zachthebowhunter
Member
This is my feeling on them. Talked with Kenton from first lite this spring, great guy. Probably too "fat" to talk to Jason.
Kuiu hate
- Thread starter zfava
- Start date
- Status
This is my feeling on them. Talked with Kenton from first lite this spring, great guy. Probably too "fat" to talk to Jason.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
Although the cheese probably still has all his "digits" - he preferred to dig a hole, wrap up in a tarp, and drink his own urine.
I may not be nearly as tough, but I'v come to enjoy a 3lb Hilleberg tent, quick dry clothing, and sipping a can of cold IPA while carving up extra huge elk in many places Gutkowski wouldn't have ever wandered.
some neat stuff is in that truck in the mall parking lot, just sayin.
guserto4
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2016
- Messages
- 66
I've got a bunch of Kuiu stuff because it was a cheaper price point to begin with AND THEN over the course of about a year I purchased darn near everything I needed (starting from scratch) from their bargain corner or on some special discount. I also try and make these sorts of purchases do double duty, for instance, I got the Guide Jacket in grey last fall and to test it out I used it as my daily jacket for what started as one week, but I ended up using it all winter. I love it. All of these companies are too expensive for my budget at full price, so I get creative. I have a few first lite items too (LOVE their short brim hat) but I go to amazon for most everything. I'm not paying absurd amounts of money for camo merino wool when it's going under outerwear and I can find it on amazon for way cheaper.
I've even found decent outer wool pants at the thrift store. $5 pants makes me feel more at ease when I get them all dirty. You can't have any real fun when you feel like you might ruin the item you got specifically to have fun in. IMHO the KUIU haters out there should really just be identifying themselves as expensive technical gear haters. That stuff is awesome, but makes an expensive hobby that much more so.
I've even found decent outer wool pants at the thrift store. $5 pants makes me feel more at ease when I get them all dirty. You can't have any real fun when you feel like you might ruin the item you got specifically to have fun in. IMHO the KUIU haters out there should really just be identifying themselves as expensive technical gear haters. That stuff is awesome, but makes an expensive hobby that much more so.
Hunts
Member
Greenhorn,
What Gutkowski has done in his years as a smokejumper with the FS, placing benchtop markers on some of Montana's most remote mountains, rescue operations, etc would easily compare to where you have carved up your huge elk. But don't let a lack of knowledge about something prevent you from taking an opportunity to inflate your own mythology.
Not sure what you're getting at with the chesse reference and drinking of urine.(???)
Here's some light reading for you-
List of common fallacies
Compiled by Jim Walker
originated: 27 July 1997
additions made: 01 Dec. 2009
You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.
-Robert A. Wilson
When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.
argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.
argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)
argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.
argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. This can lead to bandwagon fallacies (see below).
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).
confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).
excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
What Gutkowski has done in his years as a smokejumper with the FS, placing benchtop markers on some of Montana's most remote mountains, rescue operations, etc would easily compare to where you have carved up your huge elk. But don't let a lack of knowledge about something prevent you from taking an opportunity to inflate your own mythology.
Not sure what you're getting at with the chesse reference and drinking of urine.(???)
Here's some light reading for you-
List of common fallacies
Compiled by Jim Walker
originated: 27 July 1997
additions made: 01 Dec. 2009
You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.
-Robert A. Wilson
When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.
argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.
argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)
argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.
argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. This can lead to bandwagon fallacies (see below).
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).
confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).
excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
Hunts
Member
loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."
misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin
non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?
no true Christian (no true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. Example: Many Christians in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever start a war.
observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)
statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.)
two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Use-mention error: confusing a word or a concept with something that supposedly exists. For example an essay on THE HISTORY OF GOD does not refer to an actual god, but rather the history of the concept of god in human culture. (To avoid confusion, people usually put the word or phrase in quotations.
meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."
misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin
non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?
no true Christian (no true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. Example: Many Christians in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever start a war.
observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)
statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.)
two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Use-mention error: confusing a word or a concept with something that supposedly exists. For example an essay on THE HISTORY OF GOD does not refer to an actual god, but rather the history of the concept of god in human culture. (To avoid confusion, people usually put the word or phrase in quotations.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
Are you stubaby's long lost uncle?
Gutkowski would have used KUIU, had it been available back in the day. Then, he'd had carved up big elk where he hadn't wandered hunting..
Gutkowski would have used KUIU, had it been available back in the day. Then, he'd had carved up big elk where he hadn't wandered hunting..
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
He probably would have put out more fires too..
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
This thread is called "KUIU hate", let's not get off topic. 
Hunts
Member
This thread is called "KUIU hate", let's not get off topic.
Although the cheese probably still has all his "digits" - he preferred to dig a hole, wrap up in a tarp, and drink his own urine.
Yeah, right
Hunts
Member
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
One of your favorites I see.
One of your favorites I see.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
Honestly not attacking anybody..
My guess is you were not a hunt talk member when the "cheese" was around. He was legendary moderator of the old "Survival" section, which Randy has since removed from this forum. The topics were right out of the Girl Scouts of America Handbook, with photo examples of a Kaczynski look-a-like (elkcheese) digging holes, making forts, sleeping in cheap tarps, and talk of drinking his own pee for survival. The cheese was, without a doubt "Gutkowski-tough", minus the heroic smoke jumping and rescuing background. He would have never been caught dead wearing KUIU, though he did allow somebody to photograph him accosting a dead cow elk.
My guess is you were not a hunt talk member when the "cheese" was around. He was legendary moderator of the old "Survival" section, which Randy has since removed from this forum. The topics were right out of the Girl Scouts of America Handbook, with photo examples of a Kaczynski look-a-like (elkcheese) digging holes, making forts, sleeping in cheap tarps, and talk of drinking his own pee for survival. The cheese was, without a doubt "Gutkowski-tough", minus the heroic smoke jumping and rescuing background. He would have never been caught dead wearing KUIU, though he did allow somebody to photograph him accosting a dead cow elk.
Last edited:
Hunts
Member
"heroic"
Your word, not mine.
By comparing your "cheese"(someone who you have obvious disregard for) with somebody in a discussion you do not know or have knowledge of (Gutkowski) you are conflating again(cheese=Gutkowski).
ad hominem fallacy with some non sequitor and strawman thrown in for good measure!!
Nicely done!!!
Your word, not mine.
By comparing your "cheese"(someone who you have obvious disregard for) with somebody in a discussion you do not know or have knowledge of (Gutkowski) you are conflating again(cheese=Gutkowski).
ad hominem fallacy with some non sequitor and strawman thrown in for good measure!!
Nicely done!!!
Hunts
Member
All in good fun, mind you...
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
You are reading between some lines that are not there. I suggest going to the semi at the mall and chilling out.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
Get ya some camo long johns.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Using your brain can save you money, it can also save your life if you used it to buy good gear in the first place...
Hunts
Member
Seriously. I'm glad you like their gear. I guess. Maybe.
Whatever.
Remember- just because something is not expensive does NOT mean that it is not good''
I'd like to think my brain has saved my life once or twice. Certainly has saved it more times than my wallet probably has.
Whatever.
Remember- just because something is not expensive does NOT mean that it is not good''
I'd like to think my brain has saved my life once or twice. Certainly has saved it more times than my wallet probably has.
Last edited:
Greenhorn I have to agree with you. To say that the only reason that you buying Kuiu is because you have been suckered by advertising is a pretty ignorant statement. I have spent a fair amount of time in the mountains in really bad weather. Yes it can be done in other clothing, but it does make a difference.
When it is nasty you spend far less time worrying about what is getting wet and when it will be dry. When its warm the gear makes life nicer one again. I don't care how "tough" you are. Your mind will stay sharper longer the more comfortable you are. Yes, you can get grunt thought it with "lesser" gear and still have a blast and by no means should someone not hunt because they don't have the newest and greatest, but don't be silly and make statements that its all BS.
Hunts
Member
I didn't say "all BS", just "BS".
You added the "all". That is a subtle distinction no?
I can say that there are certainly good things about some expensive gear (not all). I don't disparage your enjoyment of it either. Never said "suckered" either for that matter. More like "commercially institutionalized".
You added the "all". That is a subtle distinction no?
I can say that there are certainly good things about some expensive gear (not all). I don't disparage your enjoyment of it either. Never said "suckered" either for that matter. More like "commercially institutionalized".
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,656
Hunts, just curious.. what kind of clothing and equipment do you use when out for a week in the forest? Just so I know how I can save money and enjoy myself, based on your knowledge...
You seem to be strongly opinionated on it.
You seem to be strongly opinionated on it.
- Status
Similar threads
