Basejumper.com - archive

Since my antics last night didn't get me banned, I still have the freedom to speak my mind here. Whether you read it, or care is actually irrevelant.

Obviously everybody has an opinion about the sport, here's mine...and it won't be an allegory about monkeys.

I did my first base jump at 18 in 1989. The only reason that matters is because it has allowed me to watch the progression of the sport from that moment until now. In the last 16 years, a ton of stuff has changed, and I'm not talking about gear.

I'm sure there has always been a certain level expectation placed on jmpers by fellow jumpers, but what I see today is, in my opinion, bordering on lunacy. What's worse is that it's being flaunted as "ethics."

I just read in another thread that one jumper's "ethics" are judged more on his "attitude" than his "actions." What the flip? I mean seriously, what does that mean? An action is either ethical or it's not. You're attitude while commiting murder has nothing to do with the act itself.

It appears that some jumpers are being accused of having flagrant, "look at me" attitudes, and therefore their actions are rubbing people the wrong way. That's fine, but when you accuse them of being "unethical" while at the same time putting other jumpers up on pedistals who are just as high profile but apperently don't actually use the words "hey look at me," you are no longer making any sense at at all. And that's when people like me just don't care what you say.

I edited all the POTATO BRIDGE rail jumps out of RADIX because in the end there were some good, reasonable arguments that pursuaded me to do so. Incidentally, in the same year continuum II came out and I believe I saw a rail jump in that video, who cares. This year it appears that jumps from the rail aren't as big of an issue...things change, nothing is written in stone.

It all comes to this (AS I SEE IT): Some jumpers don't like other jumpers attitudes and instead of just saying that (because that wouldn't really do anything), those offended people are making accusations about "ethics." If a bunch of offended people all get together and make a unified accusation, some people might buy it and make similar accusations. Almost like Monkeys that have haven't ever been sprayed with water yet still try to keep other hungry Monkeys from eating. And we all know that ethics is always dictated by the majority.

But people like me have been here before most of you, and me not caring what you think, doesn't make me unethical, it doesn't make me anything. It just means that I don't care what you think.

Remember, I'm the guy who taught a sixteen year old girl how to BASE jump before she ever did a a tandem even. Now she's got 13 base jumps and 42 skydives. Who cares? Not me.

If anyone has an issue with me, or my very good friends, all I as k is that you make sense, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

I'm in 90% agreement with you here. I'll explain the 10% reservation in a second. The most import thing is a person's actions... they're either ethical or unethical (granted there are plenty of grays in there). I think if you go back through any of my rant posts you'll see that I try to focus on WHAT is being done, not the person doing it.

If Jeb went off a tower on a bicycle, resulting in the bicycle striking the tower, or day blazed high-profile objects which are mainstays of many jumpers (thus putting their ability to jump it at risk), I'd be equally upset with him. Or any jumper for that matter.

The 10% reservation regarding attitude has to do with repercussions. In the justice system... and human dealings in general... if you have two otherwise identical people who do the identical thing wrong... who gets the harsher treatment? The one who shows true remorse or the one who's remorseless?

Further, if one person realizes what they did is wrong and chooses to no longer do that thing, while the other person continues to do it, who is going to receive the harsher treatment? Finally, which person will have a lower tolerance threshold for future less egregious actions from the community in general than the other?


All BASE videos are "look at me" things of one sort or another. Again, it's more a matter of what is being done on the video than the "look at me" aspect that gets people riled.


What you did with the RADIX/rail jumping issue was really cool and I think most people here will give you credit for that. At least they should.

And I'll be the first to admit that the rail jumping scenes from Continuum make me uncomfortable... and I tell folks who see it not to do that... but the circumstances there are important. When they were doing that, and when the film was originally released, rail jumping wasn't a problem with the City of Twin Falls. As far as I know they still frown upon it.

But the rail jumping thing is a dead horse I think most everyone is tired of beating.


I agree, again it's why I try to focus on actions, though the attitude that comes with it often gives me an insight into their personal ethical system.

I've had plenty of strong personal disagreements with people. I also know that people change, as do their actions. So if someone has a torrid past (and god knows I do) I tend to overlook it in light of their present actions.

I also know I tend to be WAY more argumentative writing things than discussing them in person. Probably a lawyer thing going there. *shrug*

This time, Jimmy, I agree with you.

I'm not going to touch the issue of Clair, except to say the following: You know what I said in that thread, and you know what I've said to you privately, so you understand that my objection was not that you were teaching someone with no skydiving experience to base jump--that part I agree with for the reasons I gave you in the PM. I'm glad she's doing well at it, and that we don't have much longer to go before her 18th birthday.

But as for the rest of it, there is no good argument that I can see against anything you've written.

"Ethics" is what we do, not what we think. Exactly that, no more no less. A good attitude only counts if it is expressed in action, and trying to distinguish identical acts based on the attitude underlying them is ridiculous.

rl

Shouldn't you be in bed?

Having met with an ITD foreman and talked about this issue in the last 3 days, I'd say you're wrong about this.

Example:

Action: I'm running through the hanger, and I accidentally trip, and yank your reserve handle, making you miss the next load and lose the 45 bucks you'd make flying camera for a tandem.

Attitude 1: I laugh and say "Hey, screw you, dude, I never liked you anyway. In fact, I think it's pretty damn funny that you're losing some money. Ha, ha, ha!"

Attitude 2: I say "Oh, shoot, dude, I'm really sorry. Here's my rig for that load. I'll take your rig into the loft and repack the reserve while you do that camera jump."


Same action. Different attitudes. Are you sure you'd react the same way in both cases?

One could argue though that the loaning of the rig and the free repack are both actions, and that the attitude would be wether you were happy or disgruntled while doing them. Most of this debate will be about definitions, I'm sure everyone pretty much agrees with each other on this topic, but defining ethics is where it gets tricky. Just ask aristotle.

Sure. But looked at it in BASE-ethics specific terms:

Example:

Action: I wander through your city and jump a building in daylight, nearly getting busted and heating things up nicely for you and your crew.

Attitude 1: I hold a press conference, taunt the cops, and declare myself "god of the skies, and world's best BASE jumper."

Attitude 2: I call you guys up and explain that I didn't know there were any locals, and apologize for bringing the heat onto your site.

My actions are driven by my attitudes, in either case.

When people evaluate your "attitude" what they are really doing is evaluating the actions you take prior, or subsequent to, some specific event. How you plan, publicize, react and respond are all actions--but they all stem from your underlying attitude.

My daughter is posting in the Bonfire.

That would keep anyone awake. Next I think I'll send her here to reminisce about base.

rl

Good lord keep her away from those lecherous skydivers. Everyone knows we BASE jumpers are a clean, wholesome bunch.

I didn't read Jimmy's post, yet I concur with whatever was in there because the title was funny.

We seriously need a "Best of" video containing only day blazes and rail bails.

Yep. Immediately followed by the JV clip that demonstrates what happens to day blazers and rail bailers.

But the site's still hot.

Some people make a career of being sorry. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and all that. Also easier to be careless and apologize than to use caution.

Attitude can be manipulative. Dale Carnegie taught us old folks How to Win Friends and Influence People and people are still using the same lessons today to get their way.

Words are meaningless without underlying action. So is so-called attitude.

I suspect that in the rig example--just a guess, mind you--that Jimmy would offer the rig while saying "ha, ha, ha." Unless he really didn't like you, of course.

It's weird to be taking Jimmy's side in this. His flying fingers and his smart mouth have pissed me off more times than I can count.

But this time, I think he has the better argument.

rl

My point is that we should call apples "APPLES" and oranges "ORANGES" and not get our categories confused if we are going to keep using the word "ethics."

If we want to talk about attitudes and whether or not some of us like/dislike, agree/disagree about them then that's cool and we can stay in a subjective vibe.

But if we are going to talk about ethics, we have to be very careful cuz that's a word that demands it's users step to the table, having checked their egos and personal grievances at the door, wearing blindfolds, ready to discuss actions devoid of emotion. I understand that we all are pationately concerned for the sport we love. However, while we are having a passionate reaction to something someone did, let's keep it in the "that guy has a disrespectful attitude and I think his actions are hurting the sport" category. After we count to ten, then let's discuss whether those actions were ethical/unethical.


Not gonna debate hypothetical situations about wierd reserve handles being pulled.

I just want the word "ethical" to be used a little more sparingly before it looses it's significance. OR, I'd like to see it used correctly, accross the board. Cuz then, I think we might have to put a few more jumpers in the naughty boy corner cuz felix and cliff huckstable are gett'n a little lonely in there.

"My actions are driven by my attitudes" Nope, my actions are driven by my hungers. My hungers are constent, my attitudes are fleeting.

Oh wait...I just read the reserve pulling, I'm gonna lose forty five bucks scenario and it's resulting hypothetical attitudes.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Tom, is that the best hypothetical situation you can come up with to refute my origional post???

Dude, you have no idea how good I am at what I do...You could pull my reserve handle, turn my camera off, unzip my jumpsuit, give me a paper cut and poor lemon juice in it all on jump run, hell, even after the green light's been turned on, and I'd still be on the ground smiling with with a product that that tandem student will cherish. And regardless of your attitude about the whole thing, I just might thank you for making my day interesting.

Nothing about that had to do with my arguement about ethics.

Just an observation from an outsider looking in - your talking about attitudes?....................

See,
that is exactly my point. You guys care way too much if I brag. Who cares? The point is about ethics. Expect me to be humble if you want, but when I'm not, don't cunfuse the issue with ethics. Say, "he's got a bad attitude."

And when you have done what Iv'e done, tell me how I could have changed my attitude while I did it.

If my tone makes it difficult for you to stay on topic that says more about you than me.


-peace

Err...actually that's not correct. In fact, it's absolutely 180 degrees out of whack.

Ethics is exactly what we think and not what we do.

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

Are carnivors unethical because they eat other animals. No.
Are humans unethical if they eat each other. Yes.

Why...cuz that's the way we think.

Izafraid yuzall talkin' crap.

WWW.M-W.com

I hope for the sake of decency you're all at home masticating since it's breakfast time. If you don't get a dictionary soon it's going to look like a chimp's tea party.

A tout a l'heure.

Ha-ha-ha. Me tooooo......

The principles of conduct governing an individual is not represented by his attitude by but his actions.

The quality of an action cannot be judged by intent, and it cannot be judged by an outcome. Only the action counts.

We can talk up a storm about what ethics are from a philosophical point of view, and I always enjoy it. But when it comes down to cases, we're judging events after the fact, and making a determination of ethical/not ethical. And that has nothing to do with thought and attitude and everything to do with action.

If the ethic changes situationally because the people we're applying it to change--because one person has a good attitude and the other person has a bad attitude, all we're saying is that there are two sets of rules and we get to apply the easy set to the people we like and the hard set to the people we don't.

So if you want to get legalistic on me, we've never been talking about ethics, because all we ever talk about is what people do, not about what people should do in all cases--because we keep making ethical exceptions when we feel like it.

Edited to add: The point is if we're going to misapply the word all the way through, then let's continue to use the word as we've misapplied it for this discussion too.

rl

[In Valley Girls type voice]

Like...Whatever!

Lazy.

Edited to add: Not all humans deem it unethical to eat other humans. Ask any cannibal.

rl

Is it ok for a person to eat another person if he's really humble, nice, and not dayblazing while he does it?

Just trying to get the correct definiton.

and if you'll re-read my post post you'll notice that I said the majority dictates what's ethical

damn skin you'da chimp

A more appropriately analagous question would be:

"Is it appropriate for a person to eat another person because their plane has crashed in the arctic and if one doesn't eat the other both will die?"

 

IN REPLY TO:
Action: I'm running through the hanger, and I accidentally trip, and yank your reserve handle, making you miss the next load and lose the 45 bucks you'd make flying camera for a tandem.

Attitude 1: I laugh and say "Hey, screw you, dude, I never liked you anyway. In fact, I think it's pretty damn funny that you're losing some money. Ha, ha, ha!"

Attitude 2: I say "Oh, shoot, dude, I'm really sorry. Here's my rig for that load. I'll take your rig into the loft and repack the reserve while you do that camera jump."


Same action. Different attitudes. Are you sure you'd react the same way in both cases?
-- Tom Aiello


You are wrong... these are two very different actions... one is an action of repairing the problem, one is not.

WRONG.... jimmy's right.

IN REPLY TO:

Sure. But looked at it in BASE-ethics specific terms:

Example:

Action: I wander through your city and jump a building in daylight, nearly getting busted and heating things up nicely for you and your crew.

Attitude 1: I hold a press conference, taunt the cops, and declare myself "god of the skies, and world's best BASE jumper."

Attitude 2: I call you guys up and explain that I didn't know there were any locals, and apologize for bringing the heat onto your site.

My actions are driven by my attitudes, in either case.

WRONG AGAIN... your attitude 1 and attitude 2 are both actions... your wrong JIMMY IS RIGHT!

IN REPLY TO:

"If you act like a bunch of punk ass kids (with giant attitudes), you get treated as such. Act like adults, and get treated as adults. "

TREE... YOU ARE STEALING THIS LINE FROM TOM, YOU SOUND LIKE A DAD OR A PRINCIPLE OF THE HIGH SCHOOL. I feel for you because you have no idea what punk ass kids really behave like... none if these guys are as bad as the kind of punk ass kids that will likely be balls deep on your daughter before you know it.

you have a giant atttitude as well tree, yours is just one of a big boring moustache having pig who is letting all the fun pass him by.

and oh yeah... there is nothing wrong with Jimmy hanging out with a 16 year old girl, just nothing at all. young adults these days mingle withh other young adults... it is a generation thing TREE.

 

HA

At what point do we stop counting what we do?

This discussion isn't really about what is ethical or not.

It's about why some people find forgiveness for ethical transgressions and some do not.

I believe the key to that is the other actions they take, before, after, even during. Those other actions are generally perceived as indicative of their attitudes, so, as something of a shorthand, we describe those other, associated acts, as their "attitude."

That's not appropriate here. Consider this your one warning.

to avoid the "ethics" semantic debate, try looking at it from a broader perspective.

pioneers need to be bold, independent, and indifferent to the common views of the day. Copernicus, Gallileo, Columbus, the Wright brothers, Carl Boenish, etc. all boldly thought outside the box.

once the trail was blazed, others followed. these folks found comfort knowing others defined the path. they appreciated signs, guideposts, maps, etc. to show the way. they also tended to protect what others established.

this whole "ethic" debate appears to reflect a tension between these 2 different types of people. imagine Daniel Boone leading settlers through the Cumberland Gap. I'll bet he had folks asking, "are you sure you know what you are doing?," "is that the right way to be treating the indians?," "won't XXXXX come back to haunt us?," etc.

'course many also died following less skilled guides...

Jimmy definately thinks more like a pioneer. his critics focus on how he deviates from a defined path. they try to establish conformity. he chafes at restrictions.

The only thing that counts is what we do.

I'm not sure I understand the question, so you're going to have to rephrase.


Exactly.


Yes. That's the issue.


Tom, I understand what you're saying, but I just...disagree.

You receive forgiveness for an ethical transgression when you repent, show remorse and stop repeating the ethical transgression.

What seems to happen, though, is that certain people are being forgiven for justifying their ethical transgression. Not only that, a lot of the justifications are being made for them by the same people who are subjecting the rest to outrage for doing all the same things.

And because the "attitude" of that latter group "sucks," they take the full heat for what would get kudos if only the transgressor were someone more likable.


I haven't been reading this forum much in the last few weeks, so I missed the precipitating incident, and I've gotten only one very vague account of what went on. All I'm working from is what I've seen these past few years, and none of it is very pretty.

rl

Yeah, well, that may be true, but a little respect for one's peers doesn't hurt.

And what you're offering is a much different argument--the one that justifies the behavior for all of them, not just some of them. Then you have a free-for-all.

Is that what you want to do? Or is there a middle ground between "who gives a fuck?" and "don't step off the path?"

rl

isn't that one of the argument the church used on Copernicus & Gallileo?

I intentionally chose NOT to express an opinion. I prefer to let everyone decide for themself, instead of simply joining the most popular bandwagon.

I also acknowledge many pioneers commited horrific atrocities. they do so because they don't care about the common good. I'm not pleased with some of Jimmy's actions and really don't intend on defending them.

this debate seems driven by the extremes, not the middle ground. (another all too common feature...) I simply tried to illustrate why the two camps seem quite polarized.

if common ground existed, I don't think this thread would....

i do 100% back you up on thisJimmy.
I were one of the persons telling you sh!t becourse of that,i can tell that i had a really bad feeling as i saw Contium II,that is trully doubbel moral and BAD taste.
I still belive the rail jumps shouldnt be done as the sherrif ask us not to,but Blaming the black sheaps for somthing but not the white aint right.
I think you showed more etics in removing the video from your video than Pope did showing thouse in Contium II... AND BASE COMUNITY showed lack of balls(me inkulding)telling Pope no sh!t..

i do,each time you finich a beer its always a small one try a pint or 1L. instead
doing while doing a flip were cool through

It seems to me that there are 3 groups in BASE comunity
#1 thouse who are white sheeps,most of the time acsepted by most if not all jumpers

#2 Black sheeps,usaly called Jack a$$´s or red bull cowards,ballancing on the edge all the time usaly get them in trouble in group #1

#3 you dont really see often neither do you hear much about them,they have enough in what theyre doing and coulnt care less about #´s,rep. etc,mostly this group also are the most hardcore persons doing the hardcore stuff out there..

Now which group do you belong into?

Personaly im trying to be a grey sheep(call it group #1,5) i see the best from group #1 and #2 but know ill never be so cool that i can join group #3

Just my 0.2

Faber,
well said about the group thing.

The reason I periodicaly post things like ths is because of another group...group number "I'm just learning to BASE jump and I read the BASE zone to figure out what the sport is all about." I want them to know that nothing is 100% defined.

Lifwwithoutanet, if that bike had caused that antenna to get hot, or if the stucture had been damaged in any way shape or form, nobody would have ever even known that the jump took place. i sat on that footage for eight months, and I wish I could blame this thread on your post, but it's actualy in response to Tom's. Who by the way shuld be impartial on this forum cuz he's a moderator...he sais, "In all honesty, I think the major difference is in attitude.

Jeb (for example, but this category could include a bunch of folks like Troy Hartmann, Carl Boenish, etc) approaches other BASE jumpers with a relatively friendly, non-arrogant attitude. He understands that there are other jumpers in the world, and he makes an effort to interact with them in a positive way.

While that doesn't excuse any specific ethical transgressions, it does make it more likely that he'll be forgiven by other jumpers. If he were to do his thing and then yell "screw you guys, I'm the best in the world, and I'll do whatever I want!" at the top of his lungs, as often as possible, and as publicly as he could, he'd probably get a very different reception from most other jumpers.

Human interaction isn't that hard to puzzle out. Be a nice guy, don't blow your own horn in other peoples faces', and don't engage in an active campaign to intentionally antagonize other jumpers--and they are far more likely to be friendly and forgiving. "

I don't think i misunderstood him. Hypocrite.


And I'm not buying any "good ole days" B.S. about how BASE jumpers used to act more ethicaly than me. My dad was left in 1991 at the bottom of a canyon in Arizona, at an elevation of 6,000 ft., in November, with a broken back, all night, to die. Ever spent the night at six thousand feet, in Arizona, in November? By yourself because your BASE "Mentor" was scared to get caught? My dad din't die, but I still have a hard time accepting that the good old day jumpers were more mature than me.

The de facto argument is that "if we like you, you can get away with breaking the rules; if you're a smartass who pisses us off, you're going to catch a lot of flak."

I just don't see that "attitude" justfies that kind of ethical relativism.

rl

Oh yeah, and Faber,
I was recently in the UAE filming some jumps. While there I shattered the old UAE beering drinking record. On my 33rd birthday I drank a yard of beer in 5.06 seconds. The old record had been set by an Aussie rugby player and had stood for two years: 7.8 sconds. The Manager of food and beverages of the 5 star Hilton Hotel said my time was a "new standard" my picutre is on the wall and everything. In doing so I got myself invited to the World Beer Drinking Championships which will be held later this year in Thailand.

agreed.
the folks that show some interest in conformity appear less threatening and avoid criticism.
but inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate.

I was gonna stay out of this, but not now.

Treejumps wrote:

Tree, thats wrong Bro. Dont even try and go there. Who the hell are you to judge him for who he hangs with, how old the person is that he chooses to hang with, and to speak about his Maturity level. Hell no. Thats so not cool man.

P.S. He's not that old.


WTF man.

are you going?

[sarcasm] gee, I wonder if you'll be able to find ways to entertain yourself... [/sarcasm]

that just sounds like trouble. I just don't know for whom. (but I'm betting you'll be smiling.)

Being a moderator does not mean you're not allowed to have, and express, opinions.

Without resorting to paid professionals, it would be impossible to find someone interested enough to follow these forums, but who had no personal opinions on any of the topics discussed.

The moderator is also a participant. He has to work very hard to be impartial when it comes to moderating--and I think he does a good job--but he's still entitled to an opinion as a participant.

The problem arises when the other participants are unable to distinguish between the moderator's "moderator role" and his "participant role."

He has a lot of constraints, Jimmy. He can't always say what he'd like to say just because he's walking a very narrow line between the two roles.

I don't think it's fair to be critical of him for having an opinion about the matter.

rl

Edited to add: Oh dear, I didn't finish reading to the bottom. I hate when people do that.

This whole thread is too abstract for me. What the hell are you guys talking about?

 

I've seen this twice in the last 2 days, from you and TruckerBASE.

I'm very confused about where this has come from? Can you elaborate? I have only ever had one account (TomAiello) here. I have had two accounts at BLiNC (first, I used "tbaiello," then I switched to "Tom Aiello").

Where are you getting this?

Hey Tree, 14 year old skateboarders are the ones coming up with all the cool tricks. And I KNOW Jimmy would NOT do what you are intimating with that young woman,not of legal age. SO DROP THAT LINE OF LINE OF CRAP! I know that I am coming to that stage in my life where I cannot keep up with the youngest, fastest, brightest players and I'm ok with that. Someday I will relegated to sitting on the bench watching instead of playing and I intend to do that with grace and humility. There is an old saying "On your way up the ladder be careful who you step on, you will meet them on the way back down." we all come down the ladder eventualy, do you want to to be helped or pushed off? Edit to add call jimmy an a-hole when he is being one do not call him a child molester when he is not.

http://www.dropzone.com/...e&do=user_search

Wives are apparently supposed to have no independent interest and you have a doppleganger of sorts in California...or something.

Unless, of course, you have some super-secret identity that you use to bolster and defend your postion when you're not getting enough support elsewhere. Yeah, that's it.

It's probably Jaap. He can't possibly be a real person.

rl

 

I only have the one account. Can you explain what makes you think otherwise?


Huh?

I'm really not sure what you are angry about here? I haven't banned you, or your IP address. I only use the one account I am posting under now.

Seriously, dude. I'm really confused about where this is coming from.

Can you give me a call when you get a chance?

Thanks!

Here you go....

www.ethics.org

http://www.globalethics.org/

enough ethics to choke on.....

I wonder if the VKB talks about this at there weekly meetings..... not.............
go watch superterminal again and the last thing on your mind will be ethics......

peterk wrote:



Peter, you have 3 accounts. Tom has 1. But I suspect you know that, which is why you deleted your posts. Now put down the crack pipe dude.

Um, this BASE board has gotten way out of control.

I use one account, using my real name, and you can have it.

Fuck you all, I'm out. Enjoy the internet, maybe when that BASE video game comes out, we can share a virtual exit point, and have a virtual BASE jump together. In the mean time, I'll just keep jumping lots and meeting cool BASE jumpers in person.

And it isn't a crack pipe, its for weed...

word...

I say we all just bust out the rulers and get this over with.

How about we all just settle down and realize that it's the man in red who makes the rules, not the man in green.

You guys don't spend much time in the Bonfire or the other forums or you would realize how much more leeway the posters in this forum get from its one and only moderator.

rl

You know, when laws are outlawed, then only only outlaws will have laws.

BTW, thanks Sangiro and Tom for all you efforts and goodwill for running this site!

Agreed ... there is way too much drama on these boards as of late. I know it is a different sport with a different set of issues (plus BASE means different things to different people), but the "Swooping" forum both here as well as www.canopypiloting.com don't generate nearly as much drama as this BASE forum.

Remember: less bitching, more jumping ... right.

>>>>> if that bike had caused that antenna to get hot, or if the stucture had been damaged in any way shape or form, nobody would have ever even known that the jump took place.<<<<
We're not in Kansas any more...aside from a hurricane visiting the bay area it would seem odd to most authorities to see a bicycle hanging off an antenna hundreds of feet in the air.
also
Some would concider doing something like throwing a bicycle off an object with the very likely possibility that it could strike and damage the object or something near it......drum roll please........"Bad Ethics" (ill use that term lightly since we wouldn't want people to stop appreciating what the word ethics means...right?)
~J

I hope people realize that these facilities fall under some federal regulations with both the FCC and FAA. There have been jumpers in the past who have had to pay upwards of $5000 to cover expenses related to a complete tower inspection, following being arrested after a tower jump. The parabolic dishes on the side are pointed in a very specific direction, just like a direct tv dish at people's homes. If one of these dishes loses it's alignment from something as silly and criminally negligent as a bicycle strike, the tower will stop receiving the transmission, and will stop broadcasting on that frequency. For example, it could conceivably stop the transmission of a broadcasting TV tower. These could now potentially be major federal crimes and anyone releasing videos showing a large tower getting struck by a bicycle is seriously risking federal charges. Communications infrastructure is something the government takes very seriously in the post-9/11 era unfortunately.

What a lightweight! Sangiro and I won't even ban you for that teenage-girls-blouse attempt at rebellion.

You chicks can all hold hands round the camp fire and hum Kumbaya together.

Too much drama? Drama is all you have since you're unable to function as normal members of society.

There is an observatory just south of Twin with an ultra powerful optical telescope. On a clear night you can see Bay area BASE jumpers fucking each other in the ass underneath John Agnos' favorite erection as Felix Baumgartner sits nearby covering his eyes with one hand (but peeking through the gap between his fingers) and beating himself off with the other.
And you don't like drama? Please.

I've had enough of this moderation shit tonight. You can all go suck the sweat off of a camel's cock.

One day someone will thank me for the shit I put up with here. Without me you'd all be staring at screen savers of Mick Knutson wearing nut huggers full of root vegetables.

Fuck y'all!

Tom Aiello

I retract the aspersion I cast on your character.

This certainly does not represent lazy...although it may certainly represent drunk.

<accolade> Definitely up to the old standard. Worth two weeks at least. Well done.

rl

The bike wasn't hanging from the antenna, it struck it and tumbled to the ground. Also, they didn't just throw the bike off for pure amusement, it was ridden off and then released. My point, as small as the bike was and how ginormous the antenna is, it probably didn't cause any damage other than a scratch. Of course, it could have hit more vital parts(Dishes, etc.) on the antenna causing expensive damages, but it didn't.

I think Jimmy's group is a very creative group, I enjoy your DVDs, keep it up .

I was wondering when someone was going to have the guts to say that. All the woulda's cuolda's in the world hold no value when compared to what actualy happened, and in that case nothing happened. Maybe we got lucky, but I checked and not even a scratch.

Furthermore, programming went on as usual. I know what would have happened if it hit the dish, but it didn't.

Believe me, we were crapping our pants. I didn't sleep well for two weeks, but eventually I was like wow, we got lucky. And then people were like "are you gonna put that in the video, it's gonna piss so many people off." and I was like, "hell yeah I'm gonna put that in the video cuz I happen to think it's hilarious."

There's another BASE video out where this guy is talking about a time when he went through the window of a building with his body, did a ton of damage, and got caught. Unlike my scenario it actually did cost him about $5,000. He's kind of laughing while he tells the story too.

Well we got lucky with the bike, he didn't get so lucky with his body..

Anyway, what's the diffference? Does it matter. I put the bike jump in and you know what...people love it. They're like "oh Shit! What happened to the bike? oh man that's crazy." some people are like, "You are such a reckless asshole." hhhmmmm.

Tree "You can't begin to talk about ethics when you hang out with and teach base to a minor. It also speaks very loudly about your maturity level that a 35 year old man could actually "hang out" with a teenage girl at all. You talking about ethics makes one wait for a punch line."

ok, i usually stay out of these, and i've ignored this topic several times already...but tree, i am so sick of you bringing this up. it is extremely offensive and you REALLY need to leave it alone. clair is our friend, if you'll notice, anytime you see her i'm usually right there with her, not just jimmy.

oh, and i'm sorry if you never had the chance to have one, but usually when you start into a new sport..or anything for that matter, you have a mentor to help teach you along the way. in my flying i have an "ace" who is in his 60's. he helps me to understand the world of aerobatics and keeps me from doing anything in my airshows that will get me killed...now if anyone came out and accused him of ANYTHING inapropriate with me...i would have to go ahead and call THAT imature.

talk about ethics, when you repeatedly bring this topic up you are not not only attacking jimmy, but you are also attacking me and clair. BACK OF AND MOVE ON. i think it is fair to say that you have officially worn this topic out.

~melissa

this shit on dorkzone makes me laugh. bottom line.................., whether it's ethics, attitude, feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc., jimmyh dayblazes and fucks with local (and popular) sites for his glamour, publicity, ego, attitude, self-worth, etc. he wants, needs, and thrives off the attention. teaching a no-experienced 16-yr-old chick to BASE jump off an already "hot" object was a bad call. does he give a shit? fuck no!! all he cares about is the attention.

was this thread originally started to discuss ethics vs. attitudes? coming from HIM, i think not.

sounds like things did not go according to your plan. recently, someone posted a cliffstrike video. his actions were second guessed and subjected to all kinds of wouldas & couldas. some said the jump was beyond his skill level. why should you be any different?

1) he admitted burning the site to the ground
2) until the video, the local authorities knew more about the jump than many jumpers
3) it seems you risked a more serious offense
4) you had the option of keeping quiet

I'd actually compare your bike spot to the cliff strike in Superterminal. both plans went awry. both ended up in little damage. both were included for entertainment on a distributed DVD...

The original point was to discuss why some people are held in contempt and others are lauded for essentially the same kind of behavior.

Everyone seems to want to focus on a specific incident as if it were the general principle. It's not.

But it seems that everyone hasn't quite finished up giving him shit for the bike jump, so the thread has devolved.

Apparently the original question cannot be discussed without lapsing into accusations, counter-accusations and all-out flames. And I'm just wondering if it's because most people realize that it's really not right to apply two different sets of rules solely on the basis of how much you like someone.

rl

i think you guys sucked,why didnt you land the bike,becomimiing first ever Landing on bike BASE?? but hey thats just what i would have done

congrats on the beer thing,why is it then that you always only drink the small pints on your videos?

Yeah I know this guy. He also struck a wall in Mexico. Funny thing, there was a more amusing building strike when Hoover , BASE 95, (RIP) went through the glass and landed on a guy's desk. He was admiring the pictures of his family and proceeding to cutaway his parachute, at which point the damaged parachute still hanging outside the building reinflated and dragged him out of the building, hit the building two more times on the way down, and landed on the roof of a two story building adjucent to fixed object. At that point, the skinny fugger jumped up unscathed and relatively unhurt, tied his lines to something on the roof, and skimmied down them to the street below and made a clean getaway.

The towers are very strong. We had one get struck by a Cessna and the Cessna lost the battle, badly. The directional transmitters are the only thing that are critical since a slight bump will result in a loss of transmission, or damage to the end transmitter will destroy the transmission all together.

soft landings,
Chris

Obviously you have never jumped with or been around Jimmy when he jumped. He would do exactly what he posted one way or another Attitude is a state of mind, and when Jimmy has a camera on his mellon look the flip out.

 

VKB

You are Mark.

thank you for illustrating my point.

you definately are part of the second wave. i.e. the settlers wishing to tame and control. you seem angry since you can not. you care what happens.

Jimmy does not. he'll take risks that many won't. if you don't share his spirit, you can't understand.

and yes, Jimmy has not proven to be a positive force. do you think it matters to him?

I think that your personal attacks are getting old!! one maybe two are fine but this is insane!. you have already made your statement, now get over it. you are just making yourself look stupid by constantly bringing this up. so quit trying to get attention and drop it.

Damn Tree,
first my girlfriend went off on you, and then a 17 yr. old girl told you to sut up. Aw Snap.

A person who is ignorant of the past and does not acknowledge or respect a lot of what went on, and then just repeats what has already happened is NOT a pioneer. He is only an ignorant, lazy, arse (ass for you Northerners).

Wandering aimlessly around away from the masses it not necessarily pioneering either. That person might just be lost.

It is kind of like the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa compares the intelligence of a rat with Bart. Bart keeps getting electric shocks whilst the rat learns to not touch anymore. There are a LOT of Barts in this sport.

Look for posts titled along the lines of "lowest BASE jump ever - 246 ft". Punch in a few words into a search engine and you will know before you post where the current record may lie. Ditto for training youngsters and people with little to no parachuting experience. Sub 100 ft low jumps have been done on NUMEROUS occasions in the past. Advertising that feat in the 21st century and claiming to be a pioneer just shows that you have not bothered to do any research, communicate with anyone in the BASE scene, have ego problems, you are just plain dishonest, or . . . . some other reason.

Similarly, BASE ethics have been developed for a number of reasons. History has shown that certain locations become very difficult to access due to a lack of respect and selfishness, people get injured repeating the same mistakes over and over again, etc. If you consider and follow a few simple "ethics/rules/freds", a lot of the heartache, angst, and pain can be prevented. This is beneficial for the sport. More importantly, it is beneficial for individual jumpers, their families and friends, and the community.

I am sure that most jumpers would like people to consider then as an intelligent, courageous person for participating in BASE, not an idiot. Each one of us can influence perceptions by BOTH our thoughts and our actions.

- - - - - -

I do not know Jimmy personally and I am open to the possibility that he has/can/will make great contributions to BASE. But the information currently coming from dz.com media and his responses do not inspire any great confidence in this possible outcome.

A person of greatness usually rises above the crap that surrounds him/her, he/she does not add to it.

- - - - - -

Regarding ethics - lets look at it fundamentally:

Caveman: "you steal my food, I kill you".
BASE jumper: "you steal my rock (building, antenna, span, earth, whatever), I will kick your arse (ass)".

- - - - -

There is a lot of talk about thought and action in this thread - knowingly doing something that others consider improper/unethical/wrong (or whatever semantic you want to choose), IS DIFFERENT to unknowingly doing it.

Some examples:

1 - a soldier who kills because he honestly thinks he is fighting for freedom and justice versus a soldier who kills knowing that he is fighting for greed/power/control.

2 - a person who has sex with a minor who looks/acts/confirms that they are legally/psychologically old enough versus a person who has sex with a minor who tells them they are underaged.

3 - a politician who gives a speech/election promise based on data (s)he has available that is later found to be incorrect versus a politician who knows his data is incorrect but continues to make the same speech.

4 -

5 -

.
.
.

n - a BASE jumper who makes an error in protocal versus a BASE jumper who knows what the protocol is for a site but intentionally ignores it for personal gratification and gain.

This is where the ethics debate comes in. If you think the latter is acceptable in the above examples, it just shows that your morals/values/ethics/freds (some other term you want to use because you do not like the word ethics) are on the extreme edge of the spectrum of society. Most people fit somewhere near the middle of the bell curve and you like living on the edge (of the curve idiot, not BASE jumping skills ).

This can be either productive for society (such as in the examples of Edison, Newton, Marconi, Mozart + Boenisch, Weston, etc), or counterproductive (such as Hitler, Bush, Bin Laden + the naughty boys and girls of BASE).

Typically, people who are inwardly focused and extremely self-oriented, live on the outer spectrum of the bell curve, etc, generally believe that ethics are a distraction or hindrance to their personal goals. Hence they will typically be opposed to them - rightly or wrongly (). For some, it is a game - akin to devil worshippers taunting Christians. For others, it is some way of gaining recognition or acceptance for actions & THOUGHTS that they consider outstanding.



Pioneers need to respect the past and know something about it. They also need to respect other people, despite any differences of opinion. I agree wholeheartedly that the world needs people to challenge the status quo and to not accept everything they are told or believe.

A reply along the lines of "with all due respect . . . I have considered . . . . and my research/data/etc show that . . . . . " is a lot more professional than something like: "f#$ck you, I will do what I want and I know that I am right".

dorkzone strikes again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

could you please shorten your posts...

thanks

as I don't know Jimmy, I'm NOT trying to defend him.

he is a non-conformist who does not care what others think. history is written by the victors. therefore only SUCCESSFUL non-conformists are lauded as pioneers. the great mass of non-conformists get beat down. (how many people suffered through the inquisition? Gallileo survived, most did not.)

by using the term "pioneer" I did NOT mean to imply that his actions are inherently good. I referenced a certain mindset, an attitude.

remember, native populations rarely greeted "pioneers" as heroes. (think of Tasmania's aboriginal population...)

when these non-conformists succeed, they get applauded and the conformists will follow in their wake. these represent the majority. conformists like to control and protect. most of your examples illustrate that point. it prevents anarchy. they focus on the greater good.

the two mindsets just don't get along well. there is inherent friction. Jimmy is NOT a conformist, and avoids playing by those rules. it is doubtful that all the ranting and raving in the world will change him.

again, I was only trying to offer perspective, not condone or defend.

Perspective? Here?

Less sarcastically, no one has yet addressed the issue first presented.

rl

Can you restate the issue for us?

As I understand it, the issue is:

"Why do some jumpers get more flak for ethical abuses than other jumpers?"

I think that several people have taken pretty good stabs at that, including (most recently) Tom, about 4 posts up.

BTW Tom, despite my ADHD, and perhaps because I am a big nerdlinger/geek/dork who likes to (gasp!) read, I enjoy your posts, and appreciate the fact that you don't try to compress them into a sound bite that will fit into a 10 second break between music videos.

I think the question is "how does one justify giving some jumpers more flack than others over ethical abuses."


I guess I'm not very satisfied with the answers. Or maybe I'm just confused because the thread keeps veering. Also, those are two very different questions up above.


Totally agreed.

Unlike most people who make longs posts, Tom understands how to use whitespace, and the content is always worth the time it takes to read it--which isn't all that much.

rl

per Tom A:

per RL:

per me:
Jimmy's original post seems to be a commentary, not question.
he pointed out an apparent hypocrisy that annoys him. he was making an attempt to explain his attitude. he was planting a flag, not opening a discussion. any drift comes from second guessing him.

oh, and I agree with Tom's post, especially the bell curve anology. maybe I communicated it poorly, but I read much agreement. sure, he seems to associate "hero" or "good guy" with the term "pioneer" and I do not. I also tried to give Jimmy credit for being around since 1989 (predating most people on this forum). that does not negate the areas of agreement.

Jimmy, can you give us a rundown on your BASE progression since then?

In other words, how many jumps did you do in 1989? In 1990? In 1991? And so on? It seems like your BASE jumping activity has picked up a lot in the last 2 or 3 years, and I was wondering if that's the case, or if it's just that your visibility has increased recently?

Thanks!

If Jimmy has been around since 1989, why does the number of years in sport say "15?" I made my first skydive at 19 in 1991 and my first base at 20 in 1992.

Jimmy doesn't explain himself too often. A question does not always end with a question mark.

Regardless of how he put it, I can't find any justification for cutting slack to one group or person if you don't allow the same leeway to any other group or person, regardless of "attitude."

I have this feeling, being somewhat oppositional-defiant myself, that it is this attitude towards attitude that exacerbates the discussion of the already-volatile events that arise from time to time.

The trouble with making exceptions is that the non-exceptions resent it--rightfully so--and in most cases, offer up even more non-conforming behavior in response.

rl

My BASE progression since 1989. (If any one cares)

Good question. Very little activity until '99-2000. The last 3-4 years have just been more videoistically apparent.

Reason #1

I did very few jumps between the time of my first BASE jump and around '99 because I percieved BASE jumpers as reckless A-holes who were generally on beer and meth, and would just as likely leave you for dead as help you out of a gnarly situation.

Reason #2

I had thought that BASE jumping wasn't a desireble sport compared to skydiving because it appeared to me that people were falling off low shit and pulling a parachute before they hit the ground. I din't see the body flight skills that I enjoy so much as a skydiver.

Then in 1999 enter Aussie Pete. That kid not only showed me that there were a whole new breed (my perspective) of jumpers that were unlike those I had experienced before, but they were also "flying" their bodies in sub-terminal air as opposed to just falling off things. I was amazed at what I saw Pete doing and BASE jumping appeled to me for the first time as a respectable way to spend time and energy.

But I was always around the sport. I wasn't an active BASE jumper, although I had a few, but I have been around this joint for a bit. I was very good friends with Frank, even before Miles started jumping.

Dennis McGlynn showed me how to film tandems, and Harry Parker and I have had a few good times back in the day.

Wheter I'm right or not, I've been watching this sport and it's participants for half my life.

I just wonder who's in charge of making the decisons about who's ethical and whos not. The scale seems to slide all over the place. Not a big deal, just what I see.

It seems attitudes offend more than actions,and that's fine but the word ethics is getting old. THat's why I was using "BASEicaly Correct" like things that are "politicaly correct," you never know when it's gonna change.

Yes, the former is a lot more professional than the latter, but in the end, both people are knowingly doing something that goes against the "rule." In each of your examples (about soldiers, sex with minors and politicians) there is an operative mistake or misconception prior to the act, with the implication that the person under that mistaken impression would not have done the act if he or she knew the truth. But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people knowing that they are breaking normal BASE protocol and still making the jump, but then getting different reactions from the BASE community after the fact, based on their attitude. That's a different deal, and it is one that is tough to justify.

Having read this forum almost daily for several years, it's seems to me that the different reaction among the BASE community to people like Felix/Jimmy/the Red Bull crew on the one hand and people like Jeb on the other simply comes down to their attitudes, not their actions. Various members of the former group are brash, arrogant, in-your-face, while Jeb is much more easy going, friendly and inclusive of others in the BASE community. That may provide a very reasonable basis to like Jeb and not like the members of the first group, but it does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the members of the first group are acting "unethically" when they day-blaze an object and put it on a commercially distributed video but Jeb is not when he does the same thing. Either they both are or neither are, but whether they are assholes or good guys should have nothing to do with that determination. I think that was Jimmy's point, and so far, I haven't seen any compelling refutation of that. In fact, most of what I have seen in this thread confirms that that is what is going on.

Listen everybody... I'm banning you all for a few days bec... oh, wait. Damn it... why do I not have all the superhuman abilities I desire?! What were we talking about?

I think, then, that we are perhaps having two different discussions. The question I was trying to answer was this one:

"I have observed that different jumpers engaged in similar actions get widely varying reactions from other jumpers regarding the ethics of such actions. What is the explanation for the variance in reactions I have observed?"


The question you are trying to answer is this one:

"Do I think that different jumpers ought to get different reactions from other jumpers, when engaged in roughly similar activities?"


The latter (you question) is one about what we "ought" to do.

The former (the one I attempted to answer) is about what is really happening, and an attempt to observe and explain why the reactions are different.

I had read Jimmy's post (which has various statements about what "is" happening) as an attempt to explain the observed phenomena--rather than an expression of a desire to discuss what any of us would like to observe.

Everybody is in charge, individually. It is a personal call for every jumper to make, so the scale does slide a bit.

If you are still interested in the original question, i think your actions are mostly ethical. They are often lame and annoying, and produce mediocre videos when compared to the same examples of Jeb (or Iiro, Norgies, etc) but generally you are as ethical as those guys.

bsbd!

Yuri.

I actually don't think Jimmy was posing a question at all. I think what he was simply saying that people should drop the ethics pretext as the basis for cracking someone who day-blazes objects and publicizes his or her jumps or otherwise tries to draw attention to him/herself because generally it is not the breach of BASE ethics that people making a fuss are really pissed about. Rather, it is simply that they don't like the jumper(s) in question--because of their attitude or some other reason. And if that is that case (and it appears that more often than not, it is), people should just say that--just go ahead and say that guy's an asshole and I hate him--instead of rolling out the moral indignation at their egregious breach of BASE ethics.

Of course, given the rules of this forum, people can't really do that when the jumper in question is a registered user (unless they don't mind taking a timeout), so maybe that is one reason people don't do that. I doubt it, though. I suspect the main reason is that being honest and just saying you think someone is an asshole and you hate him makes you look a lot worse than if you can pass off your attack as outrage of ethical breaches.

Indeed we were.

But now that you and Yuri and George have gotten this back on track, I'm going back to the Bonfire.

Nicely done.

rl

Wow! I just thought it was my sigline!

Hey Outrager,
thanks for the Post. And thanks for bringing up how lame my videos are. I fully agree, and I'd like to thank all of you who have still bought them from me as I try to bring myself up to the same standards as Jeb and...well all those other guys putting out stunning videos.

I know my videos aren't as funny as Jeb's but hey I'm just not willing to have another man smash his face into my naked butt, but maybe that's the difference between me and him: I hate it when people kiss my ass.

By the way have you seen Keen 'n Able yet?

It's morre than just a BASE video: It has a wind tunnel section with David Gershfeld (who won the Fly Boyz film Festival this year), it has a swooping section with TJ Landgren (a World Class Swooper who's easily in the top five int the world), It has an Aerobatic Flying section with Melissa Andrzejewski (the youngest female pilot in the world to compete in aerobatics in the Unlimited Class), it has Douggs' footage from Norway this Summer (which everyone has to agree is the best air to air relative tracking footage ever shot.) It's got a Lodi Sequentials section, that's freeflying. (Funny that tree should bring up the Chronicles videos, cuz Olav, Omar, and Charlse all thought that the freeflying was FREAKING AMAZING, actually better than any sequential freeflying video to date.)

hhhhmmmm , let's see what else? Oh yeah it has a guy crashing a P-51 Mustang on landing, it's got the best shots I could muster of Jt Holmes, Shane McConkey, Miles Daisher, and myself (nothing earth shattereing to be sure, but hey, I'm still working at it.)

All of it was shot in the months between Feb. '05 and Nov. '05, and it was budgeted with what I made filming tandems over the summer.

Sorry everybody if my videos aren't very good. I'm trying my best to be a nice guy, a good BASE jumper, and a top shelf video Producer. I was just spread a little thin last year, so I'm gonna cut out the trying to be a nice guy part in the future.

But if you actually look at what I was trying to do with Keen 'n Able, maybe you will have an idea of what I'm trying to do in general. Not that I have ever expected anyone to care, or see things the way I do.

I like the diversity of your videos. They are always more than just BASE videos. They include freeflying, swooping and all that other crazy stuff and you usually do a great job editing the footage to some cool tunes.

And that is why I like your responses. You are an open minded, intelligent individual who does not follow the masses!!!

But I also like to challenge anyone and everyone. Debate is just a bit if fun for me. Keeps the brain functioning.

p.s. The Tasmania example is interesting. The Dutch were there before, but they did a different thing to the English. Thousands of years beforehand, the Aboriginals arrived. The only thing that was different was that when the English came in, they killed and controlled, claimed to be the first/pioneers, and stole what belonged to someone else. This sounds too much like . . . . . . . .


I too do not know Jimmy. I can only go on his communications on the net. I too do not like to jump on bandwagons and follow the frenzied beliefs of the masses. But I am always open to possibilities and to being proven wrong. I hope I am wrong..


Getting back to the original question, I thought I had a stab at answering it in another thread - click on the link below if interested.

http://www.dropzone.com/...ost=2055215;#2055215

Jimmy,

I just try to push buttons. Don't fall for it so easily!

bsbd!

Yuri.

I have seen dougg's footage and think he is truly amazing.....well...F&^%$$ing amazing.... but you have to admit that by far the "best" air relative footage is by far "Superterminal"..... Nothing is as" jaw dropping" as this footage..... But i will want to get Keen'n and able for my collection....

as for the lame comments....It's as good as what you put into it and the people that contribute..

Just my two cents....

He said air to air.
Subterminal is not air to air. What is so cool on douggs footage is the filming of someone tracking. In Subterminal the trackers are the kings but in Douggs footage he is the king for the incredible filming (my opinion...)

only curious: are you both talking about douggs footage with CJ? (i found this cj_style.mp4 a while ago - is this footage also part of the keen'n'able-video?)

(edited to add reply-closing-tag)

Did you not see the parts as the one guy tracking behind as the did a split screen ..one view from subjects camera and another from followers camera....

and yes douggs is unbeleavable....

Yes, parts of it is on the keen and able DVD.

 

Yes, but that is not what I found so extreme on Superterminal. I find Douggs filming skills much better then the air to air footage of ST. What I found extreme on the ST DVD is the tracking and WS Skills of the guys and not the filming.
Again, just my opinion.
But back to ethics; let's not highjack this very very very entertaining thread...

Douggs is the king of air-to-air, his footage of Coombesy is absolutely the best. Of course all the cheers for that go to..... Douggs!

bsbd!

Yuri.

Oh my, that really gave me a good laugh!

And Jimmy, keep 'em coming!

Not trying to take sides or anything...this is just what happened last weekend.

I took Superterminal(copy) to the DZ....the Radix box has a slot free for an extra DVD....so, I took it in that DVD case.

Guess which video got played more times.

Kris.

Must have been Radix for sure.

I got to watch Superterminal the other day and without a doubt there is some hardcore (a few feet above the tree line) footage in it. But the music and editing style didn't do much for me (plus I thought it was on the short side). I've only seen "Kean and Able" once and while I've watched "Radix" a couple of more times than just once, my favorite JH video to date was his original video "Standard Issue". I'm not sure why, but maybe because I enjoyed the music, editing and overall fun from "Standard Issue".

Of course we're all different and we all have different opinions as to what is entertaining and what isn't. Just as BASE means different things to different people. Now what does this video talk have to do with the original topic of this thread? I don't have a ###### clue.

Damn, what's that law about all long internet discussions eventually turning to Hitler references?

Godwin's law.

Based on Kant's categorical imperative,

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law,"

I guess I'd have to admit to being a little unethical, but that doesn't change the fact that I think a lot of other jumpers are too who are usually not considered such.

Sorry, I'm sure we're all over this thread by now.