Butters

Yes, all that Zero-P and Parapack is very slippery. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

First a Private Message from you ... Then this ... Relax, not everything is about you. You made a comment about fit, feel, and flight and I stated that no one with 0 jumps (the original poster) will be able to to determine feel or flight after only 20 jumps. If you still think it's about you then I'll assume no matter what I post you'll think it's about you ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

My comments were in regards to your post (ability to determine feel and flight after 20 jumps) but based on the context of the original post (starting with 0 jumps). I found it clear that I was referring to people in general and not you in particular ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

How did you determine it wasn't what you needed in only 20 jumps? Didn't fit right, didn't feel right and didn't fly right. As far as feeling right or flying right of a wingsuit ... I don't think anyone with 0 jumps can determine feeling or flying after just 20 jumps (especially since they have no other wingsuits to compare to). I agree that you should try before you buy if you have the chance (try a Shadow/Phantom/T-Bird). However, I doubt you would be disappointed with a Phantom as a beginner, intermediate, or advanced wingsuit. Where did you read that it was my FIRST 20 jumps? I said within 20 jumps on the suit didn't I? I didn't. I was making a general comment using the original post as context ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

How did you determine it wasn't what you needed in only 20 jumps? Didn't fit right, didn't feel right and didn't fly right. As far as feeling right or flying right of a wingsuit ... I don't think anyone with 0 jumps can determine feeling or flying after just 20 jumps (especially since they have no other wingsuits to compare to). I agree that you should try before you buy if you have the chance (try a Shadow/Phantom/T-Bird). However, I doubt you would be disappointed with a Phantom as a beginner, intermediate, or advanced wingsuit. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

How did you determine it wasn't what you needed in only 20 jumps? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I didn't notice that one. Jeff had five (plus another camera) and Jeb had four ... I really need to invest in GoPro. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Jeff had five (plus another camera) and Jeb had three ... I need to invest in GoPro. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

For the most part, me either. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Setting a record using "the grid" is like setting a record at the Special Olympics ... just because I ride the short plane and lick the windows does not mean I'm special. Unlike "the grid", your method at least appeared to reward those moving in the right direction. I don't think you can fault anyone for following the rules, whether or not you think those rules are optimal. If a 68 way in "the grid" is so "short bus" easy, how come we aren't doing that every weekend? I'm not faulting them for following the rules. I'm faulting them for accepting the rules. A lot of NFL kickoff returners don't like the new kickoff rules, but they accept them because they are the rules. Accepting rules, while working to change rules you don't like, is adult behavior. Going home in a snit isn't adult behavior. Okaly dokaly, I'll go with your thought process on following and accepting. If you followed the rules and set (or attempted to set) a record than you accepted the rules. However, if you followed the rules and didn't attempt to set a record than it's possible you accepted or didn't accept the rules. I fall into the last category, I followed the rules, didn't attempt to set a record, and don't accept the rules ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Setting a record using "the grid" is like setting a record at the Special Olympics ... just because I ride the short plane and lick the windows does not mean I'm special. Unlike "the grid", your method at least appeared to reward those moving in the right direction. I don't think you can fault anyone for following the rules, whether or not you think those rules are optimal. If a 68 way in "the grid" is so "short bus" easy, how come we aren't doing that every weekend? I'm not faulting them for following the rules. I'm faulting them for accepting the rules. I never said it was easy. I said it was easier than it should be. How many individuals on that record had less than 50 flights, 100 flights, or 500 flights? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Setting a record using "the grid" is like setting a record at the Special Olympics ... just because I ride the short plane and lick the windows does not mean I'm special. Unlike "the grid", your method at least appeared to reward those moving in the right direction. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I own some Pink Floyd records. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Could be hoping for a brokered convention so they can get a halfway decent candidate instead of one of the jokers currently running. More than likely they want to get rid of Ron Paul so that their voters will focus on the candidates they want. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I didn't mean they intended to get caught. I meant they intended to alter the results ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Honestly, I don't see a need for more than three. A small one (Shadow/Phantom), a big one (Jaguar/Ghost/Stealth), and a fast one (Vampire). I have a Phantom, I'm ordering a Ghost, and I want a Vampire ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Yes I do I'm glad that we agree. Why do you continue to support and vote for the parties creating these unconstitutional laws? Is it because these laws didn't affect you ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Do you understand the difference between prohibiting drugs within a state and prohibiting drugs from crossing state or national borders? One is unconstitutional, the other is constitutional. Go learn something before responding ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans. Nope Not covered under that clause I wasn't suggesting it was. I was merely attempting to show this person the error of their argument. Agreed. It should be a State issue (at least until a constitutional amendment is passed). You realize it wasn't a liberal who introduced this to the thread. So now that we understand that you believe that drug prohibition by the United States is unconstitutional let's move on to the next issue. Homosexual marriage ... marriage is not mentioned in the constitution and thus it should be a State Power. Agreed? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Try again. The 14th amendment does not increase the United States powers, it decreases the States powers in regards to depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Please explain how drug prohibition by the United States without a constitutional amendment is not unconstitutional given the 10th amendment. If you want to use "to promote the general welfare" as your argument then be prepared for others to use "to promote the general welfare" as their argument (in regards to things like mandating birth control in health care plans). PS: If you bothered to read you would notice that I mentioned that States have the constitutional right to prohibit drugs. However, the United States doesn't without a constitutional amendment. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans. Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that making drugs legal does not promote the general welfare. Quite the contrary. Unless you are willing to argue that people being stoned out of their minds is good for society. Whatever..it doesn't change the fact that you don't understand the constitution. PS: I mentioned that drug prohibition by the United States was unconstitutional. I didn't mention (or argue) anything about what is good for society, you did. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to. PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. http://libertymaven.com/2009/10/06/drugs-and-the-constitution/7584/ That is basically what I wrote in my previous post. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

So does banning (or mandating) a lot of things ... like mandating birth control be included in health insurance plans. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to. PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. I can agree with the religious comment I do not see anyplace in the constitituion that address drugs one way or the other. the alcohol thing was a debacle from the start That makes no sense no matter how you look at it It doesn't make sense to you (and your point of view). It makes sense to others (and their point of view). That you lack the ability to view things from other perspectives speaks volumes ... Prior to the 18th amendment there were numerous States with alcohol prohibition laws (which was constitutional). However, in order for the Unites States to create a law prohibiting alcohol (that was constitutional) they needed to create the 18th amendment because of the 10th amendment. Do you know how they circumvented the 10th amendment to prohibit drugs? I doubt it ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch