Wayne Stollings wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
The thing that got you in trouble Wayne ,is your own desire to offer your opinions and personal view of what words mean as absolutes. Your ticked because other posters described other reasons that undermined your position so now you are unilaterally deciding what the meaning of something as trivial as 90 feet being NOT beside the road
It is called using a dictionary to find the common usage of a word not the redefinition of someone trying to pull their foot out of their mouth ... I find it hard to believe many would support the claim of 30 yards away as being "next to" the road ... but you are free to make whatever claims you wish.be·side [ bi sd ]
1. at side of: in a position next to or alongside
Sit beside me.
• preposition 1 at the side of; next to
or that antlers taken must have been for trophys and don't anyone dare to indicate otherwise.
That was the opinion of the one person who was there and saw the evidence first hand. I had no reason to question his opinion, but you seem to have sufficient need to question the probability with possibilities.
In reflection Watson stated he felt it was wrong for Sierra club to have hunters and fishers in the club. He was ticked that they display pictures of hunters and fishers with their trophys .
Yes, but his being ticked had no relation to the question of trophy hunters or poachers looking for trophies which were also being discussed. It seems the thread can be fixed or variable in the nature of the discussion depending on your personal wishes.
However the main point is that the posters you are castigating did indicate other reasons then those which you were steadfastly offering as absolutes.
Where did I offer such absolutes, other than in your mind? References or links would be in order for any honest response.
The 90 foot claim is pathetic but you had to call me a liar for making the claim that 90 feet is beside the road.
Given the English language definition of the term, it is not what anyone would commonly call "beside" except when trying to extract a foot form ones mouth.
But you had to make that claim through your own pompous behavior and your claims about what trophy or rarity mean are more puffing bluster from you but not really sound in application.
The definition of a "trophy hunter" was given but not that of a trophy, perhaps you should try another example. The point made about the rarity maybe not being as rare as indicated is not sound in application in what way? You know there is no possibility of the rarity NOT being less than Wijim indicated? It would seem there is always the chance of it being less, but you must "know" something we do not. Will you clarify this knowledge if possible?
Those references to finding backhoes in a country of 333 million people were quite funny but not really relevant but we are to accept the comparitive without question cause you say so.
It could be because you are ignorant of the use of statistics. The rarity will depend on the set in which it is compared. Thus, the locality will have a direct bearing on the rarity of any given discussion. A polar bear will be rare in the wild in South Africa but not in areas of Canada, Siberia, or Alaska.
Cute Wayne,but not very effective. Why do I get the feeling that you are pretentious enough to be sitting in funny blue tights with a self applied Superman insigna ranting about the Trinity ruining Wayne's World?
Nah, the tights are not my style much like the truth is not the style of the trinity. I notice you have yet to comment on the direct lies RF has made concerning my post on the possibility of the rarity being less than assumed, is there a problem with supporting his integrity now? Maybe you would like to explain how that statement can be untrue in light of his claims I stated an absolute? Maybe you can bend over backwards even farther to avoid the truth of the matter, it really does not matter to me.
thing is wayne.....you tried to draw lines of trophy hunting being that of poachers.
No, that is your Strawman attempt, but I did not try to draw any such conclusion. There are poachers who are only after the trophy which makes them trophy hunters in addition to poachers and there are legal hunters who are only after the trophy as well.
you also tried to draw a line linking "rarity" and "deviations of the norm together" as a horible mischaracterization.
No, you are just misinformed on the use of subsets. The fact is "deviations from the norm" would be a large set with "rarity" being a smaller subset of that large set. Just as trout are a subset of the larger set of fish.
not all poachers are trophy hunters.
not all trophy hunters are poachers by any stretch.
I do not know about 'any' stretch, but not all trophy hunters are poachers that is true.
but you attempted to draw that line by ommision.
Huh? What omission? Because I did not state each listing I "must" somehow be attempting to draw that line. I also did not state they were not aliens from the planet Ork, so I must have also tried to draw that line as well. That is the weakest line of illogical thought I have seen in quite some time.
i stated my meaning of rarity being a "deviation" from the norm. http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html13 million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting in the U.S. Those 13 million hunters spent 228 days afield, took 200 million hunting trips and spent $20.6 billion pursuing their passion.
11.0 million people hunted big game such as deer or elk
5.4 million hunted small game such as rabbits or squirrels
3.0 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl
1.0 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons
So using your definition of "rarity" it is rare for anyone to hunt rabbits and squirrels, migratory birds, or any other animal other than big game? I believe anyone else might question whether those actions might be less rare than you think .....
but even here you portray rare as being a polar bear in south africa.
well your shining example of what you consider rare and what my obvious meaning in the use of it was well as dishonest as you try to state "the trinity" is.
My example was such that there could be no misinterpretation of my post as is becoming so common by those very same members of the trinity. When you deal with those who try so hard to misrepresent even after being corrected one must make very clear examples. I still note no comment by you on this level of dishonesty, it seems odd for one so critical of the possible effects of dishonesty on this forum.
as well, you are taking a poaching instance and trying to attach it to watson's bs. watson stated "trophy hunters" you went on to say the definition of trophy hunter is common and went on to state that poachers that you figured were trophy hunters left dead deer by your "lab"..or wherever it was.
No, I never said anything about poachers. I stated they could have been legally checked before being dumped, but you were adamant they had to have been poachers. You may want to read back over the posts before you answer. This is also the reason I asked Donnie for clarification on whether the record for the trophy would be sufficient to cause someone to have the animal checked by the DNR first. He avoided the answer like the plague because it conflicted with your prior contention.
you know better (or do you) to realize that watson was referring to trophy hunters in whatever way as a generalization making no distinctions between the xyz guy on the outdoor channel hunting a freak racked buck (which im pretty certain would get consumed based only on the fact that it was filmed for the masses and who'd be dumb enough to put together a large production if they were poaching) and poachers in your neighborhood.
You still are calling it a poaching incident with nothing to prove your case other than your wish to believe there was a poaching incident.
if you want me to give you a number in what i meant as rarity..id give you my thoughts on what i'd figure i consider rare....but you never asked, even when it was apparent that our meanings didnt mesh. and of course i would have stated that that number would be my guess based on my experience(s). which you really dont quantify anything any more effectively...yet you call what is made into law some form of scientific proof????!.
I never stated I did, but you have misrepresented my posts with the same lie as did RF. I suppose that is why you have not made a comment on the dishonesty, since you are doing it as well.
like i said.....you seem to align yourself with a poster just to take sides against another poster. im not speaking of rf or donnie.....im speaking of me...because i happened to have agreed with them on this issue you lumped me in to some sort of "trinity".
No, I have nothing against you or your posts, except when they are less than truthful. The fact is that when one is involved in a contention there seems to be posts by the other two in support regardless of the level of truth or lack thereof in those posts.
tell me about your hunting, poaching, experience(s) beyond putting holes in a snake with your pistol wayne. and all you can refer to is hunting laws in an effort to cry "scientific proof".
My experiences are no more representative of the average than are yours without some level of correlation. You do not seem to understand that simple mathematical fact and that is fine since you are not a mathematician or scientist. The hunting laws are more representative of the national experience rather than the rather limited personal experience you seem to wish to base the comparison on.