GreyLake

I agree that science has revealed much more of the world to us than we could have known without science. But science has also revealed that our faculties are so limited that even our most certain discoveries are at best questionable. Worse: false; or worst: specious. Like in religion, each "answer" leads only to yet another "why." Only in science, we've faith in a "reasonable" explanation. It's as silly as anything. As for agendas, I think you're missing my drift. By researching, for example, the benefits of coffee drinking, you're bound to find something. So then it makes the news, and textbooks, and so forth. But does that mean it's good for you? Not necessarily; but because some people want to make coffee a good thing, they can make it so by mere focus. It would be entirely unreasonable of us to assume that humans, with our inevitable and unavoidable emotions and intentions, wouldn't use science to manipulate and create the world we live in not merely physically, but conceptually. We don't even realize it, most of the time. Science can explain no more or less, essentially, than somebody's god (though science makes more sense than some gods). I wish science could explain everything; then maybe we'd have less murder in the world. But it never will be able to, regarless of the details of the universe it finds. You can believe that science can reveal all the answers, but it would be no more than a belief: faith. Let's go to candy mountain.

Science is fundamentally another faith, seems to me. Granted, (as someone earlier noted), it's more readily revised. It seems unscientific to me for people to assume that we can only be confident in observable facts, considering that our ability to observe is limited by our human senses--for example, microscopy permits us to observe more of what we never knew, showing that we don't know much on our own. And then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the wild, behave differently under observation than they behave unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations! Science is a faith. Its malleability, though, makes it preferable to religion, with its destructive absolutisms. . . . And (sadly) in science, like in religion, people can focus on or modify "truth" so as suit their agendas. Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they do as they see fit. Let's go to candy mountain.

So there's a recent book that I've got to read out of sheer curiousity: "How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read." (Pierre Bayard). It actually sounds like a good book, though its popularity speaks volumes regarding our culture (or lack thereof) at present. Sad, indeed. Let's go to candy mountain.

Somebody showed me this same website about a week ago, and I try to hate the cloying cuteness, but O God this was too good to me: http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/2007/11/even-better.html Keep the volume down if Japanese cutesy baby talk irritates you. Let's go to candy mountain.

Not hug? That's absurd. Even the most defiant hug is still a hug. Unrelenting adherence to and enforcement of laws and rules are simply words for absolutism, repression and supression. In cases of destructive behavior, I see where rules might need be obeyed. But a hug is a gesture of support, affection, and approval. That such a policy--one that forbids hugs, one that moves an authority figure to punish precisely those we're trying to make into good, caring human beings--could be implemented in the first place indicates to me a set of rulemakers so incompetent as to not be worth dealing with in the first place. Better, I think, to be defiant and show that the hug does no harm. Except, perhaps, that it wounds the egos of those who'd make a rule against it. Idiocy neither understands nor thinks, and so idiocy need not be respected. (I'm keen on hugs. See my little avatar over there? Yeah. Hugs. WTF)? Let's go to candy mountain.

I am so using that. When people ask me, I just tell them "because I like to." Establishes that their personal opinion means nothing to me, that their question has an obvious answer, and that they are stupid to ask merely to hear themselves talk. Once or twice I've asked "Why do you have to ask a F*)@#%! clichéd question?" (Whuffos can't even wonder originally). I don't think there are any good analogies. Everything else falls short of skydiving. Let's go to candy mountain.

It's my most favoritest thingy ever. Let's go to candy mountain.

Y'all are brave. I'm terrified of my own image. Too telling. . . . That, and I hate being so obviously short. Let's go to candy mountain.

From a would-be tandem, (after I've explained the various altitudes he can jump from, and the various rough durations of freefall, in seconds [several times]): "You mean there are no jumps that'll get me, like, an hour of freefall?" He was utterly serious, and disappointed when I explained that there were no such jumps. He says "Is it 'cause a', like, oxygen, or something? . . ." Hmm. Let's go to candy mountain.

Somehow I think if it was a hot lady instructor with a lot of experience, you just might forget the scary part. Then again, my mind's always in the gutter. Let's go to candy mountain.

tact Main Entry: tact Pronunciation: \'takt\ Function: noun Etymology: French, sense of touch, from Latin tactus, from tangere to touch — more at tangent Date: 1797 1 : sensitive mental or aesthetic perception 2 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense By definition 1, you have tact. By definition 2, you lack tact. But so long as you're only failing to "maintain good relations" or "avoid offense" with those you don't care for, tactlessness is a non-issue. You might burn bridges with the overly-sensitive, but they're pansies anyways. I think you're brilliant and kind. Let's go to candy mountain.

Even with a BA from an esteemed college, you earn less than half of what you earned before you entered college merely in order to work on the DZ. Let's go to candy mountain.

I did four tandems initially--some while going through AFF, but the winds were too high for students and I desperately needed to jump. At that point, I had confidence in myself, by my instructor was far more skillfull than I, so I trusted him. But I rode front again a few months ago, again four times, to help two friends get ratings: it felt scary not having my own rig, it felt a tad scary to jump with tyro tandem instructors, it felt fun when (upon request) I touched my toes out the door to add a bit of challenge to the test, it felt pretty awesome to have two gorgeous men fasten me tightly to themselves and jump, and then land us both safely. That's just still kinda hot. Yeah, so I'll ride front whenevers--if the instructor's cute, I trust his skill level, and it's free to me. (Who can turn down a cheap thrill and a free jump? Good times). Let's go to candy mountain.

I know you got it, but washing it through a pillow case works pretty well. They might get a scratch through at first, but they pretty much give up when they realize they can't go anywhere. Let's go to candy mountain.

O, I think folks gave details in the last thread, regarding those landings of yours; you merely chose to ignore them--not what you wanted to hear, you know? I saw: "The first one you flared late and and pretty much stalled the canopy... the second two you flare completely unevenly. Maybe keep your knees and feet together aswell." This one, a little later, granted, but clearly people are able: "The 2 landing videos you showed honestly were NOT that good and really did not give me confidence for you staying out of trouble. The light wind one showed poor landing flare judgment and the others were in higher winds which can make a landing look much better. Your Ground speed is slower then the actual speed through the air so it is easier to stand up." You know, I have no illusions about altering your ideas; that I clearly can't do. But I do enjoy watching your interesting psyche at work. Let's go to candy mountain.

Quote the smaller and faster a canopy is, the FASTER IT GOES TO SHIT!!Quote It can't be said enough. Let's go to candy mountain.

Problem is, I think, people don't often browse the incident reports. And that nonetheless seems like a hefty downsize to me, but I suppose it depends on how long you hadn't jumped the smaller canopy (170). I mean, if you started on a 170, were at a 230 for three years, and then went to the 150--not so wise. Had you been at a 230 for three weeks, maybe then. Even then, I'd advise people to jump a couple in-betweens first--in your case at the very least the 170--just to be on the safe side. And regardless of wingloading, because it seems to me a dramatic difference equals unfamiliarity, less knowing what to expect, or not to expect. I have to admit, though: it may be that I tend to be over-cautious in certain regards, to the extent that I've held myself back a bit. Still, I'd rather err on this side than the other. Let's go to candy mountain.

I wonder, though, whether or not we’re emphasizing enough the risks of rapid downsizing, and high performance canopy play in general. It may be that we deemphasize the risk in an effort to attract more to the sport. I see only disastrous results in that. I wonder why we’d try to attract people who didn’t have the sense to realize the dangers inherent in skydiving, and canopy flight. I seem to meet a great deal of people who believe that once a parachute is over their heads, they’re all good. Seems to me that’s the most dangerous part, especially when they can’t handle what they’re flying. Let's go to candy mountain.

Yeah, I knew you'd bite, too. Only, I never criticized you. I only pointed out that I might do something I'd personally rather not. "I accept the risk of my decision" to post what might be construed as a verbal jab by someone whom, (really! In spite of appearances), would like us to believe he doesn't want to "hijack the thread." Let's go to candy mountain.

I'm sorry to say I'm unconvinced. Even "Naturals" are not exempt from going in. Nor need a natural downsize faster merely because he or she excels. Yes, we should challenge ourselves, but we have to understand that such challenges in skydiving can prove fatal. Not every instructor jumps a tiny canopy, either; and certainly a good number of jumpers remain conservative in terms of canopy size. As for learning from your parents, there's "do as I say, and not as I do," which, in spite of apparent double standards, we'd do well to listen to. I can see Ronnie Coleman leg press more than one thousand pounds (i.e, an instructor under an 88), but Coleman (and other professionals of that sport) would probably not advise that I attempt the same when I've pressed no more than 600 pounds. They might encourage me to work towards it, but 5 pounds at a time. I might murder myself otherwise, as might anyone pushing such limits. Either that, or I might post videos of myself performing not exactly brilliantly in an attempt to prove that "no, really, I can do this!" Also, one can be an adrenaline junkie, and one can be a smart adrenaline junkie. The first dies for his addiction, at which point he can no longer enjoy it. Moderation saves the latter, and being alive they are at greater liberty to be high. On another note, 2000 jumps, while significanly more than I have, don't seem phenomenally many to me. And I might rather listen to a wary jumper with 200 under her belt than a suicide with ten grand. Let's go to candy mountain.

Some friend, to help a buddy downsize like that! And the person has flown and landed the canopy well so far. I'm not saying doom's inevitable here, but it seems the buyer and buddy expressed a general lack of wisdom and caution in that purchase. There's a certain responsibility on the part of the buyer, sure; but then there's the whole notion that bad parents make bad kids. It's our responsibility as a community to educate our "youth" so that they don't make bad decisions (like drug use, unsafe sex, and rapid downsizing). Let's go to candy mountain.

I thought I made it clear, forgive me, that there's no way I'm selling the thing to this person; something akin to selling booze to a minor? My complaint doesn't regard specifically the person, though. I worry that this person is indicative of others making the same mistakes, and wonder when and how we're failing to make people comprehend the foolishness of a 55 sq foot downsize. Let's go to candy mountain.

Rapid downsizing. I’m selling a rig with a Spectre 135, and I get a bite. Discussion prompts me to discover what the person’s jumping now, and it’s a 190; they’ve never jumped anything smaller. I thought—rather, I know—that I downsized rapidly myself, but it seems utterly absurd to me that this person has either not heeded instructors, or that instructors have not made explicitly clear the dangers of rapid downsizing. My own instructors—the ones I listened to—some regard as liberal (and even then, they’re liberal only with a very few number of jumpers whose canopy skills, experience, caution, and character they’ve more confidence in), and yet never would they advise such a move. 55 square feet! Yes, this person is little, but I am littler, and I don’t think I’m wrong or alone here in thinking that the gap is dangerously vast. Are we not getting across to our students that this is how people kill themselves, and perhaps others? Argh! Do something!

In Japan, those machines vend beer. I think we could one-up them if only Nescafe could come up with a better martini.

You didn't get one sooner because you hadn't yet accepted the fact that you've become "that guy."