/
brucerdeucer, for someone who is always begging for specifics you sure do you like to infer a lot of points from my posts effectively putting words in my mouth. get a life, dude. either contribute to the post or don't. nobody wants to read your overly loquacious posts. put the thesaurus down and learn some social skills.----AgainstThe Grane
Well thank you very much AgainstThaGrane.
________________________________________
You finally got around to doing precisely what you set out to do in the beginning, which is postulate an Animal Rights ethic for the purpose of judging others.
Now, you have arrived at the point wherein you bluntly start telling others what they must do:
get a life, dude. --AgainstThaGrane.
either contribute to the post or don't.--AgainstThaGrane.
You started with Animal Rights, and when you can make no progress with that advocacy, you attempt to retaliate by any means possible.
If to post here in a loquacious manner, equates to not having a life, what are you doing posting a topic here?
I don't know, I'm just asking:
(1) Why you get personal?
(2) Entirely off-topic?
(3) And assume an imperious tone?
I just don't know, but what I do know is that for someone who begins a topic with specific questions about a controversial issue, attempting to introduce a DIVIDE & CONQUER issue into the forum regarding lawful hunting, by substituting a personal ethic for American law, you seem to have brought little improvement to the public understanding.
It just seems that other highly charged emotions seem to be driving an external pleasantry and disaffected manner.
For myself, I only wish to indicate that hunting species that are not to be consumed is lawful in the United States and elsewhere. Having introduced the issue, you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the lawful aspects of the issue in any depth.
As far as I can tell, respectfully, you have an agenda that you are not making entirely clear.
/