starkmtn

One grieving woman does not get to set American foreign policy. No, one clueless man gets to do that. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Is this a sick joke? "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Eye of teh beholder. What about the Atlanta Braves? I really dunno, it would seem pretty bizarre to me if it were offensive. A team name is chosen to differentiate and imbue a team's image with the honorable characteristics of the chosen icon. You don't call a team the Atlanta Turds, because inherent in the choice of a name implies unspoken respect and aspiration to the image. It's not an insult, and grasps at whatever regional cultural identity is available. But that identity is seized by those who do not belong to that group and then used for their own purposes. The Atlanta Braves are not made up of the indiginous peoples who once occupied north Georgia (my own Cherokee and Creek ancestors among them). The name was created to conjure up a stereotypical image. Look at the icon for the Braves - it's a tomahawk. You're right, no one chooses names that are obviously crappy (to go with your "anal"ogy :). That makes it even more insidious - it's harder for the average person, who got a typical school education regarding indigenous peoples on this continent, to realize that it's a very narrow image of a large group of people (or what used to be a large group before the genocide). I think that is what the NCAA is responding to. There are many great team names out there which can show pride in one's region without co-opting the identity of another group, particularly one that was forcibly removed from the area where their home arena now sits. How about the "peaches," or, if one wants to inspire terror in opponents, the Atlanta Pandemic? The CDC _is_ in Atlanta, after all... ;) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Have done many of the same things as you. I would like to add that one of the meeting places should be out of the country. That way, if the scenario is the s**t hitting the fan big-time here (multiple targets a la 9/11 but on a grander scale, martial law, etc.), there is an agreed-upon place to go elsewhere (yes, I know, assuming the border is open going outbound). "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

I had seven jumps. I was jumping at this little place in New England and I really wanted to see a real "boogie." The Ranch's Labor Day boogie was coming up and I went, just to watch. My friends thought I was nuts. Well, turns out that I got there, and when someone found out I was a student and just came to watch a boogie, they said, "We'll find a way to get you out of an airplane" and marched me over to the school! I ended up doing AFF level 4 (I'd been on a very strange progression at my home DZ so they had to scratch their heads and call my DZO to figure out what to do with me) and loving it so much I finished out AFF at the Ranch! I moved down there shortly thereafter. :) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Ahh, but I'd rather be with a millionaire who is happy with hirself than a dirt poor tent-dweller who is happy with hirself. But then again, I went through a phase of having to support my significant other, so I'm probably biased. Bottom line, I want to be with someone who likes themself and is basically well-adjusted and happy. I'd prefer that they had enough funds to enable us to do things together that I enjoy. Many of those things (like jumping, or skiing) involve disposable income. So all else being equal, I'm going with moneybags. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

So what do _you_ do? ;) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

The female genital mutilation prcacticed in some parts of the world is a clitorectomy, not a hood mod. This will hamper, if not destroy, a woman's ability to have an orgasm. My cut job has never given me any problem in that department. You're mixing apples and oranges. It's also done largely for religious/cultural reasons, as much of male circumcision is done. There is no good reason for it other than "this is the way my religion has always done it." In that sense, it's similar. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

I think it's absolutely barbaric. All one has to do is teach his child how to wash correctly underneath the foreskin and it's not going to be a problem. We rant and rave about "primitive cultures" in Africa that engage in female genital mutilation, but turn a blind eye to the thousands of infants to whom this happens every day in our own country. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

I agree, Wendy. I looked first in "Incidents" and think it would be very helpful to CRWbies and wannabes to see this stuff. Just my $.02. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Coulda fooled me - mine's working fine. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

The recommended wing loading for _competition_ or _record-building_ CRW is that high. I would _not_ recommend to a newbie that he load his canopy that high!! Calvin, I'm going to strongly recommend the 143. You can always add weights when you get to the point that you've got a yen for competing or being on big-ways. However, while you're learning the ropes, you can jump a more reasonable wing-loading. Why change so many things at once? New discipline, new type of wing, etc. Just my $.02. Hope you join us on the Dark Side real soon! "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

And so nice to jump with such a great bunch of people (and such a creative organizer)! Remember the magic words: PULL OUT! PULL OUT! :D "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

So, does that hook in your mouth hurt a lot? ;) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

I agree except for #2 - that fits the bill because it manages to send up the facts that 1) we're a FAT-ass nation, and 2) we're exporting our crap food that helps make you fat overseas and enabling the fatassification of other peoples as well. I think it should count. One could argue that "the redneck" is an American species and therefore that redneck jokes count, but it's a stretch. That said, the one about Canada is the funniest. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Anyone know him or where he is? I lost touch with him and want to catch up. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Yeah, that's the one I found too, but I had heard about another one in ZHills. So that never happened? "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Hi all, I am trying to find out what the largest current night-way is. Does anyone know _for sure_? Thanks! "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

beer line - a line (either marked or unmarked) across which you may not land. If you do, you owe the DZ a case of beer. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

1. No, I wouldn't have done it. 2. I think you would have _believed_, to yourself, that it was YOUR CHOICE to do so. Your choice, however, was not informed by a certain level of wisdom which our society deems necessary before entering into the act of such sexual activity. 3. Children want to do many things. I wanted to eat ice cream for breakfast. I was never allowed to, because it wouldn't have been good for me. I didn't have the ability to think about nutritional needs, etc. When I got to college, one of the first things I did was have ice cream for breakfast. And I learned that it really didn't feel that great later in the day. By that point, I had the judgment skills to realize that "hey, that was fun to do once, but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it." I wouldn't have had that judgment at 8 years old. My point is that the capacity to make an informed decision comes later. I work with 13-year-olds every day. Maybe one or two of 130 is mature enough to have sex. The rest are just hormone-riddled but don't have the brain development yet to act responsibly on those feelings. Brain research backs me up on this. It seems like you're making the (invalid) case here that because some parents push some children into sports or other activities before they're really ready, that it's OK for adults to have sex with children. Please tell me I've misinterpreted! 1. The fact that some parents are overbearing doesn't make it right. 2. Any adult who thinks they LOVE a 13-year-old kid is SICK IN THE HEAD. Period. End of story. "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Heh, except what constitutes a child is defined in an arbitrary manner. In Denmark the age of consent is 15. I had a girlfriend when I was 16 who was a year younger than me. In most US states I'd be a sex offender for having sex with her. In many U.S. states, there is a "Romeo and Juliet" clause - the statutory rape statute does not apply when there is a certain age difference (usually less than 2 years apart). For example, if the age of consent is 18, a 19-year-old can have sex with an 18-year-old and not get charged with statutory rape. This was to protect young people who are close in age from being prosecuted by parents who simply didn't approve of the relationship. As for the arbitrariness, you're absolutely right. In this country, an 18-year-old is deemed able to vote for the Commander-in-Chief who can then send him/her off to die for corporate interests (er, I mean for freedom and democracy), but we deem that person incabable of enjoying alcohol responsibly. There are 14-year-olds I know with more judgment than some 33-year-olds I know. The problem is that a line must be drawn _somewhere_. We're too big a society to be able to interview each prospective voter and find out if that person should be allowed to vote at 14, or 18, or 22. Same with driving, drinking, renting a car, etc. I think the drinking line should be lower and the dying line should be higher. But I'm not Dictator of the World (yet). :) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

I think you're exactly right. Now comes the hard part. Explain why. _Am The explanation isn't simple but any one of a few good books out there about male sexual abuse covers it in detail. The short(er) version: In our culture, the premature exposure of a male child to sexual activity is often looked on as a fortunate event. It is not seen as the act of rape that it is. It is seen as "getting lucky," or as harmless. Boys are often referred to as the "invisible" or "hidden" victims of sexual assault for this reason. When people think of rapists, they tend to think of males and of strangers jumping out from behind bushes. In reality, most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and, while most rapists _are_ male, females can be and are rapists. It doesn't matter if the boy got a hard-on. Seven-year-old boys can get hard-ons. Any parent will tell you that babies get stiffies. Doesn't mean they're ready to get it on. Back to my point - if a male teacher had sex with a 13-year-old girl, he would be treated more harshly, because he fits the stereotype, AND because girls are considered "weaker" - needing protection from big bad rapists. Boys are "strong," boys should "just deal with it," boys should "be glad they got to score with that hot 20-something," etc. They are not seen as vulnerable and therefore not as vigorously defended. Because in our culture, boys are NOT supposed to be vulnerable - it's the kiss of death! Any guy here can probably remember either calling someone, being called, or seing some other kid being called a sissy and knows how deadly that moniker is. So if you take away a boy's innocence, you "make a man out of him." Take away a girl's innocence, and you've stripped her of something that is integral to our society's notion of femininity - a cardinal sin. To consider the rape of boys as tantamount to the rape of girls requires a re-thinking of what we value in men and women. That is, unfortunately, a long way off. :( "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Wait just a second. Hold the phone. Stop the presses. So professionals everywhere tend towards Republicans. So, hard working, successful people tend towards Republicans... So who does that leave for the Democrats? I was wondering about this original post too. I dislike the term "the professions" - it seems elitist. A lawyer is a professional but a custodian is not, even if the lawyer is lackluster and the custodian takes great pride in a job well done? When people say "professionals," they are often referring to doctors, lawyers, businessmen, investment bankers - people who tend to make more money than most. As you go up the economic scale, the proportion of Republicans increases. This makes sense to me. If I were financially well-off, I would want to preserve that advantage, and Republican policies favour the rich. So to say that professionals tend to vote Republican can be misleading. It is most likely due to economic self-interest (which I'm not knocking; it makes sense) than any particular insight or intelligence. Just my $.02 "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Back in September of 1997y CFI made a tandem jump at the skydiving school across the field from the FBO, came back and said I had to try it. My reply? A disdainful "I fly airplanes, I don't jump out of them." His reply? "Pussy." So of course I marched over there at about 4:00 in the afternoon and asked when I could make a skydive. My first jump was also my first sunset load. You can see from the look on my face when I got down that I was hooked. There went half my flying budget! I continued flying and started jumping more and more, until the time spent at the DZ side of the airport began to surpass the time spent at the FBO. Flying is my "first love," but right now I am uncurrent (I have my ASEL, IA) due to the costs of flying and the fact that my CFII moved to VT, I moved out of MA, and I don't live very near an FBO. However, I do intend to eventually get my Commercial certification, and probably my multi. I've toyed with being a "diver driver," but don't think I'd enjoy watching everyone else get to jump! "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

Be careful what you say, too: "If sucking's what you want, keep me here." ;) "You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan