JackM wrote:
At least be honest enough to quote me accurately. You dodged "the issue I addressed" in the post to which you were responding. It is getting tiresome to have to correct your distortions constantly.
I did quote you directly and entirely on that last one (look at the top part). I did not distort anything. You called it "
the issue." In the part I embedded in my text, I felt that repeating "I addressed" was irrelevant because you addressed many issues. i was simply asking which of the issues that you addressed deserved the distinction of being called "the" issue. I did not distort anything in that response.
I am not dodging your question about whether those groups think that the Governor is a friend of the hunter, I don't know the answer because I am not privy to what those groups think. You know I'm not privy to it and that is the only reason you asked it.
Not true, and where do you get off telling me what i know and don't know. It is common knowledge that most of those groupd were apposed to Randell in both elections.
You already think you know the answer anyway, yet have offered nothing yourself to prove your belief about how they feel toward him.
That is partly true. However, if I was wrong, this would have been a perfect opportunity for you to prove me wrong, and I would bet a case of beer that if you didn't already agree with that thinking you would have tried. That is based on your history.
I do know that they agreed with his support of that particular legislation and in giving that support he acted as a friend would. Likewise in his selection of avid hunters for his advisory council, and similarly, with respect to fishing conservation issues by nominating and remaining steadfast in LenLichvar's case.
True, he
acted as a friend would. I addressed that fairly early on.
did I miss "
the issue" you addressed again? I'm still comfused as to what issue you were talking about.
As for your continued belief that you have demonstrated that something other than speculation is causing you to believe that hunting reduces deer-vehicle accidents, I must admit you have answered that question by your actions. Unfortunately, the answer you are giving is not that there is evidence to support the conclusion. Rather the answer I am hearing is that other than speculation, the reason people believe that hunting reduce deer-vehicle collisions is because it makes them feel better about their hobby and offers a potential argument (unsupported as it is) to use against deer-huggers.
huh? I may not have given explicit sources, but I assure you that my info was accurate and can be backed up by DCNR and the Game Commison at least. Besides, you already agreed that it can be done in a response to someone else. So it appears that you are arguing for the sake of argument (again). I offered before to look up some sources if you are really interested, but you didn't respond. I can only assume you really aren't interested in anything that supports hunting as a management tool. Either that, or I am an even worse writer than I already thought. Do you want me to look up some sources or not. It might take me awhile because deer science is not exactly mainstream. So don't say yes unless you really mean it
