colinjallen

Yes, that is all very true; I should probably have added "dealing with the logistics of providing a very large amount of equipment at extremely short notice" in my list of things that the government was trying to balance, along with "maintaining public morale". While it was clearly what you rather nicely describe as a benign lie for the common good, I hate to think what the public reaction would have been if the message had been that masks are essential in reducing infection but we don't have enough and need to provide them to frontline healthcare workers, so good luck. I suspect that the political calculation involved the possible impact on getting re-elected.

Bye then.

It did surprise us, to the extent that we queried it with several of the companies, explaining the issues to them.

Keep trying.

Did someone piss in your Cheerios?

Thanks; very helpful.

Regarding the non-chronoing element of this, when we were looking around for airsoft insurance a few years ago, every company that we contacted had a clause that stated the following or something very similar: "The Insured must chronograph the gun the first time the member plays at the site and after any modifications to ensure compliance;". Sites that do not do so have invalidated their insurance, which leaves them vulnerable in the event of an accident; they would also forfeit their UKARA registration. This site is not alone in not-chronoing; during the time that I played at Ultimate Wargames, no guns were ever chrono'd. On one occasion, I asked if I could borrow the chrono to check a gun that I had been working on; they did not have one. There were other issues around safe zone safety, hit taking, removing eye pro in the field between games, and casual racism from the owner. It was a shame because it has the potential to be a great site.

While I would agree that governments and special interest groups create "fictions and accumulated unspoken inconsistencies" that suit their own needs, with Brexit possibly being the most impressive of these in recent UK history, I am not convinced that there has been "a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary", at least with regard to COVID-19. I think that one of the problems with such an assertion is that "the audience" only experience what they experience, which is narrow and limited; another, when directed at the pandemic, is that "the quantitative" is, of necessity, historic, rather than being current or an entirely reliable guide to the future. People, even (or perhaps especially) experts, will interpret that data according to their own specialism and training; for example, public health specialists will generally err on the side of actions that they perceive as protecting public health. Regarding your edits: [what is perceived as]: Perceived by who? Would letting the virus at its height (or what was hopefully its height) rip through an unvaccinated population have been better for public safety? In the purest sense, we can never "know" that. [finance sector of the]: Disagree; all the sectors that are either of "interest" to members of the government and those who fund them or which are perceived as being essential to maintaining the support of their voter base. However, the finance sector may well be the most significant of the former. [insider]: Yes, especially the back benches, which the current government seemed to think it could take for granted. We now see the wonderful spectacle of the potential successors to the fornicator-in-chief being told what to do by the 1922 Committee and others in order to gain their support. Essentially, UK government policy on the pandemic is now being formed by a group of backbenchers. [by maintaining the fiction that tax and spend actually happens, and that this is being managed responsibly]: tax and spend does happen, so that part is far from being a fiction. Is it managed responsibly? That is arguable with individual answers probably being dependent on one's political and economic viewpoints.

I am not quite convinced that it can be viewed entirely through a situationalist lens, possibly because I have never been convinced by the concept of "the spectacle".

Simple answer: politicians who are trying to balance public safety, minimising the damage to the economy, keeping various pressure groups happy, maintaining or improving their chances of getting re-elected and trying not to get deposed by their own party. I am sure there are more complicated answers.

Would you care to expand on that and how that difference between choice and necessity should impact on policy?

Given that data (rather than assumptions, politically inspired talking points or moonbat conspiracy theories, none of which I am suggesting that you are using) strongly indicate that those who have received the vaccinations are far less likely to end up in hospital or dead, vaccination is far more than just a ritual. However, many people do seem to believe that vaccination will prevent them catching the virus or passing it on. Given that the official messaging has suggested, although not actually stated, that vaccination does indeed prevent spread, despite none of the manufacturers making that claim, it is not surprising that many believe that. Do we really expect logical and coherent policies from politicians?

Yawn...keep going.

Come back and have the discussion when you have grown up.

To be fair, 60 Minutes is a well respected current affairs programme in Australia. However, it can be somewhat sensationalist.

Imperium run defined types of events: skirmishes, Ground War and Battlesim, along with the occasional Milsim. Each has its own set of rules on mag types, ammo limits etc and different levels of command and control. There is a core set of players who tend to attend all of them, but also some who only attend one or two types.

Dear old Lem would not have been happy with that. I don't think bad taste quite captures it.

Are you really that overly sensitive that you perceive someone else's view of you as a personal attack? You do seem very insecure.

No personal attacks; just my belief and my viewpoint, based on your posts, especially the one that assumes that I hate a culture ;).

I cannot quite work out whether you are just looking for an argument or whether you are somewhat dense. At the moment, based on the evidence, I am tending towards the latter. Come back when you can string together a reasonable argument without making unsupported assumptions. I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

No, I am not: I am not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion from my posts. I have no problem with anyone believing anything that is: 1. Not potentially harmful to others. 2. Not contradicted by all know relevant facts. Now, based on your post, I am almost convinced that you should have no problem with, for example, those who "believe" that the Holocaust did not happen or who believe that their religion requires them to kill gay people, apostates and women who dare to break the rules. After all, those are just their beliefs and viewpoints.

When those viewpoints are clearly delusional and are damaging to our understanding of, for example, the nature and spread of this virus, that is potentially harming all of us. It is somewhat similar to the deluded fools who "believe" in Q, that Trump won the election and who attacked the Capitol. Based on your comment, I can only conclude that you have no problem with, for example, those who "believe" that the Holocaust did not happen or who believe that their religion requires them to kill gay people, apostates and women who dare to break the rules. After all, those are just their beliefs and viewpoints. I know someone who believes that COVID does not exist and that the vaccines are designed to enable "them" to monitor and control us. Consequently, he refuses to get vaccinated or to wear a mask. But, hey, those are just his beliefs; that he could quite easily be spreading the virus is irrelevant,

While it is very likely that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab, it shows no evidence of having been man made. It does show all the characteristics of being a naturally occurring virus. I am not a virologist, but have a friend who is. Similarly to many virologists around the world, his team have been studying this thing from the start; there is no evidence whatever that it is man made. Incidentally, I was in Wuhan in December 2019; there were reports of a cluster of pneumonia cases in the days before I flew home on 17th December. As for Omicron being "trucked in" to Africa, that is not at all supported by any of the evidence; the same is true of your bizarre claim that Tredos (I assume you mean Tedros) is a member of the CCP (actually the CPC) as he is neither Chinese nor a citizen of the PRC. Given your apparent deep knowledge of China, I assume that you have travelled extensively in that country and can talk with the locals. Belief is less valid when it is not based on facts and is based on delusional conspiracy theories. Why should those who propagate conspiracy theory nonsense be tolerated?

Be careful posting stuff like that; the black helicopters will be coming to get you.

All of this is based on the assumption that you currently have 18:1 gears. You will get slightly better trigger response; theoretically, your ROF should go up to 19.7rps (17.5x18/16). However, stated gear ratios are not always 100% accurate. If you want to go a little higher and still retain good trigger response (although not as good as with the ZCI), I would recommend the SHS High Torque motor which, according to the stated performance, should get you up to around 21.5rps. Of course, all this depends on other factors so any figures given are, at best, approximate. Shimming and motor height can both make a difference.