Blindfire in milsim

Stonewolf

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Trust me ... you arent.

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

Puding

Stonewolf wrote: »

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

im sorry but any site owner or event organizer have to plan for the lowest common denominator, the fact someone only has 30 rounds in a mag ( tbh real cap limit games are in the minority more than likely your dealing with around 100 ) does not really mater the same danger and risks still apply, you can never dismiss it as out of the scope that is where accidents start to happen

safety rules should not be changed to suit games rules, down a path you do not want to go

Inari

With enough legislation and explanation it can work to good effect. It's similar to the rubber knife debate. It can be done. It's whether it's worth doing (Time X Effort = End Result - so is it worth the time and the effort?) that matters.

I think it 'could' add a lot to certain game types. Ammo limits would need to be in place to prevent overkill (and this helps reduce the danger of an incident). That said I think it would cause problems IF it was not handled properly (i.e. full rule explained, specific scenarios, and why it's not allowed in your every day skirmish - that if you do it in an everyday skirmish you will be ejected etc).

Long story short, it would take a good solid event planned months and months in advanced, with an invite only system for players, to trial it out to see if it could be done to good effect.

Stonewolf

Puding wrote: »

im sorry but any site owner or event organizer have to plan for the lowest common denominator, the fact someone only has 30 rounds in a mag ( tbh real cap limit games are in the minority more than likely your dealing with around 100 ) does not really mater the same danger and risks still apply, you can never dismiss it as out of the scope that is where accidents start to happen

safety rules should not be changed to suit games rules, down a path you do not want to go

This was specifically about realcap games though, it doesn't matter how rare they are, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

I put it out for debate whether there was scope to allow blindfire in games with a specific set of rules (realcaps and gunhits) that apply to everyone playing. Some people have pointed out that there are safety problems, fair enough. Then someone comes on who clearly hasn't read the original post and says it would just promote box-mag campers even though that scenario was specifically ruled out so I post to clarify that. Then you two come along and wade in with omg, your scenario doesn't matter, everyone would be doing it all the time.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

This was specifically about realcap games though, it doesn't matter how rare they are, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

I put it out for debate whether there was scope to allow blindfire in games with a specific set of rules (realcaps and gunhits) that apply to everyone playing. Some people have pointed out that there are safety problems, fair enough. Then someone comes on who clearly hasn't read the original post and says it would just promote box-mag campers even though that scenario was specifically ruled out so I post to clarify that. Then you two come along and wade in with omg, your scenario doesn't matter, everyone would be doing it all the time.

Calm down a little. I was offering the benefit of my experience as a marshal, a writer and runner of games and 4 years or so on the airsoft scene.

It doesnt matter a tinkers figgin what restriction you place on the situation if those restrictions are unrelated to the problem itself. They simply wont fix anything.

1000 rounds, 100 rounds or 10 rounds it's still not a safe thing to do and it is still opening the door for Larry McDip**** to kick off in another game because he's played one MilSim and thinks thats the rule across the board. It happens all the time, ask any regular marshal - you have to mitigate stupidity because you can not account for it ahead of time.

Saying that ammunition limits alter this doesnt work either since it takes only a single strike to a (admitedly stupid) person without their eye protection on to cause all kinds of hassle. We dont play a 100% safe-wrapped-in-fluffy-things game. Theres been teeth chipped, cuts, bruises and a number of dislocations from people slipping or falling. Why would anyone want to add to the already substantial chaos of either a MilSim or a skirmish?

More over, it encourages stagnant play. Its far easier to sit behind a wall and fire blindly without moving hoping to hit something rather than pepper-pot across a battlefield.

MilSim works because we place greater restriction not because we provide more freedom - its counter intuitive I know but it provides the structure within which games can run according to a set of pre-defined rules. We use fewer rounds. We use longer re-spawn times. We handicap teams and hamstring players to create a greater depth of play. Adding elements such as "blindfire" allowances wont add anything to the game - quite the opposite, it will detract from it.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

<hands you a hot-water bottle and a mug of Horlick>

Enjoy. Because thats the reality of things.

Inari

@Hivemind: I would have to completely disagree. You're right, we don't live in a bubblewrap world, and airsoft itself is not the safest of all games (when done right, it's perfectly safe - but things can happen). The idea that you must avoid anything that can maybe perhaps have some possible potential risk, in a hypothetical situation is exactly the mindset that people who want Airsoft banned have adopted, and I for one do not think it pertinent for Airsofters to have as well.

This debate was on an already hypothetical situation, yet more and more is being added to it, and the topic is being shut down, rather than talked down. Can we please keep the posts informative and continue the debate, rather than going in cirlces?

So in the spirit of becoming the change you wish to see:

Eye protection must always be worn in Airsoft. Unless you are in the safe zone you cannot remove them. This is for your own protection. However in a post made by OzCam, it would appear that 1j is not enough to cause permanent damage to the eye. With this in mind it would appear that in a specific (and well thought out) scenario, in an invite only game, that the rule could be well tested in a safe environment. The outcome of said 'test' game, could then determine whether it is worth the time and effort.

Lemming

Was anyone paying attention to HRTA's post on this matter and why blindfire isn't allowed? I really should have thought that would have buried this discussion. But sure, feel free to go ahead and gamble with people's safety. It's not like we can't replace the human eye or anything ...

Airsoft & common sense; never the two shall meet so it seems.

For those who want the quest for realism above common sense, I present the following additional rules. Lets see just how committed to this premise you are;

1. No eyewear. After all, you want realism.
2. One hit, pack your bags and go home. You're dead.

Inari

@Lemming: Don't most SWAT teams, and similar response teams wear eye protection?

There is no harm in discussing these things, not as far as I can see at least. HRTA's post spoke a lot of truth, but it was not infallible. This topic is a small healthy debate about its use as a tactic.

TheDoc

Lemming wrote: »

Was anyone paying attention to HRTA's post on this matter and why blindfire isn't allowed? I really should have thought that would have buried this discussion. But sure, feel free to go ahead and gamble with people's safety. It's not like we can't replace the human eye or anything ...

Airsoft & common sense; never the two shall meet so it seems.

For those who want the quest for realism above common sense, I present the following additional rules. Lets see just how committed to this premise you are;

1. No eyewear. After all, you want realism.
2. One hit, pack your bags and go home. You're dead.

Can you lighten up for like 10 minutes and let a discussion actually take place :P

I did read pauls intervention into the thread and what I got from it was in the event of someone round a corner not wearing eye protection and you don't know.

Whose really the idiot in that situation?

Its a purely hypothetical discussion that wont be seen on field any time in the future, but theres no harm in questioning and discussing gameplay mechanics.

Lemming

TheDoc wrote: »

Can you lighten up for like 10 minutes and let a discussion actually take place :P

YORE MA

Whose really the idiot in that situation?

Who is the idiot? That would depend greatly. After all, who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?

Why has someone got their eye protection removed? And who is the more careless? The guy who is careless by removing their eye protection, or the person who pulls the trigger without looking? What if the other guy had an emergency or their eye protection had a fault? You are responsible for your actions; removing your eye protection will harm nobody but yourself. Pulling the trigger may harm somebody else because you weren't paying attention and fired indiscriminately.

Could you seriously look somebody in the eye and claim you were in the right by blindfiring and then maiming them? We aren't talking about a couple of welts or a bit of bleeding; we're talking about loss of sight that cannot be regained. Ever. We play a game; do you want to tell someone they lost their eyesight for a game?


edit: as an aside point to Inari with regards realism; most (if not all I should imagine) schools of paramilitary police and military training run by the rule of "do not pull the trigger unless you intend to kill what you are aiming at". it's a safety rule; if you cannot see what you are shooting at, it's both a) a waste of ammunition and b) a liability to do so.

TheDoc

A yeah I know what you mean, but taking your eye wear off in game your asking to get yourself hurt like.

And if by some change blindfire was allowed and that situation arose, only the person removing their eyewear is to blame surely

If I'm shooting some lad behind a bush from 100ft and he has taken his eyewear of, its a similar situation. I know he is there, I've marked the target and fired, but its not my fault he took his eyewear of in game, thats being a silly goose

And your absolutely correct on the last paragraph, if I'm not mistaken semi auto fire is severely encouraged and blind fire would only really happen if the **** hit the turbine.

Can still definitly see the benefits of blind firing if it was allowed.

Heres a question.

On a number of sites now, palletes are dissapearing but there is an increase in solid wooden structures or logged structures. Many of these have gaps where you can see through very clearly, and holes in wooden structures for you to look out. Red Barn for example has a number of peep holes in their new fort to look out.

Now I'm assuming should a BB come through these or logged defenses ( the logged ones leak BB's with force) that you call your hit, thats what I've been assuming anyway.

But these structures tend to be just above waist height, ir not a little higher. Entirely possible to be looking through a peep hole and fire a pistol over the top on a target. ( I'm taking about a number of different cover options accross a number of different sites)

The field of vision is very clear and it would be entirely safe and possible to over the top pistol fire on targets.

Could this be counted as blind fire? I remember when the palletes made the brief appearance in the warehouse, a marshall was cool with me pistolling over the top, since a pallet by nature, I can easily see people moving form behind it, and its only waist height.

Wondering whats the feeling on that. If I am in a situation behind a structure that gives me a cleared field of vision, and i see numerous targets approaching, the safer option for me is to pistol over the top on the targets, rather then exposing my upper torso and head to the enemy.

As an opposing player, I'd be very comfortable with someone pistoling over the top, I might have a problem if someone just slaps a 249 barell on a structure and holds the trigger, its stupid and a ridic rate of fire, but with a pistol it seems a fair deal.

The player behind cover gets the suprise shot off, hes in cover, and the worse he gets is hit in the hand or a gun hit.

As the approaching player, I get the benefit of him only using a pistol, I've enough time to react, move to my own cover or return fire. In the encounter if theres 5 attackers, I'd imagine 1-2 will go down hit when it kicks off but atleast 3 can move and adjust, rather then someone with an aeg taking out 5, and I guarantee you they will just rest the barell on the structure and hold the trigger.


Theres definitly some interesting options and viable scenarios that it could be useful, and where it could be safe.

Another option is one I stated above, how many times have you peaked a corner and seen an enemy close by. You pop out exposing your right side of your body, take the target but then have to dice with probably getting qucikly shot back yourself.

However if you used a sneaky pistol around the corner, targets down and his pals probably get a bit confused as to where it came from.

However all this depends on the reliability and common sense and tact of players. Again this leans to probably only being implemented in milsim game types and even at that probably specialist closed of games.

Interesting all the same though. Its not a case of changing the game and all of a sudden everyone is blindfiring all over the place.

Its just allowing another tool being available to the player to try adapt, adjust and conquer certain situations.

Lemming

TheDoc wrote: »

A yeah I know what you mean, but taking your eye wear off in game your asking to get yourself hurt like.

And if by some change blindfire was allowed and that situation arose, only the person removing their eyewear is to blame surely

Nope. You are the one who was negligent in not being aware of your target's foreground and background, i.e. situationally aware of what you were aiming at. You are the one inflicting harm on someone else. Yes there is an element of cuplability for the injured party, but they have to live with a life-changing injury, whilst you get to skip off guilt free? No, I really don't think so.

Further, consider the following - as has happened on quite a few skirmish sites both in Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere (and in fact I've seen it happen); the non-airsofter who wanders into the middle of a skirmish without realising it. Are they responsible for being hit in the eye? or the shooter? If you can answer that, you answer your own question as to who is really responsible for an eye injury.

Can still definitly see the benefits of blind firing if it was allowed.

I can't help but feel that the discussion of blind firing is simply to do with "winning at all costs", i.e. competitive airsoft rather than the game of airsoft. I should point out that "winning at all costs" comes with a price and responsibilities/implications.

But these structures tend to be just above waist height, ir not a little higher. Entirely possible to be looking through a peep hole and fire a pistol over the top on a target. ( I'm taking about a number of different cover options accross a number of different sites)

The field of vision is very clear and it would be entirely safe and possible to over the top pistol fire on targets.

Could this be counted as blind fire? I remember when the palletes made the brief appearance in the warehouse, a marshall was cool with me pistolling over the top, since a pallet by nature, I can easily see people moving form behind it, and its only waist height.

Wondering whats the feeling on that. If I am in a situation behind a structure that gives me a cleared field of vision, and i see numerous targets approaching, the safer option for me is to pistol over the top on the targets, rather then exposing my upper torso and head to the enemy.

The definition of blind firing is not being able to sight down the length of your gun. If you can't do that, you're blind firing. It's that simple.

What yuo've described is pointing and making an educated guess, walking BBs into your target by trying to adjust a 'spray' of sorts. That's still blind firing. Wildly inaccurate by default.

As an opposing player, I'd be very comfortable with someone pistoling over the top, I might have a problem if someone just slaps a 249 barell on a structure and holds the trigger, its stupid and a ridic rate of fire, but with a pistol it seems a fair deal.

You either allow blind firing, or you don't. Which is it? Blind firing from a sustained MG w/box mag is just as kosher as a pistol, or it isn't.

Inari

I remember reading a post of OzCams that stated that <1j isn't enought to cause permanent damage to the eye? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being mentioned in the Sniper FPS thread.

Witcher

Inari wrote: »

I remember reading a post of OzCams that stated that <1j isn't enought to cause permanent damage to the eye? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being mentioned in the Sniper FPS thread.

Does anyone want to be the test subject to prove that though?

Inari

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

Witcher

Inari wrote: »

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

Yeah but they're dead, if someone said to you "I'll shoot you in the eyeball" would you take the chance on it?

Hivemind187

Inari wrote: »

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

*sigh*

Do you happen to have a cadaver handy? I'll settle for a pig carcass?

The fact is that the tests were carried out by the police forensics division of Northern Ireland (near as I recall) so there is no necessity to test this. How do I know?

Ask around before teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

Whinging on about that .35 of a joule being reason enough to essentially dismiss the safety element of the blindfire rule is disingenuous at best and downright idiotic at worst.

Firstly the difference between 1 and 1.35j is marginal - its possible to have a shift in that value from elevation above sea level alone. Secondly the .35j is a useful buffer only, it doesnt account for people with pre-existing weaknesses in the Choroid layer of the eye (thats the fibrous white bit).

For the record, the human eye is an amazingly tough bit of kit for something that is complicated and requires a lot of delicate apparatus to work properly. However, this toughness is relative and not something that I recommend you test by removing your eyewear in a game.

All the arguments being made in support of blindfire are ultimately seeking to do one thing - bend a rule for the sake of bending a rule. It's no better than people who want a 10% leniency in chrono readings or any of a dozen other selfish and destructive demands made by players.

Its interesting that very few of those supporting this idea are assuming that they will be hit y a random and aimless spray of rounds.

Consider the number of times your have been told to put your eye protection back on? I know for a fact (because I kept notes) that every one of those supporting this that I have marshaled on the field has been warned at least once for removing their protection. Usually this results in nothing more than being told off or sent back to the safe zone. However, introducing an uncontrolled - and catagorically uncontrollable element such as blind fire can make this already bone behavior even more dangerous.

... and for what benefit? So you can sit behind a wall and blatt away without burning calories? The suppression value of blindfire is almost nil since you can not see what you are suppressing. Should the enemy notice this they can simply ignore you and flank your position. Just because you have seen it in a video game doesnt make it a useful tactic.

Stercus Accidit

For the record less than 1 joule won't cause a penetrating wound was the basis of the limit brought in by the UK testing, it can definitely damage an eye, I think a detached retina is what is most likely from what I know about impact injuries to eyes, and that is no minor issue.

I say no to blind fire, it is pointless and dangerous, and shows utter disregard for a fellow player. I have had bleeding injuries on my face from semi-fire in cqb, I never want to get 10-15 or more of those, I don't want half my teeth shot out, and even if I call hit, the blind firer won't stop shooting, there may be another guy with me, its all guess work.

Are people not satisfied with the sport as is, it will never be 100% real. Milsims work wonderfully as is, and we can be proud of the rules we use with regard safety, and I can truthfully say I play a safe sport, and have no hesitation in telling friends that for when they have tried it. A bunch of reckless yahoos waving aegs like gangstas and roaring and cursing at each other I'm fuckin' hit stop shootin' and I didn't fuckin know you were on your own isn't an ideal scenario. Next people will want to be able to melee people with their stock cuz ye can in da games.

Lemming

I just want to elaborate on somethign I mentioned earlier; namely Joe soap wandering accidentally into the middle of a skirmish.

Now, I'm sure lots of you are thinking to yourselves "sure how could that happen?" or "f*cking idiot, can they not see what's going on?" etc. Consider the following ...

Berget - Sweden - where at least forty people who read this forum have played at least once, is played on public land. On several occasions members of the public have encountered airsofters and/or engagements have been halted due to members of the public stopping to watch. In fact, the Berget-events rules make explicit reference to being aware of the potential for encountering members of the public.

Do you really want blind firing given the above? Do you really think blind-firing is a good idea, given the above? "He shouldnt' have removed his eye-protection" wont cut it when you're facing the wrong side of a police interrogation room on an a serious assault charge.

Food for thought.

Inari

For the record, I never said I was for blind-firing - I was merely for discussion

Many of you have made valid points. However I still see a huge ethos of blanket no's, and "Airsoft is fine as is" or "You're lucky to have it as is"...it's almost as if people are afraid to discuss or question things. Blindfiring is dangerous, none of us were denying that. I think we all went too far in the hypotheticals of a hypothetical situation i.e. a real cap game, and blindfiring is allowed, and if someone took off their eye protection, and if a BB managed to hit the eye, and if they had damage done etc etc.

Yes, it's possible but it is not probable. Of course if you say it like the above it's easy to just say 'NO!', whereas you can view the whole sport of Airsoft as such. Sure someone could be wearing crappy eye protection, and you could shoot and penetrate their goggles, hitting them in the eye. They'd have lost their vision, gaining a life changing injury...over a game. And you get away guilt free because they skimped? (Not getting at you in particular Lemming, just drawing paralells).

@Hivemind: The tactical advantage comes in as it can buy you some time. That is all. I'm not seeking for the rule to be removed, nor bent nor anything similar. I was just trying to help along discussion, and point out that it could be safely tested/trialed to see if it's worth doing.

StevieGriff

Well if your looking at it in a "tactical advantage" standpoint, there is no advantage. Keeping a low profile and taking your shot is more efficient than "blindfiring" at the ground 5 feet infront of you.
And if someone does manage to be effective while "blindfiring" all its gunna do is kill the pace of the game, in real life bullets go through wooden pallets covered in camo netting. In airsoft they don't.

Hivemind187

Inari wrote: »

For the record, I never said I was for blind-firing - I was merely for discussion

Many of you have made valid points. However I still see a huge ethos of blanket no's, and "Airsoft is fine as is" or "You're lucky to have it as is"...it's almost as if people are afraid to discuss or question things. Blindfiring is dangerous, none of us were denying that. I think we all went too far in the hypotheticals of a hypothetical situation i.e. a real cap game, and blindfiring is allowed, and if someone took off their eye protection, and if a BB managed to hit the eye, and if they had damage done etc etc.

Yes, it's possible but it is not probable. Of course if you say it like the above it's easy to just say 'NO!', whereas you can view the whole sport of Airsoft as such. Sure someone could be wearing crappy eye protection, and you could shoot and penetrate their goggles, hitting them in the eye. They'd have lost their vision, gaining a life changing injury...over a game. And you get away guilt free because they skimped? (Not getting at you in particular Lemming, just drawing paralells).

@Hivemind: The tactical advantage comes in as it can buy you some time. That is all. I'm not seeking for the rule to be removed, nor bent nor anything similar. I was just trying to help along discussion, and point out that it could be safely tested/trialed to see if it's worth doing.

Rubbish you've been given the reasons why its a bone idea, ignoring it as a justification to keep shouting "test it" doesnt wash. Just because a lot of people are saying no to this doesnt mean they have not considered their opinions - they have. They are also the considered opinions of people who have been playing and nurturing this sport a damn sight longer that you have matey. A little less of the first year "debating society" ("people are afraid to question things...") and a bit more of the second year "research" would do your posting a lot of favours.

Blindfire HAS been tested. Over and over and over again. By every marshal on every site. Blindfiring gives you no advantage what so ever - it wastes ammunition, reveals your position and since YOU are firing blind the enemy simply walks around you and slots you in the side.

Those are facts - not hypothesis.

I am going to repeat this again so that you understand me clearly.

1) Blindfire is dangerous.

2) It serves no useful purpose (in fact I doubt you would find a soldier who would advocate its use). It buys your no time, it wastes ammunition, it reveals your position and it leaves you standing still. It does not work.

3) It has been tested by means of sheer muppetry on the field for the last 4 years. None of those people gained an advantage and the majority of them were either bollocked for it or returned to the safezone.

Inari

I have read your posts, but within your points is a let of "NO. I know best, don't argue little n00blet."

Yes, you and everyone else (mostly) have been around in Airsoft longer than I have. Does that mean I should blindly follow what you, and the others say? Or does it mean that I take what you say on board, and arrive at my own conclusion? People should question things; it is not a debating mentality, merely a healthy one. Accepting everything as is without conscious thought, or any kind of critical thinking & analysis never got anyone anywhere.

The points made so far, on this hypothetical situation:
1.) It MAY provide some tactical advantage; distractions, buying time etc.
2.) If you blindfire you risk injuring someone (Whacking someone with the barrel of the gun, shooting them close range, possibility of hitting them with no eye protection)
3.) It's a matter of safety - if you can't see the person, and don't know the full situation, you shouldn't shoot.

Point number one has been "smashed" by people stating 'It serves no tactical advantage, because idiots have tried it on the skirmish field over the past few years, all it does is waste ammo' when this thread is about a very specific scenario; real cap games. Factoring in the different mindset, it's possible that it may provide some advantage; buying time by keeping heads down for that split second etc. It is a waste of ammo because anything where you're not aiming at is a waste, no argument there.

Point number two; every time you shoot, you risk injuring someone. Full stop. Anything can happen. If you want to mitigate and legislate in hypothetical situations, why stop at blindfiring? Move on to shooting while people are running. You could hit them (a budding piano prodigy), stun them, they could then misplace their foot, dislocate their ankle, land badly seperating their shoulder and breaking their collar bone. They now have horrible luck, you've given them a life changing injury. Anything can happen. People are focusing too much on 'Blindfiring' rather than 'Blindfiring in MilSim/RealCap'

I fully agree with point number 3. Never said I didn't. I was just playing devils advocate on that one. If you can't see, don't shoot. There have been many stories of people being injured and getting riddled for not calling hits, because they couldn't (literally) put their hand up. And that's while you can see. So yes, there are inherant problems with blindfiring. I am in agreement there.

PS: The reason why I advocate a test game is because this is the internet, this is a hypothetical argument. There are no real variables. At least if it was gotten out and trialed (even if it wasn't used in the game), it'd give some proper points. If it wasn't used, or used to good effect, then there wouldn't be scope for allowing it in realcap games. That was my main point.

Hivemind187

Inari wrote: »

I have read your posts, but within your points is a let of "NO. I know best, don't argue little n00blet."

... exactly.

Stonewolf

The fact that you've been playing for a while does not give you carte blanche to stomp all over any debate you happen to not like.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

The fact that you've been playing for a while does not give you carte blanche to stomp all over any debate you happen to not like.

<self snip>

Its not worth arguing if thats the mentality.

Lemming

Stonewolf wrote: »

The fact that you've been playing for a while does not give you carte blanche to stomp all over any debate you happen to not like.

Hivemind has given qualified reasons as to the "why", as has HRTA and Stercius. All have been around airsoft in Ireland for a significant amount of time; HRTA from the start (since he runs the first site that opened int he Republic of Ireland).

That people choose to ignore the wisdom of experience and hind-sight alarms me.

Stonewolf

I'm not completely discounting his opinions. He is however rejecting everyone elses opinions out of hand and stomping around shouting about how he's such a big veteran and everyone else is automatically wrong and bad.

I'm going to ask the mods to close this thread now since he's made a complete farce of it with his attitude.

Lemming

Stonewolf wrote: »

I'm going to ask the mods to close this thread now since he's made a complete farce of it with his attitude.

No offense, but Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle on note of attitude. Why should a thread be closed because you disagree with what he's said (ironically enough) ?