n23x

Such as? Just curious what you identify with. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

See, I disagree, and more interestingly, didn't know there was a 'racial issue' about it, until i saw that Sharpton was involved. I am not suprised that people are upset about it: 1.) Plainclothes officers (=civilian/thief/carjacking) drawing weapons, potentially not identifying themselves as LEO. 2.) The perceived/actual threat was responded to with deadly force. However, no weapon was found, and reference issue 1. 3.) Perceived EXCESS deadly force in terms of 50 fired bullets. Whether or not it was excessive, who knows. It is commendable that you can get good grouping with your weapons. ALL people who may have to use deadly force for their job should be equivalently accurate, even in a stressful environment. Like I said, can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. Skydiving parallel. It has been said in this thread that many officers do not fire their weapons much, are not great shots, etc. What would our response be to a novice being put under a velo? Our response would be to, effectively, take that canopy away, whether it be through convincing them to get something else, banning them from flying at local DZs, etc. Obviously, a couple get through, and some don't die, but most are DGITs. Should people have the same response to officers carrying deadly force? I am all for officers having guns to protect themselves. With that same token, I think that, because they selected that as a job, they should err more on the side of preserving life, rather than taking life to protect perceived threats to their own. It sounds a little fucked up, but really, their lives aren't more important than potential perps, just equally important. People view their actions as 'jumping the gun', and, rightly so, are outraged. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

This is a video I like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oseIWfukF30 On the subject of wind analysis, check this out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_gKNhGbsEf4 It's schlerian sp? photography that can visualize fluid flow. Now how the hell can we do this in 3D to cheat and see where the good thermals are?! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

This defense is used often after these types of situations occur, but it's still wrong. LEOs have a specific job to do, and as such, they must be able to perform well in high stress, high risk situations. If you cannot perform the appropriate actions in those instances, you shouldn't be a cop. Likewise, you shouldn't be a TI if you consistantly end up under a CYPRES-deployed reserve, agreed? Pulling a weapon as a plainclothes cop, without clearly identifying yourself as such, is a MAJOR fuckup. Did that happen? We don't know for sure, but 2 witnesses say yes. Did the vehicle drive towards the cops? Once again, we don't know. Should the cops have been within close enough proximity to move out of the way without firing a LOT of bullets for fear of their lives? Many think so. But then again, I'm not a LEO, so I don't know what it's like, right? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I think you're looking for this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQfrL2_6i1U&NR=1 .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Yah, take a closer look in his sunglasses. WHat the hell is that? These guys did some image analysis to show what it is... http://kevin.vox.com/library/post/post.html .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Same here. My VAIO s360 has been nothing but a disappointment, and Sony has been a piece of shit to deal with. Apparently my computer is prone to overheating, and after enough cycles the ram slot desolders from the motherboard. Sony fixed it the first time under warrenty. 6 months later, the same thing happened, and they refused to repair it. I told them that it was obviously the same mode of failure (you can push on the ram slot, and the computer works, sort of), and they told me that it would be ~800$ to repair. What a bunch of assholes. Get a dell or something else, Sony is a bunch of cockbags. rant over. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What, exactly, would be the difference? I have no issue with it... .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

The 83 is alright, but the 85 is the bomb.com! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I like that expression. Are these 'excessively documented experiences' due to actual, legitimate physical discomfort? Or because the yacht club doesn't want an 'eyesore' in sight? Seemed like a good place to acquire objective data, right? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So what you're saying is: "He's not an angsty little piece of shit that hates his parents for buying him the wrong color SUV"? "I SAID SILVER NOT CHARCOL! THANKS FOR NOTHING, MOM, YOU RUINED MY LIFE!" Vote Obama! He HATES snowboarders! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Looks like they did some good work littering too. I saw at least a pillow and a red bull can. Add to that a bunch of motorcycles at the bottom of a canyon. EXTREME!!!! jackassery, if you ask me. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What the fuck, is the MC short for McCarthy? Keep writing this shit Marc; seriously, it is more entertaining than what's on tv. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm actually on hiatus from skydiving, working on my P2 right now. It's a lot of fun, but quite a bit different from skydiving. Differences in flying a skydiving canopy vs. paragliding canopy are substantial (far more pitch sensitive, collapses can be fairly easy to induce, etc). That video is very early on in the instruction process. The ground work is a lot of fun, but it can be pretty physically strenuous to run the glider down the hill. It looks like she had no wind. With a couple mph wind, it's pretty easy to kite the glider (plus you don't have to run as fast ). Flying weather is a very critical thing to consider, bad weather can put the hurt on you. I cannot wait for my first cross country. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm having a hard time visualizing that incident, but good on your friend for not sustaining serious injury. Hit and runs should never be taken lightly, particularly with a pedestrian involved. My hit was relatively uneventul, although both myself and the bicycle ended up >15 feet from the point of impact. Driver zipped through a stop sign and nailed me on a crosswalk, even though I thought we made eye contact and I was noticed. In the cases we're discussing, I absolutely agree. Intersections can be bad for all vehicles, and are a good time to go ahead and integrate with the flow of traffic, and take the center of your lane. Climbing up a 2-lane mountain road with a line of cars behind you, 20mph under the speed limit, not so much. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I wasn't disagreeing with that. If you ride up on the right, and then carefully work back in with the flow of traffic, I'm all for it. I disagree with riders who do the same thing, and then blast out onto the crosswalk, with no regard for who may be turning right ahead of them, and with no intent to return back to the flow of traffic. (You might say you don't see it, but I see it often in Golden). My personal feelings are: you might be a pedestrian, you might have right of way, but until you are forward of the car's trunk, you might as well be invisible, and I wouldn't recommend betting your life on it. It's stupid. Let me also preface this with: I have been hit by a car, in somewhat similar circumstances, and while I feel it was the lady's fault, I could have, but more specifically should have prevented it. Follow the flow of traffic, don't ride like an asshole (it's relative ), and you have less of a chance of dying, as well as making fellow drivers try to integrate you into traffic, instead of seeing how close they can get to the curb at a light. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

And do you think the consequences were any different because the driver drove off? What were the circumstances of the hit? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm saying that, if I was a motorist involved in bicycle accident in which I was turning right, just as a cyclist decided they were going to pass on the right, allI would have to say was that: 1.) I cleared the intersection as I began to turn (how would I see them if they came from behind). 2.) I was in the far right lane, (allowed a legal right turn, or to continue straight) and had no expectations of another vehicle passing on my right. In that case, I would likely get a slap on the wrist, if even, while you could have serious injury, or worse. (Note, I'm not talking about a separate, marked bicycle lane, or Boulder) I understand the whole cyclist rights speech. I will regularly use as much road as I feel I need to make myself visible, and ride as safe as I can, as well as maintaining the flow of traffic. In my opinion, the arguement you are making is similar to the jackasses people choose that ride 3-5 abreast on a tight road, going far under the speed limit, and get pissed when cars pass them. As for Bob's comment (what's up!), I can't help it that I'm not carrying a spare tire up front. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

In response to that, I'd have to say... Speaking as a motorist: I think your interpretation of the law is argueable, and I'd recommmend that you ride as safely as possible, and watch out for big things that can impart a lot of energy to you in a short period of time. Either way, the consequences the driver deals with (if any) will likely be much smaller than yours. Speaking as a cyclist: I'd have to say that's a pretty 'dick rider' kind of arguement, and it's no skin off my back if someobody who thinks (and acts like that) needs to get cleaned off of a windshield with a sponge. Respectfullyish. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Exactly how do you have "priority" if you are both passing on the right, and following the rules of the road like any other motorized vehicle? Let me add that I regularly ride on streets, and most cyclists are decent, but some seem to think that they're entitled to both vehicular and pedestrian right of way, whichever is more convenient. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I am not confusing the two of you. I understand that warped is the person who made the comment. I understand you are one of the people who complaining about the point that labrys made. I said: 1.) I did not perceive what labyrs wrote to be a threat. 2.) I believe that the point labrys made was a legitimate point that knocked apart Warped's comment. 3.) I wouldn't condone the physical act of pointing a weapon at someone, or actually threatening them with the act. Do you see me smiling? I took it one way, you took it another. Apparently it's ok to bitch about the semantics of "accidental vs. negligent", but nothing else. I see. Enjoying the view off your high horse? (Now I'm laughing.) .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Warped gave a guarantee. But a guarantee he wouldn't trust with his hypothetical "life". Therefore, warped's statement was a bullshit statement. He said one thing, but meant another. Bullshit. Word's can certainly become deeds. I perceived no direct threat to be made, so I'm not being cavalier with "statements like that". .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I would never condone the physical action of pointing a weapon at someone, regardless of the position of the safety. I did not perceive his post as a threat. You did and some others did, while an equal amount did not. Made all the difference, to me. It identified to me that it was a hypothetical proposal. I don't think anybody is backpedaling. I do think that you got busted on a bullshit statement, and had no legitimate response. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Care to either: a.) Direct us to a document specifically detailing the variant of weapon on the plane in question. OR b.) Identify specific portions of the document you provided that identify the mechanical safety action described. Labrys proposed a hypothetical situation requiring you to "bet your life" on what you claimed to be uncontestable. He called "bullshit" and you had no legitimate response. Nobody made a threat of physical violence towards you. Nope, I don't see it that way. Feel free to cry to whatever authority you feel necessary. I find it particularly silly that someone who regularly makes posts about violence towards others would throw such a shitfit about said hypothetical situation. Your general views on how others should be treated physically are grossly repugnant. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Sorry, but I must disagree with you. If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate. To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect. Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC