Even me? Little old, harmless me?

You're the kind of guy who would go trick or treating in full costume and pretend to be one of the kids.

*shivers*

You're the kind of guy who would go trick or treating dressed as a recently named serial killer or paedophile.

Why not? I haz permit :(.

Thanks a lot you wet flannels. Now you've pissed him off and scared him away from my RPG. Wow, this is the first time I have genuinely been annoyed with people here. Seriously though everyone, chill the heck out.

PS; @MA, you might wanna change your avatar, just a thought.

The fact that I trick or treat dressed as anything at my age is creepy enough.

I think we should stop this, sit down and play some nice music to calm ourselves.

come on, share the love peeps...

Jack Johnson FTW.

BTW I'm not personally angry at any one member here. It's just sad that we lost a potential due to an off-topic topic. Please try to be at least a little bit nice to newbies in future.

He could have known that his arguments might have been unpopular. Not our fault he thinks he can state his opinion without it being replied to.

why?

and Jack was someone who didn't know what he was talking about. read the whole thread and you'll see him contradict himself and spew out blatant myths, firmly believing them. he was too stubborn, had a paddy over Havoc's response (which funnily enough he didn't bring back up until the discussion grew heated), ignored a number of posts, then got petty about being called a 'noob' and tried to get the last word in. a real productive member.

people began to lose their tempers, and i, admittedly, was one of them. he took it as his opportunity to leave and that was that. oh, and he got in a few 'insults' before he disappeared. which...kinda contradicts himself again what with him being above such inanity.

I don't like the profile picture. It should be something more Oddworld related :D

Okay, so maybe Jack wasn't the next Einstein... but if you admitted getting angry, then you admit there is a problem here. This is a lesson for next time. The next time you might scare away the next Mag the Mug or OANST.

In a nutshell, if he was scared off by that little exchange then he's better off and so are the rest of us.

Also, both Mat and Wil were productive and interesting people from the beginning. First impressions are important.

Also, stfu about the avatar thing you elitist warthog.

By my own addmition i could certainly see him gettin knocked sideways in the future, after i read this thread.

So a baboon is shot out of curiosity. How many of you malicious bastards kill spiders with intent?

Alcar...

I don't. I love spiders. They're actually useful.

Immunity for me.

Is that what this thread is about? ....wow.

i've never had an Oddworld avatar while you've been here, i've had random pics since the beginning of 2008?

Next person to post something that isn't about hunting in general or the article in the OP will be infracted. And if you have posted multiple times before the next time I log on, I will infract you multiple times.

If you want to discuss Seikyo Jack and noobs in general, keep it to PMs or MSN.

Aw, I never even got a chance. :(

Yeah, guess what Pilot. You just got infracted.

Ahem.

So...

how bout that asshole. What's his name? The baboon killing mother fucker. Are his reviews any good?

My reviews are fabulous.... but that infraction was even better :D

Stop messing around kids, lest this fate befall you too.

On the topic of hunting... I agree that killing for the sake of killing is bullshit. However, if I were to go out hunting (and believe me, I want to), I'd be carving up the prey for dinner and bleaching the bones to put on display. I'd probably make a coat of the fur too, as it's not nice to waste and I'm fucking freezing.

I'd not be hunting endangered or inedible species, though. That's just silly.

So by your logic it would be more fair if I were to wrangle a deer and stab it numerous times with a makeshift knife, causing a great deal of pain to the animal in a drawn-out and unnecessary struggle, rather than track it and stay downwind as I put a bullet in it to end it's life quickly?

And yes, in some cases it does do good for the planet. For instance, if an animal population were to grow out of control it would cause problems. If the land were overpopulated with too much of one species, it would unbalance the food chain. Other species may die out because of the overpopulating species' consumption of a shared resource, which in turn could cause the predators of said other species to die out because of a lack of prey, and so on.

The thing with the food chain is that it tends to fix itself without outside intervention, nature has been managing for millions of years before we showed up.

Man is not "outside intervention", we are just as much a part of nature as a wolf or lion is.

Man is not, culling in masses is.

We're "outside intervention" when we choose not to live alongside nature.

Like all those truck commercials (mostly Ford) of the BIG TRUCKS cutting through the pristine forest and unadulterated environments. So Manly.

I'M A BIG MAN NOW DAWG

----------

Ow, Nate, that still stings! This is worse than that time I got that Scarlet "O" from OANST.

By my logic, if you want to go hunting for animals at least make it interesting and go in unarmed, like the animal is. Either that or teach the deer how to operate a hunting rifle. I don't think you'd be wanting to go into that forest in either of those two scenarios.

Even IF overpopulation becomes a problem, which it won't because stuff like that should be left up to nature, it is not up to individual hunters to make the call on which species is overpopulated and how many of their brains have to be blown out to reach the quota. I am aware that there is such a thing as hunting seasons to deal with the above problem and permits are being issued, but I will not believe for a second that a hunter gets up in the morning, having pain in his heart because he HAS to go out and shoot something again.

Hunters kill for the thrill, not for the good of the animal. You can't be good for the animal by killing it, that's a fucking paradox no matter how many bends and turns you try to twist it in. It's a bit like saying 'Hey, you've got a fever. Maybe a bullet to the head will fix it.'

Nature will fix itself as long as we leave it alone.

In that case, perhaps pets who suffer from uncurable afflictions should be spared the bullet or injection and left to live in agony, you know, seeing as killing the animal does no good whatsoever.

I would hunt an animal unarmed for the sake of eating it and putting it's pelt to use. Hell, I'd tear it's throat out. And be shunned by society for not using a gun, no doubt. And then more than likely be arrested for charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. I should think a gun is quicker and more humane than beating a deer over the head with a fucking rock until it stops twitching.

Pets are part of a family. Generally you love pets, spent time with them for 15 or so years. If a dog is suffering from a wide cancer spread and he is suffering from pain so much he would be better off being put down, then that will be an extremely hard decision to make for it's family. How hard is it for an average hunter to pull the trigger?

And why are you trying to justify the WAY you kill an animal if you shouldn't be killing it in the first place. Yes, a gun is quicker. So is throwing you head first into a meatgrinder. Doesn't mean I should actually do it just because I can.