Oh no...
>>>> 1--it was useless because you are admittedly unfamiliar with the argument/debate so far, much less all the discussions that have preceded this one over the last year, yet claim to have answers you're, so far, unwilling to share.<<<<
Baca...
You're making an assumption there that's incorrect. I might should have put "EVERYTHING," and then you might not have assumed incorrectly. So much of what's in this post IS redundant, over and over again rehashing, and the same kinds of things I've seen on other boards.
>>>> 2--nicely zen but doesn't actually address the issues, does it? "Take the stone from my hand, Grasshopper." "But Master, I'm hungry, I'm thirsty." <<<<
I always find it interesting how people bitch, complain, moan, and yell, and yet never want to actually think for themselves. Everyone wants the answer, but no one wants the responsibility. One of my big problems, errrr, "problems," I think has been a tendency to think for myself. I am, by nature, a person who tends to look on the "bright" side of things yet at the same time I am always seeking improvement.
>>>> 3--If you KNOW them let's hear them. If what you mean is I feel like there must be some alternative, fine, but otherwise . . .<<<<
Listen, my friend (and I'm saying this with a smile), I DO KNOW a solution. Whether or not the powers-that-be would actually follow through with it is another story, because one of the big problems on the circuits right now SEEMS to be that they are so focused on trying to figure out how to catch everyone that they've decided they simply can't find a good way to do that and therefore can't catch anyone.
The fundamental monkeywrench is that people are trying to figure out a way to catch cheaters. THIS APPROACH WILL NOT WORK. You will fail. And your solution to your failure is failure in and of itself (the ole' "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"). The REAL solution is to not even bother with such a ridiculous idea. Instead, attack the problem by answering a simple question: HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TO POLICE THEMSELVES? Go at it this way. It becomes a whole helluva lot easier.
>>>> 4--why will you be interested to see what comes up when you can't be bothered to find out what's come before? <<<<
I'm not sure what you're asking there. If you're still assuming, incorrectly, that I've wandered into this debate ill-informed, well, I've already addressed that. But I'll be interested because I'm typically amazed the lack of originality that pops up among the masses of squabbling that I've become accustomed to seeing in Paintball. I would like to see people think a little bit differently. As for my style, well...I, myself, don't need yours or anyone else's approval, nor am I a person that wanders ill-informed into anything. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone, although on issues like this I have found I do tend to be "better AT them" than many. I'm not sure why that is, but then again, I suck at golf and hate mathematics, so plenty of people better me there. It would be easy to steer clear of this debate and all the ill-meaning folks that like to hang around and troll them (I'm not naming names). But I believe in what I believe in.
Now to Manike...
>>>> Justin you should be a politician, you so say much, so eloquently, but in reality you answer nothing. <<<<
Ouch. I hate politics. That was a low blow.
>>>> Just because you are so new into this discussion doesn't mean some of us haven't been looking at this for years and trying to find solutions. <<<<
Hence the words "fresh perspective."
>>>> Don't tell us to ask ourselves about the problem when some of us have been racking our brains to try and find a solution for a LONG time. <<<<
Not that long.
And I sincerely apologize if I've somehow offended you by causing you to think I'm implying something I'm not. Myself, I was trying to tackle a physics problem one day when my professor noticed that I'd been stuck for some time and came up to me and circled a couple of things on the board...then erased everything else. He told me to start over but look at what he'd circled. After all the noise had been removed, the solution almost revealed itself. I appreciated that because I wasn't handed it, but I came to realize it myself.
>>>> Again you alude to an answer you don't present. <<<<
That's true.
>>>> As for the safety of impacts.. unless you have some proof to back up what you are saying I think you are crying wolf. <<<<
Prove me wrong, but I suggest you consult legal counsel first.
>>>> As far as I am aware there has only ever been ONE case of a post mortem examination of someone who died shortly after playing paintball, and they found NO signs of any injury caused by a shot to the head (and the player was shot to the head from relatively close range). Unless you have some other facts to post that back your point please don't shout 'fire' just because you can. <<<<
Not because I "can," but because I'm concerned. As for now vs. then, well, because the circumstances have changed. Look at the barrel plug issue...back in the day, the old style barrel plugs were sufficient...we were using bolt-action pistols or pumps. Several years ago I "cried wolf" about the need for some sort of unlodgeable barrel plug considering the easy firepower inherent with the new electro-semis and such. There was a person on a board who hit me with a reply very similar to yours. Now look at what's happened. Was I just ahead of my time??? Nope...but I saw a problem and it was important and I yelled about it. And when they first implemented it everyone bitched about it...but it was still the right thing to do.
>>>> A single paintball impact can bear the same risks as multiple impacts. Again unless you have PROOF of multiple impacts being worse, you are just scaremongering. <<<<
Prove me wrong, but I suggest you consult legal counsel first.
As for "scaremongering," [sigh]...if the folks who are making decisions about safety aren't trying to make sure they've taken "scary scenarios" into account, well I hope your kids aren't coming with you.
Now for Chicago...
I am really impressed with your response (not your scenario, LOL, but the meat of your reply). I, too, understand the "why" behind what is happening, but I will disagree with you about this statement: "you havn't taken the time to look at the way things are." But I have no problem with someone "believing" otherwise.
Lotsa love to all...
~J~
>>>> 1--it was useless because you are admittedly unfamiliar with the argument/debate so far, much less all the discussions that have preceded this one over the last year, yet claim to have answers you're, so far, unwilling to share.<<<<
Baca...
You're making an assumption there that's incorrect. I might should have put "EVERYTHING," and then you might not have assumed incorrectly. So much of what's in this post IS redundant, over and over again rehashing, and the same kinds of things I've seen on other boards.
>>>> 2--nicely zen but doesn't actually address the issues, does it? "Take the stone from my hand, Grasshopper." "But Master, I'm hungry, I'm thirsty." <<<<
I always find it interesting how people bitch, complain, moan, and yell, and yet never want to actually think for themselves. Everyone wants the answer, but no one wants the responsibility. One of my big problems, errrr, "problems," I think has been a tendency to think for myself. I am, by nature, a person who tends to look on the "bright" side of things yet at the same time I am always seeking improvement.
>>>> 3--If you KNOW them let's hear them. If what you mean is I feel like there must be some alternative, fine, but otherwise . . .<<<<
Listen, my friend (and I'm saying this with a smile), I DO KNOW a solution. Whether or not the powers-that-be would actually follow through with it is another story, because one of the big problems on the circuits right now SEEMS to be that they are so focused on trying to figure out how to catch everyone that they've decided they simply can't find a good way to do that and therefore can't catch anyone.
The fundamental monkeywrench is that people are trying to figure out a way to catch cheaters. THIS APPROACH WILL NOT WORK. You will fail. And your solution to your failure is failure in and of itself (the ole' "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"). The REAL solution is to not even bother with such a ridiculous idea. Instead, attack the problem by answering a simple question: HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TO POLICE THEMSELVES? Go at it this way. It becomes a whole helluva lot easier.
>>>> 4--why will you be interested to see what comes up when you can't be bothered to find out what's come before? <<<<
I'm not sure what you're asking there. If you're still assuming, incorrectly, that I've wandered into this debate ill-informed, well, I've already addressed that. But I'll be interested because I'm typically amazed the lack of originality that pops up among the masses of squabbling that I've become accustomed to seeing in Paintball. I would like to see people think a little bit differently. As for my style, well...I, myself, don't need yours or anyone else's approval, nor am I a person that wanders ill-informed into anything. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone, although on issues like this I have found I do tend to be "better AT them" than many. I'm not sure why that is, but then again, I suck at golf and hate mathematics, so plenty of people better me there. It would be easy to steer clear of this debate and all the ill-meaning folks that like to hang around and troll them (I'm not naming names). But I believe in what I believe in.
Now to Manike...
>>>> Justin you should be a politician, you so say much, so eloquently, but in reality you answer nothing. <<<<
Ouch. I hate politics. That was a low blow.
>>>> Just because you are so new into this discussion doesn't mean some of us haven't been looking at this for years and trying to find solutions. <<<<
Hence the words "fresh perspective."
>>>> Don't tell us to ask ourselves about the problem when some of us have been racking our brains to try and find a solution for a LONG time. <<<<
Not that long.
And I sincerely apologize if I've somehow offended you by causing you to think I'm implying something I'm not. Myself, I was trying to tackle a physics problem one day when my professor noticed that I'd been stuck for some time and came up to me and circled a couple of things on the board...then erased everything else. He told me to start over but look at what he'd circled. After all the noise had been removed, the solution almost revealed itself. I appreciated that because I wasn't handed it, but I came to realize it myself.
>>>> Again you alude to an answer you don't present. <<<<
That's true.
>>>> As for the safety of impacts.. unless you have some proof to back up what you are saying I think you are crying wolf. <<<<
Prove me wrong, but I suggest you consult legal counsel first.
>>>> As far as I am aware there has only ever been ONE case of a post mortem examination of someone who died shortly after playing paintball, and they found NO signs of any injury caused by a shot to the head (and the player was shot to the head from relatively close range). Unless you have some other facts to post that back your point please don't shout 'fire' just because you can. <<<<
Not because I "can," but because I'm concerned. As for now vs. then, well, because the circumstances have changed. Look at the barrel plug issue...back in the day, the old style barrel plugs were sufficient...we were using bolt-action pistols or pumps. Several years ago I "cried wolf" about the need for some sort of unlodgeable barrel plug considering the easy firepower inherent with the new electro-semis and such. There was a person on a board who hit me with a reply very similar to yours. Now look at what's happened. Was I just ahead of my time??? Nope...but I saw a problem and it was important and I yelled about it. And when they first implemented it everyone bitched about it...but it was still the right thing to do.
>>>> A single paintball impact can bear the same risks as multiple impacts. Again unless you have PROOF of multiple impacts being worse, you are just scaremongering. <<<<
Prove me wrong, but I suggest you consult legal counsel first.
As for "scaremongering," [sigh]...if the folks who are making decisions about safety aren't trying to make sure they've taken "scary scenarios" into account, well I hope your kids aren't coming with you.
Now for Chicago...
I am really impressed with your response (not your scenario, LOL, but the meat of your reply). I, too, understand the "why" behind what is happening, but I will disagree with you about this statement: "you havn't taken the time to look at the way things are." But I have no problem with someone "believing" otherwise.
Lotsa love to all...
~J~
