Re: New Hunter Needs An Answer

Gary Kubat wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Sid Bartlett
Not to excuse rude behavior by New Hunmter or anyone else, but perhaps
that frustration in his response is the result he may have felt that
his question and the answer he sought was not getting the respect it
should have received.

I'd agree with you if I'd have seen a first post that wasn't rude to begin
with. Never did see such a post--he seemed to come out swinging from post
1.

What we need more of on these forums is tolerance, understanding and
respectfulness of others' viewpoints, questions and comments and not
always assume that what we say is righteous and above reproach.

Couldn't agree more, but have to say it goes two ways. Most people know
better than to introduce themselves to a group of folks by insulting
everyone with their first words, but this is what happened. There are
consequences for actions, and the responses were the consequence of the
posts.

That said, he's apologized for his unkind words toward our moderators and I
believe he means it and knows civil behavior is expected here. It was a
rough start, but we're adults and we'll get over it. It's time to move past
this mistake and open the door to some friendly banter among hunters.

Break-break...

New Hunter, I honestly look forward to hearing some more questions from you;
it'll make the old hats share some wisdom we can all learn from, and
probably improve my hunting.

And yes, 180 is the way to go (as long as it groups okay!).

Gary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gary Kubat wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Sid Bartlett
Not to excuse rude behavior by New Hunmter or anyone else, but perhaps
that frustration in his response is the result he may have felt that
his question and the answer he sought was not getting the respect it
should have received.

I'd agree with you if I'd have seen a first post that wasn't rude to begin
with. Never did see such a post--he seemed to come out swinging from post
1.

What we need more of on these forums is tolerance, understanding and
respectfulness of others' viewpoints, questions and comments and not
always assume that what we say is righteous and above reproach.

Couldn't agree more, but have to say it goes two ways. Most people know
better than to introduce themselves to a group of folks by insulting
everyone with their first words, but this is what happened. There are
consequences for actions, and the responses were the consequence of the
posts.

That said, he's apologized for his unkind words toward our moderators and I
believe he means it and knows civil behavior is expected here. It was a
rough start, but we're adults and we'll get over it. It's time to move past
this mistake and open the door to some friendly banter among hunters.

Break-break...

New Hunter, I honestly look forward to hearing some more questions from you;
it'll make the old hats share some wisdom we can all learn from, and
probably improve my hunting.

And yes, 180 is the way to go (as long as it groups okay!).

Gary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gary,

Here's his first post on the "One Round For All" subject that appeared
on August 9. I don't see anything rude in the post, just maybe some
misguided research, albeit his research, and apparently he has already
decided the majority of what he intended to do---he simply wanted the
final choice, one between the 150 grainer and the 180 grainer, to be
made by the experienced hunters on the forum---150 grain or 180
grain...nothing more and he made that point not necessarily rudely but
VERY CLEAR. And for the most part it was ignored...

It read:

"From: New Hunter - view profile
Date: Wed, Aug 9 2006 1:36 pm
Email: New Hunter <jack-brown...@xxxxxxxxxx>
Groups: rec.hunting

***I recently bought a new Savage bolt-action rifle in .308 caliber
with a 22" barrel, a 1 in 10" twist and a 3-9x40 Bushnell Trophy scope.


***I am looking for ONE factory load to use in my rifle for all game
from Columbia blacktail deer to black bear to Roosevelt elk. (When, as
a new hunter, I become proficient with this ONE average load, I will
then explore trying to match a load more specifically to the game
hunted.

***I realize this may be a somewhat unrealistic proposal but that's
simply the way it is and simply the way the post is presented so please
respond accordingly. I also know there is no magic bullet and that
shot placement is extremely important. I also realize that there are
lots of variables in a variety of bullets and manufacturers but again,
that's not what I'm asking. Also, there may be stories to be told
about the big elk taken at 400 yards with a .270 and a 130 grainer but,
again, that's not what I'm asking nor is it the gist of this post.

***I will be shooting Federal PowerShok at $10 a box as it best fits my
limited budget. Federal's 150 grain soft point is 308A and the 180
grain soft point is 308B.

***The selected load must be capable of humanely killing anything from
a 175 lb. deer to a 675 lb. elk at a distance between 75 and 250 yards.


***Based STRICTLY upon the premises outlined above, what would be the
best (although obviously not perfect) load for me to shoot and become
comfortable with? 150 grain Federal PowerShok or 180 grain Federal
PowerShok?

***There are no other available answers to my post except 150 grain or
180 grain. (I do realize the 165 grain may be the better choice but
that is not what I'm asking.)

***The question is really very simple. If you, as an experienced
hunter with a .308 rifle as described above, went on a hunt where you
would encounter deer, black bear and Roosevelt elk and could only
either have the Federal PowerShok 150 grain or 180 grain soft point
cartridges, which ONE would would choose to take along. The 150 or the
180? Pick one! Please let me know your preference between the two
loads mentioned above and why. Thanks.

-JB"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

And Gary, I agree with you also on most points except one which was
"There are consequences for actions, and the responses were the
consequence of the posts."

I can never personally agree that two wrongs make a right and simply
because someone is perceived to be rude to us, when we are rude back,
we are no different than they and therefore cannot cast any stones of
reproach since our guilt is absolute and equal to theirs.

-Sid.
(However, we DO agree on the 180 grain!)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OS X compile
    ... Please do not be rude. ... I don't like Neo because he is continually, repeatedly, consistently, ... it has become since his responses to me have convinced me that he is not ... even slightly amenable to reason in this matter - and it would have ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • Re: Enhancing the FAQ. Please suggest enhacements....(new topic, getting closer...)
    ... We are seing a number of rude responses, and I have no objection to ... For the others, I have noticed that when there is talk about rude answers, ... I wrote my initial post because of reading a thread ( ... condescending, as you are talking about yourself, but you are attributing to others an inability to grasp the contents on first reading. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: PHP script to sort data/create pages according to fields?
    ... >It's not like there were ten responses or posts to choose from. ... It's blunt, but it's not rude. ... to the database, and some SQL to query it. ... It's only Usenet, no one dies. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • To Microsoft Support
    ... I posted a genuine plea for help last night, and the only responses I ... received were harsh comments from your staff members. ... rude and unprofessional. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Itinary suggestion in British Columbia ?
    ... Hunter wrote: ... We have never visited a city where the people were so rude. ... The irony being, that person from Montreal is probably saying, "Those ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)