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 he's an expert.
You say shooting bullets into media is not scientific, it's anecdotal. That's incorrect. 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.
Prove that I have tried to pawn myself off as expert on anything. That's your assumption. And it suits your justification for attempting to feed tour attention-staved ego.
I still have no clue who Mule Deer is. His identity is immaterial. What he writes is. You're enamored of him. As another poster wrote, you have your nose buried so far up his read end, you know what he had for dinner last night. As for me, I want to know his theses and how he defends them.
The biological FACT is nothing lives sans its heart. What destroys it is immaterial. That it is destroyed is. That, my naive shooter, is 100% factual. If you desire to argue that fact, take it up with God.
smoke pole, projection is afoot with you allusion to armchair quarterbacks. In fact, you're attempting to placate your ego by imposing yourself as head coach. Go back to holding water bottles. No one cares what the hell you have to contribute because it's all unproved opinion. In contrast, I can prove that nothing lives sans its heart. In FACT, I have yet to read a single piece of knowledge outta you. You're all pompous opinion.
The FACT is what that guide said it 100% correct if you took time to analyze what he said. And what that guide said has been said a zillion times before. And all hunters know it's factual. A miss with a .375 H&H ain't doing anyone any good. A heart shot with a .270 Win and back-breaking work begins. Maybe you can't discern this fact. But it's 100% factual. Moreover, it's also 100% factual that a .243 Win in the boiler room is a whole lot better than an '06 in the guts. A three-year old could understand this FACT, convey it to me, and it'd still be factual.
Now, if you're able to intellectually refute these FACTS, get on it. If you can't, get back to your dope shop and fill your bowl. You are easier on the eyes when you're wasted.
