Dolph

What does a stunt imply? Usually a spectacular one time event set up in advance, performed by a pro. I don't know how that is representative of the sport as a whole. While I will not say it doesn't have a net effect on getting people to DZs, I would argue that people just don't know what they're missing. I mean most don't even know we carry a reserve, let alone the disciplines of FS, freefly and what have you. It's perceived to be for the adrenaline crazy stunt junkies. While adrenaline certainly has a place, what keeps me in the sport is, aside from the social life, the sport itself. Getting better at it, developing as a flyer and so forth. In other words, I think it needs somehow to be emphazised that it is indeed a sport and there's much more than falling straight down or jumping with a static line. Demos are good overall. Stunts are cool. What I experience on the few occasions I talk to outsider about skydiving however is an utter lack of awareness of skydiving as a sport.

I think one should not regard the fact that skydiving is so far beoynd most people's personal comfort level that they might convince themselves to do it once - to challenge themselves, to see what it's like - but once that is achieved, the risk vs. reward scenario drastically changes. Some react to that challenge with a big "whoow, f*ck me!" whereas others are comfortable having overcome their fears and really have no interest in doing it again. Once one has a couple of hundred jumps, it's easy to forget how big a deal the first couple of jumps were. I agree with Pilatus_P that the general knowledge whuffos have of the sport is *extremely* limited. Not their fault really. If anything, I would like to see more focus on the *sport*, rather than the stunts, the tandem factories advertising it as a thrill ride, the big records. To the whuffo, the sport is a black mystical box with unknown content, populated by a tight knit closed community of people who freely jump outta planes and occassionally build 400-ways. That's pretty crazy stuff.

Same situation in Denmark (home of L&B). I'm sure they're working hard to fix the supply situation.

So they take tax payers money and promote whatever *they* want. And everyone is not happy. I ain't. And I pay taxes here where we have a similar system. The thing is: here they use it to strongly pressure private organisations. Not cool at all. You miss the point. The government is still offering MY money to whoever is willing to subject to the governments will. This ain't right. OK, show me how many people die in Spain or Denmark due to bulimia and anorexia. Compare to number of people who die of obesity related illnesses. Tell me: who's the bigger killer? No, neither would I , for the reasons mentioned by others. But I don't need that to tell that overweight fat people are more in risk of a host of health problems than non overweight people are. And we have far, far more overweight/obese people than we have critically skinnies.

To be 'that guy' takes the patience of an angel. I mean, setting aside personal improvement to help out others is one thing. Paying his own slot to sort some n00bs troubles out. Pretty decent. Then the n00b gets a few hundred jumps. Knows it all. Lectures that guy, ignores his advice. Sometimes, the n00b gets way better than that guy, since the n00b may focus exclusively on himself, reaping the benefits of having that guy to coach him. Thay guy just ain't cool anymore coz he ain't got mad skillzzz. Other times, the n00b does it all too fast. Ignores the advice and end up hurting himself. That's when another n00b enters the picture. Still, having experienced many n00bs, some good, some bad, that guy still takes the n00b under his wings and does it all again and again. Pretty amazing patience. I try to help out by my patience is nowhere near the true "that guys" in the world.

Or simply having a desire to have more and the ability to get it. Not all wars are done ut of ignorance or fear. In fact, a good deal of wars have been started due to personal disagreements between rulers, power grabs, economic or strategic reasons, expansion of power base and what have you. Cleary, there can be rational reasons to go to war. They may not be moral reasons - but rational, well thought out ones nonetheless. And you may go to war because someone tried to kill your dad. Or because you really can't stand that *idiotic* Swedish king and he just have *got* to be taught a lesson. We're humans - flock animals. We protect our group and care less about other groups. Been that way for ages.

Yeah i think it's a bad idea that the government would use my tax money to pressure private companies to maintain some government approved aestethic standard. Don't you? It's a waste of my tax money. It's government putting its nose where it should not be. it's about empowering an entity that already has too much say - and it's doing so with your own money. And as Tonto pointed out, skinnyness (yay, new word!) isn't the big killer in Western societies. Neither is women thinking their asses are too big or men worrying about their bulging waistline. Huge asses and beer guts are far more dangerous overall than skinnyness. If the government wants to use my money, put it there - in preventative measures. Don't f'ing use it on something as silly as *models*. In my not so humble opinion, politicians putting tax payers money towards influencing fashion shows are slightly smarter than the people that pay any attention to said shows. That's not saying a lot, but lat least the politicians are trying to expand their base of power.

Bill, you often equate home grown fundamentalists to, say, Muslim terrorists. Whil I agree with you in principle (that, given equal opportunities/enviironment, they'd probably react in the same manner, i.e terrorizing the population, killings, abductions), there are a number of factors that make a comparison with other extremist organisations a comparison of apples and oranges. The level of education, US compared to say Middle Eastern nation. Level of poverty. Level of freedom. Level of rule of law. Social factors, such as tribe oriented societies vs. more open ended US style. And so on. All these factors make a comparison very difficult - but it is a poignant reminder that we got the same at home running on a toned down scale due to the circumstances. We'vehad and have domestic terrorism in Europe - ETA, IRA and so forth, but it really hasn't been exported with any great success. Some rather primitive AK-47 wielding dudes had stunning success in the US though. It's also a bit disingenuous to say "Muslim extremists have pipe bombs; adherents of Pat's religion have thousands of nuclear warheads". Here, you are comparing a fringe minority (muslim extremists) with a majority (Christians, since that is Pat's religion). Would be more fair if you either compared followers of Islam with followers of Christ or even better, followers of extremist muslims with followers of extremist Christians. When comparing terrorism or acts of terrorism, or sectarian violence today, it is clear that there's more in one loosely defined group than in another. While it is certain that much of it has to do with other things than religion (such as a secular power grab, allegiance to tribe and so forth) I think it is important not to underestimate the power of religion, either as a motivational factor or as an excuse.

Same thing for us. The pilot has a GPS of course but it has been made very clear to everyone on the load that the *jumpers spot*, but only after given permission by the pilot to open the door. Three of the great benefits of jumping on small Cessna DZs is 1) learning how to spot properly (including watching for traffic), 2) lots of hop 'n pops for the swoopers. 3) Better contol of exit separation (and possibility for more of it due to fewer groups) Then when one travels to a Turbine DZ, the rules change somewhat. I still take time to do a visual scan before exiting but due to the time limit involved it's not as comprehensive as what can be done from a Cessna - unless I'm in the first group to go. Which as a freeflyer isn't very often.

The C-802 radar guided missile. link AT-5 Spandrels were also used. METIS-M1 and Kornet-E ATGMs were also used, bith against armour and as long range anti-personnel munitions. link The Hezbollah made effective use of these weapons, using interesting tactics and expanding the applications of said weapons. Hezbollah, being a guerilla style insurgency movement, has several advantages a regular military must face. Hezbollah, being a terrorist organisation, has additional methods available and can function with much less restraints on when and how to apply 'em. The use of these weapons in the conflict is fairly well documented. Sure, it ain't Apache helicopters and F-15's but it is not as if Hezbollah are fighting back by throwing rocks or firing Qassam rockets. Interestingly, the last few times Israel has engaged the regular forces of its neighbours (meaning: their tanks, helicopters, fighters and so on) the result was much more conclusive and in favour of Israel.

I guess he's saying that 'V for Vendetta' is making a thinly veiled commentary on the political climate in the US and UK today and the possible future ramifications (even if taken to extremes). Decent movie. Too bad they cut away the full execution scene. Poor Guy was hung, quartered and drawn. Talk about brutal punishment. We're speaking of future possibilities. I doubt the masked V dude would have much of a chance against a Terminator though.

Which is just another reason to despise these forms of organised religions. Faith sponsored discrimination. Organised religion is way too often taking what's supposed to be an intimate, private strength, bastardizing it, tainting it and turning it into a tool used to force personal beliefs and secular agendas on others. I see no reason to respect such behaviour. I'll tolerate it though, liking a free society.

I got a shitload of your Russian clouds. Being hit by the same drop of rain twice was rather interesting. Being beaten bloody in the process sucked. Not having a clue where the 20 others were sucked in a major way. Surviving that mess was very uplifting.

"Cool". All of it gotta come from themselves. Don't need no guilt if they burn in or see something bad and that messes them up. Their choice only.

I mean reactive in the sense that we wait for them to initiate something and then try to catch them with their pants down in the act. We wait. They plan or act. We take countermeasures. Airport security is a classical example of this. Simple; the armour it has is a passive, reactive one. It's designed to defeat attacks and it's purely defensive in nature. Somerthing very sophisticated can be rather easily destroyed by something crude, if the crude thing has the initiative. Same thing can be said about for example our airport security and the breaking up of plans already hatched. My assertion is that the problem must be dealt with at an earlier stage. The first and foremost (and most formidable) task would be to raise the level of education and lower the level of poverty in the regions where vulnerable people are easily recruited to terrorist organisations. Another alternative (which is more vigorously being attempted) is disruption of flow of money, material and the elimination of known terrorists. This ain't working too well on its own. Sooner or later the crude methods will find an opening. We need to be succesful *every time* more or less; they need just a few successes. Our sophisticated machinery can't stop terrorism in the long run if all we depend on is 'dragging all terrorists away from the US by going to war elsewhere' or relying on our ability to thwart any plans made by terrorists.