LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-06 AT 12:14PM (MST)[p]Tony,
I hope calling me an idiot has made you feel a little better. Thank you for telling me what I was saying, too. Even though you're way off.
What's funny is that while I'm the idiot, you've missed the point that this case was about a trophy mule deer that you and your kids will never have a chance to hunt legally. Not only that, but you are willing to give the poacher and his brother, who obviously supports his brother's actions, a free pass because they ended up in front of an activist judge.
Let me put this in terms that may help you understand a little better even though I'm repeating myself for the third time now.
-SHE WAS OUT OF LINE AND NEEDS TO KEEP HER PERSONAL OPINIONS OFF THE BENCH LIKE A GOOD JUDGE WOULD.
-THE BROTHER ON TRIAL IS A POACHER.
-I DON'T FEEL SORRY FOR HIM OR HIS SUPPORTIVE KIN.
-IF ANYONE MAKES HUNTERS LOOK BAD IT IS THESE TWO (particularly the guy who was on trial), AND THEY GAVE A HAIRBRAINED JUDGE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ON A SOAPBOX ABOUT IT.
I never said the brother was a bad apple (assumption is the mother of all screw-ups). I only said that I wouldn't have been there to provide any kind of moral support for a poacher. Somehow he managed to spin a poaching case into something about family tradition and the hunting heritage that we all hold dear. Appearently he duped you.
His words in this situation serve to cheapen tradition and heritage even though almost every other situation they would be words to hold in reverence.
If he would have stayed home the judge wouldn't have had the golden opportunity to run her mouth.
"That's all I got to say 'bout that." (quote from another "idiot")