Post by: Mudd on December 31, 2009, 09:55:00 AM
Then came the next couple of chapters and some of the shots he took.. well I'd be willing to bet I'd get flamed not only here but any other place I would dare post any attempts at like shots.
I thought that his "Hail Marys'" were just that.
Anyway I feel sad... kinda as if I've been sucker punched.
I know that I have no one to really blame but myself for just accepting his image as portrayed by all the media.
OK there is my gut reaction to the 1st 4 chapters of his book. I will finish it and hope things don't get worse for me. I'm ready to take my punishment for speaking my mind and gut feelings.
God bless,Mudd
PS Happy New Year!
Post by: ChuckC on December 31, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Don't hold him to our standards, he was not alone in what he did back then. Seeing and talking to old timers it can clearly be seen that this occurred a lot, probably more than it didn't. back then.
Enjoy Howard and his exploits for what they are. He was a great shot. He was a role model in his own way and got a lot of folks interested in the lifestyle.
If you feel this strongly about the book, DO NOT watch the movie Tembo. . . . (I think that was the right name)
ChuckC
Post by: xtrema312 on December 31, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
I am with you. I love what the early well know bow hunters did for getting the hunting side of the archery sport and seasons set-up, but I sure don't hunt like they did. It was a different time and mentality. From what I gather doing it the hard way for them was hunting like they had a gun only using a bow. For me it is hunting like I have a bow. The hard way is not hitting and killing something from far out, but getting very close so it is an easy shot.
Post by: Bowmania on December 31, 2009, 10:21:00 AM
Post by: TradBowyer on December 31, 2009, 10:39:00 AM
I have older archery material where they advocate ham (butt) shots. Different time, different era..can't judge past generations by our modern standards. Wonder how the next generation will judge us? Will my practices now be considered "unethical" because I hunt from a tree stand or shoot 25-30 yrds? Very well could be.
Post by: lpcjon2 on December 31, 2009, 10:41:00 AM
Post by: James Wrenn on December 31, 2009, 10:49:00 AM
Post by: Dave McDaniel on December 31, 2009, 10:51:00 AM
Post by: reddogge on December 31, 2009, 11:02:00 AM
I read where Fred Bear arched an arrow over a rock and hit a sheep on purpose underdrawing the bow to get the proper trajectory like a howitzer. Would you and I attempt that. No way but he did.
Post by: trapperDave on December 31, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Post by: gsdmikko on December 31, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Post by: Mudd on December 31, 2009, 11:16:00 AM
I had a visceral reaction to what the bear might have been experiencing. I've had several punctures in my lifetime and even the smallest ones hurt like heck.
I'm sorry folks, I'm not going to be successful at explaining myself.
I do believe that Howard Hill did as much if not more for archery than any other living human being could. I just had an image of this Holier than me archer of him, I now know it ain't so, he just a heck of a lot better shot than I will ever be.
Please forgive my ramblings. I wasn't intending to besmirch Howards' good name nor will I ever.
I was and still am a touched(in the head) ole man...lol
God bless,Mudd
Post by: George D. Stout on December 31, 2009, 11:19:00 AM
We can't apply todays logic or ethical parameters to what was done fifty or sixty years ago. They didn't have the armchair experts, nor did they have a viable history of what works and what didn't....they really were pioneers in this sport. It's a form of ethnocentricity to assume they should have acted, or behaved like we do now, based on some superiority of intellect or knowledge of present day archers/bowhunters.
Mudd....I would have thought that you would have read about Hill's exploits years ago; they are not much different from Fred Bear's, or Ben Pearson's, or Jack Howard's, or Jim Dougherty's, or Doug Kittredge's, or Walt Wilhelm's, or Roy Hoff's, or literally everyone back then who was learning the limitations, and the expectations of the sport of bowhunting. Without them, we would have no bow seasons right now. That is zero!
We have the luxury of knowing what works because those guys didn't and had to learn. So to feel that "kick in the gut" is not realistic. Of course that would not be condoned today, nor should it be; however, we are not pioneers, we have a rich history that was hard-earned by guys like Howard Hill, Ben Pearson, and many others who blazed the trails so we can hunt as we do.
Frankly, I understand what they did and will not turn my nose up in disgust. Without them, I would probably be playing some stupid game like golf.
Post by: joevan125 on December 31, 2009, 11:20:00 AM
I saw one of Howards film where he shot some sort of African cat and you could tell the cat was tied to something.
I still love both of these guys and really like to read there hunting stories.
Post by: Gary Logsdon on December 31, 2009, 11:26:00 AM
Post by: joevan125 on December 31, 2009, 11:27:00 AM
Fred Bear is the only reason i picked up a stick bow earlier this year.
I remember when i was a kid seeing that picture of him with that elk laying on the side of a mountain, that image has stayed with me for 33yrs.
I cant explain why it took me so long to start doing this but im glad i did.
Post by: bowhunterfrompast on December 31, 2009, 11:31:00 AM
Post by: Paul/KS on December 31, 2009, 11:40:00 AM
Read some of the stuff in "The Witchery of Archery"... We have come a long way since then but it is still a part of the trail that we all travel as bow hunters.
Happy New Year...
Paul
Post by: britts2 on December 31, 2009, 11:56:00 AM
Post by: Mudd on December 31, 2009, 12:03:00 PM
I'm not all that well read George. I'm just now getting around to Thoreau's "Walden" and most likely wouldn't be reading it if it hadn't been a gift from another trad-gang member.
I'm just another G.O.B. that does mean that sometimes much to my dismay I follow my ole departed daddy's advice..like. "Boy, there ain't no point in being ignorant, iffen ya ain't gonna show it!"
God bless,Mudd
PS: I think that the fact that when I got up it was cold and very windy outside with the temps to be dropping all day long may have helped contribute to my insanity..lol
Post by: flatlander37 on December 31, 2009, 12:04:00 PM
Roy, don't be so hard on yourself. Like many have said, it was a different time. I remember reading an article not to long ago where archers way back then were taking absurdly long shots at deer and other big game animals. Many of these shots I would never have taken with a compound with sights. Like Chuck C stated, I believe that we have evolved more since then. I firmly believe that HH and Fred Bear attempted some of the shots they did due to constant practice, and great natural ability. I personally restrict myself to shots 25 yards or less for now, 'cause I aint as good as them! Mark
Post by: wisconsin wood butcher on December 31, 2009, 12:14:00 PM
Post by: lpcjon2 on December 31, 2009, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: boznarras on December 31, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
I posted a similar question after reading H.R. Wambold's "Bowhunting for Deer" recently, and got similar responses. I too was not so much thinking critically of the author and his times, was just looking to see what the current consensus was on these long shots, and shots from (to me)questionable angles. (I didn't even bring up his chapter on arrows with hypodermic syringe tips injecting paralyzing drugs...(succinylcholine)).
It is reassuring to me to hear that most do not take these shots now. I can see that there was a time when it was done, and appreciate what these people did to keep archery going, but am happy to see that it is a historical event, not current practice. I think you are OK to respectfully question it in order to clarify what is now held reasonable. You never know unless you ask. Just as it would be arrogant to judge those in the past by today's standards, it is also arrogant to decry honest open discussion of what is thought to be ethical now.
For me, it's good to think about this stuff before starting to draw the string back with a rising pulse rate...
Post by: George D. Stout on December 31, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
I try to transform myself to that era as I read and it helps me better understand their whole mindset and what they were faced with. Unlike today, they had the whole hunting world looking down their noses at guys hunting with bows and arrows, so they had to prove that the bow and arrow was a lethal weapon. I'm sure there was even some desparation in their hunting procedures at times. We don't have to worry about that, so we have lost a lot of perspective of how it really was.
The more we read...old books, not new ones, the more we can understand what they were going through and why they approached the sport as they did. I only wish I could have spent some time with some more of those older fellows.
Post by: Ric O'Shay on December 31, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
Times change, people change and things change. On the day you were born I was 7 years old and riding my Texas Ranger bicycle (from Western Auto thank you very much) up and down the streets of Wichita Falls. Never a thought was given to helmets, elbow and knee pads. If you fell, you got banged up. Now days, I've seen parents near hysteria if their child ever sits on a tricycle without wearing a specialized suit to protect them from being a child and experiencing childhood.
Would you compare the ethics, training and abilities of pilots and barnstormers of the 20's and 30's to today's astronauts and have a knee jerk reaction to it? Probably not. Why? Because they were defining man's ability to fly.
Would you hold your ancestors that hunted in order to live to the same hunting ethics as you hold today? Probably not. Chances are if they had limited their game taking to today's purported standards, you would not even be here to have a knee jerk reaction. So, don't be critical, don't be offended and certainly don't have a visceral reaction to someone's actions in defining archery or bow hunting nearly a century ago as it is recognized today.
Accept it for what it is and enjoy the read.
Danny
Post by: George D. Stout on December 31, 2009, 12:50:00 PM
:notworthy:
Post by: David Mitchell on December 31, 2009, 12:53:00 PM
Post by: tradtusker on December 31, 2009, 01:05:00 PM
if you get upset about that try watching some of the old Fred bear movies where they talk of taking shots 60-80 yards. They did not know the limitations back then, pioneers of the sport so to speak.
advances in bows efficiency, arrow materials have also come a long way.
plus we now have the luxury of learning from their mistakes.
Post by: HOWITZER on December 31, 2009, 01:08:00 PM
Listening to first hand accounts of guys taking upwards of 5 Bucks a year, and countless "camp meat" deer. I thought they had no respect for the resource and thought they were in it for the simple killing factor. I eventually came to realize (as George so nicely stated) that you have to separate history from today. I also eventually finished reading that book and found it quite entertaining and enlightening.
I have never read Howard Hill because I have only recently became a trad shooter and up until last year or so I had no Idea who Howard Hill was. I have to say I will defiently read his work now.
Post by: Irish Archer on December 31, 2009, 01:08:00 PM
Howard, and men like him, are the reason we have bow seasons to hunt. Personally, I don't shoot over 20 yards with a stick at living things.
But that's just me. I think that Howard was a little better shooter than I am..... :thumbsup:
Post by: Buckeye Trad Hunter on December 31, 2009, 01:26:00 PM
Post by: Mr.Magoo on December 31, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
Howard and Fred were great hunters and I'd guess better shots than anyone on this board. Put on your "superior ethics" hat if you want to, but I doubt we're much different (and I'd bet Howard's hail Mary was still a damn good shot).
Post by: SveinD on December 31, 2009, 01:34:00 PM
I know from stories over here as well that
respect for other living things, whether hunting
it or not, was very limited.
But I bet Mr Hill said the same thing about
folks in older times.
I suggest you don't read up on what they did in
the reneissance..
Anyways, it's good that the times have changed!
As they probably always will :)
-SveinD-
Post by: ChuckC on December 31, 2009, 01:55:00 PM
You know. . with a few notable exceptions, I bet many of todays archers are as good or better than what we had back then. Times are different, things are different. What we expect is different.
Talk of shooting 80 yards. . . I did that in the 70's. Its a long shot. As long as you know to hold your arrow at the top of the bale and you get a good release, you were on paper (my set up, my bow). I could do it all day, and so could you once you had a plan.
Now, try that with no line to shoot from. . . is it really 80 yards or 83 yards. With that trajectory it matters a lot.
What they shot at field targets, at marked distances with aiming spots placed at paced off points etc does not equate to ability at game at unmarked distances.
Sure, a few did it and did it well. Most didn't, but they tried anyway. Good / bad ? not for me to say. That was then, this is now.
You hear of the long shots. How about the 100 plus yards at an elk by HH. He tells how he walked the arrow in. . that means he shot an arrow, saw it was low, held higher and shot another etc etc till he finally hit the elk. At over 100 yards away the elk had no clue he was being shot at.
Me and my guys stump shoot at insane targets, tiny, far, between trees, laying down, bouncing it in, all that.. . and we often hit the target. We would never (I hope) do that at a real critter... or would we ?
Critters are deer right ? is a chipmunk a critter ? a squirrel ? a prairie dog ? I know I have shot way too far at a squirrel and a prairie dog. Heck it's only a squirrel. How about a carp. . are they critters ?
Are the times really that different or have we just fine tuned what we do.
A lot to think about. Its winter. . we have the time.
ChuckC
Post by: Hud on December 31, 2009, 02:03:00 PM
When Howard was in his prime, he could make shots others couldn't and he did it in front of a group or in front of a camera.
Even Howard recognized, that shooting at any such distances was a thing of the past, and he said so, in his book. I believe he said, now I rarely shoot beyond 60 yds, unless it is a predator.
I am not shocked by reading the books about earlier days, what makes me mad is seeing news stories about an arrow in a dog, duck, child or stories about poached animals.
Post by: Gary Logsdon on December 31, 2009, 02:07:00 PM
Post by: cacciatore on December 31, 2009, 02:12:00 PM
Post by: NDTerminator on December 31, 2009, 02:31:00 PM
Don't worry about bringing it up, it is what it is...
Post by: ChuckC on December 31, 2009, 02:33:00 PM
ChuckC
Post by: John Scifres on December 31, 2009, 02:44:00 PM
Post by: Tsalagi on December 31, 2009, 05:05:00 PM
There are some phenemonal feats of accuracy done with bows at long range, usually by people who grew up with bows and used them several times a week. Hill may have had this kind of time to practice like that. A real interesting read is "Longbow" by Robert Hardy. He talks about how the English longbowmen were required by law to practice. They actually had fines and penalties for people who didn't. So, this is how they pulled off their long-range archery skills in battle. The early firearms didn't surpass the longbow because they were better weapons, faster, deadlier, or more accurate because they weren't. They were just easier to train people on quicker.
Post by: Mudd on December 31, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
Thanks for taking it easy on me.
God bless,Mudd
Post by: 2treks on December 31, 2009, 05:15:00 PM
When I first started hunting(self taught,not from a hunting family) I thought things would be a certain way. I had zero success for a number of years. When I got to hunt with hunters,that killed stuff, I was agast. I thought that these guys are blood thirsty and crazy. What I ended up discovering was that to hunt and kill you have to figure out your limitations and then move forward and be happy. kills will come and sometimes they are not as grand as we might like them to be.
The other thing that I have found out over 30 years of hunting and nearly as long bow hunting, is that the way it is told in print or in person is not always as it was. Not meaning that lies are told, but that the small details are not included and that can really make a difference in the story and what REALLY happened. I read about Gerry C.(catquiver guy) a few years back and he hunted much like the guys we are talking about here. If I remember right his motto was "if broadheads ain't fly'n, ain't nothing die'n" That is not very well recieved today. As well it should not be. I think that was in the late 60's early 70's But as the other have said. it was a different time. AND, the guy's in question had something that most of us do not. The SKILL to do it. I think most of the shots we read about that the old time pioneers made, they made on purpose.
I wonder if somebody before Hill had the same notions to promote himself and bow hunting, But had no skill to do it? We will never read about him(or her).
Magic bows and magic people are sometimes a myth or a perception.
Just my thoughts.
Chuck
Post by: eric101 on December 31, 2009, 05:55:00 PM
Post by: jonsimoneau on December 31, 2009, 05:55:00 PM
Post by: Jerry Wald on December 31, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
I play alot of hockey and I shoot at angles most ppl wouldn't even attempt because they think they can't score from there...hmmm alot of them go in, but I know what I can do out there and what I am capable of.
I ride my horse in some areas most ppl wouldn't even walk or walk a horse...it's just what you are used to.
I have chased bears with my horse - how many horse riders out there would even attempt that, but I would be looked upon as crazy or stupid or both and maybe I am but I know my horse and he knows me and we trust each other...
So if you are capable of doing things that others aren't either you are gifted or more seasoned and more confident.
Doesn't mean you can't miss, but odds are in your favour.
Hey I shot a doe muley that only gave me a broadside butt shot at 10 yards once (didn't know any better) and she died on the run in under 70 yards not a cup of blood left in her...I thought it was a great clean kill at the time until I got back to camp...well they read me the riot act, but they went home without an animal...I didn't.
I had a friend freak on a bear and pulled his shot and shot him in the head of all places..that bear dropped like a sack and the broadhead was in his brain.....would I intentionally take that shot NO...but the results speak for themselves.
I also had a bud that shot a bear in the rump out of a tree stand and he pulled his shot and that bear didn't go 45 yards...made a bed and died in it 45 minutes later.
So we do what we can to make the best shot at a comfortable distance right and then caca happens sometimes....well that's bowhunting boys.
If we dwell on it tooooooo long we will learn to second guess everything and our INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING is gonna suffer...betcha
Happy New Year everyone -minus 38 tonight I hear with the windchill.......I hear a Fred bear video calling me.
Jer Bear
Post by: wingnut on December 31, 2009, 06:22:00 PM
We try to think of ourselves as ethically range limited and practitioners of the art of bowhunting. When truth is known most can't shoot very well at all.
I admire Fred Bear, Howard Hill and the rest for their adventurous nature and for getting out and doing it then so we can now. I also admire their ability with the weapon. I been blessed with having been able to sit and talk for hours with Glenn St. Charles about the old days of hunting and shooting with Fred and the boys. Those talks left me wanting to develop the skill with the bow to make the shot.
I'd never take the shot even if I could make it. That's my decision. But it would be nice to know that I could make it if I did.
Mike
Post by: Jon Powell on December 31, 2009, 06:57:00 PM
I don't think people should make a habit of such shots, but I also don't believe skilled individuals should feel forced to live down to lesser skilled peoples level.
I'm not trying to start a war, I just think each individual has to make that decision for themselves. Skill and confidence levels vary greatly.
Post by: TOEJAMMER on December 31, 2009, 07:01:00 PM
Post by: trashwood on December 31, 2009, 07:07:00 PM
So lets just think about what kinda of shots we would be if we shot 200 arrows a day?? if you shot 200 arrows a day out to 60 yds you might think that your effect range was more than 17 yds???
Several of my hunting buddies have taken antelope with a trad bow. I believe that some of the shots were at a pretty good distance. I was present when a trad bow hunter took one of the first aoudad sheep taken with a trad bow in Texas. His shot was at 60 yds. One shot double lung. I have heard of several trad bow hunters taking big horn sheep and moutian goat well outside of 20yds.
so if you think there are not good enough shots today to take game well outside 20 yds I think maybe they just don't post on the internet but they are out there.
rusty
Post by: dnovo on December 31, 2009, 07:30:00 PM
I think times were different then and we should enjoy the stories and history of those times and not apply them to our day and age.
How many of us are going to criticize Paul Schaefer for being the incredible shot he was?
Read and enjoy our colorful past.
Post by: Mudd on December 31, 2009, 09:03:00 PM
If I had it to do over.. knowing me I'd most likely say it again and about the same way..lol I'm tough skinned enough to take it..lol if it's tongue lashing I need, get after it.
Happy New Year everyone!!
God bless,Mudd
Post by: Jerry Wald on December 31, 2009, 09:26:00 PM
Mudd - gut shots can happen even at close range. I just think the reason they (the legends) feel comfortable at ranges we THINK are unbelievable is PRACTICE...they spent way more time practicing and practicing at different distances just roving the landscape.
Hockey greats:
Look at Sydney Crosby.....on a shoot out...man he is awesome...WHY ....PRACTICE...Wayne Gretzky was the same. He made professionals look amature like when he was on his game...PRACTICE.
But ALL THE GREATS have the same thing in common PRACTICE...we just don't seem to get enough TIME to practice.
If any of us had millions of bucks or WAY LESS DEBT I bet we could PRACTICE MORE because we would have MORE TIME.
Have a happy new year Mudd (you'll be ok)....
jer bear
Post by: joe ashton on December 31, 2009, 09:33:00 PM
Post by: Mike Mecredy on December 31, 2009, 09:37:00 PM
They're all just people, the took chances they made mistakes, they're all great. Take the good with the bad.
But for the most part, I'm with Mudd, I don't like reading about things that get my mind wondering in a bad way about those I look up to. (Example: I like reading about David thwacking Goliath, but not about him having Uriah, one of his most loyal soldiers, murdered). Those archery legends made some amazing shots, and I like reading about those, just not the long shot attempts at animals, weather they were chained to a tree or not.
Post by: frank bullitt on December 31, 2009, 09:38:00 PM
It's response from those that don't usually speak, is neat!
My question, is what was those of yesterday think of the way we hunt? Treestands, pop-up blinds, scents, trail cams, etc. etc.
Have we really evolved? They hunted with the bow, when firearms were stirring history!
Read "Hunting with the Bow and Arrow" by Saxton. The Principles of Hunting chapter.
Post by: Gordon martiniuk on December 31, 2009, 09:45:00 PM
!["[dntthnk]"]("graemlins/dntthnk.gif" "\"\"")
Post by: Mike Mecredy on December 31, 2009, 10:02:00 PM
Post by: Charlie Lamb on December 31, 2009, 10:16:00 PM
"... but during that time of silly shooting I lost and broke hundreds of arrows and wounded several animals and birds."
"If all the kills I have made, in shooting big game, were closely estimated, I am sure the average distance would be under 40 yards. As for rabbits, squirrels, and birds, the average would be not more than 20 yards, I am sure."
"Almost all hunters, including the writer, are prone to remember all the long shots ever made, forgetting the short ones; and if we are not careful, the distance gets longer as we grow older."
Heed the lessons of the master and enjoy his adventures. Set your mind free to step into his moccasins and draw his heavy longbow.
My favorite chapters are Small Game hunting Part 1 and 2, and North of 53.
Good stuff!!
Post by: 2treks on December 31, 2009, 10:34:00 PM
Happy New Year to all
Chuck
Post by: GingivitisKahn on December 31, 2009, 11:51:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mudd:His books are interesting and worth reading. Yeah - you and I wouldn't shoot at a deer the better part of a football field away but then again, we wouldn't shoot apples and things off of people's heads (with broadheads, no less) either like he did.
I'm going to keep reading as I believe there's more to Mr. Hill's message than I've gotten so far. I had a momentary lapse of thought and turned to feeling for an animal that was gut shot I'm glad I did. It'll make me try to be more sure of any shot I'm about to take. I guess I did learn something without having to do the "evil" deed myself..lol
Thanks for taking it easy on me.
God bless,Mudd
I wonder if there was any archery pioneer that *didn't* take shots that you and I would flinch at. That's part of what makes some of these guys so interesting to read (in my opinion, anyway). If you haven't read it yet, Saxton Pope's, Hunting With the Bow and Arrow is really cool reading too. Those guys were hunting grizzlies by moonlight with homemade long bows and stuff - yow!
Interesting topic!
Post by: Mudd on January 01, 2010, 01:58:00 AM
With all the love that is Christ Jesus
God bless you all and me too!
Mudd
Post by: PAPA BEAR on January 01, 2010, 02:14:00 AM
Post by: Brian Krebs on January 01, 2010, 02:20:00 AM
You had to have everything set up for a shot taken on camera. You could not run along with the archer like you can today.
You might complain about distance; and about walking arrows in; and such- but they did it; and got animals; and had nothing then to be ashamed of.
What made me laugh- is that you are talking about the ethics of the shots taken in Tembo - but nothing about the crocodile kill; where Hill had a small kid hide behind some saplings where the kids brother had been eaten by a crocodile the day before !
Then Hill got the wire to the arrow in the crocodile wrapped around his leg.....
Certainly was a lot of croc in that movie ...
You give these guys no credit for humor.
If they hit a fly at 150 yards on the wing in a stiff wind- heck - if it was believed... it was even more fun.
These guys were out having fun; and the bow was considered more of a toy than a weapon. Killing an animal at 100 yards was part of convincing people- that the bow was a capable weapon.
I am far more concerned about the arch disappearing from archery: than shots taken by successful archers half a century ago.
Post by: Traxx on January 01, 2010, 03:50:00 AM
Not entirely true.I remember reading a report from Chester Stevenson,i believe,where "Modern" Bowhunters were admonished by old Native men.Some of these old men were old enough to have lived by the bow.They complained about how white bow hunters just flung arrows at animals at great distances and never seemed to kill anything,yet Native people got close and usually allways bagged game.the interview was published for all to read who was interested in reading it at the time.That interview was published in a TBM,in the last few years,by E Donnel Thomas.
Post by: Doc Nock on January 01, 2010, 11:45:00 AM
In reading Mudd's original post closely, all I saw was that reading about the gut shot bear made him twinge...for the suffering of the bear.
As I've aged, I find logic less useful in pushing aside emotions, and I find I FEEL much more deeply. Whether that be other's pain in suffering, loss, illness or whatever. I also feel more intensely for the animals I love and love to hunt and eat.
All I read was ole Mudd saying it hit him how that bear might have felt with an arrow through his guts... I didn't read anything about how it was wrong to have happened, or that HH was wrong and Mudd's said as much...
For me, I guess I can read his words and say, "yeah, I get it, Mudd, you just felt that pull where you felt that one more intensely..."
Not saying this feeling thing is a good thing. Not something I'd wish on anyone or hold myself up for having happened to me (or Mudd). Actually, it's something of a pain to get drawn into those feelings. Is there a pill you can take? :)
Shoot...when we get a drought, I won't go fishing for trout I love...cause they're all huddled up around whatever spring brings life chilling cooler temps and O2 they need...to catch and release them then seems like a death warrant. I won't go.
My friends laugh at me... but I gotta shave this ugly mug in the AM mirror...so "to thine own self be true."
Many years ago I was put on the spot in a class and wrote about myself, "...an intricate balance of subtle contradictions in constant conflict..."
Mudd, I think I get it. No disparagement and no judgement implied in what I read that you wrote...stuff happens... just that you felt that one rather deeply reading his great writing at that particluar moment.
Peace out.
Post by: Butch Speer on January 01, 2010, 11:58:00 AM
I've known Roy for many years. A better person you'll never meet. He says whats on his mind & is honest. Something you don't find everyday. If you don't like his opinion, fine. But, he is entitled to an opinion.