Pink Kate

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".

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

---snippy---

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

Nathan did. He's a braggart, with a "Kick Me" patch on his back. He likes it, too.

Earle

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

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

I saw hounds gutting deer around the north boundary to Bon Echo Park, north of Kingston the first week of January this year. It 'sure' looked like the hounds brought him down.

Mike

FrankW wrote:

One time some teenagers found the body and were using it to skeer their girlfriends! Grampa used to throw the heads off into the scrub where people weren't able to get to it.

Seahag

Earle,

A few of my own opinions / observations on the preceding arguments:

I'd never presume to tell Nathan that I knew better than he how things are in his part of the country, any more than I would anyone else. What gives you or anyone else the right to do that?

At some point, you have to say to yourself; "I don't actually live there, or, I've never actually done or experienced that myself, so I may not be the best person to judge or offer up advice on that subject.

I think you can disagree with a persons opinion or point of view without making a personal attack of everything about them, that includes taking past statements he may or may not have said about different subjects out of context.

Bottom line: I think you are attacking him because his opinion differs from yours.

On the other hand:

I think some folks in here would rather argue a point they have no proof of, rather than to admit "they don't know", just for the sake of argument, or the need to always be right, I don't know which.

Example: If I posted my experiences while in Bosnia in 1992-93, I'm sure of at least three in here (no names) who would dispute what I experienced first hand, because they read about it in some book somewhere. I was told it says in books that the US wasn't even over there in 1992-93, so, my scars on my knee, and the death of two of my closest buddies must not have happened.

Some books are just someone else's opinion, or biased research, published.

These, as previously stated, are just my opinions.

Spdloader

My granpma always said to bury the head.

we're discussing CRIMINAL law and youre trying to spin it in another direction.

BZZZT! i asked you for LAW, not some reporters interpretation of law. i also said i downloaded music, not that i shared it (uploaded). you show me written law applicable to me making DOWNLOADING music a CRIMINAL act, or you admit to your mistake. otherwise youre blowing hot air, trying to spin another issue entirely.

show me written law applicable to me making DOWNLOADING music a CRIMINAL act or shut up about it because youre just blowing hot air in a pitiful cling for SOMETHING because you cant find anything of substance to gig me on. try again earle.

heh.....you cant defeat my logic with substance, so you throw out loose personal insult with nothing to substantiate it. typical of a liberal losing an argument on usenet, thats for sure! :-)

talk about irony! you cling to law and then defend ILLEGAL immigrants where i CAN show you written law making them CRIMINALS. you are they hypocrite earle.

what a stupid thing to say.

_im_ the braggart? this coming from someone who posts his w2 to show how much money he made one year?

......sorry earle.....youre a hypocrite buddy.

Just for clarification, there are three types of law:

Common law = The law of the land. The oldest type of law, and the basis for all other law in the US, as it was brought over from England. The system of laws based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws.

Criminal law = Laws that deal with crimes and their punishments

Civil law = Laws dealing with the rights of private citizens.

then stop pretending to know something about them.

BUWAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! thanks for making my point! :-)

You got that right Earle. He is even so dumb or 'gullible' to think all 'your' US 9-11 terrorists came from Canada. He forgets about the Florida flight schools, Good ol' Saudi Arabia that runs all your shipping ports, etc... No wonder the local yokels have him hoodwinked.

Mike

Earle Hort>

Your opinions and experiences have some value, but there is such a thing as "not seeing the forest for the trees". This is where I place Nathan, his wolf poacher buddies, your Bosnia experiences, and people that were in Vietnam. You don't know everything, just because "You were there". In fact, "Because you were on the ground", you lack objectivity, that people who have studied things from a distance will have.

You could also say that I can't judge Nathan's experiences fairly, because I don't follow him around every day, every minute, and this point of view has some value too. But Montana is a lot like Colorado, and Nathan has been a volatile, expressive little fellow, hasn't he? The guy, is just typical, of what you see on reality shows. No, I am not attacking him merely because his opinion is different from mine. I am attacking him because he is intolerant, and stupid, and he cannot abide the notion, that there are different opinions from his. And because he chooses to make such a public spectable of himself. He's asking for it. And because he **always** takes things out of context, and denies it when you try to pin him down on any issue. If you want to be taken seriously in life, then you don't act like Nathan.

The ranchers he is talking about receive numerous kinds of government assistance, including tax breaks, public lands leased for pennies, and periodic special forms of relief, such as when cows on the range get snowed in and can't get to food. The TV News always runs a special, on how hard they have it, "out on the range". Now the federal government, is asking for one little favor, that they share the **public** range with wolves, which a very large segment of the voters, who admittedly may have never seen one, want protected. It's a range management problem, and has nothing to do with the wolves' alleged bloodthirsty nature. And because Nathan says that they are evil, that makes me believe it even less.

Earle

Not sure what a pack of hounds are doing in the field in January. Deer season is way over by then. I can see maybe one or two, who got lost and was never found. but a pack running at deer after deer season is not right and should be shot on sight. Something amiss here. Good deer dogs are not normally left abandoned

But then it's all moot as the MNR can't get enough hunters to cull the deer herd > I saw hounds gutting deer around the north boundary to Bon Echo Park,