Leaderboard

I'm also an older jumper with shitty landings. I PLF a whole lot; that saves me from injury. I have no pride whatsoever . They're not getting better with age, but, well, my PLF's are still good. I've taken three or four canopy classes. I just don't care that much any more, because I walk back from all my landings. My default landing is a PLF, which I alter to a standup at the last minute if everything looks perfect. Your statement about ground hungry and two-stage landing makes me think that the ground looks the same coming at you (even at 45 degrees, etc) as it does to me. The faster the landing, the worse, for me. Every now and then I nail it, but I'm not sure that good landings will be in my skill set until I upsize to about a .7:1 BASE canopy or something like that. I currently have a Stiletto loaded at just over 1:1; I've also jumped a Pilot and liked it better; I might break down and get one if I get sick enough of the Stiletto. If you really liked the landings on a Sabre, can you maybe get one with a pocket slider? They're supposed to be magic. Have someone test it for you a couple of times. We're in the age range where a small pack is only useful because it weighs less walking to the airplane, and that's outweighed by a whole lot of other things. I'm in the same size range as you. I upsized my rig a couple of years ago, and bought a container that will allow at least two more upsizes. I'd rather be ungainly than broken. Wendy P.

As opposed to 3 or 4 states that have fewer actual people which is what we have now?? and here’s a video explaining why the ‘few big cities decide everything’ argument is simply wrong. The math doesn’t add up. And a good qualifying follow-up video:

What's wrong with heeding the Constitution?

Voting for a lying con-man sexual predatory arrogant narcissistic draft-dodger to be President of the USA, CinC of the most powerful military in history, and leader of the free world just to piss off people suggests that maybe they ARE stupid, ignorant, etc.

Yes you can get your A license there. There are legitimate AFF instructors who jump there and they can and have trained many students. I have jumped with one instructor there who is actually quite skilled as an AFF-I and he does a good job training his students.

Further update. I was approved after 3 days and I picked up my box of snake shot today. I asked the gun store salespeople how to get on the approved background check list and their solution was interesting. Buy an AR15 lower receiver! A polymer AR15 lower, which is the registered component of an AR15, can be purchased for $40. Since it is serialized, it has to be registered and a background check done for purchase. They didn't recommend buying the parts to complete the weapon since polymer recievers aren't very durable but it gets you thru the background check and on the approved list at the least possible cost. They said it makes an excellent and unusual paperweight. Seems that AR15 sales are climbing in CA...

Isn't that the point? The entire way he is saying that, is completely designed to be irrefutable. Since HE is saying it, there is already at least ONE person saying it, and since many of his followers will simply repeat his talking points you will soon have SOME people saying it. The entire reason to say "some people say" is really to suggest to his followers: "you should be saying this". I don't think he is a mastermind in many ways (often he just bumbles around) but in regards to language I am almost certain that he uses these techniques on purpose. The "no collusion" and "no quid pro quo" lines, were prime examples: He set them up and repeated them countless times--and then his followers, and then the media, repeated them. This was clearly designed to steer the conversation to set up some unrealistic or irrelevant baselines. Before he used the word, "Collusion" was never the actual word to describe the issue. So: he set up the standard: "unless you prove collusion", I am completely innocent. But "collusion" couldn't be proven, because it wasn't a legal standard applicable to the issue--and then later, when it looked like it may be possible to call what he did "collusion", they could easily pivot to "it isn't a crime" (which is technically correct.) The "no quid pro quo" was intended to do the same: Make it so he actually has to be caught saying EXPLICITLY what he was offering for dirt on his opponents. Of course, generally no one does that (that is how in the US, you can have someone give millions to a campaign, and then the same politician enacts a law that makes that person billions--and it doesn't count as bribery, because you cannot ever prove the quid pro quo, since no one is stupid enough to actually say: "make this law for me and my contributions will be assured") Nevertheless, in this case the whole thing seems to not work out so well, because he forgot that he wasn't supposed to say it. PS: I agree with Turtle though. Listening to ALL media (I would change it to ALL somewhat credible media--the others, one may listen to just to know what some other people are hearing) is really the best way to sort out some likely facts.

How much question? When Trump says “some people are saying” you pretty much know he’s lying, and that the entire thing is a fabrication from whole cloth. When the mainstream media say they have a source, they almost always have a source. It’s a fairly fundamental difference.

What does this mean?

Yes, but other than that . . . . . . .?