Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Phantom, SASS #54973

Members
  • Posts

    9,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Posts posted by Phantom, SASS #54973

  1. 5 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

    Heaven help us all if anyone ever joins SASS and uses the alias....... 'Scammer'.

    ;)

     

    ..........Widder

     

    I'm changing mine to Scummer...so what!

     

    Oh...you said Scammer...never mind.

     

    :rolleyes:

    • Haha 4
  2. 6 minutes ago, Hawk Eyes Hudson said:

    Well spoken, Phantom!  Sorry, Pale Wolf not solved but a good try!  I am not meaning to provoke or anger any members just to make life a little more interesting.  So, I would normally not go this far to explain the equation with answer but here we go.

     

    The Injun's was a closing fast and Pappy implored his young'uns to please leave, he would suffer his fate but importantly they would live.  So off set the two sons paddling their hearts out headed for the safe side of the river.   Upon reaching the other side one son remorse jumped back into the boat and paddled back to his father.  Upset, Pappy argued!  The son demanded that Pappy should save himself and raise his younger brother.  Upon reaching the other side the haggard Pappy begged his younger son, paddle back and get your brother for he will suffer a tortured death beyond belief.   Quickly the younger brother leaped into the boat and paddled with all his might.  As he reached the other side his brother leaped into the boat barely escaping the flying arrows of the angry Indians and both paddled to the other side safe and sound.  The Injun's could not swim either!  You have the narrative now do the math!  Just like the sport it's only a game.

     

    Merry Christmas Cowboy's, 

     

    Hawk Eyes Hudson

     

     

    Good lord, start your own post on the Saloon...

     

    Phantom

    • Thanks 1
  3. 1 minute ago, Hawk Eyes Hudson said:

    Solve the Riddle!  How did they cross the river?  What I said and how I said it is the riddle.  It is up to you with the information given to solve the Riddle!  Maybe some of you fellas should look up the definition for the term Riddle.

    You win...besides, I never argue with a THSS member...serves no useful purpose.

     

    When is a Riddle not a Riddle?

     

    Answer: When no one give a rip.

     

    Phantom

    • Haha 2
  4. 7 hours ago, Hawk Eyes Hudson said:

    Well seems like all of you cowboys got something to say about anything.  The conversations was a run-in a little slow so I thought I would give you all a "Riddle" to add to the confusion.  When you figure it out get back to me.

     

    Hawk Eyes Hudson

    Was it what you said or how you said it that was the riddle?

     

    Phantom

    • Like 1
  5. 38 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

     

    Maybe, that's not an answer.

     

    Can you enlighten those of us who are unaware of the distinction?

    I was making a statement... Not answering the question by design;)

     

    Don't get me wrong as I disagree with the 1927 date...but Winchesters are not my strong point.

     

    Phantom

  6. 2 hours ago, Hawk Eyes Hudson said:

    Some time ago before a dust cover was even thought about, a group of travelers was a crossing this country.  The group came to a rather wide and deep river with no ways to cross.  None of the travelers could swim.  They had to cross because they were being tracked by Indians.  One of the sons found a small boat but it would only carry 200 pounds.  The father weighed 200 lbs. and each of the young sons weighed 100 lbs. each.  If they wanted to live, "How did they get across?"

     

     

     

     

    What the heck are you talking about????

     

    :wacko:

    • Haha 2
  7. 9 hours ago, Griff said:

    Language that's been in the shooter's handbook since 2006 is suddenly deemed inadequate?  What I see is a clear case of public cowardice.  An unwillingness to enforce rules suddenly transforms itself into a need to remove said rule.  I'm somewhat dismayed at the what future holds.  But, after this, not really surprised.  Obviously a lot of other rules need to be changed... 

     

    Flame away.

    Cowardice...nice.

     

    If you've been actively traveling to multiple SASS clubs/shoots you'd recognize that some rules have been inconsistently applied. So now we have a time limit on when we can correct weaknesses in our rules? That somehow this is indicative of our future? As the game broadened, so has the rules.

     

    I'm sure you call violations on everyone that has their SG belt too high...or the violations on breaking the 180 holstering rule. So you'd be completely fine with never touching those rules because theoretically we've been fine all these years.

     

    You say it's unwillingness to enforce rules in reference to the proposed rule change #3. Have you EVER considered that the hesitation to call a violation has nothing to do with "unwillingness"...or 'cowardice", but instead has something to do with ambiguity? Oh no...couldn't be that. Instead you choose to insult those that think differently than you.

     

    Like I said...nice.

     

    Phantom

    • Like 3
  8. 20 minutes ago, Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728 said:

    This is too much fun.  So I wrap my lever using 1/8" wide strips of soft elk skin or deer skin or cow skin or sheep skin or buffalo skin,  3 or 4 or 5 or 6 times without any filler, am I currently within SASS rules?

    That's a definite maybe.

     

    Phantom

    • Like 2
    • Haha 3
  9. 5 minutes ago, July Smith said:

    It looks like leather so I assume it is legal.  I also know I see a lot of levers that look like the one pictured and never thought to worry about if there is a block under it or not.  

    That picture and the confusion that it creates is a prime example of how subjective the current rule is...and why the new proposed rule make complete sense.

     

    Phantom

     

    PS: Since it looks like it's just a thick piece of leather...I'd say it's good to go. Others may disagree because of the limiting movement and arguing that there is a block underneath the leather...guess we can do some destructive testing to find out...:wacko:

    • Like 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, July Smith said:

    As the rules stand right now is the lever wrap shown in this picture legal or illegal?  

    Well, here is the current rules:

     

    • Levers may be wrapped or padded with leather or other natural material.
    • Filler “blocks” or other such mechanisms designed to prevent all or drastically limit movement of the fingers within the lever loop are not allowed.

    So take yer pick!

     

    Phantom

    • Like 1
  11. 4 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

    What... we've got here... is... a good old fashioned urination competition. :P

    Hopefully it's not.

     

    A good debate can help bring to light thoughts/ideas that others haven't considered...which can lead to a more informed decision on these rule changes that will be voted on.

     

    Yes, it can seem like a pissing match, but hopefully positions have been well hashed out to bring out some clarity.

     

    Phantom

    • Like 2
  12. 15 minutes ago, Griff said:

    When the current rule sez "no spacer" and you remove the "no spacer" part... I consider that a relaxation of the rule.

    Cuz it fits your ideal...but, updating this rule to remove subjectivity and allow folks with smaller hands/fingers to have a more comfortable fit is far from "relaxing" rules.

     

    15 minutes ago, Griff said:

    I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between a wrap and a wrap with a spacer and find it ambiguous.  Like that Judge said, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. 

    This is both insulting and silly...all at the same time. Congratulations!

     

    15 minutes ago, Griff said:

    My question about no external modifications is really, where does one draw the line?  Is it just shy of electrically operated levers, or will that also be "looks cowboy from 10 feet" and acceptable?

    So you're admitting that your referencing "no external modifications" was a Strawman...and now you wish to take your argument into the absurd realm...?

     

    15 minutes ago, Griff said:

    I suspect you practice... can we agree that practice is vastly more important than some silly modification? 

    Actually, the last time I practiced was in January 2009. There is no question that practice makes one a better shooter. But my position on this issue has nothing to do with becoming a better shooter. Since my first post, my position is that updating this rule (#3), makes for a more comfortable/consistent and objective environment of all shooters. 

     

    Cheers!

    Phantom

    • Like 1
  13. 4 minutes ago, Griff said:

    There, fixed that for ya.  Deuce and now you have finally put forth an argument that is reasoned and articulate.  IMO, as with other recent relaxations of rules, it still seemingly waters down the definition of "no external modifications."  

    Fixed what?

     

    You say it's a relaxation of rules. Please explain how it's a "relaxation" of rules. Are you saying that making a rule objective rather than subjective is "relaxing" a rule?

     

    There are rules and processes regarding external modifications. Where is this "no external modification" definition that states that we can't make rules regarding external modifications?

     

    Phantom

  14. 9 minutes ago, Jeb Stuart #65654 said:

    I feel that if you attempt to scam someone, you are still a scammer, even if it didn't work

    Maybe they didn't get your communication...maybe it went into their Spam folder...or...maybe they're just the crappy "scammers".

     

    :rolleyes:

     

    Phantom

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Griff said:

    And always said a bit "tongue in cheek"...  but, certainly the rule for those that wished for anything that gave them an advantage, perceived or real.  

    The proposed rule change #3 is not going to give anyone an advantage and it take the subjectivity away.

     

    So far I've seen "original intent" used as an argument against the proposed change...and it's not "Cowboy" argument has been tried. Is this the best the "No" on #3 has for voting against it?

     

    Phantom

  16. 44 minutes ago, J. B. Corn said:

    I have thin hands/fingers.  My fingers flop back and forth in the loop.  My intent is to support the philosophy prohibiting external modifications to the rifle such as stuffing the loop rather than simply preventing chafing of the fingers against bare metal.  I think this has been the intent of the rule since the beginning.  I support what I consider to be the original intent.

    Fascinating...original intent. So anything that has passed in the past you were against...?? 

     

    External mods...let's go back to the old rule if "original intent" is of paramount concern. You know the old rule...right?

     

    If it looks cowboy from 10 feet it's good to go.

     

    Phantom

  17. 48 minutes ago, J. B. Corn said:

    My point is that I think the intent of the rule is clear, wrapping the lever to prevent chafing your fingers against bare metal is OK, stuffing the loop to minimize finger movement in the loop is not.  I think this is consistent with the philosophy of no external modifications to the gun.   I trust match officials to make a common sense decision based on the existing rule.  However, the rule could easily be made objective and measurable by specifying the allowed thickness of the lever wrap on the inside of the loop.  For example, "the thickness of the lever wrap on the inside of the loop shall not exceed 3/8" inch."  (Pick your own value for what you think the allowed thickness could be.)  If the thickness is specified, we don't care if it is thin leather over a soft pad or a couple of layers of thin leather, or a piece of thick leather, etc.  It is either too thick or not.  If we want to go to an extreme we could add "assuming a measurement resolution and accuracy of plus or minus 1/16 inch." 

     

    I like the original rule and what I think was the original intent. But if it is too subjective then I think we should change it to be more objective, not eliminate it entirely.

    So you wish to penalize those with thin hands/fingers for the sake of...what exactly?

     

    Phantom

    • Thanks 3
  18. 24 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

    Your right (again) Phantom.

     

    Having good competition is fun.   Being able to compete is fun.

    And fun is having good competition, regardless of my level of competition or the level of my competition.

     

    You're business is probably gonna get busy the next couple weeks, which may (or may not) limit

    your Wire usage.   So just in case you ain't on here......  hope you have a Peaceful and Happy Holiday

    season.

     

    ..........Widder

     

    Thanks Widder - and Merry Christmas to you and yours!!!!!!

     

    Phantom

    • Thanks 1
  19. 1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

    Well, for the record....... I'm in it just for the fun.

    :lol:

     

    ..........Widder

     

    As been said:

     

    If I can compete I won't have fun. If I don't have fun I won't compete.

     

    Phantom

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.