Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore

On Jul 28 2007 1:01 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:


All of which are determined by the human hunter, not the animal.

Which, as I've already explained in depth, is irrelevant (I notice you
glossed over the analogy of the fighter with one hand tied behind his
back.) How the advantage comes to be does not negate the existence of the
advantage.


It was glossed over because it didn't add anything to this discussion.

Of course it did. It was an illustration of how one party in a contest
handicapping themselves constitutes an advantage for the other.

I was pretty
specific about which ones I was referring to, and in no way made any
claims about being generally disadvantaged (I'm not sure that's even
meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) In light fo
that, your response...

"But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a
little nuts."

Is either disingenuous or an indication that you didn't bother to read
and
comprehend what you were responding to.


That's a tough one. But, I'll go with choice "c" rather than the two
options provided by you, namely, my response was accurate and appropriate
in
light of the exchange between you and fffurkin that had come before.

Except that it wasn't even close to accurate and appropriate, given either
the context (you remember the importance of context, don't you?) It's
funny that every time I give a detailed, reasoned argument illustrating
why you're wrong all you respond with is the equivalent of "Am not."


Because it's an interpretive issue. The "detailed, reasoned argument" you
provide doesn't apper accurate to me.

And yet, you go on to agree with me. OK, I'm confused.

Why do we need to go through it 20 times back and forth? I just assume cut
out that part of it (particularly since I plan on actually going out and
playing some poker today).



But on the subject of literacy skills, since you brought it up, I have
an
observation for you, one that I think will be useful. When someone
reads
this post (really any post), part of the meaning of what you post is
informed by the post to which you are responding.

A pity that you didn't take that into account when making the comment
quoted above.


Well, in fact I did.

Case in point. Your response was COMPLETELY off base given both the
context and the content of what you were responding go. Amply explained
and demonstrated...and "nuh-uh" just isn't much of a rebuttal.


How am I supposed to rebut an opinion of yours?

The opinion was based on the most reasonable interpretation of the
evidence at hand. Isn't that what most debates are about?

And I'm not trying to be cute here, but I have noticed that you tend
to
form
the meaning of your posts in a vacuum without any context to what came
before. I think that's a natural tendency (not only for you but for
everyone) since you know what you meant when you wrote the words; but
others
don't know what's in your head, so when we read the entire thread it
guides
us in trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Nonsense. My responses in this thread (I'm not going to try to address
every thread here) have been quite clear and specific with regard to my
exact meaning, even when the context in which they've been made is
taken
into account. I don't know how the meaning of comments that are the
subject of this particular sub-thread could have been made any clearer
to
you or others, leading me to conclude that you were in too much of a
hurry
to respond without first making sure you'd accurately read what you
were
responding to. A similar result can be seen in the "Russ G. finally
vindicated" thread where you rushed to tell someone that the incident
was
significant because...

"The situation here is that a specific method of cheating has been
apparently uncovered as occurring, not in the mind of Russ G., but in
an
actual casino in a high stakes poker game."

..even though the story was quite clear about the fact that it had NOT
occured in a casino.

For example, your post was in response to fffurkin's claim that
hunting
is
never a fair fight.

See, right off the bat you're getting it wrong. The irony is that
while
presuming to lecture me on concern for context, you're getting this
wrong
because you're ignoring context. ffffurken's claim about a lack of
fair
fight was made in the context of a thread about me, specifically, and
MY
hunting. Now, you can make all sorts of assumptions about whether or
not
he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, it would still
be a
meaningless and in some cases incorrect claim), but *I* was the
specific
target of his comment. That makes MY hunting methods the issue.


So all this just boils down to you claiming that you use fair methods
when
you hunt (which I don't doubt)?

No, James. All this boils down to the blindingly obvious fact that
ffffurken's remards were aimed at me, and me specifically. That is made
so obvious not only by his exact words, but by the very subject of the
thread. His history bolsters that even further, but one need not be aware
of it to understand his meaning.

What fun is that?

If you're asking what fun it is to hunt in a way that makes it a challenge
then I don't think an answer is either needed or expected. If that's not
what you're asking then you'll have to clarify the question for me.


No, no, no,...I'm pro-hunting. The "what fun is that" comment just meant
this argument isn't going to be very fun because I think understand what
you're saying and agree with you. No fun in that. :))



Whew!!! Finally. I applaud and appreciate that admission.


When you're right, you're right.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com


.

Loading