Pink Kate
#921
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
#922
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
#923
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
news:TQW2g.106$KO6.19180@news.uswest.net...
---snippy---
>
> > Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean
> > liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It
> > wasn't clear from context.
>
> live with the wolves and witness their destruction for yourself.
>
I don't have time to live with the wolves, although it seems pleasant. You
don't live with them either. I did the next best thing. I read a book by a
someone who lived with them for a summer, "Never Cry Wolf", by Farley Mowat.
The vast majority of sensible academic researchers, and the native tribe who
lived in the same area where he did his research, share his conclusions,
that wolves are no danger to man, caribou, or deer. If they are a danger to
cattle and humans in Montana, as you allege, then the cause is bad
management, not that wolves are "evil". You probably would not like this
book, because you don't agree with its conclusions, and because it does not
have enough pictures. Academic and popular sources agree with his
conclusions. The one or two "naturalists" that you quote are fringe
whackos, like yourself, and there are people who disagree in every
discipline.
The main difference between you and me, is that if I were to shoot wolves,
help illegal immigrants across the border, or bomb an abortion clinic today,
then I would tell the newspapers about it tomorrow. You would hide behind
your braggart facade, first saying that you supported the illegal activity,
then back pedalling as fast as possible to avoid being implicated.
Earle
#924
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
Nathan did. He's a braggart, with a "Kick Me" patch on his back. He likes
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#925
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
Nathan did. He's a braggart, with a "Kick Me" patch on his back. He likes
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#926
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
Nathan did. He's a braggart, with a "Kick Me" patch on his back. He likes
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
it, too.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZGX2g.4363$P65.728@southeast.rr.com...
> Who decided it was pick on Nathan day?
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#927
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#928
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#929
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
news:6L33g.3942$Sa1.2846@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
> > He's tough, he can handle it.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Oh, I know he can, when a person has strong convictions, they
> are usually made stronger by such "lambasting".
>
He doesn't have strong convictions though! He goes with whatever way the
wind blows, wherever he happens to be. This is not a bad way to be, if you
want to go through life without the bother of moral convictions, but it
amuses me that he invokes "right" and "wrong" every time. All he cares
about, is convenience and his own temporary interest. I wish he would just
admit it. He's not really any more righteous, nor does he have any right to
be, than the rest of us.
I find his condemnation of illegal immigrants to be hypocritical too. How
many HVAC contracts does he lose, every year, to illegal immigrants from
Saskatchawan?
Earle
> I just wonder why people are arguing over opinions and someone's right to
> their own.
> You can almost never change someone else's opinion.
>
> Spdloader
>
>
#930
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
You stole something. It doesn't matter whether you were prosecuted or not.
You say that illegal immigrants are criminals too, but they aren't
prosecuted either. They are just deported, to try again later. They must
not be doing anything wrong then.
If you want to have a discussion, you should try using logical arguments,
rather than shooting from the hip every time. It is so easy to get you to
contradict yourself, and then you make up some argument, to prove that you
really didn't do so. You are ridiculous, Nathan.
Earle
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:3uqdnWjS-f1BAdHZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:5vY2g.128$KO6.21658@news.uswest.net...
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
> >
> > we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law.
there
> > is a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires
a
> > violation of CRIMINAL law.
> >
>
> Yes, but you said you do not break written law, you didn't qualify which
> law. Law is law, is it not?
>
> >>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled.
You
> >>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
> >>
> >> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
> >
> > show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
> > music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music
> > off the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your
> > mistake.
> >
>
> Illegally downloading music:
> http://mp3.about.com/od/isitlegal/a/riaalawsuits.htm " ...downloading
> copyrighted material without expressed permission is illegal. Such music
> must be purchased in order to be legal."
>
> Interesting how you pick and choose which laws you think are OK to break,
> after saying you don't break written law. Reminds me of Bill Clinton
arguing
> about the definition of the word "is."
>
>
You say that illegal immigrants are criminals too, but they aren't
prosecuted either. They are just deported, to try again later. They must
not be doing anything wrong then.
If you want to have a discussion, you should try using logical arguments,
rather than shooting from the hip every time. It is so easy to get you to
contradict yourself, and then you make up some argument, to prove that you
really didn't do so. You are ridiculous, Nathan.
Earle
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:3uqdnWjS-f1BAdHZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:5vY2g.128$KO6.21658@news.uswest.net...
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
> >
> > we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law.
there
> > is a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires
a
> > violation of CRIMINAL law.
> >
>
> Yes, but you said you do not break written law, you didn't qualify which
> law. Law is law, is it not?
>
> >>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled.
You
> >>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
> >>
> >> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
> >
> > show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
> > music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music
> > off the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your
> > mistake.
> >
>
> Illegally downloading music:
> http://mp3.about.com/od/isitlegal/a/riaalawsuits.htm " ...downloading
> copyrighted material without expressed permission is illegal. Such music
> must be purchased in order to be legal."
>
> Interesting how you pick and choose which laws you think are OK to break,
> after saying you don't break written law. Reminds me of Bill Clinton
arguing
> about the definition of the word "is."
>
>