 | | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl
|
| | | (...) OK, I should have stated "giving SOME animals". I agree with the above, obviously some animals are quite intelligent. But I certainly don't put deer, fowl, or beef cattle in their ranks. (...) Bull. All rules can be broken (except some (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) obviously (...) beef (...) OK, my bad. I had been using the deer (even prior to your entry into the discussion) as an icon for the other animals in general. that was sloppy of me. I am willing to disucuss any given animal's capabilities (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Responsible Hunting —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Out of curiosity, how is this determined, other than by casual observation? And how broad a range of behaviors do the chickens exhibit? This would seem central to a useful discussion of chicken intelligence. By the way, is your use of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Responsible Hunting —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) clearly (...) that (...) Hi, I'm out of town and this is likely to be my last access to the net until Monday or Tuesday, so I'm a bit behind. In backward order: It was not a subtle propoganda on my part, but now that it's pointed out, I think (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
