Unfounded assumptions, fantasy, boasting and invective, all wrapped up in confused thinking and gibberish. It is genuinely funny though. So many highlights already, and I’m sure the fun isn’t done yet.
Just a quick recap
The usual method is from a vehicle, at night, under a spotlight, and the conditions on the permit require headshots.
What does he reply with?
Oh my...now there's different kinds of "dark",upon different Hemispheres?!? Where and HOW do you Dumb Fhuqkers come up with this schit?
Yeah mate, spotlights do create a different kind of dark. Hint
Not some little 65 lumen penlight either. Hint
For my part I've spotlighted roos with a 6x42 (not a Leupold) and various 3-9x40 scopes, and they do the job. The better the glass the easier the job becomes. FWIW I've only once used an illuminated reticle for the purpose, and soon switched it off.
His response?
Cite the glass and reticle,that "ruined" your spotlighting. Yes I know,I know,you've never even seen or heard of the glass in question and do not "think",that such facts don't add more than a buncha fhuqking humor to the equation.
This is what happens when teachers don’t focus on reading comprehension in junior school…Hint
And he really gets in his stride when called on the fact that he really has no clue what he’s talking about, even posting a pic of some boxes on a shelf
How many rounds you've fired doesn't count for much in making you an expert on conditions you have no knowledge or experience of. Most blokes who done a bit of shooting recognise that. When you start taking about things such as elevation travel and hold-off and how light and compact a scope is, in the context of spotlighting roos, all you are doing is demonstrating that. Hint.
All this thread really demonstrates is that Big Stick’s “advice” on just about anything has to be suspect. I’m not quite sure, yet, whether he’s a clown or an idiot – or both.
