Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:06 pm
wonder if there is a limit to the number of pages this can go on.
Its starting to sound like My X wife
Its starting to sound like My X wife
ttt
Hell yeah ! Keep it going.
DuckSouth.com
Waterfowling Southern Style!
http://www.ducksouth.com/phpbb/
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
Page 12 of 70
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:53 pm
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:34 pm
"Mississippi has come a long way in my 46 years but we got a long, long way to go and it is the pigheaded, head in the sand mentality displayed by PML, GG, BRGH, etc that is the biggest enemy to progress... "
Dammit boy, that is just a tad dramatic, isn't it?? This is a free country --- at least the last time I checked. Some of us have brains and are free thinkers ---not merely sheep. IF you want us to buy what you're selling, then you will have to be more persuasive. Rattling off a laundry list of companies getting in line to profit off of this psuedo science, as if popularity or $$ has anything to do with the truth of the science supporting the theory, is pretty lame. If you believe in this theory of man-caused global climate change due to CO2 emissions, then great --more power to you --knock yourself out doing whatever it is you think you need to do in response thereto, or to line your pockets, etc. None of us "pigheads" here will be holding you or anyone else back. Just don't ask us to take that leap of faith with you.
Personally, I'm already "carbon neutral". I was "carbon neutral" before "carbon neutral" was cool. And I don't need the benefit of a ponzi carbon credit scam, er scheme to make that claim, as do big time polluters like Al Gore. Nor do I think that such is any real claim to brag about, as I have never considered CO2 to be "pollution". CO2 occurs naturally in our environment --- humans and animals exhale it, plants need it to survive, etc. CO2 now = pollution. 
Who would have thunk it? 
As a final parting shot from this heretic, this recent article by William F. Buckley seems appropriate:
------------------------------
April 03, 2007
Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition
By William F. Buckley
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable columnist (Thomas Friedman of The New York Times) opened his essay last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the administration, and on leaving it he took a job with Exxon Mobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1) Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for Exxon Mobil, a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere? One recalls the plant in Nazi Germany that manufactured the toxic gas Zyklon B. The primary use of this gas was in the extermination camps, whose masters were looking for efficient ways to destroy human beings. Is the community engaged in oil production the contemporary equivalent of the makers of Zyklon B?
Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific acts of natural propitiation.
The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.
It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility for them.
To speak in very general terms, the United States is easily the principal offender, given the size of our country and the intensity of our use of fossil-fuel energy. But even accepting the high per-capita rate of consumption in the United States, we face the terrible inadequacy of ameliorative resources. If the United States were (we are dealing in hypotheses) to eliminate the use of oil or gas for power, would that forfeiture be decisive?
Well, no. It would produce about 23 percent global relief, and at a devastating cost to our economy.
As a practical matter, what have modern states undertaken with a view to diminishing greenhouse gases? The answer is: Not very much. What is being done gives off a kind of satisfaction, of the kind felt back then when prayers were recited as apostates were led to the stake to be burned. If you levied a 100 percent surtax on gasoline in the United States, you would certainly reduce the use of it, but the arbiter is there to say: What is a complementary sacrifice we can then expect from India and China? China will soon overtake the United States in the production of greenhouse gases.
At Kyoto, an effort was made 10 years ago to allocate proportional reductions nation by nation. The United States almost uniquely declined to subscribe to the Kyoto protocols. Canada, Japan and the countries of Western Europe subscribed, but some have already fallen short of their goals, and all of them are skeptical about the prospect of making future scheduled reductions. It is estimated that if the United States had subscribed to Kyoto, it would have cost us $100 billion to $400 billion per year.
There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned, will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g., a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century, substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches — and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore.
Meanwhile, the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg said something outside the hearing of the outraged columnist. He noted solemnly that any increase in heat-related deaths should be balanced against the corresponding decrease in cold-related deaths. ... We need hope, and self-confidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as it pains me, I am done here on this thread. Its been a fun little exercise, but I've grown weary of the debate. Nice topic though. Carry on.
Dammit boy, that is just a tad dramatic, isn't it?? This is a free country --- at least the last time I checked. Some of us have brains and are free thinkers ---not merely sheep. IF you want us to buy what you're selling, then you will have to be more persuasive. Rattling off a laundry list of companies getting in line to profit off of this psuedo science, as if popularity or $$ has anything to do with the truth of the science supporting the theory, is pretty lame. If you believe in this theory of man-caused global climate change due to CO2 emissions, then great --more power to you --knock yourself out doing whatever it is you think you need to do in response thereto, or to line your pockets, etc. None of us "pigheads" here will be holding you or anyone else back. Just don't ask us to take that leap of faith with you.
Personally, I'm already "carbon neutral". I was "carbon neutral" before "carbon neutral" was cool.
And I don't need the benefit of a ponzi carbon credit scam, er scheme to make that claim, as do big time polluters like Al Gore. Nor do I think that such is any real claim to brag about, as I have never considered CO2 to be "pollution". CO2 occurs naturally in our environment --- humans and animals exhale it, plants need it to survive, etc. CO2 now = pollution. Who would have thunk it?
As a final parting shot from this heretic, this recent article by William F. Buckley seems appropriate:
------------------------------
April 03, 2007
Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition
By William F. Buckley
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable columnist (Thomas Friedman of The New York Times) opened his essay last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the administration, and on leaving it he took a job with Exxon Mobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1) Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for Exxon Mobil, a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere? One recalls the plant in Nazi Germany that manufactured the toxic gas Zyklon B. The primary use of this gas was in the extermination camps, whose masters were looking for efficient ways to destroy human beings. Is the community engaged in oil production the contemporary equivalent of the makers of Zyklon B?
Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific acts of natural propitiation.
The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.
It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility for them.
To speak in very general terms, the United States is easily the principal offender, given the size of our country and the intensity of our use of fossil-fuel energy. But even accepting the high per-capita rate of consumption in the United States, we face the terrible inadequacy of ameliorative resources. If the United States were (we are dealing in hypotheses) to eliminate the use of oil or gas for power, would that forfeiture be decisive?
Well, no. It would produce about 23 percent global relief, and at a devastating cost to our economy.
As a practical matter, what have modern states undertaken with a view to diminishing greenhouse gases? The answer is: Not very much. What is being done gives off a kind of satisfaction, of the kind felt back then when prayers were recited as apostates were led to the stake to be burned. If you levied a 100 percent surtax on gasoline in the United States, you would certainly reduce the use of it, but the arbiter is there to say: What is a complementary sacrifice we can then expect from India and China? China will soon overtake the United States in the production of greenhouse gases.
At Kyoto, an effort was made 10 years ago to allocate proportional reductions nation by nation. The United States almost uniquely declined to subscribe to the Kyoto protocols. Canada, Japan and the countries of Western Europe subscribed, but some have already fallen short of their goals, and all of them are skeptical about the prospect of making future scheduled reductions. It is estimated that if the United States had subscribed to Kyoto, it would have cost us $100 billion to $400 billion per year.
There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned, will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g., a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century, substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches — and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore.
Meanwhile, the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg said something outside the hearing of the outraged columnist. He noted solemnly that any increase in heat-related deaths should be balanced against the corresponding decrease in cold-related deaths. ... We need hope, and self-confidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as it pains me, I am done here on this thread. Its been a fun little exercise, but I've grown weary of the debate. Nice topic though. Carry on.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:50 pm
Hammer, I am not concerned in the least about my credibility around here, I believe it has been established through a personal relationship with many people on this board.... However, since you have resorted to personal attacks, I will follow Po Monkey's lead and let this be my last statement on the subject.....
You ask us to accept the writings of newspapers and internet articles as the absolute truth; however you fail to realize that these articles are interpretations by an author of either data or a Court ruling. I for one am not willing to let the media tell me what the Supreme Court said, so I spent the time to read the opinion. I don't pretend to know how to interpret data, but I do know how to read a Supreme Court Opinion. And I also that reasonable minds are differing as to how to determine the limited Global Warming Data.
Unfortunately, it appears to me, and I'm sure others, that you have refused to acknowledge that there is even a possibility that your beloved scientists are wrong. You have quoted a lot of information, but it fails to establish your case. First of all you have offered no proof that "Global Warming" is not merely a cycle of the planet. Secondly, you failed to establish that there is any reason to believe that we can alter the Earth's climate change in a significant manner. And third and most importantly you have not shown that there is a relationship between CO2 and the temperature of the planet. You can quote all of the people that believe it is, but it does not mean that the relationship exists. Conversely, as you point out it doesn’t mean that there is no relationship, I think most would agree there is a possibility a relationship exists. But, there is a possibility that Elvis Aaron Presley is still alive, but no one has proven it yet even though lots of folks believe it to be true.
So, your last two posts attempt to label anyone who doesn't fall in line with your opinions unsophisticated. I guess that is the best that you have got, insult the naysayers. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. I guess that is the theory. Yeah, we are a bunch of ignorant country bumpkins who have never left the state...if you really believe that the CO2 must really be getting to you; I thought you had been around long enough to know better, I guess not.
I don't know what you do for a living, and have never met you, but I imagine you are a pretty decent guy who carried this a bit too far, and now you have to defend your assertions at all costs. But from your opinions on this thread it is hard to believe that original thought is a concept with which you are familiar. I would suggest first you read the clean air act (not someone’s article about it), then try reading the Supreme Court Case. The court clearly outlines the issue in that case, and it does not address whether or not there is a relationship between CO2 and global warming.
In closing, I think it is important to state that I care a lot what happens to the environment, and I believe all of the others who disagree with you do as well. However, we have taken a bit of time to approach this with an open mind and see that the “scientific proof†is far from proof, and that reasonable minds still disagree as to how to interpret this proof.
I appreciate all of those who have added something to this thread, and I believe it is a relevant topic. But, because I don’t believe that we are advancing this discussion anymore, and it has resorted to personal attacks I will bid this thread adieu.
Now Hammer you’re welcome to join me to shoot some clays one day, or drink a beer…. I will not hold this against you…. But if you set up too close to me one time…I will shoot your decoys….
You ask us to accept the writings of newspapers and internet articles as the absolute truth; however you fail to realize that these articles are interpretations by an author of either data or a Court ruling. I for one am not willing to let the media tell me what the Supreme Court said, so I spent the time to read the opinion. I don't pretend to know how to interpret data, but I do know how to read a Supreme Court Opinion. And I also that reasonable minds are differing as to how to determine the limited Global Warming Data.
Unfortunately, it appears to me, and I'm sure others, that you have refused to acknowledge that there is even a possibility that your beloved scientists are wrong. You have quoted a lot of information, but it fails to establish your case. First of all you have offered no proof that "Global Warming" is not merely a cycle of the planet. Secondly, you failed to establish that there is any reason to believe that we can alter the Earth's climate change in a significant manner. And third and most importantly you have not shown that there is a relationship between CO2 and the temperature of the planet. You can quote all of the people that believe it is, but it does not mean that the relationship exists. Conversely, as you point out it doesn’t mean that there is no relationship, I think most would agree there is a possibility a relationship exists. But, there is a possibility that Elvis Aaron Presley is still alive, but no one has proven it yet even though lots of folks believe it to be true.
So, your last two posts attempt to label anyone who doesn't fall in line with your opinions unsophisticated. I guess that is the best that you have got, insult the naysayers. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. I guess that is the theory. Yeah, we are a bunch of ignorant country bumpkins who have never left the state...if you really believe that the CO2 must really be getting to you; I thought you had been around long enough to know better, I guess not.
I don't know what you do for a living, and have never met you, but I imagine you are a pretty decent guy who carried this a bit too far, and now you have to defend your assertions at all costs. But from your opinions on this thread it is hard to believe that original thought is a concept with which you are familiar. I would suggest first you read the clean air act (not someone’s article about it), then try reading the Supreme Court Case. The court clearly outlines the issue in that case, and it does not address whether or not there is a relationship between CO2 and global warming.
In closing, I think it is important to state that I care a lot what happens to the environment, and I believe all of the others who disagree with you do as well. However, we have taken a bit of time to approach this with an open mind and see that the “scientific proof†is far from proof, and that reasonable minds still disagree as to how to interpret this proof.
I appreciate all of those who have added something to this thread, and I believe it is a relevant topic. But, because I don’t believe that we are advancing this discussion anymore, and it has resorted to personal attacks I will bid this thread adieu.
Now Hammer you’re welcome to join me to shoot some clays one day, or drink a beer…. I will not hold this against you…. But if you set up too close to me one time…I will shoot your decoys….
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:19 am
Bet Hammer holds all the ducks too 
Remember Hammer it's all cycles, cycles man, cycles. Repeat after me cycles.
Oh and you insulted most everyone on this board as most all have been outside MS, outside the Southeast, and some outside the country on multiple occasions.
Somebody throw this guy a rope so he can climb out of this deep hole he's dug himself into.
Remember Hammer it's all cycles, cycles man, cycles. Repeat after me cycles.
Oh and you insulted most everyone on this board as most all have been outside MS, outside the Southeast, and some outside the country on multiple occasions.
Somebody throw this guy a rope so he can climb out of this deep hole he's dug himself into.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:49 am
Hammer wrote:WRONG!!! If CO2 emissions were not a cause of global warming, they would not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act
Specious Reasoning!
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:47 am
at a recent press conference the easter bunny was asked his thoughts on global warming.. without answeing.. he just looked at the reporter like she had a dick growing off her forehead
28 deg sat night..
bunnyz nuts will be tight..
here comes peter cottontail
freezen his nutz off on da bunny trail
28 deg sat night..
bunnyz nuts will be tight..
here comes peter cottontail
freezen his nutz off on da bunny trail
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:58 am
Yall picked a fine time to get sensitive about personal attacks given the posts you have made above...If you are gonna give it, you better be able to take it...
There is a reason MS is last in a lot of quality of life indicators...Sooner or later, our provincial, xenophopic mentality has got to give or we will stay mired in our mediocrity...Might as well be now, might as well start on this thread and GW might as well be the issue so go ahead and explain to me how exactly Entergy, Duke Energy, Florida Power & Light, AEP, AES and a host of other power companies who are pressing the Bushies to regulate CO2 will make money off the regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant?
How exactly do BP and Shell benefit from an added expense associated with the use of their products?
At best, these and most other companies are in a "minimize expenses associated wtih regulation fo CO2 emissions" situation...The advantage of carbon credit markets is getting to the least cost-most efficient solution...Similar markets have worked very well in reducing ACID RAIN pollution but yall will probably argue that is a scam too...
And about the "specious reasoning", take that up with the Supreme Court...Massachussets sued the EPA under the Clean Air Act over EPA not regulating CO2 emissions...THe Supreme COurt sided with Massachussetts and said CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act...The stated REASON that CO2 is a pollutant is becuase it causes GW...Those are the facts regardless of how you spin them...
As for shooting my decoys, not gonna happen unless you are poaching on my land or one of my leases. I do hunt public ground occassionally for ducks for old times sake, a little for deer but mostly for turkeys. I dont use decoys for any of the above because I dont have to. Green timber hunting is all about calling and shooting. You dont want a piece of me on either count. Regardng my 2 or 3 public ground duck hunts per year, I hunt where I want to hunt, holes that have memories, holes that I have hunted for decades...If you get up at some ridiculous hour to beat me to the hole I want to hunt, I will simply set up 100 yards from you, call ducks off you and treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....If you come in late and set up at daylight 100 yards from me, I will welcome you to the hole, tell you to be sure not to shoot in my direction, call ducks off you, treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....In other words, you wont mess up my hunt as long as you are safe and I dont mind the proximity but dont try to have it both ways as you are trying to do by calling foul on personal attacks after you have made several above...
As one post above said, there is really no scoreboard on an Internet thread...I dont disagree wtih that in general, but as the evidence accumulates on human induced GW, I will send yall occassional reminders.
2 gobbs down, 1 to go. Happy Easter to all, ho, ho, ho.
There is a reason MS is last in a lot of quality of life indicators...Sooner or later, our provincial, xenophopic mentality has got to give or we will stay mired in our mediocrity...Might as well be now, might as well start on this thread and GW might as well be the issue so go ahead and explain to me how exactly Entergy, Duke Energy, Florida Power & Light, AEP, AES and a host of other power companies who are pressing the Bushies to regulate CO2 will make money off the regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant?
How exactly do BP and Shell benefit from an added expense associated with the use of their products?
At best, these and most other companies are in a "minimize expenses associated wtih regulation fo CO2 emissions" situation...The advantage of carbon credit markets is getting to the least cost-most efficient solution...Similar markets have worked very well in reducing ACID RAIN pollution but yall will probably argue that is a scam too...
And about the "specious reasoning", take that up with the Supreme Court...Massachussets sued the EPA under the Clean Air Act over EPA not regulating CO2 emissions...THe Supreme COurt sided with Massachussetts and said CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act...The stated REASON that CO2 is a pollutant is becuase it causes GW...Those are the facts regardless of how you spin them...
As for shooting my decoys, not gonna happen unless you are poaching on my land or one of my leases. I do hunt public ground occassionally for ducks for old times sake, a little for deer but mostly for turkeys. I dont use decoys for any of the above because I dont have to. Green timber hunting is all about calling and shooting. You dont want a piece of me on either count. Regardng my 2 or 3 public ground duck hunts per year, I hunt where I want to hunt, holes that have memories, holes that I have hunted for decades...If you get up at some ridiculous hour to beat me to the hole I want to hunt, I will simply set up 100 yards from you, call ducks off you and treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....If you come in late and set up at daylight 100 yards from me, I will welcome you to the hole, tell you to be sure not to shoot in my direction, call ducks off you, treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....In other words, you wont mess up my hunt as long as you are safe and I dont mind the proximity but dont try to have it both ways as you are trying to do by calling foul on personal attacks after you have made several above...
As one post above said, there is really no scoreboard on an Internet thread...I dont disagree wtih that in general, but as the evidence accumulates on human induced GW, I will send yall occassional reminders.
2 gobbs down, 1 to go. Happy Easter to all, ho, ho, ho.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:50 am
Hammer wrote:...Most Americans have no idea that the US is slipping and slipping fast...We are fat, depressed, undereducated, over drugged, gambled and incarcerated...Our educational system is broken, our health care system is broken...We dont take care of our children or our elderly and we are raping and pillaging our environment in the name of "private property rights" yet nobody asks what effect my neighbor's development is having on MY PROPERTY? ...
Here's a statement in which you don't need to provide any references...
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:16 pm
Hammer wrote:And about the "specious reasoning", take that up with the Supreme Court...Massachussets sued the EPA under the Clean Air Act over EPA not regulating CO2 emissions...THe Supreme COurt sided with Massachussetts and said CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act...The stated REASON that CO2 is a pollutant is becuase it causes GW...Those are the facts regardless of how you spin them...
Since CO2 is a product of respiration you should be willing to give up breathing, as you are in agreement with the Supreme Court...
see that specious reasoning will get you every time.
BTW don't feel you have to post up just to let us know you are complying with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:54 pm
Its amazing the enlightenment you learn about yourself from discussing the relative merits of global warming being caused entirely by human beings.
I have learned that I am one of a number of STINKING GENIUSES that have our heads buried deeply in the sand. That I am a Missistakian that has not been around and that I have no sense of the world beyond the Magnolia Curtain. Yet, though I have no knowledge of the outside world, I somehow fear it.
Also, that as an American, I am fat (you're right about that one ), depressed, under-edumacated, over-drugged, a gambling addict, and incarcerated. I also breed uncontrollably and let the little bastids fend for themselves, and as for the old folks, as soon as they become bothersome I dump them off under the nearest bridge. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I enjoying raping and pillaging the environment.
I must be one ugly dude, too. Hammer said I was pigheaded. Which leads me to one obvious question: If my head is buried deep in the sand, how do you know what my head looks like? The only way I can figure that you know that I am pigheaded is that your head must be right beside me buried as deeply in the sand as my own.
I also learned that the mentality displayed by Po Monk, Gordon Gekko and myself is the biggest enemy to progress. I guess our tickets to the re-education camps are in the mail. I just hope there are no shower stops along the way. On second thought, if Hammer is the future, I might just want that shower after all.
I also learned that I don't get the fact that wildlife are habitat dependent. I guess its because I am under-edumacated and over-drugged, but I could be Missistaken.
I have learned that I am one of a number of STINKING GENIUSES that have our heads buried deeply in the sand. That I am a Missistakian that has not been around and that I have no sense of the world beyond the Magnolia Curtain. Yet, though I have no knowledge of the outside world, I somehow fear it.
Also, that as an American, I am fat (you're right about that one
), depressed, under-edumacated, over-drugged, a gambling addict, and incarcerated. I also breed uncontrollably and let the little bastids fend for themselves, and as for the old folks, as soon as they become bothersome I dump them off under the nearest bridge. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I enjoying raping and pillaging the environment.
I must be one ugly dude, too. Hammer said I was pigheaded. Which leads me to one obvious question: If my head is buried deep in the sand, how do you know what my head looks like? The only way I can figure that you know that I am pigheaded is that your head must be right beside me buried as deeply in the sand as my own.
I also learned that the mentality displayed by Po Monk, Gordon Gekko and myself is the biggest enemy to progress. I guess our tickets to the re-education camps are in the mail. I just hope there are no shower stops along the way. On second thought, if Hammer is the future, I might just want that shower after all.
I also learned that I don't get the fact that wildlife are habitat dependent. I guess its because I am under-edumacated and over-drugged, but I could be Missistaken.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:33 am
Iwent to Cancun for 4 days once. Is that beyond da curtian of magnolias? 
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:42 am
Hammer wrote:As for shooting my decoys, not gonna happen unless you are poaching on my land or one of my leases. I do hunt public ground occassionally for ducks for old times sake, a little for deer but mostly for turkeys. I dont use decoys for any of the above because I dont have to. Green timber hunting is all about calling and shooting. You dont want a piece of me on either count. Regardng my 2 or 3 public ground duck hunts per year, I hunt where I want to hunt, holes that have memories, holes that I have hunted for decades...If you get up at some ridiculous hour to beat me to the hole I want to hunt, I will simply set up 100 yards from you, call ducks off you and treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....If you come in late and set up at daylight 100 yards from me, I will welcome you to the hole, tell you to be sure not to shoot in my direction, call ducks off you, treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....In other words, you wont mess up my hunt as long as you are safe and I dont mind the proximity but dont try to have it both ways as you are trying to do by calling foul on personal attacks after you have made several above...
Oh yea?, well my dad can beat up your dad!
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:12 pm
This thread has really cooled down.
Not many posts on this topic here of late. Hmmmm...
Not many posts on this topic here of late. Hmmmm...
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:09 pm
Hammer wrote:Green timber hunting is all about calling and shooting. You dont want a piece of me on either count. Regardng my 2 or 3 public ground duck hunts per year, I hunt where I want to hunt, holes that have memories, holes that I have hunted for decades...If you get up at some ridiculous hour to beat me to the hole I want to hunt, I will simply set up 100 yards from you, call ducks off you and treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....If you come in late and set up at daylight 100 yards from me, I will welcome you to the hole, tell you to be sure not to shoot in my direction, call ducks off you, treetop a quick limit and leave you, your spinners and other gadgets in my dust....
I love it, that's awesome. ( I thought I was the only one who didn't use decoys )