quote:

Originally posted by SuperSpeed:
Jim,

On the list who would fail your test and who would pass?

http://www.weatherby-foundation.org/award/previous.html

With all due respect, you really missed the point of my posts.

I don't recall laying out any parameters for a "test". I was offering my views on the subject, with the logic behind those views.

It seems to me the thrust of your question, other than an attempt to discredit my views without the need to support your own, would require the creation of a checklist, would it not? I will leave the creation of checklists to those who seem to place a high value on them.

If you think I am wrong, tell me where and why.

Jim Manion - 1st post:

quote:

Well said, Saeed. These people are not hunters, they are merely collectors. Too shallow to appreciate the hunt, and at the end of the day it's all about bragging rights among a very small circle. One might even say, a circle of jerks....

Jim Manion - 2nd post:

quote:

I am sure there are some good hunters who have received these awards based on a lifetime of hunting, not ever thinking about an award - the award being incidental to a life's pursuit of one's passion.

Seems that "clueless" mantle served to clear up your thinking some Jim. A much fairer assessment, I'd say.

quote:

The one I know about who insisted that he be allowed to jacklight his game at the salt lick after legal shooting hours would not pass.

That would increase the chances of a well placed shot?

Off hand shot with open sighted double by day time.....increases chance of a wounding shot?

Why do people who go to Africa have a scope on their rifle?

If "the hunt" is the main thing then wouldn't the dart gun be best?

Many of the postings on this forum stress the need for a clean kill. So should the animal be shot using sand bags on the roof of the car and spotlight or should it be shot off hand with open sighted rifle?

Mike

Nick,

The mantle in question did not clarify anything. I did not say all award winners were that way in my initial post. My initial response was specfically aimed at the preceding comments which singled out those among the award winners who were more focused on the numbers game, rather than hunting. The context of a response is just as important as the response itself. Otherwise, a statement being quoted can be taken out of context.

These forums provide a running commentary on a subject, meaning the comments being made relate to those preceding it. I did not believe it is necessary to lay out the entire premise for a particular thought.

Hope this clears up what apparently was perceived as an inconsistency in my statements.

quote:

I will leave the creation of checklists to those who seem to place a high value on them.

Jim,

It is quite simple....you have said that you are sure there are some good hunters who have received these awards based on a lifetime of hunting, not ever thinking about an award.....Is that only a guess or do you know which ones on "the list" are good hunters?

Mike

This is quite a string, so I will get banned as it would appear to some here a true hunter need to have 8 to 10 Buf on license and kill all allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:

quote:

One thing is for sure.

Both the Weatherby Awards winners and the current SCI craze of "mine is bigger than yours" attitude is nothing but individuals glorifying themselves.

Well said, Saeed. These people are not hunters, they are merely collectors. Too shallow to appreciate the hunt, and at the end of the day it's all about bragging rights among a very small circle. One might even say, a circle of jerks....

So Jim - where, exactly are those "preceding comments which singled out those among the award winners who were more focused on the numbers game, rather than hunting" you speak of?

Nick

There are about 20 posts before my initial comment. Those posts include comments regarding those that focus solely on collection and posts that note that we should not paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that in my initial brief comment I did not disagree with the notion of not painting the entire group with ne broad brush stroke. If I objected to it, I would have stated that.

As for your comment:

quote:

Seems that "clueless" mantle served to clear up your thinking some Jim.

There is really no need to resort to name calling here. I for one was a little surprised to see this coming from you.

As for SuperSpeed, I am not going to baited by you (although you have the makings of being a master). Rational, cogent and logical opinions and comments? Or are you going to continue to draw a line in the sand and dare all who disagree with you to cross it?

Looks like the WA and SCI upper trophy hunter awards are simple to get. IF, you have a lot of money, a lot of time, reasonable health and the drive to hunt on 3-5 major world wide hunts per year. I don't see any one with out money winning any of these awards. JOC maybe one exception as his list of hunts and trophy numbers is very sparse compared to other winners.

465H&H

Another piling-on post. How clever.

Jim, Your first post was in direct response to the man YOU quoted. I read his words and then yours. Period!

As for "clueless", I do not believe it was I who said you didn't have a clue.

Good Day Sir.

Nick,

I quoted Saeed, and said that I agreed with him. I made that comment, however, in the context of the entire thread. Just because I chose to quote Saeed noting my agreement with him certainly did not mean my comments were to the exclusions of all other posts. Now, did it? I actually thought he did a pretty good job of cutting through the discussion up to that point in a succinct manner.

You are reading things into my words and intent that simply were not there. For you to get your back up over this is a little over the top.

I have taken the time to explain my thought process to you and now you reject my response to your very question and stick your fingers in your ears??? You read into my words. Maybe i should have been a little more thorough in my berief initial comment. I guess next time I'll include footnotes with an appendix of assumptions and premises.

In response to your second point, it is true that you did not make the statement first, but you did say

quote:

Seems that "clueless" mantle served to clear up your thinking some Jim.

Now can you honestly sit there and tell me you did not slap that label on me? You did; those were your words, not a quote from another post.

Funny you chose to single me out here, when there were other people apparently taking the same position as me (one of whom I quoted).

Like I said, I am more than a little surprised to see this kind of material coming from you.

Jim

I think this is the quote that got most riled up. Your blanket indictment of all winners and your seeming lack of understanding of what it takes to win a Major Award just rubbed people the wrong way.

quote:

Well said, Saeed. These people are not hunters, they are merely collectors. Too shallow to appreciate the hunt, and at the end of the day it's all about bragging rights among a very small circle. One might even say, a circle of jerks....

Your remark makes it seem that you are the one that is too shallow to appreciate hunting or hunters.

You have since modified it to better reflect what you meant and some of your points are valid.

quote:

Well said, Saeed. These people are not hunters, they are merely collectors. Too shallow to appreciate the hunt, and at the end of the day it's all about bragging rights among a very small circle. One might even say, a circle of jerks....

Jim, Sorry but it still reads the same to me.

BTW - Saeed & I have argued plenty. He likes it that way. I selected you because in my view it was your words that "went over the top".

Nick

One last time. Read what I quoted:

quote:

Both the Weatherby Awards winners and the current SCI craze of "mine is bigger than yours" attitude is nothing but individuals glorifying themselves.

Where does it say there that EVERYONE falls into that bucket? Frankly, if you still fail to "get it" you are being purposely obstinate and nothing I say will make much of a difference to you.

What this is boiling down to is that you are calling me a liar, and that Sir, is contemptable. You have absolutely no basis to do so.

I use my own name on this board, while you prefer to remain hidden behind a screen name. That is certainly your perogative, but to openly call another man's character into question in his own identity is a cheap shot of the lowest form.

I took the time and made the effort to offer my thoughts and subsequently clarify my position. And you choose to parse words and divine some sort of meaning that is far from the truth. And rather than proffer your own thoughts on the subject (you seem to be on both sides of this one with the pictures of the empty waders and now this), you choose to take statements far beyond the context they were offered.

I expected better. Calling people out, attacking the messenger rather than debating the message, and similar tactics do nothing to further any cause.

If you have anything else to say to me, please do so on a PM. We have eaten up enough bandwidth here.

Jim, Never called you a liar. Never implied that you were a liar, only that your change in tone was obvious after Gator 1's post awakened you. But you persist in making this more than it is and more than it has to be. I took your selected quote as not exclusive of any and I think as did Gator 1 and anyone else who read it. Have you seen any comment to the contrary?? As such, I took your response to Saeed in the same vein. Sorry, I am not Kreskin!
As things stands, it is you have insulted me as a result of your inability to accept an unpalatable interpretation of either your words or stated intent. Well that's just tough Jim. Now you can "PM" me if you've got the sand.

Quit the grandstanding. Back away from the word mincer. Stop splitting hairs. And indeed if you are not Kreskin, do try to stop trying to tell me what I was thinking. Continuing to harp on a comment taken out of context and dismiss the rationale behind those statements means you do not believe my follow up. And that is not calling or implying a lack of candor? And now we are rating posts for "tone"? Give me a break! Like I said, we have used enough bandwidth here.

Is is ludicrous to now claim your statements were not meant to call my integrity into question. You have taken this to an utterly ridiculous level. But that is par from the course for someone who chooses to remain unknown in cyberspace.

And I see that you are now the "victim" of some insult? Wow.

Like I said, PM me if you have anything of substance to say. If you feel uncomfortable to speak with me without "backup", I fully understand.