Spam and such...
Radar Rider
I have been reading with interest the recent posts on spam and the
deadly effects thereof. I just wanted to toss in my two cents worth:
The saddest and most infuriating thing about spam is that the spammers
don't even READ Usenet posts, not even (or perhaps especially not) to
see any responses to their trash. I recall very clearly the shock I
felt the first time I saw spam in rec.kites. It was only a little over
a year ago that I congratulated this group on being spam-free. Now,
THEY have found us. My experience has been that once the spammers find
a newsgroup and and send their mailbots to drop the first posts, it
doesn't stop until the group is DEE EE DEE dead. I pray am wrong this
time.
On the lighter side, I did check out the Wind Dance mentioned in an
earlier post at www.seattleairgear.com. Most interesting, although I
don't think I can agree that radical stunters don't actually fly, and
that their stunts come from a LOSS of flying ability. Still, I think I
might have to get one. They sound pretty sweet.
Just a question: Has anyone ever tried to make a parafoil from
plastic? If so, how did it work out? I bought plenty of the sheet
plastic I mentioned a while back, have completed one kite and am near
completion on another, and am casting about for new projects.
Where the horizon cuts the air,
Look for me out there...
Radar Rider
ri...@mnsinc.com
Airfoils
I disagree,
"Wounded Butterfly Syndrome" is not very interesting to watch from a
spectators point of view, and I believe kites belong in the AIR not on the
ground. All this flapping the kites around on the ground is nothing more
then reproducible mistakes and is ugly and uninteresting to a spectator.
Only the initiated understand the difficulty involved in them. Maybe there
should be events held only for the initiated and those impressed with
themselves, no spectators allowed. Ohh but wait a minute...spectators have
dropped haven't they? I wonder why? Could it be that this wounded butterfly
syndrome is BORING to watch? It certainly is. You might get your jollies
from it, but very few uninitiated care for it. I'll FLY right next to you
while you flap around on the ground like a wounded butterfly and the
unintiated's eyes will be on me every time guaranteed. Motion rules. Lack of
it sucks. Nuff said.
Peace,
Mike
Radar Rider wrote in message <35381a41...@news1.mnsinc.com>...
Michael Raycraft
Hi, Mike. I have a feeling that you might be trolling, but I'll bite:
Airfoils <airf...@NOSPAM.gte.net> wrote in article
<6h98ss$okk$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> I disagree,
>
> "Wounded Butterfly Syndrome" is not very interesting to watch from a
> spectators point of view, and I believe kites belong in the AIR not on the
> ground. All this flapping the kites around on the ground is nothing more
> then reproducible mistakes and is ugly and uninteresting to a spectator.
> Only the initiated understand the difficulty involved in them. Maybe there
> should be events held only for the initiated and those impressed with
> themselves, no spectators allowed. Ohh but wait a minute...spectators have
> dropped haven't they? I wonder why? Could it be that this wounded butterfly
> syndrome is BORING to watch? It certainly is.
I get the distinct impression that you don't think much about trick kites or
flyers.
> [...] You might get your jollies
> from it, but very few uninitiated care for it. I'll FLY right next to you
> while you flap around on the ground like a wounded butterfly and the
> unintiated's eyes will be on me every time guaranteed. Motion rules. Lack
of
> it sucks.
So, now, being a spectator sport is what it's all about, is it? Hmmm....
That means that I've probably misspent much of the time spent at the local
soccer field grabbing a few minutes of "air" before or after dinner of late.
Yes, some of that time might have been spent on the ground, and much of that
intentionally. And I suppose I do get the odd onlooker (or the onlooker who
thinks I'm odd). But I'm out there having fun, and I'm not sorry about it.
You can look at it as a series of little challenges if you like -- from the
first controlled flights of the dual-liner (if that's your bag); through the
quest for the first axel; then the first *intentional* one (remember, Dodd
says your only allowed 50 :) on to the coin tosses and spikes (there's that
dreaded ground again) sprinkled along the way with the pancakes, 180's,
360's, 540's, etc. If you're with me so far, you might recognize that
feeling of euphoria, that melting away of time, that flash of temper as you
blow the last move or snap the rod...
Somehow, you keep coming back for more, pushing back the limits, reaching new
plateaus. And if (when?) it stops being fun anymore, you move on. But none
the poorer for having tried it. And, of course, its not for everybody. To
each his own, as they say (horses for courses...).
Overstated? Perhaps. But maybe you really had to be there.
> Nuff said.
yup.
> Peace,
> Mike
Be with you, too.
Michael (*p.s. added)
-=-
Michael Raycraft am...@torfree.net [|*|]
-=-
> Radar Rider wrote in message <35381a41...@news1.mnsinc.com>...
> >I have been reading with interest the recent posts on spam and the
> >deadly effects thereof. I just wanted to toss in my two cents worth:
> >
> >The saddest and most infuriating thing about spam is that the spammers
[...]
> >On the lighter side, I did check out the Wind Dance mentioned in an
> >earlier post at www.seattleairgear.com. Most interesting, although I
> >don't think I can agree that radical stunters don't actually fly, and
> >that their stunts come from a LOSS of flying ability. Still, I think I
> >might have to get one. They sound pretty sweet.
*p.s. As a side note, Mike, it looks like you are changing the subject line
in your posts to suit the point you are making. There are times when this is
okay, such as when there is a dramatic shift in the point of the message from
the original thread, however, it is generally to be used sparingly. Some
newsreaders grouping threads by topic (particularly when a search is being
done on e.g. dejanews) do not necessarily pick up posts or lump them together
properly unless the subject line is retained in its original form. I only
mention this as, asleep at the switch, I recently permitted my spellchecker
to amend a typo in the subject line of a thread and it really does throw
things askew at times...you may already be well aware of that but I just
thought I'd pontificate for awhile anyways. I'm just warming up...
Having said all that, nice bait; great title.
-mr
Mike Smathers
Airfoils wrote:
> I disagree,
>
> "Wounded Butterfly Syndrome" is not very interesting to watch from a
> spectators point of view, and I believe kites belong in the AIR not on the
> ground. All this flapping the kites around on the ground is nothing more
> then reproducible mistakes and is ugly and uninteresting to a spectator.
> Only the initiated understand the difficulty involved in them. Maybe there
> should be events held only for the initiated and those impressed with
> themselves, no spectators allowed. Ohh but wait a minute...spectators have
> dropped haven't they? I wonder why? Could it be that this wounded butterfly
> syndrome is BORING to watch? It certainly is. You might get your jollies
> from it, but very few uninitiated care for it. I'll FLY right next to you
> while you flap around on the ground like a wounded butterfly and the
> unintiated's eyes will be on me every time guaranteed. Motion rules. Lack of
> it sucks. Nuff said.
Boring? Not likely. I personally get more comments from 'spectacles' as we
like to call them on our flying field when I pop a few axels and whatnot instead
of just flying around and around and around in circles. Punching a square
corner is very unnatural to me.
I must say this much: Your very *narrow* view is degrading to the sport
altogether. I like to trick. You dont. Big deal. Live and let live.
Example: There is one person on our flying field that has no use for any kite
that has sticks or more than one control line (he only flies soft kites,
primarily Flowforms). Does he whine at us who have power quads, framed single
liners, or stunt kites? No. Does he have a blase' attitude towards us? No.
In fact he tends to be rather impressed when we bring out something new that is
genuinely a good product.
Get your head out of your *!@ and respect others for what *they* like to do, and
dont whine because they dont do what *you* want them to do.
Direct all flames to /dev/null
Mike
--
Happy Winds!
Beware of my anti-spam measures...
aquarius AT frontiernet DOT net
mojo
Mike Smathers wrote in message <353A2C5B...@frontiernet.net>...
>I must say this much: Your very *narrow* view is degrading to the sport
>altogether. I like to trick. You dont. Big deal. Live and let live.
How can encouragement of increasing spectators be negative to kiting?
>
>Get your head out of your *!@ and respect others for what *they* like to
do, and
>dont whine because they dont do what *you* want them to do.
>
How can you say "big deal" and "live and let live" in one part and then
curse at someone for stating their point of view?? Why can't "you" respect
someone else for what they think?
>Direct all flames to /dev/null
>
>Mike
>
>--
>Happy Winds!
>Beware of my anti-spam measures...
>aquarius AT frontiernet DOT net
Sam
Airfoils
>I get the distinct impression that you don't think much about trick kites
or
>flyers.
Actually, I think it is FAR overdone and that many of the tricksters
don't even bother with FLYING which I think is sad.
>So, now, being a spectator sport is what it's all about, is it? Hmmm....
>
>That means that I've probably misspent much of the time spent at the local
>soccer field grabbing a few minutes of "air" before or after dinner of
late.
>Yes, some of that time might have been spent on the ground, and much of
that
>intentionally. And I suppose I do get the odd onlooker (or the onlooker
who
>thinks I'm odd). But I'm out there having fun, and I'm not sorry about it.
>You can look at it as a series of little challenges if you like -- from the
>first controlled flights of the dual-liner (if that's your bag); through
the
>quest for the first axel; then the first *intentional* one (remember, Dodd
>says your only allowed 50 :) on to the coin tosses and spikes (there's that
>dreaded ground again) sprinkled along the way with the pancakes, 180's,
>360's, 540's, etc. If you're with me so far, you might recognize that
>feeling of euphoria, that melting away of time, that flash of temper as you
>blow the last move or snap the rod...
Personally I couldn't care less what Dodd says. If you want to do tricks,
fine. Maybe you could go learn the whole thing and do some maneuvers too. It
appears to me though that you spend 95% of your time under 15' flopping and
flipping around. To me thats a waste but if thats what gets you your jollies
go for it. Maybe you should learn Frisbee if you like to flip and tumble
things so much. I just think it stinks that the whole trick thing has focus
and real flying is not. In time it will be around still and I don't pretend
to make it go away nor would I want to. My point being FLYING is meat and
potatoes and tricks should be left as garnish. There is too much focus on it
is my point, and a kite flying in the AIR is more aestetically pleasing. My
"bag" happens to be speed, precision and grace. Its obviously not your
thing. Its my thing, and many others too.
>> >On the lighter side, I did check out the Wind Dance mentioned in an
>> >earlier post at www.seattleairgear.com. Most interesting, although I
>> >don't think I can agree that radical stunters don't actually fly, and
>> >that their stunts come from a LOSS of flying ability. Still, I think I
>> >might have to get one. They sound pretty sweet.
>
>*p.s. As a side note, Mike, it looks like you are changing the subject line
>in your posts to suit the point you are making. There are times when this
is
>okay, such as when there is a dramatic shift in the point of the message
from
>the original thread, however, it is generally to be used sparingly. Some
>newsreaders grouping threads by topic (particularly when a search is being
>done on e.g. dejanews) do not necessarily pick up posts or lump them
together
>properly unless the subject line is retained in its original form. I only
>mention this as, asleep at the switch, I recently permitted my spellchecker
>to amend a typo in the subject line of a thread and it really does throw
>things askew at times...you may already be well aware of that but I just
>thought I'd pontificate for awhile anyways. I'm just warming up...
Its my post, I'll title it what I please. Why should I be inconvenienced to
make things convenient for you? I think not. I am proficient enough at news
groups to find what I want and don't see how it is so hard for you to
discover other ways of sorting posts on your machine. If I can, you can too.
>great title.
>
>-mr
Then you compliment me on the title. You're confused.
Airfoils
Do you think you can post again? Because I tell you I was ROFL at how many
times you contradict yourself.
Anything that draws new people is neither "narrow" minded nor "derogatory".
I suggest you ponder where your head has been lately.
Peace,
Mike
Mike Smathers wrote in message <353A2C5B...@frontiernet.net>...
>I must say this much: Your very *narrow* view is degrading to the sport
>altogether. I like to trick. You dont. Big deal. Live and let live.
>
>Example: There is one person on our flying field that has no use for any
kite
>that has sticks or more than one control line (he only flies soft kites,
>primarily Flowforms). Does he whine at us who have power quads, framed
single
>liners, or stunt kites? No. Does he have a blase' attitude towards us?
No.
>In fact he tends to be rather impressed when we bring out something new
that is
>genuinely a good product.
>
>Get your head out of your *!@ and respect others for what *they* like to
do, and
>dont whine because they dont do what *you* want them to do.
>
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <airf...@gte.net> wrote on trick flying:
> Actually, I think it is FAR overdone and that many of the tricksters
>don't even bother with FLYING which I think is sad.
That would indeed be sad...
>Personally I couldn't care less what Dodd says. If you want to do tricks,
>fine. Maybe you could go learn the whole thing and do some maneuvers too. It
>appears to me though that you spend 95% of your time under 15' flopping and
>flipping around.
but I think you have:
a) greatly misunderstood the nature of freestyle/trick flying.
and/or
b) been watching the wrong kind of freestyle/trick fliers.
>I just think it stinks that the whole trick thing has focus
>and real flying is not.
[...]
>My point being FLYING is meat and potatoes and tricks should be left as
>garnish.
I don't think there's any such thing as "real flying".
* If I did nothing but fly my kite in circles, would that be real flying?
* How about straight lines?
* Is a snap turn "real flying" or a "trick"?
* What about a snap stall?
* Snap stall to landing?
* Tip stab?
* and so on...
If I spent all my time flying a kite in straight lines or round and round
in circle then it would be just as boring as flopping around on the ground
doing "tricks". But would I hear cries that "Real flying is boring?" No!
People would say that I was a boring flyer rather than criticising the
flying discipline itself.
A flier should be versatile and creative and should encompass as much
variation and difference of style into their flying as possible. If all
they do is flop around on the ground then they're not being very creative.
But that doesn't mean that a short bit of "Ground Flop" isn't a bad thing
in a well structured context.
I can do "real" flying (as you mean it) *AND* I can do tricks. I reckon
that makes me a more versatile performer. It means that there's more I can
put into my flying to give it variation and excitement. It means that the
techniques I learn in precision help me in trick flying and vice-versa.
Can you claim to have the same experience from just "real" flying?
There's a great deal that trick fliers can learn from "standard" flying
techniques (precision and control to name just two) and a great deal that
"standard" fliers can learn from trick techniques (precision and control
to name just two - but in a totally different way).
Why does there need be such animosity between the two camps? Why are there
two camps at all? Aren't we just different tents in the same camp site?
My tent is always open and you're welcome to come and sit in it. It's
safe and dry, and although you may still prefer your own tent, it makes
a change every now and then. Anyone spending too much time in their own
tent definately needs to get out more.
A
--
Andy Wardley <a...@kfs.org> http://www.kfs.org/~abw
Signature lost in transit. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
M & L Coons
Well said Andy,
I think airfoils tent is getting a little musty.
I was flying at the beach a couple of weeks ago. Doing a whole array of
tricks amongst punch turns, figures, etc. A mother and daughter were
sitting behind me and I could here the girls excitement every time I did
a trick near the ground. When the mother told her daughter it was time
to go she started to cry.
Can musty tent make people cry with his flying?
Think Wind
Mike
Andy Wardley wrote:
<snip>
Collette Lemons
I think real flying is anything you do with a kite that makes you happy. SOme fliers
obviously don't care for tricks, flying the same old circles Etc... are exciting enough
for them, and that is ok. But for the more adventuroud fliers, a few circles and patterns
arent enough, they need the thrill of a new manouver to get them off. This attitude has
produced better kites, new invovations like the power kites and buggies.
Real flying is always what you do to make you happy and give you the feeling of being
content. It doesnt matter if it is an AKA manouver or a cool trick, what matters is how
you feel when it is done.
Collette
Airfoils
>If I spent all my time flying a kite in straight lines or round and round
>in circle then it would be just as boring as flopping around on the ground
>doing "tricks". But would I hear cries that "Real flying is boring?" No!
>People would say that I was a boring flyer rather than criticising the
>flying discipline itself.
If you think maneuvers are just straight lines and loops, you're dead wrong.
There are a thousand or more ways to turn and implement variations on
angles, turns and straight lines. Your view of maneuvers is simplistic at
the very best. Not to mention, maneuvers have years more maturity then
tricks do. Also, you have to figure in team maneuvers which only adds to the
myriad of things possible. Tricks are hot right now, but likemany things,
they'll cool and they will eventaully hit a cieling where little else can be
done which I assure you will fall FAR short of the things that can be done
with maneuvers in which the possibilities are nearly boundless. At the time
this "ceiling" is hit, I am sure tricks will become nothing more then a
garnish. Either that or kiting will be segmented yet again and there will be
a trick flying event. Point being kites are such versatile things that you
eventually cannot compare apples and oranges any longer. Recently new
kiters have been taught tricks are the "thing" and they have ignored the
bread and butter that took dual (and quad) where it is today. Further,
maneuvers do not descriminate particular kites as tricks do which severely
limits innovation such as the link to the kite maker this whole thread
started over anyway. His point was essentially that trick kites sacrifice
efficiency for trickability which is absolutely true. Perhaps he worded it
ineffectively for the intial poster to misconstrue. In any case I still feel
kiting as it always has, ignores where it came from in favor of whats next.
Ask a baseball player who Willie Mays was and he'll know and quote you
stats, and do so with respect. Ask a football player who Gayle Sayers was
and he'll do the same. Can kiters do that? Not even, or at least VERY few
can. Kiters have little if no regard for thier past. In particular new ones
because those that would be mentors prefer to highlight themselves rather
then teach where things came from and who gets credit for what. Lack of
credit or respect for what some have done has long been a problem with
kites. I don't foresee that going away anytime soon. Do you know who Francis
Rogallo is? Does the guy that made your modified flexible wing know? Maybe,
but in most instances the answer to this would be no. And they really don't
care to.
>
>A flier should be versatile and creative and should encompass as much
>variation and difference of style into their flying as possible. If all
>they do is flop around on the ground then they're not being very creative.
>But that doesn't mean that a short bit of "Ground Flop" isn't a bad thing
>in a well structured context.
As stated above you are certainly not creative or versatile if you think
maneuvers are nothing but loops and straight lines. I took a relative to a
kite festival as part of a vacation. I didn't participate, nor did anyone
know I was even there. Her comment to the tricksters was (and this was not
prompted in anyway) "boy, some of those guys sure do seem to be having a
hard time getting off the ground". I knew better, and realize the difficulty
in tricks, however there is a definate line between those that can and those
that try. Those that try look to be struggling. In anycase, it appears a mob
mentality has developed here in which case there is no geting through to any
of you because your first and foremost priority is defending your aspect of
kiting, which in my point of view is far overblown for what it is.
Peace,
Mike
Michael Raycraft
> [...] You're confused.
I think you're right, there.
> [...] My point being FLYING is meat and
> potatoes and tricks should be left as garnish. There is too much focus on
it
> is my point, and a kite flying in the AIR is more aestetically pleasing. My
> "bag" happens to be speed, precision and grace. Its obviously not your
> thing. Its my thing, and many others too.
I think that reasonable people can differ on this point.
And, just to set the record straight, I ain't no trick flyer (although I've
been trying some tricks lately); I just like to go out and put one up, be it
one of the roks, a WindDance, a Hot Shot, a fighter, a Rev 2, a 1-line delta,
a Midi, or whatever. And, being relatively new at all this, there's still
plenty for me yet to see and experience, including more "speed, precision and
grace". Yes, and some history. I look forward to it.
See you at the flying field some day?
Michael
Ade Brownlow
Collette Lemons <rok...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
<353BF130...@sprintmail.com>...
> I think real flying is anything you do with a kite that makes you happy.
> Real flying is always what you do to make you happy and give you the
feeling of being
> content.
Of course it is. Anyone who is telling you different wants to own your mind
and soul.
> It doesnt matter if it is an AKA manouver or a cool trick, what matters
is how
> you feel when it is done.
Rule books = control. They want us to be kite flying zombies. They want to
own our souls. Don't sell your soul to the AKA. Be free.
Cheers,
Ade (who may or may not be serious).
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <airf...@NOSPAM.gte.net> wrote:
>If you think maneuvers are just straight lines and loops, you're dead wrong.
Absolutely not.
>There are a thousand or more ways to turn and implement variations on
>angles, turns and straight lines. Your view of maneuvers is simplistic at
>the very best.
An Axel or Flat Spin is just such one example of the "thousand or more
ways to turn". Your view of maneuvers is simplistic at the very best.
>His point was essentially that trick kites sacrifice
>efficiency for trickability which is absolutely true.
I think you'll find that modern kites (which are all "trick-enabled"
these days) are considerably more "efficient" than the kites of 5 years
ago. This is why team fliers continue to use older kites (like TOTL)
simply because they have inefficient sails which slow the kite down
(and make a hell of a lot of noise in the process).
If "efficiency" wasn't exactly what you meant and you were commenting more
on the "flyability" of kites, then I'm afraid we still disagree for the
same reasons. The design, construction and materials used in modern
kites today (all of which are "trick-enabled", incidentally) make for a
kite which clearly out-performs kites of just a few years ago.
>In any case I still feel kiting as it always has, ignores where it came
>from in favor of whats next.
I can see your point, and I do think it would be sad if kite designers
made kites that did tricks at the expense of more traditional flying
techniques. There certainly are dedicated trick kites like that (don't
try flying a Stranger Level 7 in a straight line for too long!) but
on the whole, most kites are excellent all-round performers.
I urge you to pick up a kite like a Benson Phantom, a Prism Illusion,
or even a Jam Session, and see how it flies doing exactly what *you*
want it to do. I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised. The kites will
do tricks if you ever find the desire to try it, but on the whole,
they'll fly in whatever way you like quite happily.
>Kiters have little if no regard for thier past. In particular new ones
>because those that would be mentors prefer to highlight themselves rather
>then teach where things came from and who gets credit for what.
Rubbish! Show me which store sells "Kite Fliers Cards" with sticks
of bubblegum. How many times a week do kite flying competitions appear
on TV? How many schoolkids are taught kite flying at school? How many
books can you name that detail the history of kiting?
Compare that the the stupendous amount of marketing merchandise
that makes international heroes of baseball and football stars. That's
why everyone can tell you who they are, not because they respect them
any more.
Most fliers I know have utmost respect for the fliers that went before
them.
Incidentally, I haven't got a clue who those people are and I don't
expect you could tell me much about George Best or Donald Bradman.
In these such cases, sport can be very insular. But I can tell you
what Jalbert and Rogallo did. And Don Tabor, and Peter Lynn, and Peter
Powell, and Mike Simmonds, and Tim Benson, and Alec Pearson, and so on.
Just because you don't see much evidence of kite fliers and designers
being worhsipped on TV, doesn't mean that people aren't worshipping
them in their own ways.
>As stated above you are certainly not creative or versatile
I like this quote. I'm going to have it engraved on the next trophy
I win. :-)
>In anycase, it appears a mob
>mentality has developed here in which case there is no geting through to any
>of you because your first and foremost priority is defending your aspect of
>kiting, which in my point of view is far overblown for what it is.
No. If you read what I said in my last post, I'm trying to defend *ALL*
aspects of kiting. I am in no way whatsoever saying that trick flying
is any better, worse, easier or harder than any other kind of flying.
As Collette quite rightly says, people should do whatever it is that
makes them happy. I'm all in favour of that. No-one is going to stop
you flying how you want to fly. But no-one is going to stop us flying
how we want to fly, either.
You have a view on trick flying that is based on the people that you
have seen. If these people can only fly tricks then they're not very
versatile fliers and probably not much fun to watch. But if they're
having fun, then who are we to tell them to stop? And just because
I, or anyone else, can fly "tricks" doesn't mean that I'm not a versatile
flier. Some are, some aren't, but it's got nothing to do with how well
they can trick a kite.
It's absolutely fine that you've got no interest in tricks, and if
manufacturers truly were squeezing fliers like yourself out of the
frame by only making kites that do tricks, then I would truly sympathise
with you. There's some evidence of that in the pure tricks kites that
some designers make, but there's hundreds more excellent designs of
truly versatile kites available:- far, far, more than there were 5 or
10 years ago.
David Lindgren
In article <353C63...@ecid.cig.mot.com>,
Richard Beckett <beck...@ecid.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>
> [some stuff about Andy Wardley]
>
>As for a ceiling on tricks...this man's head went through that ages ago,
>can't you see the plaster in his hair?
Nope - he was hiding it under a baseball cap last time I saw him.
But on the subject, I do see that people can misinterpret tricks. The
speed at which tricks get slotted together by the top tricksters is
amazing - you can sometimes barely tell where one finishes and the
next starts. To the untrained eye, this can be confusing and not
necessarily the most pleasing to the eye.
I will draw a parallel to the computer world here - some of you may
not understand this, but I know that there are a number of people who
will. A Windows user looking at a flavour of Unix for the first time
could be forgiven for thinking that it is terrible and stuck in the
dark ages because he/she does not understand it ("Command line
- why do I need one of those? I gave them up with DOS"). When you
become accustomed to Unix, you discover it's true versatility and
power. Just because not /everyone/ understands something, it does not
mean that that something is worthless.
However, who do we fly for? We fly for ourselves. If it makes me
happy to fly tricks, then that is what I will do - I am one of those
people mentioned earlier in the thread who skipped on the meat and
potatoes of flying and went straight into tricks. I know that is not
all there is to flying, but I do have a large number of years ahead of
me in which to develop all my skills. When I have the tricks down
(well some of them anyhow), I will start working on how to best
combine them with other flying to make some kind of routine that is
both pleasing to me and to the casual observer.
Dave.
Mike Smathers
Collette Lemons wrote:
> I think real flying is anything you do with a kite that makes you happy. SOme fliers
> obviously don't care for tricks, flying the same old circles Etc... are exciting enough
> for them, and that is ok. But for the more adventuroud fliers, a few circles and patterns
> arent enough, they need the thrill of a new manouver to get them off. This attitude has
> produced better kites, new invovations like the power kites and buggies.
> Real flying is always what you do to make you happy and give you the feeling of being
> content. It doesnt matter if it is an AKA manouver or a cool trick, what matters is how
> you feel when it is done.
*reaching for a kleenex*
Awe inspiring. Simply awe inspiring. I could not have possibly said it better myself.
Kudos to you Collette. You have obviously experienced true AoxomoxoA.
Airfoils
>I was flying at the beach a couple of weeks ago. Doing a whole array of
>tricks amongst punch turns, figures, etc. A mother and daughter were
>sitting behind me and I could here the girls excitement every time I did
>a trick near the ground. When the mother told her daughter it was time
>to go she started to cry.
Actually, I have had a scenario like this happen literally thousands of
times. Quite often I would have hordes of people sitting behind me, but
often I was so lost in what I was doing I didn't notice them until later.
Unfortunately, every 500-600 of these and someone felt it was more
necessary to watch us flying on Jockey's Ridge as opposed to operating
their vehicle and inevitably wrecked their car. We never flew close to the
road but we were still very visible in fact from miles away.
> Can musty tent make people cry with his flying?
What exactly is your fascination with tents and mildew? Strange fetish if
you ask me. I really hope you don't expound on it. So forget I asked.
Peace,
Mike
Airfoils
> You have yourself in an argument with Andy Wardley (We're not worthy!
> We're not worthy!). This man can do all the tricks in the book, and many
> that aren't. He _invents_ new tricks. When Andy flies tricks, you _know_
> that he is in complete control, and _everything_ looks intended.
>
> Here in the UK we have winter leagues, that are solely precision events.
> I haven't seen Andy compete myself, but he competed in one event at the
> Newbury Kite League, and came 3rd - IN THE MASTERS CLASS!
Impressive. My resume is far more lengthy and I have placed numerous times
1st in Masters if thats what you think matters. Because a guy places or has
trophies doesn't necessarily mean his opinion is any better then anyone
else's, maybe just a bit more informed. Mine included.
> He has competed in STACK events, and does rather well. If the average
> flier lives to be 1000 he will probably never fly as well as Andy. This
> man is a true all round pilot. His views on kiting are anything but
> simplistic!
As Andy and Collette and others already expressed, their view of maneuvers
is indeed simplistic. They BOTH refer to maneuvers as simply doing loops
and straight lines. If thats not understating what maneuvers are I don't
know what is. I stand firm in that maneuvers are far more matured then
tricks, and they also don't discriminate ANY dual liner as tricks so
obviously do. Tricks are restrictive to many kites. You may want 30 flavors
of vanilla, I prefer an entire Baskin Robbins to choose my flavors. How
about stacks? Should kites designed to be flown as stacks just shrivel up
and go away because they don't trick and you have no use for them? How
about a Flexifoil or WindDance? That is the basic argument many of you have
is that kites that don't trick are worthless. If thats not the case I
suggest you go back and read what you have written objectively and see that
is how you are being perceived. Enjoy your 30 flavors of vanilla.
Peace,
Mike
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <jone...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Impressive. My resume is far more lengthy and I have placed numerous times
>1st in Masters if thats what you think matters.
A humble second in the UK nationals last year is the best I can lay claim
to. Not great, but not bad. Oh, and the person who beat me was Carl
Robertshaw, who I have immense respect for as one of the World's best
competition pilots in team, pair _and_ individuals - I reckon I'm in good
company.
So that's what I can do in "regular flying". Call me conceited but
my freestyle flying is far, far better than my competition flying will
ever be. I may not be as good a "regular" flier as you and I'm sure
your resume is far longer and more impressive than mine, but I can fly
"regular" and you aren't even prepared to give tricks a chance. Who does
that make the more all-rounded flier?
But it doesn't matter and quite frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm trying
to hold out an olive branch and you're retreating behind a persecution
complex. I don't recall anyone criticising non-trick flying or non-trick
kites in this or any other thread.
You're also hiding behind a pseudonym.
>As Andy and Collette and others already expressed, their view of maneuvers
>is indeed simplistic. They BOTH refer to maneuvers as simply doing loops
>and straight lines. If thats not understating what maneuvers are I don't
>know what is.
So describe something then. Enlighten us with your wisdom. Teach us one
of these fantastically rich and complex "maneuvers" so that we can see the
error of our ways.
I've flown every damn figure in the STACK and AKA book and I'm buggered if
I know what these magical "maneuvers" are that you keep talking about.
If they do exist, then a lot of people are keeping very quiet about them.
>That is the basic argument many of you have
>is that kites that don't trick are worthless.
Maybe you're reading a different thread?
Big Dog
Well Said !!!
Collette Lemons wrote:
> I think real flying is anything you do with a kite that makes you happy. SOme fliers
> obviously don't care for tricks, flying the same old circles Etc... are exciting enough
> for them, and that is ok. But for the more adventuroud fliers, a few circles and patterns
> arent enough, they need the thrill of a new manouver to get them off. This attitude has
> produced better kites, new invovations like the power kites and buggies.
> Real flying is always what you do to make you happy and give you the feeling of being
> content. It doesnt matter if it is an AKA manouver or a cool trick, what matters is how
> you feel when it is done.
>
> Collette
Chris Brent
Airfoils wrote:
>
> If you think maneuvers are just straight lines and loops, you're dead wrong.
> There are a thousand or more ways to turn and implement variations on
> angles, turns and straight lines. Your view of maneuvers is simplistic at
> the very best. Not to mention, maneuvers have years more maturity then
> tricks do. Also, you have to figure in team maneuvers which only adds to the
> myriad of things possible. Tricks are hot right now, but likemany things,
> they'll cool and they will eventaully hit a cieling where little else can be
> done which I assure you will fall FAR short of the things that can be done
> with maneuvers in which the possibilities are nearly boundless. At the time
> this "ceiling" is hit, I am sure tricks will become nothing more then a
> garnish.
Why do you think that "trick" (I think freestyle is really a better
description) are automised machines. I feel the same way about tricks
as you do about "maneuvers", for me the possibilities are endless. Yes
tricks are hot right now will they cool? I doubt it. I used to ride a
skate board in my younger days if anyone from the UK remeber 1989
they'll remeber skating was getting pretty big. Things change skatings
not so popular now however *all* the tricks we did then are around now
they just became "old school". Why the same won't happen with kites I
don't know, I'll bet in 10 years peole are still doing axles,540's etc
as the base of their new tricks. It seems to me your somehow jealous of
the tricksters, they've taken away your precision.
> Kiters have little if no regard for thier past. In particular new ones
Crap. Out of most things I've been invloved in Kiters are one of the
most interested in their past. They also have the advantage there is
alot of modern history to kiting.
> kites. I don't foresee that going away anytime soon. Do you know who Francis
> Rogallo is? Does the guy that made your modified flexible wing know? Maybe,
> but in most instances the answer to this would be no. And they really don't
> care to.
I'd disagree most people I fly with would know who Rogallo is, but maybe
that's just our lot, Australia has a fairly small kiting community. I'm
sure that are people flying who don't know who he his, but there are
people driving who don't know who Henry Ford is.
> know I was even there. Her comment to the tricksters was (and this was not
> prompted in anyway) "boy, some of those guys sure do seem to be having a
> hard time getting off the ground". I knew better, and realize the difficulty
> in tricks, however there is a definate line between those that can and those
> that try. Those that try look to be struggling. In anycase, it appears a mob
> mentality has developed here in which case there is no geting through to any
> of you because your first and foremost priority is defending your aspect of
> kiting, which in my point of view is far overblown for what it is.
Okay I'm getting sick of this "but people don;t understand what your
doing". Fair point alot of the time they don't. If you come and watch
me surf you may well not know what I'm doing, alot of people on the
beach don't know what I'm doing. Ultimatly, as selfish as is sounds, i
fly for me and people who know whats going on, not everyone can
appreciate what I'm doing but sometimes that's the way it is. Joe
public will see me flying and think "he's having trouble" and walk off
to watch the single lines or the teams or whatever. Joe "potential
freestyler" will look at me and think that's differnt what's going on
there, and I'll tell them.
Chris
>
> Peace,
> Mike
Chris Brent
Andy Wardley wrote:
>
> Airfoils <jone...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >That is the basic argument many of you have
> >is that kites that don't trick are worthless.
Here is a clue. The further this thread progresses the less of of clue
you seem to have. Flame bait like the above statement is not worth my
time.
>
> Maybe you're reading a different thread?
I'm pretty sure he is which why he insists on changing the subject every
second time he posts. Not only detrimental to some newsreaders but
bloody annoying to the rest of us.
Chris
Goodwinds
>Just a question: Has anyone ever tried to make a parafoil from
>plastic? If so, how did it work out? I bought plenty of the sheet
>plastic I mentioned a while back, have completed one kite and am near
>completion on another, and am casting about for new projects.
I do know that Nigel Spaxman from Canada showed up with a flexi at WSKIF one
year and it was cool. But so is Nigel!
Kathy Goodwind
rec.kites
Andy Wardley
Richard Beckett <beck...@ecid.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>Ever heard the saying "There's no point trying to teach Granny how to
>suck eggs"?
[..]
>
> m m Richard Beckett, GSM Systems Engineer
> mmm mmm Motorola Ltd, Mobile: +44 468 305871
> mm mm mm mm 16 Euroway, Blagrove, Tel : +44 1793 565136
> mm m mm Swindon, Wiltshire, Fax : +44 1793 432745
> m m England, SN5 8YQ. email :beck...@ecid.cig.mot.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cheque's in the post :-)
Andy Wardley
Richard Beckett <beck...@ecid.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>Maybe there's something else at the heart of all this. Are you
>frightened now, because some people are using the odd trick in their
>precision routines and you can't do them?
________
| |
| |
\ /
| |___________________________
| | |
| |___________________________|
| |
/ \
| | <---- hammer
|________|
<== THWACK! ==>
____
||
||
|| <---- nail
||
||
\/
(IMPORTANT NOTE: This Crap ASCII Art [tm] was constructed from lines and
curves only. No tricks or freestyle techniques were employed in its
construction. This Crap ASCII Art [tm] is Y2K compliant.)
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <jone...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
>How
>about stacks? Should kites designed to be flown as stacks just shrivel up
>and go away because they don't trick and you have no use for them?
There's a picture of me flying a stack of 3 Box of Tricks on my web site:
http://www.kfs.org/~abw/kite/gallery.html
As it happens, I'm also using them as a (very slow) buggy engine at the
same time.
Pretty versatile for the kite which many (myself included) would regard
as the best trick kite money can buy.
Collette Lemons
David Lindgren wrote:
> However, who do we fly for? We fly for ourselves. If it makes me
> happy to fly tricks, then that is what I will do - I am one of those
> people mentioned earlier in the thread who skipped on the meat and
> potatoes of flying and went straight into tricks. I know that is not
> all there is to flying, but I do have a large number of years ahead of
> me in which to develop all my skills. When I have the tricks down
> (well some of them anyhow), I will start working on how to best
> combine them with other flying to make some kind of routine that is
> both pleasing to me and to the casual observer.
>
> Dave.
>
>
I think of all the times I have amazed the public by simply making a circle
and then bringing it back without tangling my lines. Actually for me that is
a pretty good trick. But the public will ask how we do it every time,
especially after doing a spin. So isn't everything you do with a stunt kite
actually a trick - if someone else cant do it? What makes a trick a trick and
what makes a manouver not a trick? Or is a trick actually a new manouver?
Maybe there needs to be a trick competition? Maybe I should have stopped with
my last post......
Collette
Andy Wardley
Richard Beckett <beck...@ecid.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>Is the following considered copyrighted, or can I print it out, to put
>on the wall?
Copyrighted, but release to the public domain for redistibution or use
in any form.
In other words, "Yes, go ahead!"
Jean Lemire
Hi folks.
Mi idea on that subject are the following.
When I fly a kite I use its aerodynamic characteristics.
When I trick a kite I use mostly its inertia.
For me both are usefull and can complement each other to add to the dimension of kite flying.
If my kite do not flic-flac easily, I do not flic-flac that's all. Otherwise if it axel very well then I like doing a short radius loop followed with an axel. That look nice and cool.
For me tricks are like words in a language. The more I know, the better I can convey ideas. So, if I know more tricks and more figures and master speed control, I can do a better interpretation of a piece of music in ballet for example or just feel good flying for fun.
Even non kiters will have to agree that you are somewhat in control after they see your kite do the same somersault for the tenth time.
Wind or no wind, fly for fun.
Jean (Johnny) Lemire of team S.T.A.F.F. from Montreal, Canada.
Airfoils
> I'd disagree most people I fly with would know who Rogallo is, but maybe
> that's just our lot, Australia has a fairly small kiting community. I'm
> sure that are people flying who don't know who he his, but there are
> people driving who don't know who Henry Ford is.
My guess would be you are from England if you think the Ozzies are a bunch
of idiots. Just because you are from a certain country doesn't make you an
idiot.
Peace,
Mike
Airfoils
> Maybe there's something else at the heart of all this. Are you
> frightened now, because some people are using the odd trick in their
> precision routines and you can't do them?
I simply think its a shame that so many kites are excluded because they
were designed for something other then tricks and it is apparent from the
many posts this thread generated that no one gives a squat. Aside from 2
posts in my favor all others have come e-mail. Some bad, some good. Mostly
good.
I have no need to compete any longer. I have proven myself many times. When
I do go to events I just enjoy myself and operate on MY schedule. I will on
rare occasion help with the event as well but I have done allot of this
too, so I feel I deserve the life of a retired champion and be allowed to
enjoy myself without being obligated to anyone or anything at these things.
One of my favorite things to do is cook hotdogs for people for free. Thats
just how I have chosen to "contribute" anymore. Seems allot of folks
appreciate it. Allot of poeple stop by and say hi and we have a good time,
so I guess I will continue to do that. I doubt there will ever be one with
your name on it. You wouldn't want one anyway, because you would argue it
wasn't your brand, so we're even.
Peace,
Mike
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <jone...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
>My guess would be you are from England if you think the Ozzies are a bunch
>of idiots. Just because you are from a certain country doesn't make you an
>idiot.
Now I know he's trolling.
<plonk>
Airfoils
I didn't like that he implied Ozzies are less informed then anyone else.
I'm tired of my debate with you because its like talking to a wall. You
found no merit in ANYTHING I have to say and then continue with your
redundancy by finding 30 different ways to say the same thing. Basically
you are a waste of my time. Get lost and stay lost.
Andy Wardley <a...@cre.canon.co.uk> wrote in article
<Ertrp...@cre.canon.co.uk>...
Garry Box
Firstly sorry for adding to this thread I dont know how ABW et al have even
bothered arguing with some body who does not even read what is posted other
than to say your wrong your wrong your wrong/
Airfoils wrote in message
<01bd6e19$09745aa0$7972...@jonesmik.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>I didn't like that he implied Ozzies are less informed then anyone else.
This is the only fair comment you have made nobody should be insulted
becuase of where they live.
Except Americans ;) .
>I'm tired of my debate with you because its like talking to a wall. You
>found no merit in ANYTHING I have to say and then continue with your
>redundancy by finding 30 different ways to say the same thing. Basically
>you are a waste of my time. Get lost and stay lost.
>
No talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I have just read this
thread from beginning to end and I can not find one post that has said
Precision flying is rubbish/useless/pointless. Please give be a example of
where Andrew or any other poster has done this ?. All you have kept saying
is that trick flying is useless that is an opinion not a fact. And finally I
am sure Andy knows exactly where he is apart from when hes in a caravan at
Berrow ;).
Regards GaRRy Box
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gen Secretary The Midlands Kite Fliers
For further Information Email m...@nexus1.demon.co,uk
Or check out our Web site http://www.canleo.demon.co.uk/mkf.htm
Steve Holdoway and Julie Holdstock
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:06:08 GMT, a...@cre.canon.co.uk (Andy Wardley)
wrote:
>Airfoils <jone...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>How
>>about stacks? Should kites designed to be flown as stacks just shrivel up
>>and go away because they don't trick and you have no use for them?
>
>There's a picture of me flying a stack of 3 Box of Tricks on my web site:
>
> http://www.kfs.org/~abw/kite/gallery.html
>
>As it happens, I'm also using them as a (very slow) buggy engine at the
>same time.
>
>Pretty versatile for the kite which many (myself included) would regard
>as the best trick kite money can buy.
>
>
>A
Andy,
Haven't you got any piccies of you tricking a stack of BoTs? I've
enjoyed watching both yourself and Mr. Marsh enjoying yourselves in
this manner on a number of occasions. Where does this feat come into
the equation?
I, like yourself, would like to know who the mythical Airfoil is, and,
given the standings after Guadeloupe ( if it's spelled wrong, then
it's the European spelling! ) how he relates a second in the UK to
winning Masters in the US. Especially as the best individual in the UK
was a bit busy flying team at the time.
We ex-pats get more patriotic by the minute!
Steve.
--
PSST. Wanna buy a .sig?
Brian Rees Haag
um, all that was said was that the australian kiting community was small.
as in, not a large number of people.
i have no idea how you interpreted this to be an attack on their
intelligence.
brian
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Haag | "I'm not gonna do what you say is right,
3849 Sulphur Springs | 'cause then I'll end up just like you.
Toledo, OH 43606 | I'm gonna rebel, I'm gonna fight
bh...@gemini.mco.edu | this organized manipulation." -MXPX
-------------------------------KILL ITD-----------------------------------
Airfoils
>Okay I'm getting sick of this "but people don;t understand what your
>doing". Fair point alot of the time they don't.
I win as far as you are concerned. Joe/Jane public doesn't have a large
attention span on average so there is little time to interest him/her. Maybe
you don't care, but you agree none the less that this is how it is perceived
a vast majority of the time. The untrained eye is far more attracted to
speed and action. When you cut back or get air on a wave the folks on the
beach go oooh and aaaah far more then if you are just trying to get a long
ride. I know, because some of my friends were surfers when I lived in Nag's
Head. In fact I lived over a surf shop (New Sun Surfboards) for a year and
it was always cool when the guys from Hawaii came :-). If you are a surfer
you know what I mean :-) The guy that owned the shop was named Mike also and
he designed a surfboard that to me was intriguing but I guess never caught
on. He was always very interested in anything that had to do with
hydrodynamics and came up with a board that didn't use skegs. It was (my
best explanation) a half hoop that stretched from where the outboard skegs
where point to point. A flat surface connecting the 2 had an airfoil shape
that reduced resistance. This was good for smal waves. I understand the best
thing for big waves is small and heavy for stability. I am sure you will
correct me if I am wrong. But thats what this guy did, and I thought it was
cool even if I spent most of my time surfing going over the falls and
getting sucked into the darkness.
Peace,
Mike
Chris Brent
Airfoils wrote:
>
> > I'd disagree most people I fly with would know who Rogallo is, but maybe
> > that's just our lot, Australia has a fairly small kiting community. I'm
> > sure that are people flying who don't know who he his, but there are
> > people driving who don't know who Henry Ford is.
>
> of idiots. Just because you are from a certain country doesn't make you an
> idiot.
No, if you'd taken half a second you'd notice that my address is
cbr...@orix.com.au. The .au denotes I'm from Australia (well is was
born in England but lets not go into that) I don't think Australian kite
flyers are idiots I cannot see how you came to that conclusion. I said
that the Australian kite community is small, meaning we share
information and history *possibly* easier than others, it was a response
to your post asking if we knew who Rogallo was. Do you know who
Hargraves was?
No I don't think it matters were *you* come from you're still an idiot.
Welcome to my kill file (and you're only the third from rec.kites to
make it).
Chris
>
>
> Peace,
> Mike
Simon Hayns
Some of these posts imply that tricks and precision are mutually
exclusive. I can't see why, I never fly just tricks (except
occasionally when learning or practicing perhaps). Flying tricks isn't
about doing a trick, doing another trick, and again.... it's more like
OK I'll slide across here then pop a slow flat axel and ....accelerate
up away, pop a turtle into a lazy susan that drifts down, pull back
and power down....540 into landing, yes! (or occasionally, crack -
eek!) Flying clean lines with smooth turns and sharp corners is just
the same, it's a series of turns and stuff that flow. I don't see why
people insist on making a distinction, at the end of the day you're
still just some person standing in a windy park (or whatever) jerking
on bits of string and hoping for a favorable outcome :-)
Simon
Buy an Illusion and fly precisely maneuvered tricks!
xGSV Freudian Slut
Remove the .spamoff for my e-mail address
Goodwinds
>I have proven myself many times.
Are you the same Mike Jones that flew stacks or trains of your own design years
ago? If so, now I realize where all this comes from.
Just another oldie from the good old days,
Kathy Goodwind
Just a word Mike from one of the judges back then. All things are relative!
That was then, this is now. Let it happen! It is all a wonderment!
And as you say " PEACE".
rec.kites
Airfoils
> I, like yourself, would like to know who the mythical Airfoil is, and,
> given the standings after Guadeloupe ( if it's spelled wrong, then
> it's the European spelling! ) how he relates a second in the UK to
> winning Masters in the US. Especially as the best individual in the UK
> was a bit busy flying team at the time.
Even if I gave you my last name (and I haven't hidden it) it wouldn't help
you and you still wouldn't know "who" I was. And really what does it
matter? At least I don't masquerade as someone else. Actually I haven't
hidden anything. Personally it also doesn't matter to me one bit what you
have won or what I won. It has no bearing whatsoever on the subject. Why
don't you just post a list of all the trophies and events you have won so
we can all be impressed and amazed.
And the original point was....tricks do not attract like maneuvers do.
Speed and action attract the untrained eye, and many trick pilots aren't
good enough to be percieved as anything but having trouble with their kite.
It also doesn't take me 10 repetitions of something before an uninitiated
spectator figures out I really am in control. This is still valid and still
true. Truth hurts as is shown by all the hateful British tricksters in
here. Even had one of you call me a $h!thead in e-mail and then turn right
around and quote the Bible! HAHAHAHA! ROFL!
Peace,
Mike
Airfoils
Apparently you have lost the meaning of the post as well through all the
screaming coming from the Brits. I don't care if you or anyone else does
tricks, fact is spectators generally percieve tricks as a guy having
problems with his kite. I know he isn't and you do to. Tricks do not
impress upon the unitiated like speed and motion do. Some tricks even make
the kite look like it is broken. In an event setting, they can be taught or
told that what they are doing is intended. However; a casual passer by does
not understand this and therefore I think many oppurtunities are missed. My
point was about INCLUSION not EXCLUSION. All of the posts that have come
from this little group in England essentially say "we don't care about new
people! I am flying how I want".
Lastly, my garage contains allot of cool things that will be in kitings
future, so I don't agree that I am solely relegated to its past. Why are
they in my garage you say? Because they are patentable. It's unfortunate I
have had to hide them and I am known only for my stacks. But thats just how
it goes. Kite makers/designers can be a very incestuous lot.
Peace,
Mike
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <N...@given.com> wrote:
>Because they are patentable.
If you haven't already investigated the patent process in detail then I
suggest you do so and soon. In particular, make yourself with the concepts
of "due diligence" and "prior art".
If you think you can still patent your kite inventions then I wish you
luck. I look forward to reading the applications.
A
--
Andy Wardley <a...@kfs.org> Signature regenerating. Please remain seated.
<a...@cre.canon.co.uk> For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
Brian Rees Haag
Airfoils (N...@given.com) wrote:
: Even if I gave you my last name (and I haven't hidden it) it wouldn't help
: you and you still wouldn't know "who" I was. And really what does it
: matter? At least I don't masquerade as someone else. Actually I haven't
: hidden anything.
just an observation. if you're not hiding anything, why have you changed
from including your real email address "jone...@us.ibm.com" to the
phony "N...@given.com" when you post? this seems contradictory to me.
just curious.
brian
Airfoils
I am very familiar with it and would not claim they were patentable if they
weren't. One is a shoe in. 2 are very possible and three others are
sketchy. So I am going with the shoe in of course. I think it would offer
the most to kites. The patent isn't my concern however, its deciding who to
license it to or have produce them. In any case, it will have to wait about
a year since I am building a house and its consuming all my money right
now. I don't think it likely anyone will figure it out between now and
then. They haven't figured it out in 4 years so I think the odds are in my
favor. That's not to say I'm not going to sweat it. There are allot of
designers/makers that are pretty on the ball.
Peace,
Mike
Andy Wardley <a...@cre.canon.co.uk> wrote in article
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <N...@given.com> wrote:
>In any case, it will have to wait about
>a year since I am building a house and its consuming all my money right
>now.
That's the part about "due diligence". If you don't show due diligence
in applying for your patent and developing your idea as a commercial
product, then you might find yourself prevented from doing so.
>They haven't figured it out in 4 years
Personally, I think kite patents are evil things, but it's a free world [*].
However, if you really are serious about doing this then you need to go
and see a patent lawyer *soon* for advice. If you've already left it
4 years then you clearly haven't shown "due diligence" in recognising
the worth of your idea.
>There are allot of designers/makers that are pretty on the ball.
And I, or anyone else, could invent that tomorrow and patent it. That
would effectively stop you from using the invention. You haven't shown
"due diligence" in recognising the benefit of your invention and acting
to protect those interests. As far as the patent office is concerned,
you're not staking a claim to that invention leaving it open for others
to use.
The alternative is to publish the idea. That is, give it away for free.
Anyone can use it, but no-one can subsequently patent it because you have
already staked a claim that says "Airfoils invented this". Subsequent
"inventors" cannot patent the idea because it is based on "prior art".
But then you lose control of it. You can't decide who can and can't use
it and you can't charge people to do it. You might think that's a bad
idea, but it'll save you a hell of a lot of money.
One of our patent engineers here at work was telling me about a case
involving the sewing machine company Singer. Some chap had invented
and patented one of the major components of the modern sewing machine
(the moving bobbin, I think). Singer went to him and quite bluntly stated
that they were going to use his idea whether he liked it or not because
they were richer and could afford better lawyers. That was the way it
was.
So come on then, tell us what the great invention is. :-)
A
Not a Patent Lawyer, but works with people who are.
[*] IMHO: the only kite patent that makes any sense is the Flexifoil
patent. Most of the other kite patents are for things like "using
bungy on wing-tips". Did you all realise your kite was infringing
a patent? The reason I think they're evil is due to the nature of
the kite industry. Firstly, most kite manufacturers can't afford to
patent, and then subsequently protect, their "inventions".
Secondly, nearly all these ideas are based on "prior art". That is,
someone else has done it before, but simply didn't bother to patent
the idea. According to the law, it is possible for someone else
to "re-invent" the same idea, or a slight modification and then
patent it, effectively preventing the real inventor, and everyone
else from using that idea or technique without paying the new patent
holder the licence fee of his choice. The original designer did not
show "due diligence" in realising the worth of his idea and protecting
it with a patent. That left it open for someone else to do it.
All modern stunt kites use features designed by a great number of
different people. I think it's a real cheek for a designer to freely
incorporate all the little things that have been gradually invented
by people over the years, but then to prevent anyone else from using
their ideas. You can't have it both ways. The Flexifoil is totally
different - that was a brand new invention from scratch and is quite
justifiably patentable. Merry and Jones didn't copy ideas from Tom,
Dick and Harry to make the Flexi, so they are justififed in saying
"All our own work".
I won't patent my Active Bridle, because I acknowledge the fact that
I've been inspired and influenced by other people's ideas. I *could*
legally patent it, but I'm not going to. I would rather see kites
improved for everyone instead of rubbing my hands deciding who can use
it and who can't and how much money I'm going to charge people.
Woops. Now the footnote is longer than the article itself. Sorry.
Airfoils
>>In any case, it will have to wait about
>>a year since I am building a house and its consuming all my money right
>>now.
>
>That's the part about "due diligence". If you don't show due diligence
>in applying for your patent and developing your idea as a commercial
>product, then you might find yourself prevented from doing so.
I suppose it hasn't occured to you since you like to assume many things,
that in that time I will be perfecting it. It isn't quite right yet but is
close. It may still be 2 years before I have perfected it and hence why I
said I am sweating it. The other 5 are works in progress. One is almost
ready to go.
>>They haven't figured it out in 4 years
>Personally, I think kite patents are evil things, but it's a free world
[*].
>However, if you really are serious about doing this then you need to go
>and see a patent lawyer *soon* for advice. If you've already left it
>4 years then you clearly haven't shown "due diligence" in recognising
>the worth of your idea.
Once again you assume. You assume I came up with this 4 years ago and then
sat on it. Not true, it has been perfected and tested over that time. I
would not persue a patent on a half baked idea. It needed time to mature and
that is what I have done. Since you seem to know a little about patents you
also know the best ones aren't created over night. Since you cite Flexifoil,
ask Merry and Jones if it just sprung out of their head and worked or if
they took time to perfect it. You already know the answer without asking.
So, truth is I have been VERY dilligent and have poured hundreds maybe
thousands of hours into it and your theory is shot down in flames because
you assume too much ;-)
As far as patents being evil things, that is simply your opinion and most
governments and people of the world agree that it is NOT evil to protect
ideas you have or profit from them. I am not going to put 5 years of work
into something just to give it away, especially to the likes of you.
Once again, you assume. What makes you think I haven't already seen an
attorney? Fact is I have and I was told to be sure I have what I want before
I proceed.
>
>>There are allot of designers/makers that are pretty on the ball.
>
>And I, or anyone else, could invent that tomorrow and patent it. That
>would effectively stop you from using the invention.
Here you try and argue with me when you agree with me. Like I said before.
The sky is blue in my world. Read above for your "due dilligence"
>You haven't shown
>"due diligence" in recognising the benefit of your invention and acting
>to protect those interests. As far as the patent office is concerned,
>you're not staking a claim to that invention leaving it open for others
>to use.
As I have already said, I think hundreds or thousands of hours would be
considered dilligent and also very wise to perfect it because I didn't throw
something out there half baked. Apparently you interpret this as a guy/gal
has an idea in a dream or something and applies the next day. That would be
idiocy. Patentable things are not McDonald's. Any inventor worth his/her
salt tests his or her ideas and proves them before spending time and money
on the process. Maybe you should send our post here to Cobra Kites and
explain to Ray how evil you think he is for patenting his idea and profiting
from it. I'll bet you have a Flexifoil in your bag though don't you?
>
>The alternative is to publish the idea. That is, give it away for free.
>Anyone can use it, but no-one can subsequently patent it because you have
>already staked a claim that says "Airfoils invented this". Subsequent
>"inventors" cannot patent the idea because it is based on "prior art".
I have done allot of research and there is no prior art, nor is there any
prior application. I did at one time consider publishing but have elected
that would be foolish. If it were simply a bridle or fitting or way of
attaching things I would but this is not, so I will not, so publishing is
not an alternative.
>One of our patent engineers here at work was telling me about a case
>involving the sewing machine company Singer. Some chap had invented
>and patented one of the major components of the modern sewing machine
>(the moving bobbin, I think). Singer went to him and quite bluntly stated
>that they were going to use his idea whether he liked it or not because
>they were richer and could afford better lawyers. That was the way it
>was.
Kites are not pharmaceuticals or autos or the high tech industry; therefore,
very few are rich from kites although some are comfortable. The ones that
ARE rich aren't doing it in your favorite kite shop, they are doing it in
7-11's and Quick Marts. Also, you once again assume. You have no idea what
my resources are, and wouldn't persue if I didn't think I can protect my
idea. It might also be good if you realize you don't have all the answers
you think you do and also cease assuming everyone else is less informed then
yourself.
>So come on then, tell us what the great invention is. :-)
You'll just have to wait until its done like everyone else.
> The Flexifoil is totally
> different - that was a brand new invention from scratch and is quite
> justifiably patentable. Merry and Jones didn't copy ideas from Tom,
> Dick and Harry to make the Flexi, so they are justififed in saying
> "All our own work".
Funny because I see allot of Jalbert in their design so I don't think
its all theirs even if they claim to have no prior knowledge of him. Doesn't
matter because thats not what their patent is based on anyway, and I don't
discredit their patent either. I do think TRLBY has a bogus patent though.
That of course is just my opnion.
> I won't patent my Active Bridle, because I acknowledge the fact that
> I've been inspired and influenced by other people's ideas. I *could*
> legally patent it, but I'm not going to. I would rather see kites
> improved for everyone instead of rubbing my hands deciding who can use
> it and who can't and how much money I'm going to charge people.
> Woops. Now the footnote is longer than the article itself. Sorry.
That is of course your choice. Just because its the way you decided to
do things doesn't mean everyone should then choose your course of action. I
am sure you weighed the advantages and disadvantages of patenting it before
you came to your conclusion so it isn't based solely on the fact that you
have such a big heart for kites as you would like everyone to think. I have
invested far too much time and effort and money to give it away. How about
you go to work next week and tell your boss you'll pass on the check because
you just love the work and the company so much? Doesn't matter if you love
the work or the company, you're still going to ask for your check for the
work you did. If you didn't weigh the advantages and disadvantages, well
then.....I suppose you can imagine what I think of reckless thinking like
that.
It will be done soon, and then I can develop my other things to their
fullest. I can guarantee they won't be something perfected or even work
overnight either, and over the past 4 years I have indeed sweated others
figuring it out before I could bring it to maturity. You don't patent things
that don't work, don't work well or have no use. So you have to take TIME to
develop it.
Finally, I think on this issue we have both stated our opinions well. Yours
of course was based primarily on assumption concerning myself, but
nonetheless you provided some good points for others that have thought about
doing it.
Peace,
Mike
Collette Lemons
Airfoils wrote:
> And the original point was....tricks do not attract like maneuvers do.
> Speed and action attract the untrained eye, and many trick pilots aren't
> good enough to be percieved as anything but having trouble with their kite.
> It also doesn't take me 10 repetitions of something before an uninitiated
> spectator figures out I really am in control. This is still valid and still
> true. Truth hurts as is shown by all the hateful British tricksters in
> here. Even had one of you call me a $h!thead in e-mail and then turn right
> around and quote the Bible! HAHAHAHA! ROFL!
>
> Peace,
> Mike
No one said everyone has to fly tricks, no one said everyone has to like
tricks. But I think most everyone agrees it is the individuals decision how
they chose to use their flying time. The spectaors like tricks around here and
a lot of the time it is the reason why they come back, they want to do it all.
When you get right down to it, simply keeping the kite in the air, that goes
for single and multi lined kites, is a big trick for me.
I guess I am a trickster and I can't help it, although I have never done an
intentional axel,yet.
Collette
Collette Lemons
I have seen Jeff Howard amaze crowds before with his tricks, and no one felt
his kite was out of control. If you can do it more than once it no longer looks
like an accident.
Collette
Andy Wardley
Airfoils <airf...@NOSPAM.gte.net> wrote:
>Once again you assume. You assume I came up with this 4 years ago and then
>sat on it. Not true, it has been perfected and tested over that time.
Fair enough. You seem to know exactly what you're doing and you don't
need me to point out the pitfalls. I wasn't suggesting you didn't (hmm,
or maybe I did, sorry), but my intention was to offer advice, not scorn.
>So, truth is I have been VERY dilligent and have poured hundreds maybe
>thousands of hours into it and your theory is shot down in flames because
>you assume too much ;-)
Agreed.
>Maybe you should send our post here to Cobra Kites and
>explain to Ray how evil you think he is for patenting his idea and profiting
>from it. I'll bet you have a Flexifoil in your bag though don't you?
You can do if you like. Ray will hopefully notice the line where I state
Flexifoil as the exception to that sweeping statement.
> That is of course your choice.
And I respect your choice as well. It wouldn't be mine, but it's not mine
to make.
A
AhClem0013
In article <35423e13....@news.caiw.nl>, ess...@kabelfoon.nl (Steve
Holdoway and Julie Holdstock) writes:
>I, like yourself, would like to know who the mythical Airfoil is, and,
>given the standings after Guadeloupe ( if it's spelled wrong, then
>it's the European spelling! ) how he relates a second in the UK to
>winning Masters in the US. Especially as the best individual in the UK
>was a bit busy flying team at the time.
>
>
Whelp, he's the infamous Mike Jones of Jones Airfoil fame. If you haven't met
Mike in person, you're in for a treat. Only Phillip Castillo has ever made
more of an impression on me. I'm pretty sure Mike invented a lot of the things
us newbies take for granted, but i can't be sure. We haven't seen Mike around
in awhile, and that is to bad, 'cause kiting is all about color, and Mike sure
adds his share.
Back to the editing. . .
total AoxomoxoA brought to you by. . .
. . . dean jordan
please buy * jordan air kites * every chance you get!
13
Goodwinds
Aha! Since you didn't bother to answer my original post I know I have found
another clue. rec.kites>and I am known only for my stacks. But thats just how
>it goes. Kite makers/designers can be a very incestuous lot.
It is you isn't it? Yes you are a clever man. Remember Steve Ediken? Don't
be so angry? No one ever copied your very clever very wonderful ideas that I
know of. I know what it means to be copied man, and anger just isn't where it
is. Try being a women in this business. As I said before
Just a word Mike from one of the judges back then. All things are relative!
That was then, this is now. Let it happen! It is all a wonderment!
And as you say " PEACE".
But then what would I know I am just a woman.
Kathy
rec.kites>and I am known only for my stacks. But thats just how
>it goes. Kite makers/designers can be a very incestuous lot.
rec.kites
Airfoils
Damn Dean,
No AoxomoxoA for you lately huh? Sometimes it just isn't safe. I suppose
you tanked your Karma for a long time for that shot.
Crack The Sky,
Mike
AhClem0013 wrote in message
<199804250055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...