Opus Finale .... A Warts an' all Exposé of Paintball's Very Own Megalomaniac
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
- Status
We live in North Wales.
I kind of agree with him! Give a player a say in how the game is run? Bonkers!
Next thing the public will be able to vote in elections, stand for parliament and so on! BONKERS!
Tim B has by this post to the UKPSF shown his utter contempt for us, his paying customers, his fellow trade members, and the UKPSF. Trying to rail road a dully elected commitee who are there to represent all parts of the paintball sport, not just the traders,the sites, the manufactures or players. We all have an interest in this - else why would we all be so vocal and passionate.
I feel the paragraph starting "having players on the committee " says the most..from a business perspective he is absolutely right ..how it's worded may show some of the more naive the real understanding of their relationship with Shoreline.
EDIT : and I would suggest 99% of the rest of paintball industry as well , not just Shoreline by any means.
What baffles me in all of this is the fact this is being looked on by some as an organised calculated attack by those parts of the UK industry that are in competition with Mr Barnett...where as I will be looked on as biased due to being a mod on here my thoughts on this are and always have been clear, I couldn't give two ****s about the politics or what Mr B gets up to in this industry and Im not interested in "fighting the good fight" ,but to suggest this is all the mad rantings of a bunch of jealous shop owners is naive at best.
EDIT : and I would suggest 99% of the rest of paintball industry as well , not just Shoreline by any means.
What baffles me in all of this is the fact this is being looked on by some as an organised calculated attack by those parts of the UK industry that are in competition with Mr Barnett...where as I will be looked on as biased due to being a mod on here my thoughts on this are and always have been clear, I couldn't give two ****s about the politics or what Mr B gets up to in this industry and Im not interested in "fighting the good fight" ,but to suggest this is all the mad rantings of a bunch of jealous shop owners is naive at best.
I'm afraid anyone declaring moral outrage concerning the kids is missing the whole point. Of course kids come first, for anyone to suggest we have somehow compromised their best interests in some way is an idiot at best, agenda ridden at worst. I'll assume the former until I get told different.
Let's make something perfectly clear here, barnett was the first person to mention his kids publicly.
Did the person in this thread who's now trying to assert a moral high ground by suggesting we have somehow compromised the kids, did he attack barnett when first brought up his kids in such a heinous accusation ?
No, they didn't .... And so why now ?
Nobody has named any kids, nobody has printed any addresses and nobody is gonna be bullying any kids because of this thread.
This is just scaremongering in a thoroughly irresponsible way.
No person in their right mind would compromise any kids least of all anyone in this thread.
The blame for any exposure is to be laid fairly and squarely on the man responsible for mentioning them in the first place in a completely fabricated attack on Pete Russell.
How dare you come on here bleating about your heightened sense of child care and how bad we should all feel because you've now reset our moral compass. If anything should be posted connected to this particular involvement then we should show concern for Pete who endured untold pain and embarrassment at being falsely called a paedophile.
I couldn't imagine what that must have been like for him. If I was Pete then I'd sue barnett for everything he's got and then had a meet with him.
Pete is gonna be telling his sorry tale soon enough and when he does, the person who's demanding we are in some way harming those kids, he better have a sympathetic word for Pete. That man has endured a terrible crime by barnett, the kids will not suffer anything and so stop fuhkin losing sight of what's really important here with overdramatised warnings of something that just won't happen.
On a personal note, I don't like people inferring I'm compromising kids by mentioning barnett's atrocious deeds.
If you crunch the numbers on this situation, it don't take much to work out where any problems might arise, and it's nowhere near the kids, the problem is barnett's.
Let's make something perfectly clear here, barnett was the first person to mention his kids publicly.
Did the person in this thread who's now trying to assert a moral high ground by suggesting we have somehow compromised the kids, did he attack barnett when first brought up his kids in such a heinous accusation ?
No, they didn't .... And so why now ?
Nobody has named any kids, nobody has printed any addresses and nobody is gonna be bullying any kids because of this thread.
This is just scaremongering in a thoroughly irresponsible way.
No person in their right mind would compromise any kids least of all anyone in this thread.
The blame for any exposure is to be laid fairly and squarely on the man responsible for mentioning them in the first place in a completely fabricated attack on Pete Russell.
How dare you come on here bleating about your heightened sense of child care and how bad we should all feel because you've now reset our moral compass. If anything should be posted connected to this particular involvement then we should show concern for Pete who endured untold pain and embarrassment at being falsely called a paedophile.
I couldn't imagine what that must have been like for him. If I was Pete then I'd sue barnett for everything he's got and then had a meet with him.
Pete is gonna be telling his sorry tale soon enough and when he does, the person who's demanding we are in some way harming those kids, he better have a sympathetic word for Pete. That man has endured a terrible crime by barnett, the kids will not suffer anything and so stop fuhkin losing sight of what's really important here with overdramatised warnings of something that just won't happen.
On a personal note, I don't like people inferring I'm compromising kids by mentioning barnett's atrocious deeds.
If you crunch the numbers on this situation, it don't take much to work out where any problems might arise, and it's nowhere near the kids, the problem is barnett's.
Has any one actually been elected though, i was under the impression they were all temporary positions until an AGM was held, i'm not currently a member so i'm not upto date on the happenings of the UKPSF.
I'm not sure i like people like you for this reason. I genuinely hoping I'm wrong about you but we'll see. You open up by telling everyone you are not going to take any sides or comment upon this situation and yet, you do make a comment, a rather long comment that has very much to do with this thread. If you take an unbiased view at all these posts in the thread, do you really think people have made these things up?
If you don't, which I think would be the most considered response to the question, then why don't you feel as you can comment.
All those people in our industry, are you calling them liars???
I've no doubt you will be bleating, 'of course not Pete, I'm not calling them liars' ...
Well, if you don't think they are liars then how can you not have an opinion on what's been said so far????
I think we both know the answer to that Shadlad don't we?
But please, if you can, surprise me !
- Status