I wasn't defending the article. I was just pointing out that BC was crying about how these evil lesbians were patrolling their property and blaspheming the hunting community. Meanwhile, all of which are things that they're well within their rights to do.He's on the right-wing extreme, soI waskindly pointing out the hypocrisy from that perspective.

Now, I'll defend the article.

I just don't see the anti-hunter bias.The author practically makes this lesbian couple out to be guerilla anti-hunting terrorist nutjobs. It's actually very well-written and comical in some respects.

First of all: Do you think the author had to point out that these women were lesbians? Nope. But shedid. Do you think they could've gotten a better picture of Enid and Lierra? Absolutely. But instead, the author chose to use the photo where Enid looks like a total psycho with wild eyes and crazy hair...and her girlfriend is wieldingsome kind of sledge hammer. Obviously,the authorwas trying to say "Seriously, what is this world comingto?" Look at these crazy people.

I liked how she pointed out that Enid talks to the deer, and calls them her "Sweeties." LMAO Another good nugget was when the author made a special note that Lierra is a crazy cat lady - with a home with a specially-designed catwalk for her feline friends.


This article definitelyisn't "anti-hunting" propaganda. It's a humorous article about two neurotic lesbians who have become obsessed with defending wildlife, and have pushed it to ridiculous limits. This wasn't an anti-hunting article. It was aJerry Springer episode in pen.We took a couple of whackos, pretended to beinterested in their plight, while we publicly made fun of them, and they were none-the-wiser.