Jim_Hooper

There are three of them - Pete, Andy, and Ken, all ex-Royal Marine Commandos. Just to clarify, the war Ken and I covered together was Bosnia, not Afghanistan. Hoop

Andy had some pretty exciting times in Afghanistan in the early 80s with his cameraman brother Ken, back in the days when the mujahedin were the 'good guys.' Ten years later, Ken and I were teamed up for a few weeks covering the war. But you wouldn't get me jumping off a building. No, not this boy. Hoop

Jon - I recognize Boehm and Pink Floyd - which be you? Hoop

I first met Gus Gutshall in 1966 when he was running the 7th Army Parachute Team in Germany. During WWII he flew P-40Ns in China with the 23rd Pursuit Group, which was first formed by the Flying Tigers. And yeah, that's the old Z'hills packing shed. Hoop

I remember the name Johnnie Wells, but can't put a face or anecdote to it. Hoop

Single file indeed. Hoop

#15 I was there the day Tiny Broadwick posed with Bill at Z'hills. Hoop SCR242

Yes.

Yes.

Good memory, Steve - That was Glenn Thornberry. Beingg redneck wasn't the problem, it was his attitude. Not a bad skydiver but not as good as he thought. Rog might remember the doofus. I grounded him a couple of times, then said that another low pull was a guaranteed permanent ban. So he left. Wasn't missed. Hoop

Steve - you shouldn't be beastly to Mowrey; he's actually one of the good guys. And now (cue roll of drums) - I've been saving the following for true connoisseurs of the sublime. 'Twas sent to me by a DBC aficionado who offered the following explanation on why I find one of his favorite subjects so excruciatingly inane. I offer only the best parts, but omit the sender to spare blushes (there is a spell-check here, isn't there?): IT'S A USA THINK YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND ... I don't want to be an ass, but some people do find it interesting, it's part of american folklore, so that is why you don't understand the facination. It would be like you starting a thread on the queen of England, I would say who cares, but that is somthing that interests you and i would just choose not to read it. I have seen people lose their posting privlages for less... I live in hopeful anticipation of that last cautionary note coming true. So far my demands to someone called Sangiro that my account be deleted have proved fruitless. I was also hoping - praying - that the latest Bigfoot discovery - AHA! - would prove to be DBC. Alas, just a bit of moldy plastic closely akin to the more strident believers. I'll have to break the news to the Queen. She's going to be so disappointed. Hoop

Andy - fair comment. Call it an advocacy on behalf of the similarly-minded. Wide-spread advice on simply not reading the offending thread is equally fair comment. Thing is, I haven't in months. When I did last year, there was a fascination probably akin to visitors to Bedlam, the first mental institution in Victorian England. There was this startling impression of drooling maladroits (none whom I recognized as a skydiver) squealing, shrieking and moaning about where a particularly tasty turd had gone. Even now, I see the thread and am reminded of a swelling pustule and the foreign bodies fermenting therein. Unseemly? Duly noted, my learned friend. Hooper

To call non skydivers arrogantly thinking that the forum is for them only, we could then apply that to you, as thinking the the forum is for only us the "old farts". The last time I looked, it was called dropzone.com. I enjoyed the SHT forum now and then for its reminders of good times by folks I've liked and admired for decades; all commenting on subjects relative to skydiving. The thread I object to deals with with a non-skydiver and is dominated by non-skydivers, few of whom know what they're talking about. Troglodytes you wouldn't invite through your front door. (Or, at least, I and lots of others here wouldn't.) You got angry at a moderator that locked a thread posted by you about your unhappiness with the DP Cooper thread was out of line on your part. Wrong again. It wasn't my thread at all, though I enthusiastically contributed to it. What puzzles me is your taking me to task for wanting it moved elsewhere, yet make no criticism of a cowardly quade for locking a separate anti-cooperist thread. Which position would you say smacks the greater of limiting free expression? And, on a skydiving website, whose views are being censored - non-skydivers or skydivers? Your interpretation of the facts and sense of proportion are wayyy out of balance. Hooper

Actually, as I've already made abundantly clear, I heartily endorse your right to comment. To wit: Dropzone.com is a clever idea, an enticing venue for skydivers to air all sorts of topics. But when non-skydivers arrogantly treat it as their own, not least because those it was designed for are too polite to tell ‘em to hit the road, then a problem is generated, one that becomes increasingly divisive. Especially so when it’s clear that their ‘contributions’ (inevitably larded with poor grammar, worse syntax, and flabby thinking) are sad efforts to draw attention to themselves in the company of people who, unlike themselves, actually understand the mechanics of aviation, parachute equipment, freefall, and meteorology. It’s those who do grasp those subjects, through the expenditure of time, passion, money and effort, that have earned (yes, earned is the right word) the right to contribute. So I'd say you are more than entitled and welcome your objections to my views - as strongly and as loudly as you wish to make those objections. Especially so as they are couched in good, lucid prose. I'm not the one doing the censoring; it's the moderator for locking down a thread to cut off dissent. And no, I am not active anymore. But my modest contributions to skydiving do provide a modicum of experience noticeably absent in those described in the first part of the previous paragraph. So fight your corner, and blue skies and smooth engines to you. Hooper

It is always satisfying when dullards unwittingly prove my point. Hooper

reply]If we removed or put into "special" sections every post someone found "the mere sight of it so loathsome", we'd have a very strange looking web site. Sorry, that's just not feasible based on thousands of people's individual tastes. It just doesn't work like that. Given the various other categories already in existence and the fury this particular thread generates, your argument is uneducated, illogical, self-serving and indefensible. IT IS NOT A SKYDIVING SUBJECT. (If you are unsure on this point, have a look in Webster's.) Locking down the DB Cooper was... thread to stifle debate simply demonstrated your arrogance and cowardice. Or can it be that you find the Cooperists intellectually stimulating? I'm beginning to suspect that you actually see them and the subject as interesting. Well, twittering birds of a feather, I guess. Your PM that only Sangiro has the authority to delete my account means you need to have him do exactly that. Immediately. Otherwise, whenever the spirit so moves me I will make an issue out of the non-skydiving morons - your obvious intellectual confreres - that you allow to pollute this site. Hooper

THE reason the thread exists and our desire to keep it contained to a single thread is so that we can manage it and to allow other discussions to continue without people having to read it if they don't want to. Really? Well, this graybeard can't follow the logic of that at all. Seems to me it could be contained in its own little fantasist category outside History and Trivia, where it would be out of sight and thus marginally less offensive. Why, out of basic courtesy to the vast majority here, this has not been done indicates contempt for those who find the mere sight of it so loathsome. Hooper

Lest there be any confusion about my position on this: I would not consider putting my posts in that nauseous thread. There are parallel threads aplenty that don't provoke shutting one down in favor of another, which makes your determination to censor skydivers in favor of non-skydivers on a skydiving website utterly incomprehensible. None of those parasitic warts has made the first contribution to the sport. It's time for someone to exercise integrity by taking a public stand - and the consequences. Please do as I ask and cancel my membership. Many thanks. Hooper

Well done, Quade - Having just sent off my latest book to the publisher and already hard at work to meet the deadline on the next one, I should probably thank you for giving me an excuse to impose a little time-management discipline. Dipping into dz.com from time to time for a spot of self-indulgent nostalgia has been fun, but it’s time to re-evaluate. The plain fact is, when non-too-bright bores with BO who have never contributed to the sport are allowed to dominate a thread – despite the objections of 90% of the skydivers here – then something is clearly out of balance. It would have been a simple matter to give it a different category, away from real skydivers. Therefore, I must ask you to ban/bar/delete my details from the site. Personal integrity and good taste preclude my accepting even the most tenuous association with people who can only be described as pathetic parasites. Best regards, Hoop D4019

I concur with Jerry; no one's talking of deleting - rather moving it elsewhere. Bear in mind the only reason it remains where it is, is because of non-skydivers babbling their nonsense. It is offensive to the eye, offensive to the intellect, and offensive to common sense. Allow me to re-run my last post on that very silly thread: Ever been to a party crashed by people you wouldn’t entertain in your garden shed? You know the type. They walk through your house like they owned it, help themselves to what’s in the fridge, change the music to what they like, spill red wine and put out cigarettes on your carpets, treat your books and skydiving trophies like pieces of junk, leave wet rings on your lovingly-restored antique oak table, and miss the toilet bowl when they piss. And then, incredibly, are offended when you get irritated. Among that milieu is the sub-type who can talk for hours in a monotone about the many shades of metallic-flake paint, not noticing your eyes glazing over. When you move to a group of friends, he follows and butts in with the same topic, one so soporific that everyone mumbles politely and wanders off. When you survey the damage the next morning, you wish you hadn’t been quite so polite. Better to have grabbed ‘em by the scuff of the neck and run ‘em out of your house and off your property. (There are some who may already have a sneaking suspicion where I’m heading with this.) Dropzone.com is a clever idea, an enticing venue for skydivers to air all sorts of topics. But when non-skydivers arrogantly treat it as their own, not least because those it was designed for are too polite to tell ‘em to hit the road, then a problem is generated, one that becomes increasingly divisive. Especially so when it’s clear that their ‘contributions’ (inevitably larded with poor grammar, worse syntax, and flabby thinking) are sad efforts to draw attention to themselves in the company of people who, unlike themselves, actually understand the mechanics of aviation, parachute equipment, freefall, and meteorology. It’s those who do grasp those subjects, through the expenditure of time, passion, money and effort, that have earned (yes, earned is the right word) the right to contribute. Going back to the beginning, you might reasonably ask if I socialize with non-skydivers? You bet I do. But they are articulate, engaging and fascinating people who have taken risks and pushed the envelope in their own fields of endeavor, certainly not wannabes who live dull troglodyte lives surrounded by fantasies they haven’t the moral, philosophical or physical courage to ever realize. Finally, I actually had some newby twit PM me to say that because I lived in England I didn't understand the fascination of DB Cooper. Fact of the matter is, I was interviewed by the FBI at Z'hills the week after the event because of the similarity of surnames. Being 5'8", I was immediately eliminated from their enquiries. So please, let those who want to discuss inanities go somewhere else. Hoop

Perhaps Quade could stick it in a category all its own, with a particularly appropriate title. Suggestions are welcomed. I'm opting for Trivial, 'cause skydiving history it ain't. Which of course is why it's populated primarily by geeky non-skydivers who get a thrill from being associated with folks who have actually accomplished something in life. Hoop

I suspect you speak for a majority of the skydivers who are offended by the sight of that moronic thread. Jim Hooper SCR242 SCS90 NSCR26

QuoteI don't know that I ever payed attention to who it was.... But there was a photo of a 4 year old or so in a one piece sleeper with a hood strapped to the front of dad. I believe it was in Parachutist but maybe Skydiving. The story went that the kid liked it, went 3 or 4 times and when asked the next time said something like 'I'll go if you by me a pony'. Kid new dad liked it more than he did. Don't know if this was the first but I've read every issue of Parachutist ever published and this is the first one I remember. Quote Check the Early History of Tendem Jumping thread. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2947469;search_string=mike%20barber;#2947469 Hoop SCR242 SCS90 NSCR26

Meux, A certain delicacy precludes describing what went down. Let's say that the parameters used to judge the winner went somewhat beyond the traditional wet T-shirt. If that piques your curiosity, there are plenty of veterans of the era who were there who can enlighten you on the details. Fortunately, Roger Nelson snapped some photos of the audience. And there was the preacher with a fixed, glazed expression that didn't indicate a bit of disapproval. You could almost see him hyperventilating.

Equal thanks should go to Scotty Carbone for MC-ing it. If that wasn't one of the times I grounded him, it should have been. Hoop