Query re merge of posts...

jaycee

Errr..!

Wasn't this posted last week...?

Twice I think..

at 05-11-2005, 19:28 and also at 05-11-2005, 19:31 in two different threads ,
or are they different versions ..

FLAG

Correct, I think it important that the information is given better prominence. It is possible that people are not interested in reviewing the other threads due to the extensive content.

It is the most up to date information that has been published with respect to the pending changes to the firearms legislation and also validates the postion that the NARGC and the SSAI have achieved with respect to representing the sport. If you like I can delete them from the other locations if this is a problem!

jaycee

Nope ..

Not a problem..!

I just thought I was imagining things for a while.. and kept expecting an update
had been posted or something which had overwritten the original link.

Sparks

Declan, that file isn't a collation of the extracts from the debate on the bill, it's just the closing statement, which has precious little new information, and which was posted in a thread we've stickied to the top of the forum especially to give it prominence. Therefore I'm merging the threads.

On the topic of the speech itself, while it's nice to hear positive words from the Government (even if it is the Junior Minister for health instead of the Minister for Justice himself), we've heard positive words before, and seen strongly negative actions thereafter. Taking this, nice as it sounds, as a positive step forward ... well, it's rather a case of counting chickens before they're hatched.

FLAG

So now were taking to censorship of the boards, pity that you have such power to cut, paste at the same time as criticise. Don't like it on the front page so you move it to page 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There may not be anything new in the post to you to you but it is a summary of the current state of play, I also added comment with respect to reloading which clearly a lot of people are unaware of and also the inclusion of ammunition in Section 17 for the 1964 act to allow its importation by a licensed individual. This I gave prominance to by creating a new thread. You disagree that such a new thread be created!

I feel that you are the wrong person to moderate posts made by me on behalf of FLAG as shown by your moving of my post, claim as you might that you merged them but you have moved a thread that I created to provide information to other members of the board.

Certainly there is something seriously wrong with the charter if an individual with a clear grievance against another is allowed to shift posts by that other individual at will.

I would request that you step back as moderator of the board as you are clearly biased with respect to my posts and in fairness you should not be moderating the board.

civdef

In fairness to Sparks, he only got a chance to delete or merge that thread because he beat me to it.

Making the first post was perfectly OK, repeating it isn't when there is already a thread running on the subject. Your post is still visible just a few posts above this one. If you want to give it continuing prominence, a link to it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50341292&postcount=107

Could be inserted in your signature for example.

Sparks

Declan, your comment was not deleted or modified, merely moved. This does not constitute censorship - in fact, by moving it into a thread that does not get bumped off the front page with the passage of time, it has ensured that it is read.

Yes, it is a summary of the state of play. That's why I posted it in this thread a page ago, here. But it doesn't have much in the way of new information, and you yourself once pointed out to me a very positive speech made in the Dail by the Minister for Justice saying that he wished to loosen up the law regarding licencing - while court cases opposing that were still in progress, and others were about to be started!

FLAG

Point being that the post was not being reviewed in the position as posted, I decided to post a new thread due to the importance of the information. It got 8 reviews in a very short time in the new thread position, where as the other two posts only had 8 reviews between them despite the fact that they were posted on the 5th in two separate positions.

Clearly Mark has pushed it to the back and now appears supported by yourself, because it validates the position with respect to our discussions with DOJ. Even his cynical remark at the end about chickens is derogatory, why do I bother!

civdef

The sticky thread here has some of the highest page view numbers on this shooting board - this is hardly low profile.

I'm not sure how you can see how many views an individual post had in any case, I certainly can't...

civdef

OK, has been pointed out to me it's possible to see amount of views an attached document has had.

Thread split from the Sticky to keep that on topic as much as possible.

rrpc

Actually civdef, you're partially right. I didn't view the document online, I downloaded it and viewed it afterwards. The download doesn't show as a view. However that downloaded document was printed out and circulated at the Leinster Open in Rathdrum, so you could say that it has had at least ten more views than are shown here

rrpc

FLAG wrote:

So now were taking to censorship of the boards, pity that you have such power to cut, paste at the same time as criticise. Don't like it on the front page so you move it to page 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't appear that you understand how this board works FLAG. If a new post appears on a thread, that thread appears in bold the next time you log on. Anyone who has been following the thread will go straight to the last page to see the new post, so page 10 has as much, if not more prominence than page 1. Sticky threads always appear on the first page at the top, so they always have more prominence than the other threads. A thread started a week ago, can end up on page two of the forum, so your new thread would probably last no more than that, seeing as it's repeated information, and unlikely to provoke a reply.

There may not be anything new in the post to you to you but it is a summary of the current state of play, I also added comment with respect to reloading which clearly a lot of people are unaware of and also the inclusion of ammunition in Section 17 for the 1964 act to allow its importation by a licensed individual. This I gave prominance to by creating a new thread. You disagree that such a new thread be created!

You would have had the same effect, if you had replied to your own post with the addidtional information.

Certainly there is something seriously wrong with the charter if an individual with a clear grievance against another is allowed to shift posts by that other individual at will.

He actually did you a favour! Check the number of new threads started this week and calculate how long your one would have lasted on the first page.

I would request that you step back as moderator of the board as you are clearly biased with respect to my posts and in fairness you should not be moderating the board.

And as civdef said, he was going to do the same thing, so is he biased against you as well?