On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:54:32 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:06:48 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. )

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps


I have absolutely no idea what your point or objection may be, and I
read your response twice.
Perhaps "succint" would be a good, universal idea.

noah

It was aimed at your flip remard about "banning fishing" as if the
complaints of the environmentalists are wholly without merit.

If you care to concentrate for a few moments, I think my point was made very
well.



No need to get testy, my friend.
I think you missed a few stops on the trolley.
I happen to *be* an environmentalist, and put my money where my mouth
is, and I also hunt and fish.
I was responding to those who condemned hunting while being active
fishermen themselves.
The comment about banning fishing was mild sarcasm, as indicated by
Mr. Smiley " ) ".

No need to insult. No, your point was confusing, as you
misinterpreted my statement.

.....what were we talking about?

noah