Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217

Members
  • Posts

    21,725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217

  1. When you try to fool your cat with a picture of food.
  2. When you don't share your food with your dog.
  3. There is much more to be gleaned from W3G than "moving while shooting." I like: painting of targets between shooters no scenarios, just shoot the targets as you see them no need for counters, it is obvious which targets were hit
  4. I had a "blast" at my first W3G match at Piru. I had a shoot out for last place and I wasn't last (did I win or lose, LOL). It was so much fun. I had shot W3G before with cardboard targets. There was no comparison to a match with metal targets at Piru. Any club that has dedicated berms, should give it a try. The metal targets could easily be used for SASS. It would bring in a breath of new life to SASS! PS IIRC Misty has even shot W3G and Hipshot has no objection to it. So, you can try it without straying from the "party line."
  5. I find the following perplexing. Usually, a clarification is posted by PWB. There may be some grumbling; but, the clarification is usually accepted. Sometimes, he takes the "grumbles" to the ROC before everyone accepts the clarification. He has clarified that a LTO or person on the loading bench is required to check another person's guns. Why is this continuing to be ignored or misunderstood? My answer is, as I stated or implied in my first post on this thread, many people will not be placated with a clarification. They require a specific statement in the SHB that a LTO or similar is required. It is that simple. Why does the ROC balk at this? Maybe, because the "rule" or "clarification" is so unpopular that it isn't misunderstood at all. It is ignored and the ROC fears taking steps to mandate it. They only discuss it when forced to do so. As this is a recurring topic of discussion and discontent, I feel that requiring a LTO should be put to a vote of the TGs. If they vote to no longer require a LTO or to require a LTO, either way, an update to the SHB should be required.
  6. You're killing me, Yul! In my first post on this thread, I said conformity to this edict would require an update to the SHB.
  7. I was on Snakebite's posse at an annual match. He said it would be a SDQ for failure to follow loading or unloading procedures.
  8. Hi Yul, I based that comment on earlier posts stating that PWB (spokesman for the ROC), Snakebite (former chair of the ROC), and the ROC have all said one is required. AM
  9. Hi Ike and others, I've never favored a LTO. After all, the firing line is expected to be hot. I've never disagreed to an ULTO as the rest of the range is expected to be cold. However, the party line is that there must be a LTO, whether dedicated or the next person in line to shoot. The only way to conformity seems to be an amendment to the SHB. Regards, AM
  10. PaleWolf (spokesman for the ROC), Snakebite (former chairman of the ROC), and the ROC indicate (in no uncertain terms) that the LTO is required. Could the resolution of this recurring dilemma be implemented by adding unequivocal verbiage to the SHB? The ROC has historically balked about adding to the SHB. However, when a "safety rule" is continually ignored or misunderstood, the time has come to clarify it in writing.
  11. We had a stand-offish stray. One day he showed up and talked to and rubbed against Hubby. Hubby told me to get him some food. Of course, being the sucker I am, I did. Another day, ditto, except he sprayed a chair. Hubby put a bed out for him. Next time visiting, he had a flea collar and had been brushed. So, we fed him again and named him Bandit. We haven't seen him in a few days. He's so cute. If he were mine, I wouldn't let him run around at night and would have him fixed. PS This is the current status.
  12. According to KK, it is spelled Meaux Meaux.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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