Ntsa Agm 2006

tireur

civdef wrote:

.

Seriously though, does what Sparks has to say challenge you so deeply that you feel a need to silence him? There is an ignore button, if he disturbs you that much.

I think he has done and continues to do real damage to the shooting sports in Ireland. He is oblivious to the effect his posts could have on the legislators, the public at large and the rest of the shooting community. As the NTSA found out, he is the very antithesis of what a PRO should be, unless you want to do away with all of the shooting sports. This thread was "sparked" off by the list of motions for the AGM. The sheer childishness and unprofessionalism of this list was the best example I could quote.

Sparks

Clash wrote:

I was clearly replying to your bleating about the hard work you had done on that committee

Not "you", "we". As in, not just me, but me and another WTSC officer. And it was referring to events that took place several months before the EGM. You're the one who assumed that I was talking about the EGM. I wasn't.

By the same token, I suspect that many of your allegations about the failings of 'head office' have omitted some salient details that may cast an entirely different light on what you post up here as facts. All will be revealed at the AGM I am sure.

Nope. Looking forward to seeing you at the AGM, by the way.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I think he has done and continues to do real damage to the shooting sports in Ireland.

Only someone who has no idea of what the state of ISSF shooting in Ireland is could say that anything I do would have a negative effect on it. Perhaps if you spent more time at NTSA matches tireur, you'd know that the problem comes not from the people noticing and talking about the problem.

But then again, I don't think you're actually posting in good faith. If you were, you'd be pointing out reasons why you think the motions put forwards by WTSC lack merit - instead you've just spent several days arguing that in fact I personally put the motions forward (which is false) and that because they came from me (which they did not) that they should be voted against no matter what they say.

In other words, you have striven to turn debate from the merits of the motions and the problems within the NTSA which everyone is aware of, into a debate on my character and then proceeded with several ad hominem attacks with no supporting evidence. I'm unsurprised in a way - you commit several acts of libel, but what can I do? If I ban you for personal abuse, you claim I am hypocritical and unfair in moderation of the forum; I cannot sue you for libel as you are covered by boards.ie's anonymity; and I cannot sue boards.ie as that would achieve the goal of silencing all debate, which would suit you quite well, but damage the shooting sports badly.

All in all Tireur, it shows that Civ's point was right. And if common sense motions like moving that the directors don't drink during meetings, or that the NTSA AGM be the NTSA AGM, or that the NTSA mark the passing of a founding member can manage to worry you so deeply that you behave with such bad faith, then we need to be very careful not to take what you say on face value.

rrpc

demonloop wrote:

As an outsider I think this has gotten so childish that the real point has been lost.

Sparks list of motions might have been a little over the top but if my club or governing body had not got most of his points included from the very start then I'm afraid it would be in a shambolic mess. Most of the motions, 80% at least, is common sense.

If you look at page 5 of this thread, two different posters answered these points for you. I'll condense one of those points for you here. If you are a female air rifle shooter who happens to be a member of a college club, Sparks' motions would have three different officers looking after you: A ladies officer, A collegiate officer and an Air firearms co-ordinator. Oh!, I forgot, if you are under 18 you'd have a children's officer as well. I'm not sure how many female air rifle shooters we have at present, but it couldn't be much more than 10 or 15 going by the total membership of the NTSA and competition results.

I can't believe it has come to the stage that someone has had to put a motion on the table that board meetings have to be alcohol free, for example.

I seem to remember seeing the sherry brought into an NSRA meeting. I wasn't at the meeting I hasten to add, just outside the room.

Although in saying that my governing body the NSRA kept a thief in one of the highest positions in office for years!

And a cheat!

JunkieW

demonloop wrote:

Most of the motions, 80% at least, is common sense.

Like this one?

sparks wrote:

18. That the NTSA explain to the membership why they are being called to vote on a motion to appoint a children's protection policy this year when the Board voted against a motion to appoint a Children's Officer last year.

From the minutes of the 2005 NTSA AGM:

16. That the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer - Passed unopposed

Common sense my friends.

Exactly!

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

If you are a female air rifle shooter who happens to be a member of a college club, Sparks' motions

Wilkinstown's motions. Don't try to make out that this is all down to me and thus dismissable as some sort of personal vendetta. You're better than that rrpc, and we all know it.

would have three different officers looking after you: A ladies officer, A collegiate officer and an Air firearms co-ordinator. Oh!, I forgot, if you are under 18 you'd have a children's officer as well. I'm not sure how many female air rifle shooters we have at present, but it couldn't be much more than 10 or 15 going by the total membership of the NTSA and competition results.

And going by those same results, those happen to be the best shooters we have.

Setting that aside though, the children's officer is a legal requirement. Not just for the NTSA, but for any club in any sport in Ireland, thanks to the Code of Ethics for Children in Sport and it's supporting legislation.

The Airgun coordinator is there to look after airgun matches and rankings and classifications and such - to say we don't need one would be silly.

Do we need a ladies' officer? Do you want to tell me that we have no problems with gender ratios in the sport? Or haven't you noticed that it's predominantly old men in most of the sport except for the junior airgun section?

And the Collegiate officer, as I already said, is mainly to keep people in the sport by keeping in touch with the colleges, instead of letting 20 to 40 competitive and another hundred or two active recreational shooters vanish off into the ether, never to be heard again, even though some will have excellent competitive records, some will be national champions, some will have represented Ireland in international competition (anyone heard from Derval lately?). You can't say we're so crowded that that's not important!

All seperate jobs, all of which are so big that they need one person each to do a decent job. Unless of course, whomever takes on two or three doesn't need to work...

Sparks

JunkieW wrote:

Like this one?
From the minutes of the 2005 NTSA AGM:
Exactly!

We've been contesting those minutes for a full year because that's not what happened on the day. What happened was that the then-Chairman said that those were NRPAI functions and thus no vote was called on the motions, they being deemed to have been dealt with, as was done for motion 5.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

you'd be pointing out reasons why you think the motions put forwards by WTSC lack merit -
And if common sense motions like moving that the directors don't drink during meetings, or that the NTSA AGM be the NTSA AGM

You have made my point, and defeated your own arguments all in the quoted post Sparks. The two examples you give show how silly the motions are, as well as showing how insulting they are to the current committee. As regards you not being the author of the motions, then that is stretching your creditability a little too far. Why do we not see supporting posts from other WTSC members? Why were you a solo voice in the AGM last year? It is asking too much for us to believe that WTSC has more than one member with the unusual mind set required to produce such a trivial list--or the motivation.

Sparks

The two examples you give show how silly the motions are

Obvious, perhaps. Silly? No, the fact that they aren't already in the NTSA's Articles is what's silly.

As to this continuing belief of yours that this is something wholly orchestrated by me, what can be said? You've already said you won't believe me when I say that's not the case. You've said that you won't believe any member of WTSC when they say that that's not the case (though you still wrote to them anyway - a letter which so far has met rather humourous responses from those I've spoken to, by the way, mostly centred on the discomfort they would feel were my arm to actually be inserted in such an awkward spot as you suggest). And you've even said you won't believe a word that Civdef says. You're running out of people you'll believe tireur...

tireur

Sparks wrote:

. You've said that you won't believe any member of WTSC when they say that that's not the case (though you still wrote to them anyway - a letter which so far has met rather humourous responses from those I've spoken to, by the way, mostly centred on the discomfort they would feel were my arm to actually be inserted in such an awkward spot as you suggest). And you've even said you won't believe a word that Civdef says. You're running out of people you'll believe tireur...

As a stickler for accuracy Sparks, you will need to correct the above statements:
1. I have made no statement about not believing WTSC members.
2. I have made no statement about not believing Civdef
3. You were the one who introduced the "arm" analogy.
This leaves you as the only one who I have difficulty in believing.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Wilkinstown's motions.

Wilkinstown Schmilkinstown! I understand your desire to not to take credit for these motions Sparks, but the fact remains that you posted them here and have been the sole voice defending them here. So I think we should be forgiven for attributing them to you, however mistakenly.

Leaving aside the fact that it's far quicker to type 'Sparks' than it is to type 'Wilkinstown'

Finally, I addressed the post you quoted to Demonloop. The views expressed in that post are my opinions, as presumably are the views expressed in yours. Could I request that you not try and impose your opinions over mine in the belief (or hope) that your opinions carry more weight than mine?

The buzz of interference on this board is drowning out the other voices that wish to be heard.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

As a stickler for accuracy Sparks, you will need to correct the above statements:
1. I have made no statement about not believing WTSC members.

You said, and I quote:

So I go to the AGM and ask the officers and members of WTSC whether you have undue influence on them and of course they say "what?".

2. I have made no statement about not believing Civdef

You said, and I quote:

As usual, everything you do is perfect. I must admit though that the speed with which the thread dissapeared(however it was removed) leaves me wondering about whether you might be feeling a little exposed by using WTSC as your ego-vehicle in your hunt for vengeance?

This was after civdef had said that he'd moved the thread in question, not me.

rrpc

Actually that one about the 2006 AGM has been niggling at me for some time now.

There is no requirement that the notice of AGM should specify what year it refers to. Any such notices that I have ever received have only ever specified that it is the "Annual General Meeting" of such and such a company and the date and venue.

I imagine that this is because it is a meeting that is held annually.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

the fact remains that you posted them here and have been the sole voice defending them here. So I think we should be forgiven for attributing them to you, however mistakenly.

If it wasn't for my constant reminder that these do not belong to me personally, I'd agree - except for tireur's case, where he's deliberately trying to make out that these are my submissions made subversively in WTSC's name.

Leaving aside the fact that it's far quicker to type 'Sparks' than it is to type 'Wilkinstown'

And leaving aside the fact that it's quicker to type WTSC than it is to type Sparks

Finally, I addressed the post you quoted to Demonloop.

True enough, but your post wasn't putting forward a fair picture of the motions. They may not be mine, but that doesn't mean I won't defend them, because I strongly agree with them.

That they are needed is daft, certainly - these should have been handled years ago. But the motions themselves are not daft or silly or trivial or dismissable as being too onerous to go through. In fact, we could handle the bulk of them in a half-hour, maybe even less if necessary. How long do you have to debate whether or not board members should drinking during meetings, for example?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

You said, and I quote:




You said, and I quote:

This was after civdef had said that he'd moved the thread in question, not me.

Sparks, you are showing your usual penchant for jumping to conclusions.
In the case of WTSC the "what" could mean any of the following;-
1."we do not understand the question"
2."who is Sparks"
3. Whether it is possible for an influenced person to know that they have been influenced
4. "We are too proud to acknowledge that we have been led"

etc. etc. none of which implies whether I would believe them or not.

As regards the Civdef bit, what has it got do do with believing CIVDEF. It was clearly understood by me that he had moved it because he said so. My comment was about why it was moved.
BTW, it appears from the subsequent posts that you have a wider credibility problem concerning the origin of the WTSC motions.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

If it wasn't for my constant reminder that these do not belong to me personally, I'd agree - except for tireur's case, where he's deliberately trying to make out that these are my submissions made subversively in WTSC's name.

No I am not. The word subversive does not come into it. I am merely wondering about the origin and approval process they would have gone through in democratic club such as the following;-
1. What process was followed in the preparation of these motions?
2. Who drafted them?
3. Were they agreed by the committee?
4. Were they agreed by all the members present at a club meeting.
5. Who championed them through all of this(if it happened)?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

In the case of WTSC the "what" could mean any of the following;-

Reaching a bit there, aren't you?

It was clearly understood by me that he had moved it because he said so. My comment was about why it was moved.

If it was so clearly understood, why did you say "I must admit though that the speed with which the thread dissapeared(however it was removed) leaves me wondering about whether you might be feeling a little exposed by using WTSC as your ego-vehicle in your hunt for vengeance?". Do you believe that Civdef is "using WTSC as an ego-vehicle"? Or perhaps you believe that he, too, is under my diabolical influence. Are you worried that the dominos may be falling tireur?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

No I am not.

You have been told more than once that these are WTSC motions. But you refuse to take my word for it. So I won't waste more time on this other than to advise you to ask the WTSC members directly at the AGM.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

You have been told more than once that these are WTSC motions. But you refuse to take my word for it. So I won't waste more time on this other than to advise you to ask the WTSC members directly at the AGM.

Wow! Sparks, even by your standards this is evasion on a major scale. Please answer my questions about process or are your dominoes falling?

tireur

Now Sparks, lets get back to basics. You seem to be majoring on whether I post in "good faith" or not. Let us debate what you mean. Does good faith depend on involvement in shooting or attitude to the sport? Does it depend on achievements or contribution to the sport? Does it depend on the breadth of involvement in the disciplines or the devotion to a single aspect? Does it depend on asking you akward questions which you try not to answer? Does it depend on on the number of posts on this board?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

Wow! Sparks, even by your standards this is evasion on a major scale. Please answer my questions about process or are your dominoes falling?

Tireur, if you don't believe what I say - and you've already said you don't, explicitly - what's the point in you asking me questions at all?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

Does good faith depend on involvement in shooting or attitude to the sport?

Neither.

Does it depend on achievements or contribution to the sport?

Neither.

Does it depend on the breadth of involvement in the disciplines or the devotion to a single aspect?

Neither.

Does it depend on asking you akward questions which you try not to answer? Does it depend on on the number of posts on this board?

Neither.

Good faith, tireur, means entering into the process - either of posting here or of voting in the AGM - honestly.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Good faith, tireur, means entering into the process

Talking of entering into processes in good faith Sparks leads me to wonder why you put your motions on this board? The NTSA and it's AGM are hardly of general interest. While you are at it perhaps you could reply to my questions about the process which led to your motions carrying the WTSC tag?

Sparks

The NTSA and it's AGM are hardly of general interest.

And yet, here you are, 144 posts in on a thread that has been viewed 1,762 times.
Not to mention your statements earlier which implied that these motions had an impact on shooting in Ireland as a whole - hardly something you could say about something that wasn't of general interest...


(nice slight against the NTSA, by the way)

tireur

Why did you post the list Sparks and why do you keep avoiding my questions on how your list came to be associated with WTSC?

Sparks

Tireur, it's not "my list" (for the umpteenth time). It is a list of motions submitted by the Wilkinstown Target Shooting Club. If you want to discuss this further, identify yourself at the AGM to the club and you'll get answers to your questions. You obviously won't accept any I give you.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

these motions had an impact on shooting in Ireland as a whole -

There you go again, getting confused. The motions are not what impacts the shooting community in general. It is the fact that a vocal member of the shooting community is immature enough to define and publish such a list.

phantom_lord

Which of the motions do you disagree with tireur? Are you against them purely because you believe sparks wrote them?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

There you go again, getting confused. The motions are not what impacts the shooting community in general. It is the fact that a vocal member of the shooting community is immature enough to define and publish such a list.

I wasn't confused before, but I'm definitely on my way there now! You're saying that the motions themselves don't matter, it's just the fact that they exist that matters? :rolleyes:

tireur

The motions will not amount to anything Sparks-we both know that. You could not resist the muck you raked in publishing them. We have already discussed the fact that, whatever good there may be contained therein, it is lost in the volume of detritus. Does this make it easier to follow?