LEARN THE FACTS ABOUT HUNTING
Dr. Jai Maharaj
HSUS
Fall is the time when forest greens begin to blaze
orange, as hunting seasons open around the country. Each
year, hunters kill more than 100 million animals, and
while individual reasons for hunting vary, the industry
that promotes and sustains hunting has just one motive:
profit. According to the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters
spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition,
clothing, travel, and other related expenses.
To justify hunting to a society ever more concerned about
wildlife—including its conservation and humane
treatment—the industry intensively promotes a set of
tired myths. Learn the facts behind these myths.
Isn't hunting a worthy tradition because it teaches
people about nature?
There are many ways to learn about nature and the "great
outdoors." At its best, hunting teaches people that it is
acceptable to kill wildlife while learning about some
aspects of nature. However, the very essence of sport
hunting is the implicit message that it's acceptable
recreation to kill and to tolerate the maiming of
wildlife. Even those who claim that wounding and maiming
is not the intent of hunting cannot deny that it happens.
It is folly to suggest that we can teach love, respect,
and appreciation for nature and the environment through
such needless destruction of wildlife. One can learn
about nature by venturing into the woods with binoculars,
a camera, a walking stick, or simply with our eyes and
ears open to the world around us.
Does hunting help create a bond between father and son?
We do not know, but there are countless recreational and
other activities that can strengthen the parent/child
bond. Generally speaking, bonding has less to do with the
activity and more to do with whether the parent and child
spend significant, concentrated, and loving time
together. Yet the particular recreational activity is
also important, because it can send a moral message to
the child about what constitutes acceptable recreation.
Hunting as a form of family entertainment is destructive
not only to the animals involved, but also to the morals
and ethics of children who are shown or taught that
needless killing is acceptable recreation. The HSUS
rejects the notion that a relationship of love and
companionship should be based on the needless killing of
innocent creatures. Killing for fun teaches callousness,
disrespect for life, and the notion that "might makes
right."
Isn't hunting a popular and growing form of recreation?
No. The number of hunters has been steadily declining for
decades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
there were 15 million licensed hunters in the U.S. in
2000, compared with 15.6 million in 1993, 15.8 million in
1990, and 16.3 million in 1980. This drop has occurred
even while the general population has been growing.
Currently only 5.4% of Americans hold hunting licenses.
Hunters claim their numbers are growing to give the
impression that recreational killing is acceptable. The
facts are that more and more hunters are giving up
hunting because it is no longer a socially acceptable
activity.
Isn't it more humane to kill wildlife by hunting than to
allow animals to starve?
This question is based on a false premise. Hunters kill
opossums, squirrels, ravens, and numerous other plentiful
species without any notion of shooting them so that they
do not starve or freeze to death. Many species are killed
year round in unlimited numbers. In addition, many
animals that are not hunted die of natural starvation,
but hunters do not suggest killing them. While it is true
that any animal killed by a hunter cannot die of
starvation, hunters do not kill animals based on which
ones are weak and likely to succumb to starvation.
Hunters who claim they prevent animals from suffering
starvation are simply trying to divert attention from an
analysis of the propriety of killing wildlife for fun.
Aren't most hunts to limit overpopulation and not truly
for recreation?
No. Most hunted species are not considered to be
overpopulated even by the wildlife agencies that set
seasons and bag limits. Black ducks, for instance, face
continued legal hunting—even on National Wildlife
Refuges—despite the fact that their populations are at or
near all-time lows. If hunters claim that they hunt to
prevent overpopulation, then they should be prepared to
forgo hunting except when it really is necessary to
manage overpopulated species. This would mean no hunting
of doves, ducks, geese, raccoons, bears, cougars,
turkeys, quail, chuckar, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels,
and many other species.
What's more, hunters are usually the first to protest
when wolves, coyotes, and other predators move into an
area and begin to take over the job of controlling game
populations. The State of Alaska, for example, has
instituted wolf-control (trapping and shooting) on the
grounds that wolf predation may bring caribou populations
down to a level that would limit the sport-hunting of
caribou. Finally, hunters kill opossums, foxes, ravens,
and numerous other plentiful species without the
pretension of shooting them so that they do not starve or
freeze to death.
Is hunting to prevent wildlife overpopulation usually
effective?
No. Wildlife, to a large degree, will naturally regulate
its own populations if permitted, eliminating any need
for hunting as a means of population control. Discussions
about supposed wildlife overpopulation problems apply
primarily to deer. Hunters often claim that hunting is
necessary to control deer populations. As practiced,
however, hunting often contributes to the growth of deer
herds. Heavily hunted states like Pennsylvania and Ohio,
for instance, are among those experiencing higher deer
densities than perhaps ever before. When an area's deer
population is reduced by hunting, the remaining animals
respond by having more young, which survive because the
competition for food and habitat is reduced. Since one
buck can impregnate many does, policies which permit the
killing of bucks contribute to high deer populations. If
population control were the primary purpose for
conducting deer hunts, hunters would only be permitted to
kill does. This is not the case, however, because hunters
demand that they be allowed to kill bucks for their
antlers.
Does hunting ensure stable, healthy wildlife populations?
No. The hunting community's idea of a "healthy" wildlife
population is a population managed like domestic
livestock, for maximum productivity. In heavily hunted
and "managed" populations, young animals feed on
artificially enhanced food sources, grow and reproduce
rapidly, then fall quickly to the guns and arrows of
hunters. Few animals achieve full adulthood. After 20
years of heavy deer hunting at the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, for example, only one
percent of the deer population lived longer than four
years, and fewer than ten percent lived longer than three
years. In a naturally regulated population, deer often
live twelve years or longer.
What are state wildlife agencies doing to maintain
interest in hunting?
Most states actively recruit children into hunting,
through special youth hunts. Sometimes these youth hunts
are held on National Wildlife Refuges. Some states have
carried this concept even further, and hold special
hunter education classes to recruit parents and their
children. In addition to encouraging children to buy
licenses and kill animals, the states are reaching out to
women as well. If enough women and children can be
converted into hunters, the state agencies can continue
business as usual.
Isn't hunting a well-regulated activity?
No. While there are many rules which regulate hunting
activities, enforcing the regulations is difficult, and
many hunters do not abide by the rules. It has been
estimated that twice as many deer are killed illegally as
are killed legally. Hunters will sometimes kill a second
deer because it has bigger antlers or "rack" than the
first. In addition, duck hunters often exceed their bag
limits or kill protected species because most hunters
cannot identify the species of ducks that they
shoot—especially not at a half hour before sunrise, when
shooting begins. Secret observations revealed by ex-duck
hunters demonstrate that illegal practices and killing
permeate this activity at all levels.
Aren't animals protected through "bag limits" imposed by
each state?
Those species favored by hunters are given certain
protection from over-killing—killing so many as to
severely limit the population—through what are known as
"bag limits." However, hunting of some species is
completely unregulated, and in fact, wanton killing is
encouraged. Animals such as skunks, coyotes, porcupines,
crows and prairie dogs are considered "varmints," and
unlimited hunting of these species is permitted year-
round in many states. At the base of this is the notion
that these animals are simply "vermin" and do not deserve
to live. Hunters frequently write and speak of the
pleasure in "misting" prairie dogs—by which they mean
shooting the animals with hollow-point bullets that cause
them to literally explode in a mist of blood.
Moreover, hunters' influence on state and federal
wildlife agencies is so strong that even bag limits on
"game" species are influenced as much by politics as by
biology. Many states, with the sanction of the federal
government, allow hunters to kill large numbers (20–40
per day) of coots and waterfowl such as sea ducks and
mergansers, for example, despite the fact that little is
known about their populations and their ability to
withstand hunting pressure, and the fact that these ducks
are certainly not killed for food. This killing is
encouraged to maintain hunter interest, thereby
sustaining license sales, because the decline in other
duck species has resulted in some limitations on numbers
that can be killed.
Though hunting clearly kills individual animals, can
hunting actually hurt wildlife populations?
Yes. Hunters continue to kill many species of birds and
mammals (e.g., cougars, wolves, black ducks, swans) that
are at dangerously low population levels. While hunting
may not be the prime cause of the decline of these
species, it must contribute to their decline and, at a
minimum, frustrate efforts to restore them.
Even deer populations may be damaged by hunting pressure.
Unlike natural predators and the forces of natural
selection, hunters do not target the weaker individuals
in populations of deer or other animals.
Rather, deer hunters seek out the bucks that have the
largest rack. This desire for "trophy sized" bucks can
and has had detrimental effects on the health of deer
herds. First, hunting can impact the social structure of
a herd because hunters kill the mature males of a herd
and create a disproportionate ratio of females to males.
It is not uncommon to find a herd that has no bucks over
the age of three. Second, genetically inferior bucks may
be left to propagate the species, thereby weakening the
overall health of the herd.
Because hunters largely want to shoot only bucks, hunting
may cause artificial inflation of deer populations. When
these populations reach levels that available habitat
cannot support, increased disease and starvation may be
the result.
We don't understand the full effect of hunting on
wildlife behavior or health because wildlife agencies
will not conduct the studies necessary to find the
answers (e.g., "spy-blind" observations of duck hunting,
in which undercover authorities secretly observe
hunters).
Is hunting for food a good way to save money on grocery
bills?
Almost never. When all costs are considered (i.e.,
license fees, equipment, food, lodging and
transportation), hunting is not an economical way to
provide food. Statistics gathered by the University of
Maryland's Extension Service revealed that hunters spent
more than $51 million to kill 46,317 deer in Maryland in
1990, approximately $1,100 for each deer killed. Assuming
that the meat of each deer killed was preserved and
eaten, and that each deer provided 45 lbs. of meat, the
cost of venison in 1990 in Maryland was $24.44 per pound.
For most hunted animals, such as ducks, doves, rabbits,
squirrels, and crows, among others, use for food is now
minimal, and the expense of equipment far outweighs the
value of any food that is obtained. For the vast majority
of hunters, hunting is recreation, not a means of
gathering food.
- - -
Hunting
There once was a time when most Americans needed to hunt
to put food on the table, but hunting today is a
recreational pastime, and worse: waterfowl, pheasant, and
dove hunting are no more than shooting at living targets.
Some hunting is done solely to acquire trophies or to see
who can kill the most; some is no more than shooting
tame, confined animals. Brutally inhumane weapons such as
the bow and arrow are increasingly used. In all cases,
sport hunting inflicts undeniable cruelty—pain, trauma,
wounding, and death—on living, sentient creatures. The
Humane Society of the United States believes that causing
suffering and death is by definition inhumane, regardless
of method.
More than 100 million animals are reported killed by
hunters each year. That number does not include the
millions of animals for which kill figures are not
maintained by state wildlife agencies.
The vast majority of species that are hunted—waterfowl,
upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels, raccoons,
rabbits, crows, coyotes, etc.—provide minimal sustenance
and do not require population control.
Hunters have strived for decades to convince the American
public that hunting is good for wildlife and good for
society, often with arguments that are based on
obfuscation and half-truths. They have deliberately
focused the debate on deer hunting, for which plausible,
but not necessarily true, arguments for subsistence and
management can be made. But the holes in their arguments
are becoming increasingly apparent, as is the magnitude
of their waste, cruelty and destruction. More than that,
sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as
recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a
humane, just and caring society.
The Humane Society of the United States.
Source - http://www.hsus.org/ace/12043
- - - - - - -
Posted on Monday, April 8, 2002 by Sungirl
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Wanted: Screenplays for full-length feature films
which deliver the anti-animal-killing message.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Panchaang for 26 Phalgun 5102, Tuesday, April 9, 2002:
Vrisha Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksha Ritau
Meena Mase Krishna Pakshe Mangala Vasara Yuktayam
Poorvaprostapada Nakshatra Shukla-Brahma Yoga
Gara-Vanija Karana Trayodashee Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Raj
MOVIES????????????
You are a spammer. When I find time, I will figure out your real address
and forward your name to organizations that are vigilantes against spammers
and trollers like you. If they don't take action, I will hunt you down
myself. WHat you are doing is symbolic of the many spammers in the world
that are killing the free exchange of information on the internet by
clogging it up with irrelevant messages. Free speech is important.
Unfortunately, what you are doing is not free speech. It is spam, pure and
simple.
Explain to me how this topic has anything to with movies.
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:hunting-18...@news.mantra.com...
> Learn the Facts about Hunting
>
> HSUS
>
> Fall is the time when forest greens begin to blaze
> orange, as hunting seasons open around the country. Each
> year, hunters kill more than 100 million animals, and
> while individual reasons for hunting vary, the industry
> that promotes and sustains hunting has just one motive:
> profit. According to the International Association of
> Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters
> spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition,
> clothing, travel, and other related expenses.
>
> To justify hunting to a society ever more concerned about
> wildlife-including its conservation and humane
> treatment-the industry intensively promotes a set of
> continued legal hunting-even on National Wildlife
> Refuges-despite the fact that their populations are at or
> shoot-especially not at a half hour before sunrise, when
> shooting begins. Secret observations revealed by ex-duck
> hunters demonstrate that illegal practices and killing
> permeate this activity at all levels.
>
> Aren't animals protected through "bag limits" imposed by
> each state?
>
> Those species favored by hunters are given certain
> protection from over-killing-killing so many as to
> severely limit the population-through what are known as
> "bag limits." However, hunting of some species is
> completely unregulated, and in fact, wanton killing is
> encouraged. Animals such as skunks, coyotes, porcupines,
> crows and prairie dogs are considered "varmints," and
> unlimited hunting of these species is permitted year-
> round in many states. At the base of this is the notion
> that these animals are simply "vermin" and do not deserve
> to live. Hunters frequently write and speak of the
> pleasure in "misting" prairie dogs-by which they mean
> shooting the animals with hollow-point bullets that cause
> them to literally explode in a mist of blood.
>
> Moreover, hunters' influence on state and federal
> wildlife agencies is so strong that even bag limits on
> "game" species are influenced as much by politics as by
> biology. Many states, with the sanction of the federal
> government, allow hunters to kill large numbers (20-40
> sport hunting inflicts undeniable cruelty-pain, trauma,
> wounding, and death-on living, sentient creatures. The
> Humane Society of the United States believes that causing
> suffering and death is by definition inhumane, regardless
> of method.
>
> More than 100 million animals are reported killed by
> hunters each year. That number does not include the
> millions of animals for which kill figures are not
> maintained by state wildlife agencies.
>
> The vast majority of species that are hunted-waterfowl,
> upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels, raccoons,
> rabbits, crows, coyotes, etc.-provide minimal sustenance
> and do not require population control.
>
> Hunters have strived for decades to convince the American
> public that hunting is good for wildlife and good for
> society, often with arguments that are based on
> obfuscation and half-truths. They have deliberately
> focused the debate on deer hunting, for which plausible,
> but not necessarily true, arguments for subsistence and
> management can be made. But the holes in their arguments
> are becoming increasingly apparent, as is the magnitude
> of their waste, cruelty and destruction. More than that,
> sport hunting-the killing of wild animals as
> recreation-is fundamentally at odds with the values of a
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.56.61.213
[c-66-56-61-213.atl.client2.attbi.com
"Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> WHAT THE [obscenity deleted] DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH
> THE NEWSGROUP ABOUT MOVIES???????????? . . .
> Explain to me how this topic has anything to with movies.
Obviously, you didn't read the entire post.
Read it again.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
aryanviking
Raj wrote:
> WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE NEWSGROUP ABOUT
> MOVIES????????????
>
> You are a spammer. When I find time, I will figure out your real address
> and forward your name to organizations that are vigilantes against spammers
> and trollers like you. If they don't take action, I will hunt you down
> myself. WHat you are doing is symbolic of the many spammers in the world
> that are killing the free exchange of information on the internet by
> clogging it up with irrelevant messages. Free speech is important.
> Unfortunately, what you are doing is not free speech. It is spam, pure and
> simple.
>
> Explain to me how this topic has anything to with movies.
>
> "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
> news:hunting-18...@news.mantra.com...
> > Learn the Facts about Hunting
>
> > Wanted: Screenplays for full-length feature films
> > which deliver the anti-animal-killing message.
---> Such short temper!!! This is an ample proof of what movies can do to
people ;-)
Jeff
>
> Obviously, you didn't read the entire post.
> Read it again.
The part of the post to which he was referring is the following.
> > > Wanted: Screenplays for full-length feature films
> > > which deliver the anti-animal-killing message.
Obviously, if the post was actually about movies, then the subject
would say something like this single sentence. If the post was
actually about movies, the body would be taken up mainly with a
discussion of the need for the movie, what it might contain, etc.
In fact, the post was *about* hunting, with a brief reference to
movies.
-Jeff
Dr. Jai Maharaj
aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
Exactly. "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posting from
66.56.61.213 [c-66-56-61-213.atl.client2.attbi.com]
is a good example of Bollywood is doing to kids: it's
turning them into arrogant, vulgar punks.
Raj
posted to all culinary message boards, the bow and arrow club. the guns
message boards, any boards related to fox, coyotes, New Jersey . This has
nothing to do with movies. You could have put up a message about any anti
hunting movies and simply stated the fact. This idiot Jai keeps harping on
the greatness of Hinduism but he is making all of us HIndus look bad with
his perpetuating the stereotype of the long winded unfocussed Indian.
"Jeff" <los...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26dae7d8.02040...@posting.google.com...
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> Exactly, By this peculiar brand of Jai Maharaj logic, this message could be
> posted to all culinary message boards, the bow and arrow club. the guns
> message boards, any boards related to fox, coyotes, New Jersey . This has
It has as much to do with movies as does your post, and then some.
> You could have put up a message about any anti
> hunting movies and simply stated the fact.
Of course. But it's my choice. I determine what
and where I post, you don't. Understand?
> This idiot Jai keeps harping on
> the greatness of Hinduism but he is making all of us HIndus look bad
You are a Hindu? Ha-ha-ha!
> with his perpetuating the stereotype of the long winded unfocussed Indian.
I think that you have "Hindu" and "Indian" confused.
Besides, why do you use a foreign word ("Indian") to
describe yourself? If you are from Bharat, then you
are a Bharatiya as I am.
Ranchi
The proven liar and failed astrologer "Jai Maharaj" aka Jay Stevens wrote:
> In article <nPKs8.29$v8....@typhoon2.se.ipsvc.net>,
> "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >
>
> > This idiot Jai keeps harping on
> > the greatness of Hinduism but he is making all of us HIndus look bad
>
> You are a Hindu? Ha-ha-ha!
>
> > with his perpetuating the stereotype of the long winded unfocussed Indian.
>
> I think that you have "Hindu" and "Indian" confused.
> Besides, why do you use a foreign word ("Indian") to
> describe yourself?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he is using a foreign
language(English). After all, when speaking or writing in Hindu, "Angrezi" is
used instead of "Englishman", isn't it? By your stupid logic, English words
should be used in Hindi when pertaining to things English.
Ranchi
The failed astrologer and proven liar "Jai Maharaj" wrote:
> In article <iUps8.28$v8....@typhoon2.se.ipsvc.net>,
> [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.56.61.213
> [c-66-56-61-213.atl.client2.attbi.com
> "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> > WHAT THE [obscenity deleted] DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH
> > THE NEWSGROUP ABOUT MOVIES???????????? . . .
> > Explain to me how this topic has anything to with movies.
>
> Obviously, you didn't read the entire post.
> Read it again.
Apparently, Jay's little "Scripts wanted" addendum makes it relevant. I
wonder if computers are used by hunters? Having asked that little question,
I guess it's appropriate now to crosspost this into every computer-related
newsgroup!
Ranchi
The proven liar and failed astrologer "Jai Maharaj" aka Jay Stevens wrote:
> Exactly. "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posting from
> 66.56.61.213 [c-66-56-61-213.atl.client2.attbi.com]
> is a good example of Bollywood is doing to kids: it's
> turning them into arrogant, vulgar punks.
And you, Johnny boy, are a good example of what astrology does to shiftless old
men: it turns them into vicious, spiteful, malicious, vengeful, arrogant, vain,
bloodthirsty, intolerant beasts.
Pravin Ratnam
> In article <nPKs8.29$v8....@typhoon2.se.ipsvc.net>,
> "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> > Exactly, By this peculiar brand of Jai Maharaj logic, this message could
be
> > posted to all culinary message boards, the bow and arrow club. the guns
> > message boards, any boards related to fox, coyotes, New Jersey . This
has
> > nothing to do with movies. . . .
>
> It has as much to do with movies as does your post, and then some.
>
more movie centric posts on this newsgroup compared to a deluded person like
you.
> > You could have put up a message about any anti
> > hunting movies and simply stated the fact.
>
> Of course. But it's my choice. I determine what
> and where I post, you don't. Understand?
>
It is also the choice of a spammer to send one junk mail.
Doesn't make that person acceptable to society now, does it. People like
you take advantage of the fact that email and newsgroup messages are not
charged per minute like a long distance call and hide behind the anonymonity
of some clownish Jai Maharaj moniker. What you are posting is no less
wasteful than spam. THere is a reason why these newsgroups have descriptive
headers. If you want to post ina hinduism newsgroup, be my guest. I guess
that is what one has to live with in this society where any idiot with an
AOL account can access the internet. The good old days didnt have spammers
like you despite the number of arguments we used to have on different
forums.
> > This idiot Jai keeps harping on
> > the greatness of Hinduism but he is making all of us HIndus look bad
>
> You are a Hindu? Ha-ha-ha!
>
DO Hindus laugh like that?? I thought it was "Ho ho ho"
> > with his perpetuating the stereotype of the long winded unfocussed
Indian.
>
> I think that you have "Hindu" and "Indian" confused.
> Besides, why do you use a foreign word ("Indian") to
> describe yourself? If you are from Bharat, then you
> are a Bharatiya as I am.
Before "foreigners" invaded the subcontinent, there was no concept of a
religion unified under the name Hinduism. Hindu and Indian- who the hell
cares what I use. You seem to have so much time to share your anal
observations. I use them the same way Jewish people describe themselves. I
am an American citizen of Indian origin. My parents are Telugu and I don't
give a crap that you choose to think Bharat, the name of a tiny northern
kingdom a long time ago, is such a preferable name.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
I loved your website. It was good for some laughs.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Pravin Ratnam" <p...@attbi.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:hunting-1899...@news.mantra.com...
>> In article <nPKs8.29$v8....@typhoon2.se.ipsvc.net>,
>> "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>> Exactly, By this peculiar brand of Jai Maharaj logic, this message could
>>> be
>>> posted to all culinary message boards, the bow and arrow club. the guns
>>> message boards, any boards related to fox, coyotes, New Jersey . This
>>> has
>>> nothing to do with movies. . . .
>> It has as much to do with movies as does your post, and then some.
> Really, I actually watch very few indian movies and yet I seem to put up
> more movie centric posts on this newsgroup compared to a deluded person like
> you.
I see, so newsgroup participation is a competitive
sport for you, is it? Tell me, are there any
other methods which help you feel better about
yourself? Oh yes, calling others "deluded" is
a delusion you seem to enjoy very much.
>>> You could have put up a message about any anti
>>> hunting movies and simply stated the fact.
>> Of course. But it's my choice. I determine what
>> and where I post, you don't. Understand?
> It is also the choice of a spammer to send one junk mail.
These are not "mails". Newsgroup articles are posts.
When did you show up here, yesterday?
> Doesn't make that person acceptable to society now, does it.
Are you a spokesperson for "society" now? Hey, you are
just one person like everyone else. Besides, why do
you think that newsgroups are for gaining "acceptance to
society" as you put it?
> People like you take advantage of the fact that email and newsgroup
> messages are not charged per minute like a long distance call and hide
> behind the anonymonity of some clownish Jai Maharaj moniker.
That is my name. Is "Pravin Ratnam" your "moniker"
behind which you hide? If so, you must think that
others behave as you do. One notes that you think
that ohers are "spammers" as you must think you are.
> What you are posting is no less wasteful than spam.
Then don't read what I post. It's that simple.
I have a feeling thta someone is forcing you to
read my posts and that it's you!
> THere is a reason why these newsgroups have descriptive
> headers.
Huh? What "descriptive headers"? You did fall off a turnip
truck yesterday.
> If you want to post ina hinduism newsgroup, be my guest.
You are not the host, so being your offer is absurd.
The "guests" you're imagining are in your own head.
> I guess
> that is what one has to live with in this society where any idiot with an
> AOL account can access the internet.
AOL? Huh? What are you frothing at the about now?
Who has an AOL account that you are talking about now?
> The good old days didnt have spammers
> like you despite the number of arguments we used to have on different
> forums.
You dodn't even know what the word "spammer" means; don't
misuse it because some another newbie such as you may believe you.
>>> This idiot Jai keeps harping on
>>> the greatness of Hinduism but he is making all of us HIndus look bad
>> You are a Hindu? Ha-ha-ha!
> DO Hindus laugh like that?? I thought it was "Ho ho ho"
>>> with his perpetuating the stereotype of the long winded unfocussed
>>> Indian.
>> I think that you have "Hindu" and "Indian" confused.
>> Besides, why do you use a foreign word ("Indian") to
>> describe yourself? If you are from Bharat, then you
>> are a Bharatiya as I am.
> Before "foreigners" invaded the subcontinent, there was no concept of a
> religion unified under the name Hinduism.
Hinduism is not a religion, really, it is a system of spirituality
and way of life. Don't confuse it with a religion.
> Hindu and Indian- who the hell
> cares what I use.
As a Hindu Bharatiya, I do. You must be a Muslim or
some such.
> You seem to have so much time to share your anal
> observations. I use them the same way Jewish people describe themselves. I
> am an American citizen of Indian origin. My parents are Telugu and I don't
> give a crap that you choose to think Bharat, the name of a tiny northern
> kingdom a long time ago, is such a preferable name.
Read the Constitution, it is still called Bharat.
Then, get more education by reading our scriptures
and history.
raj
> In article <ca8t8.4289$Ii.6...@typhoon.atl.ipsvc.net>,
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > news:hunting-1899...@news.mantra.com...
> >> In article <nPKs8.29$v8....@typhoon2.se.ipsvc.net>,
> >> "Raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >>> Exactly, By this peculiar brand of Jai Maharaj logic, this message
could
> >>> be
> >>> posted to all culinary message boards, the bow and arrow club. the
guns
> >>> message boards, any boards related to fox, coyotes, New Jersey . This
> >>> has
> >>> nothing to do with movies. . . .
>
> >> It has as much to do with movies as does your post, and then some.
>
> > Really, I actually watch very few indian movies and yet I seem to put up
> > more movie centric posts on this newsgroup compared to a deluded person
like
> > you.
>
> I see, so newsgroup participation is a competitive
> sport for you, is it? Tell me, are there any
> other methods which help you feel better about
> yourself? Oh yes, calling others "deluded" is
> a delusion you seem to enjoy very much.
>
I see you escape the simple point where I was actually downplaying my
participation in this group while comparing yourself to me at the same time.
That's how limited your contribution is to this newsgroup.
>
> >>> You could have put up a message about any anti
> >>> hunting movies and simply stated the fact.
>
> >> Of course. But it's my choice. I determine what
> >> and where I post, you don't. Understand?
>
> > It is also the choice of a spammer to send one junk mail.
>
> These are not "mails". Newsgroup articles are posts.
> When did you show up here, yesterday?
>
> > Doesn't make that person acceptable to society now, does it.
>
> Are you a spokesperson for "society" now? Hey, you are
> just one person like everyone else. Besides, why do
> you think that newsgroups are for gaining "acceptance to
> society" as you put it?
>
No. But I can do a lot of things that are legal but are not acceptable to
someone moderately civilized. And I should expect to hear criticism if I
indulge in unacceptable practices.
> > People like you take advantage of the fact that email and newsgroup
> > messages are not charged per minute like a long distance call and hide
> > behind the anonymonity of some clownish Jai Maharaj moniker.
>
> That is my name. Is "Pravin Ratnam" your "moniker"
> behind which you hide? If so, you must think that
> others behave as you do. One notes that you think
> that ohers are "spammers" as you must think you are.
Raj is just a moniker I use. I use a computer shared by other users. So
names get mismatched at times. No big deal. I have put up provocative
messages in the past and i had no problem using my real name when I did
engage in controversial stuff. Since most of my postings on this group are
bland, there is no need for anyone to know my name. And you have your right
to privacy. But when you hide behind Jai Maharaj or Jai Maharani or
whatever, one is going to be curious as to whether you would be such a jerk
if your real name was on. What you are posting is not remotely
controversial, it is kind of boring really, but it is totally irrelevant.
>
> > What you are posting is no less wasteful than spam.
>
> Then don't read what I post. It's that simple.
> I have a feeling thta someone is forcing you to
> read my posts and that it's you!
>
I actually don't read what you post. Your headers however fill up my screen
and people like you kill internet bandwidth.
> > THere is a reason why these newsgroups have descriptive
> > headers.
>
> Huh? What "descriptive headers"? You did fall off a turnip
> truck yesterday.
>
Example:
alt.fools: is a descriptive header which would be a good group for you to
post to.
alt.hunting or alt.animalrights would be appropriate
> > If you want to post ina hinduism newsgroup, be my guest.
>
> You are not the host, so being your offer is absurd.
> The "guests" you're imagining are in your own head.
>
DOnt be an idiot. I am a bigger advocate of free speech than you can ever
aspire to. However, shouting fire in a crowded hall is free speech too and
also a major inconvenience. We already proved how ridiculous your assertions
of this hunting message being relevant to this group are(one mere mention of
movies in a 3 page post is not reason enough) . Your rantings on many
newsgroups along with the rantings of other people like you collectively are
making newsgroups annoying to browse through. If you were the only looney, I
would have no problem putting you in a filter.
> > I guess
> > that is what one has to live with in this society where any idiot with
an
> > AOL account can access the internet.
>
> AOL? Huh? What are you frothing at the about now?
> Who has an AOL account that you are talking about now?
>
I did not mean you were an AOL user literally. What an idiot. You have the
mentality of some of those AOLers .
> > The good old days didnt have spammers
> > like you despite the number of arguments we used to have on different
> > forums.
>
> You dodn't even know what the word "spammer" means; don't
> misuse it because some another newbie such as you may believe you.
>
I know what spam means and I know techincally you are not a spammer. But
your postings are in the same spirit of a true spammer where irrelevant crap
clogs up my screen.
Maybe you should get a real job since you have a lot of time reading
scriptures that exist and and even more time reading imaginary scriptures in
your mind.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.56.62.49
[X-Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.net
"raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
"Limited"? You must have some strange measurement
system -- do you measure it by the number of insults
you post and the libel you commit?
> > >>> You could have put up a message about any anti
> > >>> hunting movies and simply stated the fact.
> >
> > >> Of course. But it's my choice. I determine what
> > >> and where I post, you don't. Understand?
> >
> > > It is also the choice of a spammer to send one junk mail.
> >
> > These are not "mails". Newsgroup articles are posts.
> > When did you show up here, yesterday?
> >
> > > Doesn't make that person acceptable to society now, does it.
> >
> > Are you a spokesperson for "society" now? Hey, you are
> > just one person like everyone else. Besides, why do
> > you think that newsgroups are for gaining "acceptance to
> > society" as you put it?
> No. But I can do a lot of things that are legal but are not acceptable to
> someone moderately civilized. And I should expect to hear criticism if I
> indulge in unacceptable practices.
What you may find acceptable may not be acceptable to others.
What you are trying to do is dictate; it won't work. Hitler
is dead and your efforts will die too, no matter how badly
you want to imitate that Nazi dictator.
> > > People like you take advantage of the fact that email and newsgroup
> > > messages are not charged per minute like a long distance call and hide
> > > behind the anonymonity of some clownish Jai Maharaj moniker.
> >
> > That is my name. Is "Pravin Ratnam" your "moniker"
> > behind which you hide? If so, you must think that
> > others behave as you do. One notes that you think
> > that ohers are "spammers" as you must think you are.
> Raj is just a moniker I use. I use a computer shared by other users. So
> names get mismatched at times. No big deal.
Ah, so YOU hide behind a fake name. Yet, you accuse
me of doing it even though I don't! You are
very deceptive, as you have yourself demonstrated.
>. . . But when you hide behind Jai Maharaj . . .
There you go lying again. You have proved yourself
to be a liar and created a public record of it. Honest
persons, employers, businesses, organizations and
others ought to have nothing to do with you. Get help; best
wishes for your improvement.
raj
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
Ahh. You are still clueless. THis is not about dictating what is acceptable.
It is common sense. It is not merely my opinion but a fact that your message
was off topic and what makes it worse is that it is a pattern with you. You
will find maybe one or two other mass posters like you who will agree with
you that your message had any kind of relevance to the newsgroup. Your
message had nothing to do with this newsgroup. And your crossposting really
says that all you are concerned with is making sure everyone sees your crap
and nothing to do with free speech in a relevant forum.
> > > > People like you take advantage of the fact that email and newsgroup
> > > > messages are not charged per minute like a long distance call and
hide
> > > > behind the anonymonity of some clownish Jai Maharaj moniker.
> > >
> > > That is my name. Is "Pravin Ratnam" your "moniker"
> > > behind which you hide? If so, you must think that
> > > others behave as you do. One notes that you think
> > > that ohers are "spammers" as you must think you are.
>
> > Raj is just a moniker I use. I use a computer shared by other users. So
> > names get mismatched at times. No big deal.
>
> Ah, so YOU hide behind a fake name. Yet, you accuse
> me of doing it even though I don't! You are
> very deceptive, as you have yourself demonstrated.
>
It wasn't privacy i was making a poitn about. BUt if you yell fire in a
crowded hall, be man enough to at least be upfront about it. I didn't
realize Jai Majaraj was a real name.
> >. . . But when you hide behind Jai Maharaj . . .
>
> There you go lying again. You have proved yourself
> to be a liar and created a public record of it. Honest
> persons, employers, businesses, organizations and
> others ought to have nothing to do with you. Get help; best
> wishes for your improvement.
>
I went on your website. I am truly sorry that you have such a name. It just
seemed so fake.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"raj" <r...@hotmail.com> posted:
> . . .
> a name. It just seemed so fake.
It is a wonderful name -- I like what my parents
named me as well as our family name. Too bad that
arrogant punks such as yourself try to insult others
because you don't like their name. But then, aren't
you an ABCD (American-Born Child of a Confused Deshi)?
If so, that explains a lot.