Basejumper.com - archive

Google has a beta search called Google/Scholar. This search excludes commercial web sites in favor of educational or .edu ones. Most returns are abstracts of the original scholarly works.

http://scholar.google.com/

I searched for "BASE Jumping" and found a few interesting things including the following.

>>Theoretical Ethnography of the Bridge Day Event.

Jeff Ferrell
Northern Arizona University, USA

Dragan Milovanovic
Northeastern Illinois University, USA

Stephen G Lyng
Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

Edgework experiences have been subject to some discussion in recent literature. A form that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities–BASE jumping–provides a fertile field for ethnographic and theoretical research. In criminology it provides insights into the sensual motivations and experiential frameworks for illicit social action in conjunction with moments of marginality and resistance. BASE jumping–the activity of illegally parachuting from bridges, buildings, antennas, and cliffs–increasingly incorporates a host of mediated practices. Our ethnographic research with the BASE-jumping subculture reveals that BASE jumpers regularly document their jumps through the use of helmet-mounted and body-mounted video cameras, or otherwise videotape one another in the act of jumping. These video documents in turn become a form of subculturally situated media as BASE jumpers utilize them to negotiate individual and collective status, to earn money and exposure, and to legitimate the subculture as sport. Moreover, mass media producers regularly create and disseminate their own images of BASE-jumping activities, and re-present subculturally generated images within television programs and films. The media saturation of BASE jumping thus serves to elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event; to construct a multi-faceted audience for a seemingly secretive endeavor; and, ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.<<

And, I always thought we videoed ourselves because we are big freaking hams. BTW, I didn't know what ethnography is either, so I looked it up:

eth•nog•ra•phy n. The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.

NickD
BASE 194

I alway thought that all along. Finally someone agrees with me!!

Nick - you have too much spare time. Luv your work.

... and I thought BASE stood for Building Antennae Span and Earth !

How you find this stuff Nick ...I'l never no....

very entertaining with my morning coffee...

I would say also written by people who dont base jump...

keep it comming....

<shudder>

I'm tempted to spend the 10 bucks and see what else they have to say in the full article.

well duhhhh!!!!!

someone should teach these boys to write.

Don't bother. I'm going to get it. You can look at mine.

Edited to add: Copyright violation complete. It's on its way, Tom.

Has anyone yet focused on the fact that the journal in which this was originally printed is targeted to criminologists? You guys are apparently a model for something, but without the full text, I'm not quite sure what it is.

rl

I am not a member, but merely a fond observer.

That being said, anyone who wants to lure me into criminal behavior is at least obliged to provide me with the required materials for the task--in this case, I need your email address, because I'm pretty sure I can't PM you a PDF file (287KB). You may either PM it to me or send me an email.

rl

rhondalea@gmail.com

Awesome article. If you can make it past the first part of the introduction (which read, to me, like a contest to see who can use ordinary words in as obtuse a way as possible), the remainder is, I think, a valuable perspective on the relationship between BASE and the media, written in the context of observations made at Bridge Day '98 and '99. Both fair and illuminating, in my opinion.

Actually, it was BD '97 and '98, and the part of the article that I (being in the line of work I'm in) think of as the "statement of facts" brought back a lot of memories, all of them wonderful.

If these were the guys who were following Marta around in '97, I remember them. At the time, someone (Who? Who? Who? Damn, I'm getting old, because I can't recall...) told me they were doing a documentary about the Sorcerer.

As 736 mentioned, all the jargon is not pleasing (a true bastardization of the English language, if ever there was one, and I thought lawyers were annoying with their "terms of art"). After slogging through that morass, the end felt like a puff of stale air--it seemed like an awful lot of work to reach what I believe to be a somewhat skewed conclusion.

Edited to add: The flaw at the core of the study is they failed to take into account that many of the jumpers at Bridge Day are 1) first-timers, 2) one-timers and/or 3) Bridge-Day-only jumpers.

But the flood of recollection in between made it a worthwhile read.

rl

P.S. If any of you haven't read it and still want a copy, let me know.

 

Care to elaborate on the sense in which you felt their conclusion was skewed? And what you felt the conclusion was, exactly?

I will be glad to elaborate...later. <whine> One of the problems I have right now is I'm posting between files, as well as posting in my sleep. You're asking me a question that requires logical thought, and that means I have to take the time to do more than post my gut reaction.

So either tonight or tomorrow night (I'm tired), I will do this. </whine>

In the meantime, I did mention what I thought was the major flaw when I edited my post: their sample included a lot of skydivers, not a lot of real base jumpers. (And part of this may be my own prejudice about what a real base jumper is.)

rl

It's certainly true that, in many ways, Bridge Day is not representative of BASE jumping as a whole. What struck me was that, in my opinion anyway, the differences were almost entirely irrelevant to the study, so that they ultimately came to reasonable conclusions despite that. In that respect, it really wasn't a flaw at all, though my prejudice against BD made me skeptical from the beginning...

I look forward to reading your elaboration...

Holy crap Tree, I'm totally with you one this one. I intend on reading the entire article when I have some more time, but judging by the abstract I am not hopeful.

Allow me to reprint it. Paragraphs were added by me to make it slightly more readable.


This piece of writing is a disgrace for the entire scientific community.

I understand that most sciences have occasional needs for a specific vocabulary that only respective experts understand. This makes communication within that community more effective, and it is assumed that those with an interest will take the effort to learn the vocabulary.

Even then, most authors aim for readability. The piece above however breaks every rule on effective communication. Even as a non-expert in this field, I am fairly sure the above abstract is just a tangled mess of overcomplicated sentences in order to find some far-fetched justification for spending my tax-money on their PHD programs.

It makes me want to throw up.

<Abstract of the paper deleted>

As a former scientist I have to defend this fraction of humankind...

Argument about tax dollars is below the belt, one may point to waste of tax dollars to teach people how to use math to sell video games of doubtful societal usefulness . My former field was even more difficult to defend...

Well, etnography is quite more descriptive than geometric algebra and research is much more about discussion of ideas rather than pushing the frontier of proveable knowledge.

I agree with you on readability; Still, use of terminology helps as in every science (e.g "unitary transormation" in Jaap's world), to tighten the definition and save bandwidth.

The gist of the essay, as I get it, is that the BD is a "happening", similar in some aspects to busker festivals, in some aspects to graffitti painting.
("nexus between licit and illicit activities") Both activities exist in the context of the observation (mediation) and the performance blends with observation. The segment about jumpers asked to smile to the camera to the left is an example. The cameramen affect the jump and the public viewing of the event affects it too.

The event is then different than jumping alone at night, where there less effort to ttempt to "elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event". Heck, even if the video is widely seen and succesfully distributed, it will portray BASE as "a form that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities". BD media coverage shows (at least according to the authors) the event as the real deal - the event beeing the whole thing, not just jump.

It's like in golf. Raised hands or wave to the crowd, shown on TV are parts of the game. Game is not only hitting the ball and talking about it in the club (that;s like jumping and talking afterwards) but also giving interviews and signing endorsement contracts. By "constructing a multi-faceted audience for a seemingly secretive endeavor", BD changes the former into the latter. And the latter, now the whole deal, will "ultimately, <to> render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it".

Jumping "indistinguishable from the mediated representation" also implies more legitimacy to the sport. This leads straight into the legal/illegal discussions, though.

Although it might be a difficult and sometimes exasperating read, it is an interesting viewpoint, IMHO, on the BD event.

Will you see the dynamics of the event differently after reading the paper?. Will your jump be different?
Even asking those questions makes one look at the event differently. I'll look at it differently, when I am standing at the railing in two months and look at you guys doing all your stuff. Reading it was quite educational.

I'm not saying that there isn't a legitimate justification for the existence of their program. There are plenty of niche sciences that I have no interest in, but I'll defend their existence regardless. However, such sciences should realize that because they are vulnerable they need to pay more attention to the quality of their publications.

I have not given the paper enough time to comment on their observations and conclusions. My attack is solely on their writing.

A great writer aims to make life easy for the reader. For every writing there are many readers, so it is best if the writer bears the burden of getting a message across.

A poor writer doesn't realize this and writes what he thinks is best, without putting himself in the position of the reader. Few get lucky and write reader-friendly material by default.

A sinful writer throws this principle out the window entirely and tries to use meaningless words to strengthen his perceived intelligence. Through this, he is insulting the reader's intelligence and turning away a large audience.


Thanks for this. I will give the paper more attention now than I otherwise would have. I appreciate it.

yes, we have seen better written papers..

As a member of said community, let me assure you that this is not the case.


Not strictly true of technical publications, where the primary goal may be to say precisely what one intends -- no more, and no less. Though I find it obtuse, and therefore difficult to read in places, the words used in the paper were probably chosen carefully to make very specific statements.

Regarding those statements...


I found two things particularly interesting about the paper. The first was that, even jumping alone at night, many (most?) jumpers carry camera these days. Video has become an important part of the BS'ing that follows most jumps. Because of that, commercial media are not the only ones turning BASE into more than just the jump -- there's a bigger picture (so to speak) there. That contrasts with, for instance, amateur soccer, where nobody wears body-mounted video and commercial media are only very rarely interested.

The second was their take on the relationship between BASE jumpers and the media, in that they note that BASE jumpers manipulate the media toward their own ends as much as the media manipulates BASE jumpers. I find the idea that the media is not leading a one-way attack on BASE and everything it stands for refreshing.

Both of these observations have a much broader significance than just Bridge Day itself.

The authors seem to be on your side:

Jeff Ferrell:

http://www.amazon.com/...s=books&n=507846

Dragan Milanovic - cover is a MUST see:

http://www.amazon.com/...v=glance&s=books

I am a member of said community too. I have no PHD, but I hold a M.Sc. degree and I still enjoy a great deal of research in my professional life as well as from my armchair.

I belief this abstract is a example of what is harming science. If we don't communicate clearly we allow people to trust irrational explanations for phenomenons they don't understand. We would all still be creationists if Darwin hadn't been a great author.

Let me stress again that I strongly belief in vocabularies to make communication more effective. I don't see a problem with entry level barriers for those trying to get into a science. Not all papers have to be accessible to laymen.


That is always the most important goal, even for non-technical publications. If an author says more or less than what he intended he failed to communicate his message. Making life easy for the reader is a secondary goal. Nonetheless it is one that we should not forget.


I have not yet read the entire paper and I am therefore basing my opinion on just the abstract. Forgive me for saying this but unless your vocabulary comfort zone is at a drastically different level than mine, I find it naieve of you to think that the authors chose their wording with the intent of making specific statements. I agree that they chose carefully, but only to further obfuscate their message.

Let's have a look...


What is useful about this sentence? It doesn't contribute anything to the abstract. But let's assume for a minute that it has purpose, then the use of "been subject to" is still a capital sin. This sentence is more clear when rewritten as: "Edgework experiences are discussed in recent literature."


A form?

I wrote an email to my mother the other day. It read like this; "A form that offers great pleasure, drinking coffee is an every-day activity." I intended to write: "I like coffee and drink it every day.", but I was worried my mother might think I'm dumb.

Sure, an email to my mother is not the same as a scientific paper, but come on....

Furthermore, BASE jumping doesn't find things. Jumpers do. Perhaps BASE jumping establishes a nexus, but it certainly doesn't find it. And what's with licit and illicit activities? You mean that some of things we do are illegal?


I can appreciate the fertile field analogy. The inclusion of theoretical research is offensive though. I doubt that the authors meant the meta-science that researches theories. They're just talking about research that is not carried out in the field. Which, in this context, is the same as not saying anything at all.


Sensual is a poor choice of words here. They might mean "sensory", they might mean "of physical nature", but I doubt they mean the most common explanation of this word which says that we all get boners from BASE jumping.

And why is the framework it provides experiential? Is it because BASE is a real life experience, instead of a made-up scenario? Well, duh.

Besides, this sentence is wrong on another level too. I think they are trying to say that within criminology BASE provides insights in sensual motivations, as well as experiential frameworks for blah blah. Now they are saying that BASE provides insides into the frameworks. I doubt this is the kind of insight they are looking for.


A flawed definition. Need I continue?

This abstract is the kind of text that turns a disinterested society into an uninterested society. Poor communication gives opponents the ammunition to attack our observations and conclusions with flawed logic.

I wonder if the authors are conducting a study on how marginalized adrenalin seekers use the form of digital debating over literal frameworks to create a nexus between sensual behaviour and thereotical research.

I mean that the authors of that paper are probably lurking around in these forums to find a bunch of bored BASE jumpers flaming each other over a piece of text none of them wrote.

It might surprise you to learn that the journal "Theoretical Criminology" is targeted at researchers in the field of theoretical criminology. This abstract is the kind of text that is generally not read by the disinterested society of which you speak.

The academic world has, unquestionably, established particular styles in which articles are -- and are not -- written. To seriously criticize a work on the style in which it was written, however, and not on its content, is (in my opinion) among the lowest forms of attack. Frankly, I'm surprised to see that sort of attack coming from your direction.

Edit: Typo

That doesn't surprise me at all. Even if this was written better, the contents alone suggests there is a very niche target audience.


Agreed. I'll retract my statement that this abstract specifically is one that hurts science. However, I still belief that science has a duty to communicate clearly, and in my opinion this piece does not.

Do you think it is impossible to rewrite the abstract to read much easier without harming the message? If I had more time I would give it a try myself. I know nothing of this field, but I am fairly sure I could significantly improve the readability of the abstract without changing the meaning.


I'm not critizing the work. For all I know, its conclusions could be of great value and truly revolutionary. I fully intend to give the paper its due effort tonight.

I am critizing the writing style of the abstract. I not only hold the opinion that the authors have neglected to communicate clearly, I also accuse them of taking extra effort to make the message more obtuse.

This is not an attack on the contents of the publication or the work itself. It's an attack on the writing style of the abstract and the authors behind it.

Unless somebody can convince me this abstract could not have been written better, I stand by this opinion. I also still think that because of this writing style, they are harming the scientific community by limiting the amount of people that could get value out of this paper.

And again, I'm not saying their target should be the disinterested public, but certainly it could be bigger than it is now.

Theoretical criminology is partially responsible for making descisions whether dangerous people can be let back into society again or not. Holland recently had a few cases where people were deemed fit for reintegration and they ended up murdering and raping several innocent people.

Now all of a sudden the disinterested public is not so uninterested anymore. At that point, we need to have a clear, understandable and solid foundation to explain the justification of our decisions. That doesn't mean oversimplified communication, but it demands clarity for sure.


I'm sorry to hear that. I think we share many opinions on what science means. I am just very uptight about communication because science is blamed for matters that are only caused by poor communication and not due to actual scientific results.

Well, here we are, two days later. I always work better with a deadline, even if it's self-imposed.

I take back what I said. These guys never reached a conclusion. They blathered. (Definition of "blather" as used here: argument by repetition, unsupported claim, context-dropping and spin-doctoring.)

In all seriousness, I've read the abstract and the "conclusions and reflections" (plenty reflective, but not at all conclusive) about twenty times each. The individual sentences can be deciphered, but as a whole, they do not come together to form a cohesive and coherent thought.

Unfortunately for these researchers, they failed to take into account that the mother of BASE is skydiving, and it is from those roots that video-making, video-sharing, and video-selling arise. Too, skydiving has plenty of media saturation.

So what I would ask these fellows is this: if I substituted a skydiving event for a base event, what difference would it make to your paper and your research?

And the answer to that is: none. Except that they wouldn't be able to make the link between skydiving and quasi-illegal activity, and publication in a criminology journal wouldn't be open to them.

You can't tie the non-base jumping picture-takers, video-makers to base. They're just there to get a story, make a buck, and they will be at the next story-making, buck-making event, whatever that event happens to be.

So what about the base jumpers themselves? Well, Will Forshay was just making a living. He was a professional skydiving videographer (and a ham--as Nick mentioned above--and a very funny, wonderful guy, which has nothing to do with this, but I miss him, so I'm throwing it in here anyway) who also happened to base jump. An opportunity presented itself, and Lemmings was born. Most of the folks I know who sell video, be it to the media or to their friends, are just people who have found a way to supplement their income. How is that different from anyone who makes a movie? Sells a picture? Does anything, really, to make a living or make a few extra bucks? It's only different in this paper, because these "researchers" say it is.

Ask yourself this: if there were no media at Bridge Day, would the jumpers still come? If there were no way to make base videos, would you still jump?

Okay, that's part one. I've got more, but after a day's worth of thinking and typing (all for you Abbie--I'm getting there), this is too much. So argue this, and eventually, I'll figure out how to get put the rest of the electrons in coherent form.

rl

They also failed to take into account the fact that high-quality video equipment is becoming increasingly available to the consumer. But, much like your point, that's largely irrelevant to a discussion on the nature of the mediation of BASE.


Also irrelevant. Nowhere do the researchers make the claim that mediation in BASE is fundamentally different from that in skydiving. A discussion of that question in this paper would constitute scope creep.


Demonstrating only that mediation is not central to the sport. But then, the authors never claimed that it was...


That's rediculous. By the same argument, you can't tie parachutes to BASE, since they're also used in skydiving, to drop cargo, to slow aircraft, to entertain kids in elementary schools... Video, both by BASE jumpers and by others, is absolutely relevant to the nature of the sport. This article discusses the nature of that relevance.

I think this should probably be taken to private messages if you'd like to discuss it further. I'm pretty sure we're drifting well away from a discussion of any relevance at all to BASE, and am posting this reply only against my better judgement.

... If, as might be true in principle, I had any.

Please don't. The subject interests me and this forum is more effective than multi-person messaging. I'm sure Tom will allow us this minor digression. It's still about a BASE paper.

Jason, do you have an opinion on the following comment by Rhonda Lea?


Are the conclusions in the paper relevant to the fact that base-jumping is sometimes illegal? Or do they merely argue that there is a bidirectional influence between media and BASE and keep this orthogonal to its legal status?

It is?


We can have the rest of the discussion in PMs or email if you like, but your statement above makes me feel like I'm really weird.

Or maybe your perception is different from mine because you're a videographer, and I have very little interest in video or pictures. I carry all my visual memory inside my head, not in a dvd. I don't go to movies either--I read books, and they all unfold for me visually, like my own private movie.

So that's my prejudice, but I really did believe that all anyone needs to base jump (equipment-wise) is a rig and a canopy.

rl

Edited to add:


The only thing distinguishing base from skydiving for the purpose of their thesis is the quasi-criminal aspect of base. Which brings me back to the point that Jaap has asked you to comment on.

Don't get me wrong, Jason, I think that a lot of what they describe, factually, is accurate and worth reading, but I also think they started out trying to describe what they believed to be an on-the-edge (legally speaking, not the way we think of it) community and were subverted in the process. So when they got to the end of the whole mess, they didn't really know what to do, and they ended up with a...swirl (to use their word) of shit.

Absolutely it is. You don't need to enjoy video yourself to understand that its use has made a significant impact on the sport. Perhaps equivalently, the fact that some jumpers have no interest in video does not change its importance to both BASE jumping and skydiving.

For instance... I remember a time (as I'm sure many do -- heck, I haven't been to a dropzone in a while; this might still be the case) when cameras were found predominantly on freeflyers. I find that tremendously interesting. Why is that the case? How does it change the way freeflyers and bellyflyers identify themselves as subgroups? Sure, at the end of the day, we're all jumpers, but there's a subtler dynamic here.

Or, consider the fact that if my video malfunctions on a jump, I'm a little bummed about that. Why? Because part of the jump, for me, is the bit where you sit down and relive the bits and pieces, or BS about it with friends. Video can be a part of that. Would I jump without? Absolutely, and I have even since I started flying video.

Consider the safety aspect, which is tied in intimately with what Lyng et al call "negotiat[ing] individual and collective status". Ever watch a piece of carnage tape repeatedly, before setting it aside, to see what you might learn? Ever see a cocky skydiver go ass-over-teakettle at NRGB and give the guy shit from your living room? How many people know that Jeb is the man despite never having met him personally, having seen him do thirty-seven back layouts from 300 feet, or something silly like that?

Video changes many things, among them the social dynamic in BASE. Video is absolutely relevant to the nature of the sport.


Which is why publishing a similar article about skydiving in a criminology journal would have been foolish. "Theoretical Criminology" is an interdisciplinary journal. I suspect they publish many articles with only a little relevance to mainstream criminology.

Where you, unless I'm mistaken, believe that the authors manipulated the article to marginally suit the journal, I believe that they chose a journal which only marginally suited their article. You suggest what amounts to minor academic misconduct; I suggest a productive sharing of ideas. The difference is in intent, and neither you nor I know the authors' intent.

its not that it is a criminal activity per se but that it has elements of a criminal nature, as does graffiti..and there certainly more similarities between the two activities than legality.... when it comes right down to it everyone is a criminal whenever they break any law at all.

Camera and video affects everything.. it brings experience and documents events in a manner like nothing else before it. This vastly contributes to the collection and dispersion of information and eventually knowledge. Mediation isnt really a bad thing even if it has detrimental effects to some aspects of what was primarily a mentor based activity...

Even this board is a form of mediation, and it would be equally valid to study the effects of the 'internet' on 'BASE' as it is video..

These are all elements of the activity. Even if you've never made a jump on video, it still affects the development of the sport..Participant or not, like it or not, the fact that anyone 'knows of' any activity except by direct experience, or first person narrative, is directly attributable to mediation..technology affects social order as much as social order affect technology.

but i agree 'edgework' is simply a silly term to describe any activity on the fringe of a social system.

What Zenister said. But less succinctly.

Edit to add: What I think is productive about this paper is that much of what I've said above isn't something I'd really thought about before. As always, your mileage may vary.

Jaap

You are making the assumption that the writer actually wants a wider audience.

This may be incorrect. Or not???????????

You are right if the writer was intending to inform and educate a wider audience. But I personally do not think that was the intent or the case.

You are entitled to have an opinion on any piece of writing. But more than that, the writer has a greater right to pen the words that (s)he feels/desires/believes/etc. A similar example I have come across recently are the works of WD Gann - on of the greatest investors during the years of the Great Depression, etc. His technique when it is dummed down is very simple to understand for most people. It is a bit of a hobby of mine that is making some good $$$$$$. But if you read his books, most mortals struggle to understand "what the hell he is on about". His intent was to force people to think and try to understand instead of giving them a simple 5 step recipe. He believed that people should put in effort to earn rewards. The reward in his case was a more complete understading of his techniques (and the flow on benefits of greater trading success).

Many people seem to have the belief that BASE jumping is an activity that deviates widely from other activities. I don't actually think that is the case at all.

There are many similarities between BASE and other activities. One of the other posts on this thread touched on this. The sport has people, groups, individuals, competitions, solo activities, equipment, training regime's, personalities, events, students, experienced, administrators, competitors, social participants, manufacturers, equipment retailers, supporters, detractors, champions, losers,

The major differences are:

- perceptions of people internal and external to the sport
- the actual detail and technical aspects of the sport
- the level of maturity of the sport - we are still relatively young (not necessarily time - level of development could also be considered)
- the fact that any activity that has a minor participation rate is considered strange by the remainder of society. I.e I always thought spoon collectors were weird. And what about the running of the bulls - doesn't that look dangerous and stupid (but if you talked to an experienced runner and learnt more about the activity . . .)
- the perceived and actual risk and margins for error.

Hence,

The best thing in my humble opinion is to keep an open mind about everything. What people say and do and what your perceptions are of what they said and did may be extremely divergent. Clarity through communication resolves most of these circumstances.


But thankfully, there will always be different opinions. Society needs this to progress.

Enough ranting and raving.

Stay Safe
Have Fun
Good Luck

I agree with everything Zenister said.

I don't agree it has anything to do with what these wingdings tried to tie together in their paper.

More later. Work calls.

rl

The messages, quotes and replies became so convoluted, that I'll put my comments on a fresh page, because it's too difficult to trace it all.

Here it is.

The paper talks about BD ca 1998. That was different compared to now?

Scientific terms are scientific terms and usually mean the same to a community. Edgework is a term and people use it.

At least two authors had significant 'edgework' experiences, their scientific viewpoint is most likely "mediated" with previous experiences...Quoting from the essay:

"Building on our previous ethnographic work on voluntary risk taking, illicit adrenalin rush experiences, and related subjects (for example, Milovanovic, 1988; Lyng, 1990; Ferrell, 1996), and on our previous experiential involvement with skydiving and BASE-jumping activities, we attended the Bridge Day event in 1997 and 1998"

A long sentence follows

"Attempting to immerse ourselves in the event, and thus to develop a situated ethnography of the event and its participants, we collected documents; attended training sessions, orientation seminars, informal gatherings, awards ceremonies, parties, and other events; tape recorded, photographed, and participated in events and interactions at the bridge jump area, the landing area, and elsewhere on Bridge Day; and conducted numerous on-location interviews with BASE jumpers, event organizers, media personnel, and other participants".

The essays in these interdisciplinary fields almost never reach a firm conclusion.

What we are doing in this forum now is what they were doing to BD in their essay, to a certain extent.

One of the purposes of authors writing has been achieved: Further discussion on the subject (no firm conclusions though..). All of this started with an innocent post from NickDG.

Mediation affects the sport. Why is the number of jumpers growing exponentially? (we start using their term - "mediation" ).

I did not reach any conclusions either...

 i have reached a conclusion and it is my head fucking hurts.... what a thread..who knew "we" were so smart...

Specifically, it talks about '97 and '98.

This was '97:

A stroll down memory lane