nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Digest.

LB6

I've been told to get the digest tomorrow. There's some writings (if you can call them that) in there from Des that sounds like good reading, from the snippets that I've heard so far.

Anyone got it, and they can scan and put up here for the rest of us to read?

(If there's some part of the charter that says that's not to be done - please don't get into trouble over it)

Tx
LB6

Can't wait till tomorrow

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LB6

Does nobody have it??????????? :eek:

Hondata92

Ive read it.

I have no way of uploading a scan of it though and probably best i dont

The higher ups must be asking what is going on because of what was said in the article and personally (imo) they have every right to know why certain things were said/posted/questioned without (admitted) full knowledge

Its an interesting read (imo) and i think it shows what happens when you keep poking a sleeping dog

This post as stated is my personal opinion and i dont not represent any club/organisation/group and/or company

homerhop

the man sure dont like boards........"Boards has been the most destructive media for the shooting sports"

Grizzly 45

Here in PDF for you my fellow "Bar room Lawyers":rolleyes:

[Mod edit: Sorry Grizzly, but that breaks copyright in a fair few places and head office have asked us to walk the line with this. I've asked our legal team if we can repost just the bit that pertains to boards.ie directly under "fair use"; if it does, I'll post it up here myself later today.

extremetaz

That's feckin' rediculous!!

...50c a word for advertising...

jaysus! :eek:

johnfaul

If the NARGC were any good they would support the views of all shooters whether minority or majority.
Its a disgrace not to see them supporting reloding in the south.

tomcat220t

Mixing politics into shooting forums was a bad discussion ,imo!

juice1304

johnfaul wrote: »

If the NARGC were any good they would support the views of all shooters whether minority or majority.
Its a disgrace not to see them supporting reloding in the south.

i agree

patsat

What was the meaning to the remark about where they are getting their rifle barrels from?

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Mixing politics into shooting forums was a bad discussion ,imo!

"Sit down, shut up and do what we tell you" seemed like a piss-poor alternative.

LB6

Funny Pat - that went right over my head too!

It wasn't me!

Nice bitter, angry rant there. <snip>

johngalway

patsat wrote: »

What was the meaning to the remark about where they are getting their rifle barrels from?

Yes, that grabbed my attention too. I do know of a couple of rifle barrel stories but I very much doubt they're related. Don't ya just love the suspense

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

"Sit down, shut up and do what we tell you" seemed like a piss-poor alternative.

Most if not all other shooting forums have a ban on politics as a policy before joining .
Hay,its your show Sparks!

mike91

i read his article today... boards got a serious bashing but so did the less helpful gardai not a bad read (imo)

cavan shooter

What am I missing.... the bitchiness and cat fighting towards the NARGC is increased 10 fold, It looks like I have to buy the Digest:D

E. Fudd

cavan shooter wrote: »

What am I missing.... the bitchiness and cat fighting towards the NARGC is increased 10 fold, It looks like I have to buy the Digest:D

Wouldn't bother my hole buying it. I gave up on it last year when I came to the conclusion that my 18 month old could lay out the articles in a more readable fashion.

Was only chatting to your Kilkenny friends L & G last night, good shooting buddies of mine!

Hondata92

cavan shooter wrote: »

What am I missing.... the bitchiness and cat fighting towards the NARGC is increased 10 fold, It looks like I have to buy the Digest:D

You should read it, im sure since it was publised the boards.ie legal team have been busy

Looking back i was wrong when i referred to poking a sleeping dog, really its more like having a sleeping lion and taking a running kick to its nuts.

Plenty of threads on here lately questioning the nargc position/decisions and portraying them in a poor light

Im might not agree with some of their ideas/proposals but they have done alot for the irish shooting scene and continue to do so.

They dont sit back and wait or try to talk to people who dont want to listen instead they prove them wrong and make them accountable for their actions or non compliance with the law.

This post is my personal opinion and i dont not represent any club/organisation/group and/or company

Sparks

Hondata92 wrote: »

Looking back i was wrong when i referred to poking a sleeping dog, really its more like having a sleeping lion and taking a running kick to its nuts.

Hon, I seriously doubt that boards.ie ltd cares that much about it to be honest. I don't think they'll be bothering to sue Des or Eric. Though I wouldn't want to be either of them if they changed their minds about that.

Plenty of threads on here lately questioning the nargc position/decisions and portraying them in a poor light

No. There are two or three which question the nargc position and decisions. The day that's not permitted will be one you should be wary of.

They dont sit back and wait or try to talk to people who dont want to listen instead they prove them wrong and make them accountable for their actions or non compliance with the law.

Reading that felt like I was watching an American presidential campaign ad. Hon, give us a specific example if you would be so kind.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Most if not all other shooting forums have a ban on politics as a policy before joining

No, they don't. Look at TargetTalk, TheHighRoad, GlockTalk, any of the larger forums - they have politics chats all day long (okay, TargetTalk's are a bit tame, but it's a mostly-issf forum just by nature).

We decided a long while back that banning talks on how our sports were run was a bad thing. Given that we're the largest forum in Ireland (no offence implied to the quality of forums like the VCRAI's, which are just a bit more specialised and smaller as a result); given that we just keep getting larger every month; given that we're used by the DoJ to disseminate product warnings and the like to shooters; given that every NGB in the country reads here and posts here (even when they don't do so "officially"); and given that we've done vastly more good than bad for the shooting community; I think the policy is a sound one.

It's definitely unpopular in some circles; but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

bazza888

could anyone actually give us a run down of what was said in the article?

kildare.17hmr

Or if anyone has a link can the pm it to me??? Grizzz?? Here or elswhere if ya still have it man

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[Mod edit: Sorry Grizzly, but that breaks copyright in a fair few places and head office have asked us to walk the line with this. I've asked our legal team if we can repost just the bit that pertains to boards.ie directly under "fair use"; if it does, I'll post it up here myself later today.

bazza888 wrote: »

could anyone actually give us a run down of what was said in the article?

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Or if anyone has a link can the pm it to me??? Grizzz?? Here or elswhere if ya still have it man

Okay, story is that Grizz's scans definitely break copyright law, so we can't repost those. The legal eagles tell us that we can't even post the bit that talks about us under "fair use" because basicly, that doesn't exist in Irish law as such (that's a heavy paraphrasing, not a legal statement btw

). I've emailed the Digest asking for permission to reprint that section of it, so the ball's with them now.

Bazza, the synopsis of the article, taking away most of the rudeness (if we took away all of it, the synopsis would be... much shorter) is something like this:

Des Crofton wrote:

Boards.ie is full of idiots.

The NARGC meat handling course was unfairly criticised on boards. It's not a money making exercise by the NARGC. The course was a legal requirement from the EU and if we didn't do it, a commercial interest would have and they'd have charged a lot of money to do so. The course is brilliant, the NARGC isn't a profit-making body.

I (Des) won't come on boards and debate openly because they're all cowards hiding behind anonymity and you're required to be anonymous there

The comment on the high court cases was even stupider. SLK2005 is lying because nobody's contacted us about their case to object to the settlement. We had €750,000 at risk in the first three test cases alone, "Does anyone in their right mind think someone or some organisation is going to put up that kind of money and then hand control of the cases over to someone else? Time gentlemen to wake up and smell the coffee." [I honestly can't paraphrase that properly, so I'm just quoting Des directly there; I don't think we run into issues by quoting one sentence like that.]

The settlement got something for all 168 cases, so why did we need to consult anyone? If SLK2005 really has an objection to the settlement, he shouldn't have a gun as he's irrational.

Boards.ie is full of gob****es who almost lost us pistols in 2007, and they'll do it again because they're stupid and greedy.

I will say this - it seems Des has never read Rule 5 or the reasons for anonymity in here, or the point that you don't have to be anonymous in here.

Grizzly 45

Well THAT explains why I've been getting PMs for this article all day..:p

Hmm,I dont see any circled C with the authors name and or date behind this article. Kind of important for a copyright claim....:rolleyes: Not to mind stating in what format,written,photocopied,electronic media etc that it cant be reproduced in .

So it now seems then we had better do away with all the press clippings then???As this could be now classified as copyright breach as well???:rolleyes:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well THAT explains why I've been getting PMs for this article all day..:p
Hmm,I dont see any circled C with the authors name and or date behind this article. Kind of important for a copyright claim....:rolleyes: Not to mind stating in what format,written,photocopied,electronic media etc that it cant be reproduced in .

Check the licencing terms for the entire magazine Grizzly, they should be up near the front page somewheres.

So it now seems then we had better do away with all the press clippings then???As this could be now classified as copyright breach as well???:rolleyes:

Actually, they are

We've been advised that in future, just post the lead-in and the link, so that's what the press clippings page will look like from now on; no idea yet if we have to go back and do some editing (the press haven't raised objections yet).

bazza888

there will be a hell of alot of editing so!would posting videos and such not break copyrights also?

Sparks

bazza888 wrote: »

would posting videos and such not break copyrights also?

Depends on the video, the terms and so on. Posting from youtube is fine; the licencing terms put the onus on youtube not to host stuff that you can't look at. I've had some formal training in copyright stuff (mostly the bits that apply to software) - it's not exactly cut and dried (hell, it makes the firearms act look simple), so I'm just going by what the boards.ie legal team tell me. A man's got to know his limitations