posted on December 21, 2000 10:43:52 PM new
I don't know much about nuclear fission, raising llamas or how to use a chain saw to create a totem pole. These topics have all the relevance to hunting that jumping off a building did. Just because you know that jumping off a building is bad for your health, doesn't make you an expert on llamas.
And yes, to me the term hunting indicates active involvement. Sitting in a truck is not hunting, they may as well buy it from a processing plant. It is legal in some states, so they have a right to do it. If I really felt strongly about it, I'd still not dress the deer in vests, stalk hunters, or run through the woods with an air horn.
And although hunting is predominately male, women also hunt, either way, it doesn't make you a real man or a real woman. Being responsible for your actions, and acting responsibly is part of it though.
posted on December 22, 2000 01:29:30 AM new
Stusi - I don't mean to shock you, but I consider my posts and everyone else's posts every bit as worthwhile as yours.
Additionally, your opinion is that nothing different or worthwhile is being said, others feel differently. Perhaps their opinions are less valid or valuable than yours?
Also, I did say something different. I asked you why you felt posts should be locked when you lost interest, I didn't say a word about hunting.
We could always discuss religion, especially the Ten Commandments, if you want more substance in these posts.
posted on December 22, 2000 06:12:58 AM new
jada- perhaps a post on a relation between the ten commandments and this thread would be interesting. but you have now posted twice and haven't added anything. and no, jada, i don't think that my posts are the only ones worthwhile. there has been a running chat here for the past few days with almost all points of view stated. you came in much after that and perhaps you did not read everything. so instead of taking issue with me on a point that is not directly related to the original topic you should either try on your third post to say something relevant or sign off as you see that the thread has not been locked.
posted on December 22, 2000 06:28:28 AM new
The Community Guidelines require conduct to be guided at all times by basic etiquette. Please remember to address the the subject, not the individual.
posted on December 22, 2000 07:58:40 PM new
Nice groups krs - Of course you would not use
that rifle for deer would you? Unless you shot them in the ear. But you can shoot. My wife does not enjoy shooting and she won't shoot anything that kicks, but I built her a single shot Remington 22LR. It is tight - the bullet has to be pushed in with the bolt, and the bullet has rifling marks on it when you extract it unfired. 28 inch floated barrel, rifling shallow tapered at the throut and honed by being shot with plain lead bullets rolled in #15 diamond compound. Action bedded in a wood stock, but it is boned all over and completely sealed with matte plastic and walkway "grit paint" where your hands go. Ammo storeage under the butt plate. My own homemade trigger seems to work at about 10 oz for her. 12x scope with a big front lens. She humored me to learn to consistantly knock down 6 oz juice cans at 100 meters. She agreed if she ever did not eat for 3 days she would view the cute little squirrels differently. Makes almost no noise with a short in the long barrel. I knurl them in the lath and they shoot tighter than stock.
posted on December 23, 2000 08:32:31 AM new
To those posters having actual knowledge and experience regarding this topic, be careful.
As you argue against the misinformation and radical accusations that are obviously based on emotions, guessing, shows (movies) and books that humanize animals, and the bizarre, you may finally reach the point of "mirroring" the ridiculous.
If you do, you will find the very same people who are espousing erroneous garbage, are (also) unable to distinguish facetious from serious and conclude your humor to be a fact. What does that tell you about how competent (they) are in determining what they are reading is realistic and based on fact?
Additionally, their maturity level rapidly declines and some are reduced to childish tattling and complaining.
You can debate incompetent information but it is wasted effort to argue with the conveyer if the conveyer is also incompetent.
posted on December 23, 2000 09:37:33 AM new
Does this mean we won't be seeing a scan of someone's 7th-grade report card, refuting the reading incompetence charge? Boy, what a gyp.
posted on December 23, 2000 10:25:47 AM new
Joice - I appreciate your defense of AW posters. However, I reread this thread and now I'm curious about something.
If I directly told a particular poster that "don't you find hand-to-hand combat much more satisfying than hunting? if you don't, maybe it's just bloodlust," would that be an insult given that bloodlust has negative connations indicating a lack of conscience, morals, etc.?
posted on December 23, 2000 12:20:22 PM new
Since the thread seems to continue. I will add a couple of things for anybody that is actually interested (as opposed to simply condemning without basis)
If you follow the link to the OHIO laws in the early part of their thread you will also see a link involving the donation of meat to the needy. The "Buckmaster" magazine has also organized just such a effort.
I have also donated some meat that had gotten lost in the back of the freezer to a wildlife rehab place here in California. They used it to feed injured owls or hawks and prefered it to the meat that they used (Beef hearts) because it was leaner and was more correct for what they would get in the wild. (Learned this when I found a redtail hawk grounded and injured and found a rehab place for him/her)
I'd like to respectfully suggest to the moderators that allowing posters to be goaded into making insulting statements and then punishing them is uneven at best.
I have seen repeated use of the word "most" here used in regards to a group without basis. Would you, as moderators, react the same if "Most Blacks", or "Most Gays", or "Most Women", were used instead of "Most Hunters"??
I have tried very hard to be objective here in this thread and I hope that I have helped by being informative. Sorry again to not be the monster that some of you would like me to be.
posted on December 23, 2000 12:33:39 PM new
Has there been a law passed which adds hunters to the standing anti discrimination statute?
Ridiculous.
Joice,
The initial post is mine, and was meant only to present a silly scenario, but there are always these serious people, and the thread has lost it's way.
Could you close it please?
by the way, nutspec, no one 'goaded' Mike into making the statements in mixed company that he made, which statements were clearly upsetting to a member of the forum. Nor did anyone 'goad' him into continuing in the same vein, directly to a poster once it was clearly stated by that member that she was disgusted by his remarks.
posted on December 23, 2000 12:48:24 PM new
nutspec- do you really think that the use of "most hunters" is nearly as inflammatory as the use of "most Blacks", "most Gays" or "most (fill in a religion)"? although your donation of food is most admirable, you are nevertheless mostly overreacting to this expression. jada- you are trolling this thread trying to attack people(me) without contributing anything to it. it is not particularly insulting to use the words "bloodlust" or "bloodthirsty" etc. in describing those who one might think are killing for fun. if we were having a chat about Charles Manson you wouldn't object, would you? there are some who right or wrong think that some hunters have the same mentality toward animals. those who have been contributing to this thread are more than capable of defending their actions and objecting to the use of certain words if they see fit to do so. the moderators have been watching and apparently don't need your help to do their job.
posted on December 23, 2000 01:02:35 PM new
there is a new post on the moderator's board about yet another thread that has your name on it. unless i am mistaken "trolling", "tattling", and "complaining" might apply particularly since that was not out in the open on the thread but on the mod's board! you now agree with krs that the thread should be locked, but before you had a problem with me making the same suggestion??!!!
[ edited by stusi on Dec 23, 2000 01:07 PM ]
posted on December 23, 2000 01:12:04 PM new
Stusi - I haven't lost my way. As we have often been told, the Moderator's Board is the appropriate place to voice concerns of this type.
And yes, I will complain when half of the population, women, are directly insulted. Again, it was out in the open, not an email to the moderators.
I don't believe lodging a concern or complaint on the Moderator's Board is considered trolling since that is the purpose of that particular forum.
As I said, nothing relevant or worthwhile is being said at this point, so I feel the thread should be locked as KRS has made this request. Had he not made the request, I would have left that decision up to him.
Now I have a Christmas party to attend and will not further discuss this matter (remember, nothing worthwhile or relevant, etc.) . Have a Happy Holiday.
. Have a Happy Holiday.