RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

I'm sorry my friend, but you are confusing 2 issues. Anger needs to be bridled just like any other emotion or response. Passion--a completely different subject. I will challenge you or anyone to match my passion for hunting , soccer, my family, faith, or anything else I cherish, and certainly not in that order.What do you think motivates me to get involved to begin with? Passion. But, I filter my emotions through common sense, good judgement and self control that keeps my passion from becoming detrimental--worlds apart from what you are saying.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

I AGREE with this statement. Ditto.

jeff

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

The day that I start filtering my emotions about this sport for anyone, be it PETA or David Farbman and the WHA, is the day you'll find me in a wooden box under six feet of fresh soil.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Washington:

If I thought whipping David's axx would end the controversy and put a stop to his ideas.....I'd volunteer. ;)(JK)

The thing is......diplomacy's gonna go a lot further than emotion. You can bank on that. Let's see what the man has to offer (his end-product) before we say we ain't buying it. That's all I'm saying. If his end-product is a black eye on our way of life.....then I'll be one of the first ones to petition his sponsors and try to get the idea UN bankrolled. A LOT of what everyone has stated they're against......has turned out to be either untrue.....or unsubstantiated.

I think my book-burning analogy was spot-on.

Jeff

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

You obviously need to go back and read my initial post then, SB. You're beating a dead horse with me. Telling me to listen to Farbman and see what he has to offer is pointless. He has nothing to offer and I don't need to talk to the man to know that. The more you talk the more you sound like you're a Farbman plant, SB. You try too hard to convince us that you're open minded about it, yet in every post you make you tell everyone to listen to what Farbman has to say, maybe it's something good. I know you're not a plant, but the more you talk the more Pro WHA you sound.

In order to find out Farbman's end product we would have to allow the WHA to air in October as scheduled. I don't plan on sitting back and letting it happen. I'd rather stop it before it has a chance to be seen.

Pick a side, stop straddling the fence yourselfand trying to convince everyone to be a fence rider along with you. I know where I stand and you aren't going to convince me otherwise. One more post telling me or anyone else to be open minded towards Farbman and I'm going to request the thread be closed.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Now there's some good old fashion , if you don't play the way I say, I'm taking my ball and going home. Unless you do listen, you don't know. No one is straddling the fence, and your pointed accusations are reflective more of your immaturity about the subject than they are of how anyone truly sees this issue. Not everyone has to be of your mindset to be valid. I wouldn't mind at all it being closed if this is what it is going to be reduced to. You have your approach, and I and others will respectfully disagree, but don't start judging others motives because they don't concur with yours.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

You're both straddling the fence because neither of you have an opinion one way or the other. You're pushing the idea that we should all be open minded and that none of us should have a strong opinion either way (without first talking to Farbman)down our throats.

I don't need to talk to Farbman to see that the WHA will be bad for hunting. I don't need to talk to Farbman tooppose the entire idea.I don't need to be open minded about it because my mind is already made up. Televised, reality TV based hunting will look bad to anyone who isn't already pro hunting.

I'm not saying that I'll have the thread closed because you don't agree with me. I started the thread in the beginning to spark an actual debate on the topic. There are two sides to a debate if I'm not mistaken. I stated my piece and left it open for anyone else to state theirs. You and SB hijacked the thread and started pushing the idea that we shouldn't hold an opinion unless we first consult the genius behind the WHA first.

I'll say it again, I don't need to be open minded about the subject. No one needs to be open minded or leave their feelings (be it anger or otherwise) out of it because you say that thats the way it needs to be done, so stop trying to shove the idea down everyone's throat. THAT is why I said i was going to have it closed. If you continue to tell everyone what they need to do, I'll have it closed.

And about my immaturity towards the subject, go back and read the initial post. You've obviously lost touch with why the thread was started to begin with.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

You said it yourself--you opened this to have some open debate on the subject. But, when you aren't agreed with you attempt to turn it into anything but an open debate. This is what debates are made of--expressing ones opinion, and you want to call that hijacking. Hijacking isn't about expressing a contrary viewpoint,it is about turning away from the original theme, and I am not doing that in any way, form or fashion. You then turn around and keep declaring your position of being totally closed minded---which is it, open or closed?
I am going to say this one more time, because you still are missing the point. I am adamantly opposed to his 'vision'. I am adamantly opposed to his format. I don't see any good in his self promotion and making the hunting tradition a circus act. What I differ in is how to attempt to go about dealing with such a personality, and where he, realistically, is at this stage in the game. You are free to have your approach, and in any truly open debate, other opposing views are supposed to be entertained just as freely. You continue in the same old broken record of, I don't need to talk to him. I heard that the first 33 times you said it. I got it. I disagree in principal with your approach, not with your sentiments toward the WHA. I also disagree with your inconsistent stand and your unwillingness to consider that just maybe, someone with a little more experience and a few years under their belt, may know something you don't. I am talking again about diplomacy and tact as opposed to the don't bother me with the facts, I already know everything without ever even listening . You can't make a good case against anything without first understanding completely what is being presented.You can be totally correct in your premises, yet without at least giving audience to your opponent you lose before you begin, because you come across as being obstinate,unlearned, unwilling to table the entire issue, and impertinent in your attitude.Then you resort to judgemental and insulting remarks, and try to support them with irrational and illogical examples. Being respectful , meek,self controlled, gracious, and even tolerant will get you much more of what you are wanting to see happen.
When my discussions are finished, and he shows himself unwavering inhis determination to stop the madness, I willhave the credibility with the advertisers that Icontact to spell out the understanding that I have gained, that I have remained open minded and fair in my asessment of the situation, and that after exhausting all possibilities that I have come to the conclusion that this has no chance of ever being anything but detrimental to the hunting tradition,with pertinent, accurate and first hand knowledge of the precipitating factors for my conclusions, I think that this will carry a lot more credilbilty with a business executive than, I haven't any first hand experience, or pertinent facts, but I sure do have a lot of anger and animosity toward the guy. But, I'm just crazy that way!

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Maybe I shouldn't have lumped you and SB so closely together.

In any case, did you somehow miss my initial post? Did you only skim it, or did you skip it all together and only reply to something someone else posted?

I do know what I'm talking about. Granted, my facts aren't straight from the horse's mouth (Farbman's), but in that case neither are 95% of the people's against the WHA. I do know what I'm talking about, and saying that I don't know the facts is ridiculous.

I wouldn't have made the initial post I did had I not had some form of knowledge on the subject.

My stand isn't inconsistent. It has been the same from the beginning and it hasn't changed in the least. I've opposed the WHA in its entirety since the very first post made about it. Farbman changed the format so that the WHA would remain legal, and yet I still oppose the organization. How is that inconsistent? I've admitted to being close minded on the subject numerous times. Again, how is that inconsistent?

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Manuman, I posted a long, line by line response to your last. Instead, I'll get to the point. It is clear to anyone that reads this thread, that you are hinting that you should be the one to forward a petition on this matter...because of your "tact" and people skills."

When anyone suggests otherwise, you insult..that's why you felt compelled to apologize for your nasty remarks about PETA and arson...after it was brought to your attention on it by myself and another board member.

I see a contrast there, a contradiction. Perhaps you do not.
Whatever. You go ahead on with your hopes of becoming a diplomat for all hunters.

I think it's a time for direct and stern communications...not shouting or screaming as you are wont to suggest in your insulting ways. You think it's time to more or less negotiate. Both of our suggestions are nothing more than opinion...so please stop posturing as though every word you utter is fact. The fact is that you do not know the man; you do not know what will and what will not sway him. All that you say is conjecture, your opinion, nothing more.

You may now resume your campaign to be drafted as whatever you hope you can be in this instance.