Karma is often misconstrued as life exacting revenge, or as some form of divine retribution for a “bad” action. In reality, karma simply refers to things that happen to you as a result of your own choices and actions, your own doing.
I don’t oppose hunting, but I do oppose the sort of thing that the Minnesota dentist perpetrated. A hunter – a real hunter – takes the animal that he shoots, has it properly butchered and if he doesn’t eat it himself he at least gives it to someone who will eat it, for example through groups like Hunters Feed The Hungry. We see too many example here as well. It didn’t get the publicity of the lion story but a few years back there was a hunter who got a license to hunt a grizzly bear in the Haida Gwai region of British Columbia Canada, even though the region was recognised locally as a no hunting area. This guy shot a bear that was part of a conservation research project and was at least partly used to being near people. The “hunter” took the head and the paws and left the rest in the forest to rot. A year or so ago I saw the carcass of a deer at the edge of the highway. The head had been hacked off and the rest was lying in the ditch. Worst of all this wasn’t a legal hunt, it was poaching. Don’t get me started on poachers, which are the real danger to endangered wildlife.
Other than a hunt for food, what is the thrill in murdering a wild animal? Is it sexual? How can anyone, aside from a deranged individual, enjoy extinguishing an animal life??? I met many “crazy” people in my practice, but the hunting thing has always eluded me.
Ok, here goes: I’ve been to Zimbabwe 7 times, the last time I lived there for a year and I lived in the town of Hwange for 4 months. I’ve been on game drives in Hwange park at least 8 times. And in all the times I’ve been there I had never heard of ‘Cecil’ the lion, nor had seen him or any photos of him at base camp. No one there ever mentioned him. Ever. So, although some circles may have known about him, he was not at that point ‘world famous.’ That happened because of the circumstances of his demise. I don’t have a problem with hunting. Nor with trophy hunting. However, luring the big cat from the game park was wrong. The guide should have known better. And the meat should have been given to the locals. As I understand it, it wasn’t. The people in Zim, especially in the rurals, live with the first hand knowledge and fear of the danger that lions and other wildlife pose to them and to their livestock on a daily basis. When I went to visit a remote village in the far north-east corner of the country, the family I stayed with told me that the previous night a lion had come just 2 huts from their’s and killed several goats. It’s too bad about ‘Cecil’, and true conservation and care for wildlife is great, but I think we need to show at least as much concern for the people who live and die there.
That’s not exactly how it happened. First of all, World Wildlife Fund sued World Wresting Federation, not the other way around. Second of all, both companies had been sharing the initialism since 1979. WWF’s 2000 court case, in the UK, was because the WWF felt that WWE violated a 1994 agreement regarding international usage of the WWF initials.
In August 2001, the court ruled in favour of WWF. Later on, in 2002, WWF sued AGAIN, for $360 million in damages, in which WWE won the case. Another request was made by WWF to overturn that case, which was dismissed by the British Court of Appeal in June 2007.
Also, in 2003, WWE won a limited decision that allowed them to continue marketing pre-existing products with the abandoned WWF logo. In exchange, they agreed to produce new merchandise with the WWE logo, and had to remove audio/video referring to the old logo in its library of video footage outside of the UK. (Which is why you see the WWF logos blurred, and audio references to WWF censored out.)
As of July 2012, however, the WWF logo and initials are no longer censored in archival footage.
Also, there were no financial penalties on the wrestlers. Not even lost revenue, since they were still able to sell their pre-existing merchandise that had the old logos on it.
It was not a greedy sports company trying to monopolize a logo at the expense of fuzzy animals. It was an organization who did not want to give ground to the sports company they had a prior long-standing agreement with deciding to take them to court to stop them using the initials they had been sharing for over 2 decades, then turning greedy and wanting whackloads of cash out of them as well.
WWE came out of this whole situation very well. The initialism change did not hurt them at all, and in fact became a part of their marketing campaign (Get The ‘F’ Out), which in the long run probably was a financial benefit to them.
WWE also has moved from a US stage to an international stage in their marketing, which was really the reason why WWF wanted to sue them for control of the initialism in the first place, because WWE was starting to expand outside of the USA. Because of how vast WWE has become, they are too well-known as WWE for them to switch back to WWF even if they were permitted to. It would be too costly to them to bother with it.
Hardly the “poetic justice” you allude to. It would only be poetic justice if WWF were imposed penalties rather than just having EVERY SINGLE ONE of their subsequent cases against the WWE thrown out.
Imagine my comment above with blank lines between the paragraphs. Because that’s what it looked like to me when I typed it. Did not realize this message board turned proper formatting into walls of text. :P
Liverlips McCracken Premium Member over 8 years ago
HAH! He who laughs last, Satchel.
Reppr Premium Member over 8 years ago
I guess you can’t make a good comic strip out of the heroes at Planned Parenthood so you go after a guy that kills a one lion.
Jeanlou over 8 years ago
Karma is often misconstrued as life exacting revenge, or as some form of divine retribution for a “bad” action. In reality, karma simply refers to things that happen to you as a result of your own choices and actions, your own doing.
ChessPirate over 8 years ago
“Well Boo and a subsequent Hoo”, I’m probably going to use that…
abbybookcase over 8 years ago
that we know of
lattewoman over 8 years ago
@pda726Conclusion jumping causes so many problems. Its not that which bothers me about the jumpers. It’s the subsequent loss of life.
bmckee over 8 years ago
I don’t oppose hunting, but I do oppose the sort of thing that the Minnesota dentist perpetrated. A hunter – a real hunter – takes the animal that he shoots, has it properly butchered and if he doesn’t eat it himself he at least gives it to someone who will eat it, for example through groups like Hunters Feed The Hungry. We see too many example here as well. It didn’t get the publicity of the lion story but a few years back there was a hunter who got a license to hunt a grizzly bear in the Haida Gwai region of British Columbia Canada, even though the region was recognised locally as a no hunting area. This guy shot a bear that was part of a conservation research project and was at least partly used to being near people. The “hunter” took the head and the paws and left the rest in the forest to rot. A year or so ago I saw the carcass of a deer at the edge of the highway. The head had been hacked off and the rest was lying in the ditch. Worst of all this wasn’t a legal hunt, it was poaching. Don’t get me started on poachers, which are the real danger to endangered wildlife.
ShadowBeast Premium Member over 8 years ago
Don’t judge all cats by the acts of one Rob.
rekam Premium Member over 8 years ago
It’s so nice that Satch is sending in Bucky’s dollar or is he donating a dollar that he would have given to Bucky in one on Bucky’s cons?
Kind&Kinder over 8 years ago
Other than a hunt for food, what is the thrill in murdering a wild animal? Is it sexual? How can anyone, aside from a deranged individual, enjoy extinguishing an animal life??? I met many “crazy” people in my practice, but the hunting thing has always eluded me.
38lowell over 8 years ago
That lion was supposed to be protected in a sanctuary.So much for African law!Another Ugly American.
Robert Pratt over 8 years ago
Typical liberal, “charity” with someone else’s buck!
cheetahqueen over 8 years ago
Ok, here goes: I’ve been to Zimbabwe 7 times, the last time I lived there for a year and I lived in the town of Hwange for 4 months. I’ve been on game drives in Hwange park at least 8 times. And in all the times I’ve been there I had never heard of ‘Cecil’ the lion, nor had seen him or any photos of him at base camp. No one there ever mentioned him. Ever. So, although some circles may have known about him, he was not at that point ‘world famous.’ That happened because of the circumstances of his demise. I don’t have a problem with hunting. Nor with trophy hunting. However, luring the big cat from the game park was wrong. The guide should have known better. And the meat should have been given to the locals. As I understand it, it wasn’t. The people in Zim, especially in the rurals, live with the first hand knowledge and fear of the danger that lions and other wildlife pose to them and to their livestock on a daily basis. When I went to visit a remote village in the far north-east corner of the country, the family I stayed with told me that the previous night a lion had come just 2 huts from their’s and killed several goats. It’s too bad about ‘Cecil’, and true conservation and care for wildlife is great, but I think we need to show at least as much concern for the people who live and die there.
Cural over 8 years ago
That’s not exactly how it happened. First of all, World Wildlife Fund sued World Wresting Federation, not the other way around. Second of all, both companies had been sharing the initialism since 1979. WWF’s 2000 court case, in the UK, was because the WWF felt that WWE violated a 1994 agreement regarding international usage of the WWF initials.
In August 2001, the court ruled in favour of WWF. Later on, in 2002, WWF sued AGAIN, for $360 million in damages, in which WWE won the case. Another request was made by WWF to overturn that case, which was dismissed by the British Court of Appeal in June 2007.
Also, in 2003, WWE won a limited decision that allowed them to continue marketing pre-existing products with the abandoned WWF logo. In exchange, they agreed to produce new merchandise with the WWE logo, and had to remove audio/video referring to the old logo in its library of video footage outside of the UK. (Which is why you see the WWF logos blurred, and audio references to WWF censored out.)
As of July 2012, however, the WWF logo and initials are no longer censored in archival footage.
Also, there were no financial penalties on the wrestlers. Not even lost revenue, since they were still able to sell their pre-existing merchandise that had the old logos on it.
It was not a greedy sports company trying to monopolize a logo at the expense of fuzzy animals. It was an organization who did not want to give ground to the sports company they had a prior long-standing agreement with deciding to take them to court to stop them using the initials they had been sharing for over 2 decades, then turning greedy and wanting whackloads of cash out of them as well.
WWE came out of this whole situation very well. The initialism change did not hurt them at all, and in fact became a part of their marketing campaign (Get The ‘F’ Out), which in the long run probably was a financial benefit to them.
WWE also has moved from a US stage to an international stage in their marketing, which was really the reason why WWF wanted to sue them for control of the initialism in the first place, because WWE was starting to expand outside of the USA. Because of how vast WWE has become, they are too well-known as WWE for them to switch back to WWF even if they were permitted to. It would be too costly to them to bother with it.
Hardly the “poetic justice” you allude to. It would only be poetic justice if WWF were imposed penalties rather than just having EVERY SINGLE ONE of their subsequent cases against the WWE thrown out.
Alan Lafond
ChrisV over 8 years ago
Yeah because wrestling fans like myself are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid!
Cural over 8 years ago
Imagine my comment above with blank lines between the paragraphs. Because that’s what it looked like to me when I typed it. Did not realize this message board turned proper formatting into walls of text. :P