Yuku free message boards

Ken Reed wrote:

"The person that wrote this may be the most knowledgable person on the planet but the way ideas are expressed are just as important as the ideas. Maybe more so. I once heard somewhere that IDPA HQ does not even read or listen to any input if it comes with an attitude. I know if it were my company, I would not, there is plenty of useful and polite feedback to use. And life is too short to put up with those that can not express their ideas without venom, no matter how good the idea is. "

Ken,

I have to disagree with you here. If you blow off an idea because it was expressed in an angry manner, you appear to be rejecting the idea. And, it appears that way to others besides the angry person. In fact, several months ago, you blew me off in this forum because you perceived (incorrectly) that I was angry. (I was trying to figure out what to buy and was reading this forum for guidance when I became concerned that I could get jerked around by range nazis unless I spent extra money to keep up with the rule interpretations de jour.) All that I was doing was expressing my opinion that some of the rule interpretations were inconsistent and illogical in the context of the stated goals of IDPA. I still believe that is true. If you won't calmly explain to me why it isn't true, then I assume that you really CAN'T and are attempting to hide that fact by acting angry yourself and using that as a means to end the discussion for your own protection. So, I suggest that it is better to show enough patience and self control to guide the discussion back to its merits, rather than escalate the invective or shut it off entirely.

Thanks to the folks at the local clubs who do NOT take these rules so seriously that they exclude shooters, IDPA keeps growing. But, shooters' perceptions of the attitude of the organization is important. If it appears that the organization will not listen to anybody that it has made angry, then it is showing an arrogance that is pretty destructive. If it is justified by saying "it must be OK, because IDPA keeps growing," then it will be too late to change the perception when IDPA STOPS growing.

SO, let's try to keep the discussions civil. But, when somebody inevitably starts feeling that somebody else isn't civil enough, let's not just cut off the discussion of that issue.

Steve L.

Ken,

I wrote my entry to this thread because it is about rule changes, and you expressed an opinion that seemed to be rejecting any consideration of any suggestion that seemed to be phrased with what YOU considered to be an "attitude." Worse, you suggested that IDPA HQ thinks the same way.

I used myself as an example because I chimed-in on an issue (an unofficial interpretation offered by you) several months ago that seemed particularly illogical and counter-productive. It seemed then and it still seems to me now that you failed to address the logic I tried to present and, instead, attributed the "attitude" of the original protester to me as well. When I got irked that your responses were rhetorical dodges instead of logical counter-arguments, you wrote that I "had your silence" and stopped participating in the discussion.

My point in writing now is not to make myself feel better. It IS to say that I think you (and MAYBE? IDPA HQ) should do a better job of listening to critics, even if they appear to you to be angry. At least, you should do better than you said you would in the post I just responded to.

To aid your memory, I did not think that it made any sense to force a guy with a stippled Glock frame to buy a new frame when he had an identical unstippled frame already. You did, based on the fact that his second identical frame came on a different caliber ("model") Glock when he bought it. It did not matter to you that the frames were physically and functionally identical, and could only be told apart by deciphering serial numbers. It did not matter that GLock might ALSO exchange frames from different "models" in the same way if he sent it back to the factory for "repair." Since he and anybody else can buy from the factory EXACTLY what he was "making" with his frame swap, I did not see how this was a practice that should be of any concern with respect to the IDPA rules. I still don't.

We also discussed some other issues that are not so clear-cut. What I brought away from the discussion was (1) some people in IDPA get so upset by a stippled frame that they apparently can't think logically, and (2) if I chime in on any such emotional issue to agree with a point that somebody else is trying to make, I can get tarred with the same "attitude" brush, whether I share his attitude or not.

I don't want to prolong this part of the discussion. Let's try to just go forward in the new year with a resolve to do better at considering the reasons someone gives in support of his/her position and get away from using his/her perceived "attitude" as the basis for ignoring an issue.

Steve L.