| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Well ....
On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your change the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. -- Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s pro-birth. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On 11/19/2014 7:47 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your change the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Ooooo. Greg wants to play hardball with you and you can't handle anything more manly than wiffleball. Pansy. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your change the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your change the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:
Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your ch ange the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your ch ange the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. -- Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s pro-birth. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your ch ange the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. And FOAD could tell us how he hunted a couple times for the best bankruptcy lawyer. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On 11/19/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your ch ange the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. Sad to see how you've turned into a sayer of gibberish. I guess that's just part of getting old. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well ....
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting. BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive exotics. No, just not playing your ch ange the subject game. You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all. For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too. Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot? I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse. You think that is OK for other mammals we eat.. I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to subsistence hunting. Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in non-subsistence hunting. Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting. No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as generally defined. Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not playing that game with him in this discussion. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. The bitter Toad. |
Hybrid Mode
