Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16349 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

It’s a Slugfest!
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 5:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Holy cow, you write a lot to say nothing, or at least nothing that makes sense. Look at this utter nonsense you wrote: “Some people are apparently okay with an incredibly over broad (interpretation of) law that criminalizes their own behavior because they're confident they won't actually be prosecuted.”  This is false, as had been pointed out to you repeatedly. You also keep saying that the previous interpretation of the law criminalized every bird kill, also ludicrous.

Your pearl-clutching, breathless attacks on the old interpretation of the law shows you to either be brainwashed yourself, or you are trying to brainwash others. This change was an anti-environmental “gotcha” done to benefit business and be a slap in the face to anyone who cares about birds.

--------------
“The jerking motion of a knee does not reflect the operation of a mind”  Slugman, January 24th 2020
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16481 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 5:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
catsp, I don't believe anyone has called you a troll.

Ultimately it will be decided by the courts.

I'll go ahead and move this to stewardship.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 5:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Holy cow, you write a lot to say nothing, or at least nothing that makes sense. Look at this utter nonsense you wrote: “Some people are apparently okay with an incredibly over broad (interpretation of) law that criminalizes their own behavior because they're confident they won't actually be prosecuted.”  This is false, as had been pointed out to you repeatedly. .

It was claimed to be false, it was never actually shown to be false." Pointing out" what is not actually shown, doesn't count.

This is similar to the fake debunkings which aren't, since they never actually falsify the contentions they claim to be debunking.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 5:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
catsp, I don't believe anyone has called you a troll.

Ultimately it will be decided by the courts.

I'll go ahead and move this to stewardship.

I was going to put it here in the first place, but then since it was not lands related I did not.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16481 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 7:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MG, with the "What does it mean for you and I" nonsense of the opinion piece which only serves to obfuscate I am not surprised it didn't strike you as fitting within the parameters of stewardship.  If you want to foster genuine discussion why not lead with a more balanced article?  I found this to be a good read:

https://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Taking-A-Peck-Out-of-Protection.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 662 | TRs

Sculpin
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 8:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I was going to put it here in the first place, but then since it was not lands related I did not.

That is the logical part of your brain, doing its business.  Keep working on it, you will figure it out.   wink.gif

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 11:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
MG, with the "What does it mean for you and I" nonsense of the opinion piece which only serves to obfuscate I am not surprised it didn't strike you as fitting within the parameters of stewardship.  If you want to foster genuine discussion why not lead with a more balanced article?  I found this to be a good read:

https://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Taking-A-Peck-Out-of-Protection.pdf

You made it very clear you wanted apolitical lands only stuff here following the conniptions over Voldemort, or that was my take anyway. You even specifically added lands to the title. So OK, whatever is related to stewardship and is not just lands I will now post in this forum.

It's interesting that you gripe about what you imply is not neutral, then present an advocacy piece you claim will 'foster' conversation most likely because you agree with it's premises.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16481 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 1:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
If it's politics with a tie in to public lands it goes here.  Otherwise if it's politics it doesn't go anywhere.  Not that hard.

Sorry you didn't like that read.  What issues do you have with it?  Factual inaccuracies?  What is the premise and what do you disagree with?  I didn't say it was neutral but would certainly say it's more balanced than the "apolitical" piece you thought was appropriate for the saloon.  uhh.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy