Creeker, SASS #43022
-
Posts
4,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Creeker, SASS #43022
-
-
I do not wish a fight.
I have no significant conflict with you about the cadence of the pledge.
I disagree that it is "childish" - the cadence exists so it may be STATED (not said) in unison; with each broken component being a declaration unto itself.
The Red Skelton rendition actually does a fine job of breaking down this concept.
This cadence and group unison is symbolic as well.
I do have challenges with the "knock their hat off" rhetoric.
Another persons PEACEABLE expression is never justification to physically impose your will.
The flag, the anthem, the pledge have ZERO meaning without the concepts and protections of rights that they symbolize.
Ignore those concepts in the "defense" of those symbols and you render those symbols meaningless.
People on this forum (and many others) were aghast that folks were being screamed at and threatened, being denied service because they were wearing red MAGA hats.
"How dare they deny my free speech?"
and then would immediately turn around and advocate for removing a Pride flag.
Freedoms are freedoms; some are ugly and some will be offensive - but we cannot be advocates or supporters of freedom by denying others theirs.
I will share a story from my childhood that may clarify my stance on "symbols" - I grew up in a Pentecostal family; Sunday was a day spent in a tent with stiff collared clean clothes, hair Brylcreem combed slick and a standing threat not to misbehave, get dirty or embarass the family.
And I listened to sermons about compassion and truth and Heaven and Hell.
It was "important" that we were there and to make sure others knew we were there - that we were properly humble and appropriately dressed.
And then we would come home and my grandmother would gossip, insult and denigrate every word the preacher said - bad mouth every child (that wasn't hers) in attendance - take stock of everyones dress, hat and car.
At a very young age - I began to question why it was so important to be there, to dress up and listen to words that folks claimed were so important when we weren't abiding by their meaning. Why the "symbols" of church going were so important; but yet the precepts behind them were being ignored.
I have carried some of that suspicion and observation about symbols becoming more important than the foundation ever since - in religion, in civic groups and in patriotism.
I am sorry IF I read more into your statement than simple frustration at disrespect.
If was not my intention to attempt to impose or make demands upon you or your opinion.
I apologize.
-
2
-
-
I never once embraced communism nor suggested its implementation or acceptance.
But knowing the origins of an action, a word, of a phrase, of a pledge is important; to understand "why" this symbolism is important.
Prior to the late 1930's the pledge was said with arm raised - hand outstretched; in a move that would be co opted as the Nazi salute. We changed to hand over heart.
We added "under God" to the pledge as we battled "godless commies".
To ME - this reinforces that symbolism is just that; symbolism that may be changed or modified due to circumstance - but the symbol is not the precept and the change or modification of the symbol does not damage the idea.
Part of why I am not offended (at least not in the same way as many) at the singing of the "Black National Anthem" - I am saddened by any division this may sow; but I am also intelligent enough to understand that for many in the black community, a division already exists. I hold out hope that "maybe" alternate symbolism will encourage them to understand and embrace our same foundations.
I love my country - I love the principles upon which we were founded and I am much more disappointed when we fail to live up to our promises and potential than I will ever be at failing a rote acknowledgement of a symbol.
I sincerely apologize if I was misunderstood.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Marshal Dan Troop 70448 said:
Do you even know why one removes their head covering as the flag goes by or when we say the Pledge of Allegiance??
Symbolism.
Nothing more.
I place my hand over heart.
I remove my hat.
Because it is important to ME.
But I do not elevate symbolism over substance.
"You" (in the royal sense - not you specifically) cannot hold that symbolism up as an example of decency without adhering to the principles those symbols are supposedly representing.
Free Speech is not just for speech "you" (again - royal you) agree with.
It is protection for speech that may be distasteful or offensive.
Rights are not enumerated for those in positions of power - those in power are not being oppressed or downtrodden.
Rights exist to protect those who are in the minority from being silenced simply because their opinions or views are at odds with those in power.
And they exist as endowed by our CREATOR - they are not granted by a flag, a piece of parchment or a symbol.
I contend that any system (or adherent to that system) that is threatened by anothers contrary belief or the PEACEFUL demonstration of that contrary belief has significant issues.
Our nation is not a cult and it does not require lockstep agreement - it simply states that we respect the precepts of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It states that ALL men are created equal.
It states that we have the freedom to express our beliefs, worship (or not) as we please, be secure in our homes and affects.
It does not elevate any group, belief or individual above any other.
If you attempt to impose; to elevate YOUR beliefs upon another - your claimed respect and protection of a symbol is meaningless as YOU have rendered the foundation of that symbol meaningless.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:
Sort of like #44 telling his followers to bring a gun, right?
Or was that obvious hyperbole OK?
Ignorance is ignorance.
Someone using anothers ignorant behavior as justification for their own is juvenile.
"It's not my fault - He started it"
"Tommys parents let him stay out till 2am - I should get to too"
"Jennys mom buys her beer and cigarettes - why aren't you cool?"
These are words and attitudes of children.
Adults weigh carefully their words and actions and do not over react to perceived insult or hurt feelings.
And they certainly don't offer justification for their own bad decisions because someone else did it too.
-
1 minute ago, Subdeacon Joe said:
Where the.
Heck did you get all.
That He?
Wants it.
Said so the phrasing.
Makes sense and.
The fl.
Ag and Pledge treated wi.
Th.
The same re.
Pect demanded.
For pride
Flags but you.
Seem to project your.
Own hostilities to
Wards free exercise of
Expression on
To him.
If his opinion of the pledge and its cadence were the sum total of his comment - I might have pointed out that the cadence exists to better allow groups to recite the pledge together and in unison.
Or I might have simply passed the thread by.
But when someone threatens violence against anothers peaceful action - they are going beyond freedom of expression.
And I am going to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about the cadence of words when the meaning and intent of those words is being completely ignored.
I don't care if he (or you) are offended - there is no right to be free from offense.
And when someone takes offense at truth - that's a pretty good sign you are on the wrong side of the argument.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:
what happened to "indivisible"?
It's called a Freudian slip.
The absolutists (on both sides) want nothing more than a divided country; red states and blue states.
It's part of the modern landscape that eschews compromise and frank discussion and is predicated on the idea that one sides views are perfect and unquestionable and anyone with differing views is a demonic plague.
-
So you want the pledge recited to your satisfaction and then wish to attack others who don't remove their head cover?
Not real big on that whole "justice and liberty for all" part, are you?
I detest people that claim they are so pro freedom and then demand conformity from others to what they believe in.
Liberty and freedom mean "for all" - not just for the liberties and freedoms you agree with.
That pledge, that flag gives protection to the person that chooses to not remove their hat.
You don't know why that person chooses to kneel or not remove their hat - and you have ZERO right to enforce your beliefs upon them.
You can claim its disrespectful - or its their duty or it should be out of sheer gratitude that they get to live in this country.
But there is no such clause or demand in our Constitution and you have no right to request it.
If it bothers you - you can look away.
If it bothers you - you can engage with them and ask why?
Maybe you educate them OR maybe you become educated that not everybody has experienced the same America.
Blind allegiance to country is jingoism and just as dangerous as any enemy influence.
My country; right or wrong.
Love it or leave it.
These are remnants of anti communist rhetoric and propaganda (same as the insertion of "under God" into the pledge).
A true lover of their country does not defensively throw up arguments to support the status quo - but actually believes the words of the Pledge, of the Declaration of independence, of the Constitution. Not just the cadence.
And when our country fails to live up to these lofty precepts - we should never gloss over our failures. We should hold them high in the light and demand better. Demand that our citizens and our leaders work even harder to demonstrate the ideals that this country is supposed to represent to all.
You demand your right to free speech but are offended when others exercise theirs.
I think the rhythm of the pledge is a minor issue when folks refuse to take heed of the words.
-
3
-
1
-
-
To the best of my knowledge; Yes.
I have testified in a few civil trials and I was kept out of the courtroom until my testimony was complete; after I was finished - I was allowed to remain in the courtroom.
And as I had a financial interest in those cases - I did stay.
-
I only own one firearm.
-
6
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Quiet Burp said:
Well to me shooting one pistol with your left hand and one with your right hand compared to shooting both pistols with your dominant hand is a very different animal, YMMV.
Again; why?
Categories ONLY exist to provide a semi level playing field and "protection" against obviously superior methodologies.
When comparing dominant hand vs the use of both hands as it applies to Duelist - What "unfairness" (or need for protection) is present?
It is one hand - one pistol.
Should there be different categories for differing rifles?
Differing shotguns?
Left handers vs right handers?
I ask this as someone who shot Duelist for a number of years - who set matches for a number of years.
I never saw any advantage within the Duelist category (one hand vs. two) that could not be overcome by method, gear choice and practice.
-
5
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Quiet Burp said:
OK but seriously wouldn't this have been a very obvious and very justifiable category?
Why?
One hand - one pistol.
There is no need to overcomplicate it.
Again, no matter what given category or equipment - they need to find methods that best work to their benefit.
IF you shoot a 97; you probably need to learn to pull four shells.
IF you shoot Gunfighter; you probably need to learn to holster blind.
And IF you choose to shoot Duelist - you need to figure what works best for you. Whether transition improvements or use of crossdraw rigs - every choice will have pros and cons.
But at the end of the stage - it is one pistol; one hand.
That's Duelist.
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Quiet Burp said:
Just wondering why Double Duelist and Single Duelist are lumped together in competition.
Shooting one pistol with your left hand and one with your right hand compared to shooting both pistols with your dominant hand is a very different animal.
There are already WAAAAAY too many categories - there is no reason to further dilute competition by more separation.
Duelist is ONE loaded pistol out of holster at a time, shot unsupported.
IF someone believes that using both hands is of "significant" benefit - then they should become proficient at doing so.
I offer that Duelist offers many opportunities for transition and gear set up - some favor using the dominant single hand; some favor using both hands.
A dominant hand Duelist using a crossdraw rig that is well practiced in offhand holstering is not at a sizable handicap to any other Duelist.
I was a two handed Duelist and fairly good at it - but still often beaten by superior dominant hand only Duelists.
-
4
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Alpo said:
I just looked this guy up to see if it possibly gave his physical stats - height weight. Didn't.
Kirk Alyn 6 ft 1 inch
Didn't find weight for him and as he doesn't look to be incredibly large.
I would venture about 170 - 180lbs.
-
4 hours ago, Alpo said:
This is the Superman from the 1948 serial.
Their theory was the same. Superman gets his powers magically, from the yellow sun. He doesn't need muscles.
I'll put something in the picture for scale. Everyone knows how big Noel Neal is, right? She was the original Lois. Longer hair. But you can use her to see how big Superman is not.
But we still have an in shape objectively good looking guy with good hair who is likely 6 footish.
Im talking a Woody Allen type - the challenges of being a hero who doesn't look heroic.
What would be required to be taken seriously? The same challenges that "current" Clark Kent suffers with identity and appearance vs Superman (and don't give me the super hypnosis or projection glasses answer - I don't accept it).
Our nebbish Superman would have the same issues just in reverse; would we revere someone 5ft 1in 121lbs as a man-god?
Would he have to "costume" as a hulking beast to appear heroic or would he morph into a Batman as a creature of the night to avoid scrutiny?
How would the Lois - Superman - Clark love triangle be affected when Clark is so obviously not super? (was always hard to buy that the 6ft 4inch Clark was incapable of attracting female attention just because he wore glasses).
Having never been heroic (or viewed as such) would he be the reluctant hero or become the spurned villain?
-
Alternate Earths or the Multiverse allows for multiple iterations of the Superman ethos.
Some variants and even some "fanfiction" is very well written and explores possibilities that were not considered at a characters inception.
There is a faction that (rightfully) says that rehashing an existing character is (or can be) lazy and writers need to "create" new characters; but almost all fictional characters gather elements from those preceding.
Superman was "created" or at minimum inspired by "Doc Savage - Man of Bronze".
Batman is a updated version of Zorro (as is the fictional Lone Ranger as well).
Using an existing character allows for creative placement of a known commodity without the tedium of rehashing origin stories (afterall - how often do we need to see Bruce Wayne lose his parents?).
This is the same device used for James Bond - we don't explain timelines or how he changes from a balding scotsman to a blonde over the course of half a century.
We simply bypass all that and start with something exploding.
I've had a Superman story partially written for a number of years that questions why Superman looks like he does; if Superman derives his strength from our yellow sun - why does he look like a body builder?
Muscularity is derived from effort, resistance and repetitive actions - unneccessary for him to have this appearance - how much easier would his schlubby Clark Kent persona be if he simply looked like any common person?
In some version of the DC universe - there is a skinny Superman that looks more like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory than Mr. Universe.
If the writing is well done and creates a broadened universe - I have no issues with a black Spiderman, a Superman who's power manifest with adulthood or a Batman that grows up poor.
If the writing is poor - I'm not interested in a rehash - I won't be interested in an original character either.
-
1
-
-
I am a firm believer that we have a record of everything imprinted on our brain.
What "most" of us do not have, is a quality recall system to find all of those memories.
I liken it to using a computer - important stuff; we label that file and carefully preserve it.
But pretty much everything you do on the computer is recorded; every website you visit, every image file is in there somewhere - just not always easy to find again.
And the less significance that an individual memory has - it becomes less likely to have been properly labeled and filed away. Ending up in a figurative junk drawer never to be looked at again; excepting accidental recall or while searching for something else.
But every once in a while - you come across a "file" that triggers a group of memories that associate with it - that you would not be able to recall on its own; but hit that right key and entire files of memory open up.
Smells are one of those triggers - you may not be able to simply recall a given holidays events; but catch a whiff of hot pumpkin pie and suddenly you're recalling a Thanksgiving day when you were 12; you remember going deer hunting in the morning and watching football with your cousins.
And sometimes those memories that are not labeled come back as dreams, deja vu or a "feeling" that something is familiar.
My Dad always had atrocious memory for details - but when he got brain cancer; after surgery and chemo - he lost short term memories but suddenly could go into great detail about things that he and my Mom did in grade school or church when they were 5 or 6 years old.
He was accessing files that had gone untouched for 60 years while what happened yesterday was missing.
So yes, I believe the memories are all there - we just don't currently have the reliable means to find them.
-
3
-
-
I fully agree the current rule IS the current rule.
But is no one else disturbed by the basis or implementation?
IF I were a shooter that was willfully disregarding the instructions to gain an advantage - why on Earth would I self incriminate and admit to it?
So we have yet another layer of subjectivity and inconsistent application.
The shooter that looks like they did it deliberately - but didn't.
The shooter that did it deliberately and denys it.
The shooter that did it deliberately and admits it.
So wouldn't it be better to simply apply real world observable results instead of accusations and hoping the shooters suddenly feels guilty between the firing line and unloading table?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:
Howdy JEDI Creeker.
I do like your reasoning and your post above about 'subjectivity'.
But I gotta ask this...... with the words "Willfully". and "Intent" given to all of us
in the definition of SOG, in which we are expected to use as a guideline, doesn't
those words actually put parameters around 'subjectivity'?
Or should I say, it puts constraints on subjectivity.
I think the definition of SOG and what is required to warrant the SOG penalty should
be looked at, probably more to the reasoning of what you, Billy and a couple others
have posted on this thread.
I will admit, if the occasion occurred in front of me (TO or Spotter) and a shooter
did a few shot dump because of his/her confusion, I would not think of a SOG penalty.....
UNLESS that shooter openly made a comment as to their intent. That's just me.
..........Widder
That's kind of my point - why should there be a subjectively applied penalty that disregards the actual offense and depends on "intent"?
The observable action is the same - but the scoresheet reflects different results?
Driving 75 in a 55 is 20 over - whether I'm doing it deliberately or just failing to pay attention. Same ticket.
My electricity gets turned off if I don't pay the bill - it doesn't matter whether I had to use the money to buy groceries or I lost the money playing poker.
A rock breaks my windshield - whether that rock came from an uncovered load, a tire or Dennis the Menaces slingshot - the replacement cost of my windshield is exactly the same.
A target sequence shot out of order is a procedural penalty - whether the shooter has brain fade or they just decide they would rather shoot a Nevada sweep instead of the prescribed sequence.
It is immaterial "Why" something happens - it is results we should be concerned with and only those results that should be reflected upon the scoresheet.
Afterall - my "intent" is to win every single shoot I go to; but yet I don't.
Folks keep scoring me on my results; but since I try REAL HARD - maybe my intent should be taken into consideration when determining my score?
-
3
-
1
-
-
If the SAME result is achieved - the SAME penalties are recorded.
It is nobody's business "why" anyone did anything - the only thing that matters is the objective measurable result of their actions.
Our goal should always be to eliminate subjective and opinion based calls.
When we hear a spotter say "I THINK"; we immediately reject their input as it applies to calling misses and Procedurals.
But for a THIRTY second penalty - labeling someone a "cheater"; suddenly subjectivity, opinion and "I THINK" have validity?
Score on objective results - nothing else.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:
What pistol targets did they engage in the wrong order?
They engaged 5 "shoot where they were" targets then 5 on the plate.
In the second example posted by Ozark - he changed the question to dumping 10 pistol on the dump plate.
So I responded as initial example and 2nd example.
Two differing results based on two different parameters.
-
4 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:
Stage: 5 pistol knockdown, 5 rifle knockdown, 1 dump plate. (shotgun irrelevant for the example)
Stage description, Order is shooter's choice. With pistols engage 5 near knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate. With rifle, engage 5 far knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate.
Shooter steps up, starts with rifle. Knocks down 5 pistol knockdowns, then 5 rifle knockdowns. With pistol 1, shooter dumps 5 shots over tops of 5 pistol knockdowns (shooting where they were), then dups pistol 2 into the plate.
What's the call, if you don't consider SOG?
Doing away with the "subjective" and inconsistently applied "SoG" penalty by allowing the shooter to own the stage does NOT exempt the shooter from earned penalties.
It simply applies the SAME penalties to each shooter that performs the SAME action without requiring "intent".
In your initial example:
Your shooter earns five MISSES for the rifle rounds that enaged the pistol targets.
Shooters eats 25 seconds based on their objective shooting result - no need for a SoG or any need to ascertain intent.
In your second example:
Your shooter earns FIVE misses for the rifle rounds that engaged the pistol targets AND they earn a PROCEDURAL for engaging the dump target 10 times as five pistol rounds should have engaged AIR above the pistol rack and THEN five rounds should have engaged the dump.
Targets that do not match the firearm type are "invisible and unaffected" when engaged by the wrong firearm.
The pistol KD's that were downed by the rifle are STILL IN PLAY for the pistol and must be engaged by shooting where they were for the minimum number of expected engagements (minimum engagement would be five rounds for the five KD's - same as if the KD targets had fallen by wind or rack vibration).
As the shooter does not have any pistol misses - (all pistol rounds struck a pistol target) - the assignable penalty is engaging/ striking pistol targets in the wrong order.
Shooter eats 35 seconds worth of penalty for their objective shooting result - no need for a SoG penalty or for anyone to ascertain intent.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:
Shouldn't you be practicing...you know...to win multiple World Championships and all.
Touche'
-
1
-
-
Not in the mood to scream into the abyss today.
-
51 minutes ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:
..... and then there's the metric system, ....... but I don't think it applies here ....
When it comes to using the Metric system - there are only two types of countries.
Those who have put a man on the moon and those who haven't.
-
3
-
A seven-bore pistol?
in SASS Wire Saloon
Posted
Court - Euro for short.