal responsibility.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[notaccountable 0]

And this is really funny. You are jumping all over me, and insulting me for tying to let people know of the potential dangers, yet make claims that I am not trying to promote safety. How does that work? Everything is OK except don't touch your sacred cow?
__________________________________________________

You stated earlier the reasons the convention is so much more dangerous, but you only had one valid point. It does run for a longer time period. You've conceded that's it's not so much bigger than other boogies now days. By default you've conceded that jumping at a new or unfamiliar area is not to blame as a stand out to the convention because, by definition that is what a boogie is. Many people come from many other (home) dropzones to jump at a different dropzone (unfamiliar).

Maybe suggesting making the convention a shorter duration would make it justifibly just as dangerous and any other boogie, and not MORE dangerous?

Have you suggested this to anyone? Might be worth it for them to look into. Thanks for the input to help the convention, as well as other boogies safer, maybe determining the time of the boogie with degraded response times, and performance fatigue. I would agree with that.

By the way, I'm new to posting here, and the convention has just ended. Ever think that's why my posts are pertaining to the convention? Ponderous man, real Ponderous

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[anita 0]

To [Mr. / Ms.] "notaccountable":

I wasn't questioning your concerns about safety, only wondering what had been the source of that quote which Ron attributed to you, as i hadn't seen it before. And i admit, i was lazy and didn't go look up all your posts.

Quote

Quote

I do not recall "Safety Day" being labeled "Surviving Skydiving Day". Do you feel that if the same information was provided, yet having a different name could put a negative spin on the topic at hand? Maybe I see this wrong. It was just my perception when reading the information provided. I like and agree with most of the content. I also thank Bill for taking the time and caring enough about this sport to present his article.

As i said: semantics. In my perception, "safety" and "surviving" in skydiving are synonymous. (Ooooh, wasn't that deliciously alliterative??? Ooops, sorry, just having a little fun. I wasn't trying to alliterate, it just came out that way, and i noticed it afterward.) Anyway ... i imagine Bill used the title as an attention getter. That's a standard writing tool, and Bill's good at getting, and holding, people's attention — and that's a good thing, even if it means i ended up looking silly being saddled with responsibility for that long CASA spot the day of that naked jump with the Brazilians.


I think it's definitely worth grabbing people's attention for the sake of safety awareness at WFFC. That doesn't mean it makes sense — or offers jumpers anything of beneficial substance — to boycott or bash WFFC. I don't consider myself one of the people that Ron characterized as "blindly" loving the convention. I don't know if there's anybody who fits into that category. Maybe such people are only a figment of someone's imagination? I think most people are on the continuum somewhere between the two extremes of the spectrum mentioned (blindly loving it or blindly hating it, that is). It's important to be aware of all facets of the convention, rather than obsessively focusing on one element.

Have a lovely weekend, everyone!

pax tibi,
<3 anita

[billvon 2,434]

>How can we, as a skydiving community, stop a person from doing a
>hook turn into a truck?
>How can we stop someone from cutting away from a spinning mal
>and spend the rest of his life trying to get stable?

Both of those have easy dumb answers - ban hook turns and require RSL's.

The problem is minimizing fatalities _without_ taking draconian measures like the ones above. I think education is one very good way to do it - but unfortunately no one controls the education jumpers get. Some swoopers get education via Scott Miller, or JC Coclasure, or through a decent coach. Unfortunately, some get their 'education' through watching people do stupid things and get away with it 99 times out of 100. Who hasn't heard the old "What do you mean, a Sabre 135 at 50 jumps is a mistake? Jeffy over there jumped a Stiletto 135 at 50 jumps! You're a hypocrite for criticizing me!"

>Just a thought, but isn't the convention made up of skydivers
>for skydivers. It almost sounds like it's us against them, but who is
>the "them"? It's US.

"Them" is anyone who wants you to do something you don't want to do, or the people who you can blame for not doing something. At the WFFC I seem to alternate between "us" and "them" depending on who I'm talking to. I've occasionally gotten "why don't YOU PEOPLE do X, Y and Z?"

[notaccountable 0]

Both of those have easy dumb answers - ban hook turns and require RSL's.
__________________________________________________

I'm sure we both know what can of worms that can open. Who defines hook turns, 90, 180, 270? Maybe require AAD's on mains as well etc....
__________________________________________________

The problem is minimizing fatalities _without_ taking draconian measures like the ones above. I think education is one very good way to do it - but unfortunately no one controls the education jumpers get. Some swoopers get education via Scott Miller, or JC Coclasure, or through a decent coach. Unfortunately, some get their 'education' through watching people do stupid things and get away with it 99 times out of 100. Who hasn't heard the old "What do you mean, a Sabre 135 at 50 jumps is a mistake? Jeffy over there jumped a Stiletto 135 at 50 jumps! You're a hypocrite for criticizing me!"
__________________________________________________

I totally agree with you. It seems there is less and less leadership in these rolls. I believe the education of the safety in this sport is paramount.

Would it be too unthinkable to require jumper to pass a proficiency test of canopy flight before downsizing or swooping? I know this is a tough question between policing and freedom, but if freedom is killing our sport, maybe we do need some policing. I remember the days when ZP's came out, and you had to have a certain number of jumps to have one, then the higher performance ones required like 600 jumps, yet that kind of went away. You are still required to get a PRO rating to do certain demos; that hasn't gone away. More and more people are killing themselves under good canopies. The rsl thing, well maybe practice your emergency procedures more often? IF YOU CUT YOUR MAIN AWAY, PULL YOUR RESERVE HANDLE.

Our sport isn't growing like it was, and more skydivers are dying. Anyone for a two way, or pass the baton?

I've enjoyed chatting with you about this. It seems that you've been around for a long time, and continue to make efforts for the safety and future of our sport. Just a personal "thank you".

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[billvon 2,434]

>Would it be too unthinkable to require jumper to pass a
>proficiency test of canopy flight before downsizing or swooping?

Several of us have been pushing for this very thing for about three years now. We've written letters to USPA, met with the regional and national directors, and written articles here. We could make it optional at first, then mandatory only if that doesn't work, with ways to 'place out' if you're really good.

>The rsl thing, well maybe practice your emergency procedures more
>often? IF YOU CUT YOUR MAIN AWAY, PULL YOUR RESERVE HANDLE.

Right, but then you get someone else who says "you have to get stable after you cut away, or your reserve might malfunction!" - and then people start thinking that pulling your reserve handle might be a bad thing right after cutting away. Like I said before, education is great - but sometimes the wrong message gets across. We can all help try to prevent messages like that by being careful about the advice we give out.

[Ron 7]

Quote

By default you've conceded that jumping at a new or unfamiliar area is not to blame as a stand out to the convention because, by definition that is what a boogie is

The WFFC UNLIKE other boogies has *no locals* not one. Most other boogies have a large contingent of locals and preset rules. Those locals do not break those rules and many act as safety folks for the visiting jumpers...So please, do not assume I said something, or twist what I did say.

I clearly did not concede any of the things you claim.

Quote

Maybe suggesting making the convention a shorter duration would make it justifibly just as dangerous and any other boogie, and not MORE dangerous?

A shorter time at the boogie would be safer. However, instead of making the boogie shorter, I tend to suggest that people do not do the whole boogie and arrive during the week to get acclimated in a less hectic environment.

Quote

Have you suggested this to anyone?

Yep everyone I know that I don't think has that ability...Of course many times I get insulted...Kinda like you did earlier.

As for your other thought about me not caring for safety....Have you read any of my other posts yet? Also, about the Dallas jumper that is dangerous under canopy...Feel free to PM me his name...I bet I have talked to him once already....I have a rep as a guy that cares about safety even if you have not seen it.

For example your comment from above "Would it be too unthinkable to require jumper to pass a proficiency test of canopy flight before downsizing or swooping?"

Please see :http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1991585#1991585

This:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=869327#869327

And this:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1472310#1472310

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for discussing fatal or serious non-fatal incidents, not for criticizing the location where the incident occurred.

Thats because you do not seem to give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior. I think it does, and so do many others.

[anita 0]

What became of the post wherein the author described a swoop landing during which the swooper veered directly toward him (the person writing the post) while he was standing on the edge of the landing area? It's so bewildering when posts just disappear. I didn't think that one had stuff in it which justified getting deleted. But it's gone now, and i can't determine that for certain.


<3 anita

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's not true that i don't "give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior" — either you're not actually reading what i write, or you're exercising selective "hearing" when you do. I've repeatedly stated my belief that all boogie environments are more dangerous than typical everyday conditions at the local home DZ.

And I think that the convention being the biggest/longest/no locals makes it more dangerous than a local weekend boogie...You do not seem to think that, or choose to ignore it for some reason.

Quote

Unfortunately, some people's slanted emphasis on that fact in relation to WFFC is way out of proportion. I consider the negativity of these unrelenting smear campaigns to be opprobrious, and not healthful or beneficial for skydiving.

And I think you are blindly defending the convention, ignoring that it IS different than a local boogie, held over a shorter period of time, at a regular DZ. And I don't see blind love or defense of anything being beneficial to the sport either.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,434]

Ron, Notaccountable - last warning. Stop with the sniping. I don't care who started it.

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

And I think you are blindly defending the convention

Nope, not "blindly" — that's your opinion, which you phrase with scorn because my opinion is different from yours. I believe in looking at all the pros and cons. You seem fixated on only the cons.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Nope, not "blindly" — that's your opinion, which you phrase with scorn because my opinion is different from yours.

And your opinion that I am out to slander the convention is because my opinion is different than yours.

Quote

I believe in looking at all the pros and cons. You seem fixated on only the cons.

I believe in looking for the REASONS people get hurt. That is by definition negative. You seem to want to gloss over the potential dangers.

It seems we will just not agree...so maybe we should agree to just quit trying to convince the other.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe in looking for the REASONS people get hurt. That is by definition negative. You seem to want to gloss over the potential dangers.

I seem to want to gloss over the potential dangers? Now, that really is demonstrative of how little you're paying attention. During the past few days, i've referred extensively to the potential dangers. Discussion about this with you appears to be pointless due to your selective hearing.