Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Vince Pinto

  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Vince Pinto

  1. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt.
  2. You just never quit, do you Mr. Turner? Your obsession with, and hatred of, me are obviously a huge part of your life. I must've done something terrible to you but I don't recall. In any case, please, go ahead, continue with the attacks.
  3. Hey Gary, I hope you've been keeping well. Your help and guidance when I was drafting IPSC Classic Division rules was invaluable. Sorry about the dumb questions, and thanks for your patience!
  4. Yet I don't see you saying "thanks for your service to our sport" or "great work on achieving something that nobody else has ever achieved" or "everybody said your plan would fail, but you persisted and made it happen". No Sir. Always look for the perceived dirt, even though the commissions were public knowledge. Is our sport any better due to your comments? Clearly, my getting US$57,000 in commissions over a period of 5 years is disgraceful. I've spent more in that time on lunches. I don't need a medal, and I don't need a hug, but it would be nice, really nice if once, just once in 17 years here, I was not personally attacked and vilified for what the rest of the IPSC World thinks is quite a accomplishment. I know, wishful thinking, but I'm an optimist.
  5. Yep. No matter what, I'm guilty. Business as usual here.
  6. Yep, as usual, my participation in any thread here invariably becomes about me. The obsession and hatred hasn't waned one iota since I joined in 2002. It's no joke. For starters, my commission was no secret. Secondly, I didn't "take it". It was offered to me as compensation for the considerable expenses I incurred in raising the money. This included numerous airfares, hotel accommodations and some wining and dining to convince potential Patrons to sign up and part with their money. I also conceived the program, and I spent five years actively working on it. And during my 25 years with IPSC, I never asked for, nor was i ever given, a salary. Do you also object to Range Officers getting compensation? What about USPSA Executives and staff? How much have you raised to bolster the USPSA balance sheet?
  7. So, now you want to make this about me? That didn't take long. Did Andy Hollar's or Mike Voigt's (RIP) or John Amidon's chapter close when they no longer had official HQ positions in the USPSA? What about the numerous Area Directors who no longer serve in that capacity? I'm still actively involved with IPSC. I have been, every day, for 25 years, and I have no intention of withdrawing. In respect of the GAISF application, I single-handedly submitted our official application in 2015, which took 7 days a week for 6 weeks to assemble the 470 pages of supporting documentation that had to be included. I also single-handedly raised the US$570,000 war chest which enabled us to pursue this dream. I therefore hope it's OK with you that I continue to use the words "we" and "us".
  8. Yet you know so much about it. I'm truly impressed.
  9. The Classic Target was factually, not ostensibly, introduced as an alternative to regions who demanded it. At the time, Germany was using a Metric Target with two heads, in order to avoid any problems with their government, while Australia found it politically expedient to cut off the heads. Other regions were facing similar political pressures. And the suggestion that the Classic Target was the first step towards a devious plan to retire the Metric Target was the figment of the tinfoil hat imagination of a guy in Massachusetts who objected to the very existence of IPSC. There was no such plan. Once again, I was in the room when the matter was discussed. The logical fallacy "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" applies. However, the Classic Target proved to be considerably more popular worldwide than the Metric, with one major reason being its reduced size. As a result, when the Motion came up at the 2008 General Assembly, the outcome was not even close: 42 Yea votes versus 5 Nay votes (one of the latter was the USA).
  10. One more thing: IPSC did not retire the Metric (headed) Target until 2008, long after all the Olympic hoopla.
  11. Also with respect, you obtained your information third or fourth hand. I was there in the room, at the pointy end of the spear, and that article is complete and utter nonsense. We had one meeting with Gilbert Felli, and it was he who advised us to go the GAISF route. We did not try to persuade anybody of anything. It was just an exploratory meeting. And here's a clue to the inaccuracy of the article: the organisation name did not change from combat shooting. The organisation was called Practical Shooting from Day 1. Fake news was around long before Trump, but he certainly nailed them with the moniker.
  12. The story got twisted and took on a life of its own. Our friends at IPSC Greece informed us that IPSC would be able to put on a demonstration match for the IOC, in conjunction with the 2004 Olympics in Greece. We were very sceptical, but they were so insistent, we said OK, that would be great, and we notified all regions of the possibility. As it turned out, it was indeed a pipe dream, as we suspected. The IOC decided to cancel all demonstration sports for 2004, so it was never a real starter.
  13. We were rejected twice previously, but that was solely due to the ISSF objecting under the "competing sport" rules at those times. Apart from their hatred of IPSC style shooting, which is far more exciting, which might affect their growth, they were worried that we would somehow lessen the funding they obtain from the IOC. However, for us, this has nothing to do with money. We continue to pursue GAISF membership, because there is now little to no weight given to the former "competing sport" rule. It's a very long and arduous process, and we continue to plod along. We have a sizeable war chest, so all we need is patience. A lot of patience.
  14. Fake news. IPSC never expected or applied to become an Olympic sport. The only thing we sought was membership of the GAISF (aka Sport Accord), which would merely give us IOC recognition. If granted, this would be a huge benefit for our member regions, but with little to zero cost.
  15. Hi folks, It has been suggested that if you plan to just transit through the USA enroute to the World Shoot in Ecuador, you can obtain a DSP-61 exemption from the US Department of State, instead of obtaining a Form 6NIA approval from the ATF. However as it is highly likely that most competitors transiting the USA for WSXIV will enter through one US city (e.g. Los Angeles, New York etc.) but depart for Guayaquil through another US city (e.g. Houston, Miami etc.), it is my recommendation to apply for an ATF Form 6NIA approval, because I'm not convinced that you would be legal while you're "on the ground" between your city of arrival and departure. Having said that, I am not a US lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV), so you should make your own enquiries, if you have any doubts.
  16. Ha! First time I've heard that one, and you can bet I'm gonna steal it
  17. Hi folks, As most of you are probably aware, "Non-Resident Aliens" (i.e. you're not an American citizen or you don't have a "Green Card") intending to import firearms and/or ammunition into the USA for competitive (or hunting) purposes are now required to obtain prior approval from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms (BATF), and such approval usually takes from 6 to 12 weeks. In an effort to archive all relevant information, I've created (and pinned) this post for future reference. At present, the following online resources should be useful: BATF Firearms & Explosives Import Branch dedicated website. BATF Form 6 NIA: Read General Information, read the FAQs, download Form 6 NIA (25kb PDF). Application forms and supporting documentation can be faxed to the ATF at +1 202 927 1679 New fax number: 1-304-616-4551 Information & guidance from the USPSA. -:I'll update this post as and when new information becomes available. (Last update: 21 December 2004 22 Dec 06)
  18. Hi folks, I'm not sure where to put this or whether it's already been stated somewhere else, but here is an undated recall notice from Smith & Wesson in respect of their 1911.
  19. Hi guys, While this list in not comprehensive, hopefully it will give you a few pointers: 01. Always have a written stage briefing (approved by the RM), and read it out verbatim to each and every squad, even though you might be able to recite it from memory. Also ensure that a copy is posted at the stage, so competitors can read it for themselves - it's also informative for spectators. 02. Never, ever give a stage briefing or issue range commands while holding a cigarette. 03. If a competitor wants to ask you a question about the stage, ask the competitor to wait while you assemble the entire squad and your fellow ROs before you reply. This way, everybody hears the same question and the same answer. If you think the question and answer might influence the conduct, scoring and/or application of penalties for the stage, summon the Range Master and seek his advice before replying. 04. Be cool. Be very cool. If a competitor has had a bad hair day, he might be aggravated and not as friendly as you would like him to be. However, since you're a shooter too, you've been there and you know the feeling. 05. When a rule issue arises, don't quote rules from memory. Always have a copy of the rulebook with you and look up the answer, then show the competitor the applicable rule. And don't try to wing it - not ever. If you're in doubt, summon the Range Master and seek his advice before replying. 06. If you must DQ a competitor, apologise. Yes, apologise, even though the competitor's actions caused the DQ. You really hate to DQ a competitor and you're just doing your job, but it still makes you miserable to send a guy to the showers. 07. If the competitor is upset about a DQ, stay cool. Calmly give him your reasons and nicely offer to summon a more senior official to assist. The competitor doesn't hate you - he's hates the DQ, and he has every right to make an appeal according to the rules. It's not personal. 08. Be sensitive to your competitor's demeanour. Some people need a bit longer to get into "Zen" mode when they come to the line, while others might be as nervous as hell. Read the signs and react accordingly. 09. Enjoying friendly banter with the squad helps to relax everybody but, when the competitor comes to the line, it's down to business. Recite the range commands verbatim and focus 100% on the competitor on the line. 10. During scoring, if a competitor challenges your call, don't just dismiss him - the difference between an Alpha and a Charlie can mean the difference between 1st and 2nd place. Grab your scoring overlay and take the time to carefully check the challenged hole(s) in the target, but only score what you can actually see. Never give away hits on a "benefit of doubt" basis, as you have more than one competitor to consider. 11. After scoring a competitor, stay downrange and be the last person to return to the start position. This way, you can ensure that the stage is clear before you start the next competitor. 12. Before each match, read the Range Officer's Creed. --------------------------- OTHER USEFUL THREADS FOR RANGE OFFICERS: Watch What Needs To Be Watched. Debugging A Stage Scoresheets - Best Practices
  20. Hi guys, I assure you, as the IPSC Handgun Rules Guy, recent designations of the IPSC Handgun Rulebook have been: 13th Edition - October 1996 (Approved at the GA in Brasilia in October 1996, effective 1 January 1997, never modified) 14th Edition - September 2000 (Provisionally approved at the GA in Cebu in 1999 on an "evaluation" basis for 12 months. Further amended and finally approved at the GA in Quincy in September 2000, effective 1 January 2001 - there was never an offiicial "1999" designation). I realise some regions labelled the "evaluation" version as "1999", but that was not an official designation. 14th Edition - September 2002 (Approved at the GA in Pietersburg in September 2002, effective date 1 January 2003, never modified) January 2004 Edition (Pending approval at the GA in Terni in August 2003, effective date 1 January 2004) There has always been some confusion in respect of the approval date versus the effective date because, in accordance with the IPSC Constitution, rules approved at a GA are designated with the approval date, but they actuallly become effective the following 1 January. This is why, from the next rulebooks onwards (the sets pending approval at Terni), we only quote the effective date, not the approval date. Hope this clarifies.
  21. Skywalker, There was no 14th Edition of September 2001. The first release was September 2000 and the only revision so far has been the September 2002 edition.
  • Create New...