wmw999

Start by learning how to be a rigger; there are a number of good schools -- there's a link above in this forum that will lead you to a number of options. Wendy P.

Or that he can only be characterized by a racial slur, or that Trump is a member of dz.com. Wendy P.

In large part, it’s an acknowledgement that someone’s gender is not the single most important thing about them, if they choose. Just as many cultures don’t talk about work at parties — work isn’t who you are, it’s what you do on most weekdays. Wendy P.

Me too; frankly it sounds like a great transition Wendy P.

“Top government official.” Michigan State Police? Wendy P.

It’s a country, not a toy to be discarded if you break it. Wendy P.

I have a niece who was apparently male at birth. She has made it abundantly clear that mistakes are perfectly OK; repeat ones, too (like an aunt using her old name more than once a few years ago). It’s deliberately provocative misgendering or refusing to engage when asked politely to use the correct pronoun or name. Wendy P.

Is the purpose of USPA to grow the sport, or to support activities that significant numbers of members engage in, while encouraging safe practices? Probably both, but maybe neither to the exclusion of the other. How would you regulate swooping if you were in charge — given that actual people actually do it. It was hard enough to get DZ’s to start enforcing traffic control areas, and that appears to have cut down on in-air collisions under canopy. Yes, they have to adhere to certain standards to be USPA members, but since there are successful non-USPA DZ’s out there, the stick approach to enforcement won’t work for very long. Used to be that advertising in Parachutist was how people found out about DZ’s; with the net, that’s effectively useless. Personally, I’d like to see the same sort of emphasis on minimum number of jumps and/or canopy classes before people are allowed to use the swoop lanes. It’d be a start. Forbidding swooping at commercial DZ’s is probably a non-starter. It sounds like the most recent Eloy fatality was doing all the right things for education; swooping just doesn’t forgive mistakes, any more than proximity BASE does. Wendy P.

Well talk to the Republican who controls them. Most of us liberal types understand that the guy who has them controls them. And he gave them to that liberal mouthpiece Fox News Wendy P.

Oh my. You pontificate even better than I do. Good thing I can assign qualities to you without your needing to provide input on what they are. It’s like saying you know art, and can therefore say that Picasso is no artist. How offensive exactly is it to you to address someone by a pronoun they choose, rather than you? And have you ever actually had to? Wendy P.

Probably, but I don’t know for sure. The belly reserve container wasn’t as shaped as the back containers are. I never packed one with a 26’. The 26’ conicals often (or maybe always) came with what were called sea anchors — extra fabric at the bottom designed to catch water and sink to hide the gmfact that someone jumped, further reducing the bulk. Those were likely to be cut off of canopies used as sport reserves. But they were relatively rare; I doubt a rigger would give something like that over to a hijacker unless it were specifically demanded. Wendy P.

Actual parachutist here… not as qualified as RiggerRob or JerryBaumchen, but back in the day I did own and refer to a Poynter book. C9’s (28’ flat circular canopies) and 24’ flat circular canopies were more common for Air Force and Army paratroopers. A 24’ flat circular puts you down in a pretty noticeable hurry, but in those days it was rare for the main not to open at all; instead they’d open and throw the reserve out into a malfunction to get more fabric over their heads. The Navy conical (a gold standard of early reserves because it landed slower than the 24’ and packed smaller than the 28’) was generally packed into an NB-6 container I believe. That’s a back container, but remember that WW2 didn’t have a lot of Navy guys who planned on jumping… At the time of the hijacking, a 28’ flat circular with a 24’ flat circular reserve would have been common, and readily available from any local DZ or rigger. A 26’ conical reserve or a 28’ flat circular reserve would have been slightly harder to get, but not uncommon (but maybe not the first things volunteered, as they were less common). A 24’ canopy in a main (back) container would have been unlikely. Mainly because most jumpers jumped for fun, and few people who were heavier than Twiggy would deliberately choose a 24’ canopy. The 28’ reserves were desirable because the big boys needed them, and the 26’ conicals because of what I already said. So a 28’ main and a 24’ reserve would be what I’d have offered 7 years later, when I was an active rigger. Enough pedantry. Back to the topic Wendy P.

They’re too young to remember that in the classic TV show “Get Smart,” the KAOS agents were the bad guys. Wendy P.

You’ve had far more one on one interaction as a DZO, especially one that had one of the earlier swoop ponds from what I understand. Me, I just am concerned about sharing airspace when one or another member isn’t perfect in their understanding of “above here”’ when viewed offset from above. And, of course, the dz.com folks. Wendy P.

This is where Chuck suggested moving the discussion in Incidents; there’ll be more engagement with swoopers here, so it might be the best place. We’ll see Wendy P.

It sucks, and I agree. Wendy P.

Clearly you care — you just gave a fuck… Wendy P.

I'm surprised Santos isn't getting any votes. Wendy P.

Thank you for sharing your project (which is really cool), and I'm sorry for your pain. Wendy P.

John, the issue is that the border states also don’t have the resources. This is akin to the problems that Italy and Greece have in the EU. I think this is a dick move, too, but the point is worth discussing. Wendy P.

I'm not sure some of them are exactly fixable. Society changes all the time, whether in response to increasing population pressure, technology change, or other social or physical change, so "solving" them is a moving target. But the ability to recognize change, and adjust to it, seems to be variable within and among groups. Of course, my standard trope is trying to respect people as they are, but to expect them to respect others as well. Which really means that "fixing" isn't exactly the same thing for me as for anyone else, either. But I completely agree with people either not accepting (or understanding, or tolerating) complexity that doesn't align. It just seems to most of us (me, too, sometimes), that it's just not worth it under those circumstances. Generally wrong. But time saving, eh? I also think most people are inherently lazy and self-serving. Not that it's bad, it's just what people are; we save energy for what's most important. Wendy P.

Frankly, given his posting history, I think SK wants to sow chaos — just as Bannon seems to deliberately, and Trump and much of the hard right out of a lack of understanding of complexity Wendy P.

Avatars were unfortunately lost in the transition to the new forum software. Wendy P.

Oh that’s way too cool. What a dream come true! Wendy P.

I was reading something about that a couple of days ago; it was looking like Yes would win, but a couple of Aboriginal political figures, from very different political leanings, have been urging a No vote, obviously for different reasons. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/world/australia/australia-price-thorpe-voice-aboriginal.html Wendy P.