Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Banned from Shooting
-
13-09-2008 8:07pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
IRL CONNOR, you know well myself and Sparks have had a good few clashes and he doesn't like to loose so therefore, don't talk sh**te.
I don't reckon it was abuse of the other poster wonder does he/she? Did the 'victim' in question complain? Some of the shooting mods are too quick to Mod the forum IMO
Sparks infracted me and I abused him by PM so why did you ban me then? To make it look like it isn't a vendetta on his part
How do you know I abused him? I did it by PM
A new forum opened recently and Sparks is not too happy about it especially now he can't look in there without committing as a member
He was quick to PM me and jibe me about being a Mod there Strangely, I saw the humour in his PM, something he has no concept of, humour. 0 -
bunny shooter wrote: »IRL CONNOR, you know well myself and Sparks have had a good few clashes and he doesn't like to loose so therefore, don't talk sh**te.
You're assuming Sparks has lost an argument with you there. :Pbunny shooter wrote: »Ever hear of humour, sarcasm or satire ?
Yes, and given your history on the Shooting forums, I doubt your post was any of the above. If it was intended to be, you need to learn a hell of a lot about all three.bunny shooter wrote: »I don't reckon it was abuse of the other poster wonder does he/she? Did the 'victim' in question complain?
Mr Mole did not complain. (At least not to me, he/she may have complained to another mod but I didn't hear anything about it.)bunny shooter wrote: »Some of the shooting mods are too quick to Mod the forum IMO
Fair enough, that's your opinion. Perhaps your perception is skewed somewhat since you come to the attention of the mods more frequently than most other posters?
How many other regular posters in the Shooting forum have received infractions? How many have been banned? See any pattern emerging?bunny shooter wrote: »Sparks infracted me and I abused him by PM so why did you ban me then? To make it look like it isn't a vendetta on his part
No. What happened was:- You abused Sparks by PM
- He PMed myself, Rovi and Vegeta to ask our opinion
- I figured you deserved a ban so I handed it out rather than waste our time discussing whether you deserved it or not.
You openly admit you gave abuse to a mod. What did you expect in return?0 -
You're assuming Sparks has lost an argument with you there. :P
Is this meant to be humour :rolleyes: I got banned for as muchYes, and given your history on the Shooting forums, I doubt your post was any of the above. If it was intended to be, you need to learn a hell of a lot about all three.
In your 'expert' opinionMr Mole did not complain. (At least not to me, he/she may have complained to another mod but I didn't hear anything about it.)
QED so ye decide for him/her when he/she has been abusedFair enough, that's your opinion. Perhaps your perception is skewed somewhat since you come to the attention of the mods more frequently than most other posters?
stats to back this up pleaseHow many other regular posters in the Shooting forum have received infractions? How many have been banned? See any pattern emerging?
My 2nd infraction and 1st ban, just for the recordNo. What happened was:- You abused Sparks by PM
- He PMed myself, Rovi and Vegeta to ask our opinion
- I figured you deserved a ban so I handed it out rather than waste our time discussing whether you deserved it or not.
QED must be the first time he ever asked for someone elses opinionYou openly admit you gave abuse to a mod. What did you expect in return?
you/they decided it is/was abuse, who am I to contradict you/them !0 -
Advertisement
-
bunny shooter wrote: »Is this meant to be humour :rolleyes: I got banned for as much
No, you got banned for abuse. Abuse is not humour.bunny shooter wrote: »QED so ye decide for him/her when he/she has been abused
Yes, when it's obvious. If it's not obvious I let it slide unless the person on the receiving end complains.
Note that you weren't infracted for abusing someone, you were just unnecessarily rude to someone for no good reason. Doing that is unhelpful and causes arguments so we discourage it with the use of infractions.
You were banned for abuse, and that abuse was clear cut, intended to insult and you have defined it as abuse yourself in post #9 in this thread. Clear cut I'd say.bunny shooter wrote: »stats to back this up please
"Come to the attention of" includes such things as me saying to myself "Oh, FFS, there's bunny shooter causing trouble again". I have better things to be doing than keeping statistics of stuff like that.bunny shooter wrote: »My 2nd infraction and 1st ban, just for the record
I know, I checked.
The vast majority of posters have 0 bans, 0 infractions, 0 warnings and have come nowhere near deserving any.
Is this because they always stay within the rules or is it because they always agree with Sparks?bunny shooter wrote: »QED must be the first time he ever asked for someone elses opinion
:rolleyes: Usually if a shooting mod gets hassle they e-mail the other mods first for an opinion. Sparks is no different in that regard.
As far as I'm concerned, you gave abuse to Sparks. You admitted that in post #9 here. Open and shut case, you deserved the ban.
If Ruu or any other SMod/Admin needs further input from me on this I'm willing to contribute further. Otherwise, I don't see much point in arguing this further.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Can't argue with logic like that.bunny shooter wrote: »When you're up to you're mouth in ****e, don't open it
Case proven as far as I'm concerned
Check-mate0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
While you've brought up disclosure Sparks I do hope you haven't forgotten to explain to the SMODS about "The List" you knew nothing about but then remembered another one you did know about. Oh, sorry, this was part of me causing trouble. Proverbial shot in the foot 0
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
bunny shooter wrote: »But you forgot all the denials of ANY list being handed in just prior to the revelation that a list was handed in
What was denied was that the list was "a list with specifications of particular handguns to the DOJ and said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland".
Get your facts right please and stop slinging muck.0 -
-
What I don't get - and never have fully gotten - is how folks like Bunny here can say "oh, he said X" on here, and expect others to believe it, despite the fact that the original material is still available for viewing and contradicts what they're saying.
For example, in this case, it all kicks off on post 32 of this thread with a post from DoubleAlpha:
I responded:From what I am hearing, a certain group sometime ago sent in a list with specifications of particular handguns to the DOJ and said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland.
If this is true, then I think that these guys are responsible for this situation.I've heard that rumour as well. However, I've also heard where it started from, and suffice it to say that the knowlege of the source very soundly discredited the rumour in my mind, long before I ever asked the guys cited in the rumour what the story was. And we've had this argument on boards before, and I don't want to go into it again. Click on the Search button at the top of the page and use it - there's at least three threads in here about it.
The topic goes away at this point, and after two pages of in-depth information about the original post on that topic, bunny dragged it up again in post 93 with a snide comment or five, utterly derails the thread and finally launchs into it in post 104:
Now this is exactly what I'd answered waaay back on the first page of this thread, but Bunny didn't think this was good enough. I responded the same way I had earlier:Apparently a list of a certain type of pistol/s was handed to DOJ and/or the FCP by certain people involved in the FCP without the agreement and/or knowledge of other FCP participants ? Hence my statement "All the members of the FCP know " As the man said, there are stories circulating. I reckon the truth is out and some people are worried ? Who they may be is anyones quess though.
And then Bunny replied:Bunny, I've heard that story before. Like I said, I know where it started. And knowing where it started completely discredited the story.
rrpc took exception to this tone, because of Bunny's earlier snideness towards him between posts 93 and 104 and replied in depth:As the say in the "X Files" - "The Truth is out there".
smoke and mirrors :rolleyes:
And he attached the list to the post. There was a bit of waffling back and forth as Bunny fudged the point as much as he could. I then added my 2c to rrpc's response:It wil come out here and now if you can answer my questions directly instead of beating about the bush. Any sane person or organisation would be worried if untrue rumours are circulating about them and yes I will refer you to DeVore's post on that score. I would particularly wish to have withdrawn the scurillous allegation: "said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland." which is complete bull.
The only list the NTSA gave the DOJ was the one that specified all the ISSF rules regarding firearms to be used in ISSF competition.
In the interests of openness, I'm attaching that document here. It was given to the DoJ at a meeting back last year before the FCP was set up, and was in reference to the draft restricted list which if it had continued in it's then form would have restricted certain Olympic Air Rifles among others.
This list was also produced at an FCP user group meeting (not the full FCP) to prove that there was no such thing as a 'Pistol designed for use in Olympic competition' as stated in the SI No. 21.
We even posted the photos:The list that RRPC mentioned by the way, I can confirm - because it's a list I originally drew up myself. This was before the FCP, before the CJA and if I remember correctly, before even the final CJB was published. It comes from an australian target shooting webpage and it's a list of photos of ISSF pistols and it's marked as such. The point of it was to show what the ISSF rulebook was referring to, because the DoJ had no mental image of target shooting pistols (they did have a very solid image of the handguns in use by terrorist groups at the time, and we wanted some seperation from that image). At the time, the DoJ had been told by the source of the rumours you're discussing that 9mm glock pistols were used in the Olympics. We were asked about that. We pointed out that they weren't since there are no centrefire pistols in the Olympics (they went off the programme in the early 70s with the 300m rifle events because of the cost of building new ranges for them and the increasing pressure on space in the Olympic Village). At no time that I know of or have heard about has it ever been suggested that it's a list of the only pistols that ought to be allowed. We were not the only group meeting the DoJ at that time by the way - we were one of at least a half-dozen.
And it goes on like that, with Bunny constantly saying that because we had a list that had been shown to the DoJ of the pistols used in ISSF shooting years before the Firearms Consultation Panel had been formed, that that meant that we had gone in to see the Department of Justice behind the back of the Firearms Consultation Panel and given the DoJ a list that specified the only pistols anyone in the country ever needed.
And as I explained at the time by PM to Bunny, there was a certain person out there who had just been kicked off the national committees with a great deal of good cause, and he was starting a lot of rumours to blacken the names of those on those committees by spreading lies in order to have them ousted and him put back in. He'd gone to the DoJ, to the Department of Sport, to anyone who'd listen and lots that wouldn't, and generally caused a lot of embarressment and havoc for those trying to do the job. That same person had already tried (and almost succeeded) to have the shooting forum on boards.ie closed down through threats of libel action against several people, and has a long history of similar behaviour over two decades. So I wasn't really very happy at the idea that he'd use boards.ie to attack the governing bodies through rumour and inneuendo like that.
By the way, by the end of that thread, the main body whom it was argued had been damaged by the alleged "list", explicitly came out and said publicly that in their opinion the rumour was horsesh/t. Which still didn't slow down Bunny, because Bunny "knew" better than every other person involved in the entire story on every side of the table. The DoJ say no list of these-pistols-and-only-these-pistols was handed in. The NTSA say no such list was handed in. The IPSA say no such list was handed in. The FCP says no such list was handed in. Everyone supposedly involved says no such list was handed in. And we all knew who'd started the rumour in the first place, and why, and what they stood to gain. So we were all satisfied that the rumour was bull. All bar bunny, that is, who wasn't on the committees, didn't meet the DoJ, knew noone involved, and had no valid source of information that he'd tell us about.
And that's that story.0 -
Advertisement
-
Selective quoting from the thread is not a noble ploy Sparks.
#post 36 where rrpc claims the chairman of the NTSA wanted to know who sent in a list, and as you rightly point out above it seems the NTSA sent a list of pictures, which isn't really a list at all.
Or was it you did it as an individual Sparks without the approval of your own NGB?
As IrlConnor put it, for the Gallery, there were denials of a list and then there were admissions of a list, still seems strange to me, all by members of the NTSA, which Sparks, Irl Connor and a mod at that time rrpc are still members of, strange that isn't it. Looks like one shooting organisation has 50%control over the moderation of the shooting forum.
Also for the gallery after the NTSA showed Dept of Justice this list the Gardai, in the early days of pistol licencing, were advised to refuse to licence any pistol that wasn't suitable for "Olympic" shooting.
Hope I'm not causing trouble again
Someone take this shovel off me 0 -
-
-
You'd have me quote every post in a five-page thread???bunny shooter wrote: »Selective quoting from the thread is not a noble ploy Sparks.
And that pretty much sums up why and how Bunny takes up so much of our time on the forum.#post 36 where rrpc claims the chairman of the NTSA wanted to know who sent in a list, and as you rightly point out above it seems the NTSA sent a list of pictures, which isn't really a list at all.
Post #36 Bunny, is where rrpc said (not "claims" unless you're calling him a liar, and if you want to do that, don't hide behind snide suggestive language) that the chairman wanted to know who handed in a list of the only kind of pistols anyone should be allowed have. The list that rrpc and I spoke of later was a list (with photos so they didn't think of a glock when they thought of an olympic air pistol, which - thanks to the above-unnamed someone - they were at the time) of pistols we use in the NTSA.
Most folks get that those are not the same thing and preparing the latter is not preparing the former. (And by "most folks" I mean the NTSA, IPSA, FCP, DoJ, SSAI, NRAI, NASRPC, NSAI - basicly, everyone bar bunny from what I can tell).
I mean, I have a list here of groceries to buy this weekend, does that mean that "a list exists"? :rolleyes:
And for the gallery, the list and photos the NTSA prepared was prepared years ago, before the new firearms laws were written. Before the FCP was founded. Before the restricted firearms list was ever dreamt up and before it was ever drafted. So how they were supposed to have prepared the list behind the backs of the FCP in order to influence the contents of the restricted firearms list is an interesting question, given that neither existed at the time. I wish all governing bodies would display such foresight!
No, they weren't. For the gallery, the Department of Justice is prohibited by law (as established in Dunne v Donoghue in the Supreme Court) from giving such "advice". The problem is that Superintendents are legally the only person in the country that can make the licence/don't licence decision when someone applies for a firearms licence and noone - not the Commissioner, not the Minister, not the Courts, not the Dail - can direct them to say yay or nay in that decision. And that means that the Superintendents' backsides are the ones in the sling if something goes wrong. And that combination of not being given direction, being given enormous liability, and being given both the power to do as they wish and no training to tell them which way to go, makes them fairly conservative and they go with what they know or what they think they know.Also for the gallery after the NTSA showed Dept of Justice this list the Gardai, in the early days of pistol licencing, were advised to refuse to licence any pistol that wasn't suitable for "Olympic" shooting.
And when they look at our pistols (see above) they don't think of someone holding up a bank with one; but with other pistols, like Glocks (which have a famous brand name unfortunately) or "9mm" pistols, they've heard of them being used in gun crime and they're far more wary. And that's why you hear of difficulties for those shooting with those kind of firearms.
You're not causing trouble Bunny. You're just using up time that could be used for something productive.Hope I'm not causing trouble again Someone take this shovel off me0 -
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement