Canada Seal Hunt
Lee Bell
attention to what radical tree huggers have to say. Like the Brady Bunch,
they've been known to lie. This one, however, sort of got my attention.
True or false?
Lee
--------------------------------------
Canada Seal Hunt
The largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals on the planet is set to
begin in late March. By the end of the hunt, it's predicted that more than
300,000 seals will have been clubbed or shot to death -- many of them babies
as young as 12 days old. Last year, a shocking 98.5% of the seals killed
were two months old or younger, and some were skinned while still conscious
and able to feel pain. We expect more of the same during this year's hunt.
Seal hunting is an off-season activity conducted by fishermen from Canada's
east coast. They earn, on average, a small fraction of their incomes from
seal hunting -- the rest comes from commercial fisheries.
Grumman-581
news:xXGEf.14127$vp6....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I got this from the Humane Society of the US. I don't normally pay
> attention to what radical tree huggers have to say. Like the Brady Bunch,
> they've been known to lie. This one, however, sort of got my attention.
> True or false?
Culling / harvesting the herd... 300K out of a 5M population according to:
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050401_seal_hunt.html
Supposedly, the seals do a pretty good number on the cod population...
Matthias Voss
A friend of mine, with whom I filmed miles of underwater
video, had been on the Sea Sheperds ship during another
years campaign against seal slaughter. His pics were moving,
stated the worst, but also showed how cute and beautiful the
young baby seals were, when left unslaughtered, and filmed
face to face.
Matthias
Popeye
"Lee Bell" <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:xXGEf.14127$vp6....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>attention to what radical tree huggers have to say. Like the Brady Bunch,
>they've been known to lie. This one, however, sort of got my attention.
>True or false?
>
> Lee
> --------------------------------------
> Canada Seal Hunt
>
>
>
> The largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals on the planet is set to
> begin in late March. By the end of the hunt, it's predicted that more than
> 300,000 seals will have been clubbed or shot to death -- many of them
> babies as young as 12 days old. Last year, a shocking 98.5% of the seals
> killed were two months old or younger, and some were skinned while still
> conscious and able to feel pain. We expect more of the same during this
> year's hunt.
You'd think at least one of those pontificating, flatulent Canadian
windbags would have a few comments on whether seal slaughterers get camo'd
up for the massacre, or how the seal murderers would face their victims
unarmed if the were -man- enough.
Unless they're relatives of John Francis, that is.
Lee Bell
> Supposedly, the seals do a pretty good number on the cod population...
Imagine that. They eat their natural food.
Bryan Heit
> You'd think at least one of those pontificating, flatulent Canadian
> windbags
I don't think I've ever pontificated. I am, however, particularly ripe
this morning ;-)
> would have a few comments on whether seal slaughterers get camo'd
> up for the massacre,
Nope. They usually wear those bright orange sea rescue vests. So
they're easy to find if they fall off the boat. Newfies (the main guy's
who do the seal hunt) drink a lot, so this is a real problem.
> or how the seal murderers would face their victims
> unarmed if the were -man- enough.
Um, they go after them with clubs. A little more humane then just
strangling them. Personally, I don't like it (they're killed so stupid
rich people can wear fur, not for food), but it feeds the kids...
Bryan
JOF
These are working men. Any camo in sight is probably coincidental,
picked up cheap at a war surplus store or Walmart for price rather
than style. I gather there's not a lot of stealth involved in getting
close to the seals. And I doubt it's a question of guts since, at
least as I understand it, most if not all of these hunters are the
same guys who work the Atlantic fishing boats. That's a tough life,
not for the testicularly challenged.
Some info for those who care:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/1995/hq-ac07_e.htm
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/marine/harseal.php
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=142165
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
http://www.iwmc.org/release/2005/050315e.htm
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/SustainableJuly05/Seals.htm
It's hard to know what the truth really is, but certainly activists
using stunts like this do more harm than good for the credibility of
their cause.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7516378/
> Unless they're relatives of John Francis, that is.
No relatives that I know of out on The Rock, By. 8)
But I can tell you that by and large the folks I've met who came from
there were pretty good stuff, nice down to earth people, even if they
do speak an incomprehensible language and occasionally trick us
mainland fools into trying those little gobbets of white
chicken-looking meat before sharing the truth with us.
You already know I'm hypocritically not a fan of hunting, so of course
I'm hardly going to support the killing of seals for sport. On the
other hand I eat meat (hence the admission of hypocricy), whether
harvested from the sea or from land, from wild stocks or farm-raised
stock. I won't compound my hypocricy by criticizing subsistence
harvesting of seals, whether for the personal use of the meat and hide
or for the sale of same to world markets to get the mortgage money.
It's not like there's a wealth of high paying jobs on offer for those
who wish to remain on the island, and perhaps they prefer staying home
to moving to California to harvest Greg's strawberries.
Whether the clubbing of seals is any more or less humane than shooting
a deer in the ass (or spine, whatever) and cheering it's death throes
is debatable of course. I suppose the big difference there is that on
one hand you are dealing only with a handful of struggling working
class folks trying to feed their families. On the other you have
millions of "sportsmen" backed by the full weight of the NRA
advertising and lobbying machine.
JF
Popeye
"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfo6u1hshpa68f4fn...@4ax.com...
> You already know I'm hypocritically not a fan of hunting, so of course
> I'm hardly going to support the killing of seals for sport.
But you sure can rationalize the hell out of it.
Of course, it's north of the border, so it's "different".
John Francis
I figgered you'd struggle with a sensible response to your
machinations.
JF
John Francis
wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Bryan Heit rista
>
>> Newfies (the main guy's
>> who do the seal hunt) drink a lot, so this is a real problem.
>
>Writing stereotypical insults in a public forum is a really stupid
>thing for a grad student to do, Bryan.
It's not an insult to point out that someone drinks a lot in
rec.scuba. Those "bys" would fit right in here.
JF
Froggy
Lee Bell wrote:
> I got this from the Humane Society of the US. I don't normally pay
> attention to what radical tree huggers have to say. Like the Brady Bunch,
> they've been known to lie. This one, however, sort of got my attention.
> True or false?
>
I just can't believe that you need to ask that question.
The "tree huggers" have campaigned actively against this practice since
the 60's (Brigitte Bardot was leading the movement in France, and she
was still relatively young...) This was a high-profile topic, alongside
whale hunting.
That's the problem with the principle of always shooting the messenger
first.
You never get the message.
BTW not only is the earth round, but it is orbiting around the sun ;-)
Cheers,
Froggy
Greg Mossman
news:cfo6u1hshpa68f4fn...@4ax.com...
> It's not like there's a wealth of high paying jobs on offer for those
> who wish to remain on the island, and perhaps they prefer staying home
> to moving to California to harvest Greg's strawberries.
"Q: What happens to the seal meat after they are killed?
Paul Watson: Most of the meat is wasted and also left on the ice. Some if it
is sold to fur farms and some is ground up into animal feed. A few thousand
seal flippers are sold for human consumption in Newfoundland. There is a
limited market for the seal penis to the Far East as some sort of voodoo
quack remedy for impotence."
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_faq.html
Strawberries may bleed as red as seals, but they're at least used as a food
source.
In California, our seals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
It's illegal to even touch one, let alone club it in the head and peel its
skin from its bloody writhing agonized carcass. Your superiority act might
work against those southerners, but never on a Californian. We're better
than everyone else.
Popeye
"John Francis" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n607u112t1n2lhh7c...@4ax.com...
The response was predetermined well before the original post existed.
>
> JF
>
Popeye
Grumman-581
> Imagine that. They eat their natural food.
Yep, problem is though, we also have a taste for it... As most animals
eventually learn, if you compete with man for something, you usually
loose...
Of course, it boils down to supply and demand... If the European countries
and China did not buy the skins, it is unlikely the harvesting of the seals
would be as extensive...
One might wonder if we can compare the harvest to our harvesting of deer...
According to
http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/s/h_deer_forecast05_TX.html, we came
into 2005 with an estimate of nearly 4M whitetail deer in Texas... The 2005
harvest was 433,387... So, if you look at it from a numbers standpoint, the
seal harvest is harvesting a smaller percentage per year than we do deer...
According to http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20050110d,
there are 1.5M deer-car collisions... I would hazard to guess that a very
good percentage of these are fatal...
John Francis
<Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>"John Francis" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:n607u112t1n2lhh7c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:41:22 -0500, "Popeye"
>> <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cfo6u1hshpa68f4fn...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> You already know I'm hypocritically not a fan of hunting, so of course
>>>> I'm hardly going to support the killing of seals for sport.
>>>
>>> But you sure can rationalize the hell out of it.
>>>
>>> Of course, it's north of the border, so it's "different".
>>
>> I figgered you'd struggle with a sensible response to your
>> machinations.
>
> The response was predetermined well before the original post existed.
Yes. We knew that already.
JF
John Francis
wrote:
I said that in the humblest possible way as a one time strawberry
picker with the sunburn scar at the top of my butt to prove it.
JF
Popeye
Yes, I've empirically proved it at your expense several times now.
================================================
Dear John;
Here's your asswhipping in black and white, including your attacks on the
Tampa cops who were just defending themselves.
Don't worry, though, I'm sure Cheryl will be around to hoist her skirt for
ya in a minute.
When they're Canadian:
=============================================
>> >JOF wrote:
>> >> Then they may actually not have had any real chance to defend
>> >> themselves as has been suggested here?
>> > There's no doubt that they didn't have an adaquate chance to
>defend
>> >themselves.
>> > Why, is the question.
>> That's right.
> So, as an experienced Canadian, why do you think that was?
How would I know? I wasn't there. None of us were there though, were we?
JF
==============================================
I suppose we'll never know for sure until the results of the
investigation are released, if they are.
We're all just making assumptions without facts now, and each of us
has our own agenda to follow, so we're not likely to come to a meeting
of the minds without facts, are we?
JR
=============================================
> Without making judgement until more facts are clear, there are a
>-number- of questions to be answered here so far.
Yes. No more judgements.
JF
============================================
> Later we can debate attitudes, body armor, and entering the domain of
>an armed felon not wearing a service weapon.
It would be interesting to get a real cop's input here.
JF
============================================
>> It would be interesting to get a real cop's input here.
> I've cited several Canadian cops.
I meant a real cop here in rec.scuba to perhaps explain something of
procedures as well as shedding some light on what might have gone down
in a bust like this.
JF
===========================================
I hope if there was any fault to be laid, it was with the process and
not the individuals... Hopefully it will all be resolved
with those boys taking no blame for what happened to them.
JF
===========================================
They had many reasons to think he was gone from the property. Beyond
that, you're right, we just don't know.
JF
===========================================
We don't have the facts yet to know, unless you have an inside track
to the police reports.
JF
===========================================
> When you find me attacking any of these Mounties personally, let us
>know.
But accusing them of ineptitude is not a form of attack?
JF
==========================================
Shall we call a truce until the mounties announce the results of their
investigation?
JF
=========================================
When they're American:
-----------------------------------------
>Proof that one should be responsible for their own safety and not assume
>that the cops are going to protect or save you...
Or proof that the Tampa police have to work on their hiring and
training standards.
JF
-----------------------------------------
> Shit just happens.
So does incompetent help.
JF
-----------------------------------------
> And that relates to the situation that we're discussing that you chose to
>add your hypocritical comments to in what way?
Maybe those cops shouldn't have been allowed to have grownup toys yet?
JF
-----------------------------------------
You're reaching way too hard on that one. I'm being perfectly
consistent here. Grumman jumped to the conclusion "that one should be
responsible for their own safety and not assume that the cops are
going to protect or save you." and I suggested an alternative
interpretation.
JF
-----------------------------------------
Check.
Bon Appétit.
JF
>
> JF
>
>
Bryan Heit
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Bryan Heit rista
>
>
>>who do the seal hunt) drink a lot, so this is a real problem.
>
>
> thing
And yet it's OK for you to do the same in regards to Americans?
"gunhugging moron buddies", etc
Pot, meet kettle.
Of course, if you you were actually able to count past three then you
might see the irony of your statement.
Bryan
Bryan Heit
abroad) is that it seems to be unnessisarily cruel. Many seals are
killed using clubs, which a lot of people consider too cave-man-ish for
todays society.
Every year the government monitors the hunts (and they've been
challenged in court), and not once has anyone been able to prove it is
inhumane. I vaguely remember a news report from last year talking about
the humanness of the hunt, and it didn't sound any worse then hunting
with a gun (I'll see if I can dig up the article).
As for the "animals skinned alive", etc, those are largely stories
spread by the animal "rights" groups. If that were happening there is
no doubt that the people involved would be charged. And yet after
decades of government monitoring the only changes I've ever heard of
have been in regards to contacts between the fishermen and animal rights
activists.
Bryan
dazed and confuzzed
<snip>
> You already know I'm hypocritically not a fan of hunting, so of course
> I'm hardly going to support the killing of seals for sport. On the
> other hand I eat meat (hence the admission of hypocricy), whether
> harvested from the sea or from land, from wild stocks or farm-raised
> stock. I won't compound my hypocricy by criticizing subsistence
> harvesting of seals, whether for the personal use of the meat and hide
> or for the sale of same to world markets to get the mortgage money.
> It's not like there's a wealth of high paying jobs on offer for those
> who wish to remain on the island, and perhaps they prefer staying home
> to moving to California to harvest Greg's strawberries.
>
> Whether the clubbing of seals is any more or less humane than shooting
> a deer in the ass (or spine, whatever) and cheering it's death throes
> is debatable of course. I suppose the big difference there is that on
> one hand you are dealing only with a handful of struggling working
> class folks trying to feed their families. On the other you have
> millions of "sportsmen" backed by the full weight of the NRA
> advertising and lobbying machine.
Yet again you show ignorance....
Fully one half of my red meat consumption is venison. It saves money (vs
beef), and it is better tasting and much healthier. No matter what, an
animal dies every time you eat a steak. The fact that it is a "cute"
deer vs a cow is the only difference.
At least you admit the hypocrisy. Yet you spew it regardless.
>
> JF
>
>
--
The Universe is utterly indifferent to the fact that you do not realize
the consequences of your actions
________________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
JOF
And you still don't read for comprehension. What kind of glasses do
they give you guys that filter out all meaning except that which you
hope for? 8)
JF
dazed and confuzzed
nis...@postmaster.co.uk
> HostlBuddha wrote:
> > Bjórrúnar skaltu Bryan Heit rista
> >
> >
> >>Newfies (the main guy's
> >>who do the seal hunt) drink a lot, so this is a real problem.
> >
> > Writing stereotypical insults in a public forum is a really stupid
>
> And yet it's OK for you to do the same in regards to Americans?
Well Bryan, for starters, I'm not a grad student. Second, I am a US
citizen.
I suppose you don't care about moving beyond a Masters degree. Either
that or you aren't aware that running a google search on applicants is
becoming standard practice.
Popeye
"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:kf2dnR1d1_b0Zn7e...@comcast.com...
Spellcheck time.
nis...@postmaster.co.uk
Those r.s. bys after trying to pull their crap in St. Johns.
JOF
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>> And you still don't read for comprehension. What kind of glasses do
>> they give you guys that filter out all meaning except that which you
>> hope for? 8)
>>
>So spell it out for me.
Why?
JF
dazed and confuzzed
Then don't.
I was trying to see if you had a point. Once in a while you do.
But I guess not.
Perhaps Doug is right.
Scott
news:kf2dnR1d1_b0Zn7e...@comcast.com...
> > JF
<chop the pablum>
> So spell it out for me.
"Mutually Exclusive"
Scott
news:B_OdnQ8QUPSGhnne...@comcast.com...
> JOF wrote:
> > Why?
Good question.
> Then don't.
>
> I was trying to see if you had a point. Once in a while you do.
>
> But I guess not.
>
> Perhaps Doug is right.
A lot of people are "right".
John is just fucked up.
Popeye
JOF
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>JOF wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:55:05 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>And you still don't read for comprehension. What kind of glasses do
>>>>they give you guys that filter out all meaning except that which you
>>>>hope for? 8)
>>>>
>>>
>>>So spell it out for me.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>Then don't.
>
>I was trying to see if you had a point. Once in a while you do.
Thank you.
>But I guess not.
Wrong guess.
>Perhaps Doug is right.
Decidedly.
JF
JOF
wrote:
Particularly here.
>John is just fucked up.
What's yer base line?
JF
Matthias Voss
the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe
and supplied with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic
behaviour, and that is, and has been, the fault of the
Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus depriving the
fisherman of their job)
And the government also instigates bland violation of
international sea law.
If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
Matthias
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:26:00 -0500, "Popeye"
> <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Lee Bell" <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:xXGEf.14127$vp6....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>>I got this from the Humane Society of the US. I don't normally pay
>>>attention to what radical tree huggers have to say. Like the Brady Bunch,
>>>they've been known to lie. This one, however, sort of got my attention.
>>>True or false?
>>>
>>>Lee
>>>--------------------------------------
>>>Canada Seal Hunt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals on the planet is set to
>>>begin in late March. By the end of the hunt, it's predicted that more than
>>>300,000 seals will have been clubbed or shot to death -- many of them
>>>babies as young as 12 days old. Last year, a shocking 98.5% of the seals
>>>killed were two months old or younger, and some were skinned while still
>>>conscious and able to feel pain. We expect more of the same during this
>>>year's hunt.
>>
>>
>> You'd think at least one of those pontificating, flatulent Canadian
>>windbags would have a few comments on whether seal slaughterers get camo'd
>>up for the massacre, or how the seal murderers would face their victims
>>unarmed if the were -man- enough.
>
>
> These are working men. Any camo in sight is probably coincidental,
> picked up cheap at a war surplus store or Walmart for price rather
> than style. I gather there's not a lot of stealth involved in getting
> close to the seals. And I doubt it's a question of guts since, at
> least as I understand it, most if not all of these hunters are the
> same guys who work the Atlantic fishing boats. That's a tough life,
> not for the testicularly challenged.
>
> Some info for those who care:
>
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/1995/hq-ac07_e.htm
>
> http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/marine/harseal.php
>
> http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=142165
>
> http://www.harpseals.org/
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> http://www.iwmc.org/release/2005/050315e.htm
>
> http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/SustainableJuly05/Seals.htm
>
> It's hard to know what the truth really is, but certainly activists
> using stunts like this do more harm than good for the credibility of
> their cause.
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7516378/
>
>
>> Unless they're relatives of John Francis, that is.
>
>
> No relatives that I know of out on The Rock, By. 8)
>
> But I can tell you that by and large the folks I've met who came from
> there were pretty good stuff, nice down to earth people, even if they
> do speak an incomprehensible language and occasionally trick us
> mainland fools into trying those little gobbets of white
> chicken-looking meat before sharing the truth with us.
>
> You already know I'm hypocritically not a fan of hunting, so of course
> I'm hardly going to support the killing of seals for sport. On the
> other hand I eat meat (hence the admission of hypocricy), whether
> harvested from the sea or from land, from wild stocks or farm-raised
> stock. I won't compound my hypocricy by criticizing subsistence
> harvesting of seals, whether for the personal use of the meat and hide
> or for the sale of same to world markets to get the mortgage money.
> It's not like there's a wealth of high paying jobs on offer for those
> who wish to remain on the island, and perhaps they prefer staying home
> to moving to California to harvest Greg's strawberries.
>
> Whether the clubbing of seals is any more or less humane than shooting
> a deer in the ass (or spine, whatever) and cheering it's death throes
> is debatable of course. I suppose the big difference there is that on
> one hand you are dealing only with a handful of struggling working
> class folks trying to feed their families. On the other you have
> millions of "sportsmen" backed by the full weight of the NRA
> advertising and lobbying machine.
>
> JF
>
>
JOF
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>John,
>
>the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe
>and supplied with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic
>behaviour, and that is, and has been, the fault of the
>Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus depriving the
>fisherman of their job)
I've heard that before. I have a few problems with it. Why do the
sealers do it?
Surely it's not merely to satisfy some primitive instinct to kill. The
same kind of seal hunts have occurred (and some still do) in other
parts of the world. Declining animal populations and failing markets
brought pressure to end some of those without the locals feeling the
need to continue the slaughter out of "atavism".
But assuming for a moment there's no economic value or subsistence
justification for the kill, why on earth would any government support
it in the face of worldwide humanitarian outcry, particularly a govt
of Canadians, given our propensity for playing it safe diplomatically
with the rest of the world.
>And the government also instigates bland violation of
>international sea law.
With all due respect, what law and how?
There's a 1911 thing that appears to apply to Pacific waters, and
there are trade embargo interpretation issues with the US vs the world
under GATT and WTO agreements.
>If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
We already slaughter cows in huge numbers without craving grass. 8)
JF
Matthias Voss
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:23:36 +0100, Matthias Voss
> <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>John,
>>
>>the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe
>>and supplied with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic
>>behaviour, and that is, and has been, the fault of the
>>Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus depriving the
>>fisherman of their job)
>
>
> I've heard that before. I have a few problems with it. Why do the
> sealers do it?
For the same reasons the Japanese fishermen mass-kill Dolphins.
They are worried because of the declining catches, which are
due to overfishing.
Since all they can do is fishing, and overfishing, they are
happy for being given an enemy who they can fight.
Being given an enemy deflects from thinking for themselves.
> Surely it's not merely to satisfy some primitive instinct to kill. The
> same kind of seal hunts have occurred (and some still do) in other
> parts of the world.
Whatever is hunted for that same reasons. Attach a star to
someone, and have hunting season.
And don't fortget to vote for them who give you the right to
hunt.
>Declining animal populations and failing markets
> brought pressure to end some of those without the locals feeling the
> need to continue the slaughter out of "atavism".
There is nothing wrong for the Inuit to hunt and kill seals.
For some strange reason, they prefer grown-up ones.
> But assuming for a moment there's no economic value or subsistence
> justification for the kill, why on earth would any government support
> it in the face of worldwide humanitarian outcry, particularly a govt
> of Canadians, given our propensity for playing it safe diplomatically
> with the rest of the world.
The rest of the world doesn't elect your government, does
it? If it were so, the Canadians would probably refrain from
harveting their rainforests.
>>And the government also instigates bland violation of
>>international sea law.
>
>
> With all due respect, what law and how?
They do not sanction violations of right of way, assaults by
using the ship as a weapon. See Paul Watson's logbook.
He was arrested for hindering wrongful practice of canadian
fishermen in international waters.
>>If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
>
>
> We already slaughter cows in huge numbers without craving grass. 8)
Not yet...
Matthias
Mike from Ottawa
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>This is all true.
>
>A friend of mine, with whom I filmed miles of underwater
>video, had been on the Sea Sheperds ship during another
>years campaign against seal slaughter. His pics were moving,
>stated the worst, but also showed how cute and beautiful the
> young baby seals were, when left unslaughtered, and filmed
>face to face.
>
>Matthias
The cute, white coat seal pups have not been harvested since 1987.
Maybe it would be more palatable if the seals were scaly and ugly.
---
Mike from Ottawa
Popeye
Popeye
Yeah, uh, hi there, John.
If you ever wanted to see what an -asskicking- looks like, that I'm -not-
delivering, just keep reading.
"Matthias Voss" <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ds2ipv$n3f$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
JOF
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>JOF wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:23:36 +0100, Matthias Voss
>> <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John,
>>>
>>>the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe
>>>and supplied with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic
>>>behaviour, and that is, and has been, the fault of the
>>>Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus depriving the
>>>fisherman of their job)
>>
>>
>> I've heard that before. I have a few problems with it. Why do the
>> sealers do it?
>
>For the same reasons the Japanese fishermen mass-kill Dolphins.
>They are worried because of the declining catches, which are
>due to overfishing.
>Since all they can do is fishing, and overfishing, they are
>happy for being given an enemy who they can fight.
>Being given an enemy deflects from thinking for themselves.
So the Canadian fishermen see the seals as another threat to their
livelihood. At least this is a threat they can try to deal with.
>> Surely it's not merely to satisfy some primitive instinct to kill. The
>> same kind of seal hunts have occurred (and some still do) in other
>> parts of the world.
>
>Whatever is hunted for that same reasons. Attach a star to
>someone, and have hunting season.
>And don't fortget to vote for them who give you the right to
>hunt.
The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
their livelihood legally?
>>Declining animal populations and failing markets
>> brought pressure to end some of those without the locals feeling the
>> need to continue the slaughter out of "atavism".
>
>There is nothing wrong for the Inuit to hunt and kill seals.
>For some strange reason, they prefer grown-up ones.
The Alaskan hunt was I believe ended due to threatened extinction of a
particular seal there. As far as I know the Norwegians, the Africans
and others still have the hunts as well. Are their reasons better?
>> But assuming for a moment there's no economic value or subsistence
>> justification for the kill, why on earth would any government support
>> it in the face of worldwide humanitarian outcry, particularly a govt
>> of Canadians, given our propensity for playing it safe diplomatically
>> with the rest of the world.
>
>The rest of the world doesn't elect your government, does
>it? If it were so, the Canadians would probably refrain from
>harveting their rainforests.
This goes back to the justification for the hunt.
>>>And the government also instigates bland violation of
>>>international sea law.
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, what law and how?
>
>They do not sanction violations of right of way, assaults by
>using the ship as a weapon. See Paul Watson's logbook.
>He was arrested for hindering wrongful practice of canadian
>fishermen in international waters.
Haven't found that cite yet but ecological terrorists tend to get
little sympathy regardless of the propriety of their cause.
>>>If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
>>
>>
>> We already slaughter cows in huge numbers without craving grass. 8)
>
>Not yet...
>
I doubt I'll ever crave that kind of grass, but we certainly slaughter
huge numbers of cattle, pigs and sheep etc. We've even added farm bred
ostrich, emu, buffalo and elk to our Canuck table fare.
JF
JOF
Perhaps. It reminds me of your tedious rote defence of the rights of
gun owners and the importance of guns in our civilized culture? But
I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
JF
Lee Bell
> the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe and supplied
> with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic behaviour, and that is, and
> has been, the fault of the Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus
> depriving the fisherman of their job)
I might buy that as an excuse, but I don't buy it as a reason for the
killings. I'd put my bet on money being the motivation.
Lee
Lee Bell
> Declining animal populations and failing markets . . .
Declining populations drive supply and demand based prices higher. While
the masses probably don't care much about having a seal skin coat, I think
it's pretty safe to say that there are those, to whom money is not much of
an object, who still like their fur coats.
Lee
Lee Bell
> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
> their livelihood legally?
You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
outselves legally.
Lee
Lee Bell
> Perhaps. It reminds me of your tedious rote defence of the rights of
> gun owners and the importance of guns in our civilized culture?
Which you clearly think is wrong. Why don't you apply the same standard
when it's Canadians?
Lee
Lee Bell
> The cute, white coat seal pups have not been harvested since 1987.
The US Humane Society, who say they were, and will be there, say you're
mistaken.
Lee
Popeye
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:26:26 -0500, "Popeye"
> <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message;
>>
>> <more tedious partisan rationalization>
>
> Perhaps. It reminds me of your tedious rote defence of the rights of
> gun owners and the importance of guns in our civilized culture?
Actually, I rarely make any such claims.
This is just "rote" slimy Canadian innuendo.
My point is now, and always has been, that I'll carry a gun whenever and
where ever I damn well please, legally if I can and Illegally if I must.
I don't give a -damn- what the constitution says, or how who interprets it
this week or next.
But you would have to possess basic reading comprehension skills, and take
your hands off your ears, to have gleaned that.
Thanks for playing.
>But I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
> from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
And as I correct you -again-, for the -second time- in a -week-, I don't
quote the NRA.
You're coming unraveled, dude.
Maybe you should take your pussy ass back to Scubaboard where your kind
belong.
>
> JF
>
Popeye
I didn't quite catch his cite, either.
>
> Lee
>
JOF
You equate shooting people and killing seals?
JF
JOF
What doesn't money drive these days?
JF
Lee Bell
>>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
>>> their livelihood legally?
>>
>>You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
>>outselves legally.
>
> You equate shooting people and killing seals?
Do you see the word shooting anywhere in my statement?
You are the one that suggested that legally protecting their source of
income by beating a bunch of seals, who have no hope of defending
themselves, to death with clubs is OK. Do you equate protecting your right
to overfish the world's resources for profit with protecting the life of
your family?
Let's get specific. Which do you find more appropriate?
Lee
Lee Bell
>>> the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe and supplied
>>> with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic behaviour, and that is,
>>> and
>>> has been, the fault of the Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus
>>> depriving the fisherman of their job)
>>
>>I might buy that as an excuse, but I don't buy it as a reason for the
>>killings. I'd put my bet on money being the motivation.
>
> What doesn't money drive these days?
If you can't answer that for yourself, I'm afraid telling you would do no
good.
Lee
Matthias Voss
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:55:45 +0100, Matthias Voss
> <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>This is all true.
>>
>>A friend of mine, with whom I filmed miles of underwater
>>video, had been on the Sea Sheperds ship during another
>>years campaign against seal slaughter. His pics were moving,
>>stated the worst, but also showed how cute and beautiful the
>> young baby seals were, when left unslaughtered, and filmed
>>face to face.
>>
>>Matthias
>
>
> The cute, white coat seal pups have not been harvested since 1987.
Sorry. Mr. Jens Paschke(Then with "Aldebaran Marine Research
and Broadcast) filmed the slaughter in 1997 or 1998. He was
onboard the Sea Shepherd. I saw his pictures.
Matthias
Matthias Voss
Popeye
Spellcheck time.
Grumman-581
news:6cs9u15iqeu3fnifv...@4ax.com...
> Maybe it would be more palatable if the seals were scaly and ugly.
Yeah, I don't hear the PETA folks screaming for protection of amadillos from
becoming roadkill...
dazed and confuzzed
--
The Universe is utterly indifferent to the fact that you do not realize
the consequences of your actions
________________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Matthias Voss
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:54:05 +0100, Matthias Voss
> <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>JOF wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:23:36 +0100, Matthias Voss
>>><spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>the real problem is, that the seal slayers are made believe
>>>>and supplied with all the wrong reasons for their atavistic
>>>>behaviour, and that is, and has been, the fault of the
>>>>Canadian government. ( seals eating cod, thus depriving the
>>>>fisherman of their job)
>>>
>>>
>>>I've heard that before. I have a few problems with it. Why do the
>>>sealers do it?
>>
>>For the same reasons the Japanese fishermen mass-kill Dolphins.
>>They are worried because of the declining catches, which are
>>due to overfishing.
>>Since all they can do is fishing, and overfishing, they are
>>happy for being given an enemy who they can fight.
>>Being given an enemy deflects from thinking for themselves.
>
>
> So the Canadian fishermen see the seals as another threat to their
> livelihood. At least this is a threat they can try to deal with.
They see what they are made believe they should see.
For those who-make-them-them see they are nothing but voting
cattle.
If you dig the reasoning that all the multitude of seals
deprave them of their well deserved cod, then spend a minute
reading the fishery statistics and regulations. With that
little cod left from overfishing, how in the world could the
seal's population grow that big?
> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
> their livelihood legally?
Any government is wrong when it does not evaluate the impact
of its actions.
I would refrain from calling sanctionizing violations of
international law, and well established codes of good
practice defending someone's livelihood legally.
>>>Declining animal populations and failing markets
>>>brought pressure to end some of those without the locals feeling the
>>>need to continue the slaughter out of "atavism".
>>
>>There is nothing wrong for the Inuit to hunt and kill seals.
>>For some strange reason, they prefer grown-up ones.
>
>
> The Alaskan hunt was I believe ended due to threatened extinction of a
> particular seal there. As far as I know the Norwegians, the Africans
> and others still have the hunts as well. Are their reasons better?
Not the Norwegians. They even invite tourist with the
attraction of being able to hunt, kill, and slit the seal's
intestines. Knowing that the seal hunters will not object to
their violations of the IWC rules.
I do not know about the african seal hunt, that would be
S.A., where the seals are hunted by great whites as well.
Still I might think, in South Africa there is a different
practice, the country being times poorer as Canada and Norway.
>>>>And the government also instigates bland violation of
>>>>international sea law.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, what law and how?
Triboard passes Starboard.
That you must not hinder the course of a ship in
international waters.
>>They do not sanction violations of right of way, assaults by
>>using the ship as a weapon. See Paul Watson's logbook.
>>He was arrested for hindering wrongful practice of canadian
>>fishermen in international waters.
>
>
> Haven't found that cite yet but ecological terrorists tend to get
> little sympathy regardless of the propriety of their cause.
By some government, that is true. Paul was very well
received in Hamburg, though.
The canadian government, though, seems to be blind on one
eye, though, and shows only little more contenance, with
regards to this part of ecology, than, say, the Somalian as
a whole, with respect to international affairs.
>>>>If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
>>>
>>>
>>>We already slaughter cows in huge numbers without craving grass. 8)
>>
>>Not yet...
>>
>
> I doubt I'll ever crave that kind of grass, but we certainly slaughter
> huge numbers of cattle, pigs and sheep etc. We've even added farm bred
> ostrich, emu, buffalo and elk to our Canuck table fare.
If you happen to be in Jo'burg, S.A., have dinner at "The
Train".
But to extend a bit on the rain forest. We( the world) need
that capacity of oxygen metabolism, soil erosion
preventation, etc. Now. Did you know that 30% of the dust
fallout in L.A. comes from China?
regards
Matthias
Matthias Voss
Like you find in employment programs for the otherwise
unemployed fishermen, because of adverse weather conditions.
Matthias
Dennis (Icarus)
Perhaps they weren't cute, or had a touch of premature gray in their coats,
that made it ok.
Dennis
>
> Matthias
>
JOF
<plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"JOF" wrote
>
>>>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
>>>> their livelihood legally?
>>>
>>>You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
>>>outselves legally.
>>
>> You equate shooting people and killing seals?
>
>Do you see the word shooting anywhere in my statement?
Mea culpa. How were you going to defend yourself?
>You are the one that suggested that legally protecting their source of
>income by beating a bunch of seals, who have no hope of defending
>themselves, to death with clubs is OK. Do you equate protecting your right
>to overfish the world's resources for profit with protecting the life of
>your family?
Who is overfishing?
>Let's get specific. Which do you find more appropriate?
Prove first to me that the Canadians are overfishing the Banks.
JF
JOF
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>How does Emu taste??
I'm not sure I've ever tried it. If I have it was evidently
forgettable. There are some farms in my area.
JF
JOF
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> So the Canadian fishermen see the seals as another threat to their
>> livelihood. At least this is a threat they can try to deal with.
>
>They see what they are made believe they should see.
>
>For those who-make-them-them see they are nothing but voting
>cattle.
So are you saying the politicians invented the cod killer ploy to
trick the fishermen into killing seals. Rather elaborate plot to get
votes, isn't it?
>If you dig the reasoning that all the multitude of seals
>deprave them of their well deserved cod, then spend a minute
>reading the fishery statistics and regulations. With that
>little cod left from overfishing, how in the world could the
>seal's population grow that big?
At the risk of sounding glib I suppose it's safer and easier to kill
the seals than to try shooting it out with European and American
poachers.
>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
>> their livelihood legally?
>
>Any government is wrong when it does not evaluate the impact
>of its actions.
>I would refrain from calling sanctionizing violations of
>international law, and well established codes of good
>practice defending someone's livelihood legally.
I'm not sure what you're saying there.
>>>>Declining animal populations and failing markets
>>>>brought pressure to end some of those without the locals feeling the
>>>>need to continue the slaughter out of "atavism".
>>>
>>>There is nothing wrong for the Inuit to hunt and kill seals.
>>>For some strange reason, they prefer grown-up ones.
>>
>>
>> The Alaskan hunt was I believe ended due to threatened extinction of a
>> particular seal there. As far as I know the Norwegians, the Africans
>> and others still have the hunts as well. Are their reasons better?
>
>Not the Norwegians. They even invite tourist with the
>attraction of being able to hunt, kill, and slit the seal's
>intestines. Knowing that the seal hunters will not object to
>their violations of the IWC rules.
>
>I do not know about the african seal hunt, that would be
>S.A., where the seals are hunted by great whites as well.
>Still I might think, in South Africa there is a different
>practice, the country being times poorer as Canada and Norway.
>
>
>>>>>And the government also instigates bland violation of
>>>>>international sea law.
>>>>
>>>>With all due respect, what law and how?
>
>Triboard passes Starboard.
>That you must not hinder the course of a ship in
>international waters.
Sometimes the conventions are sacrificed to principles.
>>>They do not sanction violations of right of way, assaults by
>>>using the ship as a weapon. See Paul Watson's logbook.
>>>He was arrested for hindering wrongful practice of canadian
>>>fishermen in international waters.
>>
>>
>> Haven't found that cite yet but ecological terrorists tend to get
>> little sympathy regardless of the propriety of their cause.
>
>By some government, that is true. Paul was very well
>received in Hamburg, though.
>The canadian government, though, seems to be blind on one
>eye, though, and shows only little more contenance, with
>regards to this part of ecology, than, say, the Somalian as
>a whole, with respect to international affairs.
Perhaps my bias is showing.
>>>>>If you were fond of eating grass, would you mass-slaughter cows?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We already slaughter cows in huge numbers without craving grass. 8)
>>>
>>>Not yet...
>>>
>>
>> I doubt I'll ever crave that kind of grass, but we certainly slaughter
>> huge numbers of cattle, pigs and sheep etc. We've even added farm bred
>> ostrich, emu, buffalo and elk to our Canuck table fare.
>
>If you happen to be in Jo'burg, S.A., have dinner at "The
>Train".
>
>But to extend a bit on the rain forest. We( the world) need
>that capacity of oxygen metabolism, soil erosion
>preventation, etc. Now. Did you know that 30% of the dust
>fallout in L.A. comes from China?
We're told where I live that most of the airborne pollution that we
get comes from Michigan and points southwest. We get little sympathy
from the American govt on that. We get even by having Toronto ship
most of it's garbage to Michigan.
JF
JOF
Do we defend guns a lot here?
JF
Dennis (Icarus)
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:28:27 -0500, "Lee Bell"
> <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"JOF" wrote
> >
> >>>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
> >>>> their livelihood legally?
> >>>
> >>>You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
> >>>outselves legally.
> >>
> >> You equate shooting people and killing seals?
> >
> >Do you see the word shooting anywhere in my statement?
>
> Mea culpa. How were you going to defend yourself?
What the appropriate means to the situation?
Whether it be with a gun or a golf club?
JOF
<Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mc8au1he4aldaiivl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:26:26 -0500, "Popeye"
>> <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message;
>>>
>>> <more tedious partisan rationalization>
>>
>> Perhaps. It reminds me of your tedious rote defence of the rights of
>> gun owners and the importance of guns in our civilized culture?
>
> Actually, I rarely make any such claims.
Snicker.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
> This is just "rote" slimy Canadian innuendo.
>
> My point is now, and always has been, that I'll carry a gun whenever and
>where ever I damn well please, legally if I can and Illegally if I must.
So much for speaking on behalf of law abiding gun owners.
> I don't give a -damn- what the constitution says, or how who interprets it
>this week or next.
>
> But you would have to possess basic reading comprehension skills, and take
>your hands off your ears, to have gleaned that.
>
> Thanks for playing.
It's been fun.
>>But I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
>> from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
>
> And as I correct you -again-, for the -second time- in a -week-, I don't
>quote the NRA.
Paraphrase?
JF
JOF
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:73oau1d3op1maal6s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:28:27 -0500, "Lee Bell"
>> <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"JOF" wrote
>> >
>> >>>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
>> >>>> their livelihood legally?
>> >>>
>> >>>You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
>> >>>outselves legally.
>> >>
>> >> You equate shooting people and killing seals?
>> >
>> >Do you see the word shooting anywhere in my statement?
>>
>> Mea culpa. How were you going to defend yourself?
>
>What the appropriate means to the situation?
>Whether it be with a gun or a golf club?
Personally I prefer the golf club as weapon of choice. Of course
there's only been the one situation but it was an effective deterrent.
The dudes split. I'll never know if I'd have actually used the wedge
or not.
JF
Popeye
>>>> <more tedious partisan rationalization>
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It reminds me of your tedious rote defense of the rights of
>>> gun owners and the importance of guns in our civilized culture?
>>
>> Actually, I rarely make any such claims.
>
> Snicker.
>
> Sorry. I couldn't resist.
You certainly could resist citing your bogus Canadian innuendo.
>> This is just "rote" slimy Canadian innuendo.
>>
>> My point is now, and always has been, that I'll carry a gun whenever and
>>where ever I damn well please, legally if I can and Illegally if I must.
>
> So much for speaking on behalf of law abiding gun owners.
Never said I did.
I have explained some basic and obvious paradigms about law abiding gun
ownership that seem to escape you, in relation to your totalitarian,
Orwellian anti-gun position.
>> I don't give a -damn- what the constitution says, or how who interprets
>> it
>>this week or next.
>>
>> But you would have to possess basic reading comprehension skills, and
>> take
>>your hands off your ears, to have gleaned that.
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>
> It's been fun.
>
>>>But I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
>>> from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
>>
>> And as I correct you -again-, for the -second time- in a -week-, I don't
>>quote the NRA.
>
> Paraphrase?
You lie.
Having been -repeatedly- decimated on the topic, it's all you have left.
>
> JF
>
>
Lee Bell
>>>>> The gov't is wrong when it backs citizens who are trying to defend
>>>>> their livelihood legally?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to think we are wrong when we supported the right to defend
>>>>outselves legally.
>>>
>>> You equate shooting people and killing seals?
>>
>>Do you see the word shooting anywhere in my statement?
>
> Mea culpa. How were you going to defend yourself?
I didn't say that either. What I said was the right to do so. Get it
straight. It is the right that we're talking about, not the act.
>>You are the one that suggested that legally protecting their source of
>>income by beating a bunch of seals, who have no hope of defending
>>themselves, to death with clubs is OK. Do you equate protecting your
>>right
>>to overfish the world's resources for profit with protecting the life of
>>your family?
> Who is overfishing?
Your commercial fishing fleets (and ours, but ours aren't the ones killing
seals).
>>Let's get specific. Which do you find more appropriate?
> Prove first to me that the Canadians are overfishing the Banks.
No, first answer the question first asked.
Lee
Lee Bell
> At the risk of sounding glib I suppose it's safer and easier to kill
> the seals than to try shooting it out with European and American
> poachers.
I'm sure it is. Is there a point here somewhere?
Lee
Dennis (Icarus)
So that was the appropriate weapon for that situation.
Now, can you see situations where a firearm would be the weapon of choice?
Or will you begin advcating tha tthe police & military in Canada trn in
their firearms for golf clubs?
:-)
>
> JF
>
>
Dennis
Joe English
JOF
Sure I can. I'm sure you can as well. But then we both have impeccable
judgement. Would we could say the same of others.
JF
JOF
<plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>No, first answer the question first asked.
We're sounding like Abbott and Costello again.
JF
JOF
Yes.
JF
Popeye
Popeye
Popeye
Slllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.
>
> JF
>
dazed and confuzzed
doubt they think as you do, that they have good judgment as well.
Interesting that you feel the right to judge everyone else.
What percentage of the population do you feel has such poor judgment?
Lee Bell
>>So that was the appropriate weapon for that situation.
>>Now, can you see situations where a firearm would be the weapon of choice?
>>Or will you begin advcating tha tthe police & military in Canada trn in
>>their firearms for golf clubs?
>>:-)
> Sure I can. I'm sure you can as well. But then we both have impeccable
> judgement. Would we could say the same of others.
You didn't answer the other question.
You don't get top make decisions for others, particularly others who would
question just how impeccable your judgment might be.
Lee
Lee Bell
Not going to answer, are you?
JOF
<Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, I rarely make any such claims.
>>
>> Snicker.
>>
>> Sorry. I couldn't resist.
>
> You certainly could resist citing your bogus Canadian innuendo.
No I couldn't.
>>> This is just "rote" slimy Canadian innuendo.
>>>
>>> My point is now, and always has been, that I'll carry a gun whenever and
>>>where ever I damn well please, legally if I can and Illegally if I must.
>>
>> So much for speaking on behalf of law abiding gun owners.
>
> Never said I did.
>
> I have explained some basic and obvious paradigms about law abiding gun
>ownership that seem to escape you, in relation to your totalitarian,
>Orwellian anti-gun position.
I believe the word is declaimed. Run that by yer spellchecker.
>>> I don't give a -damn- what the constitution says, or how who interprets
>>> it
>>>this week or next.
>>>
>>> But you would have to possess basic reading comprehension skills, and
>>> take
>>>your hands off your ears, to have gleaned that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing.
>>
>> It's been fun.
>>
>>>>But I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
>>>> from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
>>>
>>> And as I correct you -again-, for the -second time- in a -week-, I don't
>>>quote the NRA.
>>
>> Paraphrase?
>
> You lie.
>
> Having been -repeatedly- decimated on the topic, it's all you have left.
You're delusional. No matter how many times you squeak "liar" it is
hardly gonna become decimation.
JF
Dennis (Icarus)
I'll add Lee Bell, Popeye, Scott, Curtis, and D&C, just to name a few.
We have laws for dealing with situation where folks show less than
impeccable judgement.Or, should we act pre-emptively in other areas as well?
After all, I believe we both agree that some drivers show poor judgement.
Should we restrict driving to only goverment agents?
(different from just a drivers license)
Some folks drink irresponsibly, even become violent when intoxicated -
should alcohol be banned?
>
> JF
>
Dennis
JOF
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>Of course, you are right, there are those who have bad judgment. No
>doubt they think as you do, that they have good judgment as well.
>
>Interesting that you feel the right to judge everyone else.
It's what makes me unique in rec.scuba
>What percentage of the population do you feel has such poor judgment?
Who knows? It's often too late after they're identified, isn't it?
JF
JOF
Sure I can. I can make all the judgements I want. I just can't force
anyone to accept them. It's the same with everyone here, in the same
way as no amount of intimidation and foul language is going to have
any real effect on anyone here. We're all too inured to it by now. We
could save a fortune in home heating if we could find a way to recycle
the hot air that gets wasted here.
JF
JOF
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:574cu1dd88djsmmr1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:02:45 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Personally I prefer the golf club as weapon of choice. Of course
>> >> there's only been the one situation but it was an effective deterrent.
>> >> The dudes split. I'll never know if I'd have actually used the wedge
>> >> or not.
>> >
>> >So that was the appropriate weapon for that situation.
>> >Now, can you see situations where a firearm would be the weapon of
>choice?
>> >Or will you begin advcating tha tthe police & military in Canada trn in
>> >their firearms for golf clubs?
>> >:-)
>> >
>> Sure I can. I'm sure you can as well. But then we both have impeccable
>> judgement. Would we could say the same of others.
>
>I'll add Lee Bell, Popeye, Scott, Curtis, and D&C, just to name a few.
>
>We have laws for dealing with situation where folks show less than
>impeccable judgement.Or, should we act pre-emptively in other areas as well?
>After all, I believe we both agree that some drivers show poor judgement.
>Should we restrict driving to only goverment agents?
>(different from just a drivers license)
I'm not sure that's gonna fly. How are govt agents better equipped as
drivers? Do you mean the secret service people and their tactical
driving training?
>Some folks drink irresponsibly, even become violent when intoxicated -
>should alcohol be banned?
Perhaps that would be a good deterrent to violence and crime. Make the
consumption of alcohol illegal for those found guilty of crimes while
under the influence. There's another kind of attenuation of rights for
which there may well be a strangely punctuated ammendment.
JF
JOF
Exactly
JF
JOF
<plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2e4cu15j8hbj42rnk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:11:46 -0500, "Lee Bell"
>> <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, first answer the question first asked.
>>
>> We're sounding like Abbott and Costello again.
>
>Not going to answer, are you?
>
Why? It's like crossing thin ice on a dare with no reward on the other
side.
JF
Popeye
>>>>>But I'm sure you'll have some trite phrasing to rationalize that too -
>>>>> from the gospel according to St.Chuck etched on the stone tablets.
>>>>
>>>> And as I correct you -again-, for the -second time- in a -week-, I
>>>> don't
>>>>quote the NRA.
>>>
>>> Paraphrase?
>>
>> You lie.
>>
>> Having been -repeatedly- decimated on the topic, it's all you have left.
>
> You're delusional. No matter how many times you squeak "liar" it is
> hardly gonna become decimation.
You lie.
I cite it.
Above, you are lying.
Again.
Popeye
Like a scalded dog.
>
> JF
>
JOF
<Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>> You lie.
>>>
>>> Having been -repeatedly- decimated on the topic, it's all you have left.
>>
>> You're delusional. No matter how many times you squeak "liar" it is
>> hardly gonna become decimation.
>
> You lie.
>
> I cite it.
>
> Above, you are lying.
Are you stuck at home due to snow too? I'm trying to concentrate on
income tax stuff, getting ready to ship it to the accountant. I'm
thankful for every distraction.
Keep up the good work. 8)
JF
Joe English
JOF
<J...@EnglishsBarDot.com> wrote:
>> Are you stuck at home due to snow too? I'm trying to concentrate on
>> income tax stuff, getting ready to ship it to the accountant. I'm
>> thankful for every distraction.
>I'm enjoying it 2
The trick, so I've been told, is to keep reminding yerself that you
should be happy you have an income on which to pay tax. Somehow I just
can't sell myself on the concept. The only blessing I can come up with
is the feeling of relief when it's all done for another year, and
that's fleeting at best.
I still like the idea of the govt prorating everyone's gross income
and forget about all the deductions nonsense. The rich would be only
slightly less rich, us little guys might even be better off, if only a
little more efficient in how we run our businesses, and the down and
out would still not pay anything. I'd certainly be happier, if only
for the fact that I'd only have to do one calculation every year. Of
course it would put a lot of bureaucrats out of work, and leave some
politicians with a lot of time on their hands.
Dammit Joe, we mighta just sorted out the North American economy. Who
says rec.scuba is a waste of bandwidth? Good work.
JF
bob crownfield
> "JOF" wrote
>
>>> So that was the appropriate weapon for that situation.
>>> Now, can you see situations where a firearm would be the weapon of choice?
>>> Or will you begin advcating tha tthe police & military in Canada trn in
>>> their firearms for golf clubs?
>>> :-)
>
>> Sure I can. I'm sure you can as well. But then we both have impeccable
>> judgement. Would we could say the same of others.
>
> You didn't answer the other question.
thank god.
he can not make decisions logically.
he sort of emotes his way to an answer.
really sad.
>
> Lee
>
>
Mike from Ottawa
<grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Mike from Ottawa" wrote in message
>news:6cs9u15iqeu3fnifv...@4ax.com...
>> Maybe it would be more palatable if the seals were scaly and ugly.
>
>Yeah, I don't hear the PETA folks screaming for protection of amadillos from
>becoming roadkill...
Hey, I belong to PETA. People Eating Tasty Animals.
---
Mike from Ottawa
Mike from Ottawa
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:311bu1higihnq4ge6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:57:58 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>> Personally I prefer the golf club as weapon of choice. Of course
>> there's only been the one situation but it was an effective deterrent.
>> The dudes split. I'll never know if I'd have actually used the wedge
>> or not.
>
>So that was the appropriate weapon for that situation.
>Now, can you see situations where a firearm would be the weapon of choice?
>Or will you begin advcating tha tthe police & military in Canada trn in
>their firearms for golf clubs?
>:-)
Nope, hakapiks.
---
Mike from Ottawa
Popeye
"bob crownfield" <crown...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:X%tFf.734$iU2.174@trndny07...
He -never- answers.
Sad to see a guy degenerate into a laughing stock.
>
>>
>> Lee
Mike from Ottawa
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Mike from Ottawa wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:55:45 +0100, Matthias Voss
>> <spamma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is all true.
>>>
>>>A friend of mine, with whom I filmed miles of underwater
>>>video, had been on the Sea Sheperds ship during another
>>>years campaign against seal slaughter. His pics were moving,
>>>stated the worst, but also showed how cute and beautiful the
>>> young baby seals were, when left unslaughtered, and filmed
>>>face to face.
>>>
>>>Matthias
>>
>>
>> The cute, white coat seal pups have not been harvested since 1987.
>
>Sorry. Mr. Jens Paschke(Then with "Aldebaran Marine Research
>and Broadcast) filmed the slaughter in 1997 or 1998. He was
>onboard the Sea Shepherd. I saw his pictures.
>
>Matthias
Are you sure about the accuracy of the dates? Watson split off from
Greenpeace, and some say he was kicked out. He's rammed ships at sea,
risking human lives as well as property. He calls himself, pompously,
"Captain," and is often described as an "ecoterrorist."
Even pre-1987, I've always had a problem with the anthropomorphic
tendencies of some people. Were any of the "slaughters" any worse
than what happens in abattoirs? The people doing the harvesting have
never been evil people; they're tough, humourous people eking out a
rather meagre living from the sea. Just like the Greenlanders,
Norwegians and Russians who also harvest seals.
---
Mike from Ottawa