Big mistake

[ngb1066]

Mike, it still confuses me as to why the end nut is off the gun as shown clearly in the picture. The only reason that comes to mind was that it was taken off in order for the silencer to be fitted and when the silencer was taken off it was not screwed back? What are your thoughts on this?

It is not necessary to screw the end cap on when the silencer is removed.  It makes no difference to the performance of the rifle.  All it does is protect the thread from being damaged (which is unlikely with ordinary use).

[Nuala]

Andreas post 5.06
Mikes 5.11

Well foudn, Jackie.

[grahameb]

Andreas post 5.06
Mikes 5.11

Yes she did didn't she I just noticed that. Unfortunately it seems she has decended to the same low as her "friends" from the other forum? How unfortunate. I liked Andrea. Oh well. Life must go on.

[grahameb]

Mike, it still confuses me as to why the end nut is off the gun as shown clearly in the picture. The only reason that comes to mind was that it was taken off in order for the silencer to be fitted and when the silencer was taken off it was not screwed back? What are your thoughts on this?

Bump

[Nuala]

Of course it's my opinion - I have used imo twice (short for in my opinion!!), and you have your opinion, and I disagree with that.

My point in (1) was about recent abusive posts from them, not dragging up old stuff!

Look at the words you use;

abuse
highly offensive
impossible 
highly offensive (again)
toxic 
destroying

All overly emotional and exaggerated - imo!!

Nick,

That's a good point. I was peed off at the thought of Hartley being allowed to return and my post was over emotional, you're right. I'll modify it.

[grahameb]

At least we still have Nick.  

[Nuala]

I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.

Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut.

I can hear the bell tolling already.

As Mike has said, there has been an attempt by anti Bambers to shut down this forum. I believe that is what Andrea is referring to here, she is effectively taunting Mike about this.  In my view, this comment alone - and there have been a number of rude and hostile comments about Mike from Andrea in recent months - justified a ban.

[Newbury1]

Nick,

That's a good point. I was peed off at the thought of Hartley being allowed to return and my post was over emotional, you're right. I'll modify it.

Thanks Choc - I hope we are back on a more level playing field, as I usually enjoy our disagreements  .

As a sort of neutral (c. 80% JB guilty) I got on well with Andrea Vid and Harts - I also understand they were not everyones "cup of tea", but who is!  .

[Newbury1]

Nick- did you see the posts yesterday before they were deleted?

No - I cannot therefore comment on the content.

I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts.

Grahame has advised other forum members incl. myself to turn the other cheek when confronted with abuse (or simply ignore it), as this is best way to defate a situation.

I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire!


 

[ngb1066]

Bump

I answered you above Grahame.

[Nuala]

Roch a fair and diplomatic answer as ever! - similar to the suggestion you made about referencing photos to avoid them being splashed on the threads (and which appears to have been ignored).

I think the herd mentality has jumped on Mikes recent banning and is kicking the banned because they cannot respond (a pretty cowardly way)!

This Forum will soon become the JBSS (Jeremy Bamber Sycophant Society).

Nick, Isn't this comment rather one sided? Did you object to Hartley's and Vic's herd mentality during their cowardly, combined attacks on Mike yesterday?

[ngb1066]

Yes she did didn't she I just noticed that. Unfortunately it seems she has decended to the same low as her "friends" from the other forum? How unfortunate. I liked Andrea. Oh well. Life must go on.

Grahame - I do in fairness have to take issue with you here.  Andrea's post was unfortunate and unwise and no doubt posted in anger.  It is not correct to equate Andrea's post with the filth on the Lamberton forum.  Andrea should not be placed in the same category as some of those over there.

[Nuala]

No - I cannot therefore comment on the content.

I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts.

Grahame has advised other forum members incl. myself to turn the other cheek when confronted with abuse (or simply ignore it), as this is best way to defate a situation.

I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire!

How can you meaningfully criticise comments that you did not see, Nick?  You're apportioning responsibility for what happened when you didn't even see what happened!

[Newbury1]

Nick, Isn't this comment rather one sided? Did you object to Hartley's and Vic's herd mentality during their cowardly, combined attacks on Mike yesterday?

Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!

I wasn't on line when it kicked off!

To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.

I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly 

[Newbury1]

How can you meaningfully criticise comments that you did not see, Nick?  You're apportioning responsibility for what happened when you didn't even see what happened!

I have not criticised comments I have not seen!

Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!

However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.

- just like any eyewitness