As for smoke pole, he ought to change his moniker to smokin' bowls because it's apparent that he's spending too much time in Colorado's dope shops. I have sent his a PM about asking him what his problem is. Instead of manning up, he's taken to hitting and running. If he has a thesis that he can cogently defend, he ought to get busy on it. If he has a problem with me, he ought to disclose it rather than going at it as a pus$y.
Running? From you? That's a good one. I'll do my talking in the public forum, right here. PMs are for people who don't want their drivel to see the light of day.
My problem with you is this--you comment on things you know nothing about as if you were an expert. You argue with a gunwriter about gunwriters. You comment on Mule Deer's work, right after having said you have no clue who he is.
This place has enough "armchair experts" already, we don't need more from a guy who kills an elk on a guided private-land hunt and thinks that makes him an expert elk hunter. A guy who gets "pushed to the limits" on a 5,000 acre ranch, and thinks that's something worth talking about.
You say shooting bullets into media is not scientific, it's anecdotal. That's incorrect and just anopther example of you talking about something you have no clue on. If you were to shoot a few bullets into media and make qualitative observations, that would be anecdotal. If you shoot enough bullets, control the variables, and record empirical data on things like length of penetration, diameter of expanded bullets and so forth, it is scientific and none of your hogwash can change that.
You want to talk anecdotal? Anecdotal is a guy going on a hunt, hearing what one guide says about the .270, and repeating it here as if it means something.
You can call that "bullying" if you like, whatever that means. I call it putting your "expert" commentary in the proper perspective.
