EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:16 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:29 pm 
Wayne Stollings 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 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.


Yeah? What was the clarification? Can you explain it, instead of just pointing at it?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:32 pm 
Wayne Stollings wrote:
wijim wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
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.


Excuse me???? The primary focus of this thread is hunting (loving nature with a gun) unless you think they are picking trophys off the ground and since the Watson article slams throphy hunting it seems rather strange for you to pretend otherwise.


Try READING for a change. The post was in response to Wijim's statement about what did not fit the original article. Using guns was not the focus of that article but trophy hunting was. Other uses of guns such as self defense and non-trophy hunting would not be covered by the article any more than your misrepresentation above by also implying the article was about hunting. :roll:


i see, so there is no room to question other aspects of the original areticle either.


I did not say that, I pointed out the lack of context in this reply relating to YOUR assertion the original article did not support the point being discussed. I suppose this too will be another double standard example.


It amazes me how you can make some general, unsupported statements that don't even read well enough to have much meaning...and then conclude whatever you are talking about supports some other conclusion.

I'm sure it's all clear in your mind, though. :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:32 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
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.


No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.

_________________
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 1:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
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.


Excuse me???? The primary focus of this thread is hunting (loving nature with a gun) unless you think they are picking trophys off the ground and since the Watson article slams throphy hunting it seems rather strange for you to pretend otherwise.


Try READING for a change. The post was in response to Wijim's statement about what did not fit the original article. Using guns was not the focus of that article but trophy hunting was. Other uses of guns such as self defense and non-trophy hunting would not be covered by the article any more than your misrepresentation above by also implying the article was about hunting. :roll:



Cept that you referred to as" you and others "is more obviously a bit of a stretch for you to cover Wayne. Is Wiijim being accused of being others here or are you shoveling frantically to get out of that hole you are digging???.


I don't know Donnie, which hole would that be again? The one where you claim one thing was posted when you assumed something else was written?

_________________
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 1:37 pm 
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
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.


No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.


I'm sure Wijim has his own points to make, and can consider the article how he chooses. Obviously, some things in the article might be more important to his points than others.

The thing is, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that for him like some paternalistic, finger-pointing monkey.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:37 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings 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 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.


Yeah? What was the clarification? Can you explain it, instead of just pointing at it?


Go back and read it for yourself, I have already noted it before. I do not need to do your research for you.

_________________
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 1:39 pm 
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings 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 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.


Yeah? What was the clarification? Can you explain it, instead of just pointing at it?


Go back and read it for yourself, I have already noted it before. I do not need to do your research for you.


I saw a post where you pointed at it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:42 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
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.


No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.


I'm sure Wijim has his own points to make, and can consider the article how he chooses. Obviously, some things in the article might be more important to his points than others.

The thing is, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that for him like some paternalistic, finger-pointing monkey.


Since you seem to want to exhibit your ignorance in such a grand fashion, if you were to look back in the thread you would see that it was made BEFORE my post pointing out there were other issues discussed which were not in the original article. That was the post with which Donnie took offense. He nor you seem to take offense with Wijim making the same type of statement as you now take offense with others. I suppose it is because you are using that old double standard of dishonesty again.

_________________
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 1:48 pm 
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
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.


No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.


I'm sure Wijim has his own points to make, and can consider the article how he chooses. Obviously, some things in the article might be more important to his points than others.

The thing is, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that for him like some paternalistic, finger-pointing monkey.


Since you seem to want to exhibit your ignorance in such a grand fashion, if you were to look back in the thread you would see that it was made BEFORE my post pointing out there were other issues discussed which were not in the original article. That was the post with which Donnie took offense. He nor you seem to take offense with Wijim making the same type of statement as you now take offense with others. I suppose it is because you are using that old double standard of dishonesty again.


I'm sorry. You're going to have to try to write more clearly, and sometimes even specify just what you are talking about within your posts. All your uses of indefinite articles just look like so much bullshit spouting to me.

I'm sure all that spouting somehow goes to supporting your big ol' point about double-standards and mobs of conspiritors...but I think maybe you're missing that quite a few here don't consider your big ol' point to be of much value. Especially since you have been so obviously strained to support it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:04 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:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
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.


No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.


I'm sure Wijim has his own points to make, and can consider the article how he chooses. Obviously, some things in the article might be more important to his points than others.

The thing is, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that for him like some paternalistic, finger-pointing monkey.


Since you seem to want to exhibit your ignorance in such a grand fashion, if you were to look back in the thread you would see that it was made BEFORE my post pointing out there were other issues discussed which were not in the original article. That was the post with which Donnie took offense. He nor you seem to take offense with Wijim making the same type of statement as you now take offense with others. I suppose it is because you are using that old double standard of dishonesty again.



I actually asked if someone could clarify your throphy remarks because they seemed kinda muddled to me Wayne in light of what this thread is about. You were so general in your remarks till you started to pretend you were only replying to Wiijim..

_________________
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 6:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
RF wrote:
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.[/quote]

No that would be you sticking your foot into your mouth again because you did not read what was written.

So now that Wijim is deciding what is a nd isn't more important, so the3 lessers on the forum can gripe at him ... oh, wait, that will not happen because he is one of "us" so he gets to say such things.

:roll:


Quote:
i would think that many women who hunt possibly don't while they are pregnant and/or nursing as well. it's part of the human condition. but nobody said a thing about the original articale from watson having anything to do with a woman who was pregnant or nursing.


I'm sure Wijim has his own points to make, and can consider the article how he chooses. Obviously, some things in the article might be more important to his points than others.

The thing is, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that for him like some paternalistic, finger-pointing monkey.


Since you seem to want to exhibit your ignorance in such a grand fashion, if you were to look back in the thread you would see that it was made BEFORE my post pointing out there were other issues discussed which were not in the original article. That was the post with which Donnie took offense. He nor you seem to take offense with Wijim making the same type of statement as you now take offense with others. I suppose it is because you are using that old double standard of dishonesty again.



I actually asked if someone could clarify your throphy remarks because they seemed kinda muddled to me Wayne in light of what this thread is about. You were so general in your remarks till you started to pretend you were only replying to Wiijim..


There was no pretense (you have jumped to another bad conclusion) in response, but there was a clear reference to Wijim's opening the subject. I was not only replying to Wijim, I was pointing out how easily you, Wijim, and RF (clear enough?) ignore the same errors on each others posts/positions that you rail against others for mentioning. Is that sufficient clear to you and RF? If not read Wijim's post where he stated Sandra's points were not contained within the first article. The very next post of mine mentioned the same held true for many other posters in this thread. To that post both Donnie and RF took offense to my mention of the differing topic while even defending Wijim for being able to make points as he saw fit. That is your double standard and it is a dishonest position to maintain, but you all seem to enjoy it too much to give it up. I suppose that could say something about the character of the posters but that is an opinion everyone can draw for themselves.

_________________
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 7:25 pm 
Wayne, Wayne...

It's nobody's fault but yours that these grand points you claim you are making are such clumsy attempts. Just look at your opening statement 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.


First of all, we have to assume you MEANT to write: "Since the original article dealt with trophy hunting, most of what you and others have said on the thread had nothing to do with the article."

That's not terribly important though. Lots of people make typos or write clumsy sentences, but it's usually pretty easy to see what they are saying...long as they ain't doing it deliberately in an attempt to bullshit their way out of a tough spot.

But more importantly, the original article did NOT deal strictly with trophy hunting. Trophy hunters were cited, but the author went on to make generalized observations about HUNTING, based on what trophy hunters supposedly said.

So see...if your big ol' point is based on that premise...which it appears so from the language you used....it's pretty much screwed from the get-go. "Hunting per se" is every bit as much the "focus" as trophy hunting.

From the article:
Quote:
Trophy hunters argue that hunting is a natural instinct of man. We come from a hunter-gathering background they say, yet I don’t see any acorn or root gathering going on. In fact, I don’t think there is a single gathering club in the country. So, if hunting is a natural part of our instincts, then how come gathering isn’t?


Feel free to try to worry at that wound some more though.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:42 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
RF wrote:
Wayne, Wayne...

It's nobody's fault but yours that these grand points you claim you are making are such clumsy attempts. Just look at your opening statement 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.


First of all, we have to assume you MEANT to write: "Since the original article dealt with trophy hunting, most of what you and others have said on the thread had nothing to do with the article."

That's not terribly important though. Lots of people make typos or write clumsy sentences, but it's usually pretty easy to see what they are saying...long as they ain't doing it deliberately in an attempt to bullshit their way out of a tough spot.

But more importantly, the original article did NOT deal strictly with trophy hunting. Trophy hunters were cited, but the author went on to make generalized observations about HUNTING, based on what trophy hunters supposedly said.

So see...if your big ol' point is based on that premise...which it appears so from the language you used....it's pretty much screwed from the get-go. "Hunting per se" is every bit as much the "focus" as trophy hunting.

From the article:
Quote:
Trophy hunters argue that hunting is a natural instinct of man. We come from a hunter-gathering background they say, yet I don’t see any acorn or root gathering going on. In fact, I don’t think there is a single gathering club in the country. So, if hunting is a natural part of our instincts, then how come gathering isn’t?


Feel free to try to worry at that wound some more though.




I tried to get Wayne to see that RF. Easier for him to call others dishonest then admitt he jumped the GUN so to speak.

_________________
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 10:43 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Wayne, Wayne...

It's nobody's fault but yours that these grand points you claim you are making are such clumsy attempts. Just look at your opening statement 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.


First of all, we have to assume you MEANT to write: "Since the original article dealt with trophy hunting, most of what you and others have said on the thread had nothing to do with the article."

That's not terribly important though. Lots of people make typos or write clumsy sentences, but it's usually pretty easy to see what they are saying...long as they ain't doing it deliberately in an attempt to bullshit their way out of a tough spot.


Yes, dealing with multiple posts from multiple people tryign to twist things differently is really condusive to preventing typos.

Quote:
But more importantly, the original article did NOT deal strictly with trophy hunting. Trophy hunters were cited, but the author went on to make generalized observations about HUNTING, based on what trophy hunters supposedly said.


Not supposedly since that line has been used here many times, but there were not really observations about hunting in general but the statements made by trophy hunters.

Quote:
So see...if your big ol' point is based on that premise...which it appears so from the language you used....it's pretty much screwed from the get-go. "Hunting per se" is every bit as much the "focus" as trophy hunting.


Because they did not preface hunting with "trophy" in the relation of a common defense it changes the "focus" of the article? All of those references to TROPHY were just a ruse .... :roll:

Quote:
From the article:
Quote:
Trophy hunters argue that hunting is a natural instinct of man. We come from a hunter-gathering background they say, yet I don’t see any acorn or root gathering going on. In fact, I don’t think there is a single gathering club in the country. So, if hunting is a natural part of our instincts, then how come gathering isn’t?


Feel free to try to worry at that wound some more though.


I see the real focus of the article was gathering which is why Donnie went off on the accusations that Sianblooz was using this against hunters ... remember this point was where the thread got derailed. That was a clear focus based on this reference to what trophy hunters say .... :shock:

_________________
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 10:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
focus[1]
(noun) 5 a : a center of activity, attraction, or attention <the focus of the meeting was drug abuse>; b : a point of concentration

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 4 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