mr2mk1g

Porche V6 Lotus Exige

We've got a Roofie at my home DZ... yes, for the obvious reason behind the name.

A letter from you costs little and an e-mail costs nothing. Just ask them to take your company name off it citing the safety issue and pointing out it won't be you sueing them if someone goes in with one on their wrist but the estate of the dead jumper. If it doesn't work, all it cost is a stamp and you'd at least be able to say you tried.

How do you know? Or are you just supposing? I've about 10 years experience of sex with and 10 years without. Trust me, you're not doing your kids any favors by cutting bits off them unless there's a medical need to do so. So basically sex kinda sucks now? No, the difference is subtle. Best analogy would perhaps be sex with and without a condom - it's still sex but without the condom is undeniably better. Ditto with/without a foreskin - it's still sex but without a foreskin you've dialled back on the intensity by a notch, kinda like when you suit up you dial back on the intensity setting a notch vs. bare back.

Everything back in working order now? I'm not arguing, I have only had it one way . . . and can't try the other. I did mention this to my mother, and said I would like it back. Yup, looks and works just like any other cut cock.

Yup. Broke it whilst being over vigorous with my gf at the time. Scar tissue from that caused something called phimosis. Tried a steroid cream whilst waiting for a consultants appointment but that didn't work so ultimately it had to come off. Ho-hum. Had it done under a local so I could watch. Think that freaked the surgeon out a bit. Nurse certainly couldn't understand. From my point of view it was safer quicker and cheaper (with the NHS ultimately we all pay).

Yeah, something like that. Why?

How do you know? Or are you just supposing? I've about 10 years experience of sex with and 10 years without. Trust me, you're not doing your kids any favors by cutting bits off them unless there's a medical need to do so.

It's shit. It's usually entirely unnecessary. It reduces sexual sensation. In general it should be banned as a form of child mutilation.

As was once related to me by a redhead... Blondes tease Redheads please.

No issues about rules? Are they just wary of someone (especially one they don't really know) with 90 jumps doing jumps with an extra harness, extra handles, and an experimental parachute? Nice looking container! The problem (assuming the DZ's are minded to fully apply the rules as written) is probably that Section 6 of the Operations Manual para 1(1.2) states "Parachutes may only be used if they are manufactured for Sport Parachutists or Military Parachutists, by recognised parachute equipment manufacturers or riggers with the necessary qualifications." As Quag is not a rigger he needs to be a "recognised parachute equipment manufacturer" in order for his parachutes to be jumped... No doubt getting round the rule would technically require a request to Council for an exemption or waiver to allow test jumping of the parachute... Or a DZ that's willing to turn a blind eye... Maybe someone just needs to come up to him at the DZ and say "hey, aren't you that guy with a little project on DZ.com who built a parachute from scratch?" and thus by recognising him he magically becomes a 'recognised parachute manufacturer'? Having said that, I'd be surprised if Council wouldn't be more than happy to grant such a waiver, especially if supported by a CCI/DZO and rigger who'd inspected the canopy.

I could but she'd kill me.

Nearly 3 years and you're not sure if he knew it was your birthday? Be thankful and move on.

See, that seems to be the only real option under the circumstances. But I'm still unmarried, childless and comparatively young... seems a little odd under the circumstance to have surgery to sort the matter, even if it is theoretically reversible... Just seems like there ought to be some other solution... Suiting up is absolutely right in many, many circumstances... but let's face it, condoms are horrible by comparison to not wearing one, for all involved... It,s just that where you're comfortable with your partner(s) it's a pity there isn't some other solution.

Just been looking into this (probably for reasons rather unique to me). Had thought I'd seen news reports that one was now available but it seems not quite yet (though probably in the pipe line). What are your thaughts on it; would you like to see one available and if so, why?

Both. A few years ago two friends and I wanted to do a charity banger rally drive down from the uk, through france, spain and into north Africa and back. We did it in the end for the army benevolent society, raised some good money for them and had one hell of a time in the process.. The team name my mates wanted was "team we've got maddie".... Didn't happen! Turned out to be very much a good idea given the number of "have you seenthis girl" posters we saw en route, mainly at boarder crossings and customs control points. Figure if my mates got their way we could have ended up with a fairly different experience.

Mother of a cliff strike!

Seems like a nice idea to youngsters. When you wise up you realise it's infection city. Not a good plan, even if you can extract yourself.

Exactly my point. Under BPA, any Brit DZO could conceivably abuse his position and unilaterally suspend a jumper from the sport immediately, without due process, in reality for any trumped-up "reason", just if he decides he dislikes the jumper. Fuck that. We're 200lb sacks of meat-bomb. If someone is doing something dangerous then that threat to the general populace needs to be abated pending review. Due process can follow. Think of it as an emergency injunction subject to subsequent judicial review. Anyway, 7.2 just allows the CCI to endorse the license - other DZ's are not bound to follow that. Chappie can go up the road to the rival DZ and say "look what Dave wrote on my license" and the rival DZ can say, "Dave's a dick, you're on next load". All the endorsement serves to do is warn other DZ's that in the view of that CCI you're a liability – they can make their own call. 7.3 is what permits the grounding and that goes via the safety and training committee. They can suspend temporarily until the next STC meeting. At each stage there's right of appeal. No DZO gets to act unilaterally and there is due process in the proceedure to get someone suspended pending a full review, following which there's further due process.

Pilot. Not by a great deal though.

Where?

That jump can be done safely, but it needs the right jumper and proper planning. That's all.

Seems they're about to get a new instructional video.

Why bother? Seriously, what are they going to do, build a 4-way?

As above, canopy opening distance on a true hop & pop is significantly different to a terminal opening. Make sure you're doing 'proper' hop & pops though not the modern version where you go up to 5k-6k, get out and pull at 3k. I never liked this trend. Sure, fine for the first one or two but we need to be training our students a 'proper' emergency exit like we used to. With a proper (aircraft specific) brief, exprience flying sub-terminal air and the knowledge that you can exit stable every time... you can be pulling right as you go out the door. Hell, static line student's toss on the 3-second count; CRW dogs before then.