Received: by 10.204.145.140 with SMTP id d12mr6337bkv.6.1349940546925;
        Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: q11ni134268908wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.85.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Buffalo" <E...@nada.com.invalid>
Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Subject: Re: Boycott Wyoming!
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:53:51 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <k4pr7d$qoq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <k4d178$n1k$2@news.datemas.de> <YJOdnc4mMMmIkPfNnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <k4f4ca$uvl$2@dont-email.me> <k4fd32$sr2$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA0E0E8B6E8A7Csnuhwolfyahoocom@news.datemas.de> <k4hqp6$8rc$1@dont-email.me> <k4ht1h$oso$1@dont-email.me> <k4hvb1$ana$1@dont-email.me> <k4kd7f$ocb$1@dont-email.me> <k4khp5$mg4$1@dont-email.me> <k4n0q1$8aq$1@dont-email.me> <k4n792$kif$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA0E3E774A5FF9snuhwolfyahoocom@news.datemas.de> <k4pmbl$sh8$1@dont-email.me> <k4pn6d$20t$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="86f0861e18afb9cd28b5144f66b92183";
	logging-data="27418"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++Q3a/poE8jJ3JVsAhbn/p"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pZ/MhMA9GOgDbTu2yPD+iCs2boQ=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal



���hw��f wrote:
> Buffalo wrote:
>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>> "Buffalo" <E...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:k4n792$kif$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>>>>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Buffalo" <E...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:k4fd32$sr2$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big Steel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2012 5:15 PM, ���hw��f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wyoming sucks donkey dicks in hell...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/wyoming-wolf-holocau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> st-be gins-tomorrow/> vow not to spend money there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man's ability to destroy other life is despicable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And predictable...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wildlife management is necessary. Sometimes they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> always get it right. Of course, you know better than they
>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its not being done for "management". Its entirely political.
>>>>>>>>>>> The science community has already condemned the de-listing
>>>>>>>>>>> of wolves. Now go stand in the corner, dolt.
>>>>>>>>>> Still shooting from the hip before learning the facts.
>>>>>>>>> We're well aware of your posting history, Net Loon. I have
>>>>>>>>> evidence to back up my assertions, unlike you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2011/summer/pro_con_delisting.
>>>>>> pdf>
>>>>>>>>> "Wyoming's wolf management plan is poor policy, weak in its
>>>>>>>>> protection of wolves, and is based on flimsy science," said
>>>>>>>>> Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist who lives
>>>>>>>>> in the Jackson Hole area. "Wyoming's plan sets a very
>>>>>>>>> disturbing precedent for other states by abdicating management
>>>>>>>>> responsibility of a native wildlife species over nearly 90
>>>>>>>>> percent of the state."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120910.asp>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the best and most readable article discussing the
>>>>>>>>> necessity of maintaining wolves on the landscape:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html?
>>>> _r=0>
>>>>>>>>> Note the discussion of "tropic cascade" and how removal of any
>>>>>>>>> species impacts other species.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but we aren't talking about 'removing' the species, are
>>>>>>>> we? We are talking about reducing the population of wolves in
>>>>>>>> Wyoming, not eliminating it. WM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some opinions on both sides of the issue, which I
>>>>>>>> doubt you even knew their were 'two' sides. Just like
>>>>>>>> political liars, they only present the 'facts' that help them
>>>>>>>> out, even it is misleads away from the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wolves-wyoming-endangered-hunted/story?id=1713
>>>> 0423
>>>>>>>> "Our primary goal, and that of the states, is to ensure that
>>>>>>>> gray wolf populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains remain
>>>>>>>> healthy, giving future generations of Americans the chance to
>>>>>>>> hear its howl echo across the area," said U.S. Fish and
>>>>>>>> Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe in a prepared statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh...straight from the article you CITE:
>>>>>>> "This isn't good wildlife management," she said. "There will be
>>>>>>> no regulation whatsoever on killing wolves in most of the
>>>>>>> state."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your point, again? The wolves were de-listed for entirely
>>>>>>> POLITCAL reasons. The democrat legislators that were up for
>>>>>>> re-election used wolves as a bargaining chip to get elected. It
>>>>>>> was them showing the largely redneck voting block of the
>>>>>>> redstates where wolves now have no protection that they were
>>>>>>> "really good ol' boys" and deserved the redneck vote. This
>>>>>>> wasn't based on sound science and has been criticized by a
>>>>>>> majority of wildlife biologists. Now put that dunce cap back on
>>>>>>> and get back in your corner.
>>>>>> Yes, as I said, both sides and different opinions, unlike your
>>>>>> one-sided opinions.
>>>>>> Afraid of the other side?
>>>>>> Buffalo
>>>>>> PS: There is a lot about it on the Internet: if you want to find
>>>>>> out more about both sides of the story.
>>>>>> But then again, why give people both sides when it is easier to
>>>>>> convince them with just one side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm arguing for the reality-based position, unlike you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now get back in your corner, dunce.
>>>> --
>>>> Arrogant and narrow-minded SOB.  :(
>>>> Buffalo
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I like your new sig file; very accurate :)
>>
>> You are a childishly clever person, but you are still an arrogant and
>> narrow-minded SOB.
>> Buffalo
>> PS: Next time , show both sides of the story, or are you so insecure
>> that you 'fear' doing that?
>>
>>
> Why would I want to promote incorrect ideas? Thats your forte :)

IOW, you are so narrow minded and set in your mind that you don't want to
show the 'other side of the story' so that folks can more easily come to the
correct conclusion.

Buffalo  :(