Zak Smith

Nik, I know as facts that the following has happened on BE: 1. posts edited without ever notifying the poster (ie, it stands until he noticed and said "WTF, I didn't write that") 2. posts edited (content removed) and that content not moved to any "holding area" 3. entire threads deleted without moving to "holding area" For all the arguments made in this thread that moderation only happens through a certain process, those three facts show pretty clearly that in practice, it doesn't. See post #27. The argument "Posters Should Have The Balls To Stand By Their Posts!" (recently paraphrased in post #32) is an interesting contrast to the reality of a high rate of editing and deletion by moderators, as well as "weeding" threads by deleting and/or editing posts (which are within the Guidelines) so the threads better serve what the moderator thinks the threads should "do."

So will or will not posters be able to "fix up" posts that moderators have edited, regardless of the 2-day window? A simple yes or no to the jury...

Eric, It was never under dispute that the forum is privately owned. I have offered coherent arguments why: posters have copyright to their posts (and thus all I.P. posted here is not subsumed by BrianEnos.com), and posters ought to remain able to edit their posts. The moderators can do whatever they want because as you say the forum is privately owned, however, this is limited at: republishing, and changing what has been posted to the effect that it misrepresents the poster (unethical). I am dismayed there has been little discussion about these relevant points, but instead trite responses to the effect of: Love it or leave it, I'll do what I want with your posts, If you're not man/woman enough to ....

It was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the point that having mechanisms and checks and balances in place to reduce the chances of it occuring is more robust than just asserting that one's employees act correctly, ethically, and with equity 100% of the time (which cannot be true). The former is how businesses actually do reduce their liability for their agents' potential wrongdoing; the latter ignores basic facts of human nature-- that they are subjective, unpredictable, and prone to error.

In post #9, I put forth that if a moderator can edit a post at any time, but the poster cannot fix up changes, there is an in principle ethical problem. It may be the case that it will never happen. I argue that because the poster in essence owns the post (per non-refuted points), he ought to retain that ability to edit his posts. Do not confuse such an objection with an attack on any moderator's integrity. In a business, would "I am confident my employess act ethically 100% of the time" be considered due diligence?

The user agreement says nothing of the sort. Specifically, it does not say the poster has transfered any rights at all! What I post is copyrighted automatically and owned by me, provided it is an "original work of authorship." See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html if you are not clear. The analog is placing a hand-bill with original artwork on a bulletin board at a coffee shop (privately owned) or in a public square (publicly owned). In either case, the author of that artwork has not ceded any rights to any other party. The ethical problem I refer to is that the moderator can significantly change the meaning of the user's post, either without his knowledge, or after the 2-day period. This is deception regarding what he has written and in some cases changes the perception of his character (for the worse, even). At the least, the poster should have a chance to implement the requested changes himself, OR review the change. I know for a fact that moderators have changed posts without notifying the posters-- I have seen it happen. Forums that have value and content, do so because of the posters. Characterizing the people who would go and delete all their posts as, roughly, "not having the balls to stand by what they've written" (paraphrased from the above two quotes) pretty much ignores all issues raised in the "This Forum Has Gotten Out Of Hand" thread. Where did that thread go off to anyway? If you play fast and loose with words people have written (by editing them) and have a cavalier towards their contributions (" I learned later why he deleted his posts. But personally, I didn't care why and I still don't. In my opinion it was bs to yank all the posts"), you can expect them to be retracted from your use. The ideas and words are his, not yours. ETF typo

The thesis that "You need to use a heavier bullet than the normal 165 grain variety [to make it to 1000 yards]" is false. Mass is not the operative parameter. BC is an average ratio of Cds swept over the mach range of "this bullet" and the base G1 projectile (for G1 BCs which are the ones we see everywhere). If all bullets had the same "shape" the thesis would be true within a given caliber. The bullet shapes are emphatically not the same, so it doesn't. This explains why a 155 Scenar (which is longer than a 175 SMK) can have a higher BC than a 168 SMK. A ballistic calculator only needs an accurate BC, the MV, and environmental conditions to accurately model the trajectory. -z

I assume you were not replying to me since your post does not address any of the points in mine. ETFspelling

Does this mean the moderators can't edit them after 2 days either? I see serious ethical problems if moderators can edit posts which the original poster cannot edit or delete, or if moderators can edit posts without notifying the poster 100% of the time and allowing that poster the option of editing or removing the post (regardless of the 2-day timer). Perhaps the question "Why would someone want to remove all their posts from BE?" should be considered. ETA- Furthermore, the poster who holds the copyright of the post (or report etc) can revoke that right to BE at any time. (Note that the new-user registration acknowledges the copyright may be held by the poster.)

Total BS. The operative parameter is the B.C. But to answer the question--- No need to make this real complicated. 308 will make it to 1000 yards no problem, with a little care in bullet selection. I shoot the 155 Scenars to 1000 yards almost weekly. Every long-range shooter should have a 308 bolt gun. I say this because the crux of shooting LR is wind estimation and similar basic skills. 308 enables much more practice due to its low ammunition cost (bought or reloaded) and long barrel life. Even if he has a magnum caliber, 308 will enable volume practice that the cost of the magnum caliber would not permit. Calibers which are expensive, non-standard, or involve inordinate reloading effort should be avoided for a first "long range" rifle and only subsequently considered for relatively low-volume applications. Recommending an Ackley for a first long-range caliber is insane. Even a 300WM, which has decent factory LR match ammunition available, will be over 2x the cost of shooting 308, not counting the shortened barrel life. With Lapua brass available for 308, and many solid and tested reloading recipes, there is little that can go wrong, and little load development time needed. Even going with a LR or magnum cartridge like 260, 7RM, or 338LM, the shooter still has to account for wind (as others have said). A exemplary 1000-yard cartridge like 7RM (shooting a 168gr VLD @ 2950), still has 60% of 308's wind drift at 1000 yards. So you can't ignore wind.. just get a little more margin of error. For logistical reasons, most people will practice LR shooting out to 500 to 800 yards. 308 is certainly sufficient for these distances. After a year of shooting, if he feels like he needs a better LR caliber, get a second rifle in a caliber with FAR better ballistics, like some of the 6.5, 7mm, or 338 choices listed here. The 308 remains the high volume gun for bulk practice, and the new rifle is for low-volume practice beyond the capability of 308. This keeps costs (ammo and barrel) and time (reloading effort) under control. If you need to hit things beyond 1500 yards, I can attest 338 Lapua is a good choice--

Is it true only invited shooters get to see it?

The device you want is technically possible, but when you combine everything together, the economies of scale diminish and the price would be very high. For example, PDAs are cheap for their computing power and flexibility because they sell a gazillion of them to geeks and business people. The cost of a good rifle scope starts at about $1000 and the really good ones IMO are about $2k. The cost of a good laser rangefinder starts at about $600. The cost of anything with custom circuit boards and firmware in this kind of volume is going to be pretty expensive ($500 at least). There is no reason to guess anything but the wind value.

So I won one of the FN-SLP's at CMMG. It has a 6-round tube. Does anyone know if there is a +2 available, or if a SX2 mag tube would fit? It might be nice to have a back-up shotgun. If not, I guess I can sell it like Jimmy just did... -z

Probably a bad idea with anything other than a rifle length gas system. There are multiple different lightened carriers out there. The lower the mass, the more finicky the system will become. I am currently running the Y/M lightened carrier from MSTN and it has almost the reliability of a full weight carrier.