From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:51:12 GMT


mo> Udo, you completely misunderstand.  Hunting is not a release for 
mo> violence or aggression.  Hunting is a means of returning to the 
mo> role of a predator and being part of the cycle of life and death 
mo> in nature.  What defines a hunter is the acceptance of the fact 
mo> that humans are a predatory species of those instinctive 
mo> behaviors which are part of the definitive characteristics of our 
mo> species as predators.  

rl>So you say.  I'd recommend that you read the following article:

rl>Blumenschine, Robert J. and Cavallo, John A.  "Scavenging and Human
rl>Evolution", _Scientific American_, V264:4, October, 1992. p 90-96.

Russell tactic 115:  Divert opponent to an unexplained reference which
                     may only be of tangeantial interest.

ml> Why would you assume or ask someone why they don't want to take 
ml> part in an unethical activity?  Why not ask the women that have 
ml> had abortions if they want to take the lives of small children 
ml> and if not, why?  

rl>I don't understand your conception of ethics, Mike.  

Russell tactic 112:  Feigned ignorance.
[Note:  Russell understands but does not *accept*; hence *feigned* ignorance.]

rl>If it's
rl>unethical for one hunter to kill another hunter, why is it 
rl>ethically acceptable for you to kill people who don't share your 
rl>religious beliefs?  

rl>"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  Exodus 22:18.

Russell tactic 107:  Discredit opponent's opinion on non-religion area
                     because of opponent's religious beliefs.

rl>ml> I think you will find that 
rl>ml> our old friend Russell is the one who labeled hunter as 
rl>ml> considering themselves "manly" for hunting and it is HIS label 
rl>ml> not ours.
rl>
rl>You're fantasizing again, Mike.  

Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the issue.
[Note:  Similar to comment "what an idiot"

rl>Why don't you tell us again how
rl>"manly" you feel knowing that your hunting skills allow you to
rl>provide food for your family?

Russell tactic 104:  Bait with sarcasm to lead discussion off the topic.
Russell tactic 111:  Divert discussion onto other controversy (gender bias).

rl>mo> [99 lines deleted]
*Snicker*  This post is ~200 lines shorter than the 3 it answers.
rl>mo> Russell tactic 101:  Be a bully; shout down the opposition.

Russell tactic 116:  Make favorable comparison of self vs. opponent.
Russell tactic 117:  Creative editting - removal of damaging context.

Editted out by Russell:
"Tactical Note:  This posting responds to three postings to this thread
by Russell.  The creation o f alarge number of postings is also a tactic
used by Russell against his opponents, again, without content added."

New Tactical Note:  This posting also responds to three of Russell's
postings.  I combine my responses to save time which is wasted answering
multiple posts containing the same questions.

rl>You were so busy trying to bully me that you failed to answer my
rl>questions:

Russell tactic 118:  Deride ignored (by opponent) demand (from Russell)
                     as a "failure".

rl>Please explain the nature of the "content" displayed by the 
rl>statement, "What an idiot." 
rl>
rl>What sort of "issues" were addressed by the statement, "What an 
rl>idiot"?  

Russell tactic 117:  Creative editting - removal of damaging context.
                     [Context is question is Russell's diversion from
                      the issue of "hunting hunters" to a discussion
                      of Mike's remark "what an idiot", which does not
                      address the issue.]

Also deleted were my comments on the two "questions" above:

Russell tactic 105:  Divert discussion to explanation of the obvious.

{Russell - this is for you, *just in case* you really didn't understand
it: The content of the comment "What an idiot" was that Mike thinks
people who consider hunting hunters a legitimate option are idiots.
Mike was quite succinct in sharing his opinion.}

Russell tactic 106:  Creative myopia -- removal from context.
                     [In this case, focusing on Mike's comment,
                      rather than the issue of hunting hunters.]
jh> I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion: is the assertion 
jh> that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting 
jh> challenges to the conclusion of hunting another hunter (due to 
jh> the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?  

rl>On the whole, I don't have much respect for labels like "idiotic",
rl>especially when they're tossed about by a man who claims that it'd
rl>be ok for him to kill humans who don't share his own religious 
rl>beliefs

Russell tactic #1:  Not answering the question asked.
Russell tactic #1B: Answering a different question that suits Russell's
                    purpose better than the one that was asked.
Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponent's (Mike's) position
                     to the point of absurdity.


Mary Otto