Forums: BASE Jumping: General BASE:
UHUCK 2.0
Premier Sponsor:

 


Poll: UHUCK 2.0
Meh... Not Funny 0 / 0%
Just a Skoch 0 / 0%
Very Funny 0 / 0%
"Chocolate Milk Through Nose" Funny 0 / 0%
"Shit Your Pants on Opening" Funny 0 / 0%
Laughed Too Hard, Now Need Surgery 0 / 0%
George Washington 1 / 33%
Boobies -- (dorkitup) 2 / 67%
3 total votes
 
dmcoco84

Apr 15, 2021, 10:22 AM
Post #1 of 11 (1346 views)
Shortcut
UHUCK 2.0 Can't Post

 
Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherfuckers act like they forgot about UHUCK


UHUCK 2.0 is up and running


Poll Question: How funny will the totality of UHUCK 2.0 be?


TomAiello wrote:
The discussion has changed

dmcoco84 wrote:
Has It ... ... Has It Really?


P.S. Hey Ah, Chet, Ya Sexist...

You didn't even put Jean's website on there. -- "...his wife..." -- Yeah, you mean, BASE 3.

Bu wrote:
A BASE jumping web forum with some good information, some ok information, and a bunch of opinions.

I've got a buncha opinions for ya... (1) Attack Helicopter Pilot; Awesome. (2) Your Page & Posts; Not Awesome.

Bu wrote:
"BASEunited" ... Making it even easier for lazy ass mofos; Since April 12, 2021.

dudeman17

Apr 22, 2021, 2:39 PM
Post #2 of 11 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmcoco84] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

Why are you mocking them. Yes, other people have made efforts. Yes, other organizations have come and gone. Yet to this very day, ya still can't get a permit to jump El Cap. If that is ever going to change, people have to keep trying. If you've got ideas, get involved and help. Otherwise, let's all wish them luck.

bluhdow

Apr 23, 2021, 12:46 PM
Post #3 of 11 (1117 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dudeman17] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

The best way to gain access is to demonstrate that BASE jumping can produce gains (usually in the form of revenue) in excess of the costs (usually in the form of environmental damage and dead bodies).

Two ways to do this:

1. Increase the number of jumpers willing to pay a reasonable permit fee to offset the risk. Given the nature and size of the risks, this seems unlikely.

2. Increase the cost of the permits such that our small number of jumpers are able to cover the risk. Given that getting money out of BASE jumpers is harder than squeezing blood from a stone, this seems even less likely.

You are right that nothing can be accomplished without trying, but I would hypothesize that any form of "trying" that doesn't involve a meaningful amount of lobbying (read: money) is a long shot, at best.

All that said, good luck!

dudeman17

Apr 25, 2021, 3:16 PM
Post #4 of 11 (1044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluhdow] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think I agree with that. Does the NPS make a profit from climbers? Backcountry backpackers? Hang gliders (do they still allow that?)?

They're a government entity, and they receive a budget to manage the parks. The question is whether they deem jumping to be an 'appropriate' use. So far they do not. The ways to get a change in their policy is either to convince them that it is, or to convince a higher court who could order them to issue permits. And yes, the lobbying for the first option, and the suit for the second one would cost money, but not in the form of permit fees.

I think of the moment in 'Sunshine Superman' where former chief ranger Bill Wendt says 'maybe i was too hard on them', (or words to that effect).

bluhdow

Apr 25, 2021, 7:39 PM
Post #5 of 11 (1023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dudeman17] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

The difference between BASE and climbers is...climbers are already there. The burden is on the Park to show that climbers need to be removed. The burden is on BASE jumpers to prove that they deserve to be there. That's a much taller order.

Inertia is bitch...especially when it comes to bureaucracy.

Climbing used to be a lot more loose in the park than it is now. Main reason: the impact of the climbers exceeded the benefit. Risk, reward. Cost, revenue. It's very simple.

Good luck!

BASEunited

Apr 26, 2021, 5:38 PM
Post #6 of 11 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmcoco84] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

I see your Eminem and raise you a Taylor Swift

And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (Whoo-hoo-hoo)

Anyway, maybe the page is pointless, maybe it will provide some value. All this info is scattered to the wind online. Thought it would be helpful to put it together, work toward something productive.

Send me Jean's website and I'll put it up. And anything else that would be valuable. There's at least a half dozen asks on the website for more info from people. Want to write something and I'll make it a blog post? Hit me up.

Also, I voted for George Washington in the post. As a Marine, how could I not?

bluhdow

Apr 27, 2021, 7:19 AM
Post #7 of 11 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASEunited] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Anyway, maybe the page is pointless, maybe it will provide some value.

I think it was worth the T. Swift joke. Well played!

epibase

Apr 27, 2021, 10:14 AM
Post #8 of 11 (926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmcoco84] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

does anyone have that hide heid app still? will it work to hide coco?

dmcoco84

Apr 29, 2021, 2:22 AM
Post #9 of 11 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dudeman17] UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

Dude...

Anyone who is paying attention and has a decent memory, should find this quite comical.

Just between You & 1969912, this stuff is getting funnier & funnier by the day.

However, I most definitely Do Not anticipate Tom finding this amusing...

Did you fail to review / click on the link I quoted in my post?

TomAiello wrote:
The discussion has changed

dmcoco84 wrote:
Has It, Dude... Has It Really?

You posting first, DUDE... is so Perfect.

But this makes it even better:


& his very first post too.


As for your comments...

...given that your BASE number is less than 20, I shall allow you to choose:

Would you like my response to be (1) slightly sarcastic (2) extremely sarcastic?

If you prefer, I could setup another poll. Or we could do a poll, here, within this poll.

Choose Wisely ... But Either Way, I'm gonna assume that dorkitup will enjoy... & concur.

dudeman17 wrote:
Why are you mocking them. Yes, other people have made efforts. Yes, other organizations have come and gone. Yet to this very day, ya still can't get a permit to jump El Cap. If that is ever going to change, people have to keep trying. If you've got ideas, get involved and help. Otherwise, let's all wish them luck.

P.S. Tom has not logged in since April 1st. -- Therefore, We're Back to Logan Paul in Yosemite, Too!

Laugh

dmcoco84

May 18, 2021, 4:20 AM
Post #10 of 11 (523 views)
Shortcut
UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

Bu wrote:
Also, I voted for George Washington in the po[st]. As a Marine, how could I not?

Interesting.

Until Further Notice...

You shall receive 22% less sarcasm.

bluhdow wrote:
I think it was worth the T. Swift joke. Well played!

Problem Though...

...is that I was far more so mocking Tom with That, than I was Uhuck United; the plumber with the poll.

So, within that "Swift Come Back" ... it's actually sorta, "Lame". -- Ahh, the Puns! -- I don't know about you!

dudeman17 wrote:
Why are you mocking them.

Cause I'm Bringin' BJ Back (YEAH!)

Them Mofo'N Millennials Don't Know How To [Read] (YEAH!)

Serious Note, Chet. -- You need to read more of this forum; far more.

Start'n Here. -- You're "Lucky" people like Magot aren't here.

& So, "I'll Pick Up The Slack (YEAH!)"

FutureBASE wrote:

You MFers Watch How I Attack
If That's "your park", Better Watch Your Back



FutureBASE -- For Any Jackasses wrote:
A threat, in the criminal context, is recognized to be a communication avowing an intent to injure another’s person or property. - Wise v. Com., 49 Va. App. 344, 641 S.E.2d 134. Virginia Courts must consider a communication in its particular context when determining whether a speaker’s words constitute a true threat. - Id. The Court, as a result, must view the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made. - DiMaio v. Com., 46 Va. App. 755, 621 S.E.2d 696.

dmcoco84

Jun 9, 2021, 9:06 AM
Post #11 of 11 (220 views)
Shortcut
UHUCK 2.0 [In reply to] Can't Post

dmcoco84 wrote:
Problem Though...


(7) This too was a contributing factor:


hjumper33 wrote:
Oh man, id forgotten about Uhuck Laugh

http://www.basejumper.com/...post=2996092#2996092


Forums : BASE Jumping : General BASE

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?

D4DR Media