Larry, I told you in the locked Condor thread that there is lots of contrarian science that effectively disputes much of the junk science that was used to advance the 1991 Federal Lead Shot Ban, and subsequent lead ammo bans in California and elsewhere. However, if they don't come right out in the abstract and say that the purpose of their research is specifically to debunk the Lead Shot Ban for Waterfowl, it just doesn't meet your standards for excellence. But you were also stuck on using selective editing of the Audobon statement on sport hunting, and defending junk like your precious North Dakota Ground Venison study, in order to support your erroneous notions about waterfowl and the lead bullets used by deer hunters. We never got past that and your childish demands for what is readily available with little effort. What little we gave you was dismissed out of hand and I'm pretty sure you are still clinging to your preconceived notions. You also didn't show us any BEEF, and you refused to acknowledge glaring examples of absolute garbage. It was easier to discredit craigd and myself than to admit you might be wrong. You demanded BEEF when you repeatedly showed us that you weren't even capable of digesting Pablum. The contrarian science on lead ammunition is out there Larry, but you won't acknowledge it when it hits you right between the eyes. Don't bother grading my performance Larry. I've seen your own abysmal performance when it comes to selective editing, putting words in my mouth which I never said, denying your own words, and attempting to discredit anyone who points out your errors. I happen to think you derailed this topic because you are not a ballistics expert. Maybe YOU should start another thread where you can count pellets and holes and promote the work of a guy who claims that ballistically inferior steel is as good or better than lead.
I'm just giving you a dose of your own medicine, and it appears you don't like it.
