Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="guywhofishes" data-source="post: 413476" data-attributes="member: 337">Meh. No you're not slinging facts. You're slinging &quot;your truth&quot;. You're entitled to your opinion, but your referring to what you're slinging as &quot;facts&quot; shows you're not real familiar with the critical nuances of the scientific process. Scientists who aren't natural critics and very dubious, even about their own findings, are CHUMPS in my opinion.Every journal article supporting bait bans or discussing the facts of CWD transmission in general is chockfull of &quot;should&quot; &quot;probably&quot; &quot;might&quot; &quot;assume&quot; &quot;likelihood&quot; and on and on. I have dealt with scientifically difficult to understand mirages for over 30 years. So much so that I publish articles and am invited to give presentations at international conferences where the topic is basically warning people not to let the evidence that seems to be &quot;facts&quot; sucker them into thinking they are indeed facts. I spend most of my days at work making a concerted effort not to be fooled by what appears to be facts but aren't. So I know well the dangers of assuming things - that make you like like a fool later on. And you're in neck deep if you're convinced your trusted scientists are right about everything.By the way, I've not yet gotten close to needing bait to deer hunt (knock on wood). I'm not the Grandpa I was referencing. I was talking about other people needlessly being asked to sacrifice for something that's unnecessary, not myself or my friends in particular.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="guywhofishes, post: 413476, member: 337"] Meh. No you're not slinging facts. You're slinging "your truth". You're entitled to your opinion, but your referring to what you're slinging as "facts" shows you're not real familiar with the critical nuances of the scientific process. Scientists who aren't natural critics and very dubious, even about their own findings, are CHUMPS in my opinion. Every journal article supporting bait bans or discussing the facts of CWD transmission in general is chockfull of "should" "probably" "might" "assume" "likelihood" and on and on. I have dealt with scientifically difficult to understand mirages for over 30 years. So much so that I publish articles and am invited to give presentations at international conferences where the topic is basically warning people not to let the evidence that [U]seems[/U] to be "facts" sucker them into thinking they are indeed facts. I spend most of my days at work making a concerted effort not to be fooled by what appears to be facts but aren't. So I know well the dangers of assuming things - that make you like like a fool later on. And you're in neck deep if you're convinced your trusted scientists are right about everything. By the way, I've not yet gotten close to [U]needing[/U] bait to deer hunt (knock on wood). I'm not the Grandpa I was referencing. I was talking about [B]other [/B]people needlessly being asked to sacrifice for something that's unnecessary, not myself or my friends in particular. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA