The IAA, "The Shop" and the other organisation - Moved from the PQ Thread

tonky · 23-12-2008 01:47AM

JOHN MC wrote: »

i would just like to say to people who are taking names of the people that attended the meeting of the irish airsoft sports that i was meant to go but could not make it.
i thought no-one was suppose to mention m.i.a (derek) or the IAA so since everyone is talking about m.i.a & the IAA does that mean were all banned now?????????????

It's called flexible moderation AFAIK.

(joke) /ducks back down /

OzCam · 23-12-2008 01:48AM

I didn't stand for any of the committee positions because I didn't feel qualified as I have been playing for less than a year. I'm beginning to have regrets about that decision.

Actually, since I'm a Company Secretary already, maybe I should have. Didn't want to be accused of that ultimate Irish sin - Being A Blow In. I get plenty of daft ideas from time to time, but none on even the same planet as some of those stupidities floated tonight.

Sorry, back on topic now...

Dar · 23-12-2008 01:50AM

Tigger wrote: »

ok

<drpepper> looks like im going for chair
<Shiva> want me to nominate u, Dave ?
<gerrout> If you would.
<gerrout> Looks better than a self-nomination since a lot of people probably haven't met me in person
<gerrout> "On the grounds that he is good at vice (vice) and is comfortable to sit in (chair)"
<Shiva> o'Connor, yeah ? Or O'Connel ?
<Shiva> I know is OC
<Fayer> This is like a political cue being staged by the hawks......
<drpepper> muhahaaha
<drpepper> world power is mine
<Fayer> Get Doc and MR2 in as well !
<conor-mr2> lol
<drpepper> Richie for Tech
<drpepper>
<Shiva> could richie run ?
<drpepper> DOC as sec
<conor-mr2> is there a bus driver position
<Fayer> That woudl be a good vote at the AGM
<Shiva> Whats Gerrouts surname ?
<Shiva> o'Connor ?
<drpepper> yah
<drpepper> David O'Connor
<drpepper> also sure Richie could run
<Shiva> even though he works for me ?
<Shiva> kinda a commercial interest
<drpepper> he hasnt got a vested interest
<Fayer> Just dont pay him Tony and he is fine
<drpepper> same with sas-c

some days work is quiet

1. A group of friends have a discussion about nominations for democratically elected positions. They put themselves forward, or have a friend put them forward.

2. Full public notice is posted saying anyone can put themselves forward for a position and that, as long as a members seconds their nomination, they will be on the ballot on the day of the AGM and the members present will decide.

3. Those members who actually had the nerve to put themselves forward ran uncontested and were elected unanimously at the AGM.

Those are the facts. You actually have the gall to cry 'clique, clique!', to deride the people who decided to put in the effort, to sling mud and to rabblerouse?

If you want to know who's "fault" this is then look in the bloody mirror. Did you join up and nominate yourself? Did you gather round a few people on a skirmish day and say "You know what, I want to get in there and shake things up! Sign up and vote for me!"? Did you do anything at all?

No, you did what the majority of Irish people do; in airsoft and in everything else: absolutely nothing. You sat back, waited for the dust to settle and now decide to jump in with cries of "conspiracy!".

You have every right to argue a case against the IAA with regards policy, with regards transparency, with regards community relations, etc. Bring your facts , argue your position; they'll do the same. Let the better man win. That's constructive criticism; to be honest we, as a community, need a lot more of it. But don't dare try and blame other people for the results of your own apathy and inaction.

Dar · 23-12-2008 01:54AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Clearly you are of the opinion that airsofters should have to pay to have the sport saved. I propose a new thread to discuss the benefits and problems of the possibilities.Member pays while affiliates don't, Affiliates pay while members dont and both paying.

No clearly he's of the position that we need a body that represents, is run by and is funded by players. If the IAA was funded by retailers and sites the very same people who deride it for forcing "airsoftrs to pay to have their sport saved" would be on here claiming it was in the pocket of, and a mouthpiece for, those businesses.

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 01:58AM

Dar wrote: »

No clearly he's of the position that we need a body that represents, is run by and is funded by players. If the IAA was funded by retailers and sites the very same people who deride it for forcing "airsoftrs to pay to have their sport saved" would be on here claiming it was in the pocket of, and a mouthpiece for, those businesses.

Do you honestly believe that the IAA is funded by members only?

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:00AM

Dar wrote: »

1. A group of friends have a discussion about nominations for democratically elected positions. They put themselves forward, or have a friend put them forward.

2. Full public notice is posted saying anyone can put themselves forward for a position and that, as long as a members seconds their nomination, they will be on the ballot on the day of the AGM and the members present will decide.

3. Those members who actually had the nerve to put themselves forward ran uncontested and were elected unanimously at the AGM.

Those are the facts. You actually have the gall to cry 'clique, clique!', to deride the people who decided to put in the effort, to sling mud and to rabblerouse?

If you want to know who's "fault" this is then look in the bloody mirror. Did you join up and nominate yourself? Did you gather round a few people on a skirmish day and say "You know what, I want to get in there and shake things up! Sign up and vote for me!"? Did you do anything at all?

No, you did what the majority of Irish people do; in airsoft and in everything else: absolutely nothing. You sat back, waited for the dust to settle and now decide to jump in with cries of "conspiracy!".

You have every right to argue a case against the IAA with regards policy, with regards transparency, with regards community relations, etc. Bring your facts , argue your position; they'll do the same. Let the better man win. That's constructive criticism; to be honest we, as a community, need a lot more of it. But don't dare try and blame other people for the results of your own apathy and inaction.

There is a clique there as per the defination.

NO I did not stand by the way side. I chose to attend a meeting of a new organization that does not require you to pay to vote in an attempt to save the sport you and I play.

I chose not to follow the old irish tradition of "better the devil you know"

Dar · 23-12-2008 02:01AM

Since I'm the former treasurer I know it for a bloody fact. Eirsoft.ie kindly paid for the room hire for first AGM in 2007, that is the only exception. If you had bothered to sign up and attend the AGM you would have would have seen the figures.

Edit: My apologies, Eirsoft.ie also paid for printing of information leaflets to hand out at Salute. Damn him and his Machiavellian ways!

Rhinocharge · 23-12-2008 02:01AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that the IAA is funded by members only?

Yes, call me a liar I dare you.

No member of the IAA committee has ever requested or hinted at commercial funding or donations. Your're grabbing at straws now.

Dar · 23-12-2008 02:04AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

There is a clique there as per the defination.

Did you do anything to change it? Did you even try?

NO I did not stand by the way side. I chose to attend a meeting of a new organization that does not require you to pay to vote.

How many months later? You waited until our backs were against the wall before pulling the finger out. And yet again you bring up the the subject of subscription fees. So what you want is a body that will do all the work for you and someone else to pay for all the expenses for you as well. The timeless political chant of "Can't someone else do it!".

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:15AM

Dar wrote: »

Did you do anything to change it? Did you even try?

At the time no. Simple answer. At the time I saw the IAA as a waste of money. Money that I did not have. I am sure many people who would have liked to vote were in the same position.

Dar wrote: »

How many months later? You waited until our backs were against the wall before pulling the finger out. And yet again you bring up the the subject of subscription fees. So what you want is a body that will do all the work for you and someone else to pay for all the expenses for you as well. The timeless political chant of "Can't someone else do it!".

Or that I as a business with a vested interest and making profit from it pays. Members join for free and can vote in who they think would run it. If that happened to be the current IAA board then so be it.

Yes I have a problem with having to pay membership to vote. This excludes many that you say you want to represent. Why would you turn down funding when you have nothing to loose and are asked for nothing in return?

When the Minister said I am going to ban airsoft yes I perked up my ears. Why shouldnt I have?

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:18AM

Dar wrote: »

Since I'm the former treasurer I know it for a bloody fact. Eirsoft.ie kindly paid for the room hire for first AGM in 2007, that is the only exception. If you had bothered to sign up and attend the AGM you would have would have seen the figures.

Edit: My apologies, Eirsoft.ie also paid for printing of information leaflets to hand out at Salute. Damn him and his Machiavellian ways!

Was it a bad thing that he did either of these things? No. He was in a position to help and he did so.

Did you give him special treatment? No.

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

Dar · 23-12-2008 02:26AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

At the time no. Simple answer. At the time I saw the IAA as a waste of money. Money that I did not have. I am sure many people who would have liked to vote were in the same position.

And why did you think it was a waste of time? Was it because you didn't think we needed a representative body? Was it because you didn't agree with the code of conduct of retailers regulations? Was it because you didn't like constitution?

No, it was because you didn't like the people in charge. Well you had the opportunity to get rid of all of them if you had bothered trying. Would it then be "a waste of money"? Hell most of us are gone anyway. Only two committee members have continued on for a second term.

Or that I as a business with a vested interest and making profit from it pays. Members join for free and can vote in who they think would run it.

Therein lies to problem. You assume that players interests coincide exactly with those of retailers. I don't. Thats why I paid my €30, that's why I'll pay it again next year. Whats can you get for thirty euro? A day's skirmish? BBs for a month?

I for one, as a bog-standard member, would consider the independence of body that represents me to be priceless.

Rhinocharge · 23-12-2008 02:26AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Was it a bad thing that he did either of these things? No. He was in a position to help and he did so.

Did you give him special treatment? No.

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

What exactly is your point??

If IAA affliates where seen to be donating funds, you'd be crying about commercialisation of the IAA & when we're not, you bitch about that too.

Lemming · 23-12-2008 02:29AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

Really? 2 hours? jesus ... what a crap way to go about it. You could have just y'know .... asked in the first place.

On the matter of membership costs. I raised this very issue at the AGM. The organisation has been runing for a year (just over now I suppose).

As I understand it, they had no idea of the range of costs involved although made a good stab at it in setting the fee. They stated that they were open to reviewing the fee as they get more data to analyse and be able to see what sort of fees beyond the obvious are being incurred on average in a given year.

Further, being a non-profit organisation, the IAA is required to carry a minimum "solvency" amount in its account at all times by LAW. And it is not an inconsiderable amount either ...

I'm sure given more retailers stepping up to the plate they'd be able to look at reducing fees, but that comes in an annual basis since fees are sought annually which is a total no-brainer. Unless of course, you're just rushing to find something to try and beat the IAA with. Without thinking ...

I should also add a rather salient point to all of this. Nowhere have the IAA been paid a single penny personally. It is not the IAA's money. It is the membership's money. So why you might have a problem handing over such a small amount is beyond me (outside of financial hardship of course), since said amount is being held on your behalf.

Fallschirmjager · 23-12-2008 02:29AM

okay, i really have to go now, if we are discussing the value of a vote versus 30 euro in a sport that cost hundreds if not thousands.i have said what i think and i thank those who replied in the same manner.

happy Christmas to each and every one of you regardless of which side of the fence you are on....

Dar · 23-12-2008 02:29AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Was it a bad thing that he did either of these things? No. He was in a position to help and he did so.

Did you give him special treatment? No.

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

One opportunity for corruption did not cause corruption, therefore no opportunity for corruption can cause corruption. This passes for logic?

The first AGM was donated by Tony when eirsoft.ie was still something doen on the side. The EGM was paid by passing a collection plate around the members there. Much as I like Tony and respect his integity, I still prefer the later.

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:30AM

Lemming wrote: »

Really? 2 hours? jesus ... what a crap way to go about it. You could have just y'know .... asked in the first place.

On the matter of membership costs. I raised this very issue at the AGM. The organisation has been runing for a year (just over now I suppose).

As I understand it, they had no idea of the range of costs involved although made a good stab at it in setting the fee. They stated that they were open to reviewing the fee as they get more data to analyse and be able to see what sort of fees beyond the obvious are being incurred on average in a given year.

Further, being a non-profit organisation, the IAA is required to carry a minimum "solvency" amount in its account at all times by LAW. And it is not an inconsiderable amount either ...

I'm sure given more retailers stepping up to the plate they'd be able to look at reducing fees, but that comes in an annual basis since fees are sought annually which is a total no-brainer. Unless of course, you're just rushing to find something to try and beat the IAA with. Without thinking ...

No it is something I suggested to the IAA reps when they were at the site on Saturday.

NakedDex · 23-12-2008 02:33AM

This whole thread contains more conflict than an engagement in Lashkar Gah. This is my one and only post on the topic, one which I have taken great lengths to stay out of, and I do so only to highlight a few lines of text from the IAA Vice-Chairman that seem to have been over looked in the exchanges.

gerrowadat wrote: »

I want to make a couple things clear, since it seems a book has been written since I last weighed in on this thread:

- Please do not boycott any retailer or site over this. This only serves to make the damage this new body is causing worse.
- The IAA has never refused a body affiliation.
- The IAA is prepared to talk to Derek or anyone involved in this new body in the spirit of making sure voices are heard. Personal differences -are- aside. The IAA committee are different people from who they were 6 months ago when the MIA thing went down. **** happens. Let's talk.

Lads, that seems distinctively like an olive branch to me. I remember when ours was a tight knit community, where everyone would support one another for the good of the sport if not for the benefit of your fellow player. It'd be nice to return to that, a game without accusations, conspiracies and, most importantly for me, without this inherent lack of trust that seems to have, sadly, built up among us.

Because it is "us". It's not "me", "you" or "them". We are airsoft enthusiasts, all of us. Be you, the reader, a retailer, site operator, skirmisher, collector or target shooter, we are all in the same boat. The IAA has, it seems in my humble opinion, offered an outstretched hand in that statement in the interest of peace among enthusiasts and the long life of the sport.

Perhaps the fact that we have 15 pages of conflict in the space of a day (that being the most activity, good or bad, I've seen on Boards.ie>Sports>Airsoft since I can remember) should be looked at as the point at which all airsoft enthusiasts took a step back and realised they're all on the same side.

Now, feel free to take or leave this soliloquy to mean what you will, but it was written in earnest and with the express and pure hope that this sad situation can be looked back on in a years time by the entire community, standing shoulder to shoulder and identified as a turning point, the point where we, the airsoft enthusiasts of Ireland, realised the fight and passion we all have was better served as thousands of voices in unison crying out in support of our common goals, than as disjointed ones crying out against each other.

As I said, this will be my first and last post on this topic. I shall end as I begun, with a highlight of the two most important words in this entire exchange.

gerrowadat wrote: »

Let's talk.

I, personally, hope for all our sakes, this request is answered.

Dex

Lemming · 23-12-2008 02:34AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

No it is something I suggested to the IAA reps when they were at the site on Saturday.

Really? You mentioned it too? Well good for you. I raised the point as a member and it's recored in the AGM minutes. What did you do? Oh that's right .. you just criticised them from your pedestal. How very Oirish.

Hivemind187 · 23-12-2008 02:38AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Was it a bad thing that he did either of these things? No. He was in a position to help and he did so.

Did you give him special treatment? No.

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

Go ahead in your spurious attempts to claim the IAA is funded by ulterior means. Heres the real skinny for you:

The IAA up until December 12th 2007 was funded solely by the pockets of those putting it together - persons asked to do so by this very board (mods if you would be so kind as to dig out that original thread and put an end to this dribble). At the AGM Tony paid for the venue as the IAA had a current total funding of 0. Zilch. Neit. Nada.

Everything else to that point had been paid for by the organisers i.e. Myself, Sean, Dave, Stephane and Oisin.

The advertising flyers for T4BB were paid for by Tony as an advertisment for his business. They carried the IAA logo and the HRTA details as well. I believe Derek got a wodge of these for free as well. I personally designed and printed the flyers myself. The materials were the only cost involved.

In March the IAA began to accept membership payments. At this point budgets began to be drawn up and money put into the important areas such as web hosting, flyers, events like Salute etc.

No monies were taken from affiliates to fund the IAA out side of their own membership fees.

The accounts were published. Go ahead and check them yourself. Accusing the IAA of taking monies which do not appear in the books is an accusation of fraud and I think you should retract it.*

Your figures on those entitled to a vote at the AGM are bull**** as well.

Affiliates are businesses. Individual members are individual members.

The Business does not get a vote but the owner of that business is not prevented from holding an individual membership and as such, should they hold one, they have a vote.

*Unless I have completely misunderstood your point.

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:38AM

Dar wrote: »

And why did you think it was a waste of time? Was it because you didn't think we needed a representative body? Was it because you didn't agree with the code of conduct of retailers regulations? Was it because you didn't like constitution?

No, it was because you didn't like the people in charge. Well you had the opportunity to get rid of all of them if you had bothered trying. Would it then be "a waste of money"? Hell most of us are gone anyway. Only two committee members have continued on for a second term.

I never said it was a waste of time. I said it was a waste of money I did not have.

I did and still do think that we need a representative body.

I have no issues with the code of conduct or regulations.

I never saw the constatution.

Stating that I didnt like those running it is false. I have the utmost respect for the members and those running it. The fact that you are doing something when I could not kept my mind at ease.

That was ofcourse till the ministers comments.

gerrowadat · 23-12-2008 02:39AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

Was it a bad thing that he did either of these things? No. He was in a position to help and he did so.

Did you give him special treatment? No.

If more retailers and sites helped out and it helped reduce the cost of membership would you give them special treatment? No.

Thank you very much for proving my point Dar.

I have been trying to get to this for the last 2 hours.

Eirsoft does get special treatment for what they do for the IAA -- they're seen as being the 'benefactors' for the IAA, and stuff like not being invited to this meeting last week happens.

The IAA made a conscious decision not to ask retailers for money, simply because we've been an association for players. Most of what we've been doing over the last while has been to do with the legitimisation of the sport. Tangible benefits for retailers and sites have been on the backburner, because frankly the affiliates already have people working fulltime to look after their own interests. Our interests were solely to safeguard the continuance of the sport for the players. Your business being allowed to continue trading is very important to its profitability.

We're currently looking into changing fee structures (because I actually agree that 30 quid is too much), but as I've said to you in person, we wouldn't be comfortable asking commercial interests for money right now, since our current work doesn't have any tangible, right-now benefit for affiliates (apart from legitimising airsoft, which I guess is important), and we want to avoid having the appearance of being in any one (or several) affiliate's pocket.

I suspect a lot of questions will be answered when this new body publishes its constitution, fee structure, plan of action, etc.

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 02:44AM

gerrowadat wrote: »

Eirsoft does get special treatment for what they do for the IAA -- they're seen as being the 'benefactors' for the IAA, and stuff like not being invited to this meeting last week happens.

I have gone on record to state that I was against people not being invited.

gerrowadat wrote: »

The IAA made a conscious decision not to ask retailers for money, simply because we've been an association for players. Most of what we've been doing over the last while has been to do with the legitimisation of the sport. Tangible benefits for retailers and sites have been on the backburner, because frankly the affiliates already have people working fulltime to look after their own interests. Our interests were solely to safeguard the continuance of the sport for the players. Your business being allowed to continue trading is very important to its profitability.

We're currently looking into changing fee structures (because I actually agree that 30 quid is too much), but as I've said to you in person, we wouldn't be comfortable asking commercial interests for money right now, since our current work doesn't have any tangible, right-now benefit for affiliates (apart from legitimising airsoft, which I guess is important), and we want to avoid having the appearance of being in any one (or several) affiliate's pocket.

It is very important and something that I would have no issue paying for.

gerrowadat wrote: »

I suspect a lot of questions will be answered when this new body publishes its constitution, fee structure, plan of action, etc.

Hivemind187 · 23-12-2008 02:45AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

I never saw the constatution.

Well its been up on the website since the get go and its draft versions are on this very forum.

Sorry, but thats either laziness or balderdash.

AirsoftEire.com · 23-12-2008 02:46AM

I just read through 14 pages of this and you can already see the damage done, there is a noticable divide in the community already with certain people thanking certain others continously and forum members arguing with each other who used to be able to have good fun on here. Which is incredibly sad to see.

Steve

Lemming · 23-12-2008 02:49AM

kiwi84000 wrote: »

I have no issues with the code of conduct or regulations.

Funny you should mention that. Members of the IASRA - leading members at that - had issues with the code of conduct in so much as they didn't want to follow them when they were not convenient.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of encouragement for reassurance in calls for tighter measures from some of these same people.

I never saw the constatution.

That's also funny since the proposed IAA constitution was available for quite some time indeed online and was debated over by the airsoft community at large on these very forums. Members of the IASRA were involved in the first IAA AGM in debating and voting on the particulars of that proposed constitution and indeed involved in the EGM that was called to further discuss and finally ratify the constitution.

You have had AMPLE time to familiarise yourself. You have had ample time to ask other members of the fledgling IASRA about where you could find information to that effect. You have done neither (except I dare hazard a guess, listen to innuendo painted as "fact"). That is ignorance of fact, nothing more. Nothing less. And you have only yourself to blame in that regard.

Stating that I didnt like those running it is false. I have the utmost respect for the members and those running it. The fact that you are doing something when I could not kept my mind at ease.

That was ofcourse till the ministers comments.

You have a remarkable way of showing your "utmost respect" given much of your commentary in this thread.

FingalAirsoft · 23-12-2008 02:52AM

gerrowadat wrote: »

Eirsoft does get special treatment for what they do for the IAA -- they're seen as being the 'benefactors' for the IAA, and stuff like not being invited to this meeting last week happens.

Ehhh what?

Dar · 23-12-2008 02:56AM

AirsoftEire.com wrote: »

I just read through 14 pages of this and you can already see the damage done, there is a noticable divide in the community already with certain people thanking certain others continously and forum members arguing with each other who used to be able to have good fun on here. Which is incredibly sad to see.

Steve

The divide was already there, it just wasn't noticeable. As impassioned as this discussion is it's better than the cold wall of silence that's usually there. If only we all cared so much all year round and not just when some hot topic pops up every few months.

Wacko · 23-12-2008 03:03AM

OzCam wrote: »

Wacko: the law says 1J, period. There should be some leeway or measuring tolerance in it, but there isn't. 1J is legal, 1.01J is not. We're stuck with that unless and until we can get it changed.

I was just pointing out the fact that the way in which the post was worded made it seem like this rifle was stated to be firing well above the legal limit and that it could be misinterpreted and used to incite feelings towards that retailer. I am well aware of what is legal and what is not.

kiwi84000 · 23-12-2008 03:04AM

Lemming wrote: »

Funny you should mention that. Members of the IASRA - leading members at that - had issues with the code of conduct in so much as they didn't want to follow them when they were not convenient.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of encouragement for reassurance in calls for tighter measures from some of these same people.

What other people have issues with is not my concern Lemming. I am for stricter controls on who gets AEG's.

Lemming wrote: »

That's also funny since the proposed IAA constitution was available for quite some time indeed online and was debated over by the airsoft community at large on these very forums. Members of the IASRA were involved in the first IAA AGM in debating and voting on the particulars of that proposed constitution and indeed involved in the EGM that was called to further discuss and finally ratify the constitution.

You have had AMPLE time to familiarise yourself. You have had ample time to ask other members of the fledgling IASRA about where you could find information to that effect. You have done neither (except I dare hazard a guess, listen to innuendo painted as "fact"). That is ignorance of fact, nothing more. Nothing less. And you have only yourself to blame in that regard.

As I was never a member of the IAA I saw no reason to read the constitution. I know their policies from my research and my discussions with them and I personally disagree with some of them.

Lets stop the personal attacks and name calling please. I am here to have an actual debate regarding the formation of a second organization.

Lemming wrote: »

You have a remarkable way of showing your "utmost respect" given much of your commentary in this thread.

My commentary has been on the policies of the organization and how my views differ from them. This has nothing to do with the fact that I respect them for doing what they thought was best.

The IAA, "The Shop" and the other organisation - Moved from the PQ Thread

Comments