Hunting Perverts
Zakhar
usual suspect
Michael
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
news:mVjRa.48267$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net...
> http://tinyurl.com/h5pk
>
>
Troll
Zakhar
"Michael" <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:umyRa.59420$0v4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Did you follow the link?
What's your perspective?
>
>
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F15D9C7...@earth.man...
> Zakhar wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/h5pk
>
> So? Watch a nature show and see how lions and tigers eat.
Does not follow.
>
usual suspect
>>>http://tinyurl.com/h5pk
>>
>>So? Watch a nature show and see how lions and tigers eat.
>
> Does not follow.
Yes it does. Ruminants are food; that's their greatest contribution to
an ecosystem. They're tracked and hunted by predators of all shapes and
sizes, some of whom are more lethally efficient than the oafs I saw in
that video. One thing is certain, though: a mountain lion doesn't wait
for a goat to die before it starts eating it. Nature sure must seem
cruel compared to your utopian delusions.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Using a confined tame animal as a form of an "entertaining pin cushion", is
not nature. Your drawing of comparisons between animals need to eat and a
wankers form of entertainment is obscene.
You will stop seeing these wankers as "natural predators" and "part of
nature". That's all bollocks. They are animal abusers of the worst kind.
>
usual suspect
>>Yes it does. Ruminants are food; that's their greatest contribution to
>>an ecosystem. They're tracked and hunted by predators of all shapes and
>>sizes, some of whom are more lethally efficient than the oafs I saw in
>>that video. One thing is certain, though: a mountain lion doesn't wait
>>for a goat to die before it starts eating it. Nature sure must seem
>>cruel compared to your utopian delusions.
>
> Using a confined tame animal
Define "tame."
> as a form of an "entertaining pin cushion", is
> not nature. Your drawing of comparisons between animals need to eat and a
> wankers form of entertainment is obscene.
Your drawing of comparisons with terms like "entertaining pin cushion"
is even more obscene. What's even more obscene that that is your
generalizations of all hunters on the basis of the actions of a handful
of bad ones. Shame on you and your broad brush, pendejo.
> You will stop seeing these wankers as "natural predators" and "part of
> nature". That's all bollocks. They are animal abusers of the worst kind.
Only to those harboring and perpetuating AR lies and delusions.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> pendejo wrote:
> >>Yes it does. Ruminants are food; that's their greatest contribution to
> >>an ecosystem. They're tracked and hunted by predators of all shapes and
> >>sizes, some of whom are more lethally efficient than the oafs I saw in
> >>that video. One thing is certain, though: a mountain lion doesn't wait
> >>for a goat to die before it starts eating it. Nature sure must seem
> >>cruel compared to your utopian delusions.
> >
> > Using a confined tame animal
>
> Define "tame."
Define "fuck off and die, tosser".
>
> > as a form of an "entertaining pin cushion", is
> > not nature. Your drawing of comparisons between animals need to eat and
a
> > wankers form of entertainment is obscene.
>
> Your drawing of comparisons with terms like "entertaining pin cushion"
> is even more obscene. What's even more obscene that that is your
> generalizations of all hunters on the basis of the actions of a handful
> of bad ones. Shame on you and your broad brush, pendejo.
My post was about "canned hunting" or was the video too complicated for you,
mierda gorda? You admit at least that these 'hunters' are "bad ones"?
>
> > You will stop seeing these wankers as "natural predators" and "part of
> > nature". That's all bollocks. They are animal abusers of the worst kind.
>
> Only to those harboring and perpetuating AR lies and delusions.
So you advocate canned hunting?
>
usual suspect
>>Define "tame."
>
> Define "fuck off and die, tosser".
I see, you just don't know.
>>Your drawing of comparisons with terms like "entertaining pin cushion"
>>is even more obscene. What's even more obscene that that is your
>>generalizations of all hunters on the basis of the actions of a handful
>>of bad ones. Shame on you and your broad brush, pendejo.
>
> My post was about "canned hunting" or was the video too complicated for you,
> mierda gorda? You admit at least that these 'hunters' are "bad ones"?
Your post wasn't about canned hunting, the video was. You're *just*
capable of cutting and pasting a link, but not of defining words like
"tame."
>>>You will stop seeing these wankers as "natural predators" and "part of
>>>nature". That's all bollocks. They are animal abusers of the worst kind.
>>
>>Only to those harboring and perpetuating AR lies and delusions.
>
> So you advocate canned hunting?
Generally, I don't care what free people do on their own land, so long
as it's within the laws and nobody gets hurt doing it. The manner of
death of animals is usually irrelevant to me, and that holds true in the
case of so-called "canned" hunting. What you negatively call "canned" is
quite often NOT what it's presented to be. I will agree that using
retired circus and zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in
their presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to die
anyway. Aren't they?
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Of course they're going to die, that's not a reason to kill them. I will
assume for the sake argument that you are a canned hunt supporter.
>
usual suspect
>>Generally, I don't care what free people do on their own land, so long
>>as it's within the laws and nobody gets hurt doing it. The manner of
>>death of animals is usually irrelevant to me, and that holds true in the
>>case of so-called "canned" hunting. What you negatively call "canned" is
>>quite often NOT what it's presented to be. I will agree that using
>>retired circus and zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in
>>their presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to die
>>anyway. Aren't they?
>
> Of course they're going to die, that's not a reason to kill them.
Why not? At least their meat can be eaten. It can't be eaten if they rot
away and later die of some malady.
> I will
> assume for the sake argument that you are a canned hunt supporter.
I support hunting, period.
sasha
understand some peoples aversion to hunting, I do not understand why most
cannot tolerate hunters.Contrary to political correctness, modern hunting
does not endanger species as market hunting once did. I don't know of any
animal in the western world made extinct in the last 50 yrs due to modern
hunting methods or hunters. I would say more animals are killed every year
by automobiles than by sportsmen, come to think of it,sportsmen probably do
more to save wildlife than any other group,not only with license fees, but
by maintaining game/non-game habitat,building wooduck nesting boxes, bat
houses Martin condos etc. than all the hand wringing so-called animal lovers
do, Almost all of the hunters I have known over the years have done their
best to maintain a quality habitat for all species that may inhabit it, I
only know and gravitate towards ethical,intelligent and caring hunters and
sportsmen, anything less than that just constitutes slobs, you know, the
ones you SHOULD harrass.
Just my 2 cents.
Mark
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
news:SVARa.48394$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net...
Dutch
news:bf7cc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I'm new here,but I've been watching some threads of conversation. While I
> understand some peoples aversion to hunting, I do not understand why most
> cannot tolerate hunters.Contrary to political correctness, modern hunting
> does not endanger species as market hunting once did.
From an animal rights advocate's skewed perspective, hunting is like murder.
sasha
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vhekea9...@news.supernews.com...
Hmmm....And Animals Rights activists never "murder" any animals?? I find
that hard to believe, we all kill creatures everyday, some visible, some
not. but everyone kills, thats nature like it or not. I hunt because I enjoy
the experience, man has hunted long before he learned to farm or raise
crops/or animals, man possibly hunted originally out of self protection as
much as for food,and merely consumed whatever he/she killed, maybe even
carrion (yum) Oh, well, to each his own I suppose, I do wish people would
just mind their own business, I wish to hunt until I physically cannot
anymore. I also wish those who do not wish to hunt to continue in their
beliefs, as long as they leave me alone.
Thanks!
Mark
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > From an animal rights advocate's skewed perspective, hunting is like
> murder.
> Hmmm....And Animals Rights activists never "murder" any animals?
Only really obvious ones count.
pearl
> I hunt because I enjoy the experience,
You heartless, self-cantered prick.
usual suspect
>>I hunt because I enjoy the experience,
>
> You heartless, self-cantered prick.
What's heartless about engaging in and enjoying normal human behavior?
We humans are hunters and gatherers by nature. It's only in your
benighted, unnatural, vegan, urbanized, supermarket-centered worldview
that it's cruel to prey on animals which are meant to be eaten. Get over
it and have a little respect for your fellow man, nitwit. Hunting is
more natural than strolling over to the local healthfood store and
stocking up on processed foodstuffs.
BTW, did you call your little butcher friend a "heartless, self-cantered
prick"? Did he show you his meat?
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> pendejo grande wrote:
> >>Generally, I don't care what free people do on their own land, so long
> >>as it's within the laws and nobody gets hurt doing it. The manner of
> >>death of animals is usually irrelevant to me, and that holds true in the
> >>case of so-called "canned" hunting. What you negatively call "canned" is
> >>quite often NOT what it's presented to be. I will agree that using
> >>retired circus and zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in
> >>their presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to die
> >>anyway. Aren't they?
> >
> > Of course they're going to die, that's not a reason to kill them.
>
> Why not? At least their meat can be eaten. It can't be eaten if they rot
> away and later die of some malady.
You're going die. So can someone kill you?
>
> > I will
> > assume for the sake argument that you are a canned hunt supporter.
>
> I support hunting, period.
I thought as much.
>
Zakhar
usual suspect
>>Why not? At least their meat can be eaten. It can't be eaten if they rot
>>away and later die of some malady.
>
> You're going die. So can someone kill you?
Non sequitur. We have laws against killing humans. We have laws against
eating humans.
<snip>
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F16EB6A...@earth.man...
>
>>pendejo grande wrote:
>>
>>>>Generally, I don't care what free people do on their own land, so long
>>>>as it's within the laws and nobody gets hurt doing it. The manner of
>>>>death of animals is usually irrelevant to me, and that holds true in the
>>>>case of so-called "canned" hunting. What you negatively call "canned" is
>>>>quite often NOT what it's presented to be. I will agree that using
>>>>retired circus and zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in
>>>>their presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to die
>>>>anyway. Aren't they?
>>>
>>>Of course they're going to die, that's not a reason to kill them.
>>
>>Why not? At least their meat can be eaten. It can't be eaten if they rot
>>away and later die of some malady.
>
>
> You're going die.
Wog-speak. Native English speakers, and non-wog
immigrants who master the language, know to write,
"you're going *to* die."
You stupid ignorant fuck. Go back to your straw hut in
your shithole native country of Lower Bungholia.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F181D64...@whitehouse.not...
> Zakhar wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:3F16EB6A...@earth.man...
> >
> >>pendejo grande wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Generally, I don't care what free people do on their own land, so long
> >>>>as it's within the laws and nobody gets hurt doing it. The manner of
> >>>>death of animals is usually irrelevant to me, and that holds true in
the
> >>>>case of so-called "canned" hunting. What you negatively call "canned"
is
> >>>>quite often NOT what it's presented to be. I will agree that using
> >>>>retired circus and zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in
> >>>>their presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to
die
> >>>>anyway. Aren't they?
> >>>
> >>>Of course they're going to die, that's not a reason to kill them.
> >>
> >>Why not? At least their meat can be eaten. It can't be eaten if they rot
> >>away and later die of some malady.
> >
> >
> > You're going die.
>
> Wog-speak. Native English speakers, and non-wog
> immigrants who master the language, know to write,
> "you're going *to* die."
>
> You stupid ignorant fuck. Go back to your straw hut in
> your shithole native country of Lower Bungholia.
Racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~ strikes again. At least I can spell KNOW and
KNOWLEDGE.
Dutch
> "sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote
> > I hunt because I enjoy the experience,
>
> You heartless, self-cantered prick.
You brainless, self-absorbed idealogue.
Jonathan Ball
Not without a spell checker, you can't, little wog.
I can spell them correctly, two. Sometimes, my mind
races ahead, and I write the wrong homonym. Go look up
"homonym", little wog.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
snip
> >>
> >>Wog-speak. Native English speakers, and non-wog
> >>immigrants who master the language, know to write,
> >>"you're going *to* die."
> >>
> >>You stupid ignorant fuck. Go back to your straw hut in
> >>your shithole native country of Lower Bungholia.
> >
> >
> > Racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~ strikes again. At least I can spell KNOW
and
> > KNOWLEDGE.
>
> Not without a spell checker, you can't, little wog.
Oh yes I can, racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~.
>
> I can spell them correctly, two.
Two of what, you illiterate fucker? It should be written "I can spell them
correctly, too."
>Sometimes, my mind
> races ahead,
Your mind stopped years ago. It's all that rotting meat in your short, fat
system.
Jonathan Ball
>>>>Wog-speak. Native English speakers, and non-wog
>>>>immigrants who master the language, know to write,
>>>>"you're going *to* die."
>>>>
>>>>You stupid ignorant fuck. Go back to your straw hut in
>>>>your shithole native country of Lower Bungholia.
>>>
>>>
>>>Racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~ strikes again. At least I can spell KNOW
>>
> and
>
>>>KNOWLEDGE.
>>
>>Not without a spell checker, you can't, little wog.
>
>
> Oh yes I can, racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~.
>
>
>>I can spell them correctly, two.
>
>
> Two of what, you illiterate fucker? It should be written "I can spell them
> correctly, too."
I knew that when I deliberately wrote "two", dirty
little wog.
>
>
>>Sometimes, my mind races ahead,
>
>
> Your mind stopped years ago.
Nope.
>
>
>>and I write the wrong homonym. Go look up
>>"homonym", little wog.
Did you look up "homonym", ignorant little
parasite-infested wog? Oh, wait. You don't have a
dictionary in your little bog.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> smelly little wog scrawled:
>
>
> >>>>Wog-speak. Native English speakers, and non-wog
> >>>>immigrants who master the language, know to write,
> >>>>"you're going *to* die."
> >>>>
> >>>>You stupid ignorant fuck. Go back to your straw hut in
> >>>>your shithole native country of Lower Bungholia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~ strikes again. At least I can spell KNOW
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>KNOWLEDGE.
> >>
> >>Not without a spell checker, you can't, little wog.
> >
> >
> > Oh yes I can, racist flubber ~~Harry Tits~~.
> >
> >
> >>I can spell them correctly, two.
> >
> >
> > Two of what, you illiterate fucker? It should be written "I can spell
them
> > correctly, too."
>
> I knew that when I deliberately wrote "two", dirty
> little wog.
LOL.
You really are a tosser ~~harry tits~~.
>
> >
> >
> >>Sometimes, my mind races ahead,
> >
> >
> > Your mind stopped years ago.
>
> Nope.
>
> >
> >
> >>and I write the wrong homonym. Go look up
> >>"homonym", little wog.
>
> Did you look up "homonym", ignorant little
> parasite-infested wog? Oh, wait. You don't have a
> dictionary in your little bog.
LOL. You're a decrepit little baldy fuck, who has nothing better to do.
>
Dutch
Zakhar
Murder is the killing of one person by another.
Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
usual suspect
>>>
>>>Bollocks.
>>
>>Explain
>
> Murder is the killing of one person by another.
>
> Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
> kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
kills versus maimings?
sasha
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:bf91po$al4$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Self cantered????
sasha
While I may hunt because I enjoy the experience, It also gives me fresh,
wholesome meat free from manmade antibiotics, hormones and dyes, It accounts
for more than 60 percent of my yearly meat intake, I also raise vegetables
in my garden and can them for later use. I also fish for sport, practicing
catch and release, I keep maybe 4-5 fish per season. I am hardly idle, I
work for a living, I put an average of 50 hrs. a week into my work, not
counting travel time.I take 1 vacation week a year to go deer hunting, I've
averaged 2 deer per vacation week spent, If this qualifies as idle time, so
be it. It's my time and i've earned it. Where did you get the figure of
200,000,000 animals in the USA??..I'm curious, we as humans must kill at
least that many with automobiles,IMHO
Mark
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > > > I'm new here,but I've been watching some threads of conversation.
> > While
> > > I
> > > > > understand some peoples aversion to hunting, I do not understand
why
> > > most
> > > > > cannot tolerate hunters.Contrary to political correctness, modern
> > > hunting
> > > > > does not endanger species as market hunting once did.
> > > >
> > > > From an animal rights advocate's skewed perspective, hunting is like
> > > murder.
> > >
> > > Bollocks.
> >
> > Explain
> >
> >
>
> Murder is the killing of one person by another.
I realize that Einstein, I said according to ARAs hunting is "*like*
murder", hence the PeTA slogan "Meat is Murder". This likeness between
hunting and murder is derived from the AR idea that human-like rights can be
attributed to animals. This all seems extremely elementary Zakhar, why must
I explain it?
> Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You don't
mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about it. It's
this sad sack pose that defines you.
> that maims and and
> kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
I'll bite, where did you get that figure?
Zakhar
"Meat is murder" is an advertising slogan, I don't take it literally. AR is
not about providing "human like rights" it's about the legal protection of
interests. You keep second guessing what AR is, and get it wrong every time.
>
> > Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
>
> You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You don't
> mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about it.
It's
> this sad sack pose that defines you.
Wrong, try again.
>
> > that maims and and
> > kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
>
> I'll bite, where did you get that figure?
I'll post it elsewhere, either on this or a new thread, as it's been asked
by others.
>
>
>
R&SB
Well, I do know the average yearly kill of deer in our state is quite high.
And rightly so, since they breed like rabbits. Except rabbits don't
bounce up and come through your windshield and kill you.
It takes a bag limit of six does per hunter to keep the numbers down.
The amount of damage in car/deer collisions is astronomical.
S
sasha
> "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > > > "sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote
>
> > > > > > I'm new here,but I've been watching some threads of
conversation.
> > > While
> > > > I
> > > > > > understand some peoples aversion to hunting, I do not understand
> why
> > > > most
> > > > > > cannot tolerate hunters.Contrary to political correctness,
modern
> > > > hunting
> > > > > > does not endanger species as market hunting once did.
> > > > >
> > > > > From an animal rights advocate's skewed perspective, hunting is
like
> > > > murder.
> > > >
> > > > Bollocks.
> > >
> > > Explain
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You don't
> mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about it.
It's
> this sad sack pose that defines you.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but for me I don't "enjoy" the kill, I
enjoy the hunt, the kill is just the natural culmination of the events. I
try mightily to insure a clean one shot kill, I pass up marginal shots where
there is a chance the animal could suffer. usually I drop the animal in it's
tracks with a neck shot followed by an immediate shot to the back of the
head if required.While some animals may suffer for a few moments. I strive
to make it quick. most of my shots are within 35 yds. 45 is a long one for
me. I've gotten one as close as 3 yds.
Mark
>
>
>
usual suspect
>>>I hunt because I enjoy the experience,
>>
>>You heartless, self-cantered prick.
>
> Self cantered????
That's UK/Irish/Aussie/Kiwi for self-centered.
sasha
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Oh, I thought maybe it was referring to the way I walk perhaps. I may run,
saunter,,jog,even mosey, but canter? never! I'm not built right :-)
usual suspect
> While I may hunt because I enjoy the experience, It also gives me fresh,
> wholesome meat free from manmade antibiotics, hormones and dyes, It accounts
> for more than 60 percent of my yearly meat intake, I also raise vegetables
> in my garden and can them for later use. I also fish for sport, practicing
> catch and release, I keep maybe 4-5 fish per season. I am hardly idle, I
> work for a living, I put an average of 50 hrs. a week into my work, not
> counting travel time.I take 1 vacation week a year to go deer hunting, I've
> averaged 2 deer per vacation week spent, If this qualifies as idle time, so
> be it.
Zakhar spends most of his free time watching animal rights propaganda
videos while he gets liquored-up (under the guise of reducing free
radicals, haha). He hasn't realized that the grain used in his adult
beverages contributes to the deaths of untold numbers of small animals,
mostly birds and rodents, who get cut, diced, chopped, maimed,
eviscerated, and mutilated by combines and other agricultural equipment
during planting, maintenance, and harvesting. Many more animals are
killed and injured during processing and bottling (at least according to
a retired health inspector I know; he used to inspect certain commercial
breweries and will only drink homebrew due to his experiences).
> It's my time and i've earned it. Where did you get the figure of
> 200,000,000 animals in the USA??..I'm curious, we as humans must kill at
> least that many with automobiles,IMHO
Grrr, you just stole the ammo I was going to use if he ever replied to
my request for that same data. Thanks for saying it, though. :-)
sasha
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Whoops! Sorry, wasn't trying to steal anyones thunder. I have yet to see his
data either.
Mark
usual suspect
>>>It's my time and i've earned it. Where did you get the figure of
>>>200,000,000 animals in the USA??..I'm curious, we as humans must kill at
>>>least that many with automobiles,IMHO
>>
>>Grrr, you just stole the ammo I was going to use if he ever replied to
>>my request for that same data. Thanks for saying it, though. :-)
>
> Whoops! Sorry, wasn't trying to steal anyones thunder. I have yet to see his
> data either.
It's okay, man. We won't see much in the way of data when he's finally
aroused from his stupor long enough to make his incoherent posts. At
best he'll ask questions, at worst he'll just keep typing STUPID. He has
quite a flair for that.
Dutch
If life is not protected then what is the context of "interests"?
AR is
> not about providing "human like rights" it's about the legal protection of
> interests.
Interests is an AR weasel word. Is protection of life not the primary and
overriding interest of every animal?
> You keep second guessing what AR is, and get it wrong every time.
I have it exactly right. AR advocates love to bob and weave presenting a
moving target to their critics. It doesn't work on me.
> > > Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
> >
> > You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You
don't
> > mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about it.
> It's
> > this sad sack pose that defines you.
>
> Wrong, try again.
I'm right on.
> > > that maims and and
> > > kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
> >
> > I'll bite, where did you get that figure?
>
> I'll post it elsewhere, either on this or a new thread, as it's been asked
> by others.
I can hardly wait.
Dutch
> > > Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
> >
> > You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You
don't
> > mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about it.
> It's
> > this sad sack pose that defines you.
>
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but for me I don't "enjoy" the kill, I
> enjoy the hunt, the kill is just the natural culmination of the events.
I don't enjoy orgasm either, it's just the natural culmination of sex.
Give me a fucking break.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
I've always know it as self centred (in the UK).
>
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Mark wrote:
> > While I may hunt because I enjoy the experience, It also gives me
fresh,
> > wholesome meat free from manmade antibiotics, hormones and dyes, It
accounts
> > for more than 60 percent of my yearly meat intake, I also raise
vegetables
> > in my garden and can them for later use. I also fish for sport,
practicing
> > catch and release, I keep maybe 4-5 fish per season. I am hardly idle, I
> > work for a living, I put an average of 50 hrs. a week into my work, not
> > counting travel time.I take 1 vacation week a year to go deer hunting,
I've
> > averaged 2 deer per vacation week spent, If this qualifies as idle time,
so
> > be it.
>
> Zakhar spends most of his free time watching animal rights propaganda
> videos while he gets liquored-up (under the guise of reducing free
> radicals, haha).
Wrong.
>He hasn't realized that the grain used in his adult
> beverages contributes to the deaths of untold numbers of small animals,
> mostly birds and rodents, who get cut, diced, chopped, maimed,
> eviscerated, and mutilated by combines and other agricultural equipment
> during planting, maintenance, and harvesting.
Wrong.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
You STUPID fucker.
>
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980 survey.
I can't find an online version, but the figures are quoted in at least one
pro hunting book: In defense of hunting, James A Swan.
The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of information, but
not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/deer/7articles.pdf
Archery Wounding Loss in Texas, by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
compiles data on wounding losses (deer hit but not found) from archery hunts
from 1972 through 1985 on four Texas Wildlife Management Areas. It also
discusses archery prowess and other issues relating to bowhunting and calls
for research into broadhead arrow efficiency. Some highlights: "Comparable
data ... for archery hunting on Texas wildlife management areas indicate a
wounding rate of about 50%, or 102% of the legal harvest. ... As these are
hunter reported data, it is felt they are conservative." . "Under most
hunting conditions, it is generally difficult to shoot a razor-sharp
broadhead arrow into a vital area - an absolute must for bow hunting
proficiency. Data from Texas wildlife management areas provide evidence
that, on the average, 21 shots are made for every deer killed, or about 10
shots per deer hit. Shot placement is, for all practical purposes, random.
However, there is evidence to indicate that experienced bowhunters wound
more deer that neophytes because they get more shots and therefore have
[more] opportunity to wound." Crippling Losses is an article by Aaron Moen,
a Cornell professor, published in the June 1989 issue of "Deer & Deer
Hunting" magazine. He received 229 responses from hunters in 40 states to a
survey of crippling losses experienced by bowhunters and rifle hunters. His
findings: "Bow hunters reported wounding 67 deer per 100 deer harvested."
Adrian Benke, a former bowhunter, reports on bowhunter proficiency in his
book, The Bowhunting Alternative. Benke describes the common occurrence of
animals "jumping the string." "On hearing the release of the arrow, they
reflexively move some distance before the arrow reaches them or wherever
they'd been at the time of the shot. One bowhunter with many years'
experience reported hundreds of such instances [Shupienis, 1977]. ...
According to the experts, animals can completely evade an arrow at distances
of 15 to 'less than 20 yards' [James 1976 and Shupienis, 1977]. When an
animal jumps the string," says Benke, "it is virtually impossible for anyone
to place his shot. Therefore, all the current talk about knowing the
limitations of one's shooting ability and the limitations of his equipment
is nonsense. These limitations are established by animals' ability to hear
the release of the arrow and move a minimum of six inches before it reaches
them."
Jonathan Ball
Translation: GregGeo...I mean, FuckHar has no data.
You stupid, fat malarial little wog.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F184A2A...@earth.man...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>>>>Bollocks.
>>>>
>>>>Explain
>>>
>>>Murder is the killing of one person by another.
>>>
>>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
>>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
>>
>>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
>>kills versus maimings?
>
>
> The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980 survey.
>
> I can't find an online version, but the figures are quoted in at least one
> pro hunting book: In defense of hunting, James A Swan.
>
> The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of information, but
> not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
Most "hunter days" end in NO KILLS, GregGeorge, you
fucking moron.
usual suspect
>>>>You heartless, self-cantered prick.
>>>
>>>Self cantered????
>>
>
> I've always know it as self centred (in the UK).
Well, good on you then. Now we can try to fix your lots' misspellings, too.
usual suspect
>>It's okay, man. We won't see much in the way of data when he's finally
>>aroused from his stupor long enough to make his incoherent posts. At
>>best he'll ask questions, at worst he'll just keep typing STUPID. He has
>>quite a flair for that.
>
> You STUPID fucker.
See? lol
usual suspect
>>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
>>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
>>
>>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
>>kills versus maimings?
>
> The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980 survey.
Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
> I can't find an online version, but the figures are quoted in at least one
> pro hunting book: In defense of hunting, James A Swan.
I think I have a copy of that somewhere, but I may have already given it
away. I don't recall that figure.
> The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of information, but
> not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
"Hunter days" are not the same as "maims" and/or "kills." That's a
statistic representing number of hunters times the number of days
hunting. It's at best a loose estimate since nobody counts each hunter
each day; it also fails to account for poaching and other illegal activity.
> http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/deer/7articles.pdf
> Archery Wounding Loss in Texas, by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
> compiles data on wounding losses (deer hit but not found) from archery hunts
> from 1972 through 1985 on four Texas Wildlife Management Areas. It also
Okay, let me explain a little about Texas and hunting. Most of the land
in Texas is privately owned. The private owners lease tracts of land to
hunters (typically called hunting leases or deer leases, since the lease
may only give rights for one species during one season).
The only public lands open to hunting in Texas are in the WMAs. Most of
those are in east Texas and they account for a very small proportion of
deer hunting in Texas (the bigger deer are out here and to my south and
west). They're hunted mostly by locals and those who are either too
cheap or too poor to pay private landowners for lease access. Another
group notorious for hunting WMA lands are untrained hunters. I don't
have time to look up the stats or citation, but I recall a story a
couple years ago about the number of fatal hunting accidents in WMAs
versus deer leases.
That doesn't surprise me, knowing who uses WMAs and all.
The same kind of data would be more difficult to obtain from leases
since they're spread out and not monitored to the extent WMAs are. It's
still possible Texas Parks and Wildlife has commissioned some such
study. You can look on their site and see.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
You'd have to use your BRIAN for that!
>
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F199361...@whitehouse.not...
How many end in hundreds of Kills? Who else dumped you, baldy?
>
Jonathan Ball
How many, FuckHar? You're the one who obviously needs
to answer this.
> Who else dumped you, baldy?
No one, you fat squatty little wog.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
> >>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
> >>
> >>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
> >>kills versus maimings?
> >
> > The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980
survey.
>
> Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
>
> > I can't find an online version, but the figures are quoted in at least
one
> > pro hunting book: In defense of hunting, James A Swan.
>
> I think I have a copy of that somewhere, but I may have already given it
> away. I don't recall that figure.
A reference to it I have says pages 7-8.
>
> > The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of information,
but
> > not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
>
> "Hunter days" are not the same as "maims" and/or "kills." That's a
> statistic representing number of hunters times the number of days
> hunting. It's at best a loose estimate since nobody counts each hunter
> each day; it also fails to account for poaching and other illegal
activity.
It's the best online number I could come up with in the time. It
demonstrates, that the figure of 200 000 000 animals hunted is in the right
order of magnitude. My guess is that the figure is much higher, than either
figures for the reasons you state.
End of WMA para.
The article does not entirely relate to WMA's.
>
> The same kind of data would be more difficult to obtain from leases
> since they're spread out and not monitored to the extent WMAs are. It's
> still possible Texas Parks and Wildlife has commissioned some such
> study. You can look on their site and see.
>
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
Look yourself.
>
Jonathan Ball
>>>>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and and
>>>>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
>>>>
>>>>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
>>>>kills versus maimings?
>>>
>>>The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980
>>
> survey.
>
>>Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
>
>
> There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
Prove it, FuckHar.
>>>The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of information,
>>>but not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
>>
>>"Hunter days" are not the same as "maims" and/or "kills." That's a
>>statistic representing number of hunters times the number of days
>>hunting. It's at best a loose estimate since nobody counts each hunter
>>each day; it also fails to account for poaching and other illegal
>>activity.
>
> It's the best online number I could come up with in the time.
It's worthless, FuckHar.
> It
> demonstrates, that the figure of 200 000 000 animals hunted is in the right
> order of magnitude.
You slimy shit, you said animals *'MAINED' AND KILLED*,
not hunted:
Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
that maims and and kills more than 200 000 000
animals in the USA alone.
You slimy, moldy shit.
> My guess is that the figure is much higher, than either
> figures for the reasons you state.
My KNOWLEDGE, FuckHar, is that you don't know what the
FUCK you're talking about, and your "guess" is bullshit.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> >>>>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
and
> >>>>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
> >>>>
> >>>>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
> >>>>kills versus maimings?
> >>>
> >>>The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980
> >>
> > survey.
> >
> >>Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
> >
> >
> > There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
>
> Prove it, FuckHar.
No, you disprove it.
>
>
> >>>The latest available online (170 page) survey gives lots of
information,
> >>>but not numbers of animals killed, but by hunter days of 228 368 000.
> >>
> >>"Hunter days" are not the same as "maims" and/or "kills." That's a
> >>statistic representing number of hunters times the number of days
> >>hunting. It's at best a loose estimate since nobody counts each hunter
> >>each day; it also fails to account for poaching and other illegal
> >>activity.
> >
> > It's the best online number I could come up with in the time.
>
> It's worthless, FuckHar.
>
> > It
> > demonstrates, that the figure of 200 000 000 animals hunted is in the
right
> > order of magnitude.
>
> You slimy shit, you said animals *'MAINED' AND KILLED*,
> not hunted:
Don't misquote me. WTF is mained?
>
> Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
> that maims and and kills more than 200 000 000
> animals in the USA alone.
Hunting does maim AND kill MORE THAN 200 000 000. 200 000 000 are hunted and
killed, an incalculable number are maimed.
>
> You slimy, moldy shit.
Fuck off baldy, no mates.
Jonathan Ball
>>>>>>>Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
>>>>>>
> and
>
>>>>>>>kills more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any *objective* evidence for that number, particularly a breakdown of
>>>>>>kills versus maimings?
>>>>>
>>>>>The figure came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a1980
>>>>
>>>survey.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
>>
>>Prove it, FuckHar.
>
>
> No, you disprove it.
No, fuckwitted wog, it is your intellectual burden to
prove it. You make a claim, you have the burden of
proof to support the claim. Otherwise, fat smelly
little wog, you are guilty of _ipse dixit_.
You're probably guilty of murder, FuckHar.
>>>It's the best online number I could come up with in the time.
>>
>>It's worthless, FuckHar.
WORTHLESS, FuckHar, you piece of slime.
>>
>>
>>>It
>>>demonstrates, that the figure of 200 000 000 animals hunted is in the
>>
> right
>
>>>order of magnitude.
>>
>>You slimy shit, you said animals *'MAINED' AND KILLED*,
>>not hunted:
>
>
> Don't misquote me. WTF is mained?
A typo. Stick to the issue, you slimy smelly little
wog. I accurately reproduced your quote below,
cuntlip. You said "maimed and killed", not hunted.
You've moved the goalposts, you incompetent little
wog-shit.
>
>
>> Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
>> that maims and and kills more than 200 000 000
>> animals in the USA alone.
>
>
> Hunting does maim AND kill MORE THAN 200 000 000.
Prove it, smelly little wog-shit.
> 200 000 000 are hunted and killed,
Prove it. You can't, of course; you couldn't even get
started. Stupid little wog; go back where you came
from. You don't belong in a civilized place.
>>You slimy, moldy shit.
>
>
> Fuck off baldy, no mates.
>
>
>>
>>>My guess is that the figure is much higher, than either
>>>figures for the reasons you state.
>>
>>My KNOWLEDGE, FuckHar, is that you don't know what the
>>FUCK you're talking about, and your "guess" is bullshit.
Your "guess" not only is bullshit, you're also
hopelessly inept, and you're smelly and fat.
sasha
deer, I lament that the hunt is now over. The animal is dead and I cannot
continue to hunt. The kill is not the excitement for me, the anticipation
perhaps yes, but the actual kill? no. rather difficult to explain. I tried,
sorry it doesn't agree with your view.
Mark
usual suspect
>>Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
>
> There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
According to whom? lol
I can give you plenty of changes we've had here in Texas in that amount
of time. Not to mention some of the sighting technologies (legal and
illegal).
>>I think I have a copy of that somewhere, but I may have already given it
>>away. I don't recall that figure.
>
> A reference to it I have says pages 7-8.
I'll see if I can find it.
>>"Hunter days" are not the same as "maims" and/or "kills." That's a
>>statistic representing number of hunters times the number of days
>>hunting. It's at best a loose estimate since nobody counts each hunter
>>each day; it also fails to account for poaching and other illegal
> activity.
>
> It's the best online number I could come up with in the time. It
> demonstrates, that the figure of 200 000 000 animals hunted is in the right
> order of magnitude. My guess is that the figure is much higher, than either
> figures for the reasons you state.
No, it's a wild guess. Does your wild guess include ducks, doves,
squirrels, rabbits, and other game harvested in multiples? As for
"hunter days," it's already been pointed out that not every hunter day
relates to harvesting. That's especially true with larger game. I'm not
sure the number of birds and small game taken is enough to make up the
difference.
>>Okay, let me explain a little about Texas and hunting. Most of the land
>>in Texas is privately owned. The private owners lease tracts of land to
>>hunters (typically called hunting leases or deer leases, since the lease
>>may only give rights for one species during one season).
>>
>>The only public lands open to hunting in Texas are in the WMAs. Most of
>>those are in east Texas and they account for a very small proportion of
>>deer hunting in Texas (the bigger deer are out here and to my south and
>>west). They're hunted mostly by locals and those who are either too
>>cheap or too poor to pay private landowners for lease access. Another
>>group notorious for hunting WMA lands are untrained hunters. I don't
>>have time to look up the stats or citation, but I recall a story a
>>couple years ago about the number of fatal hunting accidents in WMAs
>>versus deer leases.
> End of WMA para.
>
>
>>Crippling Losses is an article by Aaron Moen,
>>
>>>a Cornell professor, published in the June 1989 issue of "Deer & Deer
>>>Hunting" magazine. He received 229 responses from hunters in 40 states
Pendejo, in what state is Cornell University located? I'll narrow it
down by one. It's not in Texas. I saw two citations from nearly 30 years
ago.
>>That doesn't surprise me, knowing who uses WMAs and all.
>
> The article does not entirely relate to WMA's.
No? I saw nothing comparing Texas WMA hunters to Texas lease hunters.
Cornell is in New York. I don't know where the hunters surveyed hunted,
but if it was in New England, they most likely hunted on public lands.
>>The same kind of data would be more difficult to obtain from leases
>>since they're spread out and not monitored to the extent WMAs are. It's
>>still possible Texas Parks and Wildlife has commissioned some such
>>study. You can look on their site and see.
>>
>>http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
>
> Look yourself.
Chicken.
usual suspect
<snip>
>> that maims and and kills more than 200 000 000
>> animals in the USA alone.
>
> Hunting does maim AND kill MORE THAN 200 000 000. 200 000 000 are hunted and
> killed, an incalculable number are maimed.
You've yet to prove that 200,000,000 figure. The number maimed is
"incalculable" since you have no clue. It's as "incalculable" as the
figure for your hunted animals figure. Go on, make up another figure.
You're on a roll now.
>>My KNOWLEDGE, FuckHar, is that you don't know what the
>>FUCK you're talking about, and your "guess" is bullshit.
Bingo!
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>
> No, fuckwitted wog, it is your intellectual burden to
> prove it. You make a claim, you have the burden of
> proof to support the claim. Otherwise, fat smelly
> little wog, you are guilty of _ipse dixit_.
>
> You're probably guilty of murder, FuckHar.
>
> >>
>
> WORTHLESS, FuckHar, you piece of slime.
>
> >
> wog. I accurately reproduced your quote below,
> cuntlip. You said "maimed and killed", not hunted.
> You've moved the goalposts, you incompetent little
> wog-shit.
>
> Prove it. You can't, of course; you couldn't even get
> started. Stupid little wog; go back where you came
> from. You don't belong in a civilized place.
> >>You slimy, moldy shit.
>
> Your "guess" not only is bullshit, you're also
> hopelessly inept, and you're smelly and fat.
>
You do make me laugh.
You really do have a problem and I love irritating you into exposing your
flaws.
What's it like being dumped, short, fat, bald, having hairy droopy tits and
having a range of psychological problems?
You're squirming like maggot on my hook. LOL.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
> >> that maims and and kills more than 200 000 000
> >> animals in the USA alone.
> >
> > Hunting does maim AND kill MORE THAN 200 000 000. 200 000 000 are hunted
and
> > killed, an incalculable number are maimed.
>
> You've yet to prove that 200,000,000 figure. The number maimed is
> "incalculable" since you have no clue. It's as "incalculable" as the
> figure for your hunted animals figure. Go on, make up another figure.
> You're on a roll now.
The 200 000 000 figure in the book you gave away, you dopey tosser.
>
> >>My KNOWLEDGE, FuckHar, is that you don't know what the
> >>FUCK you're talking about, and your "guess" is bullshit.
>
> Bingo!
Ah, sweet love.
>
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>Okay, so it's from twenty-three years ago.
> >
> > There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
>
> According to whom? lol
Read the 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey.
>
> I can give you plenty of changes we've had here in Texas in that amount
> of time. Not to mention some of the sighting technologies (legal and
> illegal).
>
> >>I think I have a copy of that somewhere, but I may have already given it
> >>away. I don't recall that figure.
> >
> > A reference to it I have says pages 7-8.
>
> I'll see if I can find it.
I bet you can't.
Mierda gorda grande, FOAD.
>
> >>That doesn't surprise me, knowing who uses WMAs and all.
> >
> > The article does not entirely relate to WMA's.
>
> No? I saw nothing comparing Texas WMA hunters to Texas lease hunters.
> Cornell is in New York. I don't know where the hunters surveyed hunted,
> but if it was in New England, they most likely hunted on public lands.
>
> >>The same kind of data would be more difficult to obtain from leases
> >>since they're spread out and not monitored to the extent WMAs are. It's
> >>still possible Texas Parks and Wildlife has commissioned some such
> >>study. You can look on their site and see.
> >>
> >>http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
> >
> > Look yourself.
>
> Chicken.
Goose.
>
pearl
Get a digital camera then, for pities sake.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3F19A715...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>No, fuckwitted wog, it is your intellectual burden to
>>prove it. You make a claim, you have the burden of
>>proof to support the claim. Otherwise, fat smelly
>>little wog, you are guilty of _ipse dixit_.
>>
>>You're probably guilty of murder, FuckHar.
>>
>>
>>>>It's worthless, FuckHar.
>>>
>>WORTHLESS, FuckHar, you piece of slime.
>>
>>
>>A typo. Stick to the issue, you slimy smelly little
>>wog. I accurately reproduced your quote below,
>>cuntlip. You said "maimed and killed", not hunted.
>>You've moved the goalposts, you incompetent little
>>wog-shit.
>>
>>Prove it, smelly little wog-shit.
>
>
>>Prove it. You can't, of course; you couldn't even get
>>started. Stupid little wog; go back where you came
>>from. You don't belong in a civilized place.
>
>
>>>>You slimy, moldy shit.
>>>
>>Your "guess" not only is bullshit, you're also
>>hopelessly inept, and you're smelly and fat.
>>
>
>
> You do make me laugh.
No, I don't GregGeorge. I piss you off like no one
else. Good.
>
> You really do have a problem and I love irritating you into exposing your
> flaws.
I have no problem you could hope to identify, and you
do not irritate me more than any other "ar" gnat.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:vhj2ab8...@news.supernews.com...
> > "sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > [..]
> > > > > Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle,
> > > >
> > > > You just can't bear it that some people *enjoy* killing animals. You
> > don't
> > > > mind killing them, you just feel you must cry crocodile tears about
> it.
> > > It's
> > > > this sad sack pose that defines you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but for me I don't "enjoy" the
kill,
> I
> > > enjoy the hunt, the kill is just the natural culmination of the
events.
> >
> > I don't enjoy orgasm either, it's just the natural culmination of sex.
> >
> > Give me a fucking break.
> >
> Give you a break? What does sex have to do with hunting?
The build-up, the anticipation, the big moment.. then POW! and the letdown
after...
> When I shoot a
> deer, I lament that the hunt is now over.
Exactly my point, the foreplay, the sex of the hunt, the build-up to the
orgasm of the shot, the heart is racing, the kill, the ultimate stimulation,
then the letdown of the aftermath.
> The animal is dead and I cannot
> continue to hunt.
Right, the orgasm is over and I can't continue to screw.
> The kill is not the excitement for me,
You're lying. The kill is the pinnacle of the excitement, that's when your
heartbeat peaks, after which you have a physical and mental letdown as you
yourself described.
> the anticipation
> perhaps yes, but the actual kill? no. rather difficult to explain. I
tried,
> sorry it doesn't agree with your view.
It's difficult to explain because it's not true. The game's the thing, but
the ultimate peak of the experience is always attaining the goal. You're
denying you enjoy the kill because you think it's politically incorrect to
enjoy the kill, well fuck that. If you're going to do it, admit you enjoy
the whole experience, including the ultimate reward for your effort.
sasha
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:bfcnnt$ddq$2...@kermit.esat.net...
I can't eat the picture now can I?? Thats a useless suggestion, thanks for
stopping by..
Mark
sasha
No, it's difficult to explain because I'm not a genius,I don't have every
answer anymore than you do. I don't get excited by the kill, although I
enjoy eating it. I don't get the shakes either, or buck fever, perhaps I
have killed enuff that I don't get excited about it. I enjoy getting in the
woods at 4:30 am listening to the owls and creatures scurrying about, the
first birds chirping. I've had deer bed down right next to me without
getting excited about it. Not everyone is the same Dutch, we are all
different. it has nothing to do with political correctness. ( I can be
polite, but everyone who knows me would tell you I'm anything but
politically correct) :-)
Happy Hunting
Mark
usual suspect
>>You've yet to prove that 200,000,000 figure. The number maimed is
>>"incalculable" since you have no clue. It's as "incalculable" as the
>>figure for your hunted animals figure. Go on, make up another figure.
>>You're on a roll now.
>
> The 200 000 000 figure in the book you gave away, you dopey tosser.
I may still have it, Sir Wank-a-lot.
usual suspect
>>>There's been no significant change in hunting since then.
>>
>>According to whom? lol
>
> Read the 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey.
To paraphrase a pendejo, "You read it."
>>I'll see if I can find it.
>
> I bet you can't.
How much?
>>>>>a Cornell professor, published in the June 1989 issue of "Deer & Deer
>>>>>Hunting" magazine. He received 229 responses from hunters in 40 states
>>>>
>>Pendejo, in what state is Cornell University located? I'll narrow it
>>down by one. It's not in Texas. I saw two citations from nearly 30 years
>>ago.
>
> Mierda gorda grande, FOAD.
Oh, so you're saying you don't wanna get to the truth? No. Okay, go read
your anti-hunting propaganda.
>>Chicken.
>
> Goose.
Goosing another man is considered sexual harassment in my country
(except in San Francisco -- maybe you'd like it there).
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Murder is the killing of one person by another.
Um... no. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of one HUMAN BEING by
another HUMAN BEING. Murder does not apply to animals, trees or any
other non-human entity. To use the term in any way inconsistent with
its definition is dishonest. ARAs play fast and loose with their
terminology.
Zakhar
"Brian Henderson" <B.L.He...@SPAMFREE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fmvlhvssd8hq28j7b...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:41:17 +0100, "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Murder is the killing of one person by another.
>
> Um... no. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of one HUMAN BEING by
> another HUMAN BEING.
Agreed. that's what I meant by person, a human.
>Murder does not apply to animals, trees or any
> other non-human entity.
Agreed. I thought I'd said as much.
>To use the term in any way inconsistent with
> its definition is dishonest. ARAs play fast and loose with their
> terminology.
Some ARA's do, some don't.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>its definition is dishonest. ARAs play fast and loose with their
>>terminology.
>
> Some ARA's do, some don't.
*You* do, and you're even looser with "facts." Consider your 200,000,000
figure and "incalculable" maimings.
Dutch
> I don't get excited by the kill
Too bad for you, you must be comatose.
sasha
> "sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote
>
> > I don't get excited by the kill
>
> Too bad for you, you must be comatose.
>
Nope, just someone who has his own feelings and ideas, unlike some others.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Are you saying the 200 000 000 figure is not in the book you gave away, or
not of the right order of magnitude?
Are you saying that the number of animals maimed by hunters is calculable?
>
Zakhar
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
news:S8WSa.50842$xd5.2...@stones.force9.net...
Oh I forgot. You tosser!
>
> >
>
>
usual suspect
>>>>To use the term in any way inconsistent with
>>>>its definition is dishonest. ARAs play fast and loose with their
>>>>terminology.
>>>
>>>Some ARA's do, some don't.
>>
>>*You* do, and you're even looser with "facts." Consider your 200,000,000
>>figure and "incalculable" maiming.
>
> Are you saying the 200 000 000 figure is not in the book you gave away, or
> not of the right order of magnitude?
I haven't had time to look for it, pendejo.
> Are you saying that the number of animals maimed by hunters is calculable?
You're the one who threw out a figure. How about doing your own homework
for a change?
Zakhar
"Fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F1C496F...@earth.man...
> Wanker wrote:
> >>>>To use the term in any way inconsistent with
> >>>>its definition is dishonest. ARAs play fast and loose with their
> >>>>terminology.
> >>>
> >>>Some ARA's do, some don't.
> >>
> >>*You* do, and you're even looser with "facts." Consider your 200,000,000
> >>figure and "incalculable" maiming.
> >
> > Are you saying the 200 000 000 figure is not in the book you gave away,
or
> > not of the right order of magnitude?
>
> I haven't had time to look for it, pendejo.
Strange that.
>
> > Are you saying that the number of animals maimed by hunters is
calculable?
>
> You're the one who threw out a figure. How about doing your own homework
> for a change?
I'll take that as a no then.
>
usual suspect
>>I haven't had time to look for it, pendejo.
>
> Strange that.
Not as strange as you, wanker.
>>You're the one who threw out a figure. How about doing your own homework
>>for a change?
>
> I'll take that as a no then.
If it's incalculable, why did you lump maimings with kills?
Zakhar
"useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F1C4B06...@earth.man...
I wrote:
"Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and kills
more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
200 000 000 are killed + an incalculable number maimed, gives a number that
is MORE than 200 000 000. Simple stuff really, you STUPID fat tosser.
>
usual suspect
>>If it's incalculable, why did you lump maimings with kills?
>
> I wrote:
>
> "Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and kills
> more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
entertainment of the idle"?
> 200 000 000 are killed + an incalculable number maimed, gives a number that
> is MORE than 200 000 000. Simple stuff really, you STUPID fat tosser.
Especially since you make it up as you go along, pendejo. Piece of cake,
huh.
Zakhar
"useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> pendejo gordo wrote:
> >>If it's incalculable, why did you lump maimings with kills?
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > "Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
kills
> > more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
>
> Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
> entertainment of the idle"?
Most participants in hunting use it as entertainment, with time they have to
spare. A pastime, hobby or recreational activity in most cases it is not
done as a living or other necessity. It is mainly a RECREATIONAL activity.
You know that, if you don't you're just plain ignorant or stupid.
Common reasons for hunting include being with family or friends, escaping
urban life and trophy hunting. All of which can be achieved without killing.
>
> > 200 000 000 are killed + an incalculable number maimed, gives a number
that
> > is MORE than 200 000 000. Simple stuff really, you STUPID fat tosser.
>
> Especially since you make it up as you go along, pendejo. Piece of cake,
> huh.
I don't make it up, and yes, the truth is "a piece of cake".
>
usual suspect
>>>"Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
> kills
>>>more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
>>
>>Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
>>entertainment of the idle"?
>
> Most participants in hunting use it as entertainment, with time they have to
> spare. A pastime, hobby or recreational activity in most cases it is not
> done as a living or other necessity. It is mainly a RECREATIONAL activity.
WHIFF. Can you back it up?
> You know that, if you don't you're just plain ignorant or stupid.
Actually, I do NOT know that since my experience is quite different. (By
the way, FOOD is a necessity.)
> Common reasons for hunting include being with family or friends, escaping
> urban life and trophy hunting. All of which can be achieved without killing.
Food?! Have you ever been hunting? Do you have friends who are hunters?
I'm trying to figure out your source of all this knowledge.
>>Especially since you make it up as you go along, pendejo. Piece of cake,
>>huh.
>
> I don't make it up, and yes, the truth is "a piece of cake".
Yes, you do. If truth is a piece of cake, why don't you try it sometime?
Dutch
>
> "useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F1C58E4...@earth.man...
> > pendejo gordo wrote:
> > >>If it's incalculable, why did you lump maimings with kills?
> > >
> > > I wrote:
> > >
> > > "Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
> kills
> > > more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
I missed where you located that figure.. could you please re-post the info?
tia
usual suspect
> I missed where you located that figure.. could you please re-post the info?
He said it comes from pages 7-8 of "In Defense of Hunting" by James A.
Swan. Says he got that citation from some unnamed source. I think I have
a copy of Swan's book, but it'll probably be easier for me to find at a
bookstore than in the boxes.
Jonathan Ball
> usual suspect <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
No, greasy little wog. That is not how educated people
speak and write English. "maims and kills more than
200 000 000" does not mean kills 200,000,000 AND THEN
maims some additional number. You fucking little wog
prickcheese. Learn English, or go back to your wog bog.
Jonathan Ball
> "useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F1C58E4...@earth.man...
>
>>pendejo gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>If it's incalculable, why did you lump maimings with kills?
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>"Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
>>
> kills
>
>>>more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
>>
>>Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
>>entertainment of the idle"?
>
>
> Most participants in hunting use it as entertainment, with time they have to
> spare.
Circular. At least it wasn't spiral, like your little
diseased wog prick.
Zakhar
"useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> pendejo estupido wrote:
> >>>"Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
> > kills
> >>>more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
> >>
> >>Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
> >>entertainment of the idle"?
> >
> > Most participants in hunting use it as entertainment, with time they
have to
> > spare. A pastime, hobby or recreational activity in most cases it is not
> > done as a living or other necessity. It is mainly a RECREATIONAL
activity.
>
> WHIFF. Can you back it up?
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
>
> > You know that, if you don't you're just plain ignorant or stupid.
>
> Actually, I do NOT know that since my experience is quite different. (By
> the way, FOOD is a necessity.)
Food is a necessity, meat in most cases is not.
>
> > Common reasons for hunting include being with family or friends,
escaping
> > urban life and trophy hunting. All of which can be achieved without
killing.
>
> Food?!
You've been sucesfully subdued into converting a need for food, in to a want
for meat by a multi-billion dollar industry.
>Have you ever been hunting?
Not with a gun. I have found and taken pictures of wild animals, if that can
be called 'hunting'.
>Do you have friends who are hunters?
Yes.
> I'm trying to figure out your source of all this knowledge.
It's common knowledge. (I don't know any astronauts or have been to the
moon, but I know without any reasonable doubt that man has been on the
moon).
Jonathan Ball
> "useless fat tosser" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F1C65A4...@earth.man...
>
>>pendejo estupido wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Most hunting is a form of entertainment of the idle, that maims and
>>>
>>>kills
>>>
>>>>>more than 200 000 000 animals in the USA alone"
>>>>
>>>>Can you back up your assertion that "most hunting is a form of
>>>>entertainment of the idle"?
>>>
>>>Most participants in hunting use it as entertainment, with time they
>
> have to
>
>>>spare. A pastime, hobby or recreational activity in most cases it is not
>>>done as a living or other necessity. It is mainly a RECREATIONAL
>
> activity.
>
>>WHIFF. Can you back it up?
>
>
> More than 82 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, and watched wildlife in
> 2001.
That doesn't remotely suggest that over 200,000,000
animals were "maimed and killed".
You FAT greasy wog.
> They spent over $108 billion pursuing their
> *recreational activities*, contributing to millions of jobs in industries
> and businesses that support wildlife-related *recreation*.
That's not what he asked you to back up, Shit4braincell
>
>>>You know that, if you don't you're just plain ignorant or stupid.
>>
>>Actually, I do NOT know that since my experience is quite different. (By
>>the way, FOOD is a necessity.)
>
>
> Food is a necessity, meat in most cases is not.
Speak for yourself, greasy FAT wog.
>
>
>>>Common reasons for hunting include being with family or friends,
>
> escaping
>
>>>urban life and trophy hunting. All of which can be achieved without
>
> killing.
>
>>Food?!
>
>
> You've been sucesfully subdued into converting a need for food, in to a want
> for meat by a multi-billion dollar industry.
>
>
>>Have you ever been hunting?
>
>
> Not with a gun. I have found and taken pictures of wild animals, if that can
> be called 'hunting'.
It can't, queer wog.
>
>
>>Do you have friends who are hunters?
>
>
> Yes.
Liar.
>
>
>>I'm trying to figure out your source of all this knowledge.
>
>
> It's common knowledge.
Translation: WankHar doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3F1CA895...@whitehouse.not...
snip
Why did Anne dump you? Was it because you were bald, short, nasty or have
hairy tits? What was it ~~jonnie~~?
LOL. :-)
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3F1CA895...@whitehouse.not...
> snip
>
> Why did Anne dump you?
Stupidity. She regretted it.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Zakhar
Jonathan Ball
[crap]
Why did you leave your wog bog, GregGeo...WankHar?
Why the FUCK can't you learn to write decent English?
Why do you continue to molest your boys sexually?
Haven't you been warned by the courts?
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Yes, yours.
>She regretted it.
Yes, the day she met you.
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:iheTa.114810$Io.98...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:3F1CA895...@whitehouse.not...
>>>snip
>>>
>>>Why did Anne dump you?
>>
>>Stupidity.
>
>
> Yes, yours.
Nope; hers.
>
>
>>She regretted it.
>
>
> Yes, the day she met you.
No. She regretted having dumped me.