Saturday December 20, 2014
Jump to content
Tom Based upon reading your posts over a period of time, I trust you to do a very good job of staying within the borders of reality. I am so very tired of posts that wander like a madman's mind. As Ms. Randall said, we can ignore or dispute what we wish, but "reality" is a common denominator. Some posts are simply so far out that they are not arguable. Might just as well have a discussion with a Hershey Bar.
Robbin, For a few days after Tom G. attempted to explain how your posts demonstrated a lack of focus, were generally unsubstantiated by factual references, often strayed from the topic at hand into the area of great plots, used generalities that betrayed you biases and prejudices, and often made readers angry, I had a little hope. You resisted for a few days. Now you again are returning to your ways. I enjoy opinions that are thought provoking and opinions that demonstrate true thinking about alternatives. Unlike Tom, who is a true gentleman, I will be blunt and state that your opinions irritate me because you are not a seeker of truth or a learner or a communicator. I will protect myself by not reading anything you write from here onward.
Robbin Flowers. Regarding the SCOTUS making decisions based on what churches tell the judges: you blithely disregard my questions. The judges are members of what churches? What evidence do you quote to show that the decision(s) of a judge follows the teachings of his church? What cases? Do you recall Roe v. Wade? How does that case fit into your statement when so many Christian churches disagree with the decision? ..."Hyper-religious Republican" ideology across the board? Surely you jest? Some of the judges have records that are considered to be "liberal" and are quite protective of individual rights. "ban rape"... We were are discussing the USA and SCOTUS, not the world. Robbin, not only is your logic specious but also is lacking reasonable facts to back it. I suggest reading your remarks before you post them and asking yourself if your statements are backed by reasonable amounts of evidence. So far, you are failing that guide.
Tom, I was the person who posted some sightings of wolves. All were told to me by the sighter. The first was a sighting of 3 wolves in the Pine Creek bed - 2 females and 1 male heading North. The second came from a person living on the west side of Pine. He said that he saw 2 wolves on his lot on two occasions. He took a picture and took it to Az. Fish and Game people who said they were wolves. (Thankfully he did not ask one of the Feds.) One other person saw what he thinks was a wolf( because of the size) on the west side of Payson in the forest. Because of a lack of personal sightings, I will say that my OPINION is that they are here. Even if the critters are overly big Coyotes, the local folks had better change some habits.
Glory, Hallelujah ! The Arizona lawyers found a Federal judge with some grey matter :)
Tom, I may be in error but I think that in Az. if a person is killed while committing a felony, all parties involved in committing the crime can be charged with murder. The Mo. case is not different , is it?
Pot to the pot??
Perhaps a month ago a friend in Pine said that he had seen three wolves moving North in the Pine Creek bed. He placed cameras but did not get any pictures and guessed that they were moving North. Last week I and two other Forest Service volunteers were hiking Oak Canyon. One of the volunteers lives on the West side of Pine. He said twice he saw two wolves on his property and took pictures. He took the pictures to Fish and Game, who verified that the animals were wolves. I can only guess that the wolves did not read government press and did not know that they should stay atop the Rim :) Just wait until folks begin to find pets missing!
Last login: Tuesday, November 18, 2014