timmyfitz

I would hope that any intelligent person reading this story would not think this is about a constitutional rights to go to a prom. It's about the right to not be discriminated against. The school chose to cancel the prom instead of dealing with it's obvious discrimination of not letting the girls go to the prom together.

Yes, there is - that's why I don't believe ANYTHING you say anymore, since you've lied so MANY times in other threads. Irony score 10/10 You said irony score. You win. (what is this, 3rd grade? I know you are but what am I? )

And some people like to hurl thinly veiled insults for the same reason. Nice work pot. Your pal, Kettle Nothing "veiled" in my response. Just the facts.

Anyone? Are you asking because you don't know the answer or is it that after an answer is given, you can tell them how wrong they are and feel superior? So what is your answer?

In your profile you state that your home dropzone is Aerohio. Did you know they are a Proskydiving.com member? Maybe you should ask the DZO why he is a member? If you disagree with the business model so much, you should jump somewhere else.

I do, but I'm not sure you see mine. I was trying to make two points. The first was, if you can clear the landing area, that's great, and I think you should try to do it. At places like Elsinore, sometimes you can. Maybe at other places, it's less of a concern (because the main landing area is so huge), or less possible. The second point, though, was, regardless of whether you can clear the landing area, I am not comfortable doing something that will prevent me from keeping track of people landing for too long. So even though I have many more steps in my routine after I land, and may take more total time than someone who is just setting their brakes, the point is, each of the steps in my routine takes several seconds only, and in between, I have time to look for canopies. Whereas setting one brake takes me maybe twice or three times as long as removing my booties. Granted, that's still only maybe 10 or 15 seconds total time that I'm not paying attention (or paying lesser attention). But it still seems an unnecessary risk to me, for not much gain. In the end, as I'm sure you know and will agree, skydiving is about choices. I have not been around long enough to give any definitive opinion about whether people should set their brakes in the landing area. I will only say that, at least at this stage of my skydiving career, I would not do it because I feel it leaves me inattentive for too long of a time. I'll give one more, sort-of-related anecdote. When I first started jumping with booties, I experimented with removing them after opening but before landing. The idea was that landing on them would wear them out quicker, especially if I was running out a landing or, ended up sliding on my feet. After two or three times of removing them, I stopped. The reason is because I found that I was focusing too much on removing my booties, and not so much on the canopy traffic around me. It took me 10 or 15 seconds to remove a bootie, and some concentrated effort. I never had a really close call, but once somebody flew by me (at a safe distance) and I hadn't even noticed the canopy was coming my way. But had that jumper been similarly inattentive, and maybe 50 or 100 feet closer, someone might now be using me as an example of why we need to pay attention at all times while under canopy. Things happen faster in the air than in a landing area, because in the air both canopies are moving towards each other at 15+ or however many mph, and on landing, at least one party is mostly stationary. So it's not a great analogy. But it's another reason that I tend to not like doing things that distract my attention for too long, until I'm safely out of the landing area. Don't sweat it, ghost. You had it right in post #7. Some people just like to argue to appear superior.

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed. I'll bite. How flawed is it? I saw a Youtube video that proved Rhys's logic was 63.5% more flawed than would be expected if the truthers were right. I read that 74.6% of facts are made up on the spot.

That is the norm for him. Nothing new. . Irony score 10/10 Nothing ironic about it. Just the facts. Irony score 12/10 (extra credit). You said irony score twice. That makes you smart and the winner.

That was sarcasm on my part(null and void) but it did seem to reflect the way you viewed the issue.

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

That is the norm for him. Nothing new. . Irony score 10/10 Nothing ironic about it. Just the facts.

If the small family DZ wants to stay in business, I would suggest they start charging a price that is closer to the competition. It's no different than any other business. Charge to much and people will go somewhere else for their goods and services.

I agree. I love the constitution and all the rights that come with it until something happens I don't agree with or like. Then those rights become null and void.

That is the norm for him. Nothing new. Oh, and don't forget about pointing to spelling or grammar mistakes. If you point those mistakes out then you must know what you are talking about regarding any subject.

Exactly my point. To any independent observer your theories have failed every single test they've been subjected to, and you have made no progress in having your theories accepted by any official or important body.... and yet success is still just around the corner. There is no 'lose' situation for you guys. That is possibly the funniest thing he has ever written. "but this or the next thing is a sure thing" If "this or the next thing" doesn't give you the outcome you are looking for, will it be the next thing, or the next thing, or the next thing or.........and on and on. In twenty years the Discovery channel will have a show about the 9/11 conspiracy that will be aired right after the show about the JFK assassination conspiracy.

The OP never ask about AFF or static line. Just where to do it cheaply. So no, this thread isn't about AFF.

ehh..nope I already had it. Obviously not if you quote an AC as if it's regulatory.

What a load of crap.

Nope, but it is considered guidance! MEL So there you have it.

Where might that be in the FAR's?

AC's are not regulatory.

For which we were all INCREDIBLY thankful. Hilarious, coming from the guy that thinks the Onion is non-satire. No, I thought it was a RW rag with a satirical, "we're just joking" spin on the homophobia present in most current Repubs. You called the onion video "real and legit". Your words.

Non-interventionism. Two very different things. Maybe we shouldn't have intervened in the Pacific after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Where do you come up with this crap?

Are you saying the tandem passenger holds a certificate per 5.5.1? Are you saying a tandem student (in the U.S.) has an A license or greater when they jump in winds greater than 14MPH?

Since you mention the ATF, here's some OTHER info from them, found in the data disclaimer on every trace report(emphasis mine): "Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime." Take it up with BATF, it was their report. How convenient. You post a quote from the BATF when it suits you and helps support your argument but when someone finds a flaw......."Take it up with the BATF". Pathetic.