Cat flips out bites owner 20 times

[Dysfunctional]

Seeing as they stationed the Army in Yellowstone to stop poaching in 1877 1. I think "conservation" has always been the idea.

The army was there to catch the poachers. If the parks were formed to stop the killing of animals, the army would already have been there. Plus, this is still the frontier and only the army was available.

Finally, they would never have been sent to prevent the killing of wolves, bears or mountain lions for that matter. All of those creatures were fair game to whoever came across them. Predators killed people's livestock and therefore destroyed their livelihood.

 

[ZRH]

lol you got lucky. Moose can be fekkin mean shits.

Yar.

The army was there to catch the poachers. If the parks were formed to stop the killing of animals, the army would already have been there. Plus, this is still the frontier and only the army was available.

Finally, they would never have been sent to prevent the killing of wolves, bears or mountain lions for that matter. All of those creatures were fair game to whoever came across them. Predators killed people's livestock and therefore destroyed their livelihood.

Aside from the obvious poor language structure present in the previous statement I would like to point my readers to the last sentence, in red.

This is totally unrelated to the post it is allegedly responding to. These are the sort of ignorant constructions that you see on television for the most part. Those of you who have been repeatedly smacked while learning rhetoric will probably cringe out of memory of the various classmates who attempted such strategies in class. Misapplication of the facts will never sway anyone, and it will make you look poor at grading time. Thank you, and to read more on this subject refer to "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" published by the OU press.

 

[Dysfunctional]

Yar.


Aside from the obvious poor language structure present in the previous statement I would like to point my readers to the last sentence, in red.

This is totally unrelated to the post it is allegedly responding to. These are the sort of ignorant constructions that you see on television for the most part. Those of you who have been repeatedly smacked while learning rhetoric will probably cringe out of memory of the various classmates who attempted such strategies in class. Misapplication of the facts will never sway anyone, and it will make you look poor at grading time. Thank you, and to read more on this subject refer to "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" published by the OU press.

You're like the dumb black in jail from 'In living Color' - attempting to sound highbrow, all the while coming across as an ignorant, pompous ass. Sure, I pushed a modifier out a bit but the point was clear. The only cringing that will occur in this thread is as a result of witnessing you attempt to rise to a level of discourse way beyond your faculties.

The subject under development in this thread was the perspective on predatory animals, not conservation. I was drawing the two together in order to put your post back on topic. Now, you go even further afield attempting to critique my rhetoric, of which there was none. There was just a post in a thread - no more, no less.

I wish I could say, nice try because I love a good retort. Yours was just a hapless attempt to fob yourself off as a member of the literati.

 

[Dysfunctional]

You post a quote that stated the purpose of the National Park System, then proceeded to talk about the National Park of Yellowstone before the System was founded. So yes, there is a difference. One actually applies to the parks today. Guess which one.

Again, it doesn't matter. That is why I posted the quote. The parks were intended for the enjoyment of the people, not a test for their survival. Yes, we have gotten way out of wack. Why do you think the mountain lion was there to attack the elderly man? My contention is that the original concept of the parks was not to preserve predators. It just turned out that way.

What point are you proving?

 

[SRC]

 

[ZRH]

You're like the dumb black in jail from 'In living Color' - attempting to sound highbrow, all the while coming across as an ignorant, pompous ass. Sure, I pushed a modifier out a bit but the point was clear. The only cringing that will occur in this thread is as a result of witnessing you attempt to rise to a level of discourse way beyond your faculties.

The subject under development in this thread was the perspective on predatory animals, not conservation. I was drawing the two together in order to put your post back on topic. Now, you go even further afield attempting to critique my rhetoric, of which there was none. There was just a post in a thread - no more, no less.

I wish I could say, nice try because I love a good retort. Yours was just a hapless attempt to fob yourself off as a member of the literati.

I was mocking you re

Mountain lion and black bear will track and attack you if they are hungry enough. The question is, how will you ever know when that is true. Again, if you have food on you. Fortunately, I had no trout in my possession at the time. But I will say this again: why should I have to concern myself with this question? If I am fishing a trout stream stocked for the purpose of fishing, why should I have to worry about bears?

I think it was appropriate to suggest that some folks here have their opinions because they were raised and schooled in the city. They just don't understand what is going on out in the rural areas.

You include yourself in that half, of course.

You would give the dog your life preserver and allow yourself to drown, right?

(Thought not.)

Come to think of it, PETA has an entire world wide movement that animals are much more precious than any human life.

I mean, after all, humans are cruel, they ruin the planet.

Personally, I think what is showing here is how much some people think of themselves and their possessions versus the rest of humanity.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were of that ilk.

Good job pointing out exactly what you are doing. I was being more subtle.

This all started because you like killing cats and people objected to it. I've already made my point with FlyNavy a page ago and he even admitted in his way that I was right even if he didnt agree. You are consistently posting "knowledge" as actual facts. If I cant see a cite I'm not even going to acknowledge it. You are throwing together opinions based on fables and using this "wiser than thee" ('thee' is correct dont even bother trying) tone which you so hypocritically called me out on for satirizing you about.

It is generally known and well attested that every federal and most state parks are there for conservation of the wilderness. Wilderness which includes, but is not limited to, predatory animals. Your irrational fear of which is humourous but ultimately boring. Even in hunting circles such views are not taken to kindly. You also don't know most of the posters here, it is not completely out the bounds of reality that more than one of us have worked or lived in/on livestock and know the issues, so dismissing every opposing viewpoint is a bit ignorant.

In more simple terms: being old and being you, does not put you ahead in any races. The sheer technical disgraces of what you purport to be fact not even being taken into consideration.

 

[ZRH]

[otobucket.com/albums/h203/Sexxieracerchik4/MYSPACE%20Graphics/Animated/RandomComments/deadhorse.jpg[/IMG]

 

[thrawn]

 

[Dysfunctional]

I was mocking you re





Good job pointing out exactly what you are doing. I was being more subtle.

This all started because you like killing cats and people objected to it. I've already made my point with FlyNavy a page ago and he even admitted in his way that I was right even if he didnt agree. You are consistently posting "knowledge" as actual facts. If I cant see a cite I'm not even going to acknowledge it. You are throwing together opinions based on fables and using this "wiser than thee" ('thee' is correct dont even bother trying) tone which you so hypocritically called me out on for satirizing you about.

It is generally known and well attested that every federal and most state parks are there for conservation of the wilderness. Wilderness which includes, but is not limited to, predatory animals. Your irrational fear of which is humourous but ultimately boring. Even in hunting circles such views are not taken to kindly. You also don't know most of the posters here, it is not completely out the bounds of reality that more than one of us have worked or lived in/on livestock and know the issues, so dismissing every opposing viewpoint is a bit ignorant.

In more simple terms: being old and being you, does not put you ahead in any races. The sheer technical disgraces of what you purport to be fact not even being taken into consideration.

I guess I could just respond in one sentence challenging you to point out anywhere I claimed to enjoy killing cats. But that is just your problem. Not only do you constantly overstate your case, you just make shit up and respond to it.

Furthermore, hardly anybody here ever posts links so I generally don't bother. And besides, one can find almost anything on the net anyway. So, yes, I give my opinions - just as you give your bloated one's. If I also post my personal experiences, then so be it. You don't agree, then don't agree; after all, it is a forum.

Also, I never said the state parks aren't currently protecting predatory animals. I said that it was not their initial intention and I stand by that. By your response I could put your knowledge of hunting in a thimble. And if you and your buddies think farmers and people who live in rural areas share your opinions about bears, wolves and mountain lions then you all are beyond hope and can't stand someone with a little life experience setting you straight.

And finally, you were caught with your pants down. You noticed that I posted elsewhere that I was a Speech and Theater major in college (all those many years ago). You thought you would make a little hay on that and turn it against me. I smacked you pretty hard, but you deserved it. Now you claim satire trying to get out from under such embarrassment. Well, okay. After all, satire is supposed to mirror something up to ridicule. It lacked my style and approach to any topic. What you posted was classic you.

 

[SRC]

 

[ZRH]

I guess I could just respond in one sentence challenging you to point out anywhere I claimed to enjoy killing cats. But that is just your problem. Not only do you constantly overstate your case, you just make shit up and respond to it.

Furthermore, hardly anybody here ever posts links so I generally don't bother. And besides, one can find almost anything on the net anyway. So, yes, I give my opinions - just as you give your bloated one's. If I also post my personal experiences, then so be it. You don't agree, then don't agree; after all, it is a forum.

Also, I never said the state parks aren't currently protecting predatory animals. I said that it was not their initial intention and I stand by that. By your response I could put your knowledge of hunting in a thimble. And if you and your buddies think farmers and people who live in rural areas share your opinions about bears, wolves and mountain lions then you all are beyond hope and can't stand someone with a little life experience setting you straight.

And finally, you were caught with your pants down. You noticed that I posted elsewhere that I was a Speech and Theater major in college (all those many years ago). You thought you would make a little hay on that and turn it against me. I smacked you pretty hard, but you deserved it. Now you claim satire trying to get out from under such embarrassment. Well, okay. After all, satire is supposed to mirror something up to ridicule. It lacked my style and approach to any topic. What you posted was classic you.

No, the people here know "classic me." I am the one who got bored and built a road through a swamp. I am the one who corrects the smallest grammar mistakes to piss people off. I am the one who has a gun collection. I am the one who eventually reduces anything to solipsism. I am the one who presents _far_ too many citations for the average post (including on where I cited the points made in every sentence). I am the one who slept with a goth girl.

All these things, are readily admitted to. I don't post for an audience, if anything I'm known for working behind the scenes (on other forums). It's an obvious satire and I confess it wasnt entirely original since I was thinking of Sarcasmo in the Wal Mart thread. This doesnt make it any less true though.

My family has [had] a 3000 acre dairy farm in the Adirondack mountains (it's a state park actually). Bears have never been a problem, and they do live there. Coy dogs are the largest threat because they are so fucking stupid. Even then it's rare anyone actually shoots one since they run off at the first sign of people. This a real livestock btw, even to the extent that they are let loose to graze and collected by people riding horses. I'm sure you've never even heard of a NY cowboy? 1

Strangely it's also a well known fact that FEDERAL parks rarely grant concessions to farmers for grazing or much anything. It is with the strictest rules that they keep things as they are. Not to mention the casual definition of conservation includes everything as it was. Any book by Theodore Roosevelt has mention of this sort of conservation. Even admitting that it was that way (the way you purport) in the past doesnt change current views which are, by majority, in favour of this sort of conservation.

The small bitching of a few rednecks who arent getting to kill enough does not change policy. Major landowners simply don't care (less than 1% of livestock lost to natural predators a year is less than that lost to disease) and the majority of the population, who provide funding for the park system, live in the city. Your entire argument is based on hearsay and alleged firsthand account, both of which are completely unreliable.

And you're a communist.

 

[Dysfunctional]

No, the people here know "classic me." I am the one who got bored and built a road through a swamp. I am the one who corrects the smallest grammar mistakes to piss people off. I am the one who has a gun collection. I am the one who eventually reduces anything to solipsism. I am the one who presents _far_ too many citations for the average post (including on where I cited the points made in every sentence). I am the one who slept with a goth girl.

All these things, are readily admitted to. I don't post for an audience, if anything I'm known for working behind the scenes (on other forums). It's an obvious satire and I confess it wasnt entirely original since I was thinking of Sarcasmo in the Wal Mart thread. This doesnt make it any less true though.

My family has [had] a 3000 acre dairy farm in the Adirondack mountains (it's a state park actually). Bears have never been a problem, and they do live there. Coy dogs are the largest threat because they are so fucking stupid. Even then it's rare anyone actually shoots one since they run off at the first sign of people. This a real livestock btw, even to the extent that they are let loose to graze and collected by people riding horses. I'm sure you've never even heard of a NY cowboy? 1

Strangely it's also a well known fact that FEDERAL parks rarely grant concessions to farmers for grazing or much anything. It is with the strictest rules that they keep things as they are. Not to mention the casual definition of conservation includes everything as it was. Any book by Theodore Roosevelt has mention of this sort of conservation. Even admitting that it was that way (the way you purport) in the past doesnt change current views which are, by majority, in favour of this sort of conservation.

The small bitching of a few rednecks who arent getting to kill enough does not change policy. Major landowners simply don't care (less than 1% of livestock lost to natural predators a year is less than that lost to disease) and the majority of the population, who provide funding for the park system, live in the city. Your entire argument is based on hearsay and alleged firsthand account, both of which are completely unreliable.

And you're a communist.

Well first, there was no obvious satire because everything you did in the post is nothing I do, style or otherwise. But let's not dwell on it.

This is a little late for me but here goes:

It's nice to know that your family has a gigantic farm. They are not average, common rural folks. I guess they have enough dogs or whatever to keep the bears from rummaging through everything. That is nice too. Your comment about rednecks and does shows your true lack of knowledge about country people. And, in fact, large herds of deer are very destructive and most farmers prefer they be hunted or they hunt them, themselves.

You say my first hand accounts are unreliable. Fine, if that is your way of dealing with it. Makes it all the more simple for you. I could say that I could give a shit about your first hand family account as being representative to rural attitudes.

So, once and for all here is my position based on my life experience:

If you weren't walking in the woods as soon as you could walk and hunting as soon as you could carry a shotgun in order to help put meat on the table, your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

If you haven't taken a scope out of the box, bore sighted it on a rifle, then taken it to a range and zeroed it in (with just a sling) - finally to shoot a buck with it (with one round), your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

If you haven't gone to a trout stream for three days with just water and a loaf of bread to live off the fish you catch, while sleeping on the ground, your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

I know what I know because I have lived it. I know what mountain people think because I know them and still, in so many ways, am one of them. Where I come from folks are pissed off about the bear population. They also don't think predators should be in the state parks but they can't do much about it.

You can choose to believe some of what I post or none of what I post. It is, after all, a forum. But until you have my frame of reference, my life experiences, your comments on the subject just do not mean a whole lot to me.

 

[ZRH]

Aw shit, I'm landed gentry.



Edit: Also, there are far far worse things than having to shoot something and eat it. Never, ever, question what I can or have done or been through. I don't put it out there.

Edit 2: These are all common points of politeness. Don't volunteer information if you don't want people questioning it. You have chosen to believe what I said (it's true, I just dont feel like having to provide real proof), it isnt mutual though. Through my own experience (again whether or not you choose to believe it), firsthand accounts are unreliable. Even if people are well intentioned, chance is that they are wrong. It's in a spirit of politeness that I don't say half what I think, and in humbleness that I don't say most of what I've done.

Edit 3: I still trust my dog more.

 

[wanko80]

Well first, there was no obvious satire because everything you did in the post is nothing I do, style or otherwise. But let's not dwell on it.

This is a little late for me but here goes:

It's nice to know that your family has a gigantic farm. They are not average, common rural folks. I guess they have enough dogs or whatever to keep the bears from rummaging through everything. That is nice too. Your comment about rednecks and does shows your true lack of knowledge about country people. And, in fact, large herds of deer are very destructive and most farmers prefer they be hunted or they hunt them, themselves.

You say my first hand accounts are unreliable. Fine, if that is your way of dealing with it. Makes it all the more simple for you. I could say that I could give a shit about your first hand family account as being representative to rural attitudes.

So, once and for all here is my position based on my life experience:

If you weren't walking in the woods as soon as you could walk and hunting as soon as you could carry a shotgun in order to help put meat on the table, your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

If you haven't taken a scope out of the box, bore sighted it on a rifle, then taken it to a range and zeroed it in (with just a sling) - finally to shoot a buck with it (with one round), your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

If you haven't gone to a trout stream for three days with just water and a loaf of bread to live off the fish you catch, while sleeping on the ground, your impression about rural folk is meaningless to me.

I know what I know because I have lived it. I know what mountain people think because I know them and still, in so many ways, am one of them. Where I come from folks are pissed off about the bear population. They also don't think predators should be in the state parks but they can't do much about it.

You can choose to believe some of what I post or none of what I post. It is, after all, a forum. But until you have my frame of reference, my life experiences, your comments on the subject just do not mean a whole lot to me.

So what does all that have to do with Federal parks?

You constantly shift your arguments when you are proven wrong. It's tiresome and ineffective.

 

[Dysfunctional]

So what does all that have to do with Federal parks?

You constantly shift your arguments when you are proven wrong. It's tiresome and ineffective.

Last time I checked the subject of this thread was about cats that attack owners. I interjected the mountain lion (a very big cat) that almost ate an elderly person in California. The thread then developed into a discussion regarding predators in general and the perspective that rural folks have regarding them. I am on topic as I relate my rural experiences and, more specific, about hunting and fishing in state parks.

But the subject was never strictly state parks. I suggest that you and Flamer, as self anointed forum bullies, stop being banty roosters, each vying for cock of the walk, and just discuss the topics.

 

[wanko80]

Last time I checked the subject of this thread was about cats that attack owners. I interjected the mountain lion (a very big cat) that almost ate an elderly person in California. The thread then developed into a discussion regarding predators in general and the perspective that rural folks have regarding them. I am on topic as I relate my rural experiences and, more specific, about hunting and fishing in state parks.

But the subject was never strictly state parks. I suggest that you and Flamer, as self anointed forum bullies, stop being banty roosters, each vying for cock of the walk, and just discuss the topics.

I try to discuss them, but you keep changing the focus. You are the person that took the thread from cats attacking owners to killing predatory animals. At one point, you were discussing state parks only, until you then changed to rural areas.

I suggest you pick a topic and stick to it if you really want discussion.

Also, you might want to stop playing the victim role. It's unbecoming of you, as well as being completely false.

 

[Dysfunctional]

Aw shit, I'm landed gentry.



Edit: Also, there are far far worse things than having to shoot something and eat it. Never, ever, question what I can or have done or been through. I don't put it out there.

Edit 2: These are all common points of politeness. Don't volunteer information if you don't want people questioning it. You have chosen to believe what I said (it's true, I just dont feel like having to provide real proof), it isnt mutual though. Through my own experience (again whether or not you choose to believe it), firsthand accounts are unreliable. Even if people are well intentioned, chance is that they are wrong. It's in a spirit of politeness that I don't say half what I think, and in humbleness that I don't say most of what I've done.

Edit 3: I still trust my dog more.

In humbleness you don't say half of what you've done? What a crock. You follow common points of politeness and only say half of what you think? Crock number two.

You spend your time jumping into threads correcting grammar. You have no concept of what polite is. Your goal in this forum centers around picking fights: you claimed I posted that I enjoyed killing cats and this angered you to a response; when challenged to show that, you ignored the request, and promptly proceeded with your usual, none related, nit picking shit.

Then you say firsthand accounts are unreliable and you will ignore anything unless it is accompanied by a link; all of which is followed by this recent statement that you (just you) do not have to provide real proof. Now you have promoted yourself to godlike.

Furthermore, I never post anything that I am not willing to defend. Most of what I have to share in this forum is my personal life experience. If it causes some to be reinforced in their beliefs, fine; if it causes others to question their beliefs, fine too. In every forum there is always one or two that believe the forum exists as a vehicle for self puffery. Sadly, you are one of them.

As to the landed gentry idea: I was going to let the 3000 acre dairy farm bit pass. But this is just another example of your uncontrollable desire to embellish when the simple truth would suffice. Why can't you just say that you have family who owns a dairy farm adjacent to a state park? The average farm in New York state is 206 acres; there are only .6% farms in New York state greater than 2,000 acres. If your family actually owns one they are some of the most wealthy people in the state.

Finally, the reference to what you have been through: I was shot by a drunk in my right leg at three; I still limp slightly and carry most of the buckshot deep in my leg. Then, I missed the last half of the 3rd grade, having spent two months in the hospital recovering from a high fever and slight paralysis. I could go on and on about struggles and personal tragedies but what does it matter, really. Despite all my personal issues, I find that I have great compassion for my fellow man. You know, you don't have to go around the rest of your life with a chip on your shoulder, regardless of what happened to you.

 

[Dysfunctional]

I try to discuss them, but you keep changing the focus. You are the person that took the thread from cats attacking owners to killing predatory animals. At one point, you were discussing state parks only, until you then changed to rural areas.

I suggest you pick a topic and stick to it if you really want discussion.

Also, you might want to stop playing the victim role. It's unbecoming of you, as well as being completely false.

How in the hell can you say you are trying to discuss the topic. The only topic you appear to focus on is trying to correct me. Contribute to the thread.

Furthermore, I defend myself very well, thank you. Calling you out for what you are doing is not playing a victim role. If you and Flamer want to be the bluster brothers, that's okay. I will just point it out.

 

[SRC]

I like cats. They are fluffy and soft. Cats bite though, and that sucks. The end.

 

[wanko80]

How in the hell can you say you are trying to discuss the topic. The only topic you appear to focus on is trying to correct me. Contribute to the thread.

Reading comprehension --