doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com unfortunatley bought L. Brown book. Chambers bk?

It is nice to see a real man stand up. Well done Robert. You might consider toning the competitive level down one notch in the future for those that have weaker stomachs. Trying to ignore the chaff more often would be helpful also. Like I have said before, being ignored is tough medicine for those that need attention. Usually twice ignored is enough for them to move on.

Mr. Chambers, way to go!

After reading many of your very well documented posts with their profusion of photos and catalogue references, I am not really surprised with your reaction. It does belong perfectly.

Best,

JC

While I think it's nice that members of this forum are so quick to forgive and forget, I'll reserve any pat on the back for Mr. Chambers until such time as he offers some apology to those members he has unjustifiably attacked by resorting to name calling and vitriolic rhetoric which was uncalled for in the first place. In fact, I believe before he can be so warmly congratulated for being a "class act" he should go well beyond offering to simply buy Mr. Brown's book and offer an apology to all readers of this forum. He has more deleted posts on this forum than anyone else...and the reason for it might be labeled by some as a dysfunctional personality disorder.
Until such time as Mr. Chambers does show some remorse and can control himself to stop using words of rage such as "STOMP" like he did in his post for Mr. Brown, I think the comments of "class act" are premature. Just my opinion of course.
Sincerely,
Sharpsrifle
(aka - "deceitful manipulative dog" courtesy of Robert Chambers)

The mea culpas are significant, subordinating personal frailty to commitment to the board. Noting the "totally disabled" in the first post, I put it down to a bad day. I've valued the generosity of both members for a long time.

I hadn't intended to comment here, and like others would've been perfectly happy to let this thread die. However, I'll offer the following:

Some of what we discuss here is opinion. (Is an NID really "butt ugly"? Is the Winchester 21 the finest American double ever made, or a clunky, overpriced gun that just happens to be marked "Winchester"?) Some of what we discuss here is fact. When it comes to facts, I try my best to post very carefully. Before I ever wrote anything about guns, dogs, birds, or hunting, I found myself translating into French instructions on how to disarm letter and package bombs. One learns caution from experiences like that.

I've also learned a lot from this BB, and I don't want anyone "learning" from me unless they're learning the right things. If I'm not sure of my facts, I'll leave the door open that someone else may know more, or that I may not have it right. Subsequent posts may--and often do--add to my own knowledge. And if I do screw something up, as we all do, I won't hesitate to say "Woops, my bad." I'll admit that when it comes to issues of fact, I do have problems with people that are unwilling to admit error and then drop the subject. If we're not passing on good and accurate information here, then we're doing a disservice to those who participate--and to a lot of "lurkers", who never post but come here looking for solid information about doubles. I'm in the process of writing an article on the care and feeding of old shotguns, and while I participate on a number of discussion boards, the one I'm going to mention as being THE place to go, with the most knowledgeable posters, is this one.

Some discussions, whether of fact or opinion, do get heated. I have been involved in some of those. Sometimes I get a bit heated myself. Must be a cantankerous streak showing up, now that I've received my first SS check! But I certainly try not to "stomp" on people. And I can't recall ever having called anyone here a liar. If someone says, "Brown, you said . . . ", I would rather they used the quote function, because as a writer, being misquoted bothers me perhaps more than it might bother others. I have enough stuff out there in print and enough stuff on these boards that you can certainly find things to take me to task about if you look, without inventing things I never said (or taking something way out of context). I also try to be cautious in responding to what others have written, for the same reason.

"Look in the mirror" is probably good advice for all of us. I've written things that, on reflection, I wish I hadn't written--or said differently. That being said, if what I post concerns matters of fact, I do my best to back up those posts with sources, quotes, etc. Seems to me we should all be willing to do that--especially if we require those standards of others. I recently attributed a quote to Voltaire which someone said, "Looks like he never said that." And I'll be darned--it seems he didn't. And I studied the guy, at the graduate level no less. (Sometimes you learn surprising stuff, not gun related, on this board.)

As for my book, although I've gotten into a number of discussions (mostly on other boards) about chokes and loads for pheasants, I did my best to be particularly open-minded about the subject. I concluded the chapter on chokes and loads this way: "If what you're using puts birds in the bag, in a condition fit for the table, then you've got a winner." A similar formula is probably a good one to follow for wrapping up discussions here, when it's a matter of opinion and not fact.

If Marc decides he doesn't want my book and sends it to Robert, I'd offer to Robert--or to Marc for that matter, if he decides to keep it--to send it to me and I'll inscribe it. Whichever one ends up reading it, I hope they find it contains more light than heat on the subject of pheasant hunting.

I could not agree more with Sharpsrifle.

I could not have said it better. I have known Larry for many years and the person Stokeld describes does not come close to reflecting our own Larry Brown. Shame on you Mr. Stokeld for feeling it necessary to air your dirty laundry publicly. If YOU find a post offensive, move on. I would have done the same with this post EXCEPT for the fact you are attempting to denigrate a friend's reputation. Shame on you Mr. Stokeld.

Must agree somewhat with Sharpsrifle. I don't understand a personality who would post tens of thousands of words of hard earned research material, then accuse readers of stealing it from the computer screen without proper payment. Luckily, I have no expectation of compensation for my research and empirical experience (sorry if that combination of words appears redundant), so will offer it free to anyone who is interested enough to read or listen.

I used to know a pretty good psychologist who had gotten to the point in his long career that the first question he wanted to know when seeing a patient was "how the meds were working."
Cheers, Jake

One hundred and ten & 1/2 %