That would make sense, except, why would you throw fish into a pond so that you can catch them again next year to eat them? It takes several years before a new born fish is large enough to eat. So, if you are stocking a pond you are either doing it with fish that are already large enough to eat (or close to it), or you are willing to wait a few years before you are expecting to catch them. BTW, if you want to suggest that your uncles would have thrown the ones they caught that were too small that year, to catch them again next year, they were taking a very large risk, since fish that small risk a significant fine if you are caught with them by the game commission.

The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.

Well, yes, that is certainly a possible (and I think likely) explanation. My point is that the evidence suggests that the lack of diversity the poster I replied to is likely NOT the result of the massive stocking program which he postulated.

You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.

Because "drone" is the word which the news now uses to describe RC aircraft. The reason they do that is that "drone" sounds much scarier than "RC aircraft".

The problem with your theory is that I know for a fact that those same fish show up in ponds that did not exist a hundred years ago. For that matter I know that those fish show up in ponds that the federal government (nor any other organization) ever planted fish in. The reason I know this is that I know the people who built the ponds and owned the land they were situated on when fish started to appear in them. And yes, some of these ponds now have fish in them, even though no one put them there and there is no way for fish to swim there from elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but the only difference between a liberal and a totalitarian is that the liberal says, "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as what you want is what I think you should want."

From other sources we learn that the staff resigned over the fact that he fired the top editor for the magazine by announcing his replacement on Gawker. This action followed bringing in a new CEO who acted in ways they interpreted as having no respect for the traditions of the organization (there is, by the way, a difference between deciding that traditions need to be changed and disrespecting those traditions).

You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.

I see, you read that wrong. Privacy is one of their top priorities. The problem is that you think of privacy as a good thing. They, on the other hand, view privacy as a bad thing. So, privacy is a top priority for them. That is making sure that you have as little as they can possibly manage.

The thing is that while people constantly talk about the problems with older drivers, the statistics indicate that it is young drivers who are more likely to be a problem than older drivers. My recollection is that older drivers are not statistically more likely to be in an accident than drivers in general. The fact of the matter is that most people, as the impairments that come with age start to affect their driving, begin to drive less and more carefully, until they stop entirely when they believe they can no longer do so safely.

Marijuana distorts your depth perception and causes your brain to take longer to process information. Both of these things are significant impairments when driving, but generally not significant when playing a musical instrument.

It all depends on how you value the various variables involved. The problems with all public transportation can be summed up with the following list:

1. 1)One must get from where one is to where the bus stops
2. 2)One must get from where the bus stops to where one is going
3. 3)The bus is unlikely to take the most direct route from one's starting point to one's destination
4. 4)The route from one's starting point to one's destination has a significant probability of involving multiple buses
5. 5)One must plan one's trip around the bus schedule, even if that requires spending significant amounts of time where one has nothing constructive to do
6. 6)Because of 3 and 4, a trip by bus is likely to take significantly longer than the same trip by automobile
7. 1. None of these mean that public transportation is a bad choice. For many people these things represent acceptable trade-offs for the problems with driving your own care. However, they do mean that public transportation is not better for everyone.

Well, since John Dean no longer had access to the inner circles of Republican strategy after Nixon, how would he know? I actually know who John Dean was. There is no way that anyone who was doing what John Dean claimed the Republican strategists were doing would have talked to him about it after he spilled the beans on the plots he had been involved in while on the Nixon team.
You know it is interesting that you say you reached your conclusions by reading the WSJ. I reached my conclusions by listening to what various politicians said they believed and watching the actual results of their policies...and the results of the policies they said would lead to disaster. For example, Democrats said that welfare reform, passed by Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton (with a promise to "fix" it after he was re-elected) would result in single mothers and others dependent on the programs it effected ending up homeless and starving. In actuality, it turned out to lift large numbers out of poverty. Or for another example, just look at Detroit.
As to what happens when Democrats are in charge of the government, When Ronald Reagan was President median African American incomes rose by 84% as opposed to 68% for whites. Under Obama, the median income for African Americans has dropped 10.9%, while that for non-hispanic whites has dropped 3.6 %. I'm sorry, but when one looks at the results of the policies implemented by Democrats vs those implemented by Republicans one realizes that the Democrats are still the same as when they founded the KKK.

So, you are saying that, by desegregating the schools in the south, the Republican Party under Richard Nixon was demonstrating its racism?
I would suggest that you examine the results of the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats to determine which party is truly racist. Democrats pursue policies which trap minorities (and others) in poverty while increasing the wealth and power of those who already have it. When Democrats control the government, the gap between white and black income almost invariably widens. When republicans control the government it usually narrows.