NRARI, Announcement

civdef · 05-07-2006 8:39am

Waggawagga, you've made fairly serious allegations against an identified group of people, without identifying yourself. Seeing as you seem to have registered soley for the purpose of doing so, this leads me to believe you have a bit of an agenda here.

Unless you can substantiate those claims, you're leaving the board open to trouble, so they've been deleted for now. If you can come back with something approaching evidence you can consider reposting.

Sparks · 05-07-2006 10:54am

Leupold wrote:

What you say is not logical.The new organisation will have to be some combination of all parties.

Leupold, I'm trying very hard to be nothing but rational here.
Perhaps you could do the same? To start with, you say that the new organisation will have to be a combination of parties. Logically, therefore, you are taking as axioms that:

There has to be a new organisation.
That there would be an advantage in mixing several parties who are currently in conflict.
That all parties have to be involved in this mixing process.

The problem is that it seems that fullbore shooting was progressing quite well without a new organisation before this; that the LRRAI was founded after the NRAI by people who did not wish to work with them; and that the NRPAI has taken sides in this conflict with the LRRAI as opposed to remaining seperate and trying to work towards a more harmonious or at least a more pragmatic solution. Because of this, you'll have to show that your axioms are valid, or your entire argument has no foundation.

Leupold wrote:

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.

We did. And I pointed out in that thread that it cannot happen for the sake of the shooting sports in Ireland. To expand, here are some reasons why (excuse the ordering, it doesn't imply priority):

There is a long history in the NRPAI of not following even it's own rules. Witness the recent - and invalid - AGM and the lack of any effort to regularise the current status of the NRPAI. How can shooters trust a body that won't recognise the authority of even its own rules?
The structure of the NRPAI is not democratic nor does it best serve shooters, who have no say in who it's officers are, nor which offices they fill, nor what decisions they make, nor what policies they pursue.
There is an inherent and basic conflict of interest between the committee duties of the member federations and the duties of the NRPAI committee.
In practise, olympic and non-olympic sports, regardless of firearm, get treated seperately by the Sports Council regardless of how NGBs are organised, and as such, you'll have to have seperate bodies within any meta-body anyway. This means you won't save on duplication or anything else, you'll just increase internal strife.
A single monolithic body moves slowly by necessity lest it tear itself apart. Witness the ICPSA. It's a very large body, but making any changes does take time as they propogate through the system of regional and provincial AGMs - something that's been complained about in public of late.
If you think the NARGC aren't looking with interest at the prospect of subsuming the NRPAI, you're not paying enough attention. And I've not yet seen convincing evidence that their structure is best suited to our needs to be honest. If you're looking at gathering everyone into one body, will we join them, or will they join us?
The fourth member of the NRPAI, the Pony Club tetrathlon association, is already a member of another umbrella body, Equestrian Ireland. Who do they join - EI, who train them for riding or us, who train them for shooting?
The ISSF and IPSC are embroiled in a rather nasty scrap right now and should the ISSF find that the NTSA are involved on an organisational level with the IPSA or Practical disciplines in general, would sanction them in the same manner as was done to the French shooting association, namely derecognition. This would mean that the NTSA could no longer form a National Team or enter them into Continental Championships, World Cups, World Championships or the Olympic Games. This would mean the NTSA no longer had any purpose and it might as well disband.
Should either the ICPSA or the NTSA (both limited companies) be shut down and their roles taken over by a single NRPAI-style body, the recognition from the ISSF would immediately devolve to the body that didn't shut down, and could not be restored to any other body except by taking all ISSF recognition away from the that body. If both shut down, the new body would face a few years of competing openly for the recognition, during which it couldn't send teams to Continental Championships, World Cups, World Championships or the Olympic Games. How would that benefit shooters?

it makes sense to have an organisation looking after the primarily target orientated sports which is what the SSAI is.

Actually, it isn't. The NRPAI's purpose is solely to liase with the Sports Council. It is specifically prohibited from governing the sports regulated by its member federations. And what does the NRPAI do for target shooting anyway? Do they run competitions? Do they run clubs? Do they build ranges? No - these are all done by the individual clubs and NGBs. The truth is, that as in all cases with clubs and their associations, the NRPAI derives its authority and postition from the clubs, not from any intrinsic property of the universe! And yet, as can be seen from its deeds in the past few years and right up to the last few days in this thread (ie. this is not the distant past we're talking about), the NRPAI does not believe it's a service provider - it believes it's a ruler. A nasty wake-up shock usually follows such a faulty assumption, no matter what association or administrative body makes it.

It makes sense for shooters from a political perspective

But it doesn't make sense for shooters from a political perspective. I've said it before, I'll say it again - the most sensible way to have a political lobbying body for shooters is for it to be completely and utterly independent from any existing governing body, so that we know that the agenda of the lobbyists is not dictated by their fiduciary duties as committee members of NGBs (which would be to put the interests of their sports' members ahead of everything else).

An extreme example, but one which has arisen in the past; there was a deal to reintroduce .22 and air pistols during the 30-odd years they weren't licencable, should it have been taken? In the end, it wasn't taken, an all-or-nothing approach was demanded. And instead of the rebirth of pistol shooting starting in the mid-90s, it was delayed a decade. And the agendas of those who made the decision are not above question in this case, nor should they ever be. They didn't shoot .22 or air pistols and had no interest in them; so they weren't going to take the offer. That makes no difference to fullbore shooters, I know - but to Silhouette, ISSF, Pony club and plinkers, that was a bad decision. Three quarters of the NRPAI's Members' members wouldn't have thought it a good idea, but it's done because of who makes the choice? Hardly democratic; or fair; or a good idea; or best for shooters!

and it makes sense to the Government

Of course it does. One address, one phone number, one grant form - far less work for the Sports Council. Thing is, why should our organisational structure be dictated by the needs of civil servants instead of by what's best for our sport? Also, there is precedent in the Sports Council for an umbrella body to be split up. Tae-Kwon-Do split from the Martial Arts Federation and was recognised independently, for example. And the Sports Council already recognises the ICPSA and NRPAI seperately anyway.

so why does it not make sense to you?

Because the idea doesn't bear up under any sort of scrutiny! And these questions and others have been asked for years with no response!

sidneyreilly · 05-07-2006 3:07pm

civdef wrote:

Waggawagga, you've made fairly serious allegations against an identified group of people, without identifying yourself. Seeing as you seem to have registered soley for the purpose of doing so, this leads me to believe you have a bit of an agenda here.

Unless you can substantiate those claims, you're leaving the board open to trouble, so they've been deleted for now. If you can come back with something approaching evidence you can consider reposting.

What was that all about

Sparks · 05-07-2006 3:09pm

He identified a list of people and said they'd been barred from the MNSCI for various reasons.

sidneyreilly · 05-07-2006 4:38pm

Sparks wrote:

He identified a list of people and said they'd been barred from the MNSCI for various reasons.

Without naming though, what were the reasons?

Leupold · 05-07-2006 7:39pm

Sparks wrote:

Leupold, I'm trying very hard to be nothing but rational here.
Perhaps you could do the same? To start with, you say that the new organisation will have to be a combination of parties. Logically, therefore, you are taking as axioms that:
There has to be a new organisation.

That there would be an advantage in mixing several parties who are currently in conflict.

That all parties have to be involved in this mixing process.

The problem is that it seems that fullbore shooting was progressing quite well without a new organisation before this; that the LRRAI was founded after the NRAI by people who did not wish to work with them; and that the NRPAI has taken sides in this conflict with the LRRAI as opposed to remaining seperate and trying to work towards a more harmonious or at least a more pragmatic solution. Because of this, you'll have to show that your axioms are valid, or your entire argument has no foundation.

Phew what a long post! Unfortunately you do not seem capable of breaking out of your usual morass of negative thinking. You have produced a long list of why nothing can happen, which criticizes the people who , instead of just talking, have actually achieved something for shooters in Ireland, however flawed. Now to look at some of your major mistakes:
1. Of course there has to be a new organisation. All of the parties involved have some value to add and this is best achieved through compromise and the best political way to do this is for the old parties to morph into a new group.
2. Of course the only way to achieve this is to involve all of the parties.
3.How could you involve them without mixing them?

An Axiom is, amongst other things, a self evident truth. so what are you puzzled about?

Fullbore shooting has been progressing quite well for over 30 years. Until about 15 years ago, it progressed only in the North, the UK or elsewhere abroad because of restrictions on full bores. Then we got the full bore rifles back and progress accelerated. Then the Midlands range opened and it accelerated even more.Then the "split" happened and factions formed. Now we have some full bore shooters who use the Midlands range and some who will not. We also have a problem of international recognition of "the Irish NGB" . This situation has to be addressed. I believe that the SSAI should work with all of the parties concerned and the only side it will take is that of the Irish shooter. I also suspect that if any other body than the SSAI was involved, you would be less biased and emotional in your arguments. Perhaps more logical too.

Your long list of anti SSAI arguments is repetitive to the point of boredom. I suspect you have a large cut and paste library from which you pull the tired old arguments.The SSAI are not perfect but they seem to get a lot of things done. The competitive calendar is more active than ever before. New disciplines have been introduced,e.g. bench rest and gallery rifle. The number of clubs is growing on a monthly basis. All of this is helped and co-ordinated by the SSAI who do add value to the NGBs despite your derision. There are many shooters reading this forum who get a lot of enjoyment from their sport because of what the SSAI has done.. You would appear to want to see the full bore row continued as you cannot bear the thought of the SSAI being involved in a successful solution.
If you do not like my view of the way forward, please put forward how you think it should be done. Please leave lots of space between paragraphs so that we can employ your technique of Quote, Slice and Dice.

mifyah1 · 05-07-2006 11:54pm

(civdef) "Unless you can substantiate those claims, you're leaving the board open to trouble, so they've been deleted for now. If you can come back with something approaching evidence you can consider reposting."

You suffer from an illusion that Boards is a court and you are judge, jury and executioner on issues concerning which you are utterly partisan. Boards is a TALK shop. There is another forum where evidence can be presented without fear of libel or retaliation. You are blinded by your hatered of certain personalities and in keeping with the arab truism "My enemy's enemy is my friend" you have backed parties even more unscrupulous than yourself.

(Sparks) "He identified a list of people and said they'd been barred from the MNSCI for various reasons."

Retract that you silly man; I mentioned nobody or no organisation. Boards is smoke and mirrors.

(jaycee) "Why hide behind a cloak of secrecy ?"

Secrecy has its uses; it flushed you and your minders in Boards out of your burrows

(jaycee) "If the facts stand up to examination you don't need to worry about our libel laws"

Boards is a talk shop and anonymity is one of the few advantages it offers

(jaycee) I have nothing to fear from an open and frank discussion of the facts"

Your actions say otherwise; you have intimidated or banned every dissenting voice

(jaycee) "As a matter of fact ..If you are concerned with the truth .. Let's have your name . .....I have some respect for people who are willing to stand up and be counted . None.. for those who won't"

LIAR! HYPOCRITE! THESE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE YOU SQUASHED!

(jaycee) "I picked 3 cases from the list as being obvious examples where safety issues were obviously involved by the very descriptions in the list. "

You ignored eight where you wronged people who dared question your actions

(jaycee) "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."

Boards is a talk shop. There is another forum where evidence can be presented without fear of libel or
retaliation. We will declare ourselves at a time and place and in a manner of our choosing. in the meantime Boards moderators will muzzle your dissenters for you. Do not fool your self into thinking they like you; they don't. You are merely, for the moment, their enemy's enemy and they will bark for you. We will NOT forget about it. We will NOT go away.

Now bark for Jaycee like good minders, Civdef and Sparks.

"And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith thou mightest be bound. And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head with the web."

Bye!

jaycee · 06-07-2006 12:58am

Itty bitty flaw in your logic there.

1. I'm not a moderator on boards.ie ....so I can't ban anyone .

2. I'm just an ordinary member of MNSCI .. and not on any commitee
(So I can't / haven't squashed or banned anyone from there either)
3. Any amount of people can verify these statements.

(jaycee) "As a matter of fact ..If you are concerned with the truth .. Let's have your name . .....I have some respect for people who are willing to stand up and be counted . None.. for those who won't"

LIAR! HYPOCRITE! THESE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE YOU SQUASHED!

Liar .. Hypocrite ...?

I demand a retraction and an apology.. and I still don't see any further information from you, or about you .... only comments and wild accusations which would be insults if they made any sense.

I rest my case !

civdef · 06-07-2006 1:10am

Another slew of personal attacks, so another ban.

DDLR · 06-07-2006 9:15am

LoL!

sidneyreilly · 06-07-2006 9:23am

sidneyreilly wrote:

Without naming though, what were the reasons?

Ok, found out myself:

<EDIT: Sidney, the reason these were deleted in the first place was that we can't show whether they're true or not, but leaving them there could get boards in trouble over libel suits from several parties. -sparks>

Are these true?

Sparks · 06-07-2006 9:58am

sidneyreilly wrote:

Are these true?

If they were, why didn't Wagga post the names involved? And how would he or she know if they'd been banned if he or she isn't in the Midlands?

Frankly though, they were so vague and hand-wavy in some cases and so obviously written to protray the MRC in a bad light, that I personally give them no credence.

Sparks · 06-07-2006 10:23am

Leupold wrote:

Phew what a long post!

Well, I'm sorry I couldn't condense it to an american sound-bite argument, but I thought we were a tad above the "four legs good, two legs bad" level. Some things really are that complex that a half-page of A4 paper is needed to explain them...

You have produced a long list of why nothing can happen

Actually, I have produced a list of reasons as to why one specific thing can't happen. And they're fairly solid reasons.

which criticizes the people who , instead of just talking, have actually achieved something for shooters in Ireland, however flawed

I didn't realise I was criticising the NRAI!

1. Of course there has to be a new organisation. All of the parties involved have some value to add and this is best achieved through compromise and the best political way to do this is for the old parties to morph into a new group.

Leupold, that's not correct.
Look, why would there need to be a new organisation? Because the old one isn't working. But the thing is - there's F-class shooting going on on a regular, well-subscribed basis on an excellent facility which is open to everyone bar the one person who I'm told was barred for safety reasons. The sport was represented at international level, and there had already been one international competition held here, and the sport was getting good publicity including an appearance on RTE. The only thing that I can see that's gone wrong was the problem with international recognition, which was precipitated by those bodies you are now saying have to be included because there's a problem. Do you not see the logical flaw in scrapping an existing system and handing it over to those who sabotaged it on the grounds that the system was sabotaged? It's akin to handing over management roles in a bank to the people who robbed it on the grounds that the bank was robbed!

2. Of course the only way to achieve this is to involve all of the parties.

Why would the NRPAI be involved when they're not an NGB?

3.How could you involve them without mixing them?

By closing down the organisation that caused the problem in the first place, or withdrawing recognition of it.

An Axiom is, amongst other things, a self evident truth. so what are you puzzled about?

Here's the kicker Leupold - what you put forward were not self-evident truths. If they were, I couldn't have pointed out problems with them. And there are quite a few listed above.

We also have a problem of international recognition of "the Irish NGB" . This situation has to be addressed.

I agree with you on this, but I don't agree with your suggested course of action, as I believe it's unethical to punish the NRAI for a problem caused by the LRRAI (and quite probably the NRPAI given the posts made here on it's behalf).

I believe that the SSAI should work with all of the parties concerned

Why? The NRPAI has no involvement in fullbore shooting at all. It comprises the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and Pony Club. None of these shoot fullbore F-class. And the NRPAI has no authority to intervene in it's member's business - and certainly not to intervene in the NRAI/LRRAI situation.

I also suspect that if any other body than the SSAI was involved, you would be less biased and emotional in your arguments. Perhaps more logical too.

Please point out where I've been emotional above. I've been trying to be very thorough in stating my reasoning so you wouldn't accuse me of being emotional; instead, you're claiming that I'm long-winded and emotional. It's not logical and anyone reading this without an agenda can see that.

Your long list of anti SSAI arguments is repetitive to the point of boredom.

The long list is not repetitive. It is, however, old - we've all known of these problems for many years.

The SSAI are not perfect but they seem to get a lot of things done.

Seeming to do something and actually doing something are wildly different things. for example:

The competitive calendar is more active than ever before.

The calendar is set by NGBs and run by clubs. The NRPAI can say whatever it wants, but it doesn't actually show up on the range at eight on a sunday morning to ensure that there are range officers and targets get handed out and scores are tabulated.

New disciplines have been introduced,e.g. bench rest and gallery rifle.

By the NASRC, not the NRPAI.

The number of clubs is growing on a monthly basis.

And this is down to the work of those on the ground, not those sitting at a top table somewhere, sometime, discussing something - all details which no ordinary shooter seems to get told about.

All of this is helped and co-ordinated by the SSAI who do add value to the NGBs despite your derision.

That is a point of contention between us. And frankly, after working at that level for a few years, I believe my viewpoint was formed from experience, not preconcieved notions, and I think that the history of my actions says so too.

You would appear to want to see the full bore row continued as you cannot bear the thought of the SSAI being involved in a successful solution.

I believe that the fullbore row is being actively caused by the NRPAI and their support of the LRRAI who were not recognised as the official NGB. How was the determination to support the LRRAI as opposed to the NRAI made? On what grounds? In what open session where both parties were given representation?

If you do not like my view of the way forward, please put forward how you think it should be done.

I think the NRPAI should officially state that it does not support either the NRAI nor the LRRAI.

I think that both bodies should be left free of harassment to get on with running the sport in Ireland.

If in the future, the emergent "winner" wishes to be recognised by the NRPAI as the official F-class NGB and to be absorbed into the NRPAI structure, then they should make their case at an NRPAI AGM, announced well ahead of time, and that that then be voted on openly. Should the other body contest the application, that should be done openly as well and the decision made by an independent arbitration body, such as that set up by the Federation of Irish Sports.

Please leave lots of space between paragraphs so that we can employ your technique of Quote, Slice and Dice.

leupold, I welcome people critiquing what I suggest. Either the idea is good and it withstands criticism and becomes stronger - or it fails and shouldn't have been adopted anyway. This is one reason why I personally feel the NRPAI is a flawed body - criticism is seen as negative by most of the NRPAI people I've met, instead of a useful tool. So please, critique!

Sparks · 06-07-2006 10:32am

mifyah1 wrote:

You suffer from an illusion that Boards is a court and you are judge, jury and executioner on issues concerning which you are utterly partisan.

You suffer from the illusion that the moderators don't have the authority to ban you. You also suffer from the illusion that libel cases cannot be taken against people based on what's published on the internet. Allow me to gently disabuse you of those notions before we are required to do so less gently.

Boards is a TALK shop. There is another forum where evidence can be presented without fear of libel or retaliation.

Where, pray tell?

(Sparks) "He identified a list of people and said they'd been barred from the MNSCI for various reasons."
Retract that you silly man; I mentioned nobody or no organisation. Boards is smoke and mirrors.

You gave a list of people, stated that some had done some pretty scary things, and that others had been innocently kicked out of the MNSCI without cause. Both things were legally actionable, and so until you post names and specific details, the list will be deleted whenever it's posted. And if you continue to try to post it, you'll be trying to get the boards.ie site sued, and we'll ban you for that until you stop.

(jaycee) "Why hide behind a cloak of secrecy ?"
Secrecy has its uses; it flushed you and your minders in Boards out of your burrows

How? JC identified himself voluntarily. And what minders? The mods aren't meant to let anyone break the rules (and frankly we've given too much leeway on this in the past!).

(jaycee) "If the facts stand up to examination you don't need to worry about our libel laws"
Boards is a talk shop and anonymity is one of the few advantages it offers

But boards.ie is a publisher. Do us and yourself a favour and look up the libel laws before you start making daft assertions. It is more complex than you think.

(jaycee) I have nothing to fear from an open and frank discussion of the facts"
Your actions say otherwise; you have intimidated or banned every dissenting voice

JC's not a mod. He can't ban anyone. And so far, no-one has been banned from the forum on this topic (though their duplicate accounts have been, the original accounts are still allowed to post here. You're allowed have a discussion - but not to fake one!)

(jaycee) "I picked 3 cases from the list as being obvious examples where safety issues were obviously involved by the very descriptions in the list. "
You ignored eight where you wronged people who dared question your actions

Names and specifics, please. Otherwise, JC and the MSNCI can sue you for libel. In case you've not realised by now, by the way, our deleting your list isn't just to protect boards.ie ...

in the meantime Boards moderators will muzzle your dissenters for you.

The full list of those banned from the shooting forum has been posted already.
You're not fooling anyone.
And I doubt the LRRAI will thank you for the negative PR you're giving them.

Leupold · 06-07-2006 12:17pm

Sparks wrote:

Look, why would there need to be a new organisation? Because the old one isn't working. But the thing is - there's F-class shooting going on on a regular, well-subscribed basis on an excellent facility which is open to everyone bar the one person who I'm told was barred for safety reasons. The sport was represented at international level, and there had already been one international competition held here, and the sport was getting good publicity including an appearance on RTE. The only thing that I can see that's gone wrong was the problem with international recognition, which was precipitated by those bodies you are now saying have to be included because there's a problem. Do you not see the logical flaw in scrapping an existing system and handing it over to those who sabotaged it on the grounds that the system was sabotaged? It's akin to handing over management roles in a bank to the people who robbed it on the grounds that the bank was robbed!

Sparks, why are we having this debate if everything is OK? Clearly it is not. It suits you to ignore any full bore shooting experience before the MNSCI was set up and it suits you to ignore that the international recognition issue has arisen because of the action staken by the NRAI in setting up independently of the recognised shooting organisations in Ireland. They could have progressed the issue with the SSAI but chose not to after the much discussed comments at the meeting. They could have progressed the issue with the NASRC but chose not to. The international issue arose because the NRAI did nor clarify the situation in Ireland to the bodies from which they sought recognition. Once this became clear, then the resulting correspondance which started this thread was inevitable. You are also ignoring the problem. raised in previous threads that the NRAI is indistinguishable from the MNSCI. Many full bore shooters will not go to shoot at the MNSCI because this has been made difficult for non members.You only need look at the arguments put forward by the NRAI in support of their case to see how often the "only Range" argument occurs. The solution has to include a fix for this problem

Sparks wrote:

Why? The NRPAI has no involvement in fullbore shooting at all. It comprises the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and Pony Club. None of these shoot fullbore F-class. And the NRPAI has no authority to intervene in it's member's business - and certainly not to intervene in the NRAI/LRRAI situation.

Seeming to do something and actually doing something are wildly different things. for example:

The calendar is set by NGBs and run by clubs. The NRPAI can say whatever it wants, but it doesn't actually show up on the range at eight on a sunday morning to ensure that there are range officers and targets get handed out and scores are tabulated.

By the NASRC, not the NRPAI.

And this is down to the work of those on the ground, not those sitting at a top table somewhere, sometime, discussing something - all details which no ordinary shooter seems to get told about.

I believe that the fullbore row is being actively caused by the NRPAI and their support of the LRRAI who were not recognised as the official NGB. How was the determination to support the LRRAI as opposed to the NRAI made? On what grounds? In what open session where both parties were given representation?

You have made one bad mistake in the preceeding arguments. You like to create the impression that the SSAI is some sort of remote body which sits in judgement, does no work and adds no value. This is rubbish! The SSAI is composed of people who are also on the committees of the NRSA, NTSA. ISA,Pony club etc. These very people are the ones who create the calendars, introduce the new disciplines and turn up at 7:00am to set up for the shoots.These are the people who give their time and effort to fledgling clubs so that they can grow and build on the experience of other clubs, as they did when the Midlands club was setting up. These shooters and voluntary workers are the glue that keeps the shooting community together. You were part of this before your parting of the ways with the SSAI and NTSA and clearly this has hurt. But why take this out on your fellow shooters as you masquerade as the shooter's champion?
[/quote]

Sparks wrote:

I think the NRPAI should officially state that it does not support either the NRAI nor the LRRAI.

I think that both bodies should be left free of harassment to get on with running the sport in Ireland.

This is a head in the sand attitude.It is not in the interests of shooters in Ireland to let this problem drift. We need to fix it now and as I have said before, the best way to fix it is by dialogue and agreement between the parties involved.We need a practical and positive course of action. We do not need you, prolonging the division, driven by your history with the SSAI

Sparks wrote:

So please, critique!

Please see above.

jaycee · 06-07-2006 12:38pm

Many full bore shooters will not go to shoot at the MNSCI because this has been made difficult for non members.

Made difficult in what way...?

BTW .. The international teams shooting F-Class there recently didn't seem to have any difficulty , or are you suggesting that they are all members too.

Sparks · 06-07-2006 12:44pm

Leupold wrote:

Sparks, why are we having this debate if everything is OK?

Because someone's written to the international body claiming that the NRAI is not the official NGB.

Which would imply, by the way, that someone else has been recognised as such - which leads to two questions.
1. Who was recognised and on what grounds?
2. Who was the party qualified to recognise them?

But these are administration issues, and lesser still, are political in nature - they have nothing to do with the sport. Which to me says that there isn't any need for the kind of change you're proposing. Which, by the way, would be a change forced upon the members of the two bodies by a third body which has no jurisdiction over them.

It suits you to ignore any full bore shooting experience before the MNSCI was set up and it suits you to ignore that the international recognition issue has arisen because of the action staken by the NRAI in setting up independently of the recognised shooting organisations in Ireland.

If there was such an active field of competition in Ireland prior to the MRC being set up, then why was that competition not organised and the organising party recognised as the NGB? Why would the MRC be asking for an NGB at the 2001 NRPAI AGM?

They could have progressed the issue with the SSAI but chose not to after the much discussed comments at the meeting.

They asked and were told flat out no. What were they meant to do, keep pestering you or go and actually do something?

They could have progressed the issue with the NASRC but chose not to.

On what grounds would they have gone to the NASRC, who didn't shoot fullbore? The only body shooting fullbore at the time was the NTSA and that was rare as hen's teeth as it was, and only over 300m.

The international issue arose because the NRAI did nor clarify the situation in Ireland to the bodies from which they sought recognition.

They asked; were refused; and did it themselves because it was needed. And as I recall the reports, when they showed up at the meetings for the LRRAI, they were discriminated against in that they were told only two representatives could come from each club - even though the MRC had the majority of fullbore shooters in it at the time. That's second-hand information, so feel free to correct it if it's incorrect, by the way.

Once this became clear

How did this become clear?
Who was the reporting party?
Under whose authority and in whose name did they report to the international body?

You are also ignoring the problem. raised in previous threads that the NRAI is indistinguishable from the MNSCI.

I am given to understand that they are seperate limited companies.
However, the same cannot be said for several NRPAI bodies and the NRPAI itself! How can you distinguish between the NRPAI and the NASRC or the NSAI, for example?

Many full bore shooters will not go to shoot at the MNSCI because this has been made difficult for non members.

How so?
I keep hearing nothing but positive reports from those who shoot there, with the exception of one shooter who was barred from there, following a hearing and due process and another who took umption at not being given the run of the range without prior consultation and left in a huff!

You only need look at the arguments put forward by the NRAI in support of their case to see how often the "only Range" argument occurs. The solution has to include a fix for this problem

I would say that if you want to fix that problem, you'll have to build more fullbore ranges. Which would be a very positive thing - but which won't be done by dissolving the NRAI against the will of it's members.

I'm actually still rather curious, by the way - on what authority do the NRPAI order the NRAI to dissolve, and how do they enforce that order if the NRAI refuses?

You have made one bad mistake in the preceeding arguments. You like to create the impression that the SSAI is some sort of remote body which sits in judgement, does no work and adds no value. This is rubbish!

No, it is not. You are confusing the people with the body, a common mistake.

The SSAI is composed of people who are also on the committees of the NRSA, NTSA. ISA,Pony club etc. These very people are the ones who create the calendars, introduce the new disciplines and turn up at 7:00am to set up for the shoots.

The NRSA? That's a new one, as is the ISA, unless the NSAI's changed their name.

Also, again, you're confusing people with organisations. The secretary of the NASRC may well be on the range at 7 in the morning to run a shoot - but he's not doing so as the secretary of the NASRC (unless it's a national shoot), nor as a member of the NRPAI, he's doing so as a member of the club running the shoot. Otherwise, he'd have no authority to do so.
And frankly, I've seen quite a lot of evidence to say that those at the top table rarely do any work of any note for those on the ground shooting.

You were part of this before your parting of the ways with the SSAI and NTSA and clearly this has hurt. But why take this out on your fellow shooters as you masquerade as the shooter's champion?

First off, shooter's champion? Are ye daft? Believe me, shooters are more than able to look out for themselves!

Secondly, since leaving the NTSA, I've gotten more done in one year than I ever did within the NTSA/NRPAI structure, and frankly, it's because I'm not in that structure.

This is a head in the sand attitude.It is not in the interests of shooters in Ireland to let this problem drift.

It was not in the interests of shooters in Ireland for the NRPAI to create the problem in the first place! If they got out of the way and let others get on with it, we'd see a lot less arguing and a lot more accomplished!

Leupold · 06-07-2006 2:28pm

Your response was very weak Sparks. Clearly you have trouble understanding the issues or have deliberately so done.

Sparks wrote:

They asked and were told flat out no. What were they meant to do, keep pestering you or go and actually do something?

This has been gone over many times. The response could have been handled better. There was no subsequent discussion so perhaps there was no desire to follow up on either side.

Sparks wrote:

On what grounds would they have gone to the NASRC, who didn't shoot fullbore? The only body shooting fullbore at the time was the NTSA and that was rare as hen's teeth as it was, and only over 300m.

The people who were shooting full bore were also shooting in NASRC competitions. Full bore shooting was largely carried out by shooters who also shot small bore and deer shooters. If you wanted to set up a full bore NGB then the NASRC was the obvious place to start. It is a shame that this was not pointed out when the question of organisation was first asked.

Sparks wrote:

I am given to understand that they are seperate limited companies.
However, the same cannot be said for several NRPAI bodies and the NRPAI itself! How can you distinguish between the NRPAI and the NASRC or the NSAI, for example?

You keep stating thay you should make a distinction between the organisation and the people who make it up. This is a naive view.You cannot distinguish between the MNSCI and NRAI because many of the same people hold the reins of both, just as they do in the SSAI and the NGBs. In the latter case they are all volunteers and as is usually the case, a small number of people do nearly all the work.

Sparks wrote:

How so?
I keep hearing nothing but positive reports from those who shoot there, with the exception of one shooter who was barred from there, following a hearing and due process and another who took umption at not being given the run of the range without prior consultation and left in a huff!

Perhaps if you shot full bore Sparks and mixed in the circles of those who do, you would have a better view of the situation. This ground has also been gone over before. In summary, the attitude of the MNSCI changed about the time the NRAI was formed. Access became much more difficult and ,as
a result most of the full bore shooters who had been regular shooters before the NRAI was formed, stopped going to the Midlands

Sparks wrote:

I'm actually still rather curious, by the way - on what authority do the NRPAI order the NRAI to dissolve, and how do they enforce that order if the NRAI refuses?

A good example of your lack of comprehension. Where did this little nugget come from? Do you not understand the words,"discussion, compromise,agreement, solution"?

Sparks wrote:

No, it is not. You are confusing the people with the body, a common mistake.

.

Also, again, you're confusing people with organisations. The secretary of the NASRC may well be on the range at 7 in the morning to run a shoot - but he's not doing so as the secretary of the NASRC (unless it's a national shoot), nor as a member of the NRPAI, he's doing so as a member of the club running the shoot. Otherwise, he'd have no authority to do so.
And frankly, I've seen quite a lot of evidence to say that those at the top table rarely do any work of any note for those on the ground shooting.

The people are the body sparks except perhaps in the theoretical world you live in. The shooter you mention above is not doing the work because he has the authority to do it. He is doing it because he likes shooting and someone has to get things done. As regards the last statement, the people who do nearly all the work , especially when it comes to National competitions are the NGB members who happen to be on the SSAI committee.

Sparks wrote:

First off, shooter's champion? Are ye daft? Believe me, shooters are more than able to look out for themselves!

I really wish you believed this Sparks. If you did you would have no justification for pontificating so often on everything!

Sparks wrote:

Secondly, since leaving the NTSA, I've gotten more done in one year than I ever did within the NTSA/NRPAI structure, and frankly, it's because I'm not in that structure.

You hit the nail on the head there. The SSAI/NTSA has also go a lot more done for exactly the same reason.

Sparks wrote:

It was not in the interests of shooters in Ireland for the NRPAI to create the problem in the first place! If they got out of the way and let others get on with it, we'd see a lot less arguing and a lot more accomplished!

It is not in the interests of shooters in Ireland for you to prolong the problem in the second place! If you got out of the way and let others get on with it, we'd see a lot less arguing and a lot more accomplished

Sparks · 06-07-2006 2:47pm

Leupold wrote:

Your response was very weak Sparks. Clearly you have trouble understanding the issues or have deliberately so done.

Leupold, if my response was weak, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem arguments; you would just point out the problems with it, as I did with yours.

This has been gone over many times. The response could have been handled better. There was no subsequent discussion so perhaps there was no desire to follow up on either side.

I believe that that may be accurate. However, that does not imply a failure on the part of the NRAI - it shows that the NRPAI made a mistake and chose to ignore the problem created as a result. That is not something for which others should be penalised, as seems to be happening here.

The people who were shooting full bore were also shooting in NASRC competitions. Full bore shooting was largely carried out by shooters who also shot small bore and deer shooters. If you wanted to set up a full bore NGB then the NASRC was the obvious place to start. It is a shame that this was not pointed out when the question of organisation was first asked.

It is; however, it would have been likely that instead of the NASRC taking responsibility for fullbore, a sub-committee would have been formed, and eventually a seperate autonomous body set up to deal with it. That was, after all, how Declan formed the NSAI in the first place from within the NASRC.

The end result would have been an NRAI-like body within the framework of the NRPAI. However; given the conduct of the NRPAI, it is not likely that those involved would care to undergo that process at this advanced stage.

You keep stating thay you should make a distinction between the organisation and the people who make it up. This is a naive view.

No, it isn't. It's the legal view. And it's one that works to the favour of the NRPAI when you consider it; otherwise the sports council could point to members of the NRPAI committee, state (correctly) that these people sit on the committees of the NGBs and thus the NRPAI was not an independent body.

Which is exactly what you're saying in regard to the MNSCI and the NRAI.

In summary, the attitude of the MNSCI changed about the time the NRAI was formed. Access became much more difficult and ,as
a result most of the full bore shooters who had been regular shooters before the NRAI was formed, stopped going to the Midlands

Can you point to the drop in membership figures for this? Or the fall-off in the number of entries in competitions? Or the drop in attendance rates or scores in international competitions? Forgive me for not taking you at your word Leupold, but I don't know who you are and I don't shoot in fullbore circles, so I wouldn't have that information myself.

A good example of your lack of comprehension. Where did this little nugget come from? Do you not understand the words,"discussion, compromise,agreement, solution"?

I do indeed - however, a comprimise must only be reached in the case of an impasse. Right now, as I see it, the NRAI can continue to do what it's doing without hindrance. They already get nothing from the NRPAI, and it would appear the NRPAI is actively working against them and supporting those who would replace them. So I'm finding it hard to understand the reason why you believe that the NRAI has an obligation to comprimise with the NRPAI. Perhaps you believe that if they simply ignore you, you can make them do as you wish?

The people are the body sparks except perhaps in the theoretical world you live in.

That's the same world the courts inhabit, don't forget.

The shooter you mention above is not doing the work because he has the authority to do it. He is doing it because he likes shooting and someone has to get things done.

That speaks to his motivation, which is a good thing and something I applaud; but it does not speak as to the right by which he does it. The club owns the range, the assocation has no right to dictate terms to the club. As such, when there, he is there as a club official.

I really wish you believed this Sparks. If you did you would have no justification for pontificating so often on everything!

On the contrary. I'm involved here as the NRPAI claims to speak for me (amongst many others).

You hit the nail on the head there. The SSAI/NTSA has also go a lot more done for exactly the same reason.

Such as? I've seen no progress from the NTSA on club coaches courses, on promoting shooting, on anything in fact. Their PRO has resigned, so has their pistol coordinator, their Nationals was a shambles, and without WTSC, they wouldn't have anyone for international competitions in airgun, and few enough in .22 who didn't come from up North. And as to the NRPAI, we've heard nothing bar from FLAG, and I think the restrictions the CJB embodies speak for themselves. Hell, the NRPAI website is even stealing content from this forum!

It is not in the interests of shooters in Ireland for you to prolong the problem in the second place! If you got out of the way and let others get on with it, we'd see a lot less arguing and a lot more accomplished

Excuse me Leupold, perhaps you could explain to us under what moral, ethical, legal, technical or other authority the NRPAI can create a problem and then demand another body be dissolved in order to solve that same problem?

Leupold · 06-07-2006 4:52pm

Sparks wrote:

Excuse me Leupold, perhaps you could explain to us under what moral, ethical, legal, technical or other authority the NRPAI can create a problem and then demand another body be dissolved in order to solve that same problem?

Perhaps you could show how the SSAI has demanded that the NRAI be dissolved?

Sparks · 06-07-2006 4:59pm

Leupold wrote:

Perhaps you could show how the SSAI has demanded that the NRAI be dissolved?

That would be the earlier posts stating that the NRPAI supported the LRRAI as the NGB, and your posts stating that the NRAI can't remain as the NGB.
Or are you speaking for the NRPAI position without talking to them about it?

Or are you advocating some entirely different solution?

Leupold · 06-07-2006 5:21pm

Sparks wrote:

Leupold, if my response was weak, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem arguments; you would just point out the problems with it, as I did with yours.

Ad hominem arguments are necessary for debates involving you. They spice up the debate so that it becomes more interesting for the readers. If I did not do this, your stream of consciousness type quasi legalese output would turn everyone off.

Sparks wrote:

I believe that that may be accurate. However, that does not imply a failure on the part of the NRAI - it shows that the NRPAI made a mistake and chose to ignore the problem created as a result. That is not something for which others should be penalised, as seems to be happening here.

Here you go again. stating your opinion as if it was a fact. How is the NRAI being penalised? What is happening to them?The only issue they have publicized is the recognition one. They created the problem by not making clear the fact that they were not the only full bore shooters in Ireland and were not entitled to speak for the shooting community at alarge

Sparks wrote:

It is; however, it would have been likely that instead of the NASRC taking responsibility for fullbore, a sub-committee would have been formed, and eventually a seperate autonomous body set up to deal with it. That was, after all, how Declan formed the NSAI in the first place from within the NASRC.

The end result would have been an NRAI-like body within the framework of the NRPAI. However; given the conduct of the NRPAI, it is not likely that those involved would care to undergo that process at this advanced stage.

Are you speaking on their behalf here Sparks? Have you discussed the issues with them or did you not deem it necessary before you took your usual negative position?

Sparks wrote:

Can you point to the drop in membership figures for this? Or the fall-off in the number of entries in competitions? Or the drop in attendance rates or scores in international competitions? Forgive me for not taking you at your word Leupold, but I don't know who you are and I don't shoot in fullbore circles, so I wouldn't have that information myself.

Can you point to what the figures for attendance, membership, scores,etc.. would be if we had a unified full bore body?

Sparks wrote:

I do indeed - however, a comprimise must only be reached in the case of an impasse. Right now, as I see it, the NRAI can continue to do what it's doing without hindrance. They already get nothing from the NRPAI, and it would appear the NRPAI is actively working against them and supporting those who would replace them. So I'm finding it hard to understand the reason why you believe that the NRAI has an obligation to comprimise with the NRPAI. Perhaps you believe that if they simply ignore you, you can make them do as you wish?

If that is the case, why was this thread started by the NRAI? The impression created by the statements is that their world has collapsed.. I note you use the word "appear" above so, as usual, you are giving the impression that something has occurred without actually knowing. Do you(and the NRAI) think that the situation of NGB recognition in Ireland would never become clear to the international bodies?
Can you demonstrate how the SSAI is actively working against the NRAI and supporting "those who would replace them". The SSAI wants to sort out the problem and is not doing anything to exarcebate feelings on this matter

Sparks wrote:

That speaks to his motivation, which is a good thing and something I applaud; but it does not speak as to the right by which he does it. The club owns the range, the assocation has no right to dictate terms to the club. As such, when there, he is there as a club official.

So what Sparks. The job gets done, the shooters can shoot. Everyone cooperates. Your theoretical musings on structures and politics are like the debate of how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

Sparks · 06-07-2006 5:32pm

Leupold wrote:

Ad hominem arguments are necessary for debates involving you. They spice up the debate so that it becomes more interesting for the readers. If I did not do this, your stream of consciousness type quasi legalese output would turn everyone off.

We're not here to provide entertainment Leupold, so feel free to stop trying. Just argue the points.

Here you go again. stating your opinion as if it was a fact. How is the NRAI being penalised?

Their international recognition has been interfered with. That's a penalisation.

Your stated solution, to rescind their autonomy in favour of being part of the NRPAI, is a penalisation unless you can show why it would be of benefit to them.

And your statement that because of the manufactured problem, the NRAI must in some way incorporate or be incorporated by the NRPAI or the LRRAI, is a penalisation because it means the NRAI loses it's autonomy at the behest of the people who manufactured the problem in the first place.

Are you speaking on their behalf here Sparks?

No, I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf except mine. I am, however, speaking against the NRPAI and the rather unethical procedure you're insisting the NRAI follow to "solve the problem".

Can you point to what the figures for attendance, membership, scores,etc.. would be if we had a unified full bore body?

No, but that wouldn't matter. If, as you say, the NRAI/LRRAI split caused problems, we will see the membership figures and the joinup rates falling off from their levels before the split. You don't need to know what a hypothetical body's figures would be.

If that is the case, why was this thread started by the NRAI?

To highlight that an unethical act had been committed by third parties, I would assume. Of course, you're assuming that the original poster spoke for the NRAI...

I note you use the word "appear" above so, as usual, you are giving the impression that something has occurred without actually knowing. Do you(and the NRAI) think that the situation of NGB recognition in Ireland would never become clear to the international bodies?

I can't speak as to the NRAI. I can however, say that the ISSF has never enquired as to whether or not the NTSA's status as NGB was in question. Someone obviously made a complaint.

Can you demonstrate how the SSAI is actively working against the NRAI and supporting "those who would replace them".

Observe the earlier comments in this thread stating that the NRPAI was supporting the LRRAI.

The SSAI wants to sort out the problem and is not doing anything to exarcebate feelings on this matter

Are you speaking for the NRPAI now?

So what Sparks. The job gets done, the shooters can shoot. Everyone cooperates. Your theoretical musings on structures and politics are like the debate of how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

All the angels in heaven could dance for eternity before you would get the point, I suspect Leupold.

Very well, consider this. You say that it's no matter what role the person there on the morning fills; so why would it matter if someone sat on the MNSCI board and the NRAI board?

Or, if you prefer, how can there be a conflict with someone in the MNSCI (a limited company) sitting on the NRAI board (an NGB); but no conflict with someone in the NTSA (a limited company) sitting on the NRPAI board (a federation of NGBs)?

Leupold · 06-07-2006 6:43pm

Sparks wrote:

We're not here to provide entertainment Leupold, so feel free to stop trying. Just argue the points.

But I am here to disseminate information. You are here, as always to bolster your ego.

Sparks wrote:

Their international recognition has been interfered with. That's a penalisation.

Your stated solution, to rescind their autonomy in favour of being part of the NRPAI, is a penalisation unless you can show why it would be of benefit to them.

And your statement that because of the manufactured problem, the NRAI must in some way incorporate or be incorporated by the NRPAI or the LRRAI, is a penalisation because it means the NRAI loses it's autonomy at the behest of the people who manufactured the problem in the first place.

Show how it was interfered with. Underlying your every statement is your assumption that the SSAI or somebody wrote to the International body. Is this true? I hope so because it would have been wrong to let them continue with incorrect information

Sparks wrote:

No, I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf except mine. I am, however, speaking against the NRPAI and the rather unethical procedure you're insisting the NRAI follow to "solve the problem".

Since when was it "unethical" to solve a problem by involving all the parties involved in the problem in the hope of arriving at a solution acceptable to all concerned? Someone should tell Aer Lingus and the unions this before we get any more disruption to travel. BTW, I am not insisting on anything,I am just setting out the way the problem might be solved

Sparks wrote:

No, but that wouldn't matter. If, as you say, the NRAI/LRRAI split caused problems, we will see the membership figures and the joinup rates falling off from their levels before the split. You don't need to know what a hypothetical body's figures would be.

I thought you had some scientific training. You seem to assume that the split is the only variable. Underlying this entire issue is the increase in full bore ownership caused by the change in licensing attitudes. Unlike you, I am active in full bore shooting and have first hand knowledge of the effect of the split.

Sparks wrote:

To highlight that an unethical act had been committed by third parties, I would assume. Of course, you're assuming that the original poster spoke for the NRAI...

Exscuse me but is the title of this thread "NRARI announcement", and did the original post include copies of correspondance with NRARI officers?

Sparks wrote:

I can't speak as to the NRAI. I can however, say that the ISSF has never enquired as to whether or not the NTSA's status as NGB was in question. Someone obviously made a complaint.

Did they? Prove it.

Sparks wrote:

Observe the earlier comments in this thread stating that the NRPAI was supporting the LRRAI.

These were not statements made by the SSAI. As you are so fond of showing off your legal knowledge, I thought you would recognise "hearesay" and know that such statements have no value.

Sparks wrote:

Are you speaking for the NRPAI now?

How could I speak for a body that does not exist?

Sparks wrote:

Very well, consider this. You say that it's no matter what role the person there on the morning fills; so why would it matter if someone sat on the MNSCI board and the NRAI board?

Or, if you prefer, how can there be a conflict with someone in the MNSCI (a limited company) sitting on the NRAI board (an NGB); but no conflict with someone in the NTSA (a limited company) sitting on the NRPAI board (a federation of NGBs)?

This argument must have rattled you. You have forgotten that the issue with the NRARI/MNSCI crossover is that of potential commercial interest.

Sparks · 06-07-2006 7:37pm

Leupold wrote:

But I am here to disseminate information. You are here, as always to bolster your ego.

Actually, Leupold, your eighty-odd posts in here have had one underlying agenda - to promote the LRRAI. Anyone can search through them and see for themselves.

Show how it was interfered with.

See above. We've argued this already.

Since when was it "unethical" to solve a problem by involving all the parties involved in the problem in the hope of arriving at a solution acceptable to all concerned?

Since the moment someone deliberately manufactured the problem for their own personal gain.

I thought you had some scientific training. You seem to assume that the split is the only variable. Underlying this entire issue is the increase in full bore ownership caused by the change in licensing attitudes.

It's obvious you don't have scientific training. Regardless of the long-term rise, the short-term effects of the split will be obvious in the figures.

Exscuse me but is the title of this thread "NRARI announcement", and did the original post include copies of correspondance with NRARI officers?

It did - that does not mean that the original poster spoke for the NRAI.

These were not statements made by the SSAI. As you are so fond of showing off your legal knowledge, I thought you would recognise "hearesay" and know that such statements have no value.

Ah, so you contend then that the LRRAI is not supported by the NRPAI? How would you know this without being a member of either body?

How could I speak for a body that does not exist?

The correct title is the NRPAI and I can prove that if you so wish. In a manner that would be upheld by a court if it came to it. It's an inconvienent truth that most NRPAI officers wish would go away, but it's the truth nonetheless.

This argument must have rattled you. You have forgotten that the issue with the NRARI/MNSCI crossover is that of potential commercial interest.

And now you're making implications that there is financial misconduct afoot. I'd correct or clarify that, were I you, it's grounds for a libel suit against you and boards.ie for the NRAI and MNSCI officials.

Also, I'd point out that the basic conflict of interest in both those cases is identical. But that's not something that it's in your best interest to acknowlege, I suspect.

DDLR · 06-07-2006 7:45pm

...

This is going to turn in to another Sparks V FLAG, "im right your wrong" Now its

, >>>>> Sparks V Leupold <<<<<

jaycee · 06-07-2006 8:24pm

Posted by Leupold

Perhaps if you shot full bore Sparks and mixed in the circles of those who do, you would have a better view of the situation. This ground has also been gone over before. In summary, the attitude of the MNSCI changed about the time the NRAI was formed. Access became much more difficult and ,as a result most of the full bore shooters who had been regular shooters before the NRAI was formed, stopped going to the Midlands

I find this an amazing statement ,I can't speak for the circles that anyone else moves in , and there is certainly plenty of evidence here of people flying in ever diminishing circles , but let me make one thing clear.

I do move in full bore circles , I shoot full bore.

I shoot full bore in MNSCI , and full bore shooting on the range in the midlands is well supported , shooter numbers are strong and getting stronger.
Not since Lord Nelson's famous remark "I see no ships " has any estimate of numbers been so wildly inaccurate as the impression given by you above.

You or anyone else can easily check the truth of this by visiting the range and having a look. We are far more likely to run out of ammunition ..than shooters.

Sparks · 06-07-2006 8:43pm

DDLR wrote:

This is going to turn in to another Sparks V FLAG, "im right your wrong"

I'm sure some will say so. It does distract others from criticising wrong behaviour quite effectively. Of course, it wouldn't matter who was posting the criticism - ad hominem attacks ("you just hate the NRPAI", "your ego needs assuaging", "my da can beat up your da") would follow...

vlmaxis · 06-07-2006 9:24pm

Sparks wrote:

Because someone's written to the international body claiming that the NRAI is not the official NGB.

Which would imply, by the way, that someone else has been recognised as such - which leads to two questions.
1. Who was recognised and on what grounds?
2. Who was the party qualified to recognise them?

Sparks, why should it imply that anyone has been recognised as the NGB for fullbore?, there is no recognised NGB because no one can agree around a table, if the NRAI is the NGB, then on what grounds? because they have use of a range? I dont think so.
Is it true that if you are not a member of the MNSCI, the only way you can shoot in an F class competition is if you affiliate to the NRAI or the MNSCI at a cost of €300?, if so then this is a racket, would you agree?, and if i am wrong I will retract this Question.

jaycee · 06-07-2006 11:18pm

Is it tue that if you are not a member of the MNSCI, the only way you can shoot in an F class compition is if you affiliate to the NRAI or the MNSCI at a cost of €300

What about visiting international teams shooting f-class.. ,

Hang on a second , first of all people are saying ....

The fact is sparks the NRAI are put to bed , finished.

so now its time to leave the Midlands and NRAI where it belongs in the bog.They can now have all that to themselves

most of the full bore shooters who had been regular shooters before the NRAI was formed, stopped going to the Midlands

Then we heard that people are being made unwelcome..... etc.

Strange that anyones even talking about the place anymore, It's obviously very unpopular, unfriendly , does everything wrong and it's expensive too.

Since I can't figure that one out I guess I'll just pay my membership fee again and go shooting for another year. Silly me.

I'd happily pay double the cost for the facilitys on offer.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

NRARI, Announcement

Comments