cam

I would much rather NOT CARE how I look than think I am pretty. Not as in being slovenly, but as in thinking of myself for my other attributes and achievements. Thinking about Nataly's first post, I agree there is something insidious about the 'feel good about how you look'' hype - it's the flip side of the coin of messages to feel unsatisfied with your looks (yes, advertising), and reinforces the idea that looks matter. I don't think anyone really wins from this - neither the 'pretty' nor the 'plain'. as someone who has been 'lucky' to have been judged relatively pretty by the standards of my culture (and in my own eyes too), I can say that there is a major downside: not only does it make growing older (and hence loosing relative value on society's the prettiness/sexiness scales) hard, it produces a nagging feeling that perhaps my looks have favoured me too much, that somehow my professional achievements have been bolstered by being 'pretty' (even tho I never consciously tried to trade on them), that the relatively easy supply of boyfriends I had when I was younger was because of how I looked, not who I was or what did... ok, that's probably putting it too strongly - most of the time it is possible to push all those thoughts away. but it would be somewhat easier if we had much less of a focus on looks full stop. but somehow how i doubt that - i think our DNA (mating imperative) and capitalism (advertising) conspire to feed the looks obsession

when hamas kills 100 israelis for 1 palestinian dead, when hamas blockades an entire population, when hamas fires white phosphorous at civilians.... that would be a sensible question

the comparison with the nazis is silly, because it immediately diverts attention from the actual outrages israel is guilty of. lost the media war? apparently not: i still hear the tired old apologies for war crimes painted as 'these things happen in war', for mass murder glossed as self-defence.

I love my country

I read his book and didn't think he was "fundamentalist" (did you read the passage where he discussed the charge?). Clearly many religious people do see it as rude and disrespectful to say their religion is based on myth, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? it was a big part of why he wrote the book - there is way too much "respect" paid to religion, and he details some of the harmful consequences that arise from that. Why should someone 'respect' views that don't have any evidence to support them? ("respect" because I can't see how, having arrived at the conclusion that believing in god/gods is rather like believing in invisible green fairies, you can honestly respect the belief of someone who does - however much you might like them as a person, or admire their other qualities) as I recall, the arguments Dawkins raises in his book are aimed at the beliefs - it's "this is why I have come to the conclusion that X belief is without good foundation", not "you're stupid" anyway, glad to see this thread - have just finished reading the book, found it very worthwhile

thank you indeed to all who replied. it is all very helpful. as I was turning things over last night I decided I need to do more to recognize feelings of exasperation/pressure when in any kind of potentially-lethal activity (driving, skydiving), as I think they were key in leading me to this. a defensive driving course probably wouldn't hurt either, but I don't think they offer them here. m'cycle licence I already have again, thanks all

many thanks dr Bordson and Lindsey. yes, learning from my mistakes is what I really want to do, but wondering how exactly. it's not like I did something I didn't already know was stupid. I guess I have to work through how I ended up making the wrong decisions.. and yes, I will be apologising to the man I hit. cochese, yeah well, that's another issue. but I'm guessing that wasn't your point. yes, I am feeling absolutely lousy about the motorcyclist (and was one myself at one time). but I don't think guilt alone is particularly useful in figuring out what went wrong and how not to do it again. anyways, it's bedtime over here, so won't be able to thank any other responders for a while.

what do you mean by 'can'? if it's just the logistics - well, you need a dedicated babysitter, either on or off the dz. I have taken my son (now 3) with me, and he absolutely loves it. if it's the ethics of what will happen to your child if you die or are seriously injured, well it's obviously a person thing. how good is your life insurance? how good are the people who would look after child if you are not there? I've wrestled with this for 3 years, and gone both ways. currently 'off' jumping after another crash involving the jump pilot, and I just can't kid myself about aviation safety in the region I live in. your situation may be different.

not a regular poster here, but I hope it's ok to ask this question, seems to fit a skydiving forum. what do you do when you screw up, and need to get your confidence back again? I don't mean read your affirmations/tell yourself how great you are kind of thing, I mean how do you get to feel like you *deserve* (at least a bit) your confidence: ie, that you won't screw up again? to put this in context, I had a road accident a few days ago. my fault. I hit a motorcyclist. thanks to all the fates, he is not seriously injured and was discharged from hospital after an hour or so. but I can't stop chewing over the event, and all the things leading up to it. bit like an incident report: I can see a long line of events leading up to the accident, starting with taking a detour to a wind tunnel (which turned out to be closed), making several wrong turns in a city I'm unfamiliar with, in a country I don't live in, being annoyed at being behind schedule and and and.. but bottom line is that I screwed up majorly, made a stupid driving decision, and am damn lucky not to have killed anyone. it's really shaken me up in ways that go well beyond the expense and hassle that it involves. I've always felt like a reasonably competent person. I skydive, I climb, I have a kid - I can't afford to make such stupid mistakes. what to do to get my brain back? yoga? meditation? any thoughts from people who have been through something similar would be *much* appreciated.

god. why is it the best who die before they should? I never knew Tonto, but know the world is a sadder, poorer place without him. he left a very strong impression.. as a skydiver, as a man, as a human being. may the values he lived by be taken up by those he inspired.

I went there in May this year - hadn't been in a tunnel before, so no basis for comparison.. they let me try to freefly, tho I kind of sucked in my attempts, and stuck to my belly most of the time. I think some people manage to sitfly ok, but a baggy suit would defintely help. I have a feeling that even max power was not great.. but that could be my lack of experience with tunnels. in short - if you explain yourself and show that you can fly on your belly, I would think they would let you try. they are nice guys, too bad it's in the most revolting place (the casino building and "fun" park were about the grottiest things I have seen in years). but it's only an hour or so from KL - definitely worth a visit.

also on truth-making.. Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change · Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told · Researchers warned not to talk about global warming Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Wednesday January 31, 2007 The Guardian The Bush administration was yesterday accused of systemic tampering with the work of government climate scientists to eliminate politically inconvenient material about global warming. At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms. [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2002485,00.html]

for Southeast Asia-area skydivers there is a chance to jump in Segamat, Malaysia on 3-4 February. As anyone in the region will know, the civilian skydiving scene has been very difficult for the last few years - with luck and support this marks the return of some regular jumping in the region. the aircraft will be an Mi- 8, jump altitude 10,000 ft minimum. registration is free, but contact Richard Chee on swoop1338 [at] gmail.com to let him know your name, passport number and phone number.. or to ask questions. Other details: >> >>Segamat is in Johor, Malaysia. It is 2 hours by car, 4 hours by >>train and 3 hours by bus from Singapore. It is 2.5hrs by car, 3 >>hours by train and 3 hours by bus from Kuala Lumpur. >> >>Accomodation can be arrange either at the golf club (where the DZ is >>located) or at the heart of the town (about 5- mins drive away by >>taxi). Room rates are RM40 for the former or RM60 for the latter. >>Exchange rate is USD$1- RM3.5. >> >>Jump tickets will be priced as follows; >>1. USD$40/ pax with 20 skydivers, >>2. USD$35/ pax with 25 skydivers, >>3. USD$30/ pax with 30 skydivers, >>4. USD$28/ pax with more than 30 skydivers. >> .

well, depends what 'openly watching' means.. I'd feel uncomfortable with a stranger staring intently/persistently at me *whatever* I was doing. If it was just the normal kind of looking around, maybe eye contact for half a second and a small smile/friendly expression .. then no, it wouldn't bother me at all. actually, I had a guy sitting next to me on a plane when my son was 3 weeks old, and was nervous about it (in addition to flying on a 10 hour flight with a new baby, hell in addition to going out alone with him), but not so much about the breastfeeding per se. more because I thought he would be feeling hostile to having a baby next to him, tho it did mean that I more of an effort to keep things hidden under a light wrap over my shoulder (and this in itself adds a bit to the stress of feeding for a new mother - and no doubt there are moments when the baby is getting latched or the wrap slips a bit, when some skin is probably visible). I guess I was glad that he didn't seem to be craning his head around to look. but I didn't expect him to keep his eyes pointed the other way - given business class seats he could carry on doing what he was doing in a normal way, which is exactly what he did, and that was fine. so in short, if you just carry on as normal I would think you will not offend anyone [:)

just because no-one has mentioned this yet.. no, it is NOT feasible (or kind) to refrain from feeding your normally-breast fed baby on a plane -- or in public if you ever go out for more than a couple of hours and don't want to feed in a toilet (would you want to eat there?). on planes it is particularly essential: babies ears do not adjust well to pressure changes, so it is the standard recommendation to feed them for at least 10 minutes after take off and for the descent period before landing. feeding them will stop them screaming at these times. also - and not directed at PLFXpert in particular - this whole 'cover up' and be discreet thing is not always as easy as some people make out. god knows, I don't know a single breast feeding mother who didn't do her best to be discreet. most were acutely aware of the potentially judgemental attitudes of people who find it 'off putting'. no way I wanted to flash my nipples in public. BUT sometimes it does just happen, for a short moment. If you are fairly new at breastfeeding you may not find it possible to latch your baby on entirely under shawl. it can be tricky... older babies sometimes object to having their heads totally covered by a cloth while they feed.. sometimes they pull off suddendly to look around. tip for those of you who find this somehow offensive (which I can't fathom, but anyway): don't stare at the breast area.. look away. everyone will feel better that way.

from today's guardian. I guess the question is why do they think they can get away with claiming these trials offer any kind of justice? Found: 'Non-contactable' witnesses who could free a Guantánamo detainee Declan Walsh in Gardez, Afghanistan Saturday July 1, 2006 Guardian The United States government said it could not find the men that Guantánamo detainee Abdullah Mujahid believes could help set him free. The Guardian found them in three days. Two years ago the American military invited Mr Mujahid, a former Afghan police commander accused of plotting against the US, to prove his innocence before a special military tribunal. As was his right, Mr Mujahid called four witnesses from Afghanistan. But months later the tribunal president returned with bad news: the witnesses could not be found. Mr Mujahid's hopes sank and he was returned to the wire-mesh cell where he remains today. The Guardian's search for Mr Mujahid's witnesses proved successful within three days. One was working for President Hamid Karzai, another was teaching at a leading American college and the third was living in Kabul. The fourth was dead. Each witness said he had never been approached by the Americans to testify in Mr Mujahid's hearing. The case illustrates the flaws that have discredited Guantánamo-style justice and which led the US supreme court to declare such trials illegal on Thursday in a major rebuke to the Bush administration. Mr Mujahid is one of 380 Guantánamo detainees whose cases were reviewed at "combatant-status review tribunals" in 2004 and 2005. The tribunals were hastily set up following a court ruling that the prisoners, having been denied all normal legal rights, should be allowed to prove their innocence. Ten of the hearings proceeded to full trials, including that of Osama bin Laden's aide, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who brought the successful supreme court appeal. But by the time the review tribunals ended last year the US government had located just a handful of the requested witnesses. None was brought from overseas to testify. The military lawyers simply said they were "non-contactable". That was not entirely true. Abdullah Mujahid was originally identified by Washington-based reporters from the Boston Globe after trawling through pages of testimony from the military trials. American forces arrested Mr Mujahid in the southern Afghan city of Gardez in mid-2003, claiming that he had been fired as police chief on suspicion of "collusion with anti-government forces", according to official documents. Later, they alleged, he attacked US forces in retaliation. In the military tribunal Mr Mujahid protested his innocence. He enjoyed good relations with American soldiers and had been promoted, not fired, he said. The three living witnesses he requested were easily located with a telephone, an internet connection and a few days' work. Shahzada Massoud was at the presidential palace, where he advises Mr Karzai on tribal affairs. Gul Haider, a former defence ministry official, was found through the local government in Gardez. The interior ministry gave an email address for the former minister, Ahmed Ali Jalali, although he could as easily have been found on the internet - he teaches at the National Defence University in Washington DC. The witnesses corroborated Mr Mujahid's story with some qualifications. Mr Jalali, the former interior minister, said Mr Mujahid had been fired over allegations of corruption and bullying - not for attacking the government. Mr Haider, the former defence official, said Mr Mujahid had contributed 30 soldiers to a major operation against al-Qaida in March 2002. "He is completely innocent," he said. In Gardez, Haji Muhammad Hasan, 65, keeps a stack of Red Cross letters as the only proof of his son's whereabouts. "I feel completely helpless," he said in despair. Beside him the detainee's shy sons - aged three, four and five - waited for news of a father they could hardly recall.

sorry if this was already answered - I didn't read the whole thread. to answer NWFlyer's question about NZ, it is because there is no right to sue for personal damages for anything. Legislation in the 1970s (I think it was then) took away the right to sue in exchange for a 'no fault' accident compensation scheme. the system worked really well, tho I think much later it ran into some problems with being under-funded, so pay-outs to cover long-term injuries were rather low. but overall it is really efficient and avoids all the waste of law suits etc. I don't think it made NZers negligent or uncaring either..

CFACT is an energy industry -funded organization with a track record of misleading analysis -- google for countless examples. it has very clear interests in running the line it does. the IPCC scientists did not. yes, CFACT has attracted some scientists to its board. as far as I could tell on quick run through of their bio-data, and that of the some of the people they cited, they are NOT the ones who publish in peer-reviewed journals on the issue of climate change. this is not my area of professional expertise. is it yours? this is a scientific issue, for a non-expert to go against the MAJORITY opinion of credentialed experts is perverse. bit the like the conspiracy theorists who refuse to vaccinate their children -- and yes, they can find scientists to support them -- despite every source with credible status contradicting their claims. that is what CFAT is the equivalent of, except rather than just being loony they have financial interests in their 'findings'. obviously, there are scientists who deny that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. but to infer from the small minority who by and large are not respected by their peers that this represents a serious area of scientific uncertainty is completely fallacious. there's lots about the *impacts* of climate change that is uncertain, but the fact that human activity is causing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to rise, and that this contributes to a heating effect -- that part is not up for serious debate among people who are experts in this area of science. as I said, this is not my area of expertise but I understand enough about the scientific peer review process to know whom to believe.

rushmc - I don't know what your day job is, but even if you're an atmospheric scientist, why do you think your ardently-held opinion better represents the state of scientific knowledge than the assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change? you know, the reports issued by teams of international scientists assembled to assess scientific research on climate change... since 2001 they have presented evidence of anthropogenic climate change and refuted the kinds of arguments you run. so why are you right and hundreds of the world's atmospheric scientists wrong?

how come scientists who dispute a link between smoking and lung cancer are not getting grant money and professional respect (now that the tobacco companies have given up on funding them)? the idea that there is major scientific dissent about the basic phenomenon of global warming is a gross misperception. many things about precise impacts remain uncertain, but there IS overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate has changed and that 'natural' causes for this (climate internal variability, solar oscillations etc) are not consistent with the evidence. a couple of publicity-seeking 'climate skeptic' scientists do not change the mass of peer-reviewed studies that have convincingly refuted their claims. Here are the major reports of the international panel on climate change - the most encompassing assessment of the research: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and a summary of recent findings: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/29 you'll probably not consider the WRI an impartial source, but note this is not their research - it is research carried out by unrelated scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals. and if you should actually want to read a book on why the policy debate does not accurately reflect the science, this is a good recent one: The science and politics of global climate change : a guide to the debate / Andrew E. Dessler, Edward A. Parson. Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.

jumping in malaysia is rather infrequent.. not quite non-existent but getting that way, unless you want to jump from 4 k. this weekend (18-19 feb) there's a porter running in indonesia - doesn't happen often and probably won't be available again for the next few months. lif you are interested check out www.skydiveasia.org and call dann for details: we will meet you in changi or jakarta airport if we can link up flights.

thanks for making it clear that this thread isn't about the situation in Indonesia or anywhere else except for the space between your ears.

thanks Mikkey for being a well-informed voice.. The original press report posted may or may not be 'factual' but it is completely one-sided. There is a lot more to sectarian violence in Indonesia. I'm not interested in the challenge put forward by sen.blu, because I see it as pointless. that kind of point-scoring is completely irrelevant for trying to understand the causes of violence there. but, as it happens, the violence has gone both ways (e.g. some of the Dayaks involved in beheadings of Madurese (Muslim) transmigrants as mentioned by Mikkey identify as Christians. but that is really beside the point, the conflict there has been driven by years of corrupt and stupid government policy, massive resource exploitation and land grabs. the conflift in the Malukus has also involved killings on both sides of the sectarian line.) if anyone is interested in knowing more about the conflicts in Indonesia (I doubt sen. b is) I'd recommend the highly credible and impartial reports of the international crisis group. www.crisisgroup.org

I don't normally post but this thread kind of stuck in my head. to the OP: you can have your baby and skydive, but I suspect that for a baby to grow up happy and secure s/he will take over your life.. and that can be a wonderful thing. but it takes planning, support, energy and probably luck. yeah, all the 'big' things like life insurance and alternative carers need to be sorted out, but they need to be done whether you skydive or not. as for the practicalities of taking a baby to the dz: it can be done. I took my son to the dz when he was 8 weeks old, and it worked out wel for both of us. but it is not like jumping without a baby. babies have needs for frequent feeding and sleep, so a day at the dz is really only fair to the baby if there is a quiet place for doing both. and you need supportive friends and a friendly dz. since my son was born I have only made a couple of jumps a day each time. definitely worth it but now that he is older, having a full-time carer so that I can get more jumps in is a better option for me. to those who consider the dz to be an adult playground.. well, I guess I was like you until quite recently. your call. god knows the last thing I'd want to do is leave my baby with anyone who was not happy to hold him. but perhaps you could consider this: what happens when parents with babies don't feel welcome to take them out and about? there are so many places where it truly is not appropriate to take a baby (movies, theatre, concerts, bars, most parties..). but the dz? come on, it is not a concert hall. how does it stop you jumping if I am sitting under tree with my baby, or if my baby is in his pram watching me pack? babies are people, part of society, and they and their parents like to get of the house and pursue the activities that make life fun and worthwhile. should we be confined to 'mother and baby' coffee mornings and walking around the mall? I had a baby - I didn't suddenly acquire the urge to hang out with people with whom I had nothing in common other than having reproduced and discuss infant feeding habits. sure, anyone who doesn't like babies is not obliged to play with them, and I will take all reasonable steps to make sure my baby isn't disruptive to others. but I am beyond measure grateful to my wonderful friends who have helped me carry on with my life *with* my baby, by being ready to play with him and help out; and to the people at dropzones who, even tho they were not already friends, nonetheless made me and by baby feel welcome. you are what makes the world a more humane place, on the dz and off.

this thread reminded me of something.. about where undeniable truths come from (sorry for long post, I'd make it clicky but the version I have is no longer online without subscription) Business Times - 17 Oct 2003 Fox and the dissemination of un-facts By HAROLD MEYERSON (WASHINGTON) Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on whether you know who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is? Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong. Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centres, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way towards explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction. In a series of polls from May till September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 per cent believed that the US had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Another 22 per cent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 per cent said that most people in other countries had backed the US war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty per cent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 per cent believed all three. The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. Fox, the survey concludes, was 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions'. Eighty per cent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 per cent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 per cent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 per cent bought into the full trifecta. And among PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 per cent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 per cent entertained all three. Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case. Misperceptions can also be the result of inattention, of course. If you nod off for just a nanosecond in the middle of Tom Brokaw intoning, 'US inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction today', you could think we'd just uncovered Saddam's nuclear arsenal. So the wily researchers also controlled for intensity of viewership, and concluded that, 'in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions'. Particularly when that news includes hyping every false lead in Iraq as the certain prelude to uncovering a massive WMD cache. One question inevitably raised by these findings is whether Fox News is failing or succeeding. Over at CBS, the news that 71 per cent of viewers hold one of these mistaken notions should be cause for concern, but whether such should be the case at Fox because 80 per cent of their viewers are similarly mistaken is not at all clear. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the other guys at Fox have long demonstrated a clearer commitment to changing public policy than to reporting it, and an even clearer commitment to reporting it in such a way as to change it. Let's assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Mr Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Mr Bush is revered among the peoples of the world - all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers - is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard - moving votes into Mr Bush's column and keeping them there - Fox has to be judged a stunning success. - LAT-WP