The Olympic Coaches Association

Sparks

Tireur, you're simply lying.

tireur

We shall see--

Sparks

How, exactly? You won't even tell us who you are, let alone where you heard this crap from. It's a lie from start to finish and I'll be damned if I'll be cast as the backstabbing creep who told the DoJ that shooters didn't need centerfire pistols when I've been wanting to get into fullbore events for years now, and when my own disciplines need centerfire pistols. I now know why it is that I've been getting dirty looks from pistol shooters at matches, and I'm very mad to find that some dirty little sod has been spreading this kind of ****e around the place behind my back without once having the decency to stand up to my face and say this. Says a whole fecking lot for what your ilk thinks of "shooting unity", that does. It's not like I've been hard to find!

tireur

Now to be fair Sparks, it may have not have been you individually who made the statement to the DOJ but you were in the delegation which made the statement. And by the way, I have not discussed this issue at large which you imply, I have sat on it until it was "sparked" by the discussion following the AGM hence those looks must be imagined or for some other reason.

BOBTHESHOOTER

This long running saga really needs to be closed, if truly we are to be standing together and protecting the rights of any shooting group to participte in any chosen discipline they wish regardless of calibre or type of firearm.

Unfortunately there are people out there who wish to comment on what should and should not be allowed under license, unfortunately this plays into the hands of the people making the legislation and who generally no no better then what they are told. Fact is that this is the position now taken by some in authority as a result of someone saying it.

Abuse and bad language will not change the facts and the fact is that a group calling itself the "Olympic Coaches Association" met with senior officials of the DOJ and gave them their opinion. Sad fact is that they have no mandate from anyone to do so. Ther other fact is that the officials pulled the file while I was there and identified the individuals who were on the delegation and guess what..............it appears the Tireur was right all along.

Sparks

Bob, that's crap. How the hell can I be in an organisation without knowing about it? And I'm not in any such group. And you didn't read what I posted; I wouldn't say what Tireur is saying I said, nor would I let anyone else say it. And as it happens, I've been told who it was that said what is being talked about and it wasn't any "Olympic Coaches Association", and someone is definitely lying to the NRPAI, but I can't prove that it was who I was told it was, not yet :mad: And somehow I can't see the DoJ leaping to help out here.

It's also nice to know that my name's been dragged through mud without anyone ever bothering to talk to me about it. :mad: Is this what the NRPAI mean when they say they stand up for shooters?

BOBTHESHOOTER

Well there you go........I did not identify you directly, I simply said the Tierur was right all along, somewhat of a clear guilt complex if you ask me, you clearly want a direct answer: the file related to the "Olympic Coaches Association" was consulted and your name was without question metioned as being part of the group.................Thats it, end of debate, get off the stage. I was at the meeting I heard what was said, it was reported back to the SSAI committee and noted.

I very reluctantly got involved in this debate but when I saw the direction it was taking and the clear misleading information that was being provided I felt it necessary to set the record straight.

This really should end here and now, nobody wants any more damage done than may have already been done, the fortunate situation is that we have now access to sports that were denied to us since 1972, everbody has a right to particiapte in theor choice of that sport unhindered by any other group or individual, lets go forward and not backwards...............

Sparks

BOBTHESHOOTER wrote:

Well there you go........I did not identify you directly, I simply said the Tierur was right all along

That was identifying me directly given what Tireur has been saying.

you clearly want a direct answer: the file related to the "Olympic Coaches Association" was consulted and your name was without question metioned as being part of the group.................Thats it, end of debate, get off the stage. I was at the meeting I heard what was said, it was reported back to the SSAI committee and noted.

I don't believe it Bob. I've never put myself forwards as being a part of an "Olympic Coaches Association" or anything like that. And I've never, ever, either suggested or hinted or in any way said that non-ISSF stuff should be sacrificed or comprimised for ISSF stuff the way Tireur has accused me of.

And if you were there, you're a part of the NRPAI; and if you're a part of the NRPAI, I want a clear answer; Why did no-one say this to my face? Am I that hard to find? By his own admission, Tireur was sitting in the same room as me in the NTSA AGM less than a fortnight ago and didn't have the guts to come up to me and sort this out then; why not? Is this what the NRPAI means when it says it's for shooters? Or for shooting unity?

TrapperJohn

BOBTHESHOOTER wrote:

This long running saga really needs to be closed ...

Not at all Bob, this is a great insight into the tactics employed by the ssai to get their spin put on issues and I for one am having great fun watching Sparks dig at you and your esteemed friends refusing to stand up to the plate and argue your points upfront instead of hiding in the long grass.

If these guys are so bent out of shape over someone making representations to the doj then let them take disciplinary action against that person! If there has been no disciplinary action taken to date (bringing the sport into disrepute etc) then whats the big issue, this is nothing but spin against what appears to me to be an honest and very balanced moderator of these boards.

Keep it up sparks, nobody is taken in by these guys and their spin!

tireur

On the issue of disciplinary action Trapper, why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Tireur was sitting in the same room as me in the NTSA AGM less than a fortnight ago and didn't have the guts to come up to me and sort this out then; why not? Is this what the NRPAI means when it says it's for shooters? Or for shooting unity?

I seem to recall watching a debate on shooter unity and "speaking with one voice as being important". I recall you speaking against this saying you do not like to do as asked by the NGBs as you do not like dictatorships and that diissent was fine. Isn't that what this is about?

What you said at the AGM was just inept and amusing but not annoying. It was the tirade you issued on the boards that induced me to see if I could balance off your bile against the NTSA and SSAI .
By the way, I really like the way you use the word unity. You have two meanings for the one word,viz.
1, When critsizing the SSAI or NTSA it is a bad thing meaning dictatorship.
2. When being critisized by others it is something to aspire to.

TrapperJohn

tireur wrote:

On the issue of disciplinary action Trapper, why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

Oh, I suppose he stood up and said he was the masked crusader who told the doj that only .22 is needed for Olympic disciplines and then fell on his sword ...

Why ask me? Whats it got to do with this thread? This sort of "answer one question by asking another off subject" is pathetic and the innuendo is laughable .... a straight answer to a straight question is very difficult to get from you guys!

Sparks

why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

As with most of what I've done in the past, that's a matter of public record.
Here's the thread.

Sparks

TrapperJohn wrote:

If these guys are so bent out of shape over someone making representations to the doj then let them take disciplinary action against that person!

They might find that a tad akward to do following their own requests:

> From: NRPAI E-Mail
> To: FLAG
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 10:41 PM
> Subject: FW: Derek Bernard's Firearms Law List
> Dear all
> I am very pleased to report that our recent call for support has had an
> international response.
>
> Derek Bernard is a leading authority on the effects of firearms
> legislation with particular reference to restricting the rights of law
> abiding firearms owners, I am very pleased that he has taken the time to
> specifically respond to our proposed amendments and I believe the
> overriding message is a simple one, no matter what is done to regulate the
> legal possession of firearms it makes not one jot of a difference to the
> criminal abuse of firearms, what more evidence do we need.
>
> Please, please pen a few lines in response to the request to comment on
> the DOJ website, when given the opportunity, we must take it.
>
> Regards
> Declan

This was a non-NGB, non-NRPAI, non-Irish shooter privately making representations to the DoJ and being praised by the NRPAI; so the idea of the NRPAI trying to bring charges against someone alleging that they talked to the DoJ without the NRPAI's permission would be daft. Plus, there were various private clubs all having meetings with the DoJ and putting on demos at the time, and this was also being praised by the NRPAI (I have that email too, if you're interested).

tireur

Sparks wrote:

They might find that a tad akward to do following their own requests:


This was a non-NGB, non-NRPAI, non-Irish shooter privately making representations to the DoJ and being praised by the NRPAI; so the idea of the NRPAI trying to bring charges against someone alleging that they talked to the DoJ without the NRPAI's permission would be daft. Plus, there were various private clubs all having meetings with the DoJ and putting on demos at the time, and this was also being praised by the NRPAI (I have that email too, if you're interested).

Sparks, why do you keep missing the point? The issue is not that anyone could or could not make representations to the DOJ, with or without the NRPAI's permission, the issue is that a group of people, styling themselves as an organisation of Target Shooters, did so, to the detriment of shooters in general. The significance of this is born out by the fact that their statements were used by the DOJ in arguments about restricting calibers, not anyone elses!

Sparks

the issue is that a group of people, styling themselves as an organisation of Target Shooters, did so, to the detriment of shooters in general. The significance of this is born out by the fact that their statements were used by the DOJ in arguments about restricting calibers, not anyone elses!

So let me see if I have this right. You say the OCA exists and I'm a part of it; I tell you it doesn't (so far as I know) and I'm not. You say that I said that there should be a calibre limit of .22; I point out that I need higher calibres myself and that I'd have to be daft to ask for that limit, and I've argued against it in the sticky thread on submissions over a year ago. You say that the issue isn't that people could make representations to the DoJ; but that people allegedly did. You say that the NRPAI is all about shooter unity; but you come on here and say that the DoJ is saying that I'm stabbing other disciplines in the back. And even though you could have walked up to me in public a week or so ago and asked me to my face, or indeed at any point from whenever you heard this rumour, you've chosen instead to post it here, now, anonymously, just after a motion to seperate the NTSA from the NRPAI (because the NRPAI couldn't be trusted to act in the best interests of shooters).

Frankly Tireur, I'm not missing the point; I'm seeing it all too depressingly clearly.

And like I said; I've heard the .22 calibre limit bit being mentioned before; but not by me and not in front of me, and to the DoJ. I'm being blamed here for something that someone else did. And the choice of scapegoat is a bit daft, given my record.

tireur

Not a bad summary Sparks, but twisted in some areas. You have been presented with a first hand statement of evidence.You have not presented any counter arguments except denial. and a call to judge you by your track record. I agree with Bob, the debate is over and all that is left is protestation and hot air. To paraphrase the poet "methinks he doth protest too much".

Sparks

tireur wrote:

You have been presented with a first hand statement of evidence.

Where, exactly? I've been presented with two anonymous people claiming to have seen it written in a DoJ file; I've no idea who you are because you've never introduced yourself; I've no idea whether the file exists; and until I get a chance to talk to the DoJ, I've no idea what's in it.

You have not presented any counter arguments except denial.

What the hell would you like me to counter-argue? You say you've seen it, I say I know I never said it, and my track record is out there in public and *everyone* knows how I think on this subject, ad nauseum!

How the hell do you defend yourself from what are at best third-hand allegations from anonymous parties?

civdef

Right, time for the moderator hat.

What we have here is anonymous individuals making allegations against someone who has never made a secret of their identity (i.e. Sparks). Sparks has denied them. I think now would be a good time to remind the said anonymous accusers that they should be careful about how they proceed.

It would be a lot more credible if they identified themselves, and/or produced some evidence for their allegations. Failing that, what we have here is sniping against an individuals reputation, which isn't good for anyone. Frankly it's time to put up or shut up.

I now return you to your scheduled programming....

jaycee

It would be a lot more credible if they identified themselves

Consider that motion seconded .!

In the interest of fairness and good manners ,
If anyone wishes to make accusations against a known individual they
should not hesitate to identify themselves.

It is one of the principals of a fair and just society that one should know ones accusers.

Also ..since the merits and practices of their respective organisations are being discussed they should be willing to defend them openly.

TrapperJohn

jaycee wrote:

In the interest of fairness and good manners ,
If anyone wishes to make accusations against a known individual they
should not hesitate to identify themselves.

Hear, Hear .... stand up and be counted or sit down and shut up!