Justincblount

For me, that's too much altitude loss as well. Yes, a smaller slider affects opening speed, but if you are unclear on the equipment specs, I hope you relied on a rigger for ordering the slider. It's not always the slider. I jumped some student canopies in Z-hillls that a few of us complained about, they all went in for re-lines. But that depends how hard it has been jumped. There are definitely things you can do in packing... like, if people taught you to do anything to the nose when you wrap the tail around, that encourages sniveling. But talk to a good instructor, there are also things you can do under a sniveling canopy to encourage it to open.

I've done late flares before, you can't really PLF them. You just crash in with your ass and a foot or something. My foot took some massive impact from one, and then from an early flare on the next jump, had me limping the rest of the day. I think it's better to flare early than late if you have a good PLF. I was never able to get good at gauging when to flare by looking ahead at the horizon, I am usually glancing sideways when I start the flare, looking at nearby flags or whatever in relation to the sideways horizon. Looking forward at the horizon gives me a pretty good idea when it's time to glance sideways, but isn't enough to tell me when to actually start the flare. Using the glance cheat, I am usually starting the flare at the perfect height, then I just have to judge how quickly to finish punching it out. This is for two stage flares, which they didn't teach student jumpers for some reason. But I expect the glance would still work for a one stage flare. I've noticed certain times looking ahead can help determine when to start the flare, but only when I was looking directly at where I was going to land, "the point that doesn't move", etc, and it takes a while to train your eye for that. The advice "look towards the horizon" didn't help for me, and I think the advice "look ahead 20 feet or so" might be missing the reason for why it works, such as the landing spot being roughly 20 feet ahead. Then again, that much information is hard to apply if they have untrained eyes. I also have never tried consistently looking 20 feet ahead while landing, so that's interesting.

I can see it as a problem if you are practically head down in the track, but it seems to me that a normal track isn't enough horizontal speed for the canopy to really come out sideways to the relative wind. So if your slider is controlled, it should open normally. It will open further behind you, and that will contribute to the shock you feel, but not necessarily more opening force. Although, there are scenarios where the slider is not controlled, or various other mistakes in packing. For this reason, pitching from a track is a bad habit to have!! Skydiving mistakes can add up and cause chain reactions, so the goal should always be to control the slider AND pull stable, etc.

That's a good point, it might be highly dependent on packing inaccuracy whether it makes a difference. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the wind blows the slider downwards because of a late track. I suppose you would have to test subterminal openings and awkward body positions with awful pack jobs, that's where the REAL magic happens.

I've put together two massive playlists... police gunning down family pets, and child rape accusations against pastors. Are they edited selectively... well, I didn't post videos of them giving heart transplants! I guess it would be irrelevant to the social commentary I was making about the phenomenon. I do understand how bias, prejudice and subjectivity works, and that playlists are rarely intended as statistical analysis. What follows is that my "data" was objectively subjective. You have correctly identified this. The compilation of video evidence only demonstrates the phenomenon, not the information. I was indeed unable to back up my claims or conclusions, and thus had no justification to hold them as true, which also proves the importance of public scrutiny on a claim. I thought I was going back to the fundamentals, but I'm not sure what the fundamentals of masculine or feminine energy would even refer to in physical reality, and could more accurately be called aggressive or passive impulses. Maybe it would be good to evolve to a point where aggressive impulses are no longer necessary, and are bred out of existence.

When did I say they don't count? We add them into the massive pile of other videos. The playlist I posted even has such examples. PLAYLIST... not one video. And you are still pushing the absurd argument that I'm saying NO woman has ever handled a spider. It's stupid.

How is it we're arguing about this? I could easily pull up hundreds of videos with no malfunctions to debunk any retard making this claim.

I never just showed one video, and I never based my opinions off of one piece of video evidence. The problem you are talking about only exists in a hypothetical case separate from anything I've ever espoused.

If your only interest in someone is to bang them, even if that's their only interest as well, it's still exploitative.

Yes, my opinion would be swayed if there were dozens of men on Youtube advocating for rape, and virtually none condemning it.

I don't. That's basically the male version of feminism. It's victim mentality. If someone showed me "a video" with dozens of examples of men supporting rape, and only a few examples could be found condemning it, I would take pause.

I guess when I reverse it, and I say a man who doesn't do X and Y(creating order and leading others to necessity) isn't functioning as a man, it does become a slight against them. I guess they could still function in a supplemental role and be just as valuable, but I don't consider them men, they are soy boys. So if my views are misogynistic, it would seem they are also misandric. Equality Ftw. Actually, I think feminine men are a lot less respectable than masculine women. By about 300%. In my case, there is absolutely no benefit to being a soy boy, it goes against my priorities and principles. I have always been attracted to feminine women, and always fallen short of meeting their needs. I am simply poorly trained, I could use a good leader myself. There is nothing wrong with responsible authority. It's what I needed growing up, but I was raised by a single mother with a personality disorder. You could say I'm incel in the widest interpretation, I realized it's not practical for me to pursue women at my level of competency, but I would like to be in a harmonious relationship if it were feasible. If I wanted to abandon my principles and just go out to get laid, it would be fairly straight forward. I would probably creep most women out in the process of finding someone willing, but I would definitely get laid. I find masturbation to be a more efficient use of my time, so I exploit my hand instead of other people.

I don't believe there is a gender gap when it comes to skydivers. Skydiving is for (virtually)all walks of life and levels of ability or disability. Even morbidly obese people can skydive. Sure, they might not be able to stand up the landings, but they always PLF. Although, as I'm saying this, there is clearly a gap in who typically become skydivers. It's a male majority activity and identity, and among them mostly masculine personalities and competencies. The lifestyle can be dysfunctional in many cases, but that's in no way unique to skydiving. I can't really relate to peoples' idea that I'm insulting all women. I'm not even insulting the most hardline feminine women, I'm saying they are natural and harmonious. I carefully noted that my statements don't apply to all, yet I'm smeared as telling women on this forum to go back to vacuuming or something, or belittling things you impressively achieved as clearly non-prototypical women, throughout your long lives. Seems like a stretch of an interpretation. Or is it that you feel attacked because I'm holding women who fit stereotypical gender roles to be of the highest worth as women?

Yeah, I would think people are getting pretty impatient with this now. I just like to debate. Lots of people made good points.

You don't consider video evidence as data, so we are talking past each other. My standards of evidence are different than yours, you want statistics and studies, whereas I want to see it with my own eyes. I can't do my own studies to confirm their findings, and even if I did, I would have to put a spider in front of MOST women to prove my original claim. I have since backed down from that claim, however true it might literally be. I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker. Of course, this is again putting me in a position where I make all the claims, and you make none, other than to point out that my claim hasn't met its burden of proof. In this case, my belief comes from vast amounts of historical records and logical deduction as to why the opposite didn't occur, with women building the majority of civilization and men reaping the benefits while bitching about the matriarchy. As an example, men invented weapons to level the playing field with stronger animals, women didn't level the playing field with men, anywhere in the world, and my deduction is that they were either unequipped to do so, or simply had no desire to, because we are different. I'm open to hearing other theories that are sufficient to explain this reality.