It's sensible to choose game meat over industrially farmed crap. And yes, the predator population is low and won't be increasing anytime soon. Only an idiot would suggest the herd should be left alone to exceed the ecosystem's carrying capacity, thus resulting in widespread starvation of elk.
Nice try at playing the animal defender.
As to your latest ridiculous explanation of why the animal abuse video you posted is defensible?
Carry on, resident troll.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we witness the classic loCAtek posting technique in action. First, tell a huge, whopping, pulled completely out of her ass lie about what another poster has said. Then, when challenged, attempt to sidestep her obvious slander, neither admitting she said it and attempting to defend it (because she knows she can't) nor retracting it. Every single thread she has posted in turns into a litany of this very thing. And yet there are those that wonder why people are sick of it.
But I was one of those who said from the beginning of this place that the members should be consulted about things like this, so since a clear majority pf those who have spoken have said there should be no suspension, that should be it. Let the drunken, vindictive, psychotic bitch continue to lie with impunity in that case.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
I didn't say food, I said elk. ...and I didn't suggest the herd be left alone.
The point was that because you're in the clique you can announce you may be shooting and killing animals, and that's okay. However, I can't show a video of a squirrel repeatedly returning to feed from a contraption he doesn't mind riding.
She did not say she needed to go hunting because she didn't have enough food; she said she was going sport shooting, that's a form of entertainment like any other sport.
No she didn't say anything of the kind. But now you're stuck having to try to keep up the lie, because there's no way out other than to admit you were lying in the first place.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
I have a whitetail buck at the butcher's as we speak. Venison that is FOOD; better food than grocery store offerings. Healthy, grass-fed, antibiotic & growth hormone free FOOD.
Next year, an elk. To FEED me (and to donate to charity, because there will be plenty).
NOT for 'sport'. I never said anything of the kind.
I cannot fathom what you've become here. Truly pathetic.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
I just read through this entire thread and I am definately opposed to any banning or suspending of anyones ability to post. Either we have an open board or we do not, it can't be both. If there are those among us who have problems with one another then they should find a way to either settle their differences or just agree to disagree. If you, in RL, have a neighbor who you can't get along with build a spite fence, if you must, and ignore them. Once you start banning or suspending it becomes all to easy to find more reasons to do so.
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.
Very good point CP. There is nowhere to go if one party has no interest in ending a dispute or agreeing to disagree. Particularly if said party has an ulterior motive for carrying on a feud...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Miles, all it takes it for one party to constantly niggle, harass and bait the other. There is only so much of that a person can reasonably be expected to take before they bite back.
I'm not saying that one side is completely innocent, I'm saying that the other side have no interest in being productive members of a harmonious board.
If you have an alternative solution I for one would be delighted to hear it. To ask one party to simply ignore the constant baiting is highly unfair. Wouldn't you agree?
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Sean, I try to pick my battles carefully. I choose to find a common ground where I strongly believe in the cause before I engage myself against another. I also try to not judge others as I find I am not qualified to do so. In order to carry on a running feud one must first judge the other person either personally of professionaly. That is, of course, just my personal opinion which as worked well for me. There are two old saying that have aided me over the years. One is "When confronted with and antognist consider the source" and the other is "it's strictly mind over matter, I don't mind and you just plain don't fucking matter".
Back as far as the DAF and then on to the CSB a very fine gentleman befriended me. He is no longer with us but his words still ring true. In essence he told me that you will make many online aquaintanceses and some will even become friends you will know the difference by the consistancy of thier words.
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.
That's fair enough Miles but I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's easy to tell somebody to ignore that type of constant harassment when it's not happening to you. It's not so easy to do when you are the one subjected to the harassment. It's even more difficult when you have a vested interest in the board that is being undermined by certain posters.
I'm certainly not asking you to take sides. I'm just asking you (and the other objectors here) to think about how they would feel if it was their board that was being dragged down by a couple of people and how they would react under the circumstances.
Quad has stated on numerous occasions that he wants to be banned. It is my belief that he feels that his banning would cause the board to implode due to outrage that somebody, anybody could be banned. I believe that he wants to bring about the destruction of this board and I urge anybody who doubts this to read back through his posts or ask him outright. The owners/admin of this board should not be expected to allow somebody with such an agenda to remain as a member simplybecause some other members disagree with the idea of banning in principle.
Another thing I have noticed through reading this thread is that some members seem to have the philosophy of this board confused with that of the CSB. To the best of my knowledge (and please somebody correct me if I am wrong) the admin of this board have never claimed that it follows the 'no rules, no banning' principle held by the CSB.
Hell, I think even Gar would have banned Quad by now! If anything I admire Gob and Hen's restraint in the matter.
I am not going to post an opinion on Lo at this time as I have had her on ignore for some time now and am not really in a position to comment on her current agenda or state of mind.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
My understanding is that Gar did in fact ban someone, (it was before my time) who was attempting to make the board dysfunctional. In that case the person was using technical means to try and do it.
There are other ways to do it.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
