robinheid

Considering what is known about you Robin, you might want to STFU. Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Me too. That and $3 gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but it's worth diddley squat here. Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Part of being "old" is having a memory - and the wisdom to (sometimes) not break wind with my mouth when I'm clueless, to wit: Contrary to your assertion, there have been multiple huge issues with tandem fatalities over the years, perhaps the most damaging of which was the SkyDance double fatality about 10 years ago involving a student named Stephanie and a TI named Seth Blake, whose body tested positive for trace amounts of delta-9 THC metabolytes and also a measurable amount of alcohol. This not only resulted in the widespread imposition of police state surveillance techniques on TIs and other DZ workers at multiple locations, it too threatened the viability of tandem jumping. Worse, back when there was rec.skydiving instead of the Dork Zone, the threads related thereto degenerated into gut-spilling name-calling and such horrific idiot dialectic that I wrote a similar missive then. It is in fact the mindless ignorance of peeps such as yourself and those others who shoot off their mouths without first thinking of the total consequences that give more force and ammunition to those who wish us ill. oh, and just for your information, it was the editorial i wrote in response to the plaintiff's contention that seth blake was a multiple abuser of various drugs that cut this plaintiff off at the knees and helped to settle the case outside of court because, unlike you, i did my homework and research before i wrote a word. Bottom line on that editorial: the additional drug tests sought and obtained by the plaintiff - his _own_ evidence, in other words, proved that Seth was in fact _not_ the drug addict claimed by the plaintiff because said tests revealed no drugs in his system beyond the trace delta 9 THC metabolytes that, in fact, proved that Seth had not used cannabis for at least several days before the accident, and also proved he used no other drugs of any kind (and as i recall, the presence of alcohol was determined to be a byproduct of decomposition rather than ingestion because the bodies cooked in a hot sun on asphalt for several hours while the police did their investigation). Which brings us back to my initial post on this thread: Stephanie's father destroyed the central premise of his own case because he just wouldn't STFU and I don't want to see us do the same thing to Ted and/or sport parachuting. And for your further information, I've known Ted for more than 30 years and in fact Ted and I did the world's first tandem base jump in 1984, so i do have a personal as well as professional interest in seeing him not further damaged by idiot dialecticists. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

And this approach accomplishes so much more. Maybe you should take your own advise till you can speak with respect. Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I'm perfectly relaxed, Rob; eating idiot dialecticists for breakfast does that for me. And now, my friend, you've gone and engaged in it with _your_ stipulation, too. I never in any way shape or form said anything about expert testimony or otherwise limited the multiple ways in which lawyers might use the the information and "insight" lawyers in this thread (and others) to shape, direct, amplify and otherwise make more legally lethal their assaults on a parachuting-related business. The more you know earlier about your opponent, the better a plan you can make to beat him. This is a basic rule of conflict/competition/warfare and all the keyboard terminators who actually _do_ care about protecting and preserving sport parachuting need to learn it. I strongly suggest that said keyboard terminators do that by resting their fingers for a while and reading Sun-Tzu's Art of War (I prefer the Samuel B. Griffith translation). SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

BULLSHIT! - where exactly should we be having this discussion? Maybe info like this should be posted VERY publicly. It might actually inspire the plaintiff or the lawyers to go after the right people. IMO The problem with your "thinking" here is that to a lawyer the definition of "the right people" is anyone vulnerable enough to attack... which is in significant part calculated by how much time the lawyer can spend on the case versus how much the target has to defend against the case against the projected return. Kinda reminds me of those who "think" that tighter restrictions on firearms will "keep guns out of the wrong hands" when in fact it serves only to make it harder on "the right people..." So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again. Which brings me to "where exactly we should be having this discussion..." We have the discussion privately, or in a secured forum, or by phone, or in any of a dozen different ways that are invitational in nature instead of a "hey, anybody who wants to can be on the load." The problem with the aforementioned venues is that they require forethought, planning and a sober-minded approach to the issue, which is anathema to keyboard terminators who blast off their missives without reflection, due diligence or any other considerations beyond venting and/or showing off how smart they think they are. Cases in point from your reply to me: 1) The first word of your response to me, and the manner in which you wrote it; and 2) your use of the same idiot dialectic technique employed by Jan; making up a stipulation from the thin air between your ears. I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that a subpoena for a keyboard terminator was the only - or even principal - outcome of the recklessly brain-dead way information and/or "insight" is offered on this thread. So I ask again... SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

well, now you know. d5533 base44 court-certified expert witness SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

"legions of lawyers"? Great, if there is ever another lawyer that needs info about this case, tandem is seriously fucked. Every opinion or insight that has been mentioned on this thread has been brought up in the depos. Specifically, the rumor that Roberts was instructed by someone to sling the lower back lateral under the butt for plump women has been denied all across the board. I've read all the depos, have you? . There you go again engaging in idiot dialectic, Jan. The "every opinion and insight" to which you refer is a priori not the opinion and/or "insight" to which I refer, which I expressly defined as that which does not appear in the depositions. Neither were my comments directed at lawyers who may be interested in _this_ case only; that is a stipulation you manufactured out of the thin air between your ears. The legions to which I refer are those hundreds of thousands of them who seek any "reasonable cause" upon which to base a lawsuit against a vulnerable target - and the idiot dialectic on this thread makes parachuting-related businesses more vulnerable. Finally, the conclusion you draw based upon the above idiot dialectic is consistent with said dialectic and non sequitur to boot. So I say again: enough with the idiot dialectic. Please get your head out of your lower back lateral and... SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

JP: That's right Robin, let's just sweep the ugliness right back under the rug, like we've been doing for too many years. RH: There you go again, JP, getting your panties all in a knot again... I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that "we" sweep anything under a rug. I said that this forum is unequivocally not the place to have that discussion. JP: Some things need to change in a big way or ya'll are gonna fuck up my life, living, and love. RH: And among the most important things that need to change is this psychotic notion that spilling our guts on a public forum that will forever be part of the cloud is somehow an intelligent way to protect sport parachuting. JP: Everything being brought up in this thread is already public knowledge, most of it from the deposition in THIS suit! RH: As i said in response to Jan... there is a plethora of opinions and "insights" offered in this thread that are in fact NOT part of the discovery. d5533 base44 court-certified expert witness SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

. there you go stepping on your dick again, Jan. Just like the rest of you yahoos who like to show off how smart you think you are, you forget two key things: 1) what may indeed be already-deposed discovery in this case is NOT known to the legions of lawyers to whom you are so ignorantly providing it; and 2) many of the opinions and "insights" offered in this thread are in fact NOT part of this discovery. So I say again: would all of you please cease and desist with the idiot dialectic? d5533 base44 court-certified expert witness SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Would you all please quit giving damaging information and ideas to lawyers? Showing off how smart you think you are is fine around the fire pit but it is recklessly self-indulgent and brain-dead to do it in a public forum lurked by lawyers and forever accessible in the cloud. STFU!!!!!!!! d5533 base44 court-certified expert witness SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That particular sports association would be better identified if they changed their name to “Drop Zone Owners Promotional Association and Benefit Fund”. Sparky +1 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Starcrest or Soldier of fortune...... ...and Parachutist, and Skydiving, and PIA newsletter, and ParaMag, and Canpara, and Baseline, and the Counterterrorism, Violence & Insurgency Report, and Gung-Ho, and Modern Gun, and Outside, and the Colorado Statesman, and the Rocky Mountain News, and the Delta County Independent, and Westword, and Up the Creek, and Denver Women's News, and Associated Press and United Press International, and several others that don't immediately come to mind... SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

...and what was the name of the magazine you wrote for again Robin? Funny you should mention that... Skydiving magazine publisher Mike Truffer and i talked a few times over the years about this and he would have preferred to call it Parachutist. Unfortunately, that name was already taken by a glossy but generally content-free house propaganda organ published by a sporting association that itself still debates changing its association and magazine name to "Skydiving" rather than Parachute or Parachutist, despite the fact that it hosts a "skydiving" championships that includes CReW and swooping. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Depends on context, airtwardo... for example, "jumper" is a term police and fire officials use to describe someone whose has or is threatening to make a once-in-a-lifetime descent from a tall place, generally for reasons other than to have fun... i.e., "We gotta jumpuh ovuh on toity-toid street..." "Skydiver," on the other hand, is a term generally used in bars by parachutists trying to impress whuffo chicks or get one up on their fellow drunks, or derisively by BASE jumpers who think what they do is a completely different sport. "Parachutist," on the other hand, is the term people knowledgeable about the sport and its history and fundamental characteristics tend to use when identifying themselves or describing what they do, at least when sober. Thus "parachutist" is the all-encompassing term that is properly used in all instances, and other terms tend to be be subsets thereof and thus not appropriate in all situations. Skydiving is a subset of parachuting, as is CReW, BASE, swooping, ground launching, et al; all are subsets of parachuting. As Mo Viletto said long ago: "I am a parachutist. I do things that require a parachute, at least if I want to do those things more than once." d5533 base 44 ccs 37 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

As I recall, no one on the bench has ever gotten listed on FAI world records, even though they were part of the overall "team" that sought the record, even if they jumped on non-record attempts during the "team" effort, so i don't think their request will get much traction with the FAI... though it may elicit a few chuckles. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

the remster is correct. Tee-veeee shows focus on criminal cases, which are decided by the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, unlike civil cases such as this one, which are decided by either "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" standards of proof, both of which are very different than the reasonable doubt standard required from criminal cases. http://www.answers.com/topic/preponderance-of-evidence SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I read it, but before I discussed it I wanted to know more about the company that produced it so I went to New Step Marketing's "website." It is a cover page with no content, just email addresses for its "marketing director" and "marketing manager." Which pretty much explains everything. Spaceland could have avoided this whole mess had it hired professionals instead of the yahoos who wrote this laughably artless, ham-handed, tone-deaf, totally clueless drivel. Because the bottom line is: Pretty much everyone who posted on this subject is right on one level or several and if this announcement had been been professionally instead of amateurishly presented, it could have driven more potential "partners" to Spaceland instead of aggravating everybody and giving Spaceland and USPA a black eye. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

It works - and i haven't even tested it on a jump yet. My 2-year-old loves to have me spin her up in her swing and then send her swinging so she's zooming along two axes at the same time. So after reading about this, I tested it on her as I stood there winding up the swing before I swung her - and wowsers, it really works. For any skeptics out there, try it out at your local park if you don't have a kid and swingset of your own. i know for sure I'd have two less cutawats in my logbook if I'd heard about this a little sooner (one about a month ago!). SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

the incident to which you refer was a training jump in... yuma AZ, I believe. Dana Bowman survived with a double amputation; the other guy died. there was a very weird one on an actual demo back in 1973 or 1974 when I was at Bragg. Jumper meant to do an intentional cutaway from much lower than normal altitude because of clouds; the intentional cutaway gear got bollixed up after he streamered it and he could _not_ cut away, so he deployed his PC into the mess. It made a bigger mess, which slowed him down enough to survive. As i recall the story (as he told it to me some months later), he landed full on his left side in the front yard of the best orthopedic surgeon in the southeast - who happened to be in the back yard having a BBQ with several other MD friends - and his next door neighbor, who was an ambulance driver and who, you guessed it, had an ambulance parked in his driveway. So this GK got fast attention and evac. When I met him about 9 months later, he was still wearing one ankle cast, but was otherwise pretty functional. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

What you said and always at the cutting edge - even when he wasn't there. He lent me his wingsuit when jeb and i made the first wingsuit jumps from petronas december 30, 2000. Our thoughts are with his family. robin, tamaki and siona heid SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

what part of... "It is fundamentally unfair that homosexual couples and polygamous family units cannot avail themselves of the contractual and legislative benefits accessible to traditionally married couples: tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visitation, health care and others. " ... do you not understand? sounds like you've stopped pretending you understand English, eh? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

"Nobody is saying anything about Polygamy and being against it" that's precisely my point, Ashley. The real issue is not whether or not homosexuals get to marry or not but what exactly should the definition of marriage be, especially with all of the associated contractual complications that accrue thereto. And the fact that polygamy is NOT being discussed is in fact a serious flaw in the argument that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. It is in fact when people of differing views come together to protect each other's liberty that we have the best effects for everyone and that is precisely why I think the way to a more tolerant future is for the homosexual community to ally itself with the polygamist community on this subject. In terms of social mores, these two groups are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but they both suffer similarly because their partnership practices do not match those of the majority. That is why I chose to turn billvon's street sign whimpering into something more substantial and that is figuring out a more intelligent and more inclusive way to apply public policy to key social issues. I predict that Proposition 8 will win big because, to use your intriguing imagery, people are tired of getting "gay rights" rammed down everybody's throats. What should be done here is an integrated call for "fair access" to marriage's contractual rights by ALL partnership arrangements at variance with those of the majority, and the general blindness and/or unwillingness of the homosexual community and its supporters to include, reach out to or even acknowledge the legitimacy of other non-traditional partnerships as they seek legal approval for THEIR needs is what is stalling the effort. It is fundamentally unfair that homosexual couples and polygamous family units cannot avail themselves of the contractual and legislative benefits accessible to traditionally married couples: tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visitation, health care and others. That, again, is why I turned a low-level whimper about street signs into a teaching moment about the larger issue: Until supporters of homosexual marriage expand their narrow view of the issue, and start seeing as allies the very people they see now as enemies, they will for the most part continue to be frustrated in their efforts to achieve what is in fact a reasonable state of fairness. And really, the ignorance of the homosexual marriage supporters to the injustices faced by polygamists is breathtaking and you Ashley did it yourself with your own argument, to wit: " 'Child at risk,' in terms of homosexuality are mostly very church going folk who are worried about their prude kids hearing/seeing/being subjected to a society where gay people can be married and goes against everything they are trying to brain wash their kids into believing. Their child is in NO physical danger what so ever. The fact that you're even putting these situations on the same level of comparison makes me shudder at how out of touch you must really be." You see, a big part of the Texas social services attack on the FLDS was its insistence that the "psychological environment" in which the children (male and female) lived was what put them at risk, not any physical risk. Or to riff on your words, despite the fact all of these children were being very well taken care of by their non-traditional parents, the state thugs insisted that their very presence within those non-traditiional family units "subjected these kids to hearing/seeing/being in a society where multiple people can be married, which goes against everything they are trying to brain wash their kids into believing." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? And who is really out of touch here, do you think? So do you now see the trap of intolerance and ignorance into which several of the pro-homosexual marriage posters on this thread have fallen? They attacked the FLDS people with the same arguments and bigotry to which homosexual couples have long been subjected - and even borrowed the language of their oppressors. And sorry to disillusion you but the "whole point" of this thread initially was to complain about "Yes on 8" political tactics, not discuss the merits of the proposition. I chose to move that low-brow discussion to a higher level that actually speaks to the fundamental issues involved and how a broadening of our worldview can help us actually live by the credo set forth in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, not just the majority. robin heid SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

arrgh... MY mistake...didn't see the "if." MY apologies. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

sigh... please point out to me where exactly I say I "have a problem with (homosexual) marriage." you seem to be afflicted with the same hallucinatory interpretations of certain statements as your sister Jeanne, who insisted that I was anti-abortion even when i repeatedly affirmed my support therefore - just not in the way she was accustomed to hearing. so have at it, trophy boy; show me where I say what you claim I say... or apologize for mistating my words so you could climb on your soapbox. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."