Butters
-
Content
4,759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Butters
-
Our regulations prevent jumping near or through clouds. Their regulations allow jumping near or through clouds with endorsements. Thus, their regulations are more relaxed than ours ... not understanding this is stupid. Who made a statement about jumping inside clouds? I don't want to jump inside of clouds. I want to fly near clouds which means the current cloud regulations need to be relaxed (or removed). One possible method of doing this would be creating cloud endorsements ... Sorry for hurting your feelings Hurt my feelings? Don't flatter yourself ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Just a nice little tip for you ... if you want an intelligent argument than don't call the other person stupid, asinine, unintelligent, and thoughtless for doing nothing more than bringing up a subject. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Can you elaborate on this more? Sounds interesting, I don't understand in the slightest though. Get a different spot, a mile away from the DZ and track to it, then 1.5 mi, 2, 2.5... youll see how far you can track and work at getting better at it. Or am I wrong? It's more difficult than that because you have to take winds aloft into account. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I wonder if Danny Mattox believes that Austrailians are stupid, asinine, unintelligent, and thoughtless? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
AFAIK these rules are no FAA rules but ICAO rules, or not? They are FAA regulations ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
... is lobbying the FAA to relax (or remove) the cloud regulations for parachute operations! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
That is the problem, laws shouldn't be based on subjective reasoning, they should be based on objective reasoning. Creating laws based on subjective reasoning is like trying make people follow God without providing proof that God exists ... I agree. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Having unjust laws, enforcing unjust laws, and having unenforceable laws makes a mockery of law. It would certainly behoove government to reduce the total load to eliminate all subjective laws, then. Else each of us decides individually what we think is "unjust" laws. If it's 'unjust', and on the books, and it's enforced, then I bet we'd see more direct action to get that law off the books. If it's 'unjust, and on the books and law ignores it, then it stays on the books. I'm talking end game for society, not just the most expedient thing for a couple guys wanting to gratify an urge. I agree with Henry David Thoreau that if a law is clearly unjust and the ability or process of revoking the law is not expedient then the law deserves no respect and it should be broken through civil disobedience. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Ok... then I don't have to either. I'm not the one stating there is not a correlation. The onus of proof is placed on the individual making the statement. You stated there is a correlation thus the onus of proof is on you. Instead of getting bored you should just go back to being bliss (and ignorant) ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I don't have to, I'm not the one stating there is a correlation. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
And when someone is under the influence of marijuana at work they get fired. What is your point? lol. What's your point? Did I suggest anyone was under the influence of marijuana at work? Yes, you did suggest it ... ... it appears that you don't have to be under the influence of marijuana to be forgetful. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
And when someone is under the influence of marijuana at work they get fired. What is your point? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Fixed it for you. Funny, but wrong. You assume there is no correlation. Thanks for the smile though. Have you performed multiple scientific studies that prove there is a correlation? I doubt it ... stop blaming the drugs and start blaming the individuals. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Fixed it for you. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Having unjust laws, enforcing unjust laws, and having unenforceable laws makes a mockery of law. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Can you tell me how can I get a flat spin? I don't have a narrow stand Bird-man suit, so I could not experience that pleasure so far. I think flat spin belongs to the legacy designs. I was able to get myself into one in my Phantom 2. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I agree. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I disagree. It is the unjust laws that hurt society, not the individuals committing civil disobedience. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
:16:0 3 Tracking 13 Wingsuit "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
All I have to say to you is ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I watched the video and am wondering if you've thought about spending more time learning to fly a beginner or intermediate wingsuit ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
It isn't fear of, it's contempt for ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
So many good points ... and yet we still have a few adults wanting to regulate all the other adults "for their own good". "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
For now it's only a recommendation ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
That isn't what I'm worried about (I have no intentions of becoming an instructor). I'm worried about all the regulations that will go along with the instructor rating ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch