So would anyone object

[quaddriver]

If we recall one of the last posts she made

a) he would want to read private corresponence check
b) he would alter posts to suit him check
c) he would ban people who disagree with him check

the experiment has proofed itself out.

now will you please get on with the banning.

[Sean]

What are you blethering on about?

Who are the 'he' and 'she' to whom you refer?

[Lord Jim]

Who are the 'he' and 'she' to whom you refer?

Why Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss, of course:

[Scooter]

If a poster wants to continue making it more and more obvious that he/she is nothing but a sockpuppet for those who have a hand stuck up his/her back, then the rest of us should grab a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show. The latest swipe at bsg was another dead giveaway, anyone care to remember the poster who used the exact same line against her? If a poster wishes to degrade him/herself by trying to defend the proposition that a woman who leaves an abusive partner is guilty of "sabotaging" the relationship, then I am perfectly happy to let him/her continue digging his/her own hole.

Lots of butter on my share, please.

[Beer Sponge]

Lots of butter on my share, please.

You bring the popcorn then Scooter, I'll bring the beer, and we'll have a gay old time!

Wait, did that come out right?

Er, did I just say come out?

Whatever, I'm happy to be me!

[Crackpot]

What we have here is not just simply a Question of Trollery (Ok in one case it is) It's a question on a poster insisting on an abusive relationship and the question if it is right to allow someone to heap abuse upon you over the Ideal of a free exchange of Ideas. THis goes beyond the I' just here to annoy assholery of a troll and the intent to do direct harm to certian individuals over a slight (percieved or real). Further complicated by a measure of an offline relationship which further exposes the parties who do care no matter how much they'd like to deny it or wish it weren't so. Such is the commerce of sour relationships.

In end we ask ourselves this question do we enable such relationships or do we allow one to act to either stop or show in no uncertain terms that it will not be tolerated.

So in the case of Lo I think it would be good to in the least give her a temporary suspension.

As far as Quad Goes I seriously doubt (though I could be wrong) that anyone cares enough about him or what he says to for any action what so ever to have much of an effect. (except to possibly lose a sourse of boundless humor)

[Crackpot]

In short I'll but up with alot of bullshit from strangers but I expect more from friends

[loCAtek]

Well, in the cases of Gob, Hen, and BSG, at their requests on and offline, I have no further friendship with them. However, we do have a history and I don't like it being misinterpreted. It is funny, that they have to comfort themselves with making things up. I could do it too I suppose, but I have this thing called 'integrity'.

If they don't want to appear hypocritical, they should stick to telling the truth.

I post here on various subjects, those members are not my primary motivation; it is not all about them. If I was on deliberate campaign, I assure you I could be doing a hella lot more damage.
Hen has admitted- she made an effort to find me offensive, and blamed it on something entirely unrelated to she and I personally- a YouTube video. Let's dismiss for a moment her cheering on 'her friend' when it was announced she was planning on killing elk.
This motive for censorship has been manufactured and over-sensationalized, when the majority of members have the maturity to not get so worked up over nothing.

[The Hen]

No. You lie Lo.

I did not say that.

You have no integrity, or honour.

[loCAtek]

You made this effort;

Does the "Ignore Button" serve any purpose other than running away?

It doesn't really serve any other purpose, Andrew.

That is why this thread was started on 5 August as a plea to Lo to consider her trolling behavior or the ignore button would be used.

She was then placed on ignore by a number of poster. I was one of them.

I did not respond to her posts whilst she was on ignore. I removed her from ignore to view the clip she found so hilarious which would not be suitable for PETA.

You now have a beginning and and end date for how successful the ignore button was.

[The Hen]

That is the truth.

That does not validate your point.

That validates mine.

[Andrew D]

To me, killing an elk -- and if that is done as competently as it ought to be, the elk dies instantaneously -- for the purpose of eating it is rather different from hurling squirrels into trees for the purpose of entertainment.

[Liberty1]

Banned? You folks take this way too seriously.

[Rick]

To me, killing an elk -- and if that is done as competently as it ought to be, the elk dies instantaneously -- for the purpose of eating it is rather different from hurling squirrels into trees for the purpose of entertainment.

I didn't do the hurling, would never do the hurling, if I caught my own doing the hurling there would be trouble.

Seeing a video of someone else doing the hurling and laughing does not make one a sociopath...

[loCAtek]

To me, killing an elk -- and if that is done as competently as it ought to be, the elk dies instantaneously -- for the purpose of eating it is rather different from hurling squirrels into trees for the purpose of entertainment.

The majority of hunters these days do it for sport, rather than survival. BSG spoke of it as a possible form of entertainment, a sport and not a means for her survival. While every hunter tries their best for a 'kill-shot' through the heart;



...that's a very small target, and fairly often the animal is hit in the lungs. Obviously this is very painful, and terrifying for the elk, which will proceed to flee the area. Depending on the shot placement and strength of the animal, it can them hours to die. If the elk is hit in the guts, then it can take as long as four hours for it to expire. If the elk has gone to ground some hunters say it's more humane to slit the animal's throat and speed up its death, but that will still take about a half an hour or so.

...while squirrels hurl themselves frequently through the trees. That's a natural ability, that rarely harms them.

[Gob]

Banned? You folks take this way too seriously.

No not banned, suspended from posting for two weeks.

[Liberty1]

An Elk has a kill zone radius (edit s/b diam) of about 18 inches, really big by game standards. Of course a heart/lung combination shot is optimal, often it is one or the other. If you use a rifle, lot's of internal damage is done and the bullet expands and transfers energy, if you are in the kill zone, death is instantaneous to a minute or two.

I generally hunt with a bow, which means you need to be within about 40 yards for a shot. Every Elk I have shot with a bow, the arrow has traveled completely through the animal, through both sides of the rib cage. The last cow I killed I had a lung shot, the elk jumped from the noise of the bow, looked around and went back to grazing. After about a minute, it stumbled and fell over dead.


A gut shot is a whole other story, something I've never done thank goodness. I pass up a lot of less than optimal opportunities in order to have a clean kill. Unfortunately not everyone does, but it is generally rifle hunters taking very long shots that are not a good broadside setup.

[Econoline]

No time to post, just peeked in here for a sec, all I'll say now is that I object, too.

[BoSoxGal]

BSG spoke of it as a possible form of entertainment, a sport and not a means for her survival..

What a liar you are, loCAtroll. I clearly said that I would hunt to use the meat, if I went elk hunting. I'm not going for sport or thrills; I want the excellent, healthy meat, meat that will feed me an entire year - with plenty more to donate to charity. I would likely cry over the elk I killed - not 'LMAO NSF PETA! '

Our elk herds need to be managed. Any elk hunter knows that you ALWAYS aim to kill the elk as instantaneously as possible. Running the elk (or deer, or antelope) to ground pretty well ruins the meat.

I am US Army sharpshooter rated; I don't expect to have much difficulty hitting the kill zone on an elk, and I would not take a shot that wasn't 98% likely to find its target. Perhaps with your erratic personality, you simply can't imagine forgoing a less than perfect shot?

...while squirrels hurl themselves frequently through the trees. That's a natural ability, that rarely harms them.

What a fool you are, loCAtroll. Any child could figure out that the velocity at which that squirrel was hurled in the video you posted and obsessively defended was far beyond the velocity at which a squirrel can propel itself through trees under natural conditions.

[loCAtek]

Hmmm what I said was; not a means for her survival..

You can choose whatever you want to eat, but you don't need elk meat to survive.

You know why the herds need to be managed? ...because the natural predators, the ones who would really need meat to survive, have for most part been killed off or driven away by man.

As for the squirrels, they were launched by bungee cords... the cheap nylon wrapped ones, not even the stronger full rubber ones. You know what? I went back to watch that just to confirm the trajectory, and it was parabolic, meaning if the squirrel achieved that in such a short distance, it wasn't going very fast. Also, I noticed something else, when I was closely looking for was a sign that the squirrel didn't grasp the tree, that perhaps he fell? I didn't see any sign of that; the squirrel must have grabbed the tree each time, but I did notice something about the shots. At first, I had assumed that with the multiple camera angles we were seeing the same launch over and over- Not so! There were different places the squirrel landed, and as you watched through the course of vid, you could see how the squirrel was making course corrections with his tail, like a rudder(another common squirrel ability).
Over a few launches, he'd mastered orienting himself so that he was flying Rocky Squirrel-style each time, and in the last launch, it's a little hard to see but it appears the squirrel makes a perfect four point landing in the fork of the tree.

Meaning: The squirrel didn't mind the launching and repeatedly came back for more.