Discussion:
'Beginning Of The End' For Hunting And Fishing
(too old to reply)
ANC Webmaster
2003-10-02 16:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated National
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of the
end' of killing animals for sport.

http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Dutch
2003-10-02 16:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated National
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of the
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport. Are
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap shows
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Ray
2003-10-02 17:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated National
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport. Are
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap shows
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Personal freedom to inflict suffering by cowards.
*GREAT*
Dutch
2003-10-02 18:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport.
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Personal freedom to inflict suffering by cowards.
*GREAT*
No, you sick, twisted little git, freedom to embrace and experience an
essence act of survival, hunting or fishing for one's food. Buying
supermarket food and pretending it doesn't contain a legacy of animal death
is the real act of moral cowardice.
Xebug
2003-10-05 15:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
No, you sick, twisted little git, freedom to embrace and experience an
essence act of survival, hunting or fishing for one's food. Buying
supermarket food and pretending it doesn't contain a legacy of animal death
is the real act of moral cowardice.
So, so true.
Zakhar
2003-10-02 18:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated National
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport. Are
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap shows
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.

Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc, eat
them?

===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife in
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in industries
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.

Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================

It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
Dutch
2003-10-02 18:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning of
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport.
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc, eat
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or hunting to
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife in
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in industries
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage, poofter.
Zakhar
2003-10-02 18:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning
of
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport.
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc, eat
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or hunting to
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".

Your statement is crap.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife
in
Post by ANC Webmaster
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in industries
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage, poofter.
Those with a weak argument attack. It's the only thing you have left.

LOL

YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".

Your statement is crap.
Ray
2003-10-02 19:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning
of
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not
sport.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc,
eat
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or hunting to
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife
in
Post by ANC Webmaster
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in
industries
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage, poofter.
Those with a weak argument attack. It's the only thing you have left.
LOL
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
And who says 'Dutch' is a 'predominately high earner', I often post from
work and this pillock is always available, same at night, so allowing for
the time factor, does he actually have a job? Or is he like ~~jonnie~~ ,
claiming Social Security?

He would like us to think he is a 'Big Bread Winner' but I have my doubts.

We know he has a 'Latin' phrase book and a 'Thesaurus' but we do not know if
he has a job. Enlighten us 'Dutch' my 'Canadian' ray of sunshine, or perhaps
should that be 'French/Canadian'.

That would make you a half breed.

Well! You started the racist issue.
Zakhar
2003-10-02 21:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the
'beginning
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
of
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not
sport.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of
crap
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc,
eat
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or
hunting
Post by ANC Webmaster
to
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched
wildlife
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
in
Post by ANC Webmaster
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in
industries
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage,
poofter.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Those with a weak argument attack. It's the only thing you have left.
LOL
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
And who says 'Dutch' is a 'predominately high earner', I often post from
work and this pillock is always available, same at night, so allowing for
the time factor, does he actually have a job? Or is he like ~~jonnie~~ ,
claiming Social Security?
I'm sure he's not a high earner, he panders to the well off, as is his role
in life.
Post by ANC Webmaster
He would like us to think he is a 'Big Bread Winner' but I have my doubts.
So do I.
Post by ANC Webmaster
We know he has a 'Latin' phrase book and a 'Thesaurus' but we do not know if
he has a job. Enlighten us 'Dutch' my 'Canadian' ray of sunshine, or perhaps
should that be 'French/Canadian'.
If my memory serves me right he does have a "job".
Post by ANC Webmaster
That would make you a half breed.
To borrow part of another thread; he's not a pheasant plucker, but a
pheasants plucker's mate. (Something like that).
Post by ANC Webmaster
Well! You started the racist issue.
He's copied ~~jonnie~~ to a tee.

Just like him, he'll ignore this thread now he's got a beating.

(Do you think that's good enough bait?)

Cheers.
Dutch
2003-10-03 00:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
And who says 'Dutch' is a 'predominately high earner', I often post from
work and this pillock is always available, same at night, so
allowing for
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
the time factor, does he actually have a job? Or is he like
~~jonnie~~ ,
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
claiming Social Security?
I'm sure he's not a high earner, he panders to the well off, as is his role
in life.
I earn a good income. I'm not sure what "pandering to the well off"
means, but I don't do it.
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
He would like us to think he is a 'Big Bread Winner' but I have my doubts.
So do I.
I have provided for my family and given them financial security.
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
We know he has a 'Latin' phrase book and a 'Thesaurus'
You're thinking of Derek.
Post by Zakhar
but we do not know
if
Post by Ray
he has a job. Enlighten us 'Dutch' my 'Canadian' ray of sunshine, or
perhaps
Post by Ray
should that be 'French/Canadian'.
If my memory serves me right he does have a "job".
Post by Ray
That would make you a half breed.
To borrow part of another thread; he's not a pheasant plucker, but a
pheasants plucker's mate. (Something like that).
Post by Ray
Well! You started the racist issue.
He's copied ~~jonnie~~ to a tee.
Not as a rule I haven't, and you know it, but I'm sure Jonathan will get
a chuckle out of my reply to your racial/economic stereotyping.
Post by Zakhar
Just like him, he'll ignore this thread now he's got a beating.
(Do you think that's good enough bait?)
I don't need bait to indulge your masochistic tendencies.
Ray
2003-10-03 10:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
And who says 'Dutch' is a 'predominately high earner', I often post
from
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
work and this pillock is always available, same at night, so
allowing for
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
the time factor, does he actually have a job? Or is he like
~~jonnie~~ ,
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
claiming Social Security?
I'm sure he's not a high earner, he panders to the well off, as is his
role
Post by Zakhar
in life.
I earn a good income. I'm not sure what "pandering to the well off"
means, but I don't do it.
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
He would like us to think he is a 'Big Bread Winner' but I have my
doubts.
Post by Zakhar
So do I.
I have provided for my family and given them financial security.
Post by Zakhar
Post by Ray
We know he has a 'Latin' phrase book and a 'Thesaurus'
You're thinking of Derek.
Post by Zakhar
but we do not know
if
Post by Ray
he has a job. Enlighten us 'Dutch' my 'Canadian' ray of sunshine, or
perhaps
Post by Ray
should that be 'French/Canadian'.
If my memory serves me right he does have a "job".
Post by Ray
That would make you a half breed.
To borrow part of another thread; he's not a pheasant plucker, but a
pheasants plucker's mate. (Something like that).
Post by Ray
Well! You started the racist issue.
He's copied ~~jonnie~~ to a tee.
Not as a rule I haven't, and you know it, but I'm sure Jonathan will get
a chuckle out of my reply to your racial/economic stereotyping.
Post by Zakhar
Just like him, he'll ignore this thread now he's got a beating.
(Do you think that's good enough bait?)
I don't need bait to indulge your masochistic tendencies.
Of course not 'Dutch' we all know you are a 'Master Baiter'.
Dutch
2003-10-02 22:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the 'beginning
of
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not
sport.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc,
eat
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or hunting to
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
It's not crap, fishing *certainly* is 99.9% about food and hunting is only
marginally about "trophies". The fact that people enjoy it doesn't make it
not primarily about food.

I don't agree with the Ted Nugent philosophy of killing for the fun of
seeing something die..
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife
in
Post by ANC Webmaster
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in
industries
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage, poofter.
Those with a weak argument attack. It's the only thing you have left.
You got your little racial/economic profiling thrown back in your face,
don't whine about it.
Post by ANC Webmaster
LOL
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
That's spelled f-a-c-t.
Zakhar
2003-10-03 16:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Fund for Animals, a national animal protection group, celebrated
National
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Hunting and Fishing Day on Saturday, September 27, as the
'beginning
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
of
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
the
Post by ANC Webmaster
end' of killing animals for sport.
http://www.anc.org/wildlife/wildlife_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0929_huntin
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
g
ANC Web Site Administrator
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not
sport.
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
Are
Post by Dutch
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of
crap
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
shows
Post by Dutch
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
Crap AGAIN.
Do people that hunt foxes, bears, lions, elephants, prairie dogs, etc,
eat
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
them?
The article depicts deer, not elephants. As usual, you're conflating a
legitimate cause, preservation of valuable, special species, or
hunting
Post by ANC Webmaster
to
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
eliminate pests with hunting for food.
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
It's not crap, fishing *certainly* is 99.9% about food and hunting is only
marginally about "trophies". The fact that people enjoy it doesn't make it
not primarily about food.
Crap. Suggest you read the NSRE.
Post by ANC Webmaster
I don't agree with the Ted Nugent philosophy of killing for the fun of
seeing something die..
That's a start.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
===============================
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched
wildlife
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by Dutch
in
Post by ANC Webmaster
2001. They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
*recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in
industries
Post by Dutch
Post by ANC Webmaster
and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
Yes, ARAs want to control how everyone else thinks, I realize that.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Steve Williams
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
===============================
It's a predominately white, male, high earner pastime.
And that's why you despise it. You're an off-white, minimum-wage,
poofter.
Post by ANC Webmaster
Those with a weak argument attack. It's the only thing you have left.
You got your little racial/economic profiling thrown back in your face,
don't whine about it.
Crap. I'm stating FACTS. You're calling me names.

If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE),
most hunters are white, high earners and male.

96% White, 91% male

Income of Hunters:
Participation rates among hunters varied
by household income from 2 percent of
persons with household incomes of less
than $10,000 a year (2 percent of all
hunters came from these households) to 9
percent of those reporting incomes of
$40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all
hunters), $50,000 to $74,999 (22 percent
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters). Households
reporting $10,000 to $19,999 incomes had
a 3 percent participation rate and
comprised 4 percent of all hunters. Five
percent of the nation's population with
household incomes of $20,000 to $24,999
hunted in 2001 and made up 4 percent of
all hunters. Households with incomes of
$25,000 to $29,999 had a 7 percent
participation rate, representing 6 percent
of all hunters. In households reporting
incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 7 percent
was the participation rate. Residents of
these households represented 6 percent of
all hunters. Eight percent of the persons in
households reporting incomes of $35,000
to $39,999 totaled 6 percent of all
hunters. Finally, 7 percent of persons
with household incomes of $100,000 or
more hunted and comprised 10 percent of
all hunters.

F_A_C_T
Post by ANC Webmaster
Post by ANC Webmaster
LOL
YOU stated "Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food,
not sport".
Your statement is crap.
That's spelled f-a-c-t.
FFS, you can't even spell. Your statement is C-R-A-P.
mr natural
2003-10-03 18:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE),
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
Post by Zakhar
Participation rates among hunters varied
by household income from 2 percent of
persons with household incomes of less
than $10,000 a year (2 percent of all
hunters came from these households) to 9
percent of those reporting incomes of
$40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all
hunters), $50,000 to $74,999 (22 percent
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters). Households
reporting $10,000 to $19,999 incomes had
a 3 percent participation rate and
comprised 4 percent of all hunters. Five
percent of the nation's population with
household incomes of $20,000 to $24,999
hunted in 2001 and made up 4 percent of
all hunters. Households with incomes of
$25,000 to $29,999 had a 7 percent
participation rate, representing 6 percent
of all hunters. In households reporting
incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 7 percent
was the participation rate. Residents of
these households represented 6 percent of
all hunters. Eight percent of the persons in
households reporting incomes of $35,000
to $39,999 totaled 6 percent of all
hunters. Finally, 7 percent of persons
with household incomes of $100,000 or
more hunted and comprised 10 percent of
all hunters.
F_A_C_T
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.

Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a rhetorical
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you cite
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the worst
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid calls and
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a pretty
good method back in 1953.

But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on average,
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that might be
the case?

Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a bit.
Ray
2003-10-03 22:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE),
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
Post by Zakhar
Participation rates among hunters varied
by household income from 2 percent of
persons with household incomes of less
than $10,000 a year (2 percent of all
hunters came from these households) to 9
percent of those reporting incomes of
$40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all
hunters), $50,000 to $74,999 (22 percent
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters). Households
reporting $10,000 to $19,999 incomes had
a 3 percent participation rate and
comprised 4 percent of all hunters. Five
percent of the nation's population with
household incomes of $20,000 to $24,999
hunted in 2001 and made up 4 percent of
all hunters. Households with incomes of
$25,000 to $29,999 had a 7 percent
participation rate, representing 6 percent
of all hunters. In households reporting
incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 7 percent
was the participation rate. Residents of
these households represented 6 percent of
all hunters. Eight percent of the persons in
households reporting incomes of $35,000
to $39,999 totaled 6 percent of all
hunters. Finally, 7 percent of persons
with household incomes of $100,000 or
more hunted and comprised 10 percent of
all hunters.
F_A_C_T
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a rhetorical
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you cite
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the worst
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid calls and
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a pretty
good method back in 1953.
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on average,
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that might be
the case?
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a bit.
Hell, that was interesting.

I'll open the door a little wider. What % of the population of 'Yorkshire'
are latent homosexuals? Please leave me out, I'm an hermaphrodite, with
leanings towards the Labour Party.
Zakhar
2003-10-04 11:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE),
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Participation rates among hunters varied
by household income from 2 percent of
persons with household incomes of less
than $10,000 a year (2 percent of all
hunters came from these households) to 9
percent of those reporting incomes of
$40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all
hunters), $50,000 to $74,999 (22 percent
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters). Households
reporting $10,000 to $19,999 incomes had
a 3 percent participation rate and
comprised 4 percent of all hunters. Five
percent of the nation's population with
household incomes of $20,000 to $24,999
hunted in 2001 and made up 4 percent of
all hunters. Households with incomes of
$25,000 to $29,999 had a 7 percent
participation rate, representing 6 percent
of all hunters. In households reporting
incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 7 percent
was the participation rate. Residents of
these households represented 6 percent of
all hunters. Eight percent of the persons in
households reporting incomes of $35,000
to $39,999 totaled 6 percent of all
hunters. Finally, 7 percent of persons
with household incomes of $100,000 or
more hunted and comprised 10 percent of
all hunters.
F_A_C_T
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a rhetorical
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you cite
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the worst
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid calls and
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a pretty
good method back in 1953.
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on average,
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that might be
the case?
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
Post by mr natural
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a bit.
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".

What's sexist and racist about stating facts and figures of American
hunters? Are you mad George Boggs?
mr natural
2003-10-04 19:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
(NSRE),
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It "refutes" nothing. You are a profiler, just as you would be if you used
the racial and economic status of the NBA to assert false claims about
African Americans.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
[...]
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a
rhetorical
Post by mr natural
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you
cite
Post by mr natural
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the
worst
Post by mr natural
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid calls
and
Post by mr natural
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a
pretty
Post by mr natural
good method back in 1953.
No comment? Rather change the subject?
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on
average,
Post by mr natural
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that might
be
Post by mr natural
the case?
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It refutes nothing. But if it enhances your apparent need to burnish your
self-righteousness with a postmodern patina, I suppose it serves your
personal propaganda as well as any other bankrupt philosophy would do it its
place.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a bit.
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
Ahhh. The usual Zakharian subject change. Good man. But let's go with it...

Explain the oxymoron status. In particular, I'm interested to test your
depth on the subject of theology (I already know you're ignorant of hunting,
surveying, and statistics, so no testing required on that point).
Post by Zakhar
What's sexist and racist about stating facts and figures of American
hunters?
Stating facts is never racist or sexist. Using those facts to promote racial
or sexual profiling, of course, is.
Post by Zakhar
Are you mad George Boggs?
Not today. It's a beautiful fall day and I intend to work on my grape arbors
this afternoon.
Zakhar
2003-10-04 19:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
(NSRE),
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It "refutes" nothing. You are a profiler, just as you would be if you used
the racial and economic status of the NBA to assert false claims about
African Americans.
Most hunters are white, high earners and male, do you disagree?
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
[...]
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a
rhetorical
Post by mr natural
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you
cite
Post by mr natural
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the
worst
Post by mr natural
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid calls
and
Post by mr natural
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a
pretty
Post by mr natural
good method back in 1953.
No comment? Rather change the subject?
All surveys have errors, the survey has a very detailed section on Sampling
Variability, including:

Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages. The reliability of an estimated
percentage, computed using sample data for both
numerator and denominator, depends on the size of the percentage and its
base. *Estimated percentages are relatively more
reliable than the corresponding estimates of the numerators of the
percentages, *particularly if the percentages are 50 percent* or more*. When
the numerator and the denominator of the percentage are in different
categories, use the parameter in the tables indicated by the numerator.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on
average,
Post by mr natural
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that might
be
Post by mr natural
the case?
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It refutes nothing. But if it enhances your apparent need to burnish your
self-righteousness with a postmodern patina, I suppose it serves your
personal propaganda as well as any other bankrupt philosophy would do it its
place.
You're talking bollocks, and you're remarkably good at it.

"..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina," LOL.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a bit.
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
Ahhh. The usual Zakharian subject change. Good man. But let's go with it...
Not a subject change George Boggs. I answered your question. I then added to
it, which confused you. I understand.
Post by mr natural
Explain the oxymoron status. In particular, I'm interested to test your
depth on the subject of theology (I already know you're ignorant of hunting,
surveying, and statistics, so no testing required on that point).
You hunt for pleasure don't you George Boggs. Killing and maiming for
pleasure, can't be a Christian tenet.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
What's sexist and racist about stating facts and figures of American
hunters?
Stating facts is never racist or sexist. Using those facts to promote racial
or sexual profiling, of course, is.
I'm not promoting profiling. I'm giving evidence from a national survey.

You're miffed, because you fit that profile.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Are you mad George Boggs?
Not today. It's a beautiful fall day and I intend to work on my grape arbors
this afternoon.
When are you going out to kill or maim some animals George Boggs?
mr natural
2003-10-06 14:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
(NSRE),
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It "refutes" nothing. You are a profiler, just as you would be if you used
the racial and economic status of the NBA to assert false claims about
African Americans.
Most hunters are white, high earners and male, do you disagree?
Define "high", and I might agree. Or I might not, depending on what you mean
by "high".
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
[...]
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es.
And
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a
rhetorical
Post by mr natural
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data you
cite
Post by mr natural
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of the
worst
Post by mr natural
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid
calls
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
and
Post by mr natural
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a
pretty
Post by mr natural
good method back in 1953.
No comment? Rather change the subject?
All surveys have errors, the survey has a very detailed section on Sampling
Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages. The reliability of an estimated
percentage, computed using sample data for both
numerator and denominator, depends on the size of the percentage and its
base. *Estimated percentages are relatively more
reliable than the corresponding estimates of the numerators of the
percentages, *particularly if the percentages are 50 percent* or more*. When
the numerator and the denominator of the percentage are in different
categories, use the parameter in the tables indicated by the numerator.
Estimating standard errors from a biased sample is pointless. The survey
used the hoary old CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
methodology. Why? It's cheap. But all the fancy statistical footwork in the
world won't fix or account for a biased sample. Is the sample biased? Almost
surely. Why? Because people have been so turned off by telemarketing calls
that it is impossible to get a good sample by random dialing. That is why
professional survey researchers have almost universally turned to other
means.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on
average,
Post by mr natural
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that
might
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
be
Post by mr natural
the case?
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It refutes nothing. But if it enhances your apparent need to burnish your
self-righteousness with a postmodern patina, I suppose it serves your
personal propaganda as well as any other bankrupt philosophy would do it
its
Post by mr natural
place.
You're talking bollocks, and you're remarkably good at it.
That's a powerful rebuttal.
Post by Zakhar
"..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina," LOL.
I rather liked that one myself.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a
bit.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
Ahhh. The usual Zakharian subject change. Good man. But let's go with
it...
Not a subject change George Boggs. I answered your question. I then added to
it, which confused you. I understand.
Post by mr natural
Explain the oxymoron status. In particular, I'm interested to test your
depth on the subject of theology (I already know you're ignorant of
hunting,
Post by mr natural
surveying, and statistics, so no testing required on that point).
You hunt for pleasure don't you George Boggs. Killing and maiming for
pleasure, can't be a Christian tenet.
I hunt for the same reason I garden. I want to be involved in the chain of
events, from beginning to end, that provides my own sustenance. The product
is better because it is not industrialized. But I neither garden nor hunt
for pleasure. I find little pleasure in hard, sweaty work.

Now, with your editorial comments aside, what part of Christian theology
suggests that Christians not hunt?
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
What's sexist and racist about stating facts and figures of American
hunters?
Stating facts is never racist or sexist. Using those facts to promote
racial
Post by mr natural
or sexual profiling, of course, is.
I'm not promoting profiling. I'm giving evidence from a national survey.
I didn't say you were "promoting" profiling. I said you were profiling.
Post by Zakhar
You're miffed, because you fit that profile.
I thought you weren't profiling.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Are you mad George Boggs?
Not today. It's a beautiful fall day and I intend to work on my grape
arbors
Post by mr natural
this afternoon.
When are you going out to kill or maim some animals George Boggs?
When hunting season opens.
Zakhar
2003-10-06 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
[...]
If you read the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
(NSRE),
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
most hunters are white, high earners and male.
96% White, 91% male
So? Squash players probably fit the same profile.
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It "refutes" nothing. You are a profiler, just as you would be if you
used
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
the racial and economic status of the NBA to assert false claims about
African Americans.
Most hunters are white, high earners and male, do you disagree?
Define "high", and I might agree. Or I might not, depending on what you mean
by "high".
The mean earnings of hunters is higher than the mean earnings of the
population.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
[...]
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are
E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
And
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
that's a F_A_C_T.
Do you know anything about surveys or statistics (yes, that is a
rhetorical
Post by mr natural
question, because I already know the answer)? In F_A_C_T, the data
you
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
cite
Post by mr natural
were calculated from a telephone sample, which is currently one of
the
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
worst
Post by mr natural
ways to conduct a survey because potential respondents have been so
alienated by telemarketers that they employ many devices to avoid
calls
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
and
Post by mr natural
rarely respond to the survey when they do answer the phone. It was a
pretty
Post by mr natural
good method back in 1953.
No comment? Rather change the subject?
All surveys have errors, the survey has a very detailed section on
Sampling
Post by Zakhar
Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages. The reliability of an estimated
percentage, computed using sample data for both
numerator and denominator, depends on the size of the percentage and its
base. *Estimated percentages are relatively more
reliable than the corresponding estimates of the numerators of the
percentages, *particularly if the percentages are 50 percent* or more*.
When
Post by Zakhar
the numerator and the denominator of the percentage are in different
categories, use the parameter in the tables indicated by the numerator.
Estimating standard errors from a biased sample is pointless. The survey
used the hoary old CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
methodology. Why? It's cheap. But all the fancy statistical footwork in the
world won't fix or account for a biased sample. Is the sample biased? Almost
surely. Why? Because people have been so turned off by telemarketing calls
that it is impossible to get a good sample by random dialing. That is why
professional survey researchers have almost universally turned to other
means.
Whatever.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on
average,
Post by mr natural
wealthier than the average American citizen. Why do you think that
might
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
be
Post by mr natural
the case?
So, George Boggs, it refutes Dutch's accusation that it was my "little
racial/economic profiling", when it was not.
It refutes nothing. But if it enhances your apparent need to burnish
your
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
self-righteousness with a postmodern patina, I suppose it serves your
personal propaganda as well as any other bankrupt philosophy would do it
its
Post by mr natural
place.
You're talking bollocks, and you're remarkably good at it.
That's a powerful rebuttal.
Better that "..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina,"
crap.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
"..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina," LOL.
I rather liked that one myself.
You would, expectedly.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Are you a closet racist/sexist? If so, you've left the door open a
bit.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
Ahhh. The usual Zakharian subject change. Good man. But let's go with
it...
Not a subject change George Boggs. I answered your question. I then
added
Post by mr natural
to
Post by Zakhar
it, which confused you. I understand.
Post by mr natural
Explain the oxymoron status. In particular, I'm interested to test your
depth on the subject of theology (I already know you're ignorant of
hunting,
Post by mr natural
surveying, and statistics, so no testing required on that point).
You hunt for pleasure don't you George Boggs. Killing and maiming for
pleasure, can't be a Christian tenet.
I hunt for the same reason I garden. I want to be involved in the chain of
events, from beginning to end, that provides my own sustenance. The product
is better because it is not industrialized. But I neither garden nor hunt
for pleasure. I find little pleasure in hard, sweaty work.
That's bollocks George Boggs. You love it. From cleaning your beloved gun to
eating the flesh.
Post by mr natural
Now, with your editorial comments aside, what part of Christian theology
suggests that Christians not hunt?
Killing and maiming for pleasure, can't be a Christian tenet.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
What's sexist and racist about stating facts and figures of American
hunters?
Stating facts is never racist or sexist. Using those facts to promote
racial
Post by mr natural
or sexual profiling, of course, is.
I'm not promoting profiling. I'm giving evidence from a national survey.
I didn't say you were "promoting" profiling. I said you were profiling.
You implied it when you wrote "Stating facts is never racist or sexist.
Using those facts to promote racial or sexual profiling, of course, is."
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
You're miffed, because you fit that profile.
I thought you weren't profiling.
I wasn't, but am now.
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
Are you mad George Boggs?
Not today. It's a beautiful fall day and I intend to work on my grape
arbors
Post by mr natural
this afternoon.
When are you going out to kill or maim some animals George Boggs?
When hunting season opens.
If there was a hell, you'd go to it.
mr natural
2003-10-07 15:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
[...]
Post by Zakhar
Most hunters are white, high earners and male, do you disagree?
Define "high", and I might agree. Or I might not, depending on what you
mean
Post by mr natural
by "high".
The mean earnings of hunters is higher than the mean earnings of the
population.
Is that your "definition", or are you just babbling?
Post by Zakhar
[...]
Post by mr natural
Estimating standard errors from a biased sample is pointless. The survey
used the hoary old CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
methodology. Why? It's cheap. But all the fancy statistical footwork in
the
Post by mr natural
world won't fix or account for a biased sample. Is the sample biased?
Almost
Post by mr natural
surely. Why? Because people have been so turned off by telemarketing calls
that it is impossible to get a good sample by random dialing. That is why
professional survey researchers have almost universally turned to other
means.
Whatever.
Indeed.
Post by Zakhar
[...]
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
You're talking bollocks, and you're remarkably good at it.
That's a powerful rebuttal.
Better that "..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina,"
crap.
Another powerful argument!
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
"..burnish your self-righteousness with a postmodern patina," LOL.
I rather liked that one myself.
You would, expectedly.
I did.
Post by Zakhar
[...]
Post by mr natural
I hunt for the same reason I garden. I want to be involved in the chain of
events, from beginning to end, that provides my own sustenance. The
product
Post by mr natural
is better because it is not industrialized. But I neither garden nor hunt
for pleasure. I find little pleasure in hard, sweaty work.
That's bollocks George Boggs. You love it. From cleaning your beloved gun to
eating the flesh.
Don't quit your day job, assuming you have one, and go into the clarivoyance
trade.
Post by Zakhar
Post by mr natural
Now, with your editorial comments aside, what part of Christian theology
suggests that Christians not hunt?
Killing and maiming for pleasure, can't be a Christian tenet.
Now, with your editorial comments aside, what part of Christian theology
suggests that Christians not hunt?
Post by Zakhar
[...]
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
You're miffed, because you fit that profile.
I thought you weren't profiling.
I wasn't, but am now.
Actually, assuming you are in the same time dimension as the rest of us, you
undeniably "was".
Post by Zakhar
[...]
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
When are you going out to kill or maim some animals George Boggs?
When hunting season opens.
If there was a hell, you'd go to it.
It appears you're in cognitive vaporlock. Start another of your inane
threads and we'll have another go. But pick something you know something
about next time to make it more interesting.
Zakhar
2003-10-07 17:16:27 UTC
Permalink
George Boggs, you're full of shit.
Jonathan Ball
2003-10-07 17:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
George Boggs, you're full of shit.
GregGeorg...WankHar, YOU are full of shit, and you have
nothing to say. What a colossal fucking zero!
Zakhar
2003-10-07 17:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by Zakhar
George Boggs, you're full of shit.
GregGeorg...WankHar, YOU are full of shit, and you have
nothing to say. What a colossal fucking zero!
Ditto dumb dwarf.
Shitbag Slater
2003-10-07 17:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by Zakhar
George Boggs, you're full of shit.
GregGeorg...WankHar, YOU are full of shit, and you have
nothing to say. What a colossal fucking zero!
Ditto dumb dwarf.
How imaginative.

You fucking diseased wog.
Cylise
2003-10-06 15:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zakhar
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
What a very odd sentence..

What could be oxymoronic about a Christian hunting animals?
Zakhar
2003-10-06 18:22:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cylise
Post by Zakhar
Neither, but you are an oxymoron a "Christian hunter".
What a very odd sentence..
What could be oxymoronic about a Christian hunting animals?
Follow the George Boggs thread. (AKA mr natural).
piddock
2003-10-07 06:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters).
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
So? Maybe they are GOOD estimates. These figures strongly suggest
that hunters are greedy lying assholes with nothing better to do
with their lives than maim innocent animals, manipulate wildlife
into breeding more for the hunters to kill, then whine and complain
that the wildlife is starving to death.

It also proves that no hunter today NEEDS to hunt for clothing or food.
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on average,
wealthier than the average American citizen.
You are probably correct and so is your analogy.
However, so are idiotic claims that animal rights "hurts" or "damages"
the human race or the economy. Biased extremist claims like that
by anti-animal nuts are wild unsubstantiated theories, too.
mr natural
2003-10-07 15:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by piddock
Post by mr natural
Post by Zakhar
of all hunters), and $75,999 to $99,999
(12 percent of all hunters).
Actually, those numbers are not F_A_C_Ts. They are E_S_T_I_M_A_T_Es. And
that's a F_A_C_T.
So? Maybe they are GOOD estimates.
Well, maybe they are and maybe they aren't.
Post by piddock
These figures strongly suggest
that hunters are greedy lying assholes with nothing better to do
with their lives than maim innocent animals, manipulate wildlife
into breeding more for the hunters to kill, then whine and complain
that the wildlife is starving to death.
If you read the actual survey, you'll see that none of those topics were
covered. Hence, the figures cannot possibly address them.
Post by piddock
It also proves that no hunter today NEEDS to hunt for clothing or food.
Well, that's an awfully broad statement and it's an awfully big world. But I
take your point that most hunters today could obtain meat from someone else
who kills the animal and wraps it for them. So what? I could have paid
someone to build the mahogany knick-knack shelves I gave to my wife. I chose
to build them myself. What's the harm in that?
Post by piddock
Post by mr natural
But again, so what? I'll bet the median income squash player is, on average,
wealthier than the average American citizen.
You are probably correct and so is your analogy.
However, so are idiotic claims that animal rights "hurts" or "damages"
the human race or the economy. Biased extremist claims like that
by anti-animal nuts are wild unsubstantiated theories, too.
Well, I certainly don't see the "damage" in dressing up like a kangaroo and
prancing around in front of a restaurant. Slapstick humor is, indeed,
amusing. But I do see great harm in assaulting people because one
disapproves of their fashion choices. So it's a mixed bag, I suppose.
Cylise
2003-10-08 20:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by piddock
It also proves that no hunter today NEEDS to hunt for clothing or food.
In the US, most of the ones who really NEED to hunt or fish for food
(because they have no other easy protein source (at least that they
can afford)) are not counted by anyone, except judges and game wardens
when they're caught and brought to trial (which is rare). They're the
poachers who don't get turned in by their neighbors and sometimes get
off with just a warning from the wardens. The rural poor.

However prefering to take the responsibilty for at least doing a token
of one's own killing for food seems admirable to me. Better than
going to the grocery store and buying stuff one has paid the grocer,
the trucker, the slaughterhouse, the rancher or farmer to raise and
kill for one.

It's also a contention of mine that the wild animal suffers far less
than the raised animal in the manner of its death, unless it's a small
farm where the owner and raiser does his / her own butchering or has a
neighbor do it.
frlpwr
2003-10-09 18:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Cylise wrote:
(snip)
Post by Cylise
It's also a contention of mine that the wild animal suffers far less
than the raised animal in the manner of its death,
The wild animal probably suffers less over the course of its life or, at
least, has a far more stimulating life than its domestic cousins. But
you cannot say with any certainty that it has an easier death, not when
you factor in the wounding/non-retrieval rate of game.

No US state requires a shooting competency test before issuing a license
to hunt. It's disgraceful.

(snip)
Cylise
2003-10-09 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by frlpwr
you cannot say with any certainty that it has an easier death, not when
you factor in the wounding/non-retrieval rate of game.
Well, after you've heard of some of what happens in slaughterhouses,
that's not just happening in hunting.

No, I'm not certain it has an easier death, but, except for the
erroneous wounding (equalled by the slaughterhouse error), there's the
whole lack of terror in the transport and holding pens factor.

Poachers probably don't track down their wounded as thoroughly as
legit hunters do. Unfortunate. I have watched a few hunters go
after wounded animals. Some want that meat whatever and some feel
dreadfully responsible for a wounded animal that's in shock and fear.
If never found, I feel that it's a blessing that the nights are cold
in deer season. The animal will very likely feel it's escaped, even if
in pain, lie down to rest and just never wake up.
frlpwr
2003-10-09 23:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cylise
Post by frlpwr
you cannot say with any certainty that it has an easier death, not
when you factor in the wounding/non-retrieval rate of game.
Well, after you've heard of some of what happens in slaughterhouses,
that's not just happening in hunting.
Agreed, pre-slaughtering handling is enormously stressful. Though the
failure rate of first-stunning seems low at 9%, that still means
millions of animals require a second or third stunning. No stunning is
required during poultry slaughter. I can only imagine the nightmare
these poor birds must endure.

Consider that 50% of hunting attempts fail and the prey escapes
unharmed. No domestic meat animal escapes the slaughterman.
Post by Cylise
No, I'm not certain it has an easier death, but, except for the
erroneous wounding (equalled by the slaughterhouse error), there's the
whole lack of terror in the transport and holding pens factor.
Yes. How do you feel about the trapping of fur-bearers?
Post by Cylise
Poachers probably don't track down their wounded as thoroughly as
legit hunters do. Unfortunate. I have watched a few hunters go
after wounded animals. Some want that meat whatever and some feel
dreadfully responsible for a wounded animal
Anyone capable of feeling "dreadfully responsible" for wounding an
animal won't hunt.
Post by Cylise
that's in shock and fear.
If never found, I feel that it's a blessing that the nights are cold
in deer season. The animal will very likely feel it's escaped, even if
in pain, lie down to rest and just never wake up.
Actually, wounded animals that don't die quickly from blood loss,
usually die from septacemia. It can take days or weeks for infection to
kill them.
Cylise
2003-10-10 19:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by frlpwr
Yes. How do you feel about the trapping of fur-bearers?
Very conflicted. And I feel that with the tremendous improvements in
fabrics and fakes just during my life time that it's just weird for a
woman to want fur. The only plusses I can find for it are that it
gives a few outdoorspeople a way of life, however repugnant a one.
Then again, there are beavers. While I rather admire beavers, they've
got a tendency to over run whatever water they can get near.
Post by frlpwr
Anyone capable of feeling "dreadfully responsible" for wounding an
animal won't hunt.
Uh, yeah, they will. I've known a few.
Post by frlpwr
Post by Cylise
that's in shock and fear.
If never found, I feel that it's a blessing that the nights are cold
in deer season. The animal will very likely feel it's escaped, even if
in pain, lie down to rest and just never wake up.
Actually, wounded animals that don't die quickly from blood loss,
usually die from septacemia. It can take days or weeks for infection to
kill them.
Most of what I find in the woods has been dead long enough that I
can't even tell if they've been wounded, much less what the final
death was from. I made an assumption on the hypothermia one. Then
again, the little buggers hide themselves so well when injured that I
often doubt any stats on wild animal deaths other than filled out deer
tags or bounties paid out.
tortrix
2003-10-07 06:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Hunting and fishing are essentially killing animals for food, not sport. Are
you proposing that enjoying the process be outlawed? This kind of crap shows
the extent to which AR is an attack on personal freedom.
What an INSIGNIFICANT loss of "personal freedom"!!
You don't care about all the killing of animals which definitely is
NOT for food (such as poisoning animals in laboratories) and definitely
NOT necessary. So, with that kind of extremism, don't complain if
laws come down on you hard and stop you from killing animals for food.

You can find plenty of vegetarian food in the supermarket.
What an INSIGINIFICANT hardship! Try living in a Nazi or
Stalinist concentration camp in the 1930s. Think about the MASSIVE
loss of freedom and attacks on drug users and dealers and on
pornographers. People are sent to prison for 10-15 years for simply
consuming drugs which is NOBODY else's business. Nobody ties anyone
else down and makes them do drugs or read pornography.
exploratory
2003-10-14 23:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans. They tell animal rights workers, animal
control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass. And hunters
will bully them until they get what they want. Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
rick etter
2003-10-15 00:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans. They tell animal rights workers, animal
control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass. And hunters
will bully them until they get what they want.
Hunters VIRULENTLY
Post by exploratory
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
======================
Hey, imagine that. Sounds just like you and the rest of the vegan
loon-bin...

You prove that you oppose animal rights with post you make to usenet, fraud.
Zakhar
2003-10-16 20:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Test.

Dick, you can ignore this.
usual suspect
2003-10-15 18:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
Exactly how does hunting oppose freedom and choice for humans? Exactly
how do you and other animal rights kooks promote freedom and choice
while you're actively seeking to ban human activities like hunting,
fishing, ranching, farming, and eating certain foods?
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers,
"AR workers" are activists, not workers. They create nothing. They sell
nothing. They are parasites empowered by people with agendas or
hypersensitive consciences.
Post by exploratory
animal control officers,
Bogus issue. Animal control officers usually handle issues like stray
dogs and cats, as well as urbanized nuisance wildlife. Hunters may or
may not have interests that would cause them to interact with animal
control officers. If you meant to say wildlife or game officers, you
should have said that.
Post by exploratory
hikers and visitors on public lands,
Hikers and campers are advised by game and park officers to watch where
they hike and camp during hunting season. Indeed, some parks are closed
to hiking and camping during hunting season unless the hikers/campers
also hold valid hunting licenses. Safety reasons, you know.
Post by exploratory
and politicians
The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to address
government and its officials. So fuck off if you wish to stop hunters
from taking part in the democratic process, asshole.
Post by exploratory
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
Why should hunters be banned from exercising fundamental human -- not
just constitutional -- rights? You gutless, totalitarian punk.
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
One's "bullying" is another's "lobbying." Anti-hunt activists engage in
the same, but are more likely to engage in acts of terrorism and
sabotage. It's not hunters who go out in the days before hunting season
and create a lot of racket to stir up the deer. It's not hunters who go
onto private and public property and destroy hunting blinds. It's not
the hunters who slash tires of trucks during hunting season.
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY oppose the rights of animal rights people
and politicians and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit. Again, hunters are not the side engaging in acts of vandalism,
sabotage, or terrorism. Those are the tools of trade of the ARAs. It's
also the ARAs who seek to deny hunters the right to hunt and deny
landowners the right to lease land for hunting. Hunters do not prevent
the other side from lobbying for hunting bans. In all the hearings I've
attended, it's been the ARAs who've shouted down pro-hunt advocates and
game officials -- never the other way around. Perhaps you should try
attending such hearings and judge yourself rather than getting your
talking points from agenda-driven liars.
tortrix
2003-10-17 10:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
Exactly how does hunting oppose freedom and choice for humans?
Because it is MY LEGAL choice to fight and lobby and spend my money on
passing whatever laws I WANT!

Obviously, you do not even CONSIDER the animals' choice.
Post by usual suspect
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers,
"AR workers" are activists, not workers. They create nothing.
Hunters are not workers! They contribute nothing! They kill and maim
animals, casually breaking the law on type and number of animals
killed,
purely for entertainment purposes!
Post by usual suspect
control officers. If you meant to say wildlife or game officers, you
should have said that.
You are so obsessed with labels. Wildlife and game officers
do their part saving wild or lost domestic animals, euthanizing rabid
animals when there is no other choice, protecting both human and
animal
health, etc.
Animal rights workers save animals from being killed, too,
by bringing the facts to the attention of the public and lawmakers
about factory farming, animal testing, rodeos and bullfights, hunting,
trapping, and by passing legislation if it does not exist already.
Post by usual suspect
Hikers and campers are advised by game and park officers to watch where
they hike and camp during hunting season. Indeed, some parks are closed
to hiking and camping during hunting season unless the hikers/campers
also hold valid hunting licenses. Safety reasons, you know.
That proves it! That sure sounds like NO CHOICE for the non-hunters
to me! You have the park SPECIALLY CLOSED for YOUR recreational
purposes?!
You hunters would raise hell if parks were closed for an ANIMAL RIGHTS
day and for ANIMAL RIGHTS groups ONLY to use!

You hunters force animals onto private lands! Just the other day,
wild turkeys were coming onto my property because HUNTERS were scaring
them onto my property. A friend of my family in a totally different
part of the country recently said the same
thing: deer were being scared onto her property by hunters.
Other members of my family have been adversely affected this legalized
terror of hunters.

WE don't have a choice when you force animals onto OUR property!
Just because you get away with it because it might be legal STILL
does NOT mean you are giving me a CHOICE!
Post by usual suspect
The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to address
government and its officials. So fuck off if you wish to stop hunters
from taking part in the democratic process, asshole.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Constitution or First Amendment
which guarantees the right to hunt!

I do hope you get this point some time in your pathetic life:
HUNTING IS NOT FREE SPEECH!! IT IS A PHYSICAL ACT!!
Post by usual suspect
Why should hunters be banned from exercising fundamental human -- not
just constitutional -- rights? You gutless, totalitarian punk.
And you are a FUCKING no-good scum anti-American coward,
who won't stand up to un-American acts of terrorism like hunting.
Post by usual suspect
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
One's "bullying" is another's "lobbying." Anti-hunt activists engage in
the same, but are more likely to engage in acts of terrorism and
sabotage.
WHAT a load of SHIT! There is NO such thing as animal rights
"terrorism".
That is just recent historical revisionism hunters and other anti-AR
fanatics have used to join on the anti-terrorism bandwagon.
Even Iraq's Saddam Hussein had far more reason to call the acts of
Americans
bombing his country and killing Iraqi citizens "terrorism"
than you hunters and pro-animal-torture people have of calling ANY
pro-animal person a "terrorist".
Terrorism means deliberately hurting INNOCENT people.
Hunters, like Al-Qaeda, are guilty of killing and torturing the
innocent for fanatical religious and entertainment reasons.

You ought to be arrested for treason. You are just another
anti-American
traitor, too cowardly to stand up against torture and brutality
because it might "offend" or "hurt" the hunters. You are the type
who would sympathize with the Nazis, claiming using military force
against the Nazis was wrong in WWII, because it would be an act
of violence and terrorism against the Nazis.

It is the same old shit: you claim to be "non-violent", and preach
to others about non-violence like you mean it in general, but
you demand non-violence be applied only for YOU -- not anyone else.
Post by usual suspect
It's not hunters who go out in the days before hunting season
and create a lot of racket to stir up the deer.
SO WHAT?? Animal rights activists HAVE EVERY LEGAL AND MORAL
RIGHT to go onto public lands and stir up deer or rabbit!
We do not OWE hunters any animals!

This statement PROVES you hunters and hunter supporters OPPOSE
CHOICE -- the choice of animal rights activists do what THEY want
with wildlife!
Post by usual suspect
It's also the ARAs who seek to deny hunters the right to hunt and deny
landowners the right to lease land for hunting.
GOOD!! And when we do get those laws passed, it is you terrorist
hunters who break the law!
Post by usual suspect
In all the hearings I've
attended, it's been the ARAs who've shouted down pro-hunt advocates and
game officials -- never the other way around.
BULLSHIT! What a fucking liar you are. The complete OPPOSITE is true.
Post by usual suspect
Perhaps you should try
attending such hearings and judge yourself rather than getting your
talking points from agenda-driven liars.
I have. And every one of them is full of pro-hunting fanatic
terrorists.

And in this world of MAJOR problems like disease, poverty, and
injustice,
nobody is going to take you and your hunter buddies'
frivilous trivial little complaints about some imaginany offenses
seriously.
usual suspect
2003-10-17 16:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Exactly how does hunting oppose freedom and choice for humans?
Because it is MY LEGAL choice to fight and lobby and spend my money on
passing whatever laws I WANT!
Evading the question. If I go hunting, that does not stop you from
fighting, lobbying, or spending money. You still enjoy those rights, as
desperate, futile (I hope), and totalitarian as they are. Hunters also
enjoy the right to engage in the same efforts to keep it legal.
Post by tortrix
Obviously, you do not even CONSIDER the animals' choice.
Animals do not have choices, except as they relate to food, territory,
and reproduction.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers,
"AR workers" are activists, not workers. They create nothing.
Hunters are not workers!
Most hunters *do* have jobs outside of hunting. Hunting provides them
nourishment, relaxation, and an appreciation of nature.
Post by tortrix
They contribute nothing!
License fees from hunters and anglers go to support park systems and
conservation programs. In some states, hunting and fishing licenses
constitute the sole revenue stream for conservation and park systems
(and I recall some legislatures have diverted this rich funding to other
outlays like education and state employee payraises).
Post by tortrix
They kill and maim animals,
Killing is part of the program. You, too, are responsible for dead
animals in the production of your food even if you don't *eat* animals.
Grains and beans, in particular, are very CD intensive. So is cotton. Do
you wear clothing?
Post by tortrix
casually breaking the law on type and number of animals
killed,
Hyperbole. There are a few who bend the laws, poach, etc. Most hunters,
however, follow the laws and actively report such violators.
Post by tortrix
purely for entertainment purposes!
Try for other purposes, like food and recreation.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
control officers. If you meant to say wildlife or game officers, you
should have said that.
You are so obsessed with labels.
I'm not into the label game, I was correcting a faulty sentiment the OP
expressed. Don't blame me for his ignorance.
Post by tortrix
Wildlife and game officers
do their part saving wild or lost domestic animals, euthanizing rabid
animals when there is no other choice, protecting both human and
animal health, etc.
Here in Texas, wildlife officials contact animal control officers when
domestic animals are involved; the exception is when domesticated
canines are involved in wildlife threats, like when a pack of
neighborhood dogs wander onto an adjacent ranch and begin herding and
harming wildlife (then they're often shot).
Post by tortrix
Animal rights workers save animals from being killed, too,
No, they posture for fundraising and engage in disinformation aimed at
swaying legislators.
Post by tortrix
by bringing the facts to the attention of the public and lawmakers
about factory farming, animal testing, rodeos and bullfights, hunting,
trapping, and by passing legislation if it does not exist already.
What you're ignoring is that animal welfare statutes already exist. In
many cases, the abuses you mention are illegal under existing law.
Abuses are also prosecuted. The system works. PETA aren't interested in
enforcement, they want to change the paradigms in a radical fashion.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Hikers and campers are advised by game and park officers to watch where
they hike and camp during hunting season. Indeed, some parks are closed
to hiking and camping during hunting season unless the hikers/campers
also hold valid hunting licenses. Safety reasons, you know.
That proves it! That sure sounds like NO CHOICE for the non-hunters
to me! You have the park SPECIALLY CLOSED for YOUR recreational
purposes?!
For a month out of the year, and usually the wettest and coldest one?
Yeah, that really does deprive you, doesn't it.
Post by tortrix
You hunters would raise hell if parks were closed for an ANIMAL RIGHTS
day and for ANIMAL RIGHTS groups ONLY to use!
Actually, parks are ALL closed to hunting for most of the year. I don't
hear hunters making complaints about it as you suggest, either. Retard.
Post by tortrix
You hunters force animals onto private lands!
Nature is in constant flux. Fences don't mean anything to animals. Give
them rights, but they'll never respect yours.
Post by tortrix
Just the other day,
wild turkeys were coming onto my property
They probably felt right at home with you.
Post by tortrix
because HUNTERS were scaring them onto my property.
Again, they do not respect borders and they range for a variety of
reasons. If you're that close to their habitat, you should be used to it
by now.
Post by tortrix
A friend of my family in a totally different
part of the country recently said the same
thing: deer were being scared onto her property by hunters.
Not sure whom that's supposed to impress. Deer also range. Most animals
do. If your family friend (assuming you're not making shit up as you go
along) lives so close to deer habitat, she should be used to their
presence. We have more deer in the city limits of Austin than some
states have. They're not here because of hunting pressures, rather the
lack of it.
Post by tortrix
Other members of my family have been adversely affected this legalized
terror of hunters.
Hyperbole and beside the point. If you live so close to territory with
deer and turkeys, you should expect contact with them at some point in
time. Stop whining or move into the city.
Post by tortrix
WE don't have a choice when you force animals onto OUR property!
Again, the range of animals isn't entirely based on hunting. Their
search for food, mating, and extension of territory is also to blame.
That doesn't excuse you from blaming others. If you dilike wildlife so
much, move to a central neighborhood in a large city. Perhaps you'll
enjoy crack houses and prostitution more than nature. Something tells me
you're new to the country life.
Post by tortrix
Just because you get away with it because it might be legal STILL
does NOT mean you are giving me a CHOICE!
You have choices. You choose to live near areas with wildlife, city
slicker. Get used to the animals or move back to the city.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to address
government and its officials. So fuck off if you wish to stop hunters
from taking part in the democratic process, asshole.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Constitution or First Amendment
which guarantees the right to hunt!
Strawman. The issue to address is the democratic process, nitwit. State
laws allow hunting. No law allows you to harass a hunter or vandalize
his truck.
Post by tortrix
HUNTING IS NOT FREE SPEECH!! IT IS A PHYSICAL ACT!!
Strawman, you idiot. See above.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Why should hunters be banned from exercising fundamental human -- not
just constitutional -- rights? You gutless, totalitarian punk.
And you are a FUCKING no-good scum anti-American coward,
who won't stand up to un-American acts of terrorism like hunting.
I'm not the one trying to stop others from enjoying their rights and
freedoms. Hunting is as American as it gets. Totalitarianism of your
strain isn't. Try North Korea, dipshit.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
One's "bullying" is another's "lobbying." Anti-hunt activists engage in
the same, but are more likely to engage in acts of terrorism and
sabotage.
WHAT a load of SHIT! There is NO such thing as animal rights
"terrorism".
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6902512.htm
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id=6F8B7308-1AD4-42D7-9B2B-281675288580
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=453152
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/custom/fringe/sfl-103animallover,0,5943469.story?coll=sfla-news-fringe
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/6980470.htm
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7436598%255E1702,00.html
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=41640

BTW, what do *you* call it when someone firebombs a corporation?
Post by tortrix
That is just recent historical revisionism hunters and other anti-AR
fanatics have used to join on the anti-terrorism bandwagon.
No, it precedes 9/11/2001 by a few years.
Post by tortrix
Even Iraq's Saddam Hussein had far more reason to call the acts of
Americans
bombing his country and killing Iraqi citizens "terrorism"
than you hunters and pro-animal-torture people have of calling ANY
pro-animal person a "terrorist".
Saddam is a non sequitur. Read the links above. Hunters are not calling
PETA supporters in middle of the night and threatening them. Hunters
aren't blowing up buildings in the name of their political points of
view. Hunters aren't the ones vandalizing law-abiding restaurants and
stores. It's the ARAs who are engaged in lawlessness.
Post by tortrix
Terrorism means deliberately hurting INNOCENT people.
Do you mean like bombing Chiron's offices? Calling up employees in
middle of the night and threatening them and their children? Leafletting
schools with "wanted posters" where employees' children attend? How
about flooding a store and adjacent businesses? Damaging a chef's car
and house? Sending the chef hidden videos of him and his family spending
time together at home along with a note warning him that he's being watched?

I guess you think all that's okay. Tell me one instance of hunters
engaging in such behavior.
Post by tortrix
Hunters, like Al-Qaeda, are guilty of killing and torturing the
innocent for fanatical religious and entertainment reasons.
Hyperbole.
Post by tortrix
You ought to be arrested for treason.
If you really think so, you should contact the appropriate authorities
and let them in on it. You don't know what treason is, you worthless
shitbag.
Post by tortrix
You are just another anti-American traitor,
My patriotism is not an issue, and it's certainly not how you express it.
Post by tortrix
too cowardly
I know you wouldn't say that in person. So do you, punk.
Post by tortrix
to stand up against torture and brutality
I take stands you would envy.
Post by tortrix
because it might "offend" or "hurt" the hunters.
You're a pussy. Check my posts. I'm not afraid to ruffle feathers.
Post by tortrix
You are the type
who would sympathize with the Nazis, claiming using military force
against the Nazis was wrong in WWII, because it would be an act
of violence and terrorism against the Nazis.
Hyperbole and disgustingly false. My family shed a lot of blood in WWII
to defeat the Germans *and* Japanese. Go fuck yourself, asshole.
Post by tortrix
It is the same old shit: you claim to be "non-violent"
I do not. I'm not a pacifist.
Post by tortrix
and preach to others about non-violence
I do not.
Post by tortrix
like you mean it in general, but
you demand non-violence be applied only for YOU -- not anyone else.
Like everything else you've written, you don't know what you're saying.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
It's not hunters who go out in the days before hunting season
and create a lot of racket to stir up the deer.
SO WHAT?? Animal rights activists HAVE EVERY LEGAL AND MORAL
RIGHT to go onto public lands and stir up deer or rabbit!
You do not have a right to do that on PRIVATE lands, which is where
nearly all hunting in my state is done. As for rights, most states have
public nuisance and disturbance laws. You don't have a right to go out
in a park and make noise, defecate and urinate in public areas, or
commit vandalism.
Post by tortrix
We do not OWE hunters any animals!
You should treat others as you wish to be treated.
Post by tortrix
This statement PROVES you hunters and hunter supporters OPPOSE
CHOICE -- the choice of animal rights activists do what THEY want
with wildlife!
No, but your statement proves you are ignorant about the issues and do
not comprehend what you read.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
It's also the ARAs who seek to deny hunters the right to hunt and deny
landowners the right to lease land for hunting.
GOOD!! And when we do get those laws passed, it is you terrorist
hunters who break the law!
You won't pass any such laws.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
In all the hearings I've
attended, it's been the ARAs who've shouted down pro-hunt advocates and
game officials -- never the other way around.
BULLSHIT! What a fucking liar you are. The complete OPPOSITE is true.
You called me a liar, so prove it. I've attended numerous meetings of
the TPWD Commission as well as both Texas house and senate hearings
pertaining to wildlife legislation. I have NEVER heard hunters shout
down others. Activists, though, routinely shout down speakers,
commissioners, experts, senators, representatives, and even each other.
Post by tortrix
Post by usual suspect
Perhaps you should try
attending such hearings and judge yourself rather than getting your
talking points from agenda-driven liars.
I have. And every one of them is full of pro-hunting fanatic
terrorists.
They have a right to attend such meetings, as do activists. Hunters,
though, are far more civil.
Post by tortrix
And in this world of MAJOR problems like disease, poverty, and
injustice,
nobody is going to take you and your hunter buddies'
frivilous trivial little complaints about some imaginany offenses
seriously.
The FBI sure are taking you and your cronies seriously. Bombings, animal
releases, and threats are neither imaginary nor trivial. You should stop
before somebody gets hurt.
Dutch
2003-10-17 17:53:26 UTC
Permalink
"tortrix" <***@comcast.net> SHOUTS TOO MUCH

Quit using CAPS, shouting is rude and a sign of a weak argument.
Jonathan Ball
2003-10-15 18:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.

So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Radical Moderate
2003-10-16 04:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians and
landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
They do have a nasty tendency to trespass on private property without permission.

And a 'No Hunting' sign usually just gets used for target practice.
"<>" <>
2003-10-09 19:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by frlpwr
(snip)
Post by Cylise
It's also a contention of mine that the wild animal suffers far less
than the raised animal in the manner of its death,
The wild animal probably suffers less over the course of its life or, at
least, has a far more stimulating life than its domestic cousins. But
you cannot say with any certainty that it has an easier death, not when
you factor in the wounding/non-retrieval rate of game.
No US state requires a shooting competency test before issuing a license
to hunt. It's disgraceful.
(snip)
It's the same here in the UK, anyone can shoot game with landowners
permission, even a shotgun license doesn't require a competence. Worse
still, so called stalkers and marksmen in culling programmes as
carried out by CONservation hooligans like the RSPB, WT are exactly
the same people, and licenses can be gained for a friendly chat and a
bottle of good malt. No wonder there are so many wounded animals dying
in agony.







. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'`< '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
<----. __ / __ \
<----|====O)))==) \) /====
<----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97

.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!
LordSnooty
2003-10-15 21:09:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.

You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse, force us to watch animal abuse in
action, take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
rick etter
2003-10-15 21:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Quit, you're splitting my sides here...

You really are this dense, aren't you/
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
==================
says the master of hate... It's the AR position...
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse, force us to watch animal abuse in
action, take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
==================
Ignorant and stupid you are....
usual suspect
2003-10-15 22:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog.
It is not. It's about extremism, anthroporphism, and totalitarianism.
Post by LordSnooty
It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
If it's so caring, why do its supporters engage in acts of sabotage,
vandalism, and terrorism?

I can't get tinyurl to respond, so I apologize about length of links:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480568937
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6902512.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/6980470.htm
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care,
The ones attacking others are the ARAs. They use bombs, acid, fire,
release of captive animals, and so on. They also try to intimidate other
human beings, and in many cases have even threatened employees AND their
families.
Post by LordSnooty
how sick is that loser?
How fucking sick is it to threaten to harm someone's children, like the
ALF/ELF terrorists do, LOSER?
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
What's so caring about bombing and destroying private property, much
less threatening individuals with physical harm? Fuck you and your
"caring attitude" if it condones or causes you to participate in such
activities. You're a charlatan and a menace; you lack all comprehension
of compassion. There are no arguments to support terrorism, especially
when it's being done in the name of a "caring" movement.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Nobody forces you to do any such thing. If you don't like meat, don't
eat it. If you don't enjoy rodeos or circuses, don't go to them. If you
dislike abuse, stop abusing individuals and corporations. Speak out
against those who bomb and destroy and intimidate and terrorize in the
name of compassion. Show real compassion, not demagoguery.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse, force us to watch animal abuse in
action, take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
Bullshit.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
Even if he were, that would be better than being a completely ignorant
prat like you are.
usual suspect
2003-10-15 22:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by usual suspect
It is not. It's about extremism, anthroporphism, and totalitarianism.
spelling correction: anthropomorphism
Dutch
2003-10-16 05:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
I agree it *can be* that, but the conflicts arise when it becomes *more*
than that. People who lay guilt-trips on people who don't share this
particular "caring position" are being self-righteous.
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Not because they care, because they are presumptuous in pushing (with
lurid rhetoric) their particular type of "caring position" on others who
aren't interested.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
There are very strong arguments against sanctimony. For one, *you*
choose to ignore massive animal killing done on your behalf. You lack
the moral authority to point fingers.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse,
What "torrid abuse"?
Post by LordSnooty
force us to watch animal abuse in
action,
Who's forcing you to watch anything? You *choose* to visit PeTA websites
and view those videos.
Post by LordSnooty
take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
You can lobby for greater penalties for animal abuse, but you won't
convince anyone that animal "use" is "abuse" by definition, because
people don't think that way, and they shouldn't.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
Look in the mirror and say that, Pete.
LordSnooty
2003-10-15 21:35:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:27:39 -0400, "rick etter"
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Quit, you're splitting my sides here...
You really are this dense, aren't you/
Said you who obviously doesn't understand the statement.
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
==================
says the master of hate... It's the AR position...
ARs is to defend the weak, it takes great bravery to stand up and be
counted.
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse, force us to watch animal abuse in
action, take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
==================
Ignorant and stupid you are....
Said you who clearly never even understood the original statement.

Do you eat meat? no need to answer that!
rick etter
2003-10-16 00:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:27:39 -0400, "rick etter"
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Quit, you're splitting my sides here...
You really are this dense, aren't you/
Said you who obviously doesn't understand the statement.
=================
I understand it perfectly well. It's just another ly. You prove that your
concern for animals is only about those you think *others* are killing.
You prove you have no problem causing animal death and suffering for nothing
more than your entertainment everytime you post one of these ignorant spews.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
==================
says the master of hate... It's the AR position...
ARs is to defend the weak, it takes great bravery to stand up and be
counted.
================
LOL You really are a hoot, hypocrite! Your stance here does nothing but
contribute to more animal death and suffering. All you manange to do is
prove that your only concern is about being able to hate others.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse, force us to watch animal abuse in
action, take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
==================
Ignorant and stupid you are....
Said you who clearly never even understood the original statement.
===============
Yes, I did. You however still don't understand the consequeces, and the
hypocrisy of spewing that bit of ignorance around the world for all to see.
went right over your pointed little head, didn't it?
Post by LordSnooty
Do you eat meat? no need to answer that!
======================
Do you kill animals? Yes. Why do you kill them and them just leave them to
rot?
Where's the 'compassion' in that, killer?
LordSnooty
2003-10-16 07:57:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:55:03 -0400, "rick etter"
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:27:39 -0400, "rick etter"
Post by Zakhar
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Quit, you're splitting my sides here...
You really are this dense, aren't you/
Said you who obviously doesn't understand the statement.
=================
I understand it perfectly well. It's just another ly. You prove that your
concern for animals is only about those you think *others* are killing.
You prove you have no problem causing animal death and suffering for nothing
more than your entertainment everytime you post one of these ignorant spews.
Gee, you really are dumber than your average pro hunt loony?
LordSnooty
2003-10-16 08:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
I agree it *can be* that, but the conflicts arise when it becomes *more*
than that. People who lay guilt-trips on people who don't share this
particular "caring position" are being self-righteous.
Telling the truth is not self-righteous. Just because you cannot
handle the truth doesn't mean it is any less the truth.

If you still choose to eat meat after being presented with the facts,
than this is your choice, but you cannot shoot the messenger for this.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Not because they care, because they are presumptuous in pushing (with
lurid rhetoric) their particular type of "caring position" on others who
aren't interested.
Education is a great thing, to deny it is ignorance.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
There are very strong arguments against sanctimony. For one, *you*
choose to ignore massive animal killing done on your behalf. You lack
the moral authority to point fingers.
The very thing that gets up your nose, is because we DO NOT choose to
ignore animal killing, whatever shape or form it takes. You simply
cannot accept that some people do things for the good of others, this
says a lot about just how sorry your life is, without love for another
in it.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse,
What "torrid abuse"?
Post by LordSnooty
force us to watch animal abuse in
action,
Who's forcing you to watch anything? You *choose* to visit PeTA websites
and view those videos.
People like you who allow it are forcing us to watch it, and forcing
us to act against it.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
You can lobby for greater penalties for animal abuse, but you won't
convince anyone that animal "use" is "abuse" by definition, because
people don't think that way, and they shouldn't.
Some of us are happy to live and learn.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
Look in the mirror and say that, Pete.
why would I want to look in the mirror and say pete?
Dutch
2003-10-16 16:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
I agree it *can be* that, but the conflicts arise when it becomes *more*
than that. People who lay guilt-trips on people who don't share this
particular "caring position" are being self-righteous.
Telling the truth is not self-righteous. Just because you cannot
handle the truth doesn't mean it is any less the truth.
It's YOU that can't handle the truth. The truth is animals die to sustain
you and your lifestyle, and no amount of projection of your guilt on me will
make that truth go away.
Post by LordSnooty
If you still choose to eat meat after being presented with the facts,
than this is your choice, but you cannot shoot the messenger for this.
You haven't presented any facts, you've presented self-serving opinions.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Not because they care, because they are presumptuous in pushing (with
lurid rhetoric) their particular type of "caring position" on others who
aren't interested.
Education is a great thing, to deny it is ignorance.
Then why do you keep doing it?
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
There are very strong arguments against sanctimony. For one, *you*
choose to ignore massive animal killing done on your behalf. You lack
the moral authority to point fingers.
The very thing that gets up your nose, is because we DO NOT choose to
ignore animal killing, whatever shape or form it takes.
You TOTALLY ignore MASSIVE animal killing. In fact you ignore ALL the
killing that supports your lifestyle.
Post by LordSnooty
You simply
cannot accept that some people do things for the good of others, this
says a lot about just how sorry your life is, without love for another
in it.
Ad hominem fallacy
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
They tell animal rights workers, animal control
officers, hikers and visitors on public lands, and politicians
what THEY should do and which laws they should pass.
No. They don't "tell" anyone anything. Rather, they
participate in the democratic process, and wildlife
management laws take the interests of hunters into account.
They try to force us all to enjoy animal abuse.
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
And hunters will bully them until they get what they want.
Bullshit. You're making this up as you go along. You
have no source for any of this except your own fevered,
fetid imagination.
They subject us to torrid abuse,
What "torrid abuse"?
What abuse Pete? You live in that comfy flat with central heating, power,
and lots of nearby food markets and the dole allows you to post inanitites
to the internet all day. What abuse do you tolerate?
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
force us to watch animal abuse in
action,
Who's forcing you to watch anything? You *choose* to visit PeTA websites
and view those videos.
People like you who allow it are forcing us to watch it, and forcing
us to act against it.
You allow far, far more than is shown on those videos.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
take great pride in abusing animals whilst those of us who
care must stand by, because it's a legal form of animal abuse.
You can lobby for greater penalties for animal abuse, but you won't
convince anyone that animal "use" is "abuse" by definition, because
people don't think that way, and they shouldn't.
Some of us are happy to live and learn.
You aren't, you're as dogmatic and closed-minded as they come.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters VIRULENTLY
oppose the rights of animal rights people and politicians
and landowners to make their own choices.
Bullshit.
Bitter and twisted you are.
Look in the mirror and say that, Pete.
why would I want to look in the mirror and say pete?
You can run but you can't hide Pete.
LordSnooty
2003-10-16 16:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
I agree it *can be* that, but the conflicts arise when it becomes *more*
than that. People who lay guilt-trips on people who don't share this
particular "caring position" are being self-righteous.
Telling the truth is not self-righteous. Just because you cannot
handle the truth doesn't mean it is any less the truth.
It's YOU that can't handle the truth. The truth is animals die to sustain
you and your lifestyle, and no amount of projection of your guilt on me will
make that truth go away.
It's a lie, and no matter how many times you spout it, it will never
come true. Animals are simply not used in the production of the
average vegetable diet, your rather daft claim is like saying because
people get run over in auto accidents, a vegetable diet is the cause
of their deaths, it's really quite ludicrous old chap.

If you must argue in support of animal abuse, try to make it lucid and
valid at least. Have you ever considered your below average
intelligence may well be due to your diet, certainly with your idiotic
mantra I would suggest food driven dementia, like cjd?
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
If you still choose to eat meat after being presented with the facts,
than this is your choice, but you cannot shoot the messenger for this.
You haven't presented any facts, you've presented self-serving opinions.
The facts are well known. Unlike your argument which is based on
nonsense.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Not because they care, because they are presumptuous in pushing (with
lurid rhetoric) their particular type of "caring position" on others who
aren't interested.
Education is a great thing, to deny it is ignorance.
Then why do you keep doing it?
tut tut.
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
There are very strong arguments against sanctimony. For one, *you*
choose to ignore massive animal killing done on your behalf. You lack
the moral authority to point fingers.
The very thing that gets up your nose, is because we DO NOT choose to
ignore animal killing, whatever shape or form it takes.
You TOTALLY ignore MASSIVE animal killing. In fact you ignore ALL the
killing that supports your lifestyle.
Where is this massive killing, show us the scientific data that proves
it and you'll start a global outcry, of course you wont because it is
nonsense.

< will snip here as your argument starts to turn into a rant>
Dutch
2003-10-16 17:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:56:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball
Post by Jonathan Ball
Post by exploratory
Hunters form a cult which is the most EXTREMELY opposed to personal
freedom and choice for humans.
This is pretty funny. "ar" - "animal rights" - is
completely based on totalitarian impulses. The very
small, confused minority of people who believe in "ar"
want to impose their views on everyone else. This is
pointed out to you, and you have no real rebuttal.
You're a blind bigot. ARs is about caring for the oppressed,
suffering, bullied, the underdog. It's equally applicable to any
species, simply put, it's a caring position.
I agree it *can be* that, but the conflicts arise when it becomes *more*
than that. People who lay guilt-trips on people who don't share this
particular "caring position" are being self-righteous.
Telling the truth is not self-righteous. Just because you cannot
handle the truth doesn't mean it is any less the truth.
It's YOU that can't handle the truth. The truth is animals die to sustain
you and your lifestyle, and no amount of projection of your guilt on me will
make that truth go away.
It's a lie,
As I said, you can't handle the truth.
Post by LordSnooty
and no matter how many times you spout it, it will never
come true. Animals are simply not used in the production of the
average vegetable diet,
They aren't used, they're killed, maimed, and displaced.
Post by LordSnooty
your rather daft claim is like saying because
people get run over in auto accidents, a vegetable diet is the cause
of their deaths, it's really quite ludicrous old chap.
Auto accidents are irrelevant, that's a red herring. Animals are killed by
machinery, herbicides and pesticides in order to make plant farming
possible.
Post by LordSnooty
If you must argue in support of animal abuse, try to make it lucid and
valid at least. Have you ever considered your below average
intelligence may well be due to your diet, certainly with your idiotic
mantra I would suggest food driven dementia, like cjd?
Ad hominem fallacy.
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
If you still choose to eat meat after being presented with the facts,
than this is your choice, but you cannot shoot the messenger for this.
You haven't presented any facts, you've presented self-serving opinions.
The facts are well known.
True, yet you choose to remain willfully blind to them.
Post by LordSnooty
Unlike your argument which is based on nonsense.
translation: anything that Pete doesn't want to hear..
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
You are so bitter and twisted, riddled with guilt, you actually attack
people because they care, how sick is that loser?
Not because they care, because they are presumptuous in pushing (with
lurid rhetoric) their particular type of "caring position" on others who
aren't interested.
Education is a great thing, to deny it is ignorance.
Then why do you keep doing it?
tut tut.
Clucking sanctimony, your stock in trade..
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Dutch
Post by LordSnooty
Post by Jonathan Ball
So what do you do? Why, you simply try to turn the
accusation around. It's a common tactic, and it FAILS,
every time.
Inflicting your own weak logic on to others is not a very convincing
argument, not least because there is no argument against a caring
attitude.
There are very strong arguments against sanctimony. For one, *you*
choose to ignore massive animal killing done on your behalf. You lack
the moral authority to point fingers.
The very thing that gets up your nose, is because we DO NOT choose to
ignore animal killing, whatever shape or form it takes.
You TOTALLY ignore MASSIVE animal killing. In fact you ignore ALL the
killing that supports your lifestyle.
Where is this massive killing, show us the scientific data
Disinformation technique. There's plenty of evidence of it.

that proves
Post by LordSnooty
it and you'll start a global outcry,
It's common knowledge and there's no outcry. Animals are ubiquitous, they're
killed all the time.
Post by LordSnooty
of course you wont because it is nonsense.
translation: nonsense: anything that Pete doesn't want to hear..
Post by LordSnooty
< will snip here as your argument starts to turn into a rant>
translation: rant: anything that Pete doesn't want to hear..
exploratory
2003-10-17 10:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Dutch, answer this:
why must I be forced to watch ads for KFC and McDonalds on television
whenever I wait at doctor's offices? Why must I be forced to watch
rodeos and ads for meat on my cable television -- tv which *I* pay for?

The anti-animal groups FORCE these ads onto television and radio.
They deny me the choice, through my cable company, of having cable
tv selection which is free of animal abuse and torture.

Freedom in the US has ended: thanks to the hunters and the animal
slaughter industry forcing their way into every aspect of animal rights
activists' lives.
rick etter
2003-10-17 10:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
why must I be forced to watch ads for KFC and McDonalds on television
whenever I wait at doctor's offices? Why must I be forced to watch
rodeos and ads for meat on my cable television -- tv which *I* pay for?
The anti-animal groups FORCE these ads onto television and radio.
They deny me the choice, through my cable company, of having cable
tv selection which is free of animal abuse and torture.
Freedom in the US has ended: thanks to the hunters and the animal
slaughter industry forcing their way into every aspect of animal rights
activists' lives.
Hey, guess what you ignorant loser, you can turn it off! But then, that
would require a bit of intelligence on your part, wouldn't it, killer?
Dutch
2003-10-17 18:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
why must I be forced to watch ads for KFC and McDonalds on television
whenever I wait at doctor's offices?
You aren't forced. You can choose a doctor with no TV in the office, read a
magazine or wear a walkman.
Post by exploratory
Why must I be forced to watch
rodeos and ads for meat on my cable television -- tv which *I* pay for?
It's commercial television, the programming is paid for by those sponsors.
You have the choice to unsubscribe from the cable service if you don't like
it. Who ever told you that the world would be tailor-made to your
sensibilities?
Post by exploratory
The anti-animal groups FORCE these ads onto television and radio.
You're incoherent. There are no "anti-animal groups" and the stations that
runs ads are not "forced" to accept them. It's all free market.
Post by exploratory
They deny me the choice, through my cable company, of having cable
tv selection which is free of animal abuse and torture.
If you choose to define as abuse and torture what is usually considered
normal behaviour, then you ought to be prepared to endure the consequences.
That means either put up with it, write to the companies and/or TV stations,
and/or get rid of your TV. Culture is not defined by extremists within the
culture.
Post by exploratory
Freedom in the US has ended: thanks to the hunters and the animal
slaughter industry forcing their way into every aspect of animal rights
activists' lives.
You're an idiot who doesn't deserve the freedom he enjoys. If you want an
example of government repression of freedom of thought, look at China and
their persecution of dissidents and religious groups like the Falun Gong
movement.

Vegetarians were persecuted in years gone by, but today they're quite
respected and actually media darlings, this in spite of their often
self-righteous disdain for mainstream values.
exploratory
2003-10-19 05:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
You aren't forced. You can choose a doctor with no TV in the office, read a
magazine or wear a walkman.
No I cannot. So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good -- because
I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and non-vegetarians.
YOU can choose your OWN doctor if you get a heart attack.

And YOU can choose to live in another town or state or country
if animal rights activists outlaw meat and hunting.

You Rick Shitter are such fucking hypocritical liars.
If Hollywood celebrities like Alec Baldwin talked about factory farming
on tv talk shows, news programs, or in schools and universities
etc. you would raise fucking hell
and try EVERY thing in your power to censor them.
Post by Dutch
That means either put up with it, write to the companies and/or TV stations,
and/or get rid of your TV.
Good. I do. All the time. And so do many animal rights activists.
So, since you and Rick Shitter are telling us to do this,
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU COMPLAINING AND BITCHING ABOUT???
Post by Dutch
Culture is not defined by extremists within the culture.
You are a total fuckshit. In YOUR brain,
there can be no such thing as "extremist".
People without PhDs in mathematics have no ability to mentally
calculate magnitude.
Post by Dutch
You're an idiot who doesn't deserve the freedom he enjoys. If you want an
example of government repression of freedom of thought, look at China and
How about in the United States, where prisoners are denied vegetarian
meals? So YOU say prisoners in the United States have a choice,
right? Bullshit. Fucking anti-choice assfucks like you and Etter
force YOUR eating habits on prisoners in the United States.
Unless you PUBLICLY oppose forcing prisoners to eat a certain diet,
then you and Etter deserve to be raped and cut open in prison with
razor blades because of your lifetime of lies that you are "pro-choice"
on eating habits in addition to your continued pointless torture and
murder of animals.

At least I admit it: I would force prisoners to eat only a vegetarian
diet, PRECISELY because they are in prison for
being convicted of eating meat. Everyone outside of prison would
still have a choice of eating meat -- but they would have to suffer
the consequences of THEIR action by being justifiably put in prison.
And I would start with you two subhumans.
Post by Dutch
Vegetarians were persecuted in years gone by, but today they're quite
respected and actually media darlings,
If that is true, then good. YOU can turn off the media channels.
Dutch
2003-10-19 07:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
You aren't forced. You can choose a doctor with no TV in the office, read a
magazine or wear a walkman.
No I cannot.
Why not?
Post by exploratory
So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
right to run an office the way WE want.
No, I didn't say that, but now that you mention it, you can run YOUR
medical office any way you like.
Post by exploratory
Well, then, that is good -- because
I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and non-vegetarians.
Nobody cares what you "encourage", you're a half-witted child.
Post by exploratory
YOU can choose your OWN doctor if you get a heart attack.
I have a doctor thanks.
Post by exploratory
And YOU can choose to live in another town or state or country
if animal rights activists outlaw meat and hunting.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Post by exploratory
You Rick Shitter are such fucking hypocritical liars.
You're full of it, I didn't lie about anything.
Post by exploratory
If Hollywood celebrities like Alec Baldwin talked about factory farming
on tv talk shows, news programs, or in schools and universities
etc. you would raise fucking hell
and try EVERY thing in your power to censor them.
More bullshit, you really are a hopeless twat aren't you?
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
That means either put up with it, write to the companies and/or TV stations,
and/or get rid of your TV.
Good. I do. All the time. And so do many animal rights activists.
So, since you and Rick Shitter are telling us to do this,
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU COMPLAINING AND BITCHING ABOUT???
What's the matter, can't you read?
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
Culture is not defined by extremists within the culture.
You are a total fuckshit. In YOUR brain,
there can be no such thing as "extremist".
People without PhDs in mathematics have no ability to mentally
calculate magnitude.
The only thing you're expert in is yankin' your own puddin'. You're a
raving looney, AND a liar.
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
You're an idiot who doesn't deserve the freedom he enjoys. If you want an
example of government repression of freedom of thought, look at China and
How about in the United States, where prisoners are denied vegetarian
meals?
That's not a valid comparison with real political repression.
Post by exploratory
So YOU say prisoners in the United States have a choice,
right? Bullshit. Fucking anti-choice assfucks like you and Etter
force YOUR eating habits on prisoners in the United States.
Which prison denies prisoners vegetarian meals?
Post by exploratory
Unless you PUBLICLY oppose forcing prisoners to eat a certain diet,
then you and Etter deserve to be raped and cut open in prison with
razor blades because of your lifetime of lies that you are
"pro-choice"
Post by exploratory
on eating habits in addition to your continued pointless torture and
murder of animals.
Thanks for demonstrating your true character, ranting raving, homicidal
adolescent.
Post by exploratory
At least I admit it: I would force prisoners to eat only a vegetarian
diet, PRECISELY because they are in prison for
being convicted of eating meat. Everyone outside of prison would
still have a choice of eating meat -- but they would have to suffer
the consequences of THEIR action by being justifiably put in prison.
And I would start with you two subhumans.
The only place you'll ever be in a position to dictate anything to
anyone is in that sick, lying little twisted mind of yours, punk.
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
Vegetarians were persecuted in years gone by, but today they're quite
respected and actually media darlings,
If that is true, then good. YOU can turn off the media channels.
You can ram a remote control up your ass for all I care. You're a
fucking moron.
rick etter
2003-10-20 02:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
You aren't forced. You can choose a doctor with no TV in the office, read a
magazine or wear a walkman.
No I cannot.
==================
Yes, you can. You choose not to.


So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
Post by exploratory
right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good -- because
I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and non-vegetarians.
YOU can choose your OWN doctor if you get a heart attack.
================
Yes, we can. And do you ignorant dolt...
Post by exploratory
And YOU can choose to live in another town or state or country
if animal rights activists outlaw meat and hunting.
=================
Yes, we can. Although you'll never be able to pull that one off.
Post by exploratory
You Rick Shitter are such fucking hypocritical liars.
==================
Name just one hypocritical ly, killer. Come on, I'll wait. I know your
brain cell can't operate too quickly, so I'll give you time...
Post by exploratory
If Hollywood celebrities like Alec Baldwin talked about factory farming
on tv talk shows, news programs, or in schools and universities
etc. you would raise fucking hell
and try EVERY thing in your power to censor them.
=================
Really? Who is that? And if he's being censored, how do you know he spoke
out about it, you ignorant dolt/
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
That means either put up with it, write to the companies and/or TV stations,
and/or get rid of your TV.
Good. I do. All the time. And so do many animal rights activists.
So, since you and Rick Shitter are telling us to do this,
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU COMPLAINING AND BITCHING ABOUT???
==================
Your stupidity and ignornace, killer.
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
Culture is not defined by extremists within the culture.
You are a total fuckshit. In YOUR brain,
there can be no such thing as "extremist".
People without PhDs in mathematics have no ability to mentally
calculate magnitude.
Post by Dutch
You're an idiot who doesn't deserve the freedom he enjoys. If you want an
example of government repression of freedom of thought, look at China and
How about in the United States, where prisoners are denied vegetarian
meals? So YOU say prisoners in the United States have a choice,
right?
=====================
LOL Prisoners should not have a choice. Guess this is your criminal
background coming out again, eh killer?


Bullshit. Fucking anti-choice assfucks like you and Etter
Post by exploratory
force YOUR eating habits on prisoners in the United States.
====================
You trult are this deluded, aren't you? What 'choices' have we ever tried
to say we would deny anybody? I'll help you out here, none! We have never
said you cannot eat veggies you stupid fool. We eat veggies too. Why would
we want to cut out what is by far the majority of ours diets too? You
really are just too ignorant to be in this discussion, killer.
Post by exploratory
Unless you PUBLICLY oppose forcing prisoners to eat a certain diet,
then you and Etter deserve to be raped and cut open in prison with
razor blades because of your lifetime of lies that you are "pro-choice"
on eating habits in addition to your continued pointless torture and
murder of animals.
=====================
Ah, the typical vegan/AR compasion on display. What a hoot! Keep up the
good work fool. You are your 'causes' own worst enemy, killer.
Post by exploratory
At least I admit it: I would force prisoners to eat only a vegetarian
diet, PRECISELY because they are in prison for
being convicted of eating meat. Everyone outside of prison would
still have a choice of eating meat -- but they would have to suffer
the consequences of THEIR action by being justifiably put in prison.
And I would start with you two subhumans.
====================
This is something you know all about, I'm sure, being the sub-humanoid
mongrel pup of usenet...
Post by exploratory
Post by Dutch
Vegetarians were persecuted in years gone by, but today they're quite
respected and actually media darlings,
If that is true, then good. YOU can turn off the media channels.
Loading...