Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Branchwater Jack SASS #88854

Rule change?

Recommended Posts

That's another way to look at it :blink:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JUNE 14 designates the MONTH & YEAR...not the day.

<_<

 

What month/year is THIS??

 

( I believe I can confidently post that answer as correct without debate )

 

:P

Are you absolutely sure about that? :huh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can argue about this all we want on the wire and it won't change anything. My personal position agrees with Snakebite. It was my understanding that the long gun had to be discarded "open and empty" and if it accidentally closed later it could be a no call if the firearm was indeed empty.

While some may think this was Tex alone, remember he may write the information, but as I understand it Misty is the one who actually has the "Computer Authority" to post it on the website. So she must have at least had the opportunity to read it before posting it. I'm NOT trying to blame anyone if a "mistake" was made, just saying there is more than 1 level this went through before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot find a problem with the rule. It still allows for accidental closing, which I thought was the original intent of the rule change. I must have missed something.

As I read the rule, you would get a 10 second penalty. It says it quite clearly - you did not discard the gun open and empty.

 

Please read the new rule again:

Long guns will be discarded with their actions left open and the magazine/barrels empty at

the conclusion of each shooting string. A 10-second minor safety penalty will be assessed if

the firearm is not discarded open and empty. This condition may be corrected prior to the

next round being fired

 

 

It really is QUITE clear. And from what Tex wrote, I believe that is what he wants - and he is resisting the recent change.

 

No, I don't like that, but if you are one to try to follow the rules as written, it says it is a penalty if discarded in any other manner. The rest of the verbiage is simply how to handle the gun once you already have a minor safety penalty. So if it is not clear, you get a stage DQ or whatever, but it says you ALREADY earned the first penalty.

 

And if I am reading the rule this way, many others will as well - and thus we will have inconsistency - and those who want to follow the rules as written will probably win out - most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does it make if the gun closes intentionally or unintentionally? The result is the SAME. A closed gun that may or may not have empty or loaded ammo in it. Why two different penalties based on the INTENT of the shooter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can argue about this all we want on the wire and it won't change anything. My personal position agrees with Snakebite. It was my understanding that the long gun had to be discarded "open and empty" and if it accidentally closed later it could be a no call if the firearm was indeed empty.

While some may think this was Tex alone, remember he may write the information, but as I understand it Misty is the one who actually has the "Computer Authority" to post it on the website. So she must have at least had the opportunity to read it before posting it. I'm NOT trying to blame anyone if a "mistake" was made, just saying there is more than 1 level this went through before posting.

If everyone that voted on the rule and discussed the rule as it was being rewritten before the vote really believed the rule only applied to accidental closing of actions, why did they not insert one simple word "accidental" in the wording. It still does not have that word in the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does it make if the gun closes intentionally or unintentionally? The result is the SAME. A closed gun that may or may not have empty or loaded ammo in it. Why two different penalties based on the INTENT of the shooter?

 

For some reason when a sentence starts like that ....I get weird feelings...like I heard it from some politician :D

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not a penalty is awarded is one thing... but everyone should do their best to do the safe thing. Anyone..... let me repeat that ANYONE, that chooses an unsafe act on purpose just to shave a fraction off of his time needs to get out of the game. I don't want to shoot with them and no reasonable person would. The rifle should be be opened and emptied before putting it down or be put down with the hammer down on the spent round, (which is not an option in this game). To do other wise is a travesty to safety. Whether or not there is a live round chambered and under a cocked hammer is one thing... but one thing we know for sure... the gun can not go off if the action is open. It worked for a very long time and now all of sudden it seems to be a big deal to a few folks. Just play the game and stop all the whining about the supposed rule change. I agree that the timing was really $#!tty, and it came out of the sky causing a lot of problems, but get over it, put the gun down open and empty, and more on.

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does it make if the gun closes intentionally or unintentionally? The result is the SAME. A closed gun that may or may not have empty or loaded ammo in it. Why two different penalties based on the INTENT of the shooter?

I don't believe intent has anything to do with the application of the rule.

 

The way I read the new, new rule, it simplifies to this...

 

Was the long gun open and empty at the moment it left the shooter's hands (meets the definition of discarded open and empty)?

 

Yes? Then if it meets the editorial description's requirements for closing by prop or by gravity if it were to be found closed later.

 

No? Call the shooter back to fix before the next round down range or award penalty.

 

What difference is the end result? I don't think there is one. But...

 

It makes a difference how the gun ends up closed at the end of the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not a penalty is awarded is one thing... but everyone should do their best to do the safe thing. Anyone..... let me repeat that ANYONE, that chooses an unsafe act on purpose just to shave a fraction off of his time needs to get out of the game. I don't want to shoot with them and no reasonable person would.

 

The rifle should be be opened and emptied before putting it down or be put down with the hammer down on the spent round, (which is not an option in this game).

Actually, that IS allowed under certain circumstances...that was one of the suggested changes at one time or another by a couple of ROC members.

REF: RO1 p.16

 

To do other wise is a travesty to safety. Whether or not there is a live round chambered and under a cocked hammer is one thing... but one thing we know for sure... the gun can not go off if the action is open. It worked for a very long time and now all of sudden it seems to be a big deal to a few folks. Just play the game and stop all the whining about the supposed rule change. I agree that the timing was really $#!tty, and it came out of the sky causing a lot of problems, but get over it, put the gun down open and empty, and more on.

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll just make sure I open my lever like I always have. Don't need the heartburn.

😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll just make sure I open my lever like I always have. Don't need the heartburn.

 

That's what I try to do too....

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not a penalty is awarded is one thing... but everyone should do their best to do the safe thing. Anyone..... let me repeat that ANYONE, that chooses an unsafe act on purpose just to shave a fraction off of his time needs to get out of the game. I don't want to shoot with them and no reasonable person would. The rifle should be be opened and emptied before putting it down or be put down with the hammer down on the spent round, (which is not an option in this game). To do other wise is a travesty to safety. Whether or not there is a live round chambered and under a cocked hammer is one thing... but one thing we know for sure... the gun can not go off if the action is open. It worked for a very long time and now all of sudden it seems to be a big deal to a few folks. Just play the game and stop all the whining about the supposed rule change. I agree that the timing was really $#!tty, and it came out of the sky causing a lot of problems, but get over it, put the gun down open and empty, and more on.

 

Snakebite

Sorry, but in my view this is a straw man argument. There is not a single suggestion on this wire or elsewhere for anyone to commit an unsafe act.

 

Rather, what we're discussing here is whether or not the act of opening, emptying and closing an action with a gun discarded pointing downrange should be penalized beyond the already existing penalty of NOT clearing the action prior to the closing of it without the measure of intent.

 

The very idea that an accidental closing is somehow superior or even discernible over the overt act of closing a cleared action is preposterous at the speed that any top competitor shoots or any RO can possibly discover reliably and with certainty.

 

That creates 'confusion'....see Ace of Hearts video. And there should be no room for it. There was no confusion at all in Misty's post 2 weeks ago. The RO/TG committees were relieved and we all went merrily about our bidness.

 

To suggest that this confusion enhances the game or the safety of the game has no merit in my view. Nor is this penalty likely to be applied evenly across 400 competitors on any given day. That alone makes it suspect.... and a suspect call should always go to the benefit of the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the paragraph is written now.

 

Long guns will be discarded with their actions open and the magazines/barrels empty at the
conclusion of each shooting string. A 10-second minor safety penalty will be assessed if the
firearm is not discarded “open and empty.”
This condition may be corrected prior to the next
round being fired. If the long gun is the last firearm used, it must be cleared prior to it
leaving the shooters hand(s) at the unloading table. This does not apply to guns shot out of
sequence, made “safe” and then restaged. If the action of a long gun closes after being
discarded open and empty, the shooter will, at the conclusion of the stage, show it to be clear
to the TO or a spotter. Appropriate penalties will be applied if it is not clear. No one other
than the competitor may handle the gun in question. See RO-I for further clarification.

 

One could conclude from the above that two minor safeties would be earned if the gun was discarded with an empty in the chamber and the hammer down.

One for not opening the action and a second for the empty in the chamber.

 

As Palewolf mentioned on page 17 of the RO-I manual it is indicated that it is safe to re-stage a long gun with the hammer down on an empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No broken sights if the rack is designed correctly.

Good luck with that! Long guns are not the same length, some have pistol grips, others are straight, 97's are different than doubles, some doubles stay open, some doubles close easily. Too many variables. Makes my brain hurt to try to figure out how to make the perfect vertical rack. Seen folks try for 18 years I've yet to see a vertical rack that was worth using. I believe this topic is about a rule change, probably should start a new thread on vertical racks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PWB, your are correct.... there are indeed situations where that is allowed, (re-staging for further use) and yes, there were some of us who tried very hard to get it to be allow at all times. I still believe that it is the best answer to all of this, (except in the case of the SXS, where even if the gun was fired, it could still have a live round under a cocked hammer)

 

Bro King... you do indeed make good points, and I respect you for them. Some I can not argue (debate) on, because I have no where to go, but as for ".. a suspect call should always go to the benefit of the shooter", there is some room for T.O. judgement, and I am and have always been a very big supporter of the "Strong T.O." system. The T.O. should be well trained, should follow the rules, should be in charge, and should be prepared to step outside the norm in the rare occasion where it is necessary to make things safe. I believe it is true that questionable calls should indeed, IF POSSIBLE, go in favor of the shooter. I guess that I was addressing things toward those who seem to have a bigger issue with the changing of the rule by the WB than they do with the rule itself. All the debate in the world will not change the fact that a open rifle is a safe rifle. Yes... the closed rifle might also be a safe rifle... but also might not be, and true... if it is not the shooter will be penalized for it. But the greater issue to me is NOT the penalty, but rather the fact that the open gun can not go off, where as the close gun could. JMO Pard.... this whole thing is way out of proportion.

 

Snakebite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the good news for SASS is that with such a rapidly growing membership, those members that quit paying dues after things like this can be easily replaced. :huh: Several of the shoots I have attended recently had less than half the shooters sign in with a SASS number. It is getting harder and harder to join SASS or convince folks to maintain their SASS memberships. Most still shoot, just do not pay dues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PWB, your are correct.... there are indeed situations where that is allowed, (re-staging for further use) and yes, there were some of us who tried very hard to get it to be allow at all times. I still believe that it is the best answer to all of this, (except in the case of the SXS, where even if the gun was fired, it could still have a live round under a cocked hammer)

 

My sXs has external hammers. It should be legal for me to close it anytime I want as long as the hammers don't get cocked. It's about time us grannygun shooters get some sort of advantage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sXs has external hammers. It should be legal for me to close it anytime I want as long as the hammers don't get cocked. It's about time us grannygun shooters get some sort of advantage!

Hammer down on a live round = bad idea .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the good news for SASS is that with such a rapidly growing membership, those members that quit paying dues after things like this can be easily replaced. :huh: Several of the shoots I have attended recently had less than half the shooters sign in with a SASS number. It is getting harder and harder to join SASS or convince folks to maintain their SASS memberships. Most still shoot, just do not pay dues.

Not around here......Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PWB, your are correct.... there are indeed situations where that is allowed, (re-staging for further use) and yes, there were some of us who tried very hard to get it to be allow at all times. I still believe that it is the best answer to all of this, (except in the case of the SXS, where even if the gun was fired, it could still have a live round under a cocked hammer)

 

Bro King... you do indeed make good points, and I respect you for them. Some I can not argue (debate) on, because I have no where to go, but as for ".. a suspect call should always go to the benefit of the shooter", there is some room for T.O. judgement, and I am and have always been a very big supporter of the "Strong T.O." system. The T.O. should be well trained, should follow the rules, should be in charge, and should be prepared to step outside the norm in the rare occasion where it is necessary to make things safe. I believe it is true that questionable calls should indeed, IF POSSIBLE, go in favor of the shooter. I guess that I was addressing things toward those who seem to have a bigger issue with the changing of the rule by the WB than they do with the rule itself. All the debate in the world will not change the fact that a open rifle is a safe rifle. Yes... the closed rifle might also be a safe rifle... but also might not be, and true... if it is not the shooter will be penalized for it. But the greater issue to me is NOT the penalty, but rather the fact that the open gun can not go off, where as the close gun could. JMO Pard.... this whole thing is way out of proportion.

 

Snakebite.

 

No disrespect but you see where I am coming from on this. All the guys holding the timers really want is to be able to make a FIRM and FAIR call. It's bad enough to give someone a penalty, and then have to re-cant that penalty due to a misinterpretation, OR MORE LIKELY, a different interpretation by the RM or MD. We should be able to understand and communicate the call and all of this just blurs the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammer down on a live round = bad idea .........

You kinda got me, but not really. I obviously meant after shooting and at least trying to eject the empties. Not right after loading live rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No disrespect but you see where I am coming from on this. All the guys holding the timers really want is to be able to make a FIRM and FAIR call. It's bad enough to give someone a penalty, and then have to re-cant that penalty due to a misinterpretation, OR MORE LIKELY, a different interpretation by the RM or MD. We should be able to understand and communicate the call and all of this just blurs the lines.

Dan, I can not argue with that (heck... most of the guys here have solid points).. there is no doubt that things will change from T.O. to T.O.. If I knew how to do it, and had the power to do it, I would certainly make the rule books so that everyone would interpret everything the same way. That would be wonderful..... but short of a complete revamping of the rule books, I don't see it happening. I know very well how things got to this point over the years and I was a player in "that" game for most of it. Constantly trying to update things to compensate for some guy who was doing something other than what was intended, cutting this too short or bending that to far or moving to quickly or wearing his holsters wrong or his pants too low, or not smoking enough... yata, yata, yata and on and on. Another rule to be blended into the rule books and then try to make EVERYTHING else in the books fit the situation! All of these things have piled up to result in a book that is so full of Patches and Mending that it is at times very difficult to understand just what is being said. But lets face some facts here ... when it takes a full time committee of experts to tell the membership what is being said, that should tell you something. I've heard some of the Old Timers talk about how simple things were back in the early days when the rule book was just a few pages that would fit in your shirt pocket.... yep, I was there, and I can tell you that book wouldn't fly 3 feet in today's world... it was based upon things like.... "If John Wayne wouldn't do, then you can't do it"... or "Gene, Roy or Hoppy wouldn't do it", or "If it looks Cowboy, then it is Cowboy".. yep, it was simple and it was Nobel, and for a simpler game than we have today.. but virtually every call was totally Subjective, and completely relied upon the mind set of the person running the timer or the person who was appealed to.

 

Yes............ We SHOULD be able to understand and communicate the call..... I really hope that we get to that point, but in the mean time all we can do is to educate those who make the calls, and try like hell to get them all on the same page! THAT, my friend, was the main reason behind the restructuring of the Instructor program. It was our best chance to get everyone on the same page when it came to rules interpretation. It has certainly helped, but it is not going to make the problems go away.

 

Respectfully;

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No disrespect but you see where I am coming from on this. All the guys holding the timers really want is to be able to make a FIRM and FAIR call. It's bad enough to give someone a penalty, and then have to re-cant that penalty due to a misinterpretation, OR MORE LIKELY, a different interpretation by the RM or MD. We should be able to understand and communicate the call and all of this just blurs the lines.

Egggzackerly.... and it's worse than just not being able to firmly and fairly make the call.

 

Busy big match ...or heck ...even a small annual and now the story has to be told to the PM... then the PM has to go find PWB and Lassiter. Then the PM has to remember the story enough to tell the Match RO's. Then the Match RO's have to gather the suspects. Then the story gets told at least 2 more times because something was left out or put in. Then they make a decision by throwing the bones and poking the VOODOO doll. (that was a joke PWB! :huh: )

 

By then 1/2 the posse forgot who was shooting and what the call was about so it has to be passed around from the carts to the ULT/ LT. By then it's hot, windy, dusty, raining, wet and cold so at least 8 people have their WRANGLERS in a wad over the whole deal. So they get home and LOW AND BEHOLD.... it's a XXX...er... WTC on the SASS WAHR.

 

It goes somewhere near 5 pages before A-Mo has enough of me and Dang It Dan going at it like chimpanzees over the last banana.

 

NO CALL .... Next shooter.... that's the only thing that stops it since most folks will not stand there flat footed & arms folded to argue FOR someone getting a penalty. :ph34r:

 

Film at 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a shame!!! I would have to conjecture that someone got their panties in a twist, and then reacted in such a way that is detrimental to SASS.

 

The old "new" way was working fine,,,, even if it wasn't exactly the way it was voted on, "someone" should have put their big boy panties on and sucked it up....

 

This is like a split in a church,,, no one wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the good news for SASS is that with such a rapidly growing membership, those members that quit paying dues after things like this can be easily replaced. :huh: Several of the shoots I have attended recently had less than half the shooters sign in with a SASS number. It is getting harder and harder to join SASS or convince folks to maintain their SASS memberships. Most still shoot, just do not pay dues.

These folks are willing to give up shooting at State, Regional, and above shoots?

 

Fillmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the rule is unclear to most of us who run a timer, I would hope that the ROC can re-clarify using language similar to the Misty post of a couple of weeks ago. We tend to burn up a lot of verbiage in a short time frame, and it probably takes these guys a while to get their heads together and address an issue. With the firestorm here, if they are looking it over, they will want to not make the same language faux pas as now exists. If this is not under review, why not???

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These folks are willing to give up shooting at State, Regional, and above shoots?

 

Fillmore

When you look at the total number of shooters in a state, about 10% or so shoot in a state match or above. Heck the NW Regional only had 52 shooters this year. My point is that membership needed restriction is not much of a motivator. A few clubs give a monthly match discount for SASS members, most by far do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could be a fly on the wall at the meetings at EOT this year!! but with armor!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

Rather, what we're discussing here is whether or not the act of opening, emptying and closing an action with a gun discarded pointing downrange should be penalized beyond the already existing penalty of NOT clearing the action prior to the closing of it without the measure of intent...

 

 

I believe we're missing the forest for the trees.

 

From my perspective the actual rule change is the least important issue before us. The real issue is why did folks go to the trouble of getting this item on the agenda, then putting it before the clubs, then gathering member input, then going to Vegas and voting on the subject. Then asking for clarification, then the ROC discussing it and clarifying the rule. Then disseminating the new rule to the clubs and adjusting as needed to it. Then after all that, the rule is unilaterally rewritten and published without a word to the membership or the TGs.

 

So, does the current procedure for changing rules mean anything? Do the opinions of members and the votes of the TGs mean anything? I think the answer to those questions is very clearly no, none of those things matters. What matters is what one man, Tex, wants. Evidently what Tex wants, Tex gets, to heck with the game, the procedures he signed off on, and everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the rule is unclear to most of us who run a timer, I would hope that the ROC can re-clarify using language similar to the Misty post of a couple of weeks ago. We tend to burn up a lot of verbiage in a short time frame, and it probably takes these guys a while to get their heads together and address an issue. With the firestorm here, if they are looking it over, they will want to not make the same language faux pas as now exists. If this is not under review, why not???

 

CR

What is unclear about the official June 2014 published rule as seen on the SASS website, in the RO1 book, pg 17 (I believe). Discard/get rid of/dispose/ect long guns with action open and empty. My take on dispose is when the object (gun) leaves the persons control,,, but I am sure some others with disagree with that. For grins and giggles, just ask a non SASS friend what 'dispose' means and when does that action is complete.. As when does the process of 'disposing' a soda can end. I did and the person said, when the soda can hit the trash can.

 

I am of the camp that the 'written' rule trumps whatever else...of course, with PWB input of the written rules.

 

this is funny and entertaining...seeing the teeth mashing and anguish amoung the Wire followers.

 

As a side note, I believe less than 5% of the SASS members read the Wire and even have a clue about this rule topic. or any other rule interpetation brought up. I had to clue in the the three different club TG's that I frequent a couple weeks ago,,, and what I said two weeks ago, is now wrong. I also believe less than 10% of SASS shooters shoot at the big matches (state and above). If I am remotely correct, this rule modification means nothing to the vast majority of membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we're missing the forest for the trees.

 

From my perspective the actual rule change is the least important issue before us. The real issue is why did folks go to the trouble of getting this item on the agenda, then putting it before the clubs, then gathering member input, then going to Vegas and voting on the subject. Then asking for clarification, then the ROC discussing it and clarifying the rule. Then disseminating the new rule to the clubs and adjusting as needed to it. Then after all that, the rule is unilaterally rewritten and published without a word to the membership or the TGs.

 

So, does the current procedure for changing rules mean anything? Do the opinions of members and the votes of the TGs mean anything? I think the answer to those questions is very clearly no, none of those things matters. What matters is what one man, Tex, wants. Evidently what Tex wants, Tex gets, to heck with the game, the procedures he signed off on, and everyone else.

Valid points and observations.

 

Just how many WB members besides Tex & Misty? Keep in mind that Tex is just the mouth piece and I can only presume that the 'majority' of the WB sided with the new published ruling.

 

I see this as nothing more than a 'parent' (WB), reestablishing their authority to their children/members, that have nothing and are guest of the house.

 

Their stick, their ranch, their rules, their game, their investment. either ride for the brand or branch out. Wouldn't that what you would say to your grown demanding child after you reached your fill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we're missing the forest for the trees.

 

From my perspective the actual rule change is the least important issue before us. The real issue is why did folks go to the trouble of getting this item on the agenda, then putting it before the clubs, then gathering member input, then going to Vegas and voting on the subject. Then asking for clarification, then the ROC discussing it and clarifying the rule. Then disseminating the new rule to the clubs and adjusting as needed to it. Then after all that, the rule is unilaterally rewritten and published without a word to the membership or the TGs.

 

So, does the current procedure for changing rules mean anything? Do the opinions of members and the votes of the TGs mean anything? I think the answer to those questions is very clearly no, none of those things matters. What matters is what one man, Tex, wants. Evidently what Tex wants, Tex gets, to heck with the game, the procedures he signed off on, and everyone else.

WAY above my pay grade, Captain, to hazard a guess as to the point that the process broke down from our view.... HOWSOMEVER....that has never stopped me.

 

My guess is that once the rule was published as DONE... then there was some shall we say, disagreement, about exactly what/when/how that gun got closed. At some point someone stepped in and said, "ENOUGH ALREADY" and that's when the word "discarded" appeared.

 

It probably seemed an argument around semantics and certainly as the Blaster argues, innocuous on its face, but that has never stopped this merry band of SASS WAHR rule lawyers from shooting it full of holes. Indeed, that's what the process of transparency is about; a prima facie (1st shot) opportunity to get a change out into the light of day.

 

When that happens most often what you might have thought was just semantics or a 'no big deal' suddenly makes a difference to Creeker (new scenarios w/ vertical staging) or someone who likes ROing and just 'splained it to Lucy and Desi over a burger 2 weeks ago.

 

All that is why the TG process of vetting something like this makes sense. The process was all done. Then something happened.... and I seriously doubt that it was only one guy (Tex) that put his foot in the bucket. My guess, by the silence here of the ROC is that there were more than a few involved besides the WB.

 

Unfortunately as we've witnessed, this will be virtually impossible to call and enforce. So, it probably makes darn little difference anyway except to the poor bugger who won't appeal a call having done it the other way at their club all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're right BK. I liked the 'new' old rule, but changing it back is small potatoes from my view. How it gets done is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=223280

 

see post #6

Some of y'all get it...some don't & are operating on false assumptions

 

That's why I posted some time back that the verbiage for the rule changes would NOT be up to a "WAHR" discussion and vote.

http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=222647&page=7

(post #211 on page SEVEN)

 

 

I'm outa here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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