Pink Kate

In that case, I will top post my reply. I didn't adopt this "demeanor", until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.

Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken seriously.

Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.

Earle

I put a Gigabyte of songs, all legal by "fair use doctrine", on an mp3 player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.

Earle

you really are foolish to make statements like this when you could have done a quick internet search to find out for yourself. this is even more foolish than your statements concerning wolves.

"He will say they gave a non-existent Toronto address and drove a car with Ontario, Canada, license plates. They claimed to be computer engineers from Iran, and said they had just come down from Canada to find jobs." "In a series of raids after 9/11, many partially completed fake IDs will be found in the store and at al-Marabh's apartment. A stack of tightly-controlled immigration forms enabling one to immigrate to Canada will also be found."

you should do at least a little research before opening your mouth with such ignorance.

heh....coming from someone who knows everything about wolves because you "read a book" BUWAHAHA! :-)

heh....i have no doubt that you know better about what he experienced than he does because you read it in a book or saw it on tv. :-)

lol.....no, it isnt. just how much time have you spent in montana (and what part of montana?) to draw such a conclusion earle? what, you read it in a book? :-)

lol...liar. you cannot defeat my argument with merit, so you resort to personal insult.

bullshit.....im very tolerant of the opinions and beliefs of others....only in this case, yours is dead wrong. you read a book and think you know something about wolves. youre an ignorant fool earle.

lol.....you have yet to provide anything of merit! "because i said so" doesnt cut it earle, neither does "i read it in a book".

you dont know SHIT about the ranchers or anybody else im talking about. tell me earle, since you know so much more about these people than i do, what government assistnace or tax breaks or ANY public lands does the pryor creek ranch benefit from? name JUST ONE earle. sorry bub......thats 35,000 acres of PRIVATE property with absolutely NO government assistance required. so you see, you make shit up based upon the cloud of ignorance you live in, the whole while making a fool of yourself.

lol.....sure it was an impressive year earle.....good job. but as i said, im a duration earner and while i wont share my income information, im "getting by" too.

aw c'mon....earle reads books. :-)

in news:444cee68$0$14957$ snipped-for-privacy@reader.athenanews.com you said: ". You don't know everything, just because "You were there". In fact, "Because you were on the ground", you lack objectivity"

sure sounds like you said he doesnt know what hes talking about to me. :-)

and what about when the wolves are shot dead when caught in the middle of the act? why do you continue to avoid answering that?

dont give me "in a nutshell" bullshit. here is what i found from your link:

"by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,"

reproducing and distributing means UPLOADING. i asked you SPECIFICALLY for a law that made me a criminal for downloading music and you have not provided one. also, law is not retroactive, so find one that was in place at the time i made the statement that you quoted. have fun looking, when you realize that you can please have the integrity to admit to your error.

and then tell us that you never downloaded ANYTHING so that you dont appear to be a hypocrite.

um, i did several posts up. i was out earning a living and couldnt respond every 5 minutes.

downloading a copy and uploading are totally different issues. now please quote applicable written law specifically against downloading music that was in place at the time i made the statement that you quoted.

Nope, I still buy my CD's.

I already posted

which you dismissed as " a reporter's interpretation." I guess since the reporter was never sued by a big auto company, he must not know anything about copyright law, and it must make you an expert. Funny how you get more and more specific about what you were asking for each time it's found:

" ive stated that i do not break written law." Oops. "we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. " Oops again. "show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading music." Damn. "downloading a copy and uploading are totally different issues. " Maybe that'll fly. "please quote applicable written law specifically against downloading music that was in place at the time." There, that's got him!

Your legal squirming and hyperspecific definitions of legality would make Clinton proud.

(sigh) You'll see only what you want to. Knock yourself out with the last word.

i CLEARLY asked you for written law to substantiate your own statement. that is NOT written law. that is one reporters interpretation of law.

lol im only clarifying so that you can prove the statements you made.

the law is very specific, this is why i have asked you to quote it. bottom line, YOU CANT FIND APPLICABLE WRITTEN LAW TO SUBTANTIATE YOUR STATEMENT.

YOU labelled me criminal, and now you cannot support your own statement........if you could you would have. either quote written law applicable at the time i made the statement you quoted (YOU chose what statement to quote to try to call me out on), or have the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

That would be the the "Hell" located a couple miles east of Desert Center, CA, (around mile marker 198 on I-10) right? N33 41.455 W115 16.362

Personally, I buy my CDs and then burn a copy to put in my vehicle... Same philosophy with DVDs... My daughter *never* gets to view the original, only a copy that I make for her... That way, if she screws it up, I'm only out a bit of time and the $0.21 that the blank DVD cost me... Better than being out the $15+ for the original master copy... Of course, I can also remaster the DVD and take out any section that I do not believe are appropriate for a

12-yr old... Or 11-yr old... Whatever... Damn, for some reason, Grace thinks that I should be able to remember these things...

Nawh, I'm actually talking about a location that is on the map as Hell, CA, zip 92239...

There's also one in Michigan (N42 26.089 W83 59.092)... That would of course be where "Hell freezes over"...