I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

On May 8, 9:17*am, iBoaterer wrote:
I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the *bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

Flagged as spam.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.


If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.
'

Who the **** are you to decide that?

In article , says...

On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.
'

Who the **** are you to decide that?



That is what Greg said. He said famine and war takes care of the humans,
but he insists that animals need to be hunted to so that they don't have
to suffer the ravages of famine.

On 08/05/2012 2:43 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.
'

Who the **** are you to decide that?



That is what Greg said. He said famine and war takes care of the humans,
but he insists that animals need to be hunted to so that they don't have
to suffer the ravages of famine.

Famine and war are the governors of human population control.

--
Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and
other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay
for it leave, they can all share having nothing but debt and discontentment.

On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:


I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.


If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.


Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

On May 8, 5:26*pm, Oscar wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, *wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the *bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

On 5/8/12 3:34 PM, North Star wrote:
On May 8, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

Hmmm. You know, "arguing" with either Oscar, iLoogy, or JustSnot always
produces the same nonsensical responses from them. Perhaps they are all
one person.

On 5/8/2012 4:51 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/8/12 3:34 PM, North Star wrote:
On May 8, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people.
Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states
will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans
would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev

il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war
has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

Hmmm. You know, "arguing" with either Oscar, iLoogy, or JustSnot always
produces the same nonsensical responses from them. Perhaps they are all
one person.

Donny says the population of his Island has stagnated. Can you predict
what happens next?

Here's a definition of what has happened to you, Donny and his little
island. Fits you guys to a T.


INTRANSITIVE VERB
1.
not develop or make progress: to fail to develop, progress, or make
necessary changes
2.
stop flowing: to stop flowing or moving
3.
become foul: to become stale or impure through not flowing or moving
4.
become inactive: to become listless and inactive
[ Mid-17th century. Latin stagnat-, past participle of stagnare
stagnum "pool, swamp" ]
stag·na·tion NOUN
stag·na·to·ry ADJECTIVE
Thesaurus
VERB
Synonyms: stand still, come to a halt, grind to a halt, be idle,
languish, idle, decline
Synonyms: fester, rot, deteriorate, go off, decay, go rancid, go stale,
go bad
Synonyms: vegetate, be inactive, idle, be idle, sit around, do nothing
VERB
Antonyms: progress