Monster Ball paint.

Fact:  You said that MB was extremely dangerous and would kill someone.  I disagree and offered logical reasons based on your own points (and in some cases your own evidence) that opposed your supposition.  Yes, I am trying to "disprove" your point.  I am doing so because I think you are wrong.  It is a very similar process to how you are attempting (ineffectually) to "disprove" my opinion with this very post.  I see no problem with that and really do not understand how it is germane to the discussion.

Actually, this whole statement is wrong, but don't let that get in the way of your "logic"... I didn't say it WOULD kill someone, I stated a for-instance, go back and read, instead of making an ASSumption of yourself. Your previous statments are proof that you find no danger in monsterballs...

I decided to prove that you don't actually listen or read, you just make up your mind and attack and attack and attack.

Fact. You enjoy trying to make other people look bad. (which shows how insecure you actually are...)

Negative.  I do not think I have made you look bad; if you look bad you have done it on your own with your lack of logical and coherent refutation.

actually what looks bad is the way you and a few other guys on this board like to gang up on people with different opinions.

Typical of forums, the goal to "win" and "own" someone... All to make you feel superior in some sad, little, insecure way...

Fact. You like to pretend you are a "excellent" debator. When in fact you just like to see your words on the screen and pat yourself on the back. You are great at debating what you "think" the argument is about, but you don't get the facts first...

TRANSLATION: <Since I still do not really have any type of facts or logic to support my position and have already used up my one good generic statement of disagreement, I will try to disguise my lack of successful refutation by returning to personal attacks.>

I placed a minefield in front of you and you jumped right in... Typical of an arrogant blowhard.

The Reaper wrote: Mack. Why even post? You don't buy paint at wal-mart. And you obviously by your post don't know about monster ball? I guess proving your internet tough guy is all that matters. Bolded because it will become important later in an extremely ironic way. And by your response I see you have lots of free time... Why don't you "try" some monster paint and get back to us Master? I run a private field and have seen the issues that come from this paint. You can discredit that all you wish, but the fact is still the same, I know about monsterball paint, you don't... Bolded because it will become obvious shortly just how badly The Reaper has been discredited although I had nothing to do with it other than point it out to those who missed it the same way I initially did. move on grumpy. At the point you typed this I wasn’t grumpy.  I’ve gone back and forth with quite a few people on this forum and it has all been in the spirit of friendly arguing.  Some people, such as Snake, DeTrevni or YWSM have changed my mind on certain issues while I have likewise influenced the outlook/opinions of others on different issues.  Some people have been mildly annoying but the interaction with them was still an enjoyable distraction for me and I hope they feel the same way about it from their end. But . . . The Reaper merits special recognition.  He has become the first person on this forum to truly piss me off.  Not because of the discussion exactly, but because of the way he chose to conduct himself during it . . . and the conduct I’m referring to has nothing to do with his insistence that he is correct “just because" or the lack of a coherent, logical and/or supported argument.

With that out of the way, let’s get down to business.  Below is an excerpt from an earlier posts:
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

The Reaper wrote: As a grown up man, I don't need to "prove" my toughness.

Apparently, he actually felt that he did need to prove his toughness though so he followed up a few posts later with this:

The Reaper wrote:

We have a Congressional Medal of Honor recepient on the forum.  (FYI: That is what the medal on the right is.)  Below is a pic for comparison and here is a link to the site I got it from.


<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->
In fact, it appears The Reaper is among the toughest of the tough, because he has apparently earned this medal twice.  (The medal on the left seems to be the Army version from 1896.)  Again, here is a link and the pic is below.

<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->

I compared the first name and initial from his member profile to the information that popped up when I checked the properties of the medal image.  Since the names matched, I assumed it was his real name and searched for Medal of Honor recipients of the same name on three separate CMOH related websites . . . oddly enough I found no matches.

Furthermore, according to wiki, since 1973 the Medal of Honor has only been awarded ". . . seven times, all of them posthumously."  Since The Reaper is posting in this thread, I doubt he is one of the more recent recipients. Furthermore, the early 70's birth date listed in the profile makes it very unlikely he earned one of the earlier ones as they were awarded for actions in Vietnam ending in 1973.  (Of course, he might have been one really tough toddler.)

Given all of the above, I must say that he has done much more damage to his credibility than I could ever have done even on my best day.

Everyone on the forum who knows me knows that while I may tease and taunt I normally refrain from name-calling/flaming.  Just for The Reaper, in this instance, I will make an exception:

You sir, aren't a tool, or even a toolbag or toolbox, you are the whole darn Sears store.

Two notes:

• I saved a copy of the medal pic so I can relink it once it disappears.
• I refrained from including The Reaper's name in this post because it is only available to forum members.

Snake6 wrote: Mack is respected a hell of a lot more than you will be around here. Therefore you have no right to say anything, why can't you just move on?

I love quotes like this. See the problem is, you don't know me... I see that you have very high regard for an arrogant blowhard like mack. But, why would that discount others opinions?

Because, as opposed to basing my arguments around referring to others with terms like "blowhard," I choose to base my arguments on logic and support them with verifiable facts.

Maybe you guys should make this a private forum, since all I get from you guys is attacks.

Didn't you leave?  I could swear that I remembered something along the lines of the statement below from earlier.

The Reaper wrote: I'm done, you can have back your "forum"...

Mack, when you said your niece was tougher than me, you started the name calling.

It's called humor.  Had I realized you didn't have a sense of humor I might have left that portion (true as it is) out.  (But probably not, as it says in the title, I have no impulse control.)

I guess in this little world no one stands up to you...

I debate points back and forth with various people on here all the time; they just tend to handle it in a more mature manner.

Sorry, I didn't know.

It's okay, you don't need to apologize.

But, you are full of it.

TRANSLATION: <Lacking an actual factual/logical response I will resort to generic statements indicating disagreement.>

Fact. You don't buy monster paint.

Fact:  I've tried pretty much every paint out there (including several of the crappy Wal-Mart brands*) and I don't buy MB anymore.  Not that this is an issue in this discussion as the "danger" is from being hit by it, not shooting it.  My main issue with all Wal-Mart paint is that it has been treated so badly that accuracy is effected during use.

*Which would be pretty much any paint they carry.  Even when they carried more mainstream paint, it didn't seem to survive their handling.  Plus, they don't like it when you want to open cases and inspect the bags.

Fact. You make huge assumptions based on few words, thinking you completely understand and therefore have the need to "disprove" others opinions.

Fact:  You said that MB was extremely dangerous and would kill someone.  I disagree and offered logical reasons based on your own points (and in some cases your own evidence) that opposed your supposition.  Yes, I am trying to "disprove" your point.  I am doing so because I think you are wrong.  It is a very similar process to how you are attempting (ineffectually) to "disprove" my opinion with this very post.  I see no problem with that and really do not understand how it is germane to the discussion.

Fact. You enjoy trying to make other people look bad. (which shows how insecure you actually are...)

Fact. You like to pretend you are a "excellent" debator. When in fact you just like to see your words on the screen and pat yourself on the back. You are great at debating what you "think" the argument is about, but you don't get the facts first...

TRANSLATION: <Since I still do not really have any type of facts or logic to support my position and have already used up my one good generic statement of disagreement, I will try to disguise my lack of successful refutation by returning to personal attacks.>

Lets go back to the beginning and I will lay out the issue so that you can repaste my comments and put up more garbage about the paint you don't use, and don't like, but are so busy supporting.

Fact:  I don't support MB.  As posted in several places above, I think it is substandard.  I just don't think it's dangerous.

Logical supposition:  Since I have stated my actual opinion of MB in several places and you do not (based on your posts) seem to be completely aware of it you are not bothering to read responses.  This would seem to indicate that you are quite close-minded on the subject and are probably impervious to facts or logic.

I don't know mike, and didn't paste his video. But, don't let the facts get in the way of bashing me, or aligning me with him.

I never said you knew mike.  Since you claim you are "not aligned with him," I will apologize for that assumption; however, although I did make that assumption, I never stated it as an accusation/argument.   It was however a logical conclusion based on both your thoughts/statements regarding MB and the fact that one of the links you used supporting your opinion was heavily influenced (judging from the comments within it) by his video.  Furthermore, you should realize that whether you consider yourself officially in agreement with him or not, by supporting the same position you could easily be seen as being "aligned" with him.

Look. I play paintball,

Me too.

(which should be enough to be "allowed" to post on here without attack).

Disagreement is not an attack.  You stated an opinion and I stated and supported a counter-opinion.  Everyone is allowed to post here; but they do not have the right to automatically have everything they say accepted as truth.  If people disagree, and they will, then discussions will ensue.

I have an opinion.

Me too.

I started the thread.

Yes, you did.  The way you say that makes it sound like you think that since you started the thread you are allowed to control the opinions stated within it.  If this is what you believe, then I must inform you that you are wrong.

On my private field (a little over 50 acres in my backyard) I have run into issues with this paint.

I've run into issues with various paints over the years . . . doesn't make them potentially deadly.

Yes, I banned it from my field . . .

Good for you.  You took a stand for what you believed in.

. . . as most fields have done now.

Given what I've read on the internet, "most" is an exaggeration.  Yes, some fields have banned it.  Some of these may have done so because they considered it dangerous.  Others have done so because of the staining factor.  What you don't see is the myriad of fields who have not done so because threads relating to "such-such-field did not ban Monster Ball" are not going to be posted for every one of them that didn't. 

The reason why is because it doesn't break consistantly. Which increases the impact exponentially.

No, it does not increase the impact "exponentially."  It doesn't increase the impact at all.  Kinetic energy (impact energy) is based on the equation E=1/2mv^2 (Where E=Energy, m=mass and v=velocity).  The only way to "increase the impact" would be if MB's somehow sped up or suddenly became heavier when they didn't break; both are physical impossibilities.  What happens is that the hit feels harder when a paintball doesn't break because of the way the energy is directed.  (The breaking creates a "splat" mark with the spray of the paint in all directions being fairly indicative of where a portion of the kinetic energy is going.)  The standard muzzle energy of an average (weight 0.002 lbs) paintball fired at 300 fps is approximately 90 lbs/sq. in.  This is sufficient to be rather painful no matter what the paint type at close range.  (Which is why many fields have the "10-foot rule."  At this point the kinetic energy has already decreased to less than 70 lbs/sq. in.)  In this case, given the nature of the equation, the impact energy actually does change exponentially with range; although it is a decrease as opposed to an increase.

As paintballs are designed to be safe when fired at or under 300fps and BREAKING when impacting.

Actually no.  The 300 fps rule was developed approximately 20 years ago by Bud Orr after consultation with an orthopedic surgeon.  It was developed with non-breaking paint taken into account because there was no quality control on paint at that time and field velocities were running between 350 and 400 fps.

If the paint doesn't break, the danger of serious injury goes way up.

I believe that if paint doesn't break, the danger of injury in general is increased as well.  But "way up" is an exaggeration; as is all of the hype (not necessarily yours) about MB being potentially deadly.

I don't pretend that I am the only one who has seen the danger of these paintballs (as you do mack, I guess its easier to ignore the guy that had his finger broken by the paint on this very board...) But, I like to fix things.

I've had fingers broken as well.  It doesn't take a lot of pressure to do so.  The potential for broken fingers is present in any paintball game from any paint whether it breaks or not.  More important than the type of paint is the velocity, the direction of the impact and the use of safety gear (gloves).

This paint issue could be easily fixed if enough guys contact the manufacturer and wal-mart and asked.

Possibly, it never hurts to ask.  Of course, manufacturers sometimes change things that are perfectly safe just to keep their customers happy as well.

That is all I was asking in this thread.

And some people (who have issues with MB) will probably will do so.

You took it to this whole different level.

Really?  How?  Because I had the temerity to disagree with you.  Shame on me; what was I thinking?  /sarcasm

Here is what I was thinking.

Say some mother goes out and buys a tippmann A5 for her kid from wal-mart. And she buys monsterballs at the same time.

Now, I know since you are "all knowing" that you will say this is rediculous. But, I had 4 brand new A-5's this year and ALL of them were shooting between 355 and 360 fps out of the box.

Actually, based on both personal experience and the input I have received from others, that seems to be fairly common with Tippmanns.

Take that and monsterballs and you have a recipe for disaster. It didn't have anything to do with me or my playfield it has to do with public health.

355 fps out of the box is asking for trouble with any paint.  I would be even more worried about Spyders (which used to be capable of 400+ fps out of the box) than Tippmanns.

Lots of young kids play paintball and their heads aren't as hard as yours. (pun intended).

I like puns.  That one was not too bad.