ORIGINAL: jcchartboy
Steve said:
Phades answer is that thebio data is but one very small part of the consideration of mandatory AR
Phade said:
Steve has it nailed.
So then it is final...
You both agree that biological data is in fact relevant to AR...
This is exactly what I said in the first place, and the reason I posted the original article.
I am glad we have that straightened out.
It's relevant AFTER you answer the social question. Until then, it's just numbers on paper.
You quote QDMA like you belong to it, and are pretty involved. That's all you spout. And unfortunately, it is too bad you can't disconnect yourself from it to look objectively. It's like me spouting info on why cigarettes are good for youfrom a study done by Phillip Morris. It just does not carry any power.
That info you just posted above doesn't do anything for me. Theidea thay they have similar growth (although inarguably they are smaller-both articles state that), the AR rules won't allow those spike or forks to get to 3 years old at any higher rate than what we have now. They'll still be shot on site as soon as they'd be legal, certainly by 2.5 y/o. And I hasten to believe they'll be shot more often because of the AR, since that buck can be legally taken.
I think you should either state a position or step out of this thread. Your devil's advocate action is worthless, unneeded, and it is not your responsibility to just randomly insert "bio info" into any issue you are not involved in. I personally, think it was a poor character move, and really changed my opinion on you from your previous posts.