GOAL and the Outdoor Message - What the hell?

[wolf223]

Chris,

Thanks for the thought-out response. I completely understand much of it, and am very thankful for the time people put into GOAL. I understand the commitment it is, and am thankful for the people step up.

Still, this is bureaucratic bullshit. Someone knows the answers to the questions. Maybe you. But instead of just responding to the request, there has been over a month and a half of red tape while the info is washed.

+100000000000000000000000 million eruo rep points!

 

[Gaffer]

The above rants are the perfect example of why Mass. gun owners are so irrelevant and have shot yourself in the foot so many times. You are your own worse enemy. Most of you have the time to bitch and moan about
GOAL but don't have the time to serve them. Few of you know how cautious such an organization has to be to prevent serious policy mistakes. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't! It pays to keep family arguments in house and not out in the public eye. It is no wonder that Mass. gun laws are so stringent, the antis are laughing at your family feuds and loving every minute knowing that they have won by not lifting a finger.

 

[MisterHappy]

Chris....you really need to stop being so cryptic!

Nice post.

 

[wolf223]

First, thanks for the warm wishes.

EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES

OK, its late. I'm beat. I hope that somewhere in the above text I managed to explain what is going on. If not? Send me your bio and I'll see about getting you on this year's ballot for the BOD.

i got about 1/3 into your post and all i see are BS excuses. i hope your mom feels better, but i also will say that her health has nothing to do with this.

i have a laundry list i could type out too. as i am sure others.

seriously, i know see why the OP put you all on blast and i'm glad he did. based your responses alone, i can see how the BOD operates. "come to the meeting" "bla bla bla"


i hope you guys and gals figure this out before you start to loose membership. times are changing... this whole 'good ol' boy' back door sweet heart deals days are over.

like another post in thread about people growing up in small towns and hunting, shooting together ect... and being called fudds. it is what it is. CHANGE is a good thing. you need new blood in there to revamp, improve and think of new ways to reach out.

hell, i think of the improvements since Kim, Mike S and Tara have worked there alone have tripple folded!!!!! GOAL is on Facebook, Twatter, posts more up to date info on NES ect...

yeah, but the out door message is "impartant"??????????? i don't eFin think so.

 

[CLMN]

Oh please!

That has to be the most overly dramatic post yet in a thread someone called the Tyra Banks show. No one is trying to destroy GOAL. We're TRYING to get them to answer a question about their finances. If you don't give a crap about it, bury your head back in the sand. Me? I care about how an organization that I believe in and support spends its money.

I call it like I see it... and a lot of the posts in this thread are just plain disgusting to me. I do not want to see a worthwhile organization that I belong to and have great admiration for torn apart by people who either don't understand it, have some bizarre hatred for Mike Yacino or are looking to remake it into a very different (more militant, pushy, "in-your-face") kind of organization.

In-your-face billboards all over the place??? Is that what we have sunk to???

Honest to God, I really do think that you and some of the other folks here need to start a new and very different kind of pro-gun/anti-government organization. Given its history and make-up, I don't think you and the others will ever be truly happy with GOAL.

CLMN

 

[Coyote33]

1)...The problem is the forum in which such questions are asked. ...GOAL's employees are instructed NOT to troll Internet boards while at work. Lurking here is NOT in anyone's job description. We do not pay the staff to answer every message board request. If a member wants to know something, they can call, write, or walk in. Posting blindly on an Internet forum and expecting a response is like posting that your Jeep is acting strange and expecting Chrysler respond.

2) ...Personally I love the idea. However, my "is this the best use of funds" filter is looking for an ROI. An over the top shock factor might get the publicity to drive interest, but it might also alienate members. GOAL is not just a handgun/Black Rifle group. Maybe a wildlife management/hunting message would drive more new member interest. That's the difficulty. Frankly, I'd rather be a part of an independent grass roots group that wants to "Send a message" than try to express all GOAL does in a single image.

3) ... I hope that somewhere in the above text I managed to explain what is going on. If not? Send me your bio and I'll see about getting you on this year's ballot for the BOD.

1) I agree that there should be no expectations with the Internet.

2) I also kind of agree. Our club president is pretty hesitant with GOAL because they deal with self defense and general gun rights. Call him a Fudd if you will, but that is the reality.

3) Thanks for the explanation. I also remember you from early years in my GOAL history, board meetings, shoots, and other stuff. You have been a stalwart supporter and enthusiast. GOAL needs more people like you.

 

[Bob P]

First, thanks for the warm wishes. Mom is battling cancer and during a regular visit found her platelet level down to 8 which required an emergency transfusion. She will likely spend the night for monitoring, but is doing OK otherwise. (well as OK as you can while undergoing chemo and radiation treatments)

I've talked to Ron (GOAL President) and some of the others about this issue. Again, I CAN NOT speak to the question of the Outdoor Message as the board's report is not complete. But to speak to the other accusations and misleading stories...

1) the person who was tasked to write up the report was unemployed when given the assignment and has since found employment. Since all BOD members are essentially volunteers, the research has taken longer than expected. This was explained to the person asking for the information in a correspondence that was read to me. While a specific time frame was not given, it did express a desire to get the information as soon as possible.

2) Ed George (GOAL's Lawyer) got into the picture due to the need to disclose financial information. GOAL makes a concerted effort to keep the membership secret so that such information can not be used in any way against the organization or its members. Circulation and publication numbers might have some impact on that and the lawyer was consulted for some reason I do not know. My understanding is that the person preparing the report mentioned to our lawyer that the person asking the question was becoming impatient and Ed sent a note explaining the situation. I have not seen the contents of this note, but having worked with Ed for almost a decade with two different firearm related organizations, I know that he is not one to send anything that wasn't professional.

3) The Outdoor Message organization is fairly complex. The publishing was pulled out of GOAL for the purpose of protecting the organization in the case the publication became insolvent. The Outdoor Message does not actually print the newsletter, that is contracted out to a printing company (who I'm sure makes a profit) that I know has changed from time to time seeking best prices. Outdoor Message basically edits and manages the member information. This prevents the membership list from leaving "friendly" hands. I can not stress how much effort is made to secure membership data.

I'm not going to get into the he said, he said banter. Suffice it to say that the request for information was received, discussed, assigned, researched, is being written up, and will be delivered. The requester knows the person responsible for the write up and has communicated with that person directly. As things stand right now, the report is not yet ready for review, so it has not been added to any agenda. When it is ready, it will be presented to the board in general and voted, amended, or rejected for release. I can not tell you any more than this.

Now as for how the organization publishes its information, that is entirely a different matter. Right now, the Outdoor Message is one of several methods. One can not simply put the Outdoor Message on-line as the format used is not very browser friendly and is formatted for a newspaper style layout. Producing an electronic version would take an extra effort. There is advertising involved that would need to be dealt with, etc.

Certainly, it is worth looking into. Anyone willing to volunteer to take on the task of researching and making a recommendation?

As for contacting the board, all our names and towns are listed in the Outdoor Message. Open the paper to the middle and look at the top of the left page. Simply address individual letters to the person in care of the GOAL office and we will get them. Or, send a general message to the board via the office and it will be copied and distributed.


OK, some specific answers:



Since I was not copied on everything, I can not say for sure how the communication was handled. Discussing things in hindsight it seems that information was provided, but I know how a situation can be entirely different depending on the point of view. One thing that was missing is that no one seems to have said "the information will be presented at a future meeting". I can see where that lack of information could easily produce a "left hanging" feeling. I can not speak for the board, but for myself, I'm sorry that the process was not made clearer.



The problem is the forum in which such questions are asked. Believe it or not, GOAL's employees are instructed NOT to troll Internet boards while at work. Lurking here is NOT in anyone's job description. We do not pay the staff to answer every message board request. If a member wants to know something, they can call, write, or walk in. Posting blindly on an Internet forum and expecting a response is like posting that your Jeep is acting strange and expecting Chrysler respond. Now, a member asked the board a question about the way it is conducting business and while I'm sorry the answer wasn't as quick as expected, it WAS the proper way.



By law, everything IS public. However, an organization does not have to stand on the top of a podium and exclaim every last inner working. Attendance is not required for an answer, but understand that not all answers are instant. Even if (as did occur) the question is asked in front of the entire board, an answer is not always going to be available instantly. Not only may the complete information not be available, but some information requires careful presentation. And yes, that presentation will in some cases be designed to conceal. There are a lot of people and organizations that would love to exploit GOAL if they could. Just as competitors use information in business. Part of the Board's task is to avoid exposing anything that could hurt the organization or its members. I hope that this makes sense.



Last time I looked, the GOAL Bylaws did not set up a publishing company. Should we also become an ISP to provide our Internet content? How about building guns to supply the Junior teams? Being a publisher simply isn't GOAL's job. Just as the Army hires General Dynamics to build their toys while they focus on using them, GOAL needs to focus on preserving our rights, not dealing with publishing a newspaper.



Never been presented. At least, not in the past 7 years or so.

Personally I love the idea. However, my "is this the best use of funds" filter is looking for an ROI. An over the top shock factor might get the publicity to drive interest, but it might also alienate members. GOAL is not just a handgun/Black Rifle group. Maybe a wildlife management/hunting message would drive more new member interest. That's the difficulty. Frankly, I'd rather be a part of an independent grass roots group that wants to "Send a message" than try to express all GOAL does in a single image.



GOAL's treasurer is a volunteer, has a day job, family, and does not have any involvement with the production of the Outdoor Message. But feel free to send your bookkeeper over, we could use the help. And after the several hours of research, she can contact all the other volunteer Board Members and try to find a date that enough of them can meet to approve the report in the summer with vacations, kids, parents undergoing cancer treatment, etc.

Simple!

OK, its late. I'm beat. I hope that somewhere in the above text I managed to explain what is going on. If not? Send me your bio and I'll see about getting you on this year's ballot for the BOD.

Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand about cancer. My wife of 24 years has stage 4 Carcinoid Cancer and has been fighting it valiantly for the last 5 years (surgery, chemo, radiation etc). She'll be starting a new course of chemo in 2 weeks. Hopefully this one is the one that will do it.

Now back to the issue at hand. I understand that the BOD is made up of volunteers and, had ANYONE said something along the lines of 'we'll present an answer to you after the 8/11 (or whatever the date is) meeting...' this thread wouldn't exist.

What DID happen is the very nice person whom I was corresponding with said 'you will get your answer next week' When next week came and went and I didn't hear from her I sent her an email. She apologized and said she didn't get to it because she was busy - with, I'm sure, very legitimate things.

Look, I KNOW this isn't your full time job but volunteer or not, there is NOTHING unreasonable about expecting people to met deadlines they themselves set OR if that becomes impossible, communicating that fact to the person that's waiting on them.

Failure to do so conveys a sense that the matter isn't being taken seriously. I, and the other people that signed the letter I presented to the June BOD meeting, took this matter very seriously indeed. SO, when I responded to her note that she didn't 'get to it' I told her that we would like an answer withing a week. This doesn't seem at all unreasonable as she herself had promised to have a response to me 'in a week' so here I was giving her an additional week. Seems fair, right?

My next communication from GOAL was from an atty and contained this phrase "it is not feasible for us to meet your arbitrary deadline of July 8th. We will sort this out in due time and I will expect your patience."

I don't know, I'm just some guy, I'm not a lawyer or anything but that sure sounded like a pat on the head and an admonition to 'go play while the grownups talk' to me.

And here's the thing. I wasn't even looking for a SOLUTION, just a timeline. In fact, this was my response (redacted to remove names)

"Thank you for your email. Our deadline was hardly 'arbitrary' but a reaction to the time line XXX provided. Quite simply, on June 27 XXX said we would have an answer 'next week' outlining the next steps the BOD planned to take. We're still waiting to hear what those may be. We presented our letter to the BOD 25 days ago and while we understand this may take time to resolve we fail to see how it is unreasonable for us to be asking for a response to our concerns beyond 'in due time'.

We respect your request for our patience, however please keep in mind there are limits and a good-faith gesture - such as providing us with a reasonable time-frame as to when you will at least RESPOND to our concerns let alone address them would do much to extend those limits.

We wish no harm to the viability of GOAL but neither do we wish to be ignored. Clear and regular communication will do much to avoid misunderstandings of intent.

We look forward to hearing from you soon."

Chris, as I said, I appreciate your taking the time to respond here. I wish that you or someone like yourself had engaged us in an open dialogue earlier in the process. This is hardly a trivial matter - we're talking about the expenditure of $96,000. We understand that you have other responsibilities than GOAL, but you ARE volunteers. You stood for election to the BOD. With that position comes the responsibility to deal with these situations and with unpleasant people such as myself when we raise what WE believe to be legitimate concerns.

As stated in our letter to you, our concerns are threefold: a) is this the best use for 1/3 of GOAL's budget, b) if so what measures have been taken to ensure this is the best price possible and c) is there anything untoward in the relationship between the 2 entities in question, namely GOAL and The Outdoor Message.

I'm sorry we've had to continue this discussion in a public forum, but your atty advised in his last note to me after I asked for at least a timeline as to when we could reasonably expect a response "you should not expect to hear anything from me and I have advised them [the BOD] they should not reply to you until they have all met and had advice from their counsel which is again at least for now the undersigned."

Perhaps I should have exercised more patience. I can be a hasty man. On the other hand my co-signatories were in agreement that we were being given the stall.

There is a lot of money at play here. Money can make people do strange things. Transparency is one of the best tools for ensuring that strange things don't happen. GOAL hasn't released a financial statement in it's annual report since 2008. That's not very transparent. Is it any wonder we're a bit suspicious?

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

...There is a lot of money at play here. Money can make people do strange things. Transparency is one of the best tools for ensuring that strange things don't happen. GOAL hasn't released a financial statement in it's annual report since 2008. That's not very transparent. Is it any wonder we're a bit suspicious?

Is it any wonder? I'm freaking wondering why nobody raised these questions before Bob P did. Based on everything I've come to understand to this point, I'm sure as hell suspicious too.

 

[JimB]

i said in an earlier reply that i read the OM, howevr with the exception

of the club info i already an familiar with what is printed by reading

NES replies and the GOA web sites. I'd like to know as well.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

Wow! 500 x $21 = $10,500 per year.

There is NO WAY this website (plus a couple free guns) costs that much.

Nice revenue stream.

Wait, Derek is make 10K A YEAR OF US!!!! GET HIM BOYS!!!!!

Seriously, even if Derek makes $100K or $1 million a year, what do you care? What do any of us care? Do you use Google or Facebook? I hear they make a couple bucks a year too...those BASTARDS!

While we're at it, my business turned a profit last year... I must be a scumbag.

 

[Joe G]

No, It wouldn't. We do it for the cause not some silly newspaper.

You have no idea how many non-technology-oriented gun owners there are in MA. Not everyone lives on their computer, and that's especially true for an aging shooter population. When I see other shooters at my club I'm always amazed that they're not up on the latest news. That's when I realize what a small portion of them are part of NES. Even for me, I used to surf NES constantly, to the point of ignoring other things I needed to get done in my life. I've throttled it back to a workable level, and I realize that many others read it less often, if at all. You need more than one communication outlet.

Also, consider that on NES you're preaching to the choir. TOM goes to a lot of people that are a lot less dedicated than you. GOAL needs hardcopy to stay relevant in those people's minds. Without it, they'd lose interest. I truly believe membership would decline, sharply.

As someone who's been active in MA gun rights since the late 80's I've come to appreciate all that GOAL does for us on a shoestring budget. Back then it seemed that it was largely a 1-man show, with Mike lobbying for us on the hill. It seemed natural that his family was involved and organic that they take positions of responsibility as the need arose. I do not think Mike or his family is getting rich from anything GOAL pays them. Instead I think GOAL gets a lot more for its dollar from these committed individuals than it would from someone they might contract out on a purely financial basis.

GOAL does an outstanding job with their dollars and I contribute more than my annual membership because I think they use it effectively. I believe GOALs different corporations and organization are set up for maximum benefit, as I've seen the hay we've made with HCI/Brady financials and membership numbers over the year. Based on their data we can tell that the gun control gorilla has had its balls lopped off. Would we want to give our opponents any information they could use against us?

You can say I'm drinking Len and Chris' kool-aid, I'm fine with that. Having been on the board of volunteer organizations I know what it's like to get work done by people that have to balance their assignments with the other parts of their lives. I do believe in cost-benefit evaluations. I do believe in financial transparency to members communicated in an appropriate manner. I can't fault anything that Chris said in his posts. Sounds like Rob on Comm-2A is setting things up there in a similar manner. I think it's all good. I think GOAL is doing the best job possible with what they have, both money-wise and people-wise. It's fine to question, but understand the context and be ready to step in and step up if you don't like the answers. You don't need to be a board member to make a difference. They need help at all levels of their organization.

Where were you in 1998? Were you at the Ch. 180 hearings? Were you at the GOAL Rally on Boston Commons? in Carver (with Suzanna Gratia Hupp)? the rally in Hudson (think that was the governor's house)? [I was at all the above except the Hudson rally.] You've been telling all of us what GOAL should do for years now . . . what have you done? Many of your posts show that you have no idea how politics works (by law or by reality)!

I don't think we need to get into a pissing contest about who's done what or who's done more. For me, I can say that I've participated in several of these activities and have been really bummed out to see anti-gun stuff rammed down our throats even when we have right, logic, and reason on our side. It doesn't mean that I've given up, but it does mean that I see things with a better perspective of reality and what it takes to win. Bottom line is that in MA we don't have critical mass. GOAL, NES, and new organizations like Comm-2A all need to work together in their own areas to build up as much momentum as possible. Infighting and public crucifixions work against us. Do something positive.

 

[Coyote33]

... I do not want to see a worthwhile organization that I belong to and have great admiration for torn apart by people who either don't understand it, ...

You need a thicker skin or different outlook or something, if you think one obscure message on some internet forum is going to tear apart an established, decades old group like GOAL.

 

[CLMN]

You need a thicker skin or different outlook or something, if you think one obscure message on some internet forum is going to tear apart an established, decades old group like GOAL.

A little more than "one obscure message" here... wouldn't you say?

Anyway, my skin is plenty thick and yes, I hope you are right.

CLMN

 

[Coyote33]

... they need to get with the times if they want to be as productive as possible. We're not going to get a message out with string and paper cup...

True enough.

1) You have no idea how many non-technology-oriented gun owners there are in MA. Not everyone lives on their computer, and that's especially true for an aging shooter population. When I see other shooters at my club I'm always amazed that they're not up on the latest news. That's when I realize what a small portion of them are ...

2) ... I've participated in several of these activities and have been really bummed out to see anti-gun stuff rammed down our throats even when we have right, logic, and reason on our side. It doesn't mean that I've given up, but it does mean that I see things with a better perspective of reality and what it takes to win. Bottom line is that in MA we don't have critical mass. GOAL, NES, and new organizations like Comm-2A all need to work together in their own areas to build up as much momentum as possible. ... Do something positive.

1) So true. Like I said, our club president thinks GOAL is a bit too extreme for most of the hunter types in the club. Even the guy who was giving the "legislative news" to the club meeting was giving very old news he picked up at the latest Worcester County League meeting, which itself got it after it was a month old. I spoke with him after, and he said he doesn't use a computer. Nor does the guy who runs the Women on Target at our club. Nor do most other club members (except when it suits them).

forgot 2

2) It is almost entirely a numbers game, from voting to money to laws passed to contributions to everything.

A little more than "one obscure message" here... wouldn't you say?...

No, I think one posting on some internet forum is pretty obscure in the overall bigger picture of Massachusetts gun owners and hunters in general. Even on NES, someone would need to be interested in the title about "The Outdoor Message" to see this post at all.

 

[Pilgrim]

We have 150 members in my club. Less than half have email addresses. Less then half of those check their email regularly.

When we discuss current events at meetings, less than 10% present are current on any gun related event.

All must be NRA members but they still have no idea of what's happening.

Communicating and informing people is tough. Most just don't care.

 

[Garys]

Its nice to see the socislists...

You keep using that word. (even if you can't spell it), I don't think it means what you think it means. Just like people who come onto privately operated forums, like NES and demand their First Amendment rights. Only they don't have any because like GOAL, NES is privately run. Socialism is a form of government, which neither GOAL, nor as far as I can determine anyone who has posted in this thread is. What GOAL is, or at least purports to be, is a non profit advocacy/lobbying organization for gun owners. People pay dues to GOAL and as such that creates a financial relationship between GOAL and it's members. If those members think that the entirety of their dues are going to advance GOAL's stated purpose and that is not completely so, then the members have a right to request and accounting. GOAL in turn has a right to refuse to do that, which up to this point they have done. If members find that unsatisfactory, then they have the option to not renew their membership and either put that money to another organization or maybe some other gun related expenses.


I got my GOAL renewal notice in the mail today and am not considering my options. Maybe I'll move that money to Comm2A in the form of a donation, maybe I'll join Massachusetts Sportsmens Assocation, maybe I'll donate to Scott Brown, maybe I'll buy a couple of boxes of ammunition.

That's not socialism, if anything it's capitalism, but at it's root, it's self determination.

 

[economist]

Dear old guys (copy via physical mail, telegraph, and personal messenger),

I know you like newspapers. Aren't they great! Thanks so much for the insight. Unfortunately, the important issue in this discussion is related party deals, the potential for financial abuse, and whether an existing paper is chosen wisely or efficiently. While your stories are fascinating, and your rich history is scintillating, please consider discussing your love of newspapers (and tapioca?) in another thread.

Cordially,
economist

 

[Coyote33]

Dear old guys (copy via physical mail, telegraph, and personal messenger),

I know you like newspapers. Aren't they great! Thanks so much for the insight. Unfortunately, the important issue in this discussion is related party deals, the potential for financial abuse, and whether an existing paper is chosen wisely or efficiently. While your stories are fascinating, and your rich history is scintillating, please consider discussing your love of newspapers (and tapioca?) in another thread.

Cordially,
economist

Actually, most of the people you describe discuss these things IN PERSON.

P.S. It is easier reading a newspaper on the toilet, or to throw in a bag to bring to the beach (with sunscreen, sand, and salt water), than a computer.

 

[Becka]

I'd like to think I'm pretty involved in the whole shooting sports thing, even though my presence on NES has decreased. I've personally brought over 5 newbies to the range in the 3 years I've been shooting. I've brought GOAL to the table for quite a few people I've met who are interested in shooting but don't go often. There's a candidate for mayor in Waltham (who has no chance in hell of winning) who I sought out to discuss gun rights and his views. In a nutshell, I keep myself current with all of the goings on via fellow gunnies and GOAL web correspondence (of which there's a lot - I follow them on FB and Twitter, and I frequently check their websites AND refer people to them).

My father and I are both members of GOAL and have been since I got into the shooting sports and brought him along. My dad enjoys reading TOM, but I barely glance at mine anymore. I think the OPTION of getting it via email and/or the web should be on the table. I don't think anyone has said that TOM should cease to exist. They're just wondering why it isn't a bit more clear that GOAL and TOM are quite separate things, and why a newspaper that many of us don't read is costing 1/3 of our dues. I would much rather have a billboard up somewhere with some pictures of kids and parents shooting together. Don't you think that's a better use of some of GOALs budget than an archaic form of communication? Waltham used to have a daily newspaper for us and the surrounding towns. A year ago it cut down to twice weekly. Now it's being cut down to once a week. Know why? People are getting their news in other ways. Same is happening for GOAL members. Even if you cut the publication of TOM to HALF of those who get it now, that'd be quite the savings.

I also wonder...as it has been mentioned here numerous times, GOAL's BOD is an all volunteer thing. So why is someone profiting so well from publishing TOM? I'm all for getting back the money you put into printing and mailing it...but if GOAL truly is about raising money to help these stupid gun laws in stupid Mass, why isn't more money going to that, instead of someone who used to work for GOAL and his daughter? Especially when they never get back to people who contact TOM trying to get advertising in there? I personally know of someone who had left numerous messages for TOM about getting an ad in the paper, and never heard back. When they called GOAL to inquire, they (correctly) told that TOM is not run by GOAL, and they had no control over having Michelle get back to him. What kind of message does this send to GOAL members???

Now, I could be completely wrong here, along with some others, and quite possibly the cost of creating and publishing TOM is close to $96k (or whatever the figure is), and in that case, fine. But we'd like to know. I know the GOAL pages are written by GOAL staffers, and the club pages are written by each club, so I don't even think Michelle is writing any of the paper, I imagine she just organizes it and sends it out for printing, like the secretary at my church does with our newsletter. Oh, except she emails it out to people who have email and a paper copy only goes to the people who request one. And why can't that happen with TOM? That's all people are asking here.

 

[Bob P]

OK, so the Luddites in the crowd want paper. I'm far from willing to accept without some kind of survey that you represent the majority but even IF you do, see issues b) and c) in my last post.

Thanks.

 

[drgrant]

Actually, most of the people you describe discuss these things IN PERSON.

P.S. It is easier reading a newspaper on the toilet, or to throw in a bag to bring to the beach (with sunscreen, sand, and salt water), than a computer.

You're completely missing his point. Whether the OM (or for that matter, the idea of GOAL having presence in any physical print media) is a "good idea" or not as a communications tool is not the core subject of this thread. The issue is the financial relationship between GOAL and the OM, how much is being paid to whom, etc.

-Mike

 

[Coyote33]

You're completely missing his point. Whether the OM (or for that matter, the idea of GOAL having presence in any physical print media) is a "good idea" or not as a communications tool is not the core subject of this thread. The issue is the financial relationship between GOAL and the OM, how much is being paid to whom, etc.

-Mike

No, I think there are several points going on at the same time here. Heck, it took me almost 300 posts, several corrections on here, and one "negative rep point" to realize this started back in June, not two days ago. Then, a bunch of people agreed with me through "plus rep points", indicating they also thought it started with this post.

 

[economist]

You're completely missing his point. Whether the OM (or for that matter, the idea of GOAL having presence in any physical print media) is a "good idea" or not as a communications tool is not the core subject of this thread. The issue is the financial relationship between GOAL and the OM, how much is being paid to whom, etc.

-Mike

Yes, 100%. Let's keep this on topic. Follow the money. Whether GOAL should or should not have a newspaper or any other form of communication is not the point right now.

 

[Jose]

GOAL smells dirty. VERY dirty.

 

[Jose]

Wow! 500 x $21 = $10,500 per year.

There is NO WAY this website (plus a couple free guns) costs that much.

Nice revenue stream.

GTFO if you don't like it. This place is a private business. Not that it costs a freeloader like you anything.

 

[50 BMG]

GOAL smells dirty. VERY dirty.

Agree, I know this will cause a shit storm among members here but I dropped my membership from GOAL years ago. Then had to re up it for the MFG officers position. I just found that when ever Mr. Wallace would speak of the NRA he would bash them. Then he runs for a NRA board seat. Goes to ALL of the NRA conventions but states he thinks they are not effective. Its a personal decision. I joined Comm2A and Pro Gun N.H... I plan on moving as soon as my 4 years tick by then retirement. I have property in New Hampshire and will be moving to Prescott Arizona upon my retirement.

Good luck Mass, I just think its time for leadership change at GOAL. IMO. Do I support the staff who work there yes, lets just say I have my personal differences with Mr. Wallace.

Now I cant wait for the hate posts to start.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Wow! 500 x $21 = $10,500 per year.

There is NO WAY this website (plus a couple free guns) costs that much.

Nice revenue stream.

So what? It's an individual decision as to whether someone joins NES.

It works like this:

Is $21 worth it to Mr. Weebles to purchase access to more of NES than a basic membership provides? Keep in mind, paid membership gives you the opportunity to attend member shoots, NES group buys, NES Member Classifieds, etc.

My answer is "yes." And whatever transaction takes place, it's between me and Derek. NOYFB.

Others like yourself choose to freeload. America, what a country.

 

[Serapis]

She is MILF hot...

 

[Palladin]

She is MILF hot...

WTF did I miss ???

 

[Serapis]

WTF did I miss ???

Post 14