Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne ,you are playing smoke and mirrors here.
Maybe you had better read the thread again then.
No, if I had told you that WAS the meaning of what was said it would be an assumption. Since I did not do that it is not. I pointed out the POSSIBLE meaning based on the evidence, which is not an assumption but a review of the facts and a conclusion based on that review. You, on the other hand, claimed to know the meaning with the same information and your personal belief, which is an assumption.
In fact I did not misplace my judgement as it was more then an assumption as proved by her own words.
Really? Where exactly was it stated who was being referenced?
She was talking about Watson and you are being assinine to indicate otherwise.
No, I am being truthful. You BELIEVE she was talking about Watson and that is the extent of your proof. Every other post has an alternative explanation to your BELIEFS concerning this situation.
To continue this childish chatrade with you is a waste of time.
I agree you are being childish and it is a waste of time, but hopefully some of the lurkers in the thread will get a benefit from the whole view approach.
You pointed out what you hoped was possible to discredit my point of view that Throphy hunting would be another wedge that folks like Sianblooz and Watson would use against hunting.
No, I pointed out the errors in your assertions that Sianblooz had attempted to discredit all hunters in the past. To state otherwise is not correct, but it does fit into your polarization views very nicely.
The reason for that ,is your own childish behavior and it is only making you look petty.
If correctly misrepresentations is "petty" that must be me, but it seems that making the misrepresentations would make you and your position look petty to anyone who did not already agree with your beliefs.
Carry on though I am sure you the all knowing god of moderation will pretend you are right till hell freezes over, even though Sianblooz's comments proved my point.
Maybe in your mind, but anything would prove your point in your mind if you want it to do so badly enough.
Even more glaringly obvious is I never made a statement that she claimed I did to begin with.
Aside from her not making the claims you stated first? See how it is "glaringly obvious" against the opposition but the SAME type of issue is ignored when you do it? That is called a double standard and is not really honest either.
I never stated she wrote anything about Watson. I stated that she would be supportive of his claims because she is not that supportive of hunting to begin with.
Yes, she responded incorrectly to your statement and that is somehow wrong given your statement was unsupported by any facts here especially the post she made specifically on the subject of hunting. That again would be a double standard and again dishonest.
I also did not call her names despite her rather glaring name calling of me and then stating I started the name calling.
Well, you had better read the post again because there were TWO criteria mentioned. That means you were accused of either of the two not just the one you wish to refute. That part of the English language makes this statement either a lie or you ignorant. The fact this statement has been addressed in the past makes it either a willful lie or you willfully ignorant, if history is taken into account.