Because they did not preface hunting with "trophy" in the relation of a common defense it changes the "focus" of the article?
Wow. Another big belch of gas in the middle of what could have been an adequate sentence. "In the relation of a common defense"? "They"?
Sorry I forgot your lack of retention of context. We were discussing the statement made by trophy hunters (remember that?) and when I said "they" it was in relation to those very same trophy hunters. The "common defense" was the statement you posted earlier (remember that?) where it stated the trophy hunters used the instinct reference to defend their (trophy hunters again don't want you getting lost again) sport.
Are YOU focused here, Wayne?
More so than you appear to be. Having to repeat oneself over an over again because you are too ignorant or wish to play that you are too ignorant to follow the context is tiresome though.
I noted that the author of the article made statements about hunting in general. Sure...he started his own gas attack by citing the sub-category of hunters called "trophy hunters". That doesn't mean the "focus" of the article was trophy hunters...and it certainly doesn't mean that hunting in general was an irrelvancy.
So the number of times trophy hunting/hunters was mentioned has nothing to do with focus of the article but what RF believes does make it so? My what an over inflated ego you must have that you can make such determinations for the mindsets of others regardless of the evidence in hand.
Why was there such a problem with the Sierra club sponsoring a trophy hunt as a prize then? Why was there such a problem with the trophy pictures being posted? Trophy hunting was a big problem in the article and was significantly related to the focus, which was not hunting as Donnie claimed. The primary focus was the problem with the Sierra Club in relation to their position on trophy hunting and the apparent oxymoron in the mind of the author, which is why few of the posts were related to that focus.