BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[powderburn]

Well Buck,
It looks like they got you covered so you better lay down the keyboard and walk away slowly!

Gezz people now we are trying to censor Buck. There is such a thing as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of expression. If we don't like what someone has to say then don't read it.

It seems to me like you all enjoy Buck comments or you wouldn't make comments about what he has to say.

Buck makes things interesting. I notice that when Buck has something to say the post get more hit than anything else.

Powder

???? Am I the next to be ask to take a hike???

[moderator]

Powderburn, there was another post from Bucknaked40 that was deleted from this thread because of irrelavance as judged by BigGameHunt.net staff.

Bucknaked40 has not been removed from the board and as I have already stated is welcome to continue to post if the soapbox can be removed from his posts. He has made his single point, there is nothing more to say.

This is a place for freedom of speech and expression with hopefully thoughtful debate and discussion; however it is not a pulpit.

[powderburn]

Well I have a few more questions. Where are the rules listed telling us what we can post and what we can't? Can I have a list so that I do not offend anyone in here?

What was wrong with Buck's post that was deleted? Was he using profanity? Was he being vulgar? Was he rude? Or was he banished to the land of Nod like Cain? Buck hasn't slew anyone, he is just guilty of having an opinion. Maybe the fact that Buck keeps current on the issues and some people don't like that is why he catches so much flack. Maybe BUCK knows a little to much for his own good. Or maybe this is a forum for the invited and not the masses. Either way I think it is wrong to tell someone what they can and can not post just because someone doesn't share the same point of view! I mean as long as it is not obscene or a personal attack on someone here then I see no harm in anyone being allowed to post without fear of censorship. Powder

[cowgal]

I saw the post, it was off topic, meaning Buck's post did not relate to the thread - "bait hunting being fair chase or not".

A moderator's job is to keep some semblance of order in the threads, which means staying on topic.

Nobody is trying to censor Buck, he can have his opinions - and post them, but forums need some order. So as long as he stays on topic, or simply starts a new thread for his long-winded diatribes, I don't believe he'll be stepping on anyone's toes.

Forums are for open discussions, not cut & paste quotes for spamming the threads.

[powderburn]

I have read the post and I think the problem started when you cut and pasted where Buck was quoting Wayne Pacelle. You cut and pasted part of it but not the part that showed that the statment was made by Wayne Pacelle NOT Buck. Then Buck was told that he was on medication by Expatriate. Buck was the one who was attacked here. And I also saw that the Moderator called Buck down and threatened him but said nothing to the Expatriate! And as I said before if you don't like what Buck has to say then don't read it, but I will pm Buck and tell him that if he has anything to say to be sure and start his own post and put in the heading "If you don't like Buck don't Look" because it is sensitive. Powder

[moderator]

Powderburn, Bucknaked40's post (the first in 43) was removed because it was irrelevant, adding nothing to the discussion of fair chase. Please read the FAQ regarding use of moderation to edit/remove posts.

Bucknaked40 was not "censored" because of the view expressed, instead the post in question was a cut-and-paste from a law proffesor's web site in Michigan. This did not belong in the discussion; therefore it was removed.

Furthermore, Bucknaked40 has continually shot at forum members that disagree with his views. His contrived names (Little Lady, Mr. Moderator) also show a lack of respect (however slight) for the opinions of others involved in this board.

[powderburn]

Well here in the South we use the terms MR. and Lady when we are showing respect but I guess if Buck had called her missy or hun he would have been better off. I would think that you would like to be referred to as MR. unless you are a MRS. in that case Buck should be tared and feathered for his misconduct and name calling. In Oklahoma, Texas, Louisana,ect... we call females ladies or girls or women, the term gal is a derogatory term when used when referring to a woman.
But why did you not say something to expatriate for saying that Buck was on medication? Is it ok to call someone a "NUT" but not use the words MR. or LADY?

[expatriate]

The issue here isn't Mr. Buck's viewpoints or ideas. It's a matter of delivery.

Mr. Buck is like a guy at the Continental Congress in 1776 that stands up every five minutes and thunders, "DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT?? THEY TAXED OUR TEA!!!"

No one (including myself) attacked Mr. Buck's views. We asked that he tone down the rhetoric a bit, remember his audience, and not approach every post spring-loaded to alarmism.

At the outbreak of WWII, Jimmy Doolittle said we were going to have to fight the war from the neck up, not the neck down. The same applies to confronting the AR crowd. We're in a battle for the hearts and minds of middle-of-the-road Americans who could be persuaded to go either way. Mr. Buck has been using the same spring-loaded alarmism and conspiracy theory tactics that the AR extremists use. Worse, when asked to calm down and remember that we were on his side, he yelled, "Censorship!" and stalked off. This too, is a classic liberal tactic: when faced with any opposition whatsoever, brand the opponent a fascist. Such tactics aren't going to win the hearts and minds of the public. We need to be the reasonable ones in this fight, not sink to extremism ourselves.

And by the way, Powder, as a resident of a state that considers Oklahoma Yankee territory, I can vouch that southerners do in fact use MR as you stated. Perhaps you've seen the exchange:

MR bucks.
MR not bucks.
OSAR! CM EDBD antlers?
LIB! MR bucks!


[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-17 17:05 ]

[powderburn]

Buck didn't holler censorship "I" did! And Buck was told to put the key board down or else ... and that is censorship. You were the one who said he was medicated. He did not attack you. As I said before Buck is entitled to his 1776 convictions, maybe Buck has been wronged in some way that you nor I understand and instead of blasting him have some understanding for him. Just by reading the different post that Buck has made it seems to me that he has had first hand experience with the AR's. Show some compassion instead of insulting him. And I glad that you know how to use the word Mister. I do hope that MR. BUCK comes back and chats again. Powder

[powderburn]

And for your information I was raised in TEXAS! I live in Oklahoma now but I must say that even Okies have manners, and I could care less what state you live in.

[expatriate]

I should point out that I didn't say he was medicated. I said, "the amount of venom you put into your posts suggests it may be time to change the medication." I don't claim to know if Mr Buck is medicated, but the middle of the road Americans I just mentioned (and who may read these posts) might discount the guy as a nut because of his tone -- particularly when he idles at 5000 rpm and spins up from there. And at that moment we just lost somebody before the message sinks in.

[expatriate]

Quote:
I live in Oklahoma now but I must say that even Okies have manners, and I could care less what state you live in.


Some might say this statement contradicts itself.

[powderburn]

Would you like for me to clear my statement up for you??? I meant that no matter what state you live in you should still use good manners. You are the one who said that I was a yankee...maybe I take offense to that!

[moderator]

This thread deals with fair chase and will only deal with fair chase from this post forward. The last 26 posts have been interesting, but are adding nothing to the debate, on what is already a heated issue.

For discussion on other topics such as:

- Southern hospitality
- The proper way to address gender
- HSUS
- Freedom of speech
- The Sierra Club
- Okies or Yankees
- Lithium

please start a new thread.

[expatriate]

Well, said, Moderator. I apologize for getting off track.

It seems interesting to see so much debate over fair chase as applied to big game. Duck and goose decoys are seemingly universally accepted as a means of targeting the birds' flock instincts. And as previously noted, it's interesting that it's acceptable to use scents, grunts, and calls to target a deer or elk's sex drive. Pig hunters often use predator calls to target a herd's protective instinct. And when it comes to predators, no one seems to have a problem with using a dying rabbit call to target a coyote's hunger.

Yet many argue that it's unethical to target hunger in typical large game species. The more I think about this, the more it's becoming apparent that the opposition to baiting (including my own) is very species specific, and not necessarily rooted in an overall hunting ethic. Thus, it seems to me that the main issue here is not an ethical debate over fair treatment for wildlife, but more a reflection of how we were raised to hunt a particular species.

I've read recently where there's been talk of the federal government getting a toe into hunting regulation via setting standards for game farms. The issues raised in this thread (well, most of it anyway) highlight the danger of this and the need to keep game management within states, where it can better reflect regional customs and practices. I'm using this to illustrate the point, not get us off track. If anyone is more familiar with the issue, it may be worth starting up another thread.


[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-17 20:57 ]