Is Mise fat Bob Borsak said in the NSW Parliament that he only hunted to satisfy his blood lust, and his carnivorous cravings for the fleshy stuff. The unanswered question remains; did fat Bob mislead the parliament, or did fat Bob eat the elephant. He has been known to say "I'm so hungry I could eat an elephant." before consuming 24 Big Mac's down at Ronald's cafe.

Now, you are claiming Borsak was so overcome with conservationial zeal, that he had to part with 20,000 bucks, and rush off to Africa and bag himself an elephant. The world awaits your answer.

Is Mise, do you eat the pigeons you shoot, with or without the feathers?

And finally, how are the book sales going? I remember the book 'Road Kill Recipes for the Unsuccessful Hunter' or some such title. You gave it a free plug on the forum once upon a time. Bob needs a copy, wants to know what's under E for elephant?

Sorry, that should have been E for endangered species, I'm sure fat Bob does likes something a little special on his plate,

Toni now joins Paul in evading a logical argument; an argument that they both know that they can't win.

Tell me, Paul, where are all the conservation areas that the Greens administer? All the wildlife refuge areas? All the waterfowl habitats?

My guess is ZERO!

//Toni now joins Paul in evading a logical argument; an argument that they both know that they can't win.//

The problem isn't with the nature of the argument, Is Mise: it's with the nature of the opponent. I could show you all the evidence in the world that more guns result in more shooting deaths, and you'd call it biased and irrelevant and ignore the lot. How can you have a logical argument with somebody who still clings to his half-baked hypotheses even after they've been empirically refuted? It's like trying to argue with a creationist.

Now if you can rope in somebody to argue in your place, I'd be willing to take you up on your offer. The forum is home to a few people who understand the nature of logical debate and the value of evidence and I'd be happy to argue with one of them. I'd recommend AJ Philips. But trying to argue with you would be futile since you have demonstrated previously your lack of interest in evidence-based debates.

Toni Lavis, "I could show you all the evidence in the world that more guns result in more shooting deaths"

Go ahead. Remembering that correlation does not imply causation,

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/infographic-of-the-day/hilarious-graphs-prove-that-correlation-isnt-causation

Well, that's Toni thrown in the towel.

How about you Paul?
Since you're the one that asked the question you ought to argue it on logical grounds.

Going to have a go or are we to have more 'humour' as you try to worm your way out?

How's the research going on the Adler?
You know the shotgun that the Greens and their running mates Gun Control Australia lie about, the gun that can fire five shots in five seconds.
Just to let you know what goes on in the real world; Saturday before last I fired 6 shots in a pistol rapid fire match in 4 seconds (electronically timed), one second inside the time allowed for that segment of the match.
I wasn't using one of the Greens much hated semi-automatic pistols nor even a double action revolver but an exact reproduction of an 1873
Colt single action revolver, in .357 Magnum (far more powerful and longer range than the 12 gauge Adler).
Score: 49 out of a possible 60 (9,9,8,8,8,7)
Of course, at my age, I'm slowing down a bit; what some of the young blokes can do with the same pistols would make a Green go white!

I'm just as fast with an 1848 Colt, so if rate of fire is the problem that the FOEs think it is then they're going to have to go back a few years for a fresh start.