EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:43 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20484
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
sianblooz wrote:
It wasn't until AFTER Donnie started the same sorry lies and namecalling that I started namecalling. Before that, I was on topic and civil.


But he started it! :lol:



:lol: :lol: thing is...he didn't.... :lol: :lol:


This statement would not have anything to do with the problem would it? It is the first statement by Donnie and it does claim an unproven position, which Sianblooz contests. That would make it a lie in Sianblooz's position. I do not see many posts where Sianblooz has mentioned hunters directly much less tried to "discredit all hunters". I suppose that too might be a personal opinion on Donnie's part, but given the lack of proof presented it is hard to say Donnie did NOT start it without making another assumption.

Quote:
Watson is using them as Sianblooz willingly has done before to discredit all hunters



No no need to go much further with your own assertions Wayne. They are becoming quite pathetic and ignorant.. Funny how you never addressed the fact that I never called anyone names much less resort to vulgarity which you find so disturbing when it suits you. You are about the only person trying to support the supposition that Sianbloop was talking about anyone else other then Watson. Then others pretty while figured out that was who Sianbloop was talking about and quantified that position exactally as noted by RF in her follow up posts.


First, you have just confirmed your ignorance since I am not supporting anything, but point out your prior assumptions are based on wishful thinking rather than a provable basis. That is not uncommon with you at times though.

A mob agreeing on something they wish to believe proves exactly nothing except the basis for their wish. As for the "side line" RF mentioned, it is true, but then so is the same claim against you for the "discrediting all hunters" since the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food. I suppose when you wish to live a double standard it helps to be ignorant of the facts as well.

You may want to edit the references to Sianblooz by the incorrect spelling you used since that could be considered an attack similar to the ones I had to warn Sianblooz over and which Wijim complained.




You are making assertions as you are telling me what Sianblooz could have meant when in fact she pretty well confirmed my point in interpeting what sianblooz's comments as was noted by several others on this board. In fact Sianb looz made no bones about her feeling for hunters as she commented to the former UK posters in aggreement with him. He made very derogatory comments about hunters and Sianblooz noted you couldn't call him a liar for those comments because they were true. You can play this game if you wish Wayne but you are only discrediting yourself. I have dealt enough with Sianblooz/ in the past to be know she hates hunters of all kinds.


As for the name calling you should tell Sianblooz tthat Donnie didn't start the name calling and has used no name calling or vulgarity in my posts to her. You are the only person who even attempted to make it seem that Sianblooz wasn't referring to Watson and even Sianblooz didn't bother to make that pretense. We both know why you set out to play this game Wayne and it is so petty that you look like a puppet for playing that game. Sianblooz must be laughing her self silly over your nonsense.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:34 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.




Of course it is an assumption on your part Wayne. You are assuming you knew what I meant and what Sianblooz meant and trying your damnest to put a spin on my comments that even Sianblooz pointed out to be wrong. Sianblooz was talking about Watson as she noted and she has made derogatory comments about hunters (period) on this very board. She is who other posters claim she is and those posters know that Sianblooz /Barb has hate mongered all hunters under any number of handles on other boards. You can pretend we don't know who Sianblooz is but that is your loss and your unilateral choice to be the king of interpetation is flailing badly..

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:53 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20484
Location: Southeastern US
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
wijim wrote:
Archer wrote:
sianblooz wrote:
It wasn't until AFTER Donnie started the same sorry lies and namecalling that I started namecalling. Before that, I was on topic and civil.


But he started it! :lol:



:lol: :lol: thing is...he didn't.... :lol: :lol:


This statement would not have anything to do with the problem would it? It is the first statement by Donnie and it does claim an unproven position, which Sianblooz contests. That would make it a lie in Sianblooz's position. I do not see many posts where Sianblooz has mentioned hunters directly much less tried to "discredit all hunters". I suppose that too might be a personal opinion on Donnie's part, but given the lack of proof presented it is hard to say Donnie did NOT start it without making another assumption.

Quote:
Watson is using them as Sianblooz willingly has done before to discredit all hunters



No no need to go much further with your own assertions Wayne. They are becoming quite pathetic and ignorant.. Funny how you never addressed the fact that I never called anyone names much less resort to vulgarity which you find so disturbing when it suits you. You are about the only person trying to support the supposition that Sianbloop was talking about anyone else other then Watson. Then others pretty while figured out that was who Sianbloop was talking about and quantified that position exactally as noted by RF in her follow up posts.


First, you have just confirmed your ignorance since I am not supporting anything, but point out your prior assumptions are based on wishful thinking rather than a provable basis. That is not uncommon with you at times though.

A mob agreeing on something they wish to believe proves exactly nothing except the basis for their wish. As for the "side line" RF mentioned, it is true, but then so is the same claim against you for the "discrediting all hunters" since the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food. I suppose when you wish to live a double standard it helps to be ignorant of the facts as well.

You may want to edit the references to Sianblooz by the incorrect spelling you used since that could be considered an attack similar to the ones I had to warn Sianblooz over and which Wijim complained.




You are making assertions as you are telling me what Sianblooz could have meant when in fact she pretty well confirmed my point in interpeting what sianblooz's comments as was noted by several others on this board.


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.

Quote:
In fact Sianb looz made no bones about her feeling for hunters as she commented to the former UK posters in aggreement with him. He made very derogatory comments about hunters and Sianblooz noted you couldn't call him a liar for those comments because they were true.


Nope, wrong again. There was a question posed about whether a statement would be an insult. There was nothing mentioned about not being able to call anyone a liar. At this point I believe YOU would be calling a specific someone a liar for making such a false statement.

Here are the exact posts, which CANNOT be taken out of context for a proof as much as I know you want to do so.

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2819#22819

sianblooz wrote:
phantomuk wrote:
if you hunt you are scum.


I'm curious.
If something is true, is it still considered an insult?


http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2858#22858

sianblooz wrote:
josh knauer wrote:
sianblooz wrote:
What I meant is, if you believe that hunting (or carrying an antivivisection sign or wearing a fur coat or splashing fur coats with blood or driving an enormous SUV or slashing the tires of an enormous SUV) makes the hunter "scum", isn't that really just a statement of your opinion? An opinion that's just as valid as the next guy's.

Also, I do think there is a difference bertween saying "YOU are scum" and "hunters are scum". But, that's jmo.


And where's that slippery slope end? If I said, "you are an asshole" that is expressing an opinion, but it is also a personal attack (I don't think you are, btw!). I think that anyone looking at this rationally can say that the claim that "hunters are scum" in a forum where you know that at least some of the people you are addressing are hunters is a bit over the line.

I recently made a post where I said that corporations or whalers (I forget which) who violate the law are scum. That may not be quite over the line, but it is pretty close and I should have known better. We all make mistakes sometimes.


Quote:
I apologize for jumping in without being clear with what I meant. I have been reading, off and on, for a little while and have seen that some people seem to want to be nasty just to be nasty. I'm sorry I joined in.

Thanks for the warning.

Thank you for being cool about it.

-josh


Fair 'nuff.


Quote:
You can play this game if you wish Wayne but you are only discrediting yourself.


What game? The truth? Your account of what was stated in the posts is clearly not correct, yet you want me to believe that everything else you "know" is coorect?

Quote:
I have dealt enough with Sianblooz/ in the past to be know she hates hunters of all kinds.


So you have the IP addresses and the information from the ISPs to be sure these prior incidents are from the same person as is posting here now? I seriously doubt it, but I do not doubt that you believe it to be true just as you believed your representation of the post concerning personal insults to be true. The difference is I can check the one but not the other to determine the validity for myself.

Quote:
As for the name calling you should tell Sianblooz tthat Donnie didn't start the name calling and has used no name calling or vulgarity in my posts to her.


You might want to read the post again the reference was not just to namecalling, which again shows an inaccuracy in your statement.

Quote:
You are the only person who even attempted to make it seem that Sianblooz wasn't referring to Watson and even Sianblooz didn't bother to make that pretense.


Really? Sianblooz stated the post was in reference to whom to clear up the discussion?

Quote:
We both know why you set out to play this game Wayne and it is so petty that you look like a puppet for playing that game.


Playing the game of pointing out the mistakes, errors, and misrepresentations? I do that all of the time. The only difference is I tended to let more of it slide on one side in the past. Since the double standard became clear to me and I decided I did not care to continue the participation I have tried to point out ALL such items. You seem to have taken it more personally given the references to petty, ignorant, and the like. I am used to those as I heard it often from the pro-AR side when I pointed out their errors. Now I see that some anti-ARs seem to be more similar to the pro-ARs than I would have believed.

Quote:
Sianblooz must be laughing her self silly over your nonsense.


It must be yours, as that is the only nonsense presented here, but that is really not my concern whether she is or is not laughed silly.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:12 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Wayne ,you are playing smoke and mirrors here.

Quote:
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. She was talking about Watson and you are being assinine to indicate otherwise. To continue this childish chatrade with you is a waste of time. 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. The reason for that ,is your own childish behavior and it is only making you look petty. 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. Even more glaringly obvious is I never made a statement that she claimed I did to begin with. 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. I also did not call her names despite her rather glaring name calling of me and then stating I started the name calling. .

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:36 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20484
Location: Southeastern US
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne ,you are playing smoke and mirrors here.


Maybe you had better read the thread again then.

Quote:
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:40 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:16 am
Posts: 1389
Location: Australia
wijim wrote:

... incidently when did the namecalling rule become so optional?.....was it recently? ... were the above overlooked ... whats the deal there?

Thank's for the summary wiijim. The deal is I seem to be the only one who really cares. I started, belatedly, at the beginning of this thread with the *** I like so much as you will see if you look. Wish I'd started at this point and saved myself the time and trouble. However, I have to say the namecallers win this round - life's too short.

Quote:
My apologies to the moderators for violating the rules of the board. I should not have let the (neverending) lies annoy me. I'll keep it clean in the future.


Good, thank you Sianblooz. You have no idea how long my computer takes to open a page and I can't say I'm enjoying the *** work (no, they aren't lion stamps).

Quote:
Brings to mind that old saying about not getting down in the mud withh pigs...


#-o

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:45 pm 
wijim wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.


No need for you to roll your eyes like some sort of goon. I asked for evidence to support your assertion and you provided it. I thank you for that.

So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.



lmfao.....but but but but but.....what about the old "is it wrong to call hunters scum if its true?" assertion in support of the banned poster who will not be named? :lol: :lol:


Well...I think Wayne said something about context, and how that wouldn't really be support for the assertion that hunters are scum. I don't recall his explanation for what the alternative would be....especially considering the context. Seems to me the question Sianbooz asked was kind of facetious, and entirely meant to imply that it is truthful that hunters are scum.

'Course, now we know that she entirely condones hunting animals long as the hunter eats them. I don't know why she thinks eating them is so important.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 1340
RF wrote:
wijim wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.


No need for you to roll your eyes like some sort of goon. I asked for evidence to support your assertion and you provided it. I thank you for that.

So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.



lmfao.....but but but but but.....what about the old "is it wrong to call hunters scum if its true?" assertion in support of the banned poster who will not be named? :lol: :lol:


Well...I think Wayne said something about context, and how that wouldn't really be support for the assertion that hunters are scum. I don't recall his explanation for what the alternative would be....especially considering the context. Seems to me the question Sianbooz asked was kind of facetious, and entirely meant to imply that it is truthful that hunters are scum.

'Course, now we know that she entirely condones hunting animals long as the hunter eats them. I don't know why she thinks eating them is so important.


i wonder if she holds the same standards for booger harvesting?

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:58 pm 
wijim wrote:
RF wrote:
wijim wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.


No need for you to roll your eyes like some sort of goon. I asked for evidence to support your assertion and you provided it. I thank you for that.

So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.



lmfao.....but but but but but.....what about the old "is it wrong to call hunters scum if its true?" assertion in support of the banned poster who will not be named? :lol: :lol:


Well...I think Wayne said something about context, and how that wouldn't really be support for the assertion that hunters are scum. I don't recall his explanation for what the alternative would be....especially considering the context. Seems to me the question Sianbooz asked was kind of facetious, and entirely meant to imply that it is truthful that hunters are scum.

'Course, now we know that she entirely condones hunting animals long as the hunter eats them. I don't know why she thinks eating them is so important.


i wonder if she holds the same standards for booger harvesting?


:lol:

Hey...someone's going to talk about how childish this list is, again.

So I better not go into the theories of booger rehab.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:10 pm 
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Since I don't want to be accused of misinterpeting anything else on this thread which is strangly titled " Loving Nature with a gun", I wonder what the hell Wayne is trying to say here.


Quote:
Since the original article dealt with trophy hunting, most of what you and others have said on the thread had anything to do with the article. Hunting per se was not even the focus.



How do trophs get to be throphys without them being hunted since the preoccupation is about hunting with GUNS. Even more strange is the disconnect that hunting individuals from a species does not mean you don't love the species you hunt.


Well that's just Wayne deciding what is important and what isn't, so all the lessers on the forum can be clear on it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20484
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.


No need for you to roll your eyes like some sort of goon. I asked for evidence to support your assertion and you provided it. I thank you for that.


As it was in this thread most normal people would have read it before jumping to conclusions ... like assigning the "like some sort of goon" connotation to the standard emoticon. :wink:

Quote:
So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.


No, the would not be obvious to everyone, but you may try to make the case if anyone wishes to take the time to discuss it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:18 pm 
Quote:
Quote:
So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.


No, the would not be obvious to everyone, but you may try to make the case if anyone wishes to take the time to discuss it.


You made the case for me. Don't you remember? You were supporting your assertion that Sianblooz has "nothing against hunting for food."

You said it was clearly indicated. Are you changing your story now?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:22 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20484
Location: Southeastern US
wijim wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
...the posts in this thread clearly indicated nothing against hunting for food.


I don't think you can support that. So is it an assumption on your part?


No, I think it is supportable IF you actually read posts, so maybe you should think about it again. Now see how you can try to claim this was talking about something else completely out of the context of the thread to that point .... :roll:

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2157#42157

Quote:
He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food. Nothing wrong with eating what you kill and killing what you eat. If you eat meat then I don't think you have the right to criticize hunting.

Now, individual hunters? That's a different thing.


No need for you to roll your eyes like some sort of goon. I asked for evidence to support your assertion and you provided it. I thank you for that.

So it is on record that Sianblooz absolutely, unequivocably condones killing cattle, hogs, sheep, dolphins, cats, and dogs for food. And feels that someone who eats meat doesn't have a "right" to criticize someone for doing such. And since the killing of animals for food isn't wrong in the first place...then obviously even someone who DOESN'T eat meat, wouldn't have that "right" either.



lmfao.....but but but but but.....what about the old "is it wrong to call hunters scum if its true?" assertion in support of the banned poster who will not be named? :lol: :lol:


Well that would be an attempt to misrepresent a statement that was clarified much earlier and as such would be closer to a lie for whomever wanted to claim it as being a proven statement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:26 pm 
Quote:
The "modified" broader definitions are generally associated with an attempt to mislead.


You mean like when you decided that Luna wasn't free, because you employed a definition sufficiently broad that NOTHING could be free? You mean like that?

I'm willing to explain my use of terms and what they mean to the point. There's a difference between that and standing there pointing to a dictionary like an idiot-savant monkey that can recognize a symbol on a paper but can't go on to form real thoughts.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group