Opus Finale .... A Warts an' all Exposé of Paintball's Very Own Megalomaniac
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
- Status
Personal insults aren't needed and serve to distract from the important core message regarding the dodgy dealing and broken promises. Calling people names is only going to alienate the majority and reinforce the opinions held by Shoreline supporters.
Personal insults are an integral part of threads like this where someone has cheated someone else out of their money - as soon as you steal, defraud, whatever, in my head, you forgo the usual social niceties and open up a can of worms, one of which is the eliciting of personal insults.
The thing is, if anybody was cheated out of their money as Dave [Warfighters] has been, then he's 100% entitled to insult the guilty party in my opinion, I'll back Dave on this every time .... the moral imperative should not be placed upon the victim in such cases.
And with no disrespect to anyone here, the line that goes something akin to:-
'Calling people names is only going to alienate the majority and reinforce the opinions held by Shoreline supporters'
is one of those phrases that sounds as if it's appropriate but it's absolutely not, it's utter bullsh!t ....
People take more notice of the person who has committed the crime [and the nature of that crime] than any consequent name calling from the victim ..
I doubt very much that if anyone in this thread were cheated out of their money then I'd bet my house the vast majority of people would get personal, they just couldn't help themselves.
Once again, I would tend to redirect any pseudo-moral concerns well away from someone who's name-called over to someone who's done the cheating ..... it makes no sense to do otherwise and is completely unjust.
The thing is, if anybody was cheated out of their money as Dave [Warfighters] has been, then he's 100% entitled to insult the guilty party in my opinion, I'll back Dave on this every time .... the moral imperative should not be placed upon the victim in such cases.
And with no disrespect to anyone here, the line that goes something akin to:-
'Calling people names is only going to alienate the majority and reinforce the opinions held by Shoreline supporters'
is one of those phrases that sounds as if it's appropriate but it's absolutely not, it's utter bullsh!t ....
People take more notice of the person who has committed the crime [and the nature of that crime] than any consequent name calling from the victim ..
I doubt very much that if anyone in this thread were cheated out of their money then I'd bet my house the vast majority of people would get personal, they just couldn't help themselves.
Once again, I would tend to redirect any pseudo-moral concerns well away from someone who's name-called over to someone who's done the cheating ..... it makes no sense to do otherwise and is completely unjust.
Not really, the more you attack someone on their features the more your moral highground turns to quicksand.
Once again Chuck, you've used a phrase that sounds as though it should be appropriate but in the real world, it's not mate.
It sure sounds fancy when you lob in a metaphor like 'sinking in quicksand' but it amounts to not much more than hot air because in this case, Dave hasn't really indulged himself - and as far as I can remember, the singular use of 'fat' hardly constitutes a tirade of insults as you seemingly imply.
People are inherently more interested in the nature of the crime than any facile name calling, and so they should be !
You seem to be losing sight, purposely or otherwise, of the whole point of this thread and that is to expose barnett for what he is and what he's done, and it's been substantiated with the testimonial evidence from the aggrieved parties.
Regardless of the point you've tried to make, what are your thoughts on how barnett has behaved with respect to the money he's screwed out of people, what say you?
It sure sounds fancy when you lob in a metaphor like 'sinking in quicksand' but it amounts to not much more than hot air because in this case, Dave hasn't really indulged himself - and as far as I can remember, the singular use of 'fat' hardly constitutes a tirade of insults as you seemingly imply.
People are inherently more interested in the nature of the crime than any facile name calling, and so they should be !
You seem to be losing sight, purposely or otherwise, of the whole point of this thread and that is to expose barnett for what he is and what he's done, and it's been substantiated with the testimonial evidence from the aggrieved parties.
Regardless of the point you've tried to make, what are your thoughts on how barnett has behaved with respect to the money he's screwed out of people, what say you?
I'm (in)patiently waiting on the results of what's going on with UWL next year. A crazy bunch of people from a large team have put me in charge of a squad for woodland events next year and I'm very interested in the format. But there is no way in hell I'd be entering the squad in a Barnett run UWL. I know for a fact there are quite a number of other organisations who want to play woods events but have stayed away from UWL because of TB. Much like how I feel Valken was poisoned by being associated with TB, the same could be said for UWL. I hope Tom Cole follows Gino's example and separates his brand from SL so it can grow past TB's BS
Last edited:
Well .... as I am going to say something about these postings I might as well introduce my self properly. My name is Jan van Hooff and I am not a UK resident. My interest in the UK paintball scene is, as a non sponsored paintball client with not a shred of affiliation to any paintball firm whatsoever, because in the UK, you people organise some very exciting games in venues that are not accessible in my country (the Netherlands, yes I am a Dutchie) or don't exist there. The non sponsered status resulted from a conscious choice as a have done so much "answering to people" in my lifetime, that I don't fancy it within the realm of my hobby/sport and I can afford that poshy attitude. Also I am a bit (lot) older than the average paintballer and in daily life I am a Chairman of the Board of a middle sized company. Without wanting to be posh I throw in my full seniority for the sake of my arguments. I hold the opinion, being a very "outside" man that I can make some observations which can't be made anymore by the participants of this thread. I hope to give you some insight on the effects of your writings.
.I know Shoreline as a company because they first raised my interest in the UK scenario scene and I have played some of their events. Also quite recently because I attended the Afghan game only a fortnight ago and as such I have met mr. and mrs. Barnett and I think it's fair to say that we are acquainted now.
The points I want to make out to you are the following:
1) Nobody, not the serious businessman, is happy with what is happening in this blog/thread. It is bad for business and keeps away potential clients who don't want being torn in in any dispute. We don't want to hear it! Business differences are to be resolved discretely in order not to hurt the industry as a whole. For those of you participating in this blog but not being a business- but a salaryman, don't complain about the firm you wish to leave during a job interview. For that the same reasoning applies, It is not done and you leave a very bad impression on the firm you want to join.
2) As such maybe because of this information you give, I would be cautious in striking a deal with Mr. Barnett or Shoreline but certainly I would not deal with any of you for sure! You disqualify yourselves as serious businessmen.
3) When you go into business you must know that "you will win some and you will loose some." If you can't handle the loss of some money whatever the cause I strongly reccommend you to find a job and leave all the direct risks with your employer. I have read a post here of someone losing GBP 800 of his wealth. I don't want to play the amount of money down but GBP 800 really is not an excuse to virtually burn someone at the stake, like you do.
4 ) Apart from hurting the Shoreline cause which is obviously the sole purpose of this blog I am certain that it also helps Shoreline. There is scientific evidence available that the general public will, psychologically, either go for the winning party or for the underdog. You people display yourselves as victims rather than winners here but certainly Shoreline can capitalize on the position as the underdog. The whole thing is really very, very amateurish PR with too much emotions and no evidence shown from either side.
5) If Mr. Barnett or his firm have done wrong why don't you people go to court? If evidence can be produced that is probably the most effective strategy to straighten things out or even get at Shoreline if that is what you people are after. The same holds true for Shoreline. If I ran this company and being confronted with the persistent viciousness of the accusations I would have hired a sollicitor and would go to court.
6) The whole thing is too obsessively written to make use of the phrase "megalomaniac" for the opposite party. And "fatgirl" come on boys, get a grip!
7) You guys thoroughly shattered my presumptious image of the English as gentlemen in control of their emotions. Give me back the "stiff upper lip."
.I know Shoreline as a company because they first raised my interest in the UK scenario scene and I have played some of their events. Also quite recently because I attended the Afghan game only a fortnight ago and as such I have met mr. and mrs. Barnett and I think it's fair to say that we are acquainted now.
The points I want to make out to you are the following:
1) Nobody, not the serious businessman, is happy with what is happening in this blog/thread. It is bad for business and keeps away potential clients who don't want being torn in in any dispute. We don't want to hear it! Business differences are to be resolved discretely in order not to hurt the industry as a whole. For those of you participating in this blog but not being a business- but a salaryman, don't complain about the firm you wish to leave during a job interview. For that the same reasoning applies, It is not done and you leave a very bad impression on the firm you want to join.
2) As such maybe because of this information you give, I would be cautious in striking a deal with Mr. Barnett or Shoreline but certainly I would not deal with any of you for sure! You disqualify yourselves as serious businessmen.
3) When you go into business you must know that "you will win some and you will loose some." If you can't handle the loss of some money whatever the cause I strongly reccommend you to find a job and leave all the direct risks with your employer. I have read a post here of someone losing GBP 800 of his wealth. I don't want to play the amount of money down but GBP 800 really is not an excuse to virtually burn someone at the stake, like you do.
4 ) Apart from hurting the Shoreline cause which is obviously the sole purpose of this blog I am certain that it also helps Shoreline. There is scientific evidence available that the general public will, psychologically, either go for the winning party or for the underdog. You people display yourselves as victims rather than winners here but certainly Shoreline can capitalize on the position as the underdog. The whole thing is really very, very amateurish PR with too much emotions and no evidence shown from either side.
5) If Mr. Barnett or his firm have done wrong why don't you people go to court? If evidence can be produced that is probably the most effective strategy to straighten things out or even get at Shoreline if that is what you people are after. The same holds true for Shoreline. If I ran this company and being confronted with the persistent viciousness of the accusations I would have hired a sollicitor and would go to court.
6) The whole thing is too obsessively written to make use of the phrase "megalomaniac" for the opposite party. And "fatgirl" come on boys, get a grip!
7) You guys thoroughly shattered my presumptious image of the English as gentlemen in control of their emotions. Give me back the "stiff upper lip."
Last edited:
Hmmmm, I never trust first time posters especially in a thread such as this ... I smell a rat but hopefully I'll be wrong, we'll see.
And in true Scharzenegger style, I'll be back !!!
And in true Scharzenegger style, I'll be back !!!
@Jan van Hooff , I get the general meaning of your post, I agree to an extent with some but not all of your points.
Given the language barriers, although your English is far better than my Dutch, I get the feeling a little has been lost in translation.
we are not here to protect the interests solely of businessmen. We are here to keep the players, the lifeblood of our sport, informed and educated. Without players, there are no games. I suggest your familiarise yourself with the side of the barnetts which you have NOT seen, I see you make a point about £800. That was merely the value of the theft, it does not reflect that it is income for a hard working man. Food on the table, earned by honest means but taken dishonestly. I guess the 61k owed to Valken should simply be written off as an acceptable risk? How about the name calling from barnett's side, the effort he has gone to in order to discredit the people with legitimate complaints?
That said, you met the barnetts once at a game where they were relieving you of your money, at a time they NEED to be seen to be nice to their customers. Perception is different to reality. I respectfully suggest you read the WHOLE thread again.
Given the language barriers, although your English is far better than my Dutch, I get the feeling a little has been lost in translation.
we are not here to protect the interests solely of businessmen. We are here to keep the players, the lifeblood of our sport, informed and educated. Without players, there are no games. I suggest your familiarise yourself with the side of the barnetts which you have NOT seen, I see you make a point about £800. That was merely the value of the theft, it does not reflect that it is income for a hard working man. Food on the table, earned by honest means but taken dishonestly. I guess the 61k owed to Valken should simply be written off as an acceptable risk? How about the name calling from barnett's side, the effort he has gone to in order to discredit the people with legitimate complaints?
That said, you met the barnetts once at a game where they were relieving you of your money, at a time they NEED to be seen to be nice to their customers. Perception is different to reality. I respectfully suggest you read the WHOLE thread again.
- Status