LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-11 AT 01:16PM (MST)[p]KillaB -
>
>I responded not because of your
>thoughts on how velvet looks
>but on what you said,
>"There should be a law
>against hunting THEM in the
>velvet anyway." That doesn't clarify
>reference to Elk after practically
>the whole paragraph was based
>on Mule deer in a
>Mule deer thread - Read
>your Post again.
Uhhhh?. I read it right the first time when I wrote it. Grammar rules and context dictate that the use of "them" refers to the most recently used previous plural noun, which was "elk". Sorry to have to do this, but you since I am a teacher by profession and asked for it, you are making me pull out my grammar police badge so here it goes.
In my original post I said:
"It is even worse on elk. There should be a law against hunting them in the velvet anyway."
?Them? is used to refer to the object of a clause. In other words, it usually represents the group of people or things that have ?experienced? the action described by the verb, and refers back to two or more people or things that were mentioned earlier as in this example:
I've bought some apples. I'll put them on the table.
?Them? can be used as both a direct object pronoun as shown in the example above, or an indirect object pronoun. An indirect object refers to a third participant in the action described by the verb, often someone who receives something as a result of it. eg:
The kids were really excited. Jack gave them presents.
In the second sentence above, ?them? is the indirect object and presents is the direct object. Like other indirect objects, them can be introduced by a preposition and placed after a direct object, e.g.:
Jack gave presents to them.
?Them? is also sometimes used instead of the object pronouns him or her to refer to an individual person whose sex is not known or mentioned:
If someone phones, tell them I'm not here.
In the case of my original post, the subject of the first sentence is "It" - referring to ugly peeling velvet on antlers (which as you point out, up to that point had referred only to deer and since it was posted in a Mule Deer forum, more specifically to Mule Deer.) The verb in the sentence is "is" and the rest of the sentence ?on elk? is a prepositional phrase which changes the original intent of the verb and subject from Mule Deer to elk. ?Elk? is the object of the preposition ?on? and is also the indirect object of the verb ?is?. So, in the next sentence I say ?There should be a law against hunting them in the velvet anyway.? The first clause of this sentence is ?There should be a law? is the independent clause and the second clause ?hunting them? is linked with the preposition ?against?. To find the meaning of the subject of this second, prepositional clause ? which is ?them? we have to refer back to the most previously used indirect or direct object, which, as was just demonstrated, was in fact, ?elk?. It is the same as if I had said ?I like elk. I am hunting them.? In this case, you would not reasonably expect anyone to believe that ?them? referred to anything other than elk.
I guess we will have to add this little discussion to this:
http://www.happyplace.com/9574/grammar-test-keeps-idiots-off-of-the-internet . (Also see this thread:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID11/14910.html)
I don't know how I could have made it any clearer in the original post. But, let's not let a semantic argument cause further confusion. I do however, stand by what I said in my previous reply about hunting elk in July ? and that is a point that was only brought up by your overreaction. My original post wasn't meant as an indictment against hunting in any way, just an opinionated observation on the pics that have been appearing recently ? I am sorry you felt offended by my preference and decided to take it a little too far.
>I've read a lot of what
>people had to say here
>and in other Bow sites,
>but this is my first
>post on MM. I don't
>need to change my user
>name, I have nothing to
>hide not even my opinions.
Well, if this truly is your first post on MM you may really want to consider changing your different user name because there is another MMer who is a true idiot who has used various forms of that name on here in the past and has proven to be a serious backwoods, uneducated, mean-spirited, racist troll that you probably wouldn't want to be confused with any further. Sorry if I did confuse you with him, if that is the case then it truly is an unfortunate coincidence and part of the reason for my terse response. You have my complete and sincere heartfelt apology if that is the case.
>As Dingo mentioned in his response
>to my post, we share
>the same principles and yes
>we are under constant attack
>which is why I responded
>so handedly having been in
>the line of fire once
>before. It doesn't matter if
>you have 5000 post or
>One Million, you should have
>understood my direct argument aimed
>at that very comment as
>I have quoted you once
>again.
>I did NOT say that you
>were an ANTI-HUNTER, only said
>that you were STARTING to
>sound like one with that
>statement - no apologies here.
>
>Anyways, I'm obliged to say what
>I feel about anybody's comments
>good or bad and sorry
>for my "idiocy" if you
>misinterpreted my FIRST EVER post
>on MM.
>A JOKE is a JOKE until
>someone gets hurt and I
>have felt the pain of
>people pointing fingers and trying
>to take my privilege away
>first hand - in over
>the past five years a
>radical group has been trying
>to ban my public hunting
>spot because they don't believe
>in what we do and
>yes I have come face
>to face with them MANY
>OF TIMES.
>I may seem tentative towards your
>statement because I AM. -
>Thank You
Well, I have no problem with your argument at all, I do agree with it wholeheartedly, I just think in this case it was a little misplaced and I responded the way I did because of the confusion created by your user name. Really, it is not a good association to have on here. If you frequently see the term ?KBdouched? ? coined by never_catch ? please understand it is a direct reference to this previous member and his tactics. Sorry if you felt the term ?idiot? applied to you, because I only said it because I thought you were him.
All that being said, you sound like a level headed fellow, and I hope you can see through the sarcasm that is laced throughout this post (and most of the rest of my posts too) and not take offense. As far as you offending me is concerned, don't worry about it, I am a big boy (yeah, kind of ironic that you call me ?little buddy?) and I can take it as much as I can dish it out, so feel free to reply at your leisure, though be aware that I reserve the right to reply as well without it meaning that I am offended. Most everybody on here understands they have to take what I say with a grain of salt, especially when my cynicism grows strong and my patience for stupidity grows thin. Please realize I mean no harm though my words may be harsh. I call ?em as I see ?em so if the shoe fits, wear it.
Welcome to MM!
HOOK 'EM!
