quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Saeed,
I would not say idiotic, but more just a dose of immaturity.

To consider hunting relatively dumb and primitively equipped creatures as 'doing battle' is laughable and childish marketing.

If MS seriously likes real danger and real life threatening situations [or 'battles' as her refers to them as],
he has had two real wars in the last 20yrs that he could have served in to prove his manhood, among other opportunities
like mercenary work available around the world in several different ongoing civil wars/conflicts.

But he has chosen the soft option of animals to prove himself, rather than against a well skilled and equipped human rival, 'in battle'.

Talk to any sensible person who served against the Japs in ww2, and ask them why they did their best to obliterated them from a distance,
by aircraft,bazookas,flame throwers,artillery,tanks, etc,...close in man too man conflict with such fierce opponents was not preferred and
was considered an overly risky/dangerous last resort.
I dont consider them cowards for taking the easier,less personally dangerous options.
Minimising risk to persons is an intelligent course of action, be in hunting or war,[unless one ego suppresses ones common sense]
By maybe MS would consider them cowardly, because in his eyes they would attempting to intensionally lessen the danger of war/battle,
like he accuses other hunters of doing[by them shooting DG at 40yd].

I wonder what an insurance company would do with their policy holder hunter,if a claim was put in for serious personal injury while hunting DG,
if they found out that the policy holder and his PH, both set out to intentionally increase the chance of potential risks involved
while hunting DG?
Insurance I believe is to cover incidences where you took all reasonable due care too avoid tragedy and serious injury,
not where one intentionally & purposefully acts to increase the chance of tragedy and serious injury while hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

quote:

Originally posted by Pieter Kriel:
Then he got what he deserved.

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably mention that I am not a business partner with Nitro Express Safaris. I do find it odd that SCI members such as myself and others that I know who have written and/or spoken directly with SCI for an explanation have not received any official reason to explain this action. Mark has not been advised either.

How is it that others who have no connection to SCI imply that they have knowledge of SCI’s decision for not allowing Mark to attend the convention or to advertise in either Safari Magazine or Safari Times?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
3 years in advance and simply climbs the hierarchy ladder afterward, with NO OPPOSITION. you are correct- it is an "old boys club" that answers to no one.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

quote:

I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

I can't say they do but I know for a fact that the "Inner Circle" will (and have made) use of their status to obtain what they want.

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

Oh good lord!

That's just absurd!

Brett,

Under normal circumstances, you are absolutely right.

But, after the sad story of Out of Africa and the president being their lawyer and protector, people will think anything is possible.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Free 500grains

quote:

I wouldn't doubt that's happened over the years. Now I have no idea, but tend to doubt it. I know the Vice President and can pretty safely say I don't think he would ever do something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I wouldn't doubt that's happened over the years. Now I have no idea, but tend to doubt it. I know the Vice President and can pretty safely say I don't think he would ever do something like that.

I agree, not all the apples in the basket are necessarily rotten.

You also have the liberty/privilege to believe or disbelieve - as I said, I know for a fact that the SCI President, in his official capacity at the time, "flexed his wings" over an illegality committed by one of his proteges.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably mention that I am not a business partner with Nitro Express Safaris. I do find it odd that SCI members such as myself and others that I know who have written and/or spoken directly with SCI for an explanation have not received any official reason to explain this action. Mark has not been advised either.

How is it that others who have no connection to SCI imply that they have knowledge of SCI’s decision for not allowing Mark to attend the convention or to advertise in either Safari Magazine or Safari Times?

OK Shawn, you are a dealer who sells his products, right?

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
I received an email today from Mark that is pertinent to something that was recently posted in this thread. I checked with Mark to affirm I could post this on his behalf. He wanted this information to be known:

Dear Shawn:

Saeed has said many times it was his understanding that SCI had repeatedly asked me to stop showing my movies and I refused. And that is the reason I am no longer permitted to exhibit. That is not true. Here are the facts.

I do not recall the exact years but the events are as clear today as they were when they happened. Upon arriving at my booth early one Wednesday morning to prepare for the start of that year's convention, officials from SCI were there to tell me I would only be allowed to conduct business if I covered my TVs with paper so people passing by could not see what was showing; only the audio was permitted. I did as they asked without complaint or protest.

Several conventions later much the same happened. Upon arriving at my booth opening morning I was greeted with a hand-written note signed by the Convention Chairman ordering me not to turn on my television sets and effectively telling me to pack up and go home. I telephoned my attorneys who were en route to the convention floor and soon afterwards we were meeting with the Chairman. After a very cordial 45 minute discussion, the Chairman gave me permission to return to my booth and continue "as I was" without restriction. He let it be known that he owned a number of my movies and liked them. The pressure came from above.

After the events of 9/11 and my return home from Tanzania I got a call from SCI Headquarters in Tucson. They asked if they could use my charging buffalo and hippo footage as they wanted to play it on a giant screen overlooking the main floor of the convention. They believed this would heighten crowd excitement and generate sales for safari companies offering dangerous game hunts. I gladly gave my permission and provided them the footage. I did not ask for any compensation.

On yet another opening day, an SCI representative was there to greet me. This time to ask if I would "turn-off" all TV sets and stop doing business (completely) whenever a "dignitary" was being escorted past my booth. Because of my contributions over many years, I had earned my way into a great location. It was simply not possible to walk through the convention without passing my booth. I agreed without hesitation or protest. Eight or 10 times during the show I shut down everything as requested for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes each time and let whoever it was pass. On one such occasion the "dignitary" was President George H. W. Bush. It was my sincere honor to spend a couple of minutes with him as we chatted in my booth. This afforded me the opportunity to present him with a book and DVD for which he was extremely grateful.

It must be noted that for each convention SCI would assign a high-ranking representative (watch-dog) to monitor, observe and report everything that went on in and around my booth. This person was there every day, all day long. Over the years I got to know each representative well. As time permitted, I would each day inquire as to "how are things going (with me)? Not one time over all the years I exhibited at SCI was there a single complaint, argument, disruption, vulgar language, bad behavior, unhappy member or protest. From the beginning I knew I was under a microscope. I did everything I was asked without complaint. I was respectful and nice to everyone. Nary a day passed that my attorney was not in the booth making sure things ran smoothly and they did.

I am sure my being at SCI was not easy for professional hunters as literally hundreds of people were jammed around my booth every day, all day, buying movies, books, posing for pictures and signing autographs. From first bell to last, my booth was a bee-hive of activity. SCI always told me, "Mark, people come to the Convention to see three people...President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mark Sullivan, but not necessarily in that order!"

I miss SCI and always will.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
I received an email today from Mark that is pertinent to something that was recently posted in this thread. I checked with Mark to affirm I could post this on his behalf. He wanted this information to be known:

Dear Shawn:

Saeed has said many times it was his understanding that SCI had repeatedly asked me to stop showing my movies and I refused. And that is the reason I am no longer permitted to exhibit. That is not true. Here are the facts.

I do not recall the exact years but the events are as clear today as they were when they happened. Upon arriving at my booth early one Wednesday morning to prepare for the start of that year's convention, officials from SCI were there to tell me I would only be allowed to conduct business if I covered my TVs with paper so people passing by could not see what was showing; only the audio was permitted. I did as they asked without complaint or protest.

Several conventions later much the same happened. Upon arriving at my booth opening morning I was greeted with a hand-written note signed by the Convention Chairman ordering me not to turn on my television sets and effectively telling me to pack up and go home. I telephoned my attorneys who were en route to the convention floor and soon afterwards we were meeting with the Chairman. After a very cordial 45 minute discussion, the Chairman gave me permission to return to my booth and continue "as I was" without restriction. He let it be known that he owned a number of my movies and liked them. The pressure came from above.

After the events of 9/11 and my return home from Tanzania I got a call from SCI Headquarters in Tucson. They asked if they could use my charging buffalo and hippo footage as they wanted to play it on a giant screen overlooking the main floor of the convention. They believed this would heighten crowd excitement and generate sales for safari companies offering dangerous game hunts. I gladly gave my permission and provided them the footage. I did not ask for any compensation.

On yet another opening day, an SCI representative was there to greet me. This time to ask if I would "turn-off" all TV sets and stop doing business (completely) whenever a "dignitary" was being escorted past my booth. Because of my contributions over many years, I had earned my way into a great location. It was simply not possible to walk through the convention without passing my booth. I agreed without hesitation or protest. Eight or 10 times during the show I shut down everything as requested for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes each time and let whoever it was pass. On one such occasion the "dignitary" was President George H. W. Bush. It was my sincere honor to spend a couple of minutes with him as we chatted in my booth. This afforded me the opportunity to present him with a book and DVD for which he was extremely grateful.

It must be noted that for each convention SCI would assign a high-ranking representative (watch-dog) to monitor, observe and report everything that went on in and around my booth. This person was there every day, all day long. Over the years I got to know each representative well. As time permitted, I would each day inquire as to "how are things going (with me)? Not one time over all the years I exhibited at SCI was there a single complaint, argument, disruption, vulgar language, bad behavior, unhappy member or protest. From the beginning I knew I was under a microscope. I did everything I was asked without complaint. I was respectful and nice to everyone. Nary a day passed that my attorney was not in the booth making sure things ran smoothly and they did.

I am sure my being at SCI was not easy for professional hunters as literally hundreds of people were jammed around my booth every day, all day, buying movies, books, posing for pictures and signing autographs. From first bell to last, my booth was a bee-hive of activity. SCI always told me, "Mark, people come to the Convention to see three people...President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mark Sullivan, but not necessarily in that order!"

I miss SCI and always will.

Mark

So basically what I have said was true, despite his convoluted way of saying it wasn't!!

So people come to SCI to see him ha?

Bloody hell, talk about an individual so full of himself, he cannot see the light of day!!

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
I received an email today from Mark that is pertinent to something that was recently posted in this thread. I checked with Mark to affirm I could post this on his behalf. He wanted this information to be known:

Dear Shawn:

Saeed has said many times it was his understanding that SCI had repeatedly asked me to stop showing my movies and I refused. And that is the reason I am no longer permitted to exhibit. That is not true. Here are the facts.

I do not recall the exact years but the events are as clear today as they were when they happened. Upon arriving at my booth early one Wednesday morning to prepare for the start of that year's convention, officials from SCI were there to tell me I would only be allowed to conduct business if I covered my TVs with paper so people passing by could not see what was showing; only the audio was permitted. I did as they asked without complaint or protest.

Several conventions later much the same happened. Upon arriving at my booth opening morning I was greeted with a hand-written note signed by the Convention Chairman ordering me not to turn on my television sets and effectively telling me to pack up and go home. I telephoned my attorneys who were en route to the convention floor and soon afterwards we were meeting with the Chairman. After a very cordial 45 minute discussion, the Chairman gave me permission to return to my booth and continue "as I was" without restriction. He let it be known that he owned a number of my movies and liked them. The pressure came from above.

After the events of 9/11 and my return home from Tanzania I got a call from SCI Headquarters in Tucson. They asked if they could use my charging buffalo and hippo footage as they wanted to play it on a giant screen overlooking the main floor of the convention. They believed this would heighten crowd excitement and generate sales for safari companies offering dangerous game hunts. I gladly gave my permission and provided them the footage. I did not ask for any compensation.

On yet another opening day, an SCI representative was there to greet me. This time to ask if I would "turn-off" all TV sets and stop doing business (completely) whenever a "dignitary" was being escorted past my booth. Because of my contributions over many years, I had earned my way into a great location. It was simply not possible to walk through the convention without passing my booth. I agreed without hesitation or protest. Eight or 10 times during the show I shut down everything as requested for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes each time and let whoever it was pass. On one such occasion the "dignitary" was President George H. W. Bush. It was my sincere honor to spend a couple of minutes with him as we chatted in my booth. This afforded me the opportunity to present him with a book and DVD for which he was extremely grateful.

It must be noted that for each convention SCI would assign a high-ranking representative (watch-dog) to monitor, observe and report everything that went on in and around my booth. This person was there every day, all day long. Over the years I got to know each representative well. As time permitted, I would each day inquire as to "how are things going (with me)? Not one time over all the years I exhibited at SCI was there a single complaint, argument, disruption, vulgar language, bad behavior, unhappy member or protest. From the beginning I knew I was under a microscope. I did everything I was asked without complaint. I was respectful and nice to everyone. Nary a day passed that my attorney was not in the booth making sure things ran smoothly and they did.

I am sure my being at SCI was not easy for professional hunters as literally hundreds of people were jammed around my booth every day, all day, buying movies, books, posing for pictures and signing autographs. From first bell to last, my booth was a bee-hive of activity. SCI always told me, "Mark, people come to the Convention to see three people...President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mark Sullivan, but not necessarily in that order!"

I miss SCI and always will.

Mark

So basically what I have said was true, despite his convoluted way of saying it wasn't!!

So people come to SCI to see him ha?

Bloody hell, talk about an individual so full of himself, he cannot see the light of day!!

I guess that is one way to look at it Saeed. You are entitled to your view, but I certainly do not see it the way you define it:

“I keep repeating, apparently he has been asked to stop showing his silly videos, several times.
He did not stop.
He got kicked out.
He is trying to make himself as the victim here, and he is succeeding because of SCI keeping quiet about him.”

...as compared to the way Mark has described that aspect for us all to understand. SCI has failed to provide anyone the facts for their action, including Mark. I will side with Mark's interpretation and description of events on this one. From what I have read, it sounds like Mark complied with the requests that were made of him. Others can read and decide for themselves.

As far as SCI telling Mark he was a big attraction for their event, I do not think there is any doubt he was always one of the busiest booths at the convention.

quote:

So people come to SCI to see him ha?

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

Oh good lord!

That's just absurd!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I'll side with Mark's description of events as well. Anyone who thinks Mark's booths weren't jam packed with attendees simply wasn't there! Yea, people came to see him. I'd say that is a fair and accurate statement. Maybe not JUST to see Mark, but certainly while at the show, seeing Mark was high on the "to do" list.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
I received an email today from Mark that is pertinent to something that was recently posted in this thread. I checked with Mark to affirm I could post this on his behalf. He wanted this information to be known:

Dear Shawn:

Saeed has said many times it was his understanding that SCI had repeatedly asked me to stop showing my movies and I refused. And that is the reason I am no longer permitted to exhibit. That is not true. Here are the facts.

I do not recall the exact years but the events are as clear today as they were when they happened. Upon arriving at my booth early one Wednesday morning to prepare for the start of that year's convention, officials from SCI were there to tell me I would only be allowed to conduct business if I covered my TVs with paper so people passing by could not see what was showing; only the audio was permitted. I did as they asked without complaint or protest.

Several conventions later much the same happened. Upon arriving at my booth opening morning I was greeted with a hand-written note signed by the Convention Chairman ordering me not to turn on my television sets and effectively telling me to pack up and go home. I telephoned my attorneys who were en route to the convention floor and soon afterwards we were meeting with the Chairman. After a very cordial 45 minute discussion, the Chairman gave me permission to return to my booth and continue "as I was" without restriction. He let it be known that he owned a number of my movies and liked them. The pressure came from above.

After the events of 9/11 and my return home from Tanzania I got a call from SCI Headquarters in Tucson. They asked if they could use my charging buffalo and hippo footage as they wanted to play it on a giant screen overlooking the main floor of the convention. They believed this would heighten crowd excitement and generate sales for safari companies offering dangerous game hunts. I gladly gave my permission and provided them the footage. I did not ask for any compensation.

On yet another opening day, an SCI representative was there to greet me. This time to ask if I would "turn-off" all TV sets and stop doing business (completely) whenever a "dignitary" was being escorted past my booth. Because of my contributions over many years, I had earned my way into a great location. It was simply not possible to walk through the convention without passing my booth. I agreed without hesitation or protest. Eight or 10 times during the show I shut down everything as requested for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes each time and let whoever it was pass. On one such occasion the "dignitary" was President George H. W. Bush. It was my sincere honor to spend a couple of minutes with him as we chatted in my booth. This afforded me the opportunity to present him with a book and DVD for which he was extremely grateful.

It must be noted that for each convention SCI would assign a high-ranking representative (watch-dog) to monitor, observe and report everything that went on in and around my booth. This person was there every day, all day long. Over the years I got to know each representative well. As time permitted, I would each day inquire as to "how are things going (with me)? Not one time over all the years I exhibited at SCI was there a single complaint, argument, disruption, vulgar language, bad behavior, unhappy member or protest. From the beginning I knew I was under a microscope. I did everything I was asked without complaint. I was respectful and nice to everyone. Nary a day passed that my attorney was not in the booth making sure things ran smoothly and they did.

I am sure my being at SCI was not easy for professional hunters as literally hundreds of people were jammed around my booth every day, all day, buying movies, books, posing for pictures and signing autographs. From first bell to last, my booth was a bee-hive of activity. SCI always told me, "Mark, people come to the Convention to see three people...President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mark Sullivan, but not necessarily in that order!"

I miss SCI and always will.

Mark

So basically what I have said was true, despite his convoluted way of saying it wasn't!!

So people come to SCI to see him ha?

Bloody hell, talk about an individual so full of himself, he cannot see the light of day!!

I guess that is one way to look at it Saeed. You are entitled to your view, but I certainly do not see it the way you define it:

“I keep repeating, apparently he has been asked to stop showing his silly videos, several times.
He did not stop.
He got kicked out.
He is trying to make himself as the victim here, and he is succeeding because of SCI keeping quiet about him.”

...as compared to the way Mark has described that aspect for us all to understand. SCI has failed to provide anyone the facts for their action, including Mark. I will side with Mark's interpretation and description of events on this one. From what I have read, it sounds like Mark complied with the requests that were made of him. Others can read and decide for themselves.

As far as SCI telling Mark he was a big attraction for their event, I do not think there is any doubt he was always one of the busiest booths at the convention.

Shawn,


My understanding of the English language is rather simple.

Take the following scenario as an example.

If I said to you "I no longer want you to mention any product marketed by Mark Sullivan"

What would your understanding be of this statement?

And if you continued to refuse what I have asked you to do, so that I have to repeat myself several times, then I would get tired of your utter disregard to what I am asking to do and then ban you.

Isn't that precisely what had happened with him and SCI?

Every time he write something, he comes out as having absolutely no regards for anyone else except himself.

Tell him to keep digging, one day that hole is going to be so bloody deep he will fall head first into it.

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
3 years in advance and simply climbs the hierarchy ladder afterward, with NO OPPOSITION. you are correct- it is an "old boys club" that answers to no one.

Yeah my Lion's Club does that………………must be a good ol' boys club too! :roll eyes:

Brett

PS> Don't have a copy, but I guaranty you the bylaws allow for an interruption of the normal process if there's a problem with the person.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Saeed,
I would not say idiotic, but more just a dose of immaturity.

To consider hunting relatively dumb and primitively equipped creatures as 'doing battle' is laughable and childish marketing.

If MS seriously likes real danger and real life threatening situations [or 'battles' as her refers to them as],
he has had two real wars in the last 20yrs that he could have served in to prove his manhood, among other opportunities
like mercenary work available around the world in several different ongoing civil wars/conflicts.

But he has chosen the soft option of animals to prove himself, rather than against a well skilled and equipped human rival, 'in battle'.

Talk to any sensible person who served against the Japs in ww2, and ask them why they did their best to obliterated them from a distance,
by aircraft,bazookas,flame throwers,artillery,tanks, etc,...close in man too man conflict with such fierce opponents was not preferred and
was considered an overly risky/dangerous last resort.
I dont consider them cowards for taking the easier,less personally dangerous options.
Minimising risk to persons is an intelligent course of action, be it in hunting or war,[unless ones ego suppresses ones common sense]
By maybe MS would consider them cowardly, because in his eyes they would be attempting to intentionally lessen the danger of war/battle,
like he accuses other hunters of doing[by them shooting DG at 40yd].

I wonder what an insurance company would do with their policy holder hunter,if a claim was put in for serious personal injury while hunting DG,
if they found out that the policy holder and his PH, both set out to intentionally increase the chance of potential risks involved
while hunting DG?
Insurance I believe is to cover incidences where you took all reasonable due care to avoid tragedy and serious injury,
not where one intentionally & purposefully acts to increase the chance of tragedy and serious injury while hunting.

F1 driving is a dangerous sport, but drivers who intentionally go outside the bounds of common sense, are penalised and banned from driving.
They are not applauded and raised to hero status, for their intentionally induced overly dangerous actions.
1997, Michael Schumacher attempted to provoke an accident . Schumacher was punished for unsportsmanlike conduct for the intentional action
and was disqualified from the Drivers' Championship for the whole season.

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I often wonder if membership dues are not used to fund hunts for the "inner circle."

I can't say they do but I know for a fact that the "Inner Circle" will (and have made) use of their status to obtain what they want.

I wouldn't doubt that's happened over the years. Now I have no idea, but tend to doubt it. I know the Vice President and can pretty safely say I don't think he would ever do something like that.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
3 years in advance and simply climbs the hierarchy ladder afterward, with NO OPPOSITION. you are correct- it is an "old boys club" that answers to no one.

Yeah my Lion's Club does that………………must be a good ol' boys club too! :roll eyes:

Brett

PS> Don't have a copy, but I guaranty you the bylaws allow for an interruption of the normal process if there's a problem with the person.

so your Lion's Club general membership doesn't have the initial vote to start someone up the ladder?? they are just appointed by a committee at the start of the process that answers to no one? i know for i fact i never voted for any SCI executive in 15 years of membership- in fact i never saw a slate of candidates. unlike the NRA, which actually manages to have ALL members vote if they wish, SCI is a closed society. rather sad- and autocratic...

quote:

Originally posted by bbruce:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Saeed,
I would not say idiotic, but more just a dose of immaturity.

To consider hunting relatively dumb and primitively equipped creatures as 'doing battle' is laughable and childish marketing.

If MS seriously likes real danger and real life threatening situations [or 'battles' as her refers to them as],
he has had two real wars in the last 20yrs that he could have served in to prove his manhood, among other opportunities
like mercenary work available around the world in several different ongoing civil wars/conflicts.

But he has chosen the soft option of animals to prove himself, rather than against a well skilled and equipped human rival, 'in battle'.

Talk to any sensible person who served against the Japs in ww2, and ask them why they did their best to obliterated them from a distance,
by aircraft,bazookas,flame throwers,artillery,tanks, etc,...close in man too man conflict with such fierce opponents was not preferred and
was considered an overly risky/dangerous last resort.
I dont consider them cowards for taking the easier,less personally dangerous options.
Minimising risk to persons is an intelligent course of action, be it in hunting or war,[unless ones ego suppresses ones common sense]
By maybe MS would consider them cowardly, because in his eyes they would be attempting to intentionally lessen the danger of war/battle,
like he accuses other hunters of doing[by them shooting DG at 40yd].

I wonder what an insurance company would do with their policy holder hunter,if a claim was put in for serious personal injury while hunting DG,
if they found out that the policy holder and his PH, both set out to intentionally increase the chance of potential risks involved
while hunting DG?
Insurance I believe is to cover incidences where you took all reasonable due care to avoid tragedy and serious injury,
not where one intentionally & purposefully acts to increase the chance of tragedy and serious injury while hunting.

F1 driving is a dangerous sport, but drivers who intentionally go outside the bounds of common sense, are penalised and banned from driving.
They are not applauded and raised to hero status, for their intentionally induced overly dangerous actions.
1997, Michael Schumacher attempted to provoke an accident . Schumacher was punished for unsportsmanlike conduct for the intentional action
and was disqualified from the Drivers' Championship for the whole season.

Hunting and WAR should not be in this post. Soldiers fight because it is their duty. hunters hunt because it is their choice. No animal is as dangerous as a human .