The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

This is, of course, evident to those who can actually read
the literature, "we" in other words.
Ken Fortenberry

Once again you've managed to display your lack of understanding. You've
confused demographics with genetics.

You're parroting propaganda. It is not that families need to reproduce at
high rates, but that they choose to or that they do so because they have no
access to birth control.

Genetics, Kenny, is what determines the color of your eyes, the shape of
your ears, not the number of offspring you produce.

Genetics, in terms of viral dangers, is what allows and causes viruses to
mutate to a different form so that vaccines don'r work, so that immune
responses at the cellular level don't prevent infection. And rest assured
that the genetic combinations driving the next influenze pandemic are
already well underway. 20,000,000 people died of influenzae in the 1918
pandemic. The number is demographics, tracking those numbers and their
causation is epidemiology. The mechanism that caused the highly lethal
mutation is genetics.

I guess you skipped those hard science classes. Not surprising.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
When the dawn came up like thunder

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Do you actually need more to worry about, or do you just like it when the
reasons are more plentiful TL,
Tim

My brother-in-law is a demographer, who has spent much of his career doing
studies on birth rates vs education and access to birth control. I've
spent enough years in clinical lab and other aspects of medicine that I pay
attention to virus outbreaks and M&M studies.

But those are second nature now, background worries unless someone brings
them forward. What I worry about daily is getting some money from a
belly-up homeowners' insurance company to fix the damage we incurred in
hurricane Jeanne. Other than that, we pretty much take the days as they
come and fish when we can.

It's about 75 and sunny today.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
When the dawn came up like thunder

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

slenon wrote:
This is, of course, evident to those who can actually read
the literature, "we" in other words.
Ken Fortenberry


Once again you've managed to display your lack of understanding. You've
confused demographics with genetics.

Population genetics, Stevee, and you were the one who brought
it up, although you obviously didn't know it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Because he had NO CHANCE OF WINNING!

Which leaves me believing that you would think we both should have stayed at
home on Nov. 2, 2004.

So I should have voted for YOUR candidate? Why shouldn't I be able to vote
for the candidate of my own choosing, regardless (sorry Jon) of his of her
chances of winning? Does my vote for say Mickey Mouse for POTUS somehow
void my right to express my social, political, or any other such opinions?
If, that, it is in fact your belief, then by your logic one would have to
have served in the military (or at the very least have proof that they had
tried to become a service member, but were denied such by the military) to
voice one's opinion on military matters--war included--right?

Sometimes I get the impression that you think that because you vote a
certain way, you're entitled to your preferred outcome.

What on Earth would give you that impression?

I get the distinct impression that you don't believe every American (legally
able to vote)should have the right to vote for the candidate of their
choosing for POTUS. Is this true? I say this because you have implied
such.


I certainly make no claims to a preferred outcome, but I do prefer outcomes
that are just and fair. However, I don't necessarily have to like the
resultant effect of said outcomes.

Mark

In article ,
Larry L wrote:

wrote


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,


Every time I go to Yellowstone I take the time to walk around National Park
Meadow and think about the tremendous leap that mankind made when, for the
first time, it was decided to set aside a great place forever and for
everyone.

I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much more
efficiently)

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before fly-fishing.


Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
I guess sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Utterly unprofound. :~^ (

Mark

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
I guess sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Utterly unprofound. :~^ (

Mark

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free?

Yellowstone Park is not free.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Guys-N-Flyz wrote:


"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Sometimes I get the impression that you think that because you vote a
certain way, you're entitled to your preferred outcome.


What on Earth would give you that impression?

Because that's the way you act.

I get the distinct impression that you don't believe every American
(legally able to vote)should have the right to vote for the candidate of
their choosing for POTUS. Is this true? I say this because you have
implied such.

Of course it's not true. You should be able to vote for whomever you
want. I am, however, free to say that I think a vote for Nader is stupid
and self defeating.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article . net, rw
wrote:

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free?

Yellowstone Park is not free.

Or publicly owned, or subsidized out of taxpayers' money.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address