Well... apparently you did and continue to do so. As am I.
The original premise of the OP's first post was to provide a link to an article that pointed out which companies in the optics world make optics that do, or do not actively support hunting. I assume the point of the thread was to as the OP said, to give an- "account of the history and background of various companies", because: "some may have reservations about purchasing instruments from companies that actively support hunting."
Title of the article was:
"Shooting Wildlife? Who makes your binoculars, cameras and spotting scopes?"
I did not spend a ton of time going through the article, but I did go through most of it. It mostly discussed "ethics" of sport hunting ( at least how the article saw the ethic of it); and the ecology, and conservation issues related to a variety of hunting behaviors and practices. I also went through the titles of most all of the references of the article.
I was not planning to respond to this thread originally. Because I thought it would not be a wise thing to get involved in. We each have our positions on these matters. And I figured this was not the place for me to put in my 2c's. And maybe worth just that.
That was until I saw this post in this thread: ( Which BTW- none of the info ( nor the references ) in the article linked in the OP had anything to do with either of these posting's topics:
When I read that, I thought that not only was it much different than the OP's first post ( and BTW- the link posted), I also thought that now I am going to point out how I feel about that. It is one thing to discuss or debate the merits or lack there of of hunting- it is quite another to while discussing or debating that, to attack others with those sort of outrageous accusations. So, I responded with my displeasure. As did others.
And then there was this excerpt from a post: ( with even a link to further inflame and pour gas on something that was in no way part of the OP's premise, or even any sort of info on the pure ecological discussion of hunting). To me it was just another way to shame hunting and hunters. Certainly not anything to do with the OP topic. And again, I and others were offended.
How special. And even with a nice goggle search linked in the quote with the title of: "links between killing and psychopath child abuse". Wonderful link of info aimed at a whole group of law abiding citizens and portraying them with a broad stroke to be awful human beings.
That seems like it is appropriate info to the topic at hand. At least someone saw it that way ( may be many more here also). Was I and others offended again- yes. Not that we can't take it- not if it is truly going to be a "fair fight" so to speak. But if some of us said what we really thought about these inflammatory comments, and made posts anywhere as direct and offensive...., well they would not be tolerated here.
And there was even this cute "little" comment. I am sure it was meant to be humorous- but another little jab thrown hunters way:
Are you that concerned about what is or isn't in peoples trousers?
Well.....there are very real and obvious reasons why anyone who participates in, or supports any sort of law abiding "ethical" hunting in anyway, would be insulted by some of the outlandish accusations.
