anita

===================================== Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh! I miss Lost Prairie and all the people i didn't get to see there this year because of not being able to make it to LP this time. Janet Lundquist ALMOST talked me into going after all — i was sooooooooooo close to booking that last-minute flight reservation (just ask Canadian Crazy Larry from Ottawa [identifying specifics added to try and differentiate him from all the other Crazy Larry's]) — even though i woulda been jeopardizing my job (which i'm not quite ready to do yet, but just give it a few months, and i'll be in that frame of mind). Well, at least Crazy Larry finally got convinced to give LP a whirl. I told him that i'd bet he'd end up liking it better than WFFC. I look forward to finding out how accurate a prediction that ends up being!!! I hope everybody had a fabulous time (how could one do otherwise at LP???), and hope to see you all next year!!!!!!!!! Love and hugs, & visions of halcyon skies,

Oh ... and the other thing i've been trying to do is figure out why your vitriol about the convention is so vicious, and maybe you misinterpreted that as an attempt on my part to convince you to embrace my way of thinking? Well, perish the thought. I know that's not possible, and wouldn't want that anyway. I enjoy diversity and freedom of expression.

Sorry, i missed that final sentence this last time around. Is that what you've been trying to do? Convince me? Interesting. Well, it hasn't been my goal to convince you. I'm just trying to put forth something to bring some balance to what's being generated here.

I seem to want to gloss over the potential dangers? Now, that really is demonstrative of how little you're paying attention. During the past few days, i've referred extensively to the potential dangers. Discussion about this with you appears to be pointless due to your selective hearing.

Nope, not "blindly" — that's your opinion, which you phrase with scorn because my opinion is different from yours. I believe in looking at all the pros and cons. You seem fixated on only the cons.

What became of the post wherein the author described a swoop landing during which the swooper veered directly toward him (the person writing the post) while he was standing on the edge of the landing area? It's so bewildering when posts just disappear. I didn't think that one had stuff in it which justified getting deleted. But it's gone now, and i can't determine that for certain.

Thats because you do not seem to give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior. I think it does, and so do many others. It's not true that i don't "give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior" — either you're not actually reading what i write, or you're exercising selective "hearing" when you do. I've repeatedly stated my belief that all boogie environments are more dangerous than typical everyday conditions at the local home DZ. Unfortunately, some people's slanted emphasis on that fact in relation to WFFC is way out of proportion. I consider the negativity of these unrelenting smear campaigns to be opprobrious, and not healthful or beneficial for skydiving. Me too.

To [Mr. / Ms.] "notaccountable": I wasn't questioning your concerns about safety, only wondering what had been the source of that quote which Ron attributed to you, as i hadn't seen it before. And i admit, i was lazy and didn't go look up all your posts. As i said: semantics. In my perception, "safety" and "surviving" in skydiving are synonymous. (Ooooh, wasn't that deliciously alliterative??? Ooops, sorry, just having a little fun. I wasn't trying to alliterate, it just came out that way, and i noticed it afterward.) Anyway ... i imagine Bill used the title as an attention getter. That's a standard writing tool, and Bill's good at getting, and holding, people's attention — and that's a good thing, even if it means i ended up looking silly being saddled with responsibility for that long CASA spot the day of that naked jump with the Brazilians. I think it's definitely worth grabbing people's attention for the sake of safety awareness at WFFC. That doesn't mean it makes sense — or offers jumpers anything of beneficial substance — to boycott or bash WFFC. I don't consider myself one of the people that Ron characterized as "blindly" loving the convention. I don't know if there's anybody who fits into that category. Maybe such people are only a figment of someone's imagination? I think most people are on the continuum somewhere between the two extremes of the spectrum mentioned (blindly loving it or blindly hating it, that is). It's important to be aware of all facets of the convention, rather than obsessively focusing on one element. Have a lovely weekend, everyone! pax tibi,

Ron, i know you directed that statement at "notaccountable" — but — it seems to me that you're missing (or ignoring) the point that so many of us have already acknowledged, namely: that safety levels at your home DZ are not going to be existent at ANY boogie, whether it's WFFC or some other boogie event. From what i've been seeing here, "notaccountable" is NOT ignoring that concept. So yes, there is increased danger at any boogie as compared to a typical day at your local home DZ, but why do you keep harping on that, as if were feasible to expect a boogie to achieve the safety levels of local home DZs? Even the WFFC detractors (or most of them, at least) have conceded that ALL boogies are more dangerous than a local home DZ environment, so why do you keep insisting on bashing WFFC because it's not as safe as your local home DZ? Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something? pax tibi,

Simply stated, it brings to attention the effect it has on the people who were there, which subsequently affects the community in general. If the spiritually damaging effects are what it takes to galvanize people into action, then let's not sweep it into obscurity. As i said, the people around Tent 3 — and anyone using those port-a-potties — had to contend with the vestiges of physical evidence from the fatality that were still visible. It has an impact on people — even the ones who were not "hanging around" because of "morbid curiosity" (as you referred to it earlier), and that impact, in turn, produces a lingering effect on the morale of the skydiving community at large. To take this to a personal level, i'll divulge a thought process that has some bearing on this. I have been known to say that i'd rather die jumping than wasting away in a hospital or just vegetating at home because my body has become too old and decrepit to still be jumping (may the powers that be forbid that). And i confess, i still feel that way. I know ... it's a cavalier attitude, and we're all aware that fatalities are a very bad thing for the skydiving community — in terms of emotional/psychological trauma as well as the negative impact on public relations with the non-skydiving world — but i admit that i'm not above having selfish thoughts at times. I truly would rather die doing something i love — such as jumping (and there aren't too many other things i love doing that are conducive to creating conditions for dying while engaging in them) — as it would be far more preferable than dying via those other options i mentioned. However — having said that — i'll also disclose that the *rational* part of my mind would really prefer that i NOT die jumping, because fatalities are so damaging to the morale of the skydiving community, and they inflict such horrendous spiritual burdens and ghastly after-effects on witnesses, bystanders, survivors, as well as medical and clean-up personnel. And that's what i'm talking about when i say it's valid to acknowledge the nitty-gritty unpleasantries that are part of the aftermath of a fatality. Perhaps it can help spur people into action toward trying to find ways to crack down (sorry for the hard-nosed phraseology) on the cause(s) of these types of preventable incidents. Or to re-state it using the wording you quoted from my earlier post: to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future. On one certain level (maybe semantic?), i can see your point about the title, while on another level, the basic goal of "Surviving" skydiving—in and of itself—is a key factor in what we do, don't you think? To me, Bill's article is more along the lines of the mentality behind "Safety Day" procedures, with emphasis on precautionary measures we can take to try and protect ourselves, and i don't think too many people—including you (i imagine)—would consider "Safety Day" principles as being negative or derogatory. And lastly, thanks for the compliment. pax,

Yes, i see your point, Bill. Sorry for splitting hairs.

Yikes, what a slug fest this has become (as in *POW* ... *ZAP* ... *BAM* ... *KABLOOIE* ... *WHAMMO* ... *AARGH* ... *OOF* ... and other such types of interjections in comic strips). I was hoping we could engender a more productive approach to the issues that are being brought to the table, not a spree of insults. Oh well, i guess that element is difficult to suppress among skydivers, eh? pax tibi,

Actually, i don't see Bill as being negative about WFFC, just factual and realistic. He doesn't bash WFFC or discourage people from attending it, while at the same time, he warns them of the increased risk that is a reality in all boogie environments. As you may recall him mentioning, this year was the first year in many that he missed the convention. And yes, you're right — he’s consistent, he makes enormous efforts to educate people, he is invaluably helpful to other jumpers attending WFFC, and on top of all that, he is an extremely gifted writer, enriching us with many entertaining narratives. I just wonder why he exaggerated so much about "my" long spot from the CASA on that day of the nude jump with the Brazilians, and why he enjoyed teasing about it so much, when he could just as well have checked the spot himself. I guess it made for a better—and more amusing—story. I can understand your sensibilities on this, Mr. Anonymous, and i know that many people share your view about it. However, the immediate aftermath — and the effects on people in the vicinity and the people charged with the responsibility of cleaning up — is undeniably a part of the incident. You're right, nobody forced anyone to hang around, and i, for one, did not stick around during the clean-up. Neither am i throwing anything around like a party favor. I simply responded regarding one person's objection to another person's mentioning the inevitable after-effects attendant with a fatal incident. Hours later, when jumping resumed and people (including myself) returned to Tent 3, Winsor made the comment that the soft wet spot in the ground was not the result of the impact, but rather, from the ground being turned over and subjected to biohazard treatment, which is typical of clean-up procedures where blood is present. That spot was inches away from the packing tarps of Tent 3, and people had to contend with it, so i'm sorry if it offends you, but it was part of the experience for the people there, and i am not in the habit of brushing off consideration for their feelings, any more than i want to brush off consideration of yours. If people don't want to read something containing the mention of blood or bodily parts, maybe we need a separate thread where such references are censored? Personally, i don't care for censorship, but if it would make some people happier, i don't mind someone creating a separate thread labeled as being censored. Would you also want to extend said censorship to exclude references to things like both femurs snapping on impact, as one person mentioned in a post? I'm just wondering how far you would want the censorship to go. In light, love, and hope, anita

I disagree with your characterization of my tactics, Jan. What i've been trying to do is get an understanding of your tactics, although thus far, i'm finding them unfathomable. Sorry, i'm not all that well-versed in internet acronym-abbreviations. I know what many of them mean, but not YMMV. Translation? Anybody? Have you communicated any of your ideas directly to Don Kirlin? Have you expressed to him your thoughts, concerns, criticisms, suggestions/recommendations? I would think that might have the potential of being much more productive than all the negativity and rabid bad-mouthing about WFFC that is rife in these forums. One of my earlier statements (in the "Incidents" forum, where this thread originally resided) was that the fatality was being used as a means for bashing WFFC. I still maintain my opinion about the distasteful nature of that type of capitalizing on a fatal incident for a personal agenda, and that it far more befittingly merits the pigeonholing as a "questionable" tactic. I agree with you as to the preventability of that fatality, and admire you for your response of asserting your position at the time. (A number of people have made similar assertions about last week's WFFC fatality.) The fact remains that Bob's demise occurred, and it happened under weekend operational circumstances at the local home DZ — there was no boogie taking place that day. (Actually, i'm not sure if it was a weekday or weekend; would have to check my log book or some other source, such as a newspaper account of the incident, to refresh my memory.) In this discussion, the safety levels of day-to-day operations at local home DZs have been held up as a (not reasonable) measuring stick against which to hold the WFFC accountable, yet Bob's fatality occurred under just such "local home DZ" non-boogie conditions. No drop zone has immunity from fatalities. In that particular case, another jumper was almost killed along with the jumper who made the error. Did Heather stop jumping as a result of that harrowing experience? I don't know, but my guess is that the emotional/psychological upheaval of that incident probably did play a role in that outcome. In light, love, and hope, anita

Hmmmm ... does it accomplish anything productive to jump in the guy's case (mraardvark/Charles, that is) and twist his words around? He's just a guy who's upset, and he blurted out some advice saying, "don't swoop" — he didn't say anything about "banning" it. He also didn't say anything about "banning" skydiving fatalities. That was some creative re-phrasing which didn't accurately reflect what he said. Fatalities aren't something that can be "banned" of course (as you acknowledged), but there ARE behaviors and activities which CAN be banned so that we can start minimizing the number of fatalities, and eliminate — as much as possible — the ones that lead to the multiple fatalities, such as taking out other people in the air (canopy collisions prior to landing) or on the ground (collisions upon landing). Most of the time, such incidents involve hook turns. If we get serious about restricting where hook turns can be done (note that i did NOT say "ban them"), then we will definitely see a downward trend in those fatalities. If there's a designated area for swooping and hook turns, then that's where people can do 'em. Otherwise, they can't do 'em. Simple as that. And please, no whining about "what if there isn't a designated area for swooping on my drop zone?" That would be like whining about why there isn't a drop zone in your back yard, or a racetrack in your city where you could drive 200 mph. Either make it happen at your drop zone, or drive to one that has it. pax,