peacefuljeffrey

That's exactly what I thought. If someone wants to commit suicide, that's fine, but one need not traumatize someone else or needlessly involve that person in their decision or its execution. The same thing happened here in Florida about a year ago. The guy had been a pilot, I remember reading, and he went with an instructor supposedly for currency retraining, and he asked the instructor to do some steep turns, and one moment he was there, the next he had opened a door and jumped. I wonder what it would be like for a person who did not know how to control freefall -- they'd probably be pretty shocked at how unstable they felt all the way to the ground. I say this because I think that all whuffos -- including myself when I was one -- think that people can just fall in a nice diving arc all the way to the ground with no difficulty. I bet these guys just flailed and flailed... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Tying and admiring knots in paracord, from simple ones to ornate ones... Lying in the snow on a mountain at night with my snowboard strapped to my feet, just dreamily looking at the stars and breathing the cold air... Lying in bed with my cat pressed against me or lying on my chest... Flying, especially at night... Kissing... Lucid dreaming... Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Makin' your way in the world today takes everything you got Takin' a break from all your worries sure would help a lot Wouldn't you like to get awayyyy Sometimes you wanna GO -- -- Where everybody knows your naaaame and they're always glad you caaaame You wanna be where you can see our troubles are all the same You wanna go where everybody knows your name... Cheers, everybody!! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wish I could remember the theme from Airwolf! I'm stuck now with Knight Rider, CHiPs, Magnum P.I., The Facts of Life, The A-Team, and Diff'rent Strokes. Oooh, I just got hit with a memory of Sanford and Son! Good Times, Family Ties... I can't seem to remember the Riptide theme... but I loved that show. Did Renegade have a good theme, or was it just a good intro sequence? I really enjoyed that show a lot in the mid '90s. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[musically] I say tomato and you say tomato. I say potato and you say potato. [/musically] Wow, funny I didn't realise it doesn't work in text Come on guys, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Same sh*t, different pile and all that. Check it out: The Gun Store for All Generations bridges the gap between the two sides of this long-standing debate and calls it a "clip magazine" hehee. Ugh. I get it. Since one side is right, and the other side is wrong, but it's harmful to the self esteem of the wrong side to force them to admit they're wrong, we who know the difference are supposed to accept some wrong/right hybrid term instead of rightfully insisting on the correct one? No wonder that when you point out to someone that it's, "I COULDN'T care less," they say you're nitpicking, and, "Well, you understood what I meant!" Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I shall clarify. Disarmed for the sake of sport shooting at a registered club, Yes. Disarmed for the sake of self defence, No. But, we've already established that self defense has not been a legitimate reason to have a gun in the UK for a long time... Like I said, the gun clubs were not able to enforce the laws of the time and people were bringing their pistols home. This was a naughty thing to do. Their pistols were taken Really? "Naughty"? Why? Were people taking their guns from the clubs and then committing crimes with them? Doubt it. So maybe it was naughty via "malum prohibitum" but certainly not "malum in se." In other words, naughty by definition only is not anything close to naughty because you actually did real harm. As population and immigration increases more, better funded police are nessesary, this hasn't been happening, hence people get away with more crime, hence more crime is committed. No jail space means more criminals getting off lightly. So instead of better funding the police and jails, your government decided to scapegoat lawful gun owners, it took away their registered guns, gun crime is still on the rise astronomically, and no one seems to be saying to the government, "Give us back our guns and do something REAL to fight crime!" Tragic. How can lack of jail space be responsible for an increase in crime, since it takes an increase in crime to produce criminals who need to be put into the overcrowded jails in the first place? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You appear to have a preference for no one getting killled during the robbery, and that is natural and it makes sense. However, I disagree with the implied notion that it's just fine for the robber to go off on his merry way with your property, undoubtedly to select more victims at some time in the future. My preference is for the victim to be armed, to fight back, to say, "NO, you piece of shit, you are NOT going to go about this crime unchallenged!" And if that means the robber is left dead in a pool of his own blood -- GOOD. One less robber to jeopardize the life and rights of innocent people. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

We derive our inalienable right to arms for defense from the age-old English commonlaw that recognized the same right. Now the English government has taken a big shit on a right that has been established for hundreds of years -- AND, it hasn't done them a bit of good whatsoever, in fact it's brought about harm. I guess that's why. We people who believe in the right to bear arms for defense lament when anyone who is a free citizen is denied that right. Add to that the fact that there are always those Brits who try to push for America to follow their misbegotten and ill-considered lead... and you see we have an interest in pointing out Britain's folly. There's no justification for foreigners to be attempting to get us to adopt a failed policy just because they did so themselves. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. The point is, YOUR house is not ours to clean or look after. OUR house is ours to clean and look after. But people over in England think that their moronic gun ban policies should be adopted in the U.S., when we can clearly demonstrate their abysmal failure and harm in the U.K. So yes, we hold up England's gun control as a pathetic and damnable failure so that we can guard against it being instituted here. Damn right! Okay, "REMEMBER" that it was the fact that you had to license your FIREARMS that enabled the government to, on a whim, collect them all when it decided to ban them. Gee, let's keep arguing for the "harmlessness" of "merelicensing" and registration. We know where that leads. And fuckall if we'll go along with it, knowing full well what it will get us. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm gonna guess you meant "running RAMPANT" and say that I have no problem with other people being naked, and no problem being naked, and when the twain meet it's GREAT! If they're the type I don't wanna see naked (fat ugly old chicks, maybe?) then I just won't look! That's the great part of having these movable eyes on a movable head! Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is it just me, or is Triumph's voice a lot like Adam Sandler's Talking Goat on a Pickup Truck Bed? I love 'em both. They're great characterizations... wait for it... FOR ME TO [I]POOP[/I] ON!! Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Viggo Mortensen would play me. No one else is as deep and also has the hair for it. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I feel very comfortable being naked alone... Quite comfortable being naked with an intimate partner (read: woman)... And I can do naked in front of a general audience if I had to -- but rarely have I had to. That would include everything from changing in a locker room full of people to being "pantsed" in front of a crowd (I saw that happen to Brian Germain at the SoBe 1st boogie, while he was doing a handwalk!) to just hanging out naked. I could definitely do the nude resort thing and I have done the nude beach thing once with no trepidation. I also did the hanging out in a hot-tub nude thing, and we kept going from the hot tub to the pool. We all have bodies, and whether they're chiseled and muscular or flabby and bulgy, they're what we're made of and I think it's important to have no shame in that. Be the person inside, and let the person you are on the outside simply be the transportation for the inside one. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't mean to sound like I condemn a person's choice -- since it's up to each individual -- but I do question the application of the term "sensible" to this particular decision. After all, we are talking about 1000 jumps on which wearing Tevas caused no problems, and then suddenly one snag occurs and then that is the compelling reason to start wearing shoes for 3000 more jumps? If one in 1000 were really all it took to give something up, lots of people would never get into an automobile again, or even skydive. I think that it's funny that someone would give up skydiving barefoot over an anomalous occurrence, but look at how many injuries happen when people do certain maneuvers and their injuries have nothing at all to do with choice of footwear or lack of it. You don't see loads of people who break an ankle swooping while wearing shoes decide never to swoop again, right? The reasoning behind giving up Teva- or barefoot jumping seems specious. - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Mm-must...use...head to...block...camera's view of...Daddy's... erection!"

If you watch the video he hits his head going out of the plane too.. At SoBe's first boogie, I did a few jumps from the Crosskeys Skyvan, and inside there were stickers that said, "President George Bush Hit His Head Here" or something close to that. I asked someone, having remembered the birthday jump Bush did, if this was the actual plane, and I was told yes it was. Hmph! Wow! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That WAS an excellent part. Not so much the Derek before prison but the strong, reformed, non-hateful Derek after prison -- he was for sure badass. I would also remind readers of Fred Ward as Remo Williams, Sinanju practitioner. He could start fire with his thumb rubbing a twig, and dodge bullets! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is that supposed to be, "We are NOT sucking at Raeford" or "We are NOW sucking at Raeford"?

Jeffy doesn't slide his landings. Besides, Jeffy isn't doing high-performance landings yet, anyway, so it's been easy for Jeffy to stand up about the last fifty or so of them. In fact, it probably won't be long before Jeffy stops bothering to write that he stood up his landing for each log entry. Ah, you've hit on the pith. It's about conditioning. Since I go barefoot everywhere, my feet are conditioned to be used to it. Hot, cold, rocky, smooth. Granted there are things that can bash even well-conditioned feet, but they are few and far between. Yes, if I were skydiving in the desert with cacti all around, I'd consider Tevas or something like them. Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, I thought we've already adequately illustrated that the gun control -- the gun BAN -- has FAILED to get weapons out of the hands of "morons" (which I take you to mean "criminals"?). Now that the legislation that "got your vote" is exposed as a flop, what do you propose? Do you still favor the laws that keep the victims disarmed? Things are different now how? Who cares if the guns that criminals acquire now no longer come from home burglaries but from black market sales? The guns are still there, and there seems to have been no point to taking them away from those who had them peacefully, for purposes of sport or target shooting, or for defense. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You really should have had options for "part time dom/sub" and even some with "mostly dom/sometimes sub" or "mostly sub/sometimes dom" Not everyone fits neatly into one or the other. I could therefore not vote. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'd like to know who told you that lie. The FAA has absolutely no attire requirement for people who fly or who fly in aircraft. I fly barefoot all the time. I've even gone to rent the Cessna at the flight school and not even bothered to wear shoes in the building. (There's also no "law" or "health code" against that, either.) I have to wonder why someone would insist on there being a rule when that rule does not exist, and therefore the person could never actually have come across it except in hearsay. I've been told the same "It's the law" or "It's a health department law/rule/regulation" many many times. The fact is, that is simply not true. The health department does not require footwear of any patron of any business, regardless of whether it's a food service. Think about it: why would they care if you are barefoot, if you could just as easily walk in with shoes that have dogshit smeared on the bottom. They sure haven't written a law that says it's illegal to fail to clean dogshit off your shoes... Check out this site. It will expose some of the myths surrounding the supposed prohibition of going barefoot in public. Info on going barefoot and the myths that say you can't Someone at the flight school raised the question when it became apparent I was flying barefoot, and another (very knowledgeable) CFI posed the question, "Well, what does the FAR have to say about it?" and I responded with, "Nothing," because I had checked, and he said, "Exactly. There is no attire or footwear requirement." Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I generally jump barefoot in the summer. Once i start PT in a month, i'll ask what kinda shoes i should get for jumping. I think my barefoot jumping days are over.... I'm sad for you. Jumping barefoot is sooo much fun! When I did a handful of jumps years ago, it was always wearing big boots (3 static lines on L.I., and a few jumps upstate NY) because they required it of me. When I moved to Florida, I discovered the "barefoot lifestyle" and I nearly never wear shoes. I wear flip-flops to work, and wherever I can't gain entry barefoot around town. Other than that, I love the feeling of having my feet free and unenclosed. Once you get to love that feeling, it's nearly impossible to keep shoes on. I resumed skydiving in August 2003 and have done about 75 jumps since then, every single one of them barefoot. I land in the

Why should I? I was responding to a particular post. You seem to have a lot to say about UK laws and how they are applied, how long have you lived here for? Don't really have to have lived there at all in order to be apprised of the situation that faces you. You banned guns in an idiotic knee-jerk reaction to a single shooting (nasty though it was), your reactionary legislation took the guns away from essentially only the good and law-abiding people, guns continue to come in on the black market (and I've read estimates that there are about 4-6 million illegal guns in the U.K.), and your gun crime rate and violent crime rate and burglary rate have all gone berserk out of control. Why would I need to live there in the U.K. (which I wouldn't do on a bet) just to find this stuff out? I can read news on the internet and in the newspaper. I have read of an international study that put the chances of getting victimized in a violent attack (like a mugging) in the U.K. as SIX TIMES what they are in New York City. England and Australia now lead the developed world in terms of rates at which people are victimized by violent crime (which are generally expressed in "per 100,000 population). I don't have the exact figures, but I do know that I've read you surpassed the U.S. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

ummm.... yeah. We have strict gun control laws... The states doesn't. Which country do you think has more people shot per year?? Which country has a "people shot per year" rate that has more than doubled since 1997? Our gun crime rate in the U.S. has gone down consistently since about 1993. Yours has gone skyrocketing out of control since your gun BAN in 1997. Go figure. Your "strict gun control laws" haven't managed to do anything to control criminal use of guns. And as more and more of them stream in on the black market from Eastern Europe, you will have more and more of a problem because your government likes to go after toys, likes to help criminals sue their victims (see the Tony Martin story) and prefers to render its subjects defenseless against armed criminals. We've posted lots of links demonstrating the British government's attitude toward citizen self-defense -- and the penalty the citizen suffers for attempting to engage in it. I repeat my statement of pity -- for those in England who are not ignorant to the situation, and who value the right of citizens to be armed for their own defense. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Uh, John, I'm glad you messed with them back, and caused them to waste their time and look stupid, but if your point was to illustrate how you can just say "no" to a search, didn't that story illustrate that they will eventually search despite your "no"? See, that's the problem. They can use your "no" as "suspicion" which = probable cause. "Who else but a guilty drug smuggler would say 'no'?!" is their reasoning. And you are probably lucky they didn't just throw a confiscated switchblade under your seat, or a baggie of coke into your console. Suddenly that cop with egg on his face isn't looking so stupid, and you'll never prove you were framed. I have no problem believing that a cop who is pissed off enough at you embarrassing him would do such shit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"