Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 As for your statement At this moment HQ is addressing possible "fubars" in regards to revolver weight issues and others. No Official word has been posted here or anywhere else I have read that this is true. So far it is unsubstantiated hearsay. I would like to see Mr or Mrs Wilson post on the IDPA web site that this is the case and show the customers that they have at least some respect for their feedback. Joyce Wilson HAS addressed that matter here: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...pic=19637&st=50 Wrong again Duane, In the statement by Joyce, she stated Bill thought he had picked out the heaviest practical revolver to weigh to set this limit. I just brought all of the comments on this to his attention and he didn't realize that the 625, 610 or 627 were over that limit. We're in the process of doing some research right now. (It's 6:15 and I'm still here at work). There may even be a couple of other things that we missed. I hope not too many. We even had the thing professionally proof read this time. I don't know what the correction will be, but keep watching. We'll announce it on the website.Thanks for your patience. Joyce Wilson (my emphasis added) No announcement has been made which means it has Not been addressed as of yet and Joyce did not know how it would be addressed. In all reality, she did not know if it would be. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I have never received an e mail and am a member in good standing with a valid e mail address. Weird. In the e-mail I received, it said that it was being sent to all current members with a valid e-mail addy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 In case the weight issue is addressed, I travelled 365 miles round trip and shot an ESR classifier today. I hope I did not waste the time, ammo, and gasoline. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 No announcement has been made which means it has Not been addressed as of yet Guess it depends on your definition of the word "addressed". To me, "We're aware of the problem, we're working on it, we'll let you know as soon as it's resolved," means you've addressed it. If by addressed you mean "totally resolved," then no, it hasn't been addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 No announcement has been made which means it has Not been addressed as of yet Guess it depends on your definition of the word "addressed". To me, "We're aware of the problem, we're working on it, we'll let you know as soon as it's resolved," means you've addressed it. If by addressed you mean "totally resolved," then no, it hasn't been addressed. Kind of like what the definition of "Is" is. To me being aware of something is only a step towards addressing the issue. Being aware of the issue also leaves the avenue of ignoring it open. Regards, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Kind of like what the definition of "Is" is. I don't really see that. The whole "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" thing was a sneaky way of weaseling out of answering a question. That's not the case here. Being aware of the issue also leaves the avenue of ignoring it open. But it hasn't been ignored. IDPA HQ in the person of Joyce Wilson has, on this very forums board, said, "We're aware of the problem, we're working on it, we'll let you know know when it's resolved." But what possible definition could that be construed as "ignoring" the issue? Sounds more like a prompt response with a promise of action to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Kind of like what the definition of "Is" is. I don't really see that. The whole "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" thing was a sneaky way of weaseling out of answering a question. That's not the case here. Being aware of the issue also leaves the avenue of ignoring it open. But it hasn't been ignored. IDPA HQ in the person of Joyce Wilson has, on this very forums board, said, "We're aware of the problem, we're working on it, we'll let you know know when it's resolved." But what possible definition could that be construed as "ignoring" the issue? Sounds more like a prompt response with a promise of action to me. Thanks Duane, we just see things differently I guess. I can not find the quote you posted. I appreciate your position and will bow out of the discussion. I am going to address the weight issue of my 625 and 610 tomorrow with a trip to the post office for an official weigh in. I will then know for myself if my own revolvers make the cut as presently defined. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Thanks Duane, we just see things differently I guess. No problem. Civilized discourse is a great thing. I can not find the quote you posted. It's on page 2 of the thread to which I posted a link. I appreciate your position and will bow out of the discussion. No need, from where I sit. It's all good. I am going to address the weight issue of my 625 and 610 tomorrow with a trip to the post office for an official weigh in. I will then know for myself if my own revolvers make the cut as presently defined. Let us know what you find, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 a) Spending over well over $100,000 for a piece of land in Washington state located on a flood plain for the purpose of building a non-centralized HQ. This issue was never brought before the membership, we were told after the fact. It turns out that the persons responsible for the purchase never knew the location was on a flood plain. Unless it's been sold recently (and if so, a report should be given to the membership as to the losses incurred), USPSA is still stuck with it. In a "membership owned organization" or whatever term one wishes to use, the authorization for an expenditure that large should have prior membership approval. I can't think of any USPSA member who was happy with the land deal thing. It is ironic that the USPSA Area director who was charged with the land/building fiasco ran for election on a platform of being "an experienced businessman" (my paraphrase). Fortunately, after the fiasco, he was not relected. That is a good thing about USPSA/IPSC. Ultimately, they still have to answer to the membership. -David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 It's on page 2 of the thread to which I posted a link. I still don't see it, only the quote I posted as a cut and paste above. No matter Let us know what you find, please. Will do as long as they don't panic here. You know, guns, post office, Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I suggest stealth mode at 2 AM. Sssshhhhhhhh. I didn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Here's a cut-and-paste of the entire post: Guys,I'll be the very first to admit that I know absolutely nothing about revolvers. I certainly didn't catch anything wrong about the weight limit because of my first statement. Bill thought he had picked out the heaviest practical revolver to weigh to set this limit. I just brought all of the comments on this to his attention and he didn't realize that the 625, 610 or 627 were over that limit. We're in the process of doing some research right now. (It's 6:15 and I'm still here at work). There may even be a couple of other things that we missed. I hope not too many. We even had the thing professionally proof read this time. I don't know what the correction will be, but keep watching. We'll announce it on the website. Thanks for your patience. Joyce Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Here's a cut-and-paste of the entire post:Guys,I'll be the very first to admit that I know absolutely nothing about revolvers. I certainly didn't catch anything wrong about the weight limit because of my first statement. Bill thought he had picked out the heaviest practical revolver to weigh to set this limit. I just brought all of the comments on this to his attention and he didn't realize that the 625, 610 or 627 were over that limit. We're in the process of doing some research right now. (It's 6:15 and I'm still here at work). There may even be a couple of other things that we missed. I hope not too many. We even had the thing professionally proof read this time. I don't know what the correction will be, but keep watching. We'll announce it on the website. Thanks for your patience. Joyce Wilson Here is what you posted as a quote from Joyce But it hasn't been ignored. IDPA HQ in the person of Joyce Wilson has, on this very forums board, said, "We're aware of the problem, we're working on it, we'll let you know know when it's resolved." But what possible definition could that be construed as "ignoring" the issue? Sounds more like a prompt response with a promise of action to me. Now I know why she posted in part And lastly, the reason that I don't visit the boards more is that I've seen posts that I've made show up on other boards with the context twisted. I don't mind if people quote me (obviously they are going to no matter what), just please quote me entirely, not selectively.Thanks, Joyce I couldn't just walk away I guess. Regards, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 There has been some IPSC vs. IDPA type talk in this thread (on various levels). That is against the forum guidelines. I am closing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts