|
|
TUNA!
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:41:37 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: If Tim were to learn to write in English, and you to read it, it certainly wouldn't cure either of you of being asses......but it probably wouldn't hurt. Wolfgang and even if timmy had said what he thought he meant he would still be wrong. You just don't understand what culling means in the context he used it. You don't need to be ashamed you can't comprehend, but you probably ought to be. -- Charlie... |
TUNA!
"Charlie Choc" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:41:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote: If Tim were to learn to write in English, and you to read it, it certainly wouldn't cure either of you of being asses......but it probably wouldn't hurt. Wolfgang and even if timmy had said what he thought he meant he would still be wrong. You just don't understand what culling means in the context he used it. I know very well what culling means; I do it professionally. Meanwhile, Tim has shown no sign that he knows what culling means either within the context in which he used the term or in any other, and neither have you. In fact, in the context in which he used the term he got it about as wrong as one possibly could. You don't need to be ashamed you can't comprehend, but you probably ought to be. Yeah, that's real cute, but do you believe it's going to mitigate your stupidity as displayed by jumping into something that you clearly didn't understand and then trying to divert attention from what you did? Where DID that pesky little quote get off to eh? Wolfgang the good thing about fools is that they are absolutely dependable. |
TUNA!
"Charlie Choc" wrote in message ... The group of fish Timbo is removing the undesirables from (culling) is his catch, not the entire fishery. -- Charlie... Sorry Charlie, both you and Timmie are wrong. The definining element of culling is removing the UNDESIREABLES. Though there may be slot slot limit schemes being used somewhere that specifically target only the undesireables (though I 've never actually seen one), virtually all slot limits are simply designed to remove that portion of the population that the fisheries bio's believe can be removed while still sustaining a population and a harvest level that keeps their customers (the license buying public) satisfied enough to keep the department's revenue up. A term we use in forestry - thinning - might better apply: removing the harvestable "excess" population so that the remaining population can efficiently utilize the remaining resources. Those chosen for removal are picked, not so much for their individual characteristics (eg. desireable or undesireable), but for their abundance relative to the size/age of the target population distribution. Culling on the other hand requires examining the individuals, and removing those with undesireable characteristics (eg. poor growth rate, poor form, crowding out its cohorts, malformation, innefficient utilization of available resources, etc.). -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
TUNA!
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:43:18 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: "Charlie Choc" wrote in message .. . You just don't understand what culling means in the context he used it. I know very well what culling means; I do it professionally. Wow, a professional. If you collect 5 things and put 3 back you have culled your collection, and presumably will get paid for it if you followed the instructions you were given. Meanwhile, Tim has shown no sign that he knows what culling means either within the context in which he used the term or in any other, and neither have you. In fact, in the context in which he used the term he got it about as wrong as one possibly could. You don't need to be ashamed you can't comprehend, but you probably ought to be. Yeah, that's real cute, but do you believe it's going to mitigate your stupidity as displayed by jumping into something that you clearly didn't understand and then trying to divert attention from what you did? Where DID that pesky little quote get off to eh? You mean when I said: "The group of fish Timbo is removing the undesirables from (culling) is his catch"? If he rejects a fish as not being up to standard (in the slot for example), he has culled - albeit as an amateur not a professional. Who knows what he meant, but a fish outside the slot is in fact a cull. Wolfgang the good thing about fools is that they are absolutely dependable. As a former contributor here used to say: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem. g -- Charlie... |
TUNA!
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message ... Sorry Charlie, both you and Timmie are wrong. The definining element of culling is removing the UNDESIREABLES. Though there may be slot slot limit schemes being used somewhere that specifically target only the undesireables (though I 've never actually seen one), virtually all slot limits are simply designed to remove that portion of the population that the fisheries bio's believe can be removed while still sustaining a population and a harvest level that keeps their customers (the license buying public) satisfied enough to keep the department's revenue up. A term we use in forestry - thinning - might better apply: removing the harvestable "excess" population so that the remaining population can efficiently utilize the remaining resources. Those chosen for removal are picked, not so much for their individual characteristics (eg. desireable or undesireable), but for their abundance relative to the size/age of the target population distribution. Culling on the other hand requires examining the individuals, and removing those with undesireable characteristics (eg. poor growth rate, poor form, crowding out its cohorts, malformation, innefficient utilization of available resources, etc.). All true, and well presented, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter in this instance. While it's easy enough to believe that Tim doesn't understand the distinction (a REAL distinction in this case) between thinning and culling or, as is more applicable, between culling and simple harvesting, his history of blithely dismissing the incidental death among fish that HE catches and releases....."**** happens".....makes it much more plausible that he is once again simply pursuing his own personal agenda, pathetically masked as concern for some noble cause. Was characterizing catching fish and then releasing them as "culling" a simple compositional error? Generosity of spirit.....as well as experience...compels us to allow (as I did previously) that he is indeed that stupid, but caution and a hard earned appreciation for human duplicity dictate that his other often displayed characteristics be taken into account as well. Anyway, the one thing that can reasonably be expected of a one trick pony is that it eventually learns to do the trick well after.....oh, say a few months. In the four or five years I've been here, this one ain't learned ****. Wolfgang and as for charlie......well, yeah, that's sad.....but what can one do? |
TUNA!
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:50:32 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote: Sorry Charlie, both you and Timmie are wrong. The definining element of culling is removing the UNDESIREABLES. Though there may be slot slot limit schemes being used somewhere that specifically target only the undesireables (though I 've never actually seen one), virtually all slot limits are simply designed to remove that portion of the population that the fisheries bio's believe can be removed while still sustaining a population and a harvest level that keeps their customers (the license buying public) satisfied enough to keep the department's revenue up. You read a lot more into "undesirable" than I do. If I catch a fish whose size is outside a slot, it is undesirable to keep regardless of its' other characteristics. I wasn't talking about the technique of culling as a means to improve the fish population, I was just pointing out that Tim's use of the term culling in the context of the fish he keeps agrees with the definition of the word. -- Charlie... |
TUNA!
"Charlie Choc" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:43:18 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote: "Charlie Choc" wrote in message .. . You just don't understand what culling means in the context he used it. I know very well what culling means; I do it professionally. Wow, a professional. If you collect 5 things and put 3 back you have culled your collection, and presumably will get paid for it if you followed the instructions you were given. The only thing I collect is shiny new nickels. I NEVER put any of them back where I got them from. However, if I were to do so, it would not be an example of culling.....subtraction, perhaps.....repatriation, maybe....but never culling. Meanwhile, Tim has shown no sign that he knows what culling means either within the context in which he used the term or in any other, and neither have you. In fact, in the context in which he used the term he got it about as wrong as one possibly could. You don't need to be ashamed you can't comprehend, but you probably ought to be. Yeah, that's real cute, but do you believe it's going to mitigate your stupidity as displayed by jumping into something that you clearly didn't understand and then trying to divert attention from what you did? Where DID that pesky little quote get off to eh? You mean when I said: "The group of fish Timbo is removing the undesirables from (culling) is his catch"? Yeah, that'll do. The group of fish (whatever inappropriate name you wish to assign to them, the larger group) Timmie is removing fish (the subset) from is not his catch. His catch (whatever dimly understood label you may paste on them) is the group of fish he removes FROM the other (larger) group (whatever the **** you may be pleased to call ANY of them!). If he rejects a fish as not being up to standard (in the slot for example), he has culled - albeit as an amateur not a professional. Good God, but you are stupid! The fish he rejects are the ones he THROWS BACK! The culls.......were there any such.....would be the ones he would KILL because they are, by definition, unfit for whatever reason or purpose. Given that he EATS THE ONES HE KILLS (presumably.....and this is THE OBJECT OF THE WHOLE ****ING EXERCISE!!) he culls NOTHING! Who knows what he meant, I DO!! And YOU don't have a ****ing clue.......and there is ample reason to be dubious (at least) about whether or not he did.....or does. but a fish outside the slot is in fact a cull. Good God, you are stupid. Wolfgang the good thing about fools is that they are absolutely dependable. As a former contributor here used to say: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem. g Former contributors here used to say all kinds of things. Generally, they are notable chiefly for their formerness. Wolfgang and i mean "absolutely" with a 72 point capital A. |
TUNA!
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 16:55:08 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: Good God, but you are stupid! The fish he rejects are the ones he THROWS BACK! The culls.......were there any such.....would be the ones he would KILL because they are, by definition, unfit for whatever reason or purpose. Given that he EATS THE ONES HE KILLS (presumably.....and this is THE OBJECT OF THE WHOLE ****ING EXERCISE!!) he culls NOTHING! Guess I need a new dictionary. Cull doesn't mean kill in mine, it just means to pick out or select. Just as you can use the word cull to describe thinning a herd or forest, you can also use it to describe keeping only selected fish. You shouldn't get so obsessed by what you want something to mean that you can't see anything else. Tim's "culling", of course, is only good for his menu, not the fishery. But once the mystic "natures bounty" mumbo jumbo is stripped away, that is the *real* object of the whole ****ing exercise. -- Charlie... |
TUNA!
In article ,
says... I wasn't talking about the technique of culling as a means to improve the fish population, I was just pointing out that Tim's use of the term culling in the context of the fish he keeps agrees with the definition of the word. A rather specialized alternate definition of the word. In the competetive bass tournament world, a fisherman will keep every fish he catches until he has his legal bag limit. Then, if should catch a larger fish, he will place it in his livewell and remove one of the smaller fish and release it. This is referred to as "culling" one' catch. (I use the sexist "he" because B.A.S.S. is one of the last bastions of institutionalized sexism, of course.) Incidently, this practise is illegal every place I have ever fished. Some states require you to either release or kill any fish you catch immediately. The ND fishing regs specifically use the word "culling" in the regulation which proscribes it, so apparently it is considered standard usage in some circles. Kevin, piscatorial etymologist. |
TUNA!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter