Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:26 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 Not entirely hypothetical question 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:18 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 234
Location: Apple-Mount Farming-Ville
joelr wrote:
IncaKola wrote:
I think we can do a lot more good for each other and our cause if we privately coach and rebuke each other, rather than publicly ridicule.

Then go ahead and do that. Please. If you can get the bad instructors to clean up their act that way, it'll be great. But do remember: when this stuff comes up for review in the legislature, it's far more effective to have demonstrated success than it is to talk about how you might be able to, at some point, demonstrate success.


I would much rather try to correct bad practices and fail than not try and ridicule.

Believe me, I know the bad apples are there, and there are many that cannot be helped. I am 100% with you that they need to shape up or get out of the business...
But if we go out the bad apples, having tried to course correct their practices, we can say instructors a,b,c have tried to bring up the standards, but instructor X carried on against the professional advisement of his peers. To me this is a win-win. We look better for bringing actively concerned about the carrying community, and they bad apple gets a new job.

Funny that you mention the stuff coming up for review in the legislature... I really fail to see how publicly posting accusations of instructor fraud, phony craigslist ads. and parody sites publicly advertising the existence of deplorable instructors is going to be of any help whatsoever.... I see it as a anti's goldmine of evidence for reform...

I am totally with you on exposing the bad apples, but I have got to believe there is a more tactful way of doing it.

_________________
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shothell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer

MNbasecamp.com - Minnesota Outdoors Community


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:44 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
IncaKola wrote:
I am totally with you on exposing the bad apples, but I have got to believe there is a more tactful way of doing it.
Then go ahead and do it. Really. But don't expect to sit down in front of a legislative committee and try to sell, "Well, we've tried to tactfully get the bad instructors to clean up their acts, but we've failed, so that proves that there's no need for a change in the legislation."

It won't sell.

So get to work, and be successful. Here's a really minor thing, and fixing this would be just the tiniest of baby steps, but it would be at least something.
Image
Do you need Shade's phone number?

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:04 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 234
Location: Apple-Mount Farming-Ville
joelr wrote:
But don't expect to sit down in front of a legislative committee and try to sell, "Well, we've tried to tactfully get the bad instructors to clean up their acts, but we've failed, so that proves that there's no need for a change in the legislation."


"No Congressman, we didn't try to increase their standards, but we did create parody sites, and fake craigslist ads..." is a better sell?

_________________
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shothell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer

MNbasecamp.com - Minnesota Outdoors Community


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:10 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
IncaKola wrote:
joelr wrote:
But don't expect to sit down in front of a legislative committee and try to sell, "Well, we've tried to tactfully get the bad instructors to clean up their acts, but we've failed, so that proves that there's no need for a change in the legislation."


"No Congressman, we didn't try to increase their standards, but we did create parody sites, and fake craigslist ads..." is a better sell?
Nope. Then again, that's not what I plan to be saying. As to what I do plan to say, well, you'll just have to wait and see, I guess, if and when (and IMHO it's when, not if) legislation is introduced.

But I'll give you three hints: Truth, Justice, and the American Way. No shit.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:57 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
replicant_argent wrote:
all the other hubbub aside..

Entertaining the thought of not dating an important legal document?

er.... FAIL.
Yes, yes, of course. We must only think clean thoughts.

Entertaining any thought possible is not and should not be a punishable act in USA. Busting people for thinking wrong is more of a Soviet thing. It's making inroads here and I don't like it.

replicant_argent wrote:
Egos, brouhaha, innuendo, assumptions, and hypotheticals asisde... isn't this enough to wonder what would become of the current training/certification community if the legislature wants to chew a bone?
Seems to me that gift-wrapping the said bone and tossing it to them is less than wise.

replicant_argent wrote:
I think it is important that instructors would look at this situation and have NO question that this particular happenstance never exist in the first place, as it is completely below contempt.
People have stupid thoughts. It's a function of being human. In this case the man was smart enough to check himself and ask advice. In a perfect world the thought would not occur. In the imperfect world where we live this was handled just fine.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:23 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 am
Posts: 88
White Horseradish wrote:
replicant_argent wrote:
all the other hubbub aside..

Entertaining the thought of not dating an important legal document?

er.... FAIL.
Yes, yes, of course. We must only think clean thoughts.

Entertaining any thought possible is not and should not be a punishable act in USA. Busting people for thinking wrong is more of a Soviet thing. It's making inroads here and I don't like it.

replicant_argent wrote:
Egos, brouhaha, innuendo, assumptions, and hypotheticals asisde... isn't this enough to wonder what would become of the current training/certification community if the legislature wants to chew a bone?
Seems to me that gift-wrapping the said bone and tossing it to them is less than wise.

replicant_argent wrote:
I think it is important that instructors would look at this situation and have NO question that this particular happenstance never exist in the first place, as it is completely below contempt.
People have stupid thoughts. It's a function of being human. In this case the man was smart enough to check himself and ask advice. In a perfect world the thought would not occur. In the imperfect world where we live this was handled just fine.

I'm not the thought police, the tenor of the posts I made were more to illustrate the complete lack of logical filter between their gray matter and oral performance or digital expression that many people fail to possess. In other words, "Most people of above average intelligence engage the tranny in their brain far before letting the clutch out on their mouths." Some folks just don't have that on a regular basis, and a slipup happens to all of us at one time or another. Usually it is some un-PC-ish transgression, or perhaps something that can be immediately taken the wrong way. I would like to think that matters like this would require some thought and individual critical thinking before having verbal diarrhea. I tend to think the legalities, ethics, and all matters pertaining to the Sheepdogs of their family's or society at large are more than important enough to give additional self analysis considering the possible outcome of action, whether legal, ethical, moral, personal, or dealing with the responsibility of you/your student.
An "oopsie" regarding Aunt Henriettas big rear end? Yeah, I could live with that. It is my impression, or hope, that someone that instructs others in the process of P2C would be able to answer the initial question to themselves instinctively. If you can't answer it properly, (in hindsight of all this "debate") then I could not imagine what else someones curricula might miss.. or misrepresent, or just be flat out wrong. And "wrong" would be the answer he should have been able to provide himself.

That's my 4 bits opinion. It probably won't change.

_________________
This makes sense to me. Perhaps not to the letter, but well said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf ... annel_page


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:35 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
Sometimes folks just have to agree to disagree for awhile. Shit happens, time marches on, and there are new battles to fight. Let's stay together and be ready, OK?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:35 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
And, just to be clear: I'm not criticizing whatever poor excuse for malfunctioning neurons misfiring passes for "thoughts" in Scott Olson's pointy little. I'm criticizing the actions he took, which (at least) consisted of typing the following words:
Quote:
Should I issue a certificate with no date--to be filled in later?
For the full context in which he typed that, see the links.

(Unless, of course, one thinks that the "full context" includes, say, Paul thinking Scott Olson is just a swell guy, who couldn't possibly have meant what his words say he meant, 'cause Olson's a swell guy, after all. If so, please add that to the "context." But do gargle with some lube first; some things are hard to swallow, so I hear.)

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:39 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
IncaKola wrote:
joelr wrote:
But don't expect to sit down in front of a legislative committee and try to sell, "Well, we've tried to tactfully get the bad instructors to clean up their acts, but we've failed, so that proves that there's no need for a change in the legislation."


"No Congressman, we didn't try to increase their standards, but we did create parody sites, and fake craigslist ads..." is a better sell?
With all due respect, by the way, the ads were -- and are; see this -- entirely real, and they, like the parody sites, were not created by "we", but by, well, me.

Including the t-shirts and the *shudder* icanhazgunpermit? thong.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:43 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
joelr wrote:
SethB wrote:
What would be a better result?
Well, we don't know what the result was; we know what Scott D. Olson said the result was. That may even be true.

A better result would have been for the BCA to do its job, and investigate to see if instructors are actually following the law (which they apparently don't), rather than engage in desultory and minimal actions when they find that instructors aren't (see the huge gap between the first reports to the BCA and the eventual issuance of an awfully wimpy letter saying, "Don't keep doing that.").

That would be a better situation all around; but I don't think this particular issue is such a great cause of it. Suppose BCA did that, and an undercover BCA agent tried to get an undated certificate for a junior and failed. Presumably, that's what would happen here. So?

The BCA ought to investigate, and start with the low-hanging fruit of the worst actual abuses, not stupid questions that lead to someone being told not to do something wrong and not doing it.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:56 pm 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
SethB wrote:
The BCA ought to investigate, and start with the low-hanging fruit of the worst actual abuses, not stupid questions that lead to someone being told not to do something wrong and not doing it.

Yes, exactly!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:18 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
replicant_argent wrote:
I'm not the thought police, the tenor of the posts I made were more to illustrate the complete lack of logical filter between their gray matter and oral performance or digital expression that many people fail to possess.

Correct, you are not. However, we are not talking about you. We are talking about BCA investigating on the basis of "bad moral character". Your side of this wants a government agency to look at a guy not for what he did but for something else that he might have done because he thinks wrong. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

joelr wrote:
And, just to be clear: I'm not criticizing whatever poor excuse for malfunctioning neurons misfiring passes for "thoughts" in Scott Olson's pointy little. I'm criticizing the actions he took, which (at least) consisted of typing the following words:
Quote:
Should I issue a certificate with no date--to be filled in later?
For the full context in which he typed that, see the links.
You imply (here and elsewhere) that there is more to the story. Yet, you never actually say what that "more" is. Again, you want me to believe you and not my lying eyes. Why is that?

joelr wrote:
(Unless, of course, one thinks that the "full context" includes, say, Paul thinking Scott Olson is just a swell guy, who couldn't possibly have meant what his words say he meant, 'cause Olson's a swell guy, after all. If so, please add that to the "context."
The thing is, even if he did mean it 100%, nothing actually happened. So there is nothing for the BCA to investigate.

joelr wrote:
But do gargle with some lube first; some things are hard to swallow, so I hear.)
I would defer to your authority and experience on this. Myself, I would have no idea.

SethB wrote:
That would be a better situation all around; but I don't think this particular issue is such a great cause of it. Suppose BCA did that, and an undercover BCA agent tried to get an undated certificate for a junior and failed. Presumably, that's what would happen here. So?

The BCA ought to investigate, and start with the low-hanging fruit of the worst actual abuses, not stupid questions that lead to someone being told not to do something wrong and not doing it.
Precisely.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:42 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 am
Posts: 88
White Horseradish wrote:
replicant_argent wrote:
I'm not the thought police, the tenor of the posts I made were more to illustrate the complete lack of logical filter between their gray matter and oral performance or digital expression that many people fail to possess.

Correct, you are not. However, we are not talking about you. We are talking about BCA investigating on the basis of "bad moral character". Your side of this wants a government agency to look at a guy not for what he did but for something else that he might have done because he thinks wrong. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
No... I did not mention that I wanted such a thing. MY side? Tell me who I represent, and who else is on MY side. Seriously. Don't put words in my mouth and I won't respond in kind. "considering the possible outcome" is one thing I did say, and careful consideration is the general point. "if the legislature wants to chew a bone? " is most certainly not an offer, simply an observation of possibility.
joelr wrote:
And, just to be clear: I'm not criticizing whatever poor excuse for malfunctioning neurons misfiring passes for "thoughts" in Scott Olson's pointy little. I'm criticizing the actions he took, which (at least) consisted of typing the following words:
Quote:
Should I issue a certificate with no date--to be filled in later?
For the full context in which he typed that, see the links.
You imply (here and elsewhere) that there is more to the story. Yet, you never actually say what that "more" is. Again, you want me to believe you and not my lying eyes. Why is that?

joelr wrote:
(Unless, of course, one thinks that the "full context" includes, say, Paul thinking Scott Olson is just a swell guy, who couldn't possibly have meant what his words say he meant, 'cause Olson's a swell guy, after all. If so, please add that to the "context."
The thing is, even if he did mean it 100%, nothing actually happened. So there is nothing for the BCA to investigate.
Let's hope it wasn't a past "hypothetical" that might have actually happened. Sometimes, it is human nature to rationalize past behavior with posing a "hypothetical" question... Call me a cynic. I can accept that.

joelr wrote:
But do gargle with some lube first; some things are hard to swallow, so I hear.)
I would defer to your authority and experience on this. Myself, I would have no idea.
I will refrain from comment here, no matter how tempting.


_________________
This makes sense to me. Perhaps not to the letter, but well said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf ... annel_page


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:23 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
You're a cynic. Then again, so am I. I find it vanishingly unlikely that this was the only time Scott Olson came close -- or worse than that -- to going over one clear, bright line and crossing another.

I guess we'll see.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:25 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
White Horseradish wrote:
replicant_argent wrote:
I'm not the thought police, the tenor of the posts I made were more to illustrate the complete lack of logical filter between their gray matter and oral performance or digital expression that many people fail to possess.

Correct, you are not. However, we are not talking about you. We are talking about BCA investigating on the basis of "bad moral character". Your side of this wants a government agency to look at a guy not for what he did but for something else that he might have done because he thinks wrong. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Yup. I definitely want a governmental entity whose mission includes monitoring instructor organization to start monitoring instructor organizations. And, preferably, start with an obvious candidate.

You betcha.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group