[Praxius]

Sigh.....

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Can`t you read that FAQ, internalize it, comment, and then snip some pieces of it out and post a link? That`s the point. You posted a FAQ with a debate embedded in it. Why should you and I debate one another if we are going to post others debating the issue? The point is so that we don`t become dueling FAQ list posters. That is ridiculous.

I felt I didn't need to type out my comments again, because I've listed everything in the other thread here:

Canada takes No. 1 spot in global image poll:

You commented there, you made this thread and posted a link to those comments in the first post.... so now you want me to re-write it all out again. You asked for information to back up what I was saying in the previous thread, I supplied it, then you complain about me issuing you a FAQ link to read.... which was suppose to be the information you asked for, now you're complaining I'm not explaining my view..... You're not making much sense.

And now you're trying to argue I didn't give you an opinion on the matter and using the fact that you split this conversation into two different threads to your advantage.

A little reading doesn`t bother me in the least. But, I am not debating the creator of that FAQ list -- I am debating you. But let me tell you something about the information in this FAQ list put forth by the CBC (by the way...is that a government funded/run news org?); It all comes from the DFO, The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Why do you think such a FAQ list from the department that sanctions and promotes sealing is going to answer in a negative way against something they are promoting? It is a litany of "the DFO says this, the DFO says that," ... ad nausium.

Anything anybody says or has an opinion on is biased, always.... even in the slightest, even your organizations you hold dear to are pretty biased in themselves.. no matter where you get your information or by who, there's always going to be some sort of bias..... my opinion isn't just from the report I supplied, but also from interviews and me asking hunters personally about it who live near where I live.

Prax, what if President Bush put forth a FAQ list on the questions dogging U.S. involvement in Iraq, that would simply read, "The office of the Pres of the United States says this, ...The office of the Pres of the United States says that, .... ad nausium explaining away all the violence or misconduct of U.S. forces, would that convince you? Would you just say, "Hey that settles it all. The person in charge of the debacle is telling me the truth of the matter why it is so or not so and that should be good enough for me. All accepted." ??? Well, would it?

Please don't take me for some sheep who follows whatever everybody else says without actually looking into it... if anything your comments of which you cite from your organizations (Which isn't much of an opinion either if you ask me.... kinda hypocritical) are not only stating only the information they want you to hear, but perhaps if you could supply further information outside of the Animal Rights groups, and a group that throws in both the animal and human equation.

As for your above questions:

I don't believe a thing Bush says anyways, so bad example. You first have to have some faith in the person or organization supplying you the information, then you have to confirm it from a third party, as I do. If none are available, then I have to use my own judgement and see if their information sounds logical and/or true for me to believe.

It doesn't really matter, because no matter what information I explain, you'll complain I have no sources.... and as soon as I get sources, you complain about their credibility, so it's pretty pointless if you're gonna keep doing that.