Larry, your responses keep getting ever more ridiculous. And if anyone has a problem with reading, it is you. You proved that again in your very first paragraph when you made this statement:
"Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting."OK Larry, now have someone read this to you, and have them read the part which is in
bold purple type twice, so you can get it through your thick head:
Larry's statement saying "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" was not put up as an example of public perception. He is not playing to low information voters or uneducated members of the public here, so his explanation for that statement rings hollow. I purposely reproduced the entire statement, so that Larry couldn't accuse me of selective editing. There was no disclaimer to inform the reader that was not Larry's belief. In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is generally anti-lead except for upland game, as craigd has also noticed. Insofar as I can tell, he has already thrown deer hunters under the bus, and feels that they are just lucky to have the numbers to stave off lead bullet bans.
Did you see it this time Larry, or are you really that blind or dumb? I was addressing your lame-ass excuse claiming that your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement was addressed to low information people. I never said you are 100% against lead. I very clearly said "
In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME." Learn to read Larry. You keep putting words in my mouth in a disingenuous attempt to discredit me... Hey, Look everybody... Keith can't even read! That is not Professional Writing. That is childish. It is utter dishonest bullshit Larry. You keep doing this because this is all you've got. It started with your wild-assed claim that almost every road killed deer you saw in Wisconsin had an eagle feeding on it, a story which later changed, and it has just snowballed.
Then you continue putting words in my mouth and attempting to discredit me. You added things I never said with my statement on susceptibility to lead poisoning of waterfowl and upland game. I went back to my original statement to be certain of what I had said. But you have totally changed my statement used that change to alter my original intent by changing it from "susceptibility" to "RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY". How did you see a word that wasn't even there Larry? Why did you change my words... more deceptive editing???
You obviously didn't understand my statement the first time. So I took the time to explain it to you, even though you felt the need to use your misinterpretation to discredit me,... waterfowl vs. upland birds... equal weights... equal exposure to lead shot... equal time of retention. That wasn't good enough, so you continue to twist my words and add things I never said because you have the inability to ever admit being wrong. You are just stuck on your incorrect interpretation, and felt the need to add the word "relative" to my statement to attempt to explain your poor reading comprehension. It was understandable that you'd be so simple-minded as to make the incorrect and simplistic assumption that all waterfowl would always be more exposed to lead shot (pre-ban) than all upland birds (except doves). It was an understandable error the first time Larry. Continuing on that path after I fully explained it, and changing my words to change my meaning is deceitful and disgusting.
I didn't simply say the lead bans were/are based upon junk science. I've given you numerous glaring examples, which you at first tried to explain away with ridiculous arguments, like a good little anti-lead soldier might use. That didn't work out well, so you have lowered yourself to this kind of crap, while you steadfastly ignore obvious anti-lead ammo bias and bogus science. Once again, craigd also sees it...no amount of proof will satisfy you. I think you probably want to believe, but that would mean admitting you were wrong. And you can't do that, can you?
I'll make another post later to address some of your other stupidity, and your apparent inability to explain or even acknowledge some of the glaring inconsistencies in much of the literature which supported, or continues to support, lead shot bans. I just wanted to make this post to illustrate how one so-called Professional Writer operates. You said, " But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer." No indeed Larry, not with your kind of writer. Being sleazy and deceptive, in my opinion, isn't going to win this dirty little word game.
