Next I suppose you'll complain about all the "Green" celebrities who
want to take away your car and who fly their private jets all over the
globe to push that agenda. You hear me Al Gore????!!!!

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:16:33 -0700, "tony944" wrote:

Problem is there is no "Accountability" over here or over there. You see if
was
accountability then our officials would not be able to own VILLAS on the
Island
less accountability more they can hide there are no in interest to them to
show
the cause for where money has gone.

"Uncle Monster" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:45:07 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/31/2015 11:43 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

So a wild animal from Africa of the type that kills hundreds of HUMANS
every year in Africa is more important than people. I wonder if you
care that around 14,000 people have died of starvation during 24 hours
that everyone has been arguing about a fraking lion killed by a tooth
pulling big game hunter? Damn, I wish all the lion huggers would go to
Africa and cuddle with the poor lions from Cecil's pride and apologize
for the brutal murder of their daddy. Make sure you have someone
inside a protected vehicle making a video for YouTube because I'd love
to see the cute little adorable lions hug you back. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Lion Monster


As long as this thread is, no one said the lion is more important than
people. That is your conclusion.

If you want outrage over starving people, you have to get it on the 6
o'clock news first.

Agree. This is nonsense. Americans have expressed outrage over
events involving humans in Africa. Last year, when those 200 girls
were kidnaped in Nigeria, for example. This country has also sent
more in aid to Africa than any other country in the world. We've
sent billions a year to Africa just for aids programs that have
saved millions of lives.

And most of that money was stolen by the corrupt government officials there
in Africa but there has been no hysterical response from the media, no
pitchforks and torches in front of African embassies because most Americans
have no fraking idea of what's happened to billions of their tax dollars
they thought were going to actually help A LOT of Africans in need. (?_?)

[8~{} Uncle Fraking Monster

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:48:32 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:25 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I feel no
empathy for this killer at all and hope he gets the book thrown at him
and spends a minimum of a decade in prison. If he got life that would
be fine with me too. He knew exactly what he was doing and that it
was illegal. So did the guides.


Do you have any proof that the dentist knew?

Or, are you just being bigotted? Your hatred
is really showing through.

I wasn't born yesterday. Were you? This has nothing to do with
bigotry, it's not about WHAT he IS, it's about WHAT HE DID.

If a black thief walks down your street and you hate him because he's
black, that's bigotry. If you hate him because he's a thief, that's
not.

On 8/3/2015 9:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's the principle, it's not just this particular lion. This
particular lion was protected and this dentist knew he was protected.
The guides knew he was protected. EVERYONE involved in this knew it,
they just thought they could get away with it.


A couple weeks ago, you asked me to prove a
negative (that you did NOT speak for God). I'm
returning the favor, asking you to provei
EVERYONE knew it.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/3/2015 9:30 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:48:32 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:25 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I feel no
empathy for this killer at all and hope he gets the book thrown at him
and spends a minimum of a decade in prison. If he got life that would
be fine with me too. He knew exactly what he was doing and that it
was illegal. So did the guides.


Do you have any proof that the dentist knew?

Or, are you just being bigotted? Your hatred
is really showing through.

I wasn't born yesterday. Were you? This has nothing to do with
bigotry, it's not about WHAT he IS, it's about WHAT HE DID.

If a black thief walks down your street and you hate him because he's
black, that's bigotry. If you hate him because he's a thief, that's
not.

So, you have no proof that the dentist
and EVERYONE knew?


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 8:26:19 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:45:03 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/31/2015 11:43 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

So a wild animal from Africa of the type that kills hundreds of HUMANS every year in Africa is more important than people. I wonder if you care that around 14,000 people have died of starvation during 24 hours that everyone has been arguing about a fraking lion killed by a tooth pulling big game hunter? Damn, I wish all the lion huggers would go to Africa and cuddle with the poor lions from Cecil's pride and apologize for the brutal murder of their daddy. Make sure you have someone inside a protected vehicle making a video for YouTube because I'd love to see the cute little adorable lions hug you back. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Lion Monster


As long as this thread is, no one said the lion is more important than
people. That is your conclusion.

If you want outrage over starving people, you have to get it on the 6
o'clock news first.

Agree. This is nonsense. Americans have expressed outrage over
events involving humans in Africa. Last year, when those 200 girls
were kidnaped in Nigeria, for example. This country has also sent
more in aid to Africa than any other country in the world. We've
sent billions a year to Africa just for aids programs that have
saved millions of lives.


And look what we did with the Ebola outbreak. It's not due to lack of
help that there are too many starving people, it's because too many of
those starving people keep having MORE kids they CANNOT AFFORD to have
and they live in countries that STEAL most of the foreign aid we send
instead of spending it on their people. It should be MY choice as to
who I wish to help. I don't have much interest in funding help for
people who will just pop out another half dozen kids when they won't
allow me to make my help conditioned on them getting their tubes tied
or the men getting vasectomy.

A well meaning charity in Sweden sent condoms to Africa to be used for disease prevention and birth control. The Africans used them for party balloons because the condoms were too small for their intended use. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[8~{} Uncle Rubber Monster

Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.
--
Pete Cresswell

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.
--
Pete Cresswell

its was a special protected lion lured away by the hunter, to be killed. it wasnt raised as food, hunter only wanted the trophy.. he brooke the law doing this

worse the lions cubs depend on daddy for protection, so they will likely die too

trophy hunting by americans should be outlawed, includig making it illegal to bring here any trophys

On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today.

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

After UFC superstar champion Ronda Rousey demolished her opponent this
weekend (in about 34 seconds) the announcer said of her "war face" when she
steps into the ring: "She looks like she just found the person who stole her
dog."

http://www.google.com/search?q=ronda...=en&t bm=isch

In this case that would be Walter Palmer. Sometimes people feel the need to
make an example of someone to indicate their dissatisfaction with the
leniency of the law or some other condition they dislike.

I have to say, it's sort of odd to compare it to the coverage an abortion
trial gets. Maybe if they made films like "The Abortion King" or wrote
songs like "In the Jungle, the Mighty Jungle, the Abortionist Sleeps
Tonight" then lions and abortions would have the same human interest value.
But a well-known lion lured out of his sanctuary to be killed by a dentist
who couldn't even make a "Deerhunter" one-shot kill. Then he hacks off the
collar? It sounds even more Bergman-esque than his film, the Virgin Spring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virgin_Spring

where men murder a young girl and then try to sell her dress in town to
(unknown to them) her father. The father stabs one of the herders to death
before killing the other two with his bare hands.

The only way the Cecil story could get more powerful is if someone betrayed
him with a kiss or tried to sell his radio collar at a pawn shop.

--
Bobby G.

On 8/3/2015 11:52 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

A well meaning charity in Sweden sent condoms
to Africa to be used for disease prevention and
birth control. The Africans used them for party
balloons because the condoms were too small for
their intended use. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[8~{} Uncle Rubber Monster


The same mechanic who had the dried out fan, told me a
story about relief workers going to Africa. They
brought a load of condoms to help deal with the spread
of AIDS in the contintent.

The relief workers taught the locals to (mechanic extends
his index finger pointing towards the ceiling) roll the
condomon like this (makes gestures of rolling condom onto
his extended index finger) before relations. Well,
aparently the Africans did just that (roll condom onto
extended index finger) and the spread of aids and STD
continued about the same rate as before.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today.

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

+1

But, OMG! You used *statistics*. I did exactly the same thing
and you saw that at least one loon denier here can't accept that.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:12:14 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:52 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

A well meaning charity in Sweden sent condoms
to Africa to be used for disease prevention and
birth control. The Africans used them for party
balloons because the condoms were too small for
their intended use. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[8~{} Uncle Rubber Monster


The same mechanic who had the dried out fan, told me a
story about relief workers going to Africa. They
brought a load of condoms to help deal with the spread
of AIDS in the contintent.

The relief workers taught the locals to (mechanic extends
his index finger pointing towards the ceiling) roll the
condomon like this (makes gestures of rolling condom onto
his extended index finger) before relations. Well,
aparently the Africans did just that (roll condom onto
extended index finger) and the spread of aids and STD
continued about the same rate as before.
--
.

I read about another well meaning group that sent tractors so the villagers could more efficiently plow the fields and grow food. When a representative went to check on how the people were doing, the villagers had spark plugs in their earlobes and tractor parts being used as decorations in their huts and on their bodies. Kids were playing on the rusting tractors. The charity had forgotten to supply the villagers with one thing,....fraking fuel! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Village Monster

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:37:25 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today..

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

+1

But, OMG! You used *statistics*. I did exactly the same thing
and you saw that at least one loon denier here can't accept that.

What sort of person would be so horrible to deny a poor defenseless loon anything. They're such cute birds. (^Ì®^)

https://tinyurl.com/4q53ef5

[8~{} Uncle Loony Monster

On 8/5/2015 9:49 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

I read about another well meaning group that
sent tractors so the villagers could more
efficiently plow the fields and grow food. When
a representative went to check on how the people
were doing, the villagers had spark plugs in
their earlobes and tractor parts being used as
decorations in their huts and on their bodies.
Kids were playing on the rusting tractors. The
charity had forgotten to supply the villagers
with one thing,....fraking fuel! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Village Monster


A young man's father was a wood cutter. Each day the
father would go out to the woods to cut down trees
with a double bladed axe.

The son grew up, moved out, and learned about new
technology. He bought his father a chain saw for
Christmas one year. Later visiting home, the son
finds Dad still using his double bladed axe. Why?
Well, the saw didn't work very well, and too much
work.

Son went out, gassed up the saw and pulled the cord.
The saw jumped to life.

Father: "What's that noise?"

=======================================
Perhaps the Africans need some plowing lessons?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today.

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

+1

But, OMG! You used *statistics*. I did exactly the same thing
and you saw that at least one loon denier here can't accept that.


You jumped from quoting the decline in numbers went from X to Y and MAN
WAS THE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY KILLED ALL THOSE LIONS trying to use the
statistics to support your conclusion.

Ed simply mentioned the statistics without inserting a conclusion that
man was the cause.

I'm thinking you don't see the difference, though.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today.

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

+1

But, OMG! You used *statistics*. I did exactly the same thing
and you saw that at least one loon denier here can't accept that.


You jumped from quoting the decline in numbers went from X to Y and MAN
WAS THE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY KILLED ALL THOSE LIONS trying to use the
statistics to support your conclusion.


You're lying again. I did *exactly* what Ed did. I gave you a link
to the numbers of lions, their decline, their endangered species status
and I said:


"You really are ignorant of the world around you. Per the reference
above, there were 400,000 African lions in 1950. In 1990 there were
100,000. In 2004 the estimate is down to 16,000 to 47,000.
What part of that don't you understand? Does it have to get down
to the last 10, before you wake up? "

Note that there is nothing there that I posted about *how* the lion
population got there. YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.


Ed simply mentioned the statistics without inserting a conclusion that
man was the cause.


Per the above post history, EXACTLY what I did. It's right
there in the post history and I welcome everyone to go look
at it. You lie and
try to make it otherwise, which is why I have no respect for
you and you're but cannon fodder to make a fool of now.



I'm thinking you don't see the difference, though.

--
Maggie

I'm thinking you're both a liar and the new village idiot. And
then people think I'm being harsh with you? Good grief.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

I'm thinking you're both a liar and the new village idiot. And
then people think I'm being harsh with you? Good grief.

You have no patience or respect for anyone who doesn't think the same way you do. We are all different and have our own unique way of postulating something...thank God we are not all the same! Here, instead, we have to see you endlessly trying to convert everyone to your "superior" way of thinking. There is something seriously wrong in your head...I'm sure your co-workers find you obnoxious when you rub everyone the wrong way.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

I'm thinking you're both a liar and the new village idiot. And
then people think I'm being harsh with you? Good grief.

You have no patience or respect for anyone who doesn't think the same way you do.

Wrong. I have no patience for liars and people who are total idiots.

We are all different and have our own unique way of postulating something....

Someone postulates that the earth is flat, that the holocaust didn't happen,
that matter can't be changed into energy. Does that form just a way of
postulating or after pointing out civilly the true facts that they deny,
citing credible sources, etc, does that make them the village idiot?

In the case here, I and Ed as well, pointed out that lions have gone
from 400,000 to 16,000 in just fifty years. We cited the numbers from
credible sources. The village idiot immediately and falsely accused
me of trying to use those numbers to prove that man was behind the
decline, that it was a moral issue of right vs wrong that statistics
can't show, etc. Now, try to stay with me here. That is incredibly
dumb for three reasons:

1 - I never used those numbers to show the cause, I specifically stated
that I did not in many posts.

From the very first post where I used the numbers:

"You really are ignorant of the world around you. Per the reference
above, there were 400,000 African lions in 1950. In 1990 there were
100,000. In 2004 the estimate is down to 16,000 to 47,000.
What part of that don't you understand? Does it have to get down
to the last 10, before you wake up? "


2 - Per the above, the claim that I used those numbers to show
that man is the cause is an obvious lie. It's right there in
the thread.

3 - Even children know today that man is in fact the cause of the decline
in almost all the endangered species. So, while I never used those
statistics to prove it, it's an incredibly dumb avenue to try to segue
down.

So, you want to join your friend the village idiot, in denying
any of those three points? Before you decide, maybe you should
consider how you made an ass out yourself here recently when
you slammed me when I said that most PC today have the BIOS
stored in Flash or similar and don't need a battery to maintain them.
I suppose I should have just let your BS on that one go by,
better people don't know the facts, right?


thank God we are not all the same! Here, instead, we have to see you endlessly trying to convert everyone to your "superior" way of thinking. There is something seriously wrong in your head...I'm sure your co-workers find you obnoxious when you rub everyone the wrong way.

I've had many co-workers over many years. None found me obnoxious.
None of them were true village idiots either. And the truth
matters to me, apparently to libs like you, it doesn't matter at all.
It's all about touchy feely, singing Kumbaya, being nice to liars
and changing facts to fit whatever you think the truth is.

And note I'm not the only one continuing this thread. Your buddy M
has in fact made more posts, mostly stupid ones, than me. And here
you are chiming in too!

On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


Ed simply mentioned the statistics without inserting a conclusion that
man was the cause.


Per the above post history, EXACTLY what I did. It's right
there in the post history and I welcome everyone to go look
at it. You lie and
try to make it otherwise, which is why I have no respect for
you and you're but cannon fodder to make a fool of now.

Your post history includes various comments about how outraged you were
that the dentist killed the lion and how you'd like to see him
destroyed. Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.

Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


See, there you go lying again. One more time, idiot. I SAID THAT
I NEVER INTRODUCED NOR USED THE LION NUMBERS TO SHOW THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.
I separately said that almost everyone, yourself excluded, knows that
man is in fact responsible. See how that works? How they are two
different things? Good grief.

Instead of obfuscating and lying, why don't you just answer the simple
question:

Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.





Ed simply mentioned the statistics without inserting a conclusion that
man was the cause.


Per the above post history, EXACTLY what I did. It's right
there in the post history and I welcome everyone to go look
at it. You lie and
try to make it otherwise, which is why I have no respect for
you and you're but cannon fodder to make a fool of now.

Your post history includes various comments about how outraged you were
that the dentist killed the lion and how you'd like to see him
destroyed.

Lying again. I never said I'd like to see him destroyed. I
did say I thought him losing his patients, losing his business
that supports his killing more endangered animals, was a good thing.

And note that whatever I said about Palmer has nothing to do
with the number of lions in Africa.



Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.


And I stand by that. Again, note that it has nothing to do
with the factual numbers of the decline in lions. Nor did I say
I wanted to destroy the man. Stop lying.




Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


--
Maggie

That's because those numbers *do* exactly that. Good grief.
When you have an endangered species, where there are 16,000 today
versus 400,000 fifty years ago, to any thinking rational person,
it's not a good idea to kill more of them to hang on the wall.
It is indeed very, very sick.
And note, one more time, that has NOTHING to do with how the numbers
got there, idiot.

On 8/5/2015 2:16 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


See, there you go lying again. One more time, idiot. I SAID THAT
I NEVER INTRODUCED NOR USED THE LION NUMBERS TO SHOW THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.
I separately said that almost everyone, yourself excluded, knows that
man is in fact responsible. See how that works? How they are two
different things? Good grief.

The problem with making such a statement is there if no way for you to
know what "everyone else" knows/believes. Yet, you insert that into
your argument to bolster your view. That's wrong, imo.

Instead of obfuscating and lying, why don't you just answer the simple
question:

Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.

No, I don't agree.

[...]

Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.


And I stand by that. Again, note that it has nothing to do
with the factual numbers of the decline in lions. Nor did I say
I wanted to destroy the man. Stop lying.

I quoted your own words. What happens when someone is ostracized,
criticized and shamed by millions of people at the same time? Don't you
know that can destroy someone?? Or are you oblivious to the consequences
of your own actions?



Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


That's because those numbers *do* exactly that. Good grief.

So, you DID try to use statistics to support your viewpoint.

When you have an endangered species, where there are 16,000 today
versus 400,000 fifty years ago, to any thinking rational person,
it's not a good idea to kill more of them to hang on the wall.
It is indeed very, very sick.

"Sick" is relative to the personal experiences and conclusions
individuals come to based on their past. When you make such judgements
it kind of shows your level of intolerance of other people, and your
willingness to judge people harshly based on your own personal biases.

And note, one more time, that has NOTHING to do with how the numbers
got there, idiot.



--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 2:16 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


See, there you go lying again. One more time, idiot. I SAID THAT
I NEVER INTRODUCED NOR USED THE LION NUMBERS TO SHOW THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.
I separately said that almost everyone, yourself excluded, knows that
man is in fact responsible. See how that works? How they are two
different things? Good grief.

The problem with making such a statement is there if no way for you to
know what "everyone else" knows/believes. Yet, you insert that into
your argument to bolster your view. That's wrong, imo.

Instead of obfuscating and lying, why don't you just answer the simple
question:

Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.

No, I don't agree.

[...]

Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.


And I stand by that. Again, note that it has nothing to do
with the factual numbers of the decline in lions. Nor did I say
I wanted to destroy the man. Stop lying.

I quoted your own words. What happens when someone is ostracized,
criticized and shamed by millions of people at the same time? Don't you
know that can destroy someone?? Or are you oblivious to the consequences
of your own actions?



Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


That's because those numbers *do* exactly that. Good grief.

So, you DID try to use statistics to support your viewpoint.

When you have an endangered species, where there are 16,000 today
versus 400,000 fifty years ago, to any thinking rational person,
it's not a good idea to kill more of them to hang on the wall.
It is indeed very, very sick.

"Sick" is relative to the personal experiences and conclusions
individuals come to based on their past. When you make such judgements
it kind of shows your level of intolerance of other people, and your
willingness to judge people harshly based on your own personal biases.

And note, one more time, that has NOTHING to do with how the numbers
got there, idiot.


--
Maggie

If you kids don't shut up and behave, I'm going to pull this Internet over, take your Usenets away from you and you won't get them back until we get to Grandma's house! I mean it! à*§à¼¼à²*益à²*༽à*¨

[8~{} Uncle Irritated Monster

On 8/5/2015 3:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Just the news media pumping up another stupid story.
People don't give a **** about the inhumane treatment of animals at
factory farms or the cruel way they are slaughtered, why would they care
about a lion or two? Sheeeesh!

On 8/5/2015 3:39 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 2:16 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


See, there you go lying again. One more time, idiot. I SAID THAT
I NEVER INTRODUCED NOR USED THE LION NUMBERS TO SHOW THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.
I separately said that almost everyone, yourself excluded, knows that
man is in fact responsible. See how that works? How they are two
different things? Good grief.

The problem with making such a statement is there if no way for you to
know what "everyone else" knows/believes. Yet, you insert that into
your argument to bolster your view. That's wrong, imo.

Instead of obfuscating and lying, why don't you just answer the simple
question:

Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.

No, I don't agree.

[...]

Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.


And I stand by that. Again, note that it has nothing to do
with the factual numbers of the decline in lions. Nor did I say
I wanted to destroy the man. Stop lying.

I quoted your own words. What happens when someone is ostracized,
criticized and shamed by millions of people at the same time? Don't you
know that can destroy someone?? Or are you oblivious to the consequences
of your own actions?



Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


That's because those numbers *do* exactly that. Good grief.

So, you DID try to use statistics to support your viewpoint.

When you have an endangered species, where there are 16,000 today
versus 400,000 fifty years ago, to any thinking rational person,
it's not a good idea to kill more of them to hang on the wall.
It is indeed very, very sick.

"Sick" is relative to the personal experiences and conclusions
individuals come to based on their past. When you make such judgements
it kind of shows your level of intolerance of other people, and your
willingness to judge people harshly based on your own personal biases.

And note, one more time, that has NOTHING to do with how the numbers
got there, idiot.


--
Maggie

If you kids don't shut up and behave, I'm going to pull this Internet over, take your Usenets away from you and you won't get them back until we get to Grandma's house! I mean it! à*§à¼¼à²*益à²*༽à*¨

[8~{} Uncle Irritated Monster



aweee granpa!! He did it first!

--
Maggie

On 8/5/2015 3:50 PM, rhinotillexomania wrote:
On 8/5/2015 3:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Just the news media pumping up another stupid story.
People don't give a **** about the inhumane treatment of animals at
factory farms or the cruel way they are slaughtered, why would they care
about a lion or two? Sheeeesh!

Hadn't thought of it that way, but sounds like it would be true because
I don't hear people up in arms about how their steak dinner was slaughtered.

--
Maggie

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:07:13 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.

The animals in the slaughter house are not killed to satisfy the ego
of a rich asshole but are used to feed people. As such they are, or
should be, killed humanely and quickly, not wounded and "hunted" for
40 hours while they are suffering and slowly dying. I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:52:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/3/2015 9:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's the principle, it's not just this particular lion. This
particular lion was protected and this dentist knew he was protected.
The guides knew he was protected. EVERYONE involved in this knew it,
they just thought they could get away with it.


A couple weeks ago, you asked me to prove a
negative (that you did NOT speak for God). I'm
returning the favor, asking you to provei
EVERYONE knew it.


I will admit it's simply my belief based on past experience and how
these people have acted. If you (or they) can provide any evidence to
counter the evidence that they knew I will consider that evidence. You
are free to take their word that they, as Sgt Schultz would say "Knew
NOTHING, NOTHING". All the evidence I'm aware of says they are lying.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:53:39 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/3/2015 9:30 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:48:32 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:25 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I feel no
empathy for this killer at all and hope he gets the book thrown at him
and spends a minimum of a decade in prison. If he got life that would
be fine with me too. He knew exactly what he was doing and that it
was illegal. So did the guides.


Do you have any proof that the dentist knew?

Or, are you just being bigotted? Your hatred
is really showing through.

I wasn't born yesterday. Were you? This has nothing to do with
bigotry, it's not about WHAT he IS, it's about WHAT HE DID.

If a black thief walks down your street and you hate him because he's
black, that's bigotry. If you hate him because he's a thief, that's
not.

So, you have no proof that the dentist
and EVERYONE knew?

Answered in the other thread.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 3:50 PM, rhinotillexomania wrote:
On 8/5/2015 3:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Just the news media pumping up another stupid story.
People don't give a **** about the inhumane treatment of animals at
factory farms or the cruel way they are slaughtered, why would they care
about a lion or two? Sheeeesh!

Hadn't thought of it that way, but sounds like it would be true because
I don't hear people up in arms about how their steak dinner was slaughtered.

--
Maggie

Except for those wackos from PITA. They want the steer to volunteer. The goofy folks who believe animals have rights did some hidden camera work at various slaughterhouses and when they released the videos, not one Conservative howled that it was a war on hunger, that is was going to starve grandmothers and children. I imagine that if the cows and steers had names, people would become hysterical and demand that the owners of meat processing plants be jailed or slaughtered. á•™(‡€€¸†¼€¶)á•—

[8~{} Uncle Carnivorous Monster

Per Ashton Crusher:
I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Have you seen the movie "Temple Grandin"? I gave it five stars...
others may hate it.

Basically, she revolutionized the handling of cattle in the feedlot and
slaughter house industries. Something like fifty percent of the
slaughterhouses in the USA have rebuilt their "production" lines to her
designs.

The picture I get of how it happens in her systems is that a cow or bull
is just walking along ... "another day, another walk...." and suddenly
the lights go out.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:58:55 PM UTC-4, bob_villa wrote:

You have no patience or respect for anyone who doesn't think the same way you do.

Wrong. I have no patience for liars and people who are total idiots.

We are all different and have our own unique way of postulating something...

So, you want to join your friend the village idiot, in denying
any of those three points? Before you decide, maybe you should
consider how you made an ass out yourself here recently when
you slammed me when I said that most PC today have the BIOS
stored in Flash or similar and don't need a battery to maintain them.
I suppose I should have just let your BS on that one go by,
better people don't know the facts, right?


thank God we are not all the same! Here, instead, we have to see you endlessly trying to convert everyone to your "superior" way of thinking. There is something seriously wrong in your head...I'm sure your co-workers find you obnoxious when you rub everyone the wrong way.



I agree with you on this one...I don't like your tactics and insults to someone who has been civil to you. It's that simple...you don't have to be overbearing with your rhetoric...life is short.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:07:13 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.

The animals in the slaughter house are not killed to satisfy the ego
of a rich asshole but are used to feed people. As such they are, or
should be, killed humanely and quickly, not wounded and "hunted" for
40 hours while they are suffering and slowly dying. I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Any slaughter house killing wild animals? We rasied them as a food
source, cows, hogs, chickens,.....

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:51:03 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Have you seen the movie "Temple Grandin"? I gave it five stars...
others may hate it.

Basically, she revolutionized the handling of cattle in the feedlot and
slaughter house industries. Something like fifty percent of the
slaughterhouses in the USA have rebuilt their "production" lines to her
designs.

The picture I get of how it happens in her systems is that a cow or bull
is just walking along ... "another day, another walk...." and suddenly
the lights go out.

No, haven't seen or heard of it. What little I know of
slaughterhouses is that properly operated ones can handle things
humanely but there is always the human factor that must be watched.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 18:14:47 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:07:13 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.

The animals in the slaughter house are not killed to satisfy the ego
of a rich asshole but are used to feed people. As such they are, or
should be, killed humanely and quickly, not wounded and "hunted" for
40 hours while they are suffering and slowly dying. I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Any slaughter house killing wild animals? We rasied them as a food
source, cows, hogs, chickens,.....

Well, sometimes wild horses are rounded up and taken to slaughter
houses. Not many people in the US really like it but most that would
be offended don't know it goes on.

On 8/5/2015 6:30 PM, Muggles wrote:


Hadn't thought of it that way, but sounds like it would be true because
I don't hear people up in arms about how their steak dinner was slaughtered.


Really? There have been dozens, probably hundreds of protests over the
years. Change.org has had many petitions. Don't forget about PETA.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Have you seen the movie "Temple Grandin"? I gave it five stars...
others may hate it.

Basically, she revolutionized the handling of cattle in the feedlot and
slaughter house industries. Something like fifty percent of the
slaughterhouses in the USA have rebuilt their "production" lines to her
designs.

The picture I get of how it happens in her systems is that a cow or bull
is just walking along ... "another day, another walk...." and suddenly
the lights go out.
--
Pete Cresswell

Perhaps the prison system could use her design for death row? (Ì¿–€Ì¿€‰Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯Ì¿Ì¿–€Ì¿ Ì¿)

[8~{} Uncle Justice Monster

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:30:54 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 3:50 PM, rhinotillexomania wrote:
On 8/5/2015 3:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not..
The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

Just the news media pumping up another stupid story.
People don't give a **** about the inhumane treatment of animals at
factory farms or the cruel way they are slaughtered, why would they care
about a lion or two? Sheeeesh!

Hadn't thought of it that way, but sounds like it would be true because
I don't hear people up in arms about how their steak dinner was slaughtered.

--
Maggie

Except for those wackos from PITA. They want the steer to volunteer. The goofy folks who believe animals have rights did some hidden camera work at various slaughterhouses and when they released the videos, not one Conservative howled that it was a war on hunger, that is was going to starve grandmothers and children. I imagine that if the cows and steers had names, people would become hysterical and demand that the owners of meat processing plants be jailed or slaughtered. á•™(‡€€¸†¼€¶)á•—

[8~{} Uncle Carnivorous Monster

Damn, wrong wackos, the people at PITA make sandwiches out of everything. I meant PETA, I was hungry when I made the post. (ï¼�€¸áƒš)

[8~{} Uncle Distracted Monster

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 18:14:47 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:07:13 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.

The animals in the slaughter house are not killed to satisfy the ego
of a rich asshole but are used to feed people. As such they are, or
should be, killed humanely and quickly, not wounded and "hunted" for
40 hours while they are suffering and slowly dying. I am not opposed
to killing animals for food, I am opposed to how some animals are
'hunted' and killed, particularly when there is simply no rational
reason to be killing them.

Any slaughter house killing wild animals? We rasied them as a food
source, cows, hogs, chickens,.....

Well, sometimes wild horses are rounded up and taken to slaughter
houses. Not many people in the US really like it but most that would
be offended don't know it goes on.

I heard horse meat is for dog food or shipped to France. French likes
horse meat. Near our cabin there is pack of feral horses roaming free.
From now and then government cull them to keep the total number at
certain level.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 3:38:33 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

I can't honestly say yes or no as to whether it's a good idea or not.

See, that's what makes you the village idiot.



The locals don't care if another lion is killed and are puzzled by why
Some Americans care so much about it. If they don't care and it's in
their own back yard, why don't they care? Are the lions eating their
livestock or attacking their families?

If you paid the slightest attention to the news, you'd see that
the people of Zimbabwe do care. And don't lie and pretend that
I didn't already tell you that Z has halted the killing of lions
in response. Lawmakers are looking into changing the laws, they
want Palmer extradicted, so it's obvious that the people of Z,
like most people, care. Do you even look at the facts of what is
actually going on before coming in here and making an ass of yourself?

And in all the coverage of this story,
did you see anyone saying that Cecil, the well know star attraction
of the wildlife preserve was attacking families? WTF exactly is
wrong with you?




Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.

No, I don't agree.


Again, that is what makes you the village idiot. No further
proof needed, your credibility, is zero, your comments as
valid as a member of the flat earth society. The scientific proof,
agreement of experts is overwhelming and it's accepted as fact.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

See, that's what makes you the village idiot.

....coming in here and making an ass of yourself?

WTF exactly is
wrong with you?


Again, that is what makes you the village idiot.

....an idiot is also someone that keeps repeating themselves!