That is pure B.S. You always seem to take this approach whenever you get backed into a corner. I don't know who you think you are fooling. If you can't stand the heat, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!

Backed into a corner? LMFAO! Just because I wont get into another meaningless twistfest with the bird?


BTW, when's the last time you put something meaningful up here?

If all your personal attacks were deleted we'd be left with a few meaningless polls.

Well you are the clown that claimed 13 DPSM died from non-hunting mortality in 2G in 2008, when you claimed 80% of the deer die in 2 G aren't harvested by hunters. I 'd say you did a fine job of backing yourself in a corner with that one.

Then why do you comment on posts if you don't want to get into a pizzin match? Sounds like more BS lies. If you didn't want to get into a match then why comment when you know it leads to it? Lies again.

LOL, now you sound like another member here.

You wouldn't be from Greene County now would you?

Just doin what you do sport. Quoting "facts" from the PGC.

The numbers derived form the doe mortality study are just as meaningful as the reproduction stats you love to use so often. In other words, neither one can be accepted blindly without considering the possible sampling problems. Once again, you have proven that you are so set on your agenda that you will jump on potentially flawed data if it fits but you have a cow when someone turns that strategy around on you.

NOW who's painted into a corner?:busted:
Take heart though, you've acquired a follower who likes the Koolaid you dipense!

Wrong again sport. What you are doing is lying about the facts from the PGC. The PGC never said 80% of the deer in 2G died from causes other than being harvested by hunters. Even most fools would realize that claim w absurd, but you didn't.

Heh heh heh

Just like no one said that 2.5 bucks would get bigger

Dont like it when someone else hits you with partial "truth" and facts out of context eh?

It was high time someone Bluebirded you for a change!

Heh heh heh

Maverick says: "That is pure B.S. You always seem to take this approach whenever you get backed into a corner."

Razor says: " Sounds like more BS lies. If you didn't want to get into a match then why comment when you know it leads to it? Lies again."

Sounds like those two guys know btb VERY well. Those satements cover 100% of his posts.

" neither one can be accepted blindly without considering the possible sampling problems."

You dont like the reproductive data that show a failed program? Fine. But your excuse doesnt support you or the failed program any more than if the results were 100% accurate and absolutely no possiblitity of sampling issues. It would then tell us the program is based, after several years, on absolutely nothing as far as herd health goes! Oh thats right, isnt that why pgc is being sued?

So on one hand you have failed repro data. If you choose the other, then it still doesnt support the program because the only available data, at best, shows nothing because its flawed, and at worst shows decreases across the board! And you see no problem with this? lmao.

"NOW who's painted into a corner?"

As usual you. Now go into the ranting your famous for when you find you have no logical reply, and start telling mistruths, and personal attack as the gentlemen above quite accurately pointed out. :busted::busted::busted: