I see you still cannot comprehend what I wrote Larry. Even putting it in bold colored type and underlining it didn't work. Then going even further and explaining what I had underlined, bolded, and colored didn't help you. Let's try it again:
"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."
Let me break that sentence down into small pieces that even a mentally retarded person might understand.
"In fact, the parts that followed,"... This means I was referring to the parts of your statement that came directly after your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad." declaration.
"along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread,"... This means I am referring to 90% of what you have said before you made the statement I quoted. This does not in any way suggest that I am making this observation on the sum total of your life. Only what you have posted in this one thread Larry. Got it? I have already said here, that you were much more supportive of lead ammo in the 2010 thread. Furthermore Larry, 90% of your comments in this thread IS NOT THE SAME as being 100% anti-lead ammo. You do believe that lead is toxic... at least I hope you do. I believe that as well. I just don't believe that pieces of shot, bullets, or sinkers are the real problem with birds. Your math may be worse than your reading.
"would support the conclusion"... This means that I was making the observation that those words, "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad", along with the other things you had written IN THIS ONE THREAD could make someone believe, or conclude, that you support the 1991 ban and also support lead bullet bans. I am not the only one who took note of that Larry.
"that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME."... This is referring to you Larry. Can you spell your name? Again, we're talking about what you posted earlier within this thread. Try to stay with me on this. You had been supportive of earlier lead shot bans. You said it was settled and claimed they worked and achieved the desired result. You said that rehashing old battles that we have lost is foolish. You made bogus claims about lead bullet fragments in wounded deer and gut piles and made a direct link between bullet fragments and dead birds. You weren't even talking about other more bio-available sources of lead. The only place you defended the continued use of lead was for upland game hunting. My making note of your continued support for lead shot for upland game means that you cannot be 100% against lead ammo. So we're back to being both bad at math and bad at reading. You may be the poster child for "No Child Left Behind".
Now I know this is a lot for you to digest, so I won't go into your two contrarian statements about road killed deer right now.
And later, after when your little brain can digest more information, we'll go back to your nonsense about Susceptibility, Relative Susceptibility, and now... Your wild-assed explanation for putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting my meaning... even after I clearly explained it to you.
I have a lot of studies for you to check out Larry. I told you that last night. But first we have to teach you to read and comprehend. There will even be some numbers involved, and that's another problem for you. This could take a long long time by the looks of it. And craigd did notice all of that non-contributory fill you use to explain things that we never said. It's too much for you to deal with right now Larry.
By the way Larry, a lot of the studies I have read on the anti-lead side ARE supporting a total ban on lead ammo, even for upland game. But you are too invested in proving me wrong to notice that apparently. Your inability to understand the written word, clear explanations of what was said, and your refusal to acknowledge glaring errors and mere suppositions, in what you call science, has led us far off topic.
