"Damage control? What the devil are you saying?"
I donno. You tell me. I posed it as a question.
Thats because its an undeniable fact that pgc supports birth control. Its not opinion, therefore, not debatable.
"I read that thread you linked and am beginning to see that phrase as something you seem to use in place of replying with something of substance."
You ignored the "substance". Theres only so much that can be given to those who do not want to accept it.
BTW your example makes absolutely no sense and has no realistic paralell to the subject at hand.
Nice try. But the statement pretty much speaks for itself.
Quote:
Why would we wait when the party involved can hardly be called objective and unbiased? Its skewed from the word go. ]
And, once again, you know that how without it having been
competed?
I believe i explained it more than thoroughly. Your refusal to accept doesnt negate the facts of the matter. This cannot be considered an unbiased objective third party audit due to connection that were not part of the deal.
How anyone could point to a company whose president and quite a few others who work there have been high ranking officials at an agency....Yet can be trusted as an unbiased third party to audit that agency is utterly amazing.
Quote:
No moreso than saying you and i are gonna make a wager for your paycheck. We are gonna see whos better looking, smarter etc. etc.. Whos gonna win?? Oh, by the way, my significant other will be doing the assessment. lol. Gee, i suppose when i am picked it will be a big surprise?? Does that make you "closed minded" if you were to decline before even getting the results? Give me a break. lol. What we will be getting is basically audit results about pgc/enviro extremist, done by ex pgc/enviro extremists and I pointed out the undeniable very strong connections.
Your wager example isnt any better than your last example and makes even less sense but maybe things would make more sense if you'd kindly define the term pgc/enviro extremists
And again, your dumbfounded/confused act isnt very effective. I dont think any of that needs explaining. Its pretty much common knowledge if not self explanatory.
Quote:
Credibility with me has never been an issue and thats because even though im adament about my position, i dont sink to deceit which cannot be said of many pgc supporters for the mostpart. Also, I have no case to make in regards to the audit results. Its a sham and i dont support it before even getting those results. Doesnt make much diff. though as the license fee will be granted by the legislators who are tired of all this simply because an audit was done and it makes it appear that they actually did something....So im not "making a case", as this isnt a court case to be won or lost, and dont think anything will be gained or lost by arguing against those results when they are given, though they most certainly will be argued im sure. Im just stating the facts.
Sorry, but your characterizing the GC statement issued about deer contraception appears to be nothing more than blatant deceipt. there's generally plenty of room for folks to interperet things in different ways but you're characterization of the only statement on that subject is too far out there to simply be a difference of opinion. That leaves two possible explanations. Stupidity or deceipt and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are stupid.
__________________
There is no room to "interpret" an obvious fact. Its not a matter of opinion. And on my part, as with ALL of my posts, there is no deceit. But the same cannot be said for your pretend denial of the very obvious facts. Pgc says they support real world testing (one of VERY few that does) and set guidelines for it(one of very few that have)....That means they support it. I find that sickening. I also find it very dis-settling that Im speaking with a supposed hunter who doesnt. Course I know the damage control efforts that go on via pgc personell & friends/family members of same along with some very vocal environmentalists. After a decade on hpa....Well, i dont need to tell you about what you gents do on hpa now do i? Now id rather not have an irrational argument with someone who cannot tell the truth even about the most basic of things, i prefer intelligent debate, but you seem dead-set against it. So currently we might as well talk about this:
...
So, since the extremely unquestionable obvious proven fact, according to you actuallly ISNT, ....am i right that this is a smiley pointing up and laughing or is it a deer eating trillium in your opinion?
