Fieldnotes wrote: Matter fact, I still think Obama is a Muslim
I have heard this supposition before, some years back. But it has yet to be verified.
It is the same re Sarah Palin, about her having fully formed teeth lining her cervix.
Moderator: Scott Waters
Fieldnotes wrote: Matter fact, I still think Obama is a Muslim
Fieldnotes wrote:That's a joke right![]()
Obama was raised in a Muslim family, his name alone, Barack Hussein Obama is named after Muslim text, so forth and so on. From the mouth of Obama himself, "raised Muslim."
He is a serial liar and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is a safe bet.
As i said, its not about his religion, its about him being a liar.
Anyone have anything on topic to contribute to this thread (bearing in mind that it's an old and long thread already, so it might be hard to find ground it hasn't already covered)?...gbin wrote:Ah, I get it. Post something that at first glance just seems like a joke you're aiming at me, but that you really hope will prompt Scott to make a whole (in this case more than 2-year-old) thread that apparently still bothers you (and/or a friend of yours, hmmm?) go bye-bye, huh? (Interested folks can search the combination of "Obama" and "Muslim" to get Fieldnotes' supposed joke and identify his likely friend.) Clever, but given how on-topic this thread is I don't think he'll do that just to protect your (or anyone else's) sorry butt.
Kelly Mc wrote:
If a person feels completely cool about collecting a herp, why is it the only thing they don't present openly, like all the other stuff that is documented?
Yes, it is unrealistic to think that a demystification of the breach between the two types would occur.Soopaman wrote:Kelly Mc wrote:
If a person feels completely cool about collecting a herp, why is it the only thing they don't present openly, like all the other stuff that is documented?
Possibly it's because of the "holier than thou" types that pass judgement upon, and subsequently shun those of us that choose to do legal and responsible collecting.
The group of people submitting to such a database will inevitably become the same group of people that never receive any help herping in areas outside of their home range, even when their true intent is just enjoyment/photography.
Sorry, but I (of course) disagree. The existence of people here who make no secret of the fact that they collect and see nothing whatsoever wrong with it and also others here who make no secret of the fact that they don't collect but see nothing whatsoever wrong with it demonstrates that this gap can be bridged. As I see it, two things are required:Kelly Mc wrote:Yes, it is unrealistic to think that a demystification of the breach between the two types would occur.
gbin wrote: Reason and evidence both abundantly tell us that collecting doesn't by definition harm the animals involved (animal welfare is an individual issue that can and should be dealt with)
Gerry
Kelly Mc wrote:Gerry by Trivialize - I mean it the same way you do when you speak of demonizing persons.
There is an aspect of herp attitude that is a clear affectation. Of Edgy Coolness, and empathetic remoteness, like its somehow more "Jaded Pro" to take on that demeanor with snakes, as if they have no neural capacity or sensate realities.
It is fortified by the Terror of involved with herps persons being associated with "The Activists" Its almost tragic irony - simple concern for an animals quality of life shoved quickly underfoot because of keeping up appearances.
To me these affectations don't seem scientific or pro, it just seems willfully less observant. If new technologies and methods were developed that Proved the effects of suppressed sensate and neural functioning, the convenient intangibles of what constitutes welfare and suffering in an organism of limited outward expression - then what?
Oh, right, I understood that and meant to comment on it in what I just posted but somehow failed to do so. Good catch, Jim.hellihooks wrote:Kelly said it's hard to tell what herps really feel about captivity, since they're 'hard to read' and perhaps one day new technologies will show we're mistreating them more than we might think, or care to admit. i LOVE the way she writes...![]()
![]()
![]()
jim
I believe I understand, Kelly, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure. I wanted to clarify my stance for everyone, anyway, as I could readily see some people taking me as trivializing animal welfare concerns in the conventional sense.Kelly Mc wrote:Gerry I meant Trivialize in general. Not toward you.
I have not had a soft life, am not a soft person. Any heightened sensitivity i have just makes me want to work. Its been interesting typing it out these past few years and having someone like you, and Jim far away speak back to me.
luv_the_smellof_musk wrote:Unless it's an unusual circumstance, I don't see why anyone on this forum should be upset about a legally collected animal. If collecting that one animal did the population in, don't you think there were other factors that would have finished the job to begin with? Because there's literally nothing that can be done about the growing billions of people around the world causing mass extinctions, a lot of focus and indeed hocus pocus goes on about some guy collecting an snake or two, as if it would change something had that not happened. The energy being spent trying to prevent an individual snake from being collected would be better spent preserving large blocks of habitat and educating the public why we shouldn't let the human population continue to grow out of control.
hahahahahahahhahahahahaFieldnotes wrote:That's a joke right![]()
Obama was raised in a Muslim family, his name alone, Barack Hussein Obama is named after Muslim text, so forth and so on. From the mouth of Obama himself, "raised Muslim."
He is a serial liar and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is a safe bet.
As i said, its not about his religion, its about him being a liar.
I reckon it's one of those three, anyway...Kelly Mc wrote:Perhaps the mistrust and suspicion of Obama being a secret member of a scary religion has more to do with the fact that he's so tall, dark and handsome.
I'm happy to say that since I started this thread way back when (almost three years ago, now - how about that!) I haven't seen nearly as many attempts by folks to assert on one or another of the message boards here that if you collected an animal on an excursion then you weren't field herping, or if you collect animals then you aren't a field herper. Those folks are still around, though, and even if they're not expressing it as much anymore I suspect that viewpoint is still around, too. As when I began this thread, I'd be as happy to hear from them as I would to hear from folks who feel otherwise. My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought. It's kind of odd that few if any of them have been willing to speak up plainly here where the subject is actually the topic of the thread (as opposed to the many threads where they injected it to the threads' derailment), whereas plenty of other people have been willing to say that they think field herping certainly can and often does include animal collecting, whether or not they themselves ever collect anything.gbin wrote:Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?
That seems to be the opinion of at least a few frequent posters here, who appear to be using pretty much any thread in which they can find a way to promote the idea to wage an undeclared campaign on its behalf. A couple of people have even been acting as if the meaning of the term has already changed, i.e. it's a done deal, so live with it. When called on this, they then argue that there's some kind of groundswell of support for the idea ("Hey, it's not that I'm necessarily even for the change myself, but so many people have obviously already adopted it! What can anyone do but accept it?") - though it's obvious they're the ones bringing it up again, and again, and again... Rather than any kind of genuine popular movement, it looks to me as if it’s instead simply an idea that one particular faction of field herpers, namely those who disapprove of animal collecting in general enough that they don't want what they do to be associated with it, has grown inordinately fond of and is eager to push hard for no matter what anyone else might think.
Because I don't like hijacking others' threads to discuss/debate this kind of thing, and because I believe we'll get a more open, honest look at the situation by dedicating a thread to it, I thought I'd ask everyone here...
Should the term “field herping” exclude animal collecting?
I say definitely not. What makes sense to me:
Besides being nonsensical, pretending that this or that person isn’t a field herper because of what s/he chooses to collect at the end of a given hunt (be it memories, photographs, notes on personal observations or other data, or animals) seems incredibly divisive to me, when all of us should be looking for ways to unite rather than further divide our community.
- Field herping = having to do with herps in the field
Herpetoculture = having to do with herps in captivity
Herping = having do with herps wherever (so combining field herping and herpetoculture)
That’s what I think, anyway. What say you?...
(Mind you, I haven’t opened this thread to discuss/debate the pros and cons of animal collecting. If folks feel it’s time for yet another lengthy exchange on that subject, I’d rather you started your own thread for it. I’d like for this thread to focus simply on whether “field herping” should exclude animal collecting.)
Thanks!
Gerry
What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.gbin wrote: Just a reminder of what this thread is actually about:
Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?
That seems to be the opinion of at least a few frequent posters here, who appear to be using pretty much any thread in which they can find a way to promote the idea to wage an undeclared campaign on its behalf. A couple of people have even been acting as if the meaning of the term has already changed, i.e. it's a done deal, so live with it. When called on this, they then argue that there's some kind of groundswell of support for the idea ("Hey, it's not that I'm necessarily even for the change myself, but so many people have obviously already adopted it! What can anyone do but accept it?") - though it's obvious they're the ones bringing it up again, and again, and again... Rather than any kind of genuine popular movement, it looks to me as if it’s instead simply an idea that one particular faction of field herpers, namely those who disapprove of animal collecting in general enough that they don't want what they do to be associated with it, has grown inordinately fond of and is eager to push hard for no matter what anyone else might think. Gerry
It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.gbin wrote:It's kind of odd that few if any of them have been willing to speak up plainly here where the subject is actually the topic of the thread (as opposed to the many threads where they injected it to the threads' derailment), whereas plenty of other people have been willing to say that they think field herping certainly can and often does include animal collecting, whether or not they themselves ever collect anything.
Gerry
Whatever you say, Jim...hellihooks wrote:What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.
. . .
It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.
For the record, this whole thread was an exercise in pettyness, on your part. http://vimeo.com/49536601#t=11
![]()
![]()
Gerrygbin wrote:... My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought...
How about it, folks? Surely some of you haven't yet expressed your view on this subject in this thread (where it actually belongs). Let's hear from you!
And right away... with the name calling. No one but you has ever imagined that the meaning of 'fieldherping' was under attack... no one (I've heard of) thinks the name NEEDS changing... it was a stupid topic 3 yrs ago... it's stupid now. Change the title to "Who wants to argue... about NOTHING" Good luck finding any takers... I sure as hell won't be one. I wanna call it 'Herpapaloosing'gbin wrote:Whatever you say, Jim...hellihooks wrote:What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.
. . .
It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.
For the record, this whole thread was an exercise in pettyness, on your part. http://vimeo.com/49536601#t=11
![]()
![]()
![]()
For those who are a bit less narcissistic:Gerrygbin wrote:... My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought...
How about it, folks? Surely some of you haven't yet expressed your view on this subject in this thread (where it actually belongs). Let's hear from you!
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, Jim...hellihooks wrote:And right away... with the name calling. No one but you has ever imagined that the meaning of 'fieldherping' was under attack... no one (I've heard of) thinks the name NEEDS changing... it was a stupid topic 3 yrs ago... it's stupid now. Change the title to "Who wants to argue... about NOTHING" Good luck finding any takers... I sure as hell won't be one. I wanna call it 'Herpapaloosing'![]()
![]()