John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit. What would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't know what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no idea about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And having no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit. What would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't know what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no idea about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And having no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole newsgroup who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special pass, eh?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:12:42 -0800, atl_man2 wrote:


Mule wrote:
Oh the great civilized country of Canada, with its social programs
and
total respect for human rights. It's a place where a hypocritical
liberal can still plunge an ice pick through the skull of a young
seal
and still wash the blood off his/her cloths and be ready by noon to
demonstrate against the evil and barbaric Americans.
It no wonder why all the american lefty's want to move there.


http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/p...seal_hunt.html

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

From what I understand, they don't take the meat, just the pelt (and the
penis?). That's definitely a shame, but you gotta ask yourself: would
there be as much of an outcry if they were slimy, reptilian creatures? How
much of the objections are not because they're ANIMALS, but that they're
CUTE animals? Think about that the next time you step on a spider, or
watch a shark get slaughtered...

Lloyd

From what I understand, they don't take the meat, just the pelt (and
the
penis?). That's definitely a shame, but you gotta ask yourself: would
there be as much of an outcry if they were slimy, reptilian creatures?
How
much of the objections are not because they're ANIMALS, but that
they're
CUTE animals? Think about that the next time you step on a spider, or
watch a shark get slaughtered...

Lloyd


************

If they were rats, most places would *require* that they be killed. A
rat is no more or less alive than a seal, but as you observe rats are
not considered cute.

Personally, I am opposed to waste. In the traditional native hunts,
only those animals needed for food or raw materials were killed and the
indigenous people found a use for virtually every part of the
carcasses.

BTW Lloyd: Our US title (concealed in NG to avoid accusations of SPAM)
is now available up your way as a "freebie". Much the same editorial
content you're used to seeing offered at $4.65 Canadian. Now you'll
simply have to use discriminating literary taste, rather than financial
priorities, as the best reason *not* to read our stuff. :-)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:32 -0800, Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:12:42 -0800, atl_man2 wrote:


Mule wrote:
Oh the great civilized country of Canada, with its social programs
and
total respect for human rights. It's a place where a hypocritical
liberal can still plunge an ice pick through the skull of a young
seal
and still wash the blood off his/her cloths and be ready by noon to
demonstrate against the evil and barbaric Americans.
It no wonder why all the american lefty's want to move there.


http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/p...seal_hunt.html

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

From what I understand, they don't take the meat, just the pelt (and the
penis?). That's definitely a shame, but you gotta ask yourself: would
there be as much of an outcry if they were slimy, reptilian creatures? How
much of the objections are not because they're ANIMALS, but that they're
CUTE animals? Think about that the next time you step on a spider, or
watch a shark get slaughtered...

Lloyd


Good point. Not a whole lot of complaining (that I've heard) about the
rattlesnake roundups!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit. What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And having no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset" over taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little upset" over
taking seals for their body parts?

Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole newsgroup
who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special pass,
eh?

Nope. What would make you think I'd "give him a special pass"?

Jack Goff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Fritz, I see that you are the only one in this whole newsgroup
who's
not decided to act like an adult.

Harry is still calling names... but you'll give him the special pass,
eh?

I've always stated that name calling here is childish. Do you disagree?

On 17 Mar 2005 06:33:37 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:

I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for food.

Then you must get violently upset about the two major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H


Hmm, let's see if I can understand you logic.....nope.

Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be explicit. What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about seals being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".

You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H


As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you don't know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And having no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.

You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H

ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset" over taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little upset" over
taking seals for their body parts?

Does it not upset you that "pelts and penises" are the primary reasons for
killing the little buggers?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."