Shoreline Events - The lies and what we should do about it - Split topic

[Furby]

Furby, i'm not so sure your advocacy of going straight to the lawyers to resolve anything is laughable when you consider just how insane your legal system has become. In every single case that i know of in the US of this type litigation results in the lawyers winning. They butt-rape everyone on the road to a bigger bank balance.

I would imagine it's much the same in the UK, Robbo. I'm advocating nothing here, I'm merely making the observation that people with slam-dunk cases don't normally need to go out publicly talking about the wrongs committed against them.

My point was that if Cort has such a strong case, then running around forums and FB talking about it is really a waste of time, since the lawyers would handle things for him, with their cut of the winnings taken out, of course. Personally, I despise lawyers and Internet Protector of the Truth campaigns directed against me or whomever else can be actionable once things get out of control, but to be honest the sorry *******s who normally engage in this sort of thing are settlement proof because they don't own anything of substance to take away from them. Hence the reason they're out on forums trolling with the stated aim of righting perceived wrongs and/or expressing moral outrage.

In my experience if there's a perceived wrong being committed, it's much more effective to go and do something to change it, rather than whining and crying about it on a forum or other form of social media. Sadly, at least with pubescent Americans it's far easier to whine and cry on forums and social media rather than to get off one's ass and actually do something. It's generational, if you ask me. Us old farts are used to doing things to change our circumstances, while it seems that so many of the younger people seem to think whining and crying is the way to go.

 

[Robbo]

Furbs, you've known me for a long time and you've earned some stripes, yes, threads do go off topic, yes, they do get personal ... And?
If those are the only problems re this thread then things ain't so bad in my book.
Being involved in paintball is being involved in a community and if i think someone is defrauding ballers or treating them badly, then hang me for going off topic, cut me into quarters for getting personal and you can bury me for losing perspective every now and then. Remember here Furbs, what do i stand to gain in any of this and what does barnett stand to lose ?
Answer those two questions and it gives you all the answers you need.
Take it easy Furbs.

 

[Furby]

Furbs, you've known me for a long time and you've earned some stripes, yes, threads do go off topic, yes, they do get personal ... And?
If those are the only problems re this thread then things ain't so bad in my book.
Being involved in paintball is being involved in a community and if i think someone is defrauding ballers or treating them badly, then hang me for going off topic, cut me into quarters for getting personal and you can bury me for losing perspective every now and then. Remember here Furbs, what do i stand to gain in any of this and what does barnett stand to lose ?
Answer those two questions and it gives you all the answers you need.
Take it easy Furbs.

Agreed, sir...we've known each other a very long time.

As you're quite a bit bigger and meaner than I am, I don't plan on hanging you or chopping you into quarters over this sort of thing. My intent has simply been to give a different perspective, In that I think I've been successful. I'll leave it to Cort and the rest to decide if this sort of thing is worth pursuing. As it stands right now, I don't see much to justify it.

 

[Robbo]

Furbs, let me ask you an off-topic question here; what did you make of barnett 's reluctance/refusal/inability to provide accounts for the money he had taken in donations for his soldiers appeal.
How did you interpret his lack of response, and with that in mind, what do you think people concluded from his failure to produce?

 

[Furby]

Furbs, let me ask you an off-topic question here; what did you make of barnett 's reluctance/refusal/inability to provide accounts for the money he had taken in donations for his soldiers appeal.
How did you interpret his lack of response, and with that in mind, what do you think people concluded from his failure to produce?

If I remember correctly, and to be honest I followed that particular story only on the periphery, they did make the records available. I do know Barnett was very troubled at the time about the whole thing, didn't understand why he was being attacked for running the charity above-board and all that. I never got into the specifics with anyone regarding that story, so I'm not going to comment as to the story's veracity at this point, well over a year later. As far as I know he's not in jail or debtor's prison, so I would assume that it was being run legally...which may or may not always meet the standards of the Internet Truth Seeker.

My viewpoint on these sorts of things is quite a bit different from the average 'baller, because of my experience in reporting on the industry side, as well as on the promotional and marketing sides. I'm also unique in that I don't merely ignore Trolls and Rabid Internet Truth Seekers, when attacked I engage them directly and as ruthlessly as possible. For instance: Recently some dumb twat here in the States went on a hate campaign with Mike Phillips and his Markerbids business. It was one of those fully retarded FB arguments, and I'd commented at one point correcting an Internet Truth Seeker who was factually wrong about one facet of the business. Because I dared to disagree and correct this idiot, he started in on me, insinuating that he had 'the goods' on me. Turns out in his rabid little mind that my publicized involvement with Markerbids as a consultant had somehow turned into partial ownership of the business, and I was a lying ******* even when I conclusively proved otherwise, by showing the PR Phillips had put out announcing my consulting gig with Markerbids.

I'm not insinuating that Cort is a raging twat, but when I see statements insinuating that there's ample evidence of wrongdoing, and that he's 'building a case', it sends up all sorts of red flags in my mind. The fact is that Barnett is not an idiot...usually it makes one more money more easily running a business legitimately, rather than trying to bend or break the law. The proverbial smoke-filled room with giants of the industry in cahoots with one another to screw the player doesn't exist, and probably never has, unless you count the plotting and scheming by hypersensitive sales-weasels while they do a line of coke off a stripper's ass at a tournament.

 

[scott_peters]

i disagree with some of the above comments - Hes not saying hes not supporting the UK paintball scene as if he wasn't he wouldn't have bought the tickets in the first place ? Its quite simple really - If you went into McDonalds and ordered a chicken burger but were given a cheese burger would you simply shut up and eat it ? nope !

This is simply a case of a guy not willing to refund money to someone who feels he is entitled to it and to be honest id be wanting my money back to - Like i said in my previous comments if it sold out that fast then re-sell the tickets - The paint thats being shot to me seems off topic to what the problem is here. Simple solution is to give people their money back who ask for it and then put it to bed.

Way to many people haven't read this thread properly and have jumped on the band wagon after a few shandy's and posted up their 2p worth.

 

[Robbo]

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT bARNETT DID OR DIDNT DO, PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST BECAUSE IT'S OFF TOPIC.
APOLOGIES TO ALL THOSE WHO FEEL THIS ISN'T APPROPRIATE OR IN THE WRONG THREAD

Furbs, i find your 'interpretation' somewhat tainted, the whole problem came down to the timing of the production of his 'accounts'.
And for you to make the statement that because barnett wasn't bought to justice, somehow confirming his innocence, well, that's a real doozie, in fact, it's an insult to anyone who has an IQ residing in double-figures.
Are you seriously suggesting that every person who hasn't been bought to justice for any particular charge is therefore innocent?
You gotta be frikkin kiddin me Furbs, that is a thoroughly outrageous statement to make if you want to be taken seriously as an independent.
As to when you say, 'he did produce them' thus nullifying any suspicions is also an insult, and before i continue with just why you're a tainted independent, can i ask if barnett is suffering form any haemhorroids at the moment?
No really Furbs, are there any up there?
I'll continue...
This is what happened, certain industry figures came to me with their concerns that barnett was maybe up to something with the monies he had taken from people in aid of his so called 'support for soldiers' appeal.
I did a little looking around and discovered that anyone holding such an appeal and taking money from the public have to keep up to date fully accountable records.
If barnett was indeed up to something then he would have to put money in an account whereby the money could be diverted to wherever he may want at a later date.
And so, i asked a question of barnett, show us the records associated with all the money donated to him, and this should include how much, who donated what and the location and name of the accounts in receipt.
He refused ... This set most reasonable people's alarm bells ringing because anyone who cannot produce such info is gonna look mighty suspicious for obvious reasons.
The whole thing blew up because barnett, no matter what he was saying, was not producing the paperwork.
At that point i realised what was happening in my opinion - he was stalling for time, the only thing that could then be legitimately asked was, 'why is he stalling' ?
In my opinion, he was stalling because he needed time to compile a set of accounts so they looked legitimate.
If someone was being called out to produce a set of accounts that proves beyond doubt any suspicious activity is going on then the first thing you'd do is slap them on the table, that is of course if you have them.
barnett did no such thing, he stalled and stalled and finally produced a set weeks after i had asked them to be published.
Now what can we reasonably conclude from that?
Firstly, he cannot claim he had a problem with the principle of publicising them because he did so after many weeks had passed. If he was willing to publish when he finally had them then why didn't he produce them when he was asked to?
I will ask you another very hypothetical question Mr 'independent' Furbs, if Michael Jackson was alive today, would you leave your kids alone with him should the opportunity have become available?
After all Furbs, he was pronounced innocent wasn't he ... According to your line of reasoning jackson hadn't done a thing to those children. If a charge is unsuccessful, it doesn't automatically mean he didn't do the crime.
I know exactly what barnett was up to, and he knows i know.
But people like you ignore the evidence, albeit circumstantial, and are creating an even bigger problem with barnett, he's getting away with it in my opinion.
At the very least barnett's actions are suspicious, at worst, he's a cheap ass crook, of course this is in my rational opinion.
One last somewhat cynical question to you Furbs is, has barnett ever advertised with you?
I really have no wish to fall out with you Furbs but you were well aware of the sensitivity surrounding barnett on this site.
Im no internet troll figure and to suggest as much, as you undoubtedly implied, is another insult. I have been part of the paintball media for over 20 years and if i don't have the right to ask questions of individuals, then who does Furbs, you?

 

[Furby]

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT bARNETT DID OR DIDNT DO, PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST BECAUSE IT'S OFF TOPIC.
APOLOGIES TO ALL THOSE WHO FEEL THIS ISN'T APPROPRIATE OR IN THE WRONG THREAD

Furbs, i find your 'interpretation' somewhat tainted, the whole problem came down to the timing of the production of his 'accounts'.
And for you to make the statement that because barnett wasn't bought to justice, somehow confirming his innocence, well, that's a real doozie, in fact, it's an insult to anyone who has an IQ residing in double-figures.
Are you seriously suggesting that every person who hasn't been bought to justice for any particular charge is therefore innocent?
You gotta be frikkin kiddin me Furbs, that is a thoroughly outrageous statement to make if you want to be taken seriously as an independent.
As to when you say, 'he did produce them' thus nullifying any suspicions is also an insult, and before i continue with just why you're a tainted independent, can i ask if barnett is suffering form any haemhorroids at the moment?
No really Furbs, are there any up there?
I'll continue...
This is what happened, certain industry figures came to me with their concerns that barnett was maybe up to something with the monies he had taken from people in aid of his so called 'support for soldiers' appeal.
I did a little looking around and discovered that anyone holding such an appeal and taking money from the public have to keep up to date fully accountable records.
If barnett was indeed up to something then he would have to put money in an account whereby the money could be diverted to wherever he may want at a later date.
And so, i asked a question of barnett, show us the records associated with all the money donated to him, and this should include how much, who donated what and the location and name of the accounts in receipt.
He refused ... This set most reasonable people's alarm bells ringing because anyone who cannot produce such info is gonna look mighty suspicious for obvious reasons.
The whole thing blew up because barnett, no matter what he was saying, was not producing the paperwork.
At that point i realised what was happening in my opinion - he was stalling for time, the only thing that could then be legitimately asked was, 'why is he stalling' ?
In my opinion, he was stalling because he needed time to compile a set of accounts so they looked legitimate.
If someone was being called out to produce a set of accounts that proves beyond doubt any suspicious activity is going on then the first thing you'd do is slap them on the table, that is of course if you have them.
barnett did no such thing, he stalled and stalled and finally produced a set weeks after i had asked them to be published.
Now what can we reasonably conclude from that?
Firstly, he cannot claim he had a problem with the principle of publicising them because he did so after many weeks had passed. If he was willing to publish when he finally had them then why didn't he produce them when he was asked to?
I will ask you another very hypothetical question Mr 'independent' Furbs, if Michael Jackson was alive today, would you leave your kids alone with him should the opportunity have become available?
After all Furbs, he was pronounced innocent wasn't he ... According to your line of reasoning jackson hadn't done a thing to those children. If a charge is unsuccessful, it doesn't automatically mean he didn't do the crime.
I know exactly what barnett was up to, and he knows i know.
But people like you ignore the evidence, albeit circumstantial, and are creating an even bigger problem with barnett, he's getting away with it in my opinion.
At the very least barnett's actions are suspicious, at worst, he's a cheap ass crook, of course this is in my rational opinion.
One last somewhat cynical question to you Furbs is, has barnett ever advertised with you?
I really have no wish to fall out with you Furbs but you were well aware of the sensitivity surrounding barnett on this site.
Im no internet troll figure and to suggest as much, as you undoubtedly implied, is another insult. I have been part of the paintball media for over 20 years and if i don't have the right to ask questions of individuals, then who does Furbs, you?

Is my interpretation 'tainted' because I'm not immediately agreeing with you, or are there things missing in my knowledge base? More often than not people who make the decision to judge me more often than not base that on the fact that I don't immediately agree with whatever allegations they make.

I'm not suggesting someone who's not been brought to justice is innocent, but I will say if an allegation can't be proven, then it makes it hard for me to forever damn someone. Just because you, Cort or even I say something about someone and wonder about how clean they actually are doesn't mean that it's right. FFS, anyone can make any sort of wild allegation they like, but unless it's a provable allegation it doesn't hold a lot of merit now does it? Hypothetically speaking, I could hint around about all sorts of tawdry things you may or may not have done, but unless I can prove it, I'm just blowing smoke. Lord knows there have been plenty of tawdry allegations made about me over the past 25 years, but that doesn't mean any of them were ever true, or more importantly, provable. And before you blow a gasket, nobody has ever said a cross word to me about you.

Regarding the certain industry figures that came to you, what was their motivation for talking to you? The amorphous 'They' come to me all the time, telling me all sorts of things. That doesn't necessarily mean their motivations are lilly white, and being used to carry someone else's water is insulting as hell to me. Perhaps it's not to you. You know as well as I do that you always question the motivations of those talking to you, because it can give you insight into why you're being talked to. I'm not saying this is the case, but it seems to me that Barnett popped up on the scene fairly recently, for whatever reason didn't meet the approval of the old heads there, and compounded that sin by doing well in spite of not having their approval. There's no greater way to piss someone off than by doing well without their 'help'.

Regarding Jackson, my child wouldn't have ever gone anywhere near him anyhow, as the man was a certified nutbag. Whatever allegations were made against him weren't relevant to me, as my child wouldn't be anywhere near him to begin with. That's just common sense, which may or may not be something they have in California. Unless you want to go back to the Salem Witch trials, that is.

And to answer your question regarding advertising, Barnett has never advertised with me, and isn't likely to. He's in the UK, and I'm American, serving mainly the American market. There's no real reason for him to advertise, unless it's as a bribe to shut me up, which hasn't happened. If your allegations and Cort's allegations are as damning as you say they are, and if I were as influential a character as some may credit me with then bribing me would be an extraordinarily expensive proposition. Given that I'm driving an 9 year old pickup truck and I live in a doublewide, that doesn't seem to have happened, does it?

If my reticence to hang Barnett and his crew up by their toes and beat them with canes constitutes a falling out between us, then so be it. I'm not implying that you're the stereotypical Internet Seeker of the Truth, and I'm not even implying that Cort is. However, to date aside from allegations, hints about gathering evidence, or that the case is coming along nicely, there has been precisely nothing provable presented by either side to show that one is right and one is wrong. It's not my job as muckraking press scum to judge anyone...the job as I understand it is to report relevant news and leave the judgement to the courts and higher powers than me.

Since you've brought up the whole business with the charity last year, and you seem hell-bent on proving to me (why, I don't know) that Barnett is a crook, if you have documents or something concrete proving malfeasance on Barnett's part, by all means send it along to me. I've leveled the same challenge to Barnett. Frankly, people running around forums talking ****e about each other pisses me off in the extreme, and if by forcing people to prove their allegations and publishing everything on my site for the world to see not only cleans up the industry but puts a damper on Internet Seekers of the Truth and their stupid crusades to mold the community in their vision, then by all means I'll step up to the challenge.

To be blunt, I could give a rat's ass about whatever personal issues between you and Barnett, or that Cort is butthurt that he didn't get a refund because TCUK isn't going to be held at Sennybridge. For me it boils down to butthurt paintball players who don't get their way, so they go on a crusade to take down whomever they feel has offended their sensibilities. If you're going to make an allegation or call someone a name, then you'd better be able to prove it with tangible things. I'm sick and tired of all the **** talking that goes on in this game. I can and will call out any sorry ******* that wants to talk **** about someone but aren't willing to prove it. And that includes you, Pete. You got a personal problem with Barnett? Fine, go to Wales and sit down with him, take a piss with him or just beat his head in for insulting you and yours. But to allow your reputation that took you 20+ years to build up to be used by others to push their agenda because of a personal insult between you and Barnett is childish and petty. You're better than this. Trying to drag me into this whole disaster and manipulate me into carrying your water is an insult to me, especially since I'm 6000 miles away and have zero investment in the success or failure of anyone involved. My point from the get go has had nothing to do with the specifics of the allegations. I've only asked that anyone who was making allegations prove them, and I further sinned by pointing out that those with rock-solid cases against their opposition don't normally make use of forums and social media to drum up public support for their allegations.

 

[The Coalthief]

This thread is such a positive and healthy advert for paintball,I'd be astounded if we didn't see a sudden influx of new players based solely on it's content.

 

[Robbo]

Woweee , what a lot of bollocks that must have taken such a long time to write but it came well short of a reasonable response or indeed an impartial response.
How much do your charge for your impartiality?
5 bucks? ... More?
The reason i responded in the way i did was because you had completely and intentionally ignored the facts laid out in favour of trying to protect barnett.
You lost any vestiges of integrity when you employed that ole well-worn response of asking, 'oh, and so everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong'.
That's a half-ass remark that is meaningless when you were quite able to freely interpret all of what i had explained. Either you are congenitally precluded from understanding everyday text or you are anything but impartial - take your pick!

I think you're the latter which is kinda ironic amid your feigned cries of 'independence' .. That's a joke!!!

You try to maintain your partiality when you have none, and because of that, no integrity left either.
Still, I'm sure someone else will come along with another 5 bucks in their pocket to pay for your 'independence'.
I stuck to the truth in everything i have said, you indulged yourself at my expense.

I have nothing to gain from any of this business with barnett, he has everything to lose - this provides sufficient information when trying to work out who's more likely to be telling the truth.
It is self-evident, your brain fails to follow the clues.

And if you don't like my response, you know where the virtual door is, just remember not to slam it on your way out.