On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:11:50 -0000, BJ Conner
wrote:

On Oct 22, 6:07 am, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:41:16 -0000, BJ Conner
attempted to troll:


On Oct 21, 2:51 pm, "asadi" wrote:
It appears the ranch Dick hunts on works in this fashion.

The birds are raised in a pen...you tell the 'guides' how many birds you
want to shoot.

You go out into the field and take up your position. The 'guide' takes the
bird into a bush and when you are ready, he let's them go...

The bird gets maybe 4 seconds of freedom . . .

I thought it was pretty sick...

john

Let's recap, shall we? John apparently heard the above on NPR. Even
the casual reader should notice that nothing is said about Cheney having
done anything described, only that he hunts on the ranch on which it
_appears_ to occur. IOW, Cheney could have been in a ghillie suit on
his belly stalking lawye...er, bee, er, deer, dammit, deer while John
Kerry kitted out in his new Abercrumbie and Flinch cammies and pointing
the butt of his brand new .300WM rifle at the released birds, wondering
why his brand new scope made things look so far away, all for a photo
op. But even taking the above description and its implications as
complete and accurate, it is predicated upon the presumed shooters
hitting the bird 100% of the time. I'd enjoy reading your explanation
of how hitting a flying bird released from a holding receptacle of some
sort is so much easier than hitting a bird who happened to be loose when
he was flushed. And even the casual FFing reader should have noted that
the above description would generally fit fishing in waters with stocked
fish. In fact, I'd offer that even John's/NPR's description puts more
chance into the "hunt" than fishing in stocked waters. It's not the
method or the man I support as much as it is the hypocrisy of the
detractors I cannot and do not.


It makes your wonder which came first the despicable hunter ethic

And another who has fished over stockers making judgments about hunting
stockers...

or the amoral politicians the state has cursed the nation with.

California? New York? Arkansas? Florida? I mean, you'll have to be
more specific...there's 50 or so to choose from...

Texas has hundreds of places where you can "hunt" Oryx, Axis deer, Elk or
anything else the can be flow in.

It does? OK, name them all.

IAC, the whole world has billions and billions of places where you can
do the same thing. In fact, I would submit that you can "hunt"
elephants, spotted owls, Cape buffalo and any other animal, vegetable or
mineral in your bathroom, just like you could fill your bathtub with
water and "fish" for marlin...

For mere money you can be taken out in a John Deer Gator and
become a real hunter. You don't even have to get your feet muddy.

Yeah, it's darned near like driving up to a stream and fishing over
stockers...

If you can't afford that then it's back to the deer lease to pop one of
those tame deer that's been eating at the deer feeder all year.

Or, well, drive up to a stream and fish over stockers...

If you don't have any morals, ethics or principles about hunting you
wouldn't have any about anything.

Would you substitute "fishing" for "hunting" in your statement above or
are you a hypocritical judgmental idiot rather than just a plain ol'
judgmental idiot? And your misusage and redundancy demonstrating your
lack of understanding of the concepts aside, it's impossible for a
hunter (or fisher) to (not) "have any morals, ethics or principles about
hunting." Just as it is possible for someone to not have "ethics or
principles about hunting," yet be ethical and have principles. In fact,
the latter is true of many folks.

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

blab-blab -blab.
You can write on and on. It's still chicken-****. You can
rationalize for days but it still ain't hunting. It makes real
hunters look bad and no one with any pride or self esteem would take
part in it.

Uh-huh...OK, there, Grizzly Adams...what's your definition of a "real
hunter" or fisher?

HTH,
R