This is so

[OhMandy]

stupid. I'm tired of each and every group *****ing and complaining about every small little thing.

Some stupid, wacko, lettuce eaters *****ed and complained so much that the NCAA will now use a ball made of synthetic materials instead of the leather balls they used last year.

I guess those wackos didn't see the players wearing Nike or Reebok shoes made of LEATHER. Or the fact that many players eat meat as a pre game meal.

This politically correct crap has to stop. Too many wackos around.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/news/2002/0514/1382489.html

[TRH]

There is always someone around willing to take a good idea too far.

I guess the politically correct answer is to throw the skin from the slaughtered animals on the ground to rot. But, I sure hope those new balls are also biodegradable. And what about the court they play on - think of all those poor trees.

Ever notice that when a beaver builds a damn it is nature at work, but when humans build a damn it is a crime against nature. When animals eat each other it is just survival of the fittest, but when humans eat meat it is cruel.

I would not ask for a condor egg omelet for breakfast. But, it seems that some of these activists also believe that using our brains is unnatural.

[TXSNOS]

I just love the look and feel of real pleather. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

TXSNOS

[Jennifer]

I'm all for animal rights--to a degree.
This is ridiculous and I strongly dislike PETA and their methods. There's plenty more of suffering starving children in the world, why don't they try and save them.

Jennifer-->who proudly wears her calf-skin leather jacket from Italy and prefers leather basketballs. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[ChipperF1]

I'm agreeing with Mandy on something...which means it really must be a whacked out point of contention.

Some of these vegan, ultraliberal, whiny, tree-hugging animal rights nuts make me feel down right glad there's still a Second Amendment to the Constitution. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[swok34]

I agree with you all, I think this is a bit much......

hmmmmmmm, cows haven't all of a sudden been placed on the extinct list have they? Highly doubtful that they have; if they were I might feel differently......and, I'm sure an established manner of the humane way of killing of cows has been established.

20 years ago I worked in an LSU Poultry Department where chickens where killed for their research value. There was a standard then as to how most humanely "kill a chicken".....and I'm sure those standards have improved 10 fold over the last 20 years for any animal where their products are used on the everyday market.

[KSUron]

I used to have a more sympathetic veiw of environmental groups. Several years of up close contact with them when I lived in the Wallowa Mountains area of Oregon cured that. The environmental group leadership there (from national organizations) had absolutely NO interest in fairness or facts. They looked very hard for emotional issues to use to seperate the rubes around the country from their money. Mis-representation and outright lying were not a problem if it was good for fund raising.

The leader of a large group dedicated to preserving the trees and forest lived in a 5,000 square foot log home. Not bad if you can get it, but a log home takes up to seven times more trees to build than a comperable sized conventional stick built house. And if your aim is really to save the environment I don't know that two people need a 5,000 square foot home. I did not really begrudge them that life style but for me it made their pious statements sound pretty hollow.

What really grated on me however, was the lies they told about forest plans, use of boats on the snake river, timber sales and so forth. They knew they were lying and that their position would actually harm the environment but as long as it served the purpose of raising money they did it anyway. They did not care what any of us who knew the facts thought. We didn't have a national stage and celebrities to garner attention and get press.

Ranches that had been opperated for a hundred years were portrayed as threats to the PRISTINE environment. The logic behind the idea that a rancher family that had taken such good care of the land through generations that it could be considered a treasure, is now an evil threat to the same land, escapes me. Good responsible people are attacked as if they are evil scoudrels out to pillage the land. No distiction was made between actual bad practices and just good targets to raise money.

No environmental organization except "Releaf" and the "Nature Conservancy" will get any of my money and even they don't deserve unlimited trust.

We may discuss this tomorrow at our annual employee cook-out while eating burgers and brots, or maybe we will just give them the attention they deserve, none.

[This message has been edited by KSUron (edited 05-15-2002).]

[YCN]

I'm glad you mentioned The Nature Conservancy, KSUron.

For those of you that don't know about that organization, it is worthwhile to find out what they do.

They aren't your typical "tree-huggers", that's for sure. All they do is save the environment for future generations in ways that make everybody happy.

That's pretty much their whole agenda. Not nearly as entertaining a putting spikes in old-growth timber or interfering with fishing trawlers, but far more effective in both the short and long run.

And their periodical is simply a joy.
http://nature.org/

[KSUron]

I have to say that everything I have seen of the Nature Conservancy has been positive with the only exception being taking property off of the property tax roles, which in the west can be a significant deal in a county where a large tract of land may be involved in a shift from private to public (non taxed) land. Even there I have seen them work out a voluntary "in lui of taxes" plan to help out local goverment in transition. And I personally haven't seen them lying or mis-representing anything to anybody.

ReLeaf was straight with people too. Their focus is to reforest and plant trees. I don't see anything to argue with in that.

[KSUron]

Originally posted by TXSNOS:
I just love the look and feel of real pleather. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

TXSNOS

Good one TXSNOS! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[cyfanatic]

I agree that this is an exteme measure....however, a local television station here in central Iowa interviewed the Drake University coaches, as they have been using a synthetic ball for.... I think they said two years, and they say they prefer it. A couple arguments for it was that it is cheaper and absorbs sweat better. Just thought I would share that with you all.