quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Just anecdotal, but seems like a good percentage of negative reports are based on unsuccessful hunts. I am sure there are lots of ostensible reasons, but the key element is the hunt was unsuccessful. I know we often say, hunting is hunting there are no guarantees, but makes you wonder if we really take those words seriously. Again, just an anecdotal observation. The actual facts in terms of the number of negative reports that involved unsuccessful hunts might not support the observation.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

And yet you seem somehow surprised negative reports and unsuccessful hunts go together?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

And yet you seem somehow surprised negative reports and unsuccessful hunts go together?

Surprised? Actually I was pointing out that in my view unsuccessful hunts represent a good percentage of negative reports.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

And yet you seem somehow surprised negative reports and unsuccessful hunts go together?

Surprised? Actually I was pointing out that in my view unsuccessful hunts represent a good percentage of negative reports.

Of course they do.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

And yet you seem somehow surprised negative reports and unsuccessful hunts go together?

Surprised? Actually I was pointing out that in my view unsuccessful hunts represent a good percentage of negative reports. When someone is unsuccessful apparently it has less to do with the fact that hunting is hunting and more to do with the fact that someone else did something wrong, misrepresented something to them, failed to do something they should have done, etc. In today's culture we have to someone to blame . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

And yet you seem somehow surprised negative reports and unsuccessful hunts go together?

Surprised? Actually I was pointing out that in my view unsuccessful hunts represent a good percentage of negative reports.

Of course they do.

Precisely . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . but he definitely got precisely what he wanted when he started this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . but he definitely got precisely what he wanted when he started this thread.

quote:

retribution
NOUN

[mass noun] Punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . but he definitely got precisely what he wanted when he started this thread.

And who can blame him?

quote:

(when your hunt was months and months ago)

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

(when your hunt was months and months ago)

Apparently candor falls by the wayside in here as well, the "hunt" ended in early November, and they had to get home, etc. Hardly "months and months ago." Geesh.

quote:

sev·er·al
ˈsev(ə)rəl/Submit
determiner & pronoun
1.
more than two but not many.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
After reading through all 14 pages I've come to a conclusion.

I'm very glad it wasn't me on this hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
After reading through all 14 pages I've come to a conclusion.

I'm very glad it wasn't me on this hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . but he definitely got precisely what he wanted when he started this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:


Perhaps . . . but do not come along with a handful of posts in the middle of the safari shows (when your hunt was months and months ago)

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . and of course you are making no ASSUMPTIONS about anything and have perfect clarity on the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Tell you what, if you have answers to the questions raised for the OP and MP in the posts above, go ahead and post those answers since you apparently have a level of understanding of and insight into the facts that transcends others here.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Please . . . do not flatter yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
This thread has about 550 posts and 28,000 views. Those numbers alone should determine if the thread is valid or not. It it was not important, it would died long ago.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Mike:
I've noticed, as Frostbit also said, a change in your posts the past couple of years. Why the change to an almost combative stance--it seems no one can post to your pleasure. As to gawking at a train wreck, would you put yourself in that category after 50+ posts on my thread about contracts?
Just wondering.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:

I have always found that the truth in most of these internet kangaroo courts very much falls in the middle and that the complainants are usually not telling the whole truth and the same can be said for the accused outfitter.

Absolutely not doubt in my mind that hunters resort to this sort of thing to inflict damage to an outfitters reputation and hopefully affect them financially through loss of business. If deserved, I do not see that as an issue as a court case can do the same thing,as can the reporting of a court case.

The damage is done by the inference and follow-up rarely occurs. Having said that the damage is limited by the nature of the coverage it gets. In this instance it is social media via a forum.

Contrary to the belief held by many on here..........most of the hunting world has no bloody idea what AR is, or any other "hunting" forum for that matter. I know most of my clients use forums very little or not at all........heavy on the not at all.

Myself, well I place about zero weight to this whole topic. I have seen hunters that were complete assholes and lied through their teeth about everything............and outfitters who did the same thing. In the end I rely on my own due diligence and word of mouth from people I know and trust. I just shake my head at these pissing contests on the internet because I think in the end they do all involved a disservice.

I guess what I find so objectionable about threads like the one in question is that they seem to evoke a sort of mob mentality. And that has gotten worse not better over the last few years. Someone comes in, throws a turd in the punchbowl and everyone lines up for a big glass of punch. Facts be damned. Motive be damned. Everyone hears a snippet of one side of the story and they immediately infer that they know the entire story and start calling for a rope or a pot of boiling oil. And anyone standing in the way of the mob better be careful too . . . once the mob gets its blood up they are ready to hang anyone else that gets in the way. As you so rightly point out nine times out of ten, the true facts are going to fall somewhere in the middle and the Internet is never going to bring out the true facts. We now return you to your regularly scheduled lynching.

quote:

Originally posted by txsouthpaw:
And do you wonder why the guy has 13045 posts? Yes, he seems to have the answers to most everything. After all he is an attorney and obviously everyone must accept that his wisdom and expertise should not be questioned. And yes, I've hunted with Martin Pieters before, and no, based upon the posts from the parties involved, I would never hunt with Martin again.