Leaderboard

I think it's more that she represents a lot of things that the right dislikes. So she has to be deceitful somehow.

He thinks she's a man. One of the stupidest assumptions going around. There's a LOT of really stupid crap going around right now, so being at the top of that list takes some effort. It's abundantly clear that Ron's views have ZERO to do with the actual teachings of Jesus. He's got that 'I accepted Jesus as my personal savior, so I'm cool doing whatever the fuck I want and I'm "saved"' bullshit going on. Conveniently forgetting Matthew 25:40.

So I guess when they come up with a methane powered jump plane, the skydivers can provide the fuel on the way to altitude.

The C-130 has rear ramp/door controls in the cockpit.... That is is the most likely source for Cooper's "experience"... and error applying it to the 727.

Well, kale is a cultivar of wild cabbage, and we all know cultivars are the work of the devil.

A phoney what? I don’t think your moral worldview has much to do with Jesus.

It seems to me you are partly right; you do need you beliefs challenged but only as a vehicle to reinforce what you believe. As I see it, like other religionists, your beliefs form the core of your identity, hence they are unchangeable no matter the quality of the challenge.

Kinda depends on how one defines 'success'. In and around Vuhledar, Russia waged a pretty fierce tank battle. They lost. Depending on who you believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 tanks. Almost certainly over 100. Plus the various other vehicles, armored and not, that accompany that sort of thing. And a whole lot of troops too. Reports are saying that Russia sent the tanks into battle in column. Which virtually guaranteed their destruction. Reports are also saying that the Russian army is restructuring their armor troops into a 'new' configuration. Because they have to. Because they don't have the capability or the equipment to properly deploy them. Also in the 'success' file, the G20 held talks in Delhi. At that meeting, Foreign Minister Lavrov claimed that Ukraine attacked Russia. The audience laughed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/mar/04/g20-russia-foreign-minister-sergei-lavrov-ukraine-video

we can take that allegedly out of there now...

That is possible but the number I potentially matched indicates he did not live in the PNW.

Anyone who duplicates statements from proponents of 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' but switches black for white and vice versa, would be labeled the most abhorrent from of racist out of hand. The most racist diatribes I've ever endured have been directed against perceived racism. My point is not that racism is okay; I call foul when cherry picking is involved. BSBD, Winsor

Many buzzwords harken to definitions which can only be seen as favorable, but often wind up meaning something else altogether - to the point of approaching the complete opposite. Like it or not, 'woke' has become a billion dollar business, where corporations purchase indulgences in the form of 'diversity, equity and inclusion' training and 'community organizers' shake them down as a security racket. The whole system is beneath contempt.

A disease of denial by any measure.

Okay, for the hard of thinking I'll walk you through it. The video is of a male to female convert, doing a terrible job in a (women's) figure skating competition. The forum rules forbid linking to a video without commentary, so I included such verbiage as might attend the former male doing very well indeed. Since it was glaring obvious that my commentary couldn't be serious, I figured that only a moron couldn't put it together. Obviously I was wrong, and truly brilliant people took me seriously. Boy, have I been put in my place.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right". Any statements I make are grounded in facts and historical examples. That's where best practices come from. It isn't my opinion that yielding to the low jumper (aviator) is the best practice. It is the opinion of every aviation expert, the FAA, USPA, AOPA, and on and on. It's also the accepted practice for gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, etc., and for good reason. I can cite dozens of cases of canopy collisions caused by a higher jumper failing to yield to a lower jumper - often during a performance turn that causes rapid altitude loss and a collision into a lower jumper flying a routine pattern or final approach. It's a scenario that has been repeated so many times that it should be obvious to anyone who studies our history. I take no pleasure in recommending jumpers ignore someone's advice. My intention is always to educate jumpers - especially young, impressionable jumpers - to help them stay out of the incident reports.

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not.... Yielding to the lower jumper is NOT OBSOLETE! In fact, your suggestion is dangerous and I encourage jumpers to disregard it. The reasons we yield to the lower jumpers are simple. First, jumpers in the pattern are (correctly) focused on their landings, which dictates giving primary attention to what is BELOW them. Jumpers are ALWAYS responsible to clear the area in their flight path - like clearing the area to the left or right AND below before making a turn. This includes pattern flight and final approach. Second, it is often impossible to see traffic above us because our canopies block much of the view. Yielding to the higher jumper simply doesn't make sense and much of the time would be impossible because of the blocked view. It also distracts from the mission at hand - clearing the flight path ahead and below, and landing safely. The "low person has the right of way" is a basic premise in all of aviation. CFR 92.113.g states in part "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way...". Additionally, the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual agrees with this rule. SIM Section 6-1.C.3.c states "the low person has the right-of-way both in freefall and under canopy". Deciding on our own to buck accepted practices leads to confusion, and that leads to problems. As for high performance canopies and the jumpers who fly them, they are ALWAYS responsible to yield to lower traffic. This makes perfect sense. The higher jumper has the best field of view of the jumpers below them, they can monitor lower traffic without looking away from their flight path, they have more altitude to make an avoidance maneuver if necessary, and it's consistent with aviation and skydiving norms. I am a former high performance canopy jumper (and still have a rate of descent faster than many others) and can say in practice that yielding to the lower jumper works. When I am descending faster than the jumpers below me, I have the best opportunity to observe what they are doing and have the best field of view to decide how to avoid conflict. There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.

Fish 'n Chips without the fish.

My gear is BOC. But I’ve owned every deployment method I’m aware of: ripcord, FOL, ROL, BOC, pull-out, and shoved into the cavity where the lateral comes out of the container (yes, really), with bungee loops and bights of bridle holding the 2-pin container shut. Any questions? Wendy P.