NRARI, Announcement

civdef

Why not do us all a favour and move on but then when you are a compulsive obsessive it is probably impossible (Now I'm probably barred!!!!)

Yep you are, personal attack - take a week's holiday on me.

Sparks

Leupold wrote:

I see that you Sparks are still trying to rake over the past.

Leupold, according to the email that started this thread, the comments to the international body were made in the last few weeks - that doesn't qualify as being far enough in the past to dismiss in my book! And further comments, seemingly speaking for the NRPAI in the last two days only support that point of view. Look, if you can come up with a way that allows a fair and equitable solution, you have my full support, for what miniscule amount it'd be worth; but your solution is to ignore very recent and rather unpleasant acts by the NRPAI and to disenfranchise the NRAI (whom even their opponents would have to acknowlege as having worked extremely hard to promote the sport, I would imagine) in favour of the LRRAI (who do not have anything even approaching the facilities available to the NRAI through the MNSCI). Pragmatism would suggest that the best course for the NRPAI would have been to have supported the NRAI and tried to bring them back into the umbrella body; but the NRPAI's own actions would seem to have been calculated not to induce a greater sense of harmony, but to have deepened the divides that exist in the sport and generally just tick people off - and to damage our international image in the process!

If I go back to my earlier question about what makes this forum as political and divisive as it is, then it appears that you set the tone.

I take it you haven't read the posts from the pro-NRPAI posters in this thread then? :rolleyes:

How about stepping back from this thread and letting the full bore shooters have their say?

And I've stopped them doing so, where?
Remember, this involves the NRPAI as well as the fullbore shooters, and as such, everyone has a say in things.

edit: for clarity, it's the NRPAI part that I'm concerned with here, not the NRAI/LRRAI part. But they do seem to have become entangled in this thread. I don't think that's particularly anyone's fault on the boards, however - I think that's just how it is on this issue.

mifyah1

I think I know three persons barred from boards and many more than that who were barred or forced out of a certain well-known midlands shooting venue for speaking their minds on certain issues. Two of these are barred from BOTH. Democracy and free speech (and a free press) are obviously thriving in the shooting community. Funny how certain issues won't go away isn't it? Bit like Stalinist Russia: a guy hails you in Gorki Park and you wake up in the Gulag.

civdef

Indeed, but considering that none of the mods here are connected with the management or running of MNSCI - that suggests to me disruptive behaviour may be a characteristic of some individuals involved.

And as for the "three persons barred from boards" - is that including the multiple personalities of the people banned for posting under separate usernames?

But hey, it could just all be a vast bogger conspiracy, right?

Leupold

Do you know something that the rest of us are not aware of Sparks? All that I can see from the content of the post that started this thread is that it looks like the international people were under the impression that the NRARI was the only body speaking for full bore shooters here. How did they get this impression? What seems to have happened is that they found out this was not the case and have told those involved to sort the matter out themselves. You have implied all sorts of dirty dealings in this without justification.
You wonder how you are stopping full bore shooters from getting involved? Surely it is obvious. By commenting the way you do, with such clear bias and negativity, you turn off most of the more passive spectators.
I refer back to my earlier post, if you have nothing positive to contribute to this debate then do not post, Who knows, if we let people know that you are not posting in this thread, then a lot more people might read it and get involved

sidneyreilly

Sparks wrote:

You know, I'm getting a tad tired of comments on spelling and grammar. We could sit here and say, yes, the spelling was awful in that letter. But given that the only people complaining about it so far have all shown a poor grasp of constructing arguments in english themselves, I think it wouldn't do much about the substance of the arguments on either side. Spelling and grammar count, especially in a press release or funding proposal. They don't, however, qualify as a reason to select one body over another as the NGB for a sport.

All due respect Sparks, posting on the boards and being grammatically correct is an entirely different thing to sending an email to an international sporting body claiming to represent the country!! Just when you thought we had lost the "comely maidens" image:eek:

Sparks

mifyah1 wrote:

I think I know three persons barred from boards and many more than that who were barred or forced out of a certain well-known midlands shooting venue for speaking their minds on certain issues.

I can't speak with any semblence of authority on the MRC, and it's somewhat unfair to assume I'm doing so, as some here are doing; but I can speak with authority on boards and I can tell you that there are no shooters who have been banned from here for having views unpopular with other shooters.
People have been given temporary bans, as in this thread, for a lack of civility - which is a breach of the boards charter, which everyone had time to comment on and amend when the forum was set up and noone had a problem then with the idea that it be a rule that people be civil to one another.
People who used duplicate accounts have had those duplicates banned; but they've kept their original accounts and their posts remain up here.
People who ignored the civility rule were even ignored in some limited cases, again for the sake of promoting discussion in the forum.
So frankly, your claim doesn't hold water.

And if you think you're hard done by, you have far more options here than in the NRPAI. You can complain here; you can report posts to the administrators or complain to them via PM; or you can complain in the Feedback forum. If your case holds water, the admins can overrule the mods. And you can certainly put your case forward for everyone else to read.

Two of these are barred from BOTH.

Name them.

Bit like Stalinist Russia: a guy hails you in Gorki Park and you wake up in the Gulag.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you?

Sparks

Leupold wrote:

Do you know something that the rest of us are not aware of Sparks? All that I can see from the content of the post that started this thread is that it looks like the international people were under the impression that the NRARI was the only body speaking for full bore shooters here.

I know nothing on this that everyone else can't learn by reading the post Leupold. Specifically, from the original post:

Since then soem other groups have appeared saying that they actually represent fullbore shooting in Ireland.

And from the post from the NRPAI via tasco:

The LLRA are the genuine long range shooters under the SSAI for Ireland.

Unless the international body is specifically investigating the situation in Ireland, someone here notified them of the NRAI/LRRAI conflict; and with sufficient weight to upset an established relationship between an NGB and an international body. Only the NRPAI had any kind of claim on that much weight, even if only on paper.

You wonder how you are stopping full bore shooters from getting involved? Surely it is obvious. By commenting the way you do, with such clear bias and negativity, you turn off most of the more passive spectators.

I refer you to the original posts by tasco, appauled, notsurprised and the other sock puppets. And I'd submit that the fullbore shooters I've met over the past decade are somewhat more robust that you seem to credit them for...

I refer back to my earlier post, if you have nothing positive to contribute to this debate then do not post, Who knows, if we let people know that you are not posting in this thread, then a lot more people might read it and get involved

Funny to read this, only a post after having to defend the forum's record on letting people speak their mind in our "Stalinist Russia"...

And for the record, I've already stated my interest in this; and you've made no argument as to why those who are affiliates of the NRPAI through it's member organisations should not be concerned with what is done in their names through the NRPAI.

Sparks

sidneyreilly wrote:

All due respect Sparks, posting on the boards and being grammatically correct is an entirely different thing to sending an email to an international sporting body claiming to represent the country!! Just when you thought we had lost the "comely maidens" image:eek:

It's a fair point, but after a few years of working in the NTSA, I'd gotten used to seeing documents of equal or lesser grammatical and compositional standards coming out of the NRPAI and other associations, both in internal and external documents. Compared to the content, this was always seen as minor, in fact I think I was the only person who ever commented on it (in relation to a sports council grant proposal that had been sent in with spelling and grammar problems some years ago - after that, I just ignored it and worried over the content first).

mifyah1

Sparks wrote:

I can speak with authority on boards and I can tell you that there are no shooters who have been banned from here for having views unpopular with other shooters.
People have been given temporary bans, as in this thread, for a lack of civility - which is a breach of the boards charter, which everyone had time to comment on and amend when the forum was set up and noone had a problem then with the idea that it be a rule that people be civil to one another.
People who used duplicate accounts have had those duplicates banned; but they've kept their original accounts and their posts remain up here.
People who ignored the civility rule were even ignored in some limited cases, again for the sake of promoting discussion in the forum.
So frankly, your claim doesn't hold water.

End Quote

Titanic posted once and that same night he tells me he was banned for life with no duplicate accounts. I am NOT titanic.

civdef

We definitely haven't banned someone by that username from the shooting section.

Sparks

Titanic posted once and that same night he tells me he was banned for life with no duplicate accounts. I am NOT titanic.

Titanic posted twice: here and here in the previous NRAI/LRRAI debate thread. Both times strongly supporting the LRRAI against the NRAI and making rather serious charges without suffering for it, as he or she was not banned. And he or she, according to their current profile, remains unbanned to this day. They just haven't logged into their account since the last comment made.

Next example please.

mifyah1

Civdef says Titanic didn't have a boards existence and Sparks says he was a bad boy. Now you see him, now you don't - like an F-Class shooter with the temerity to speak up in the bog.

Sparks

You misread mifyah. Civ said we hadn't banned anyone with that username from this forum. And we haven't. Titanic isn't banned and never has been. He or she just hasn't bothered to log into their account since their last post back in November 2005.

mifyah1

I am speaking to Titanic by phone NOW. He could not get in 10 minutes ago. He was told "Maybe a moderator etc etc etc".

civdef

Has the possibility of a forgotten password been considered?

Vegeta

are people really afraid of a little debate these days.

Is this what happens when someone has a different opinion than you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with civil debate. Why are people trying to drag this down into name calling and bitching

Sparks

mifyah1 wrote:

I am speaking to Titanic by phone NOW. He could not get in 10 minutes ago. He was told "Maybe a moderator etc etc etc".

Look, you can see his profile linked up above. It says "Registered User" under his username. If he was banned, it would read "Banned" under his username. Contrast appauled's profile above. Here's the full list of users banned from Shooting at the moment:

Access list for Shooting
ahimsa - banned
blinger77 - banned
calis - banned
Celer et Audax - banned
Leupold - banned
miss~lola - banned
Nema - banned
not surprised - banned
ogam - banned
pancakeman - banned
Ro: maaan! - banned
Sniper220 - banned
Sparkz - banned
Sparkzz - banned
Superman - banned
unknownguest - banned
wiseones2cents - banned
[DM]-TheDOC- - banned

Leupold

Can we get back on the subject here? I am glad that you(Sparks) agree with the gist of what I am suggesting. As you say yourself

Sparks wrote:

Pragmatism would suggest that the best course for the NRPAI would have been to have supported the NRAI and tried to bring them back into the umbrella body.

SPARKS wrote:

This is part of what I am suggesting. We build on what has been achieved all round without anyone losing out.

Sparks

Thing is Leupold, in order for that offer to carry any weight, the NRPAI would have to publicly state that it was not supporting the LRRAI. Otherwise, you're asking the hen to lie down with the fox and to trust that nothing bad will happen!

Sparks

Also, you'd have to answer the question the NRAI will be asking themselves - what would be the advantage of joining with the NRPAI? What would the NRPAI structure bring to the table, and what would be the associated cost and would it be worth it?

See, there's an implied assumption in your argument Leupold - namely that everyone should be in the NRPAI. I won't say that a single body doesn't have aesthetic appeal, but frankly, for various legal reasons, it won't ever happen. So the merits have to be made out on a case by case basis.

So, care to elucidate with reference to specifics?

Leupold

What you say is not logical.The new organisation will have to be some combination of all parties.It has to build on all the strengths available. The solution has to be win/win not win/lose. What was I saying about thinking positively and co-operatively?

Leupold

Sparks wrote:

See, there's an implied assumption in your argument Leupold - namely that everyone should be in the NRPAI. I won't say that a single body doesn't have aesthetic appeal, but frankly, for various legal reasons, it won't ever happen. So the merits have to be made out on a case by case basis.

This makes no sense Sparks. We could start another thread on why a single body, representing all the shooting sports is a good thing to have. Think SSAI, ICPSA,NARGC. etc. In the meantime, it makes sense to have an organisation looking after the primarily target orientated sports which is what the SSAI is. It makes sense for shooters from a political perspective and it makes sense to the Government so why does it not make sense to you?

tasco

It has been brought to my attention that only one person has been officially banned by the Midlands Range and it was given in writing.
I would like to take this opportunity to retract and apologise for my previous statements in regard to this.
Sorry for any inconvenience or distress caused .
tasco.

jaycee

Please Note

It has been brought to my attention that only one person has been officially banned by the Midlands Range and it was given in writing.
I would like to take this opportunity to retract and apologise for my previous statements in regard to this.
Sorry for any inconvenience or distress caused .
tasco.

Duly noted and thank you for the correction and the apology.

I'm sure people will find in time that this isn't the only case of mistaken or misleading information regarding the midlands range and the actions and motives of it's members.

jaycee

Oh look another one hit wonder !..

If you have evidence of these a[FONT=&quot]llegations[/FONT], publish and be damned.
But do so in the open if you have any Integrity ..

Why hide behind a cloak of secrecy ?
If the facts stand up to examination you don't need to worry about our libel laws.

Even at a glance these unsubstantiated claims don't hold water...

1 A VERY well-known shooter after an unknown "incident"
4 A shooter accused of "Undermining Safety Policy" (???)
7 An "eccentric" for refusing to open a shotgun

These appear to relate to safe conduct issues .
Hands up anyone who wants to be on a range where safety is optional.

Not me !

mifyah1

It appears that safety is being used as a stick to beat those with whom disagreements are held. It is easy to play the safety card if one is not happy with a member's views. :rolleyes:

jaycee

mifyah1 wrote:

It appears that safety is being used as a stick to beat those with whom disagreements are held. It is easy to play the safety card if one is not happy with a member's views. :rolleyes:

Putting the cart before the horse isn't it..?
I would find myself having a disagreement with anyone who isn't safe , or who think's a comment on someones attitude to safety is just an excuse to be nasty.

I am fully in agreement with any and all measures to ensure safe enjoyment of our sport by all. Unfortunately, some people resent being reprimanded and may feel insulted. But that's never the intent ..safety is the intent , injured pride is sometimes unavoidable ..But I think that's a small price to pay for the greater good of all.

Surely this one is a no-brainer

mifyah1

Case not answered, I'd say. You seem to have nothing to say about 8 other instances in the list of banned and excluded persons. I take it you do not deny they actually happened since you have ridiculed but not refuted three. "Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch".

jaycee

mifyah1 wrote:

Case not answered, I'd say. You seem to have nothing to say about 8 other instances in the list of banned and excluded persons. I take it you do not deny they actually happened since you have ridiculed but not refuted three. "Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch".

I agree ..,

I'm still waiting for the response to what I posted.
I'll repeat it.

If you have evidence of these allegations, publish and be damned.
But do so in the open if you have any Integrity ..

Why hide behind a cloak of secrecy ?
If the facts stand up to examination you don't need to worry about our libel laws.

Give me the names , dates , people involved and we'll have it all out in the open. I have nothing to fear from an open and frank discussion of the facts.
As a matter of fact ..If you are concerned with the truth .. Let's have your name . I declared myself publicly on here ages ago .
So did Sparks , Declan Keogh and others .. I have some respect for people who are willing to stand up and be counted . None.. for those who won't.

I picked 3 cases from the list as being obvious examples where safety issues were obviously involved by the very descriptions in the list. One mentioned a person who refused to break a shotgun,
You don't seem to understand that under NRA procedures there is a range command ..part of which states "Show clear" .. it's not optional. An instruction to break a shotgun is the same .. How you define this as ridicule is beyond me.

The list isn't mine ,

I didn't say I agreed that any of the cases mentioned were real and asked for further information which hasn't been forthcoming so far .

So .. as I said earlier , why all the secrecy ..?
It seems to be something your fond of.

If theres a shred of truth in it .. declare yourself ..or forget about it.