The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

your overwhelming self-aggrandisement can you fail to
appreciate that
the definition could just as well be swapped around.

And no doubt you have spent endless hours discussing the finer points
of philosophy with your friendly neighbourhood fox quite forgetting
that it is sentient only in the most basic sense and any of its
thoughts are figments of your deranged imagination.

I thought I was discussing the matter with a member of my own species.

You are but what is at issue is that you attribute human thoughts and
emotions to foxes.

If you try reading the thread you should find that I don't do that.

See below.
[Snip]

You seem to have lost all sense of perspective where animals are
concerned. Animals don't have morals nor the thought processes to
consider the question.

Some of us do. Apparently you don't consider yourself to be an animal.
That's a fault in your perception and doesn't reflect reality.

Clutching at straws? You know very well that I was using animal in the
colloquial sense.

I use the term correctly. You betray a false claim of superiority.

You might consider the rest of the animal kingdom superior to mankind
but most of us don't.

Murder is a human construct and confined to humans.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

Yes you did. How else am I supposed to interpret " I don't see how an
ability to think gives you the right to murder" a few paragraphs above. I
can only assume that you think I shoot foxes myself. FWIW I have
never shot
a fox and haven't shot anything at all for more than 40 years.

You can claim a right to do 'something' without ever actually doing
'something'.

Answer the question you ignorant arse.

And the right to shoot vermin (and various other animals with certain
restrictions) is still the law of the land.

Given your extreme views I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that
you were a leading animal rights terrorist.

You have a sick idea of 'extreme'.

It is in the nature of extremism that those at the extremes consider
themselves mainstream. The sickness is all in your head.

I object to animal cruelty. You call me extreme. Yes I do consider myself to
be in the moral right; where you are I make no judgement.

Lying again no doubt. I bet you don't actually object to animal cruelty
per se, just to humans being cruel (in your eyes) to non human animals.
ISTR you are on record as saying fox hunters should be shot which
certainly is cruel and firmly puts you in the moral wrong.

Anthropomorphism gone mad.

You need to justify your 'sapiens' tag before you start complaining
that I'm seeing foxes as human.

'I think therefore I am'

And you do not understand Descartes - so don't pretend.

So you think you do, but you're insane.

I've studied Descartes at Post-Graduate level. I know I don't understand his
work! ;-)

but homo sapiens is label that applies equally to everyone

Homo sapiens

from moron to genius

You still fail to live up to the 'sapiens' part.

From a fruit and nutcase like you I take that as a compliment. I
have often
thought it odd that those who are particularly clever or even those who
think they are particularly clever are so often lacking in
commonsense. You
can no doubt argue the hind leg off a donkey but your basic proposition
that foxes and humans are equal

That's where you are up the creek. I make no such claim. I've deliberately
avoided any such claim and it's not necessary. I've concentrated on
demolishing the claims of H. sapiens to have rights over other animals
without any responsibilities. You have failed to respond to that and have
chosen instead to attack claims that I never made.

So you never wrote:

"*Else the fox's view of you as 'vermin' is just as valid and
justification for
you being shot out of hand."

Of course not, that garbage was written by someone else who just
happened to have the same name, etc. as yourself.

singles you out as demented and the more you to plead your case the more
ridiculous you appear to those who do not share your delusion.

You stated as a fact a few days ago that fox hunting hadn't been
around for
centuries.

I didn't do that either. One Hunt claims a long (200 years +) pedigree and
this may be correct - but I know of no confirmation of the claim. Fox
Hunting
in general became 'respectable' with officers in the Napoleonic Wars when
Wellington was keeping his troops hanging around before the push into france
from Spain. It didn't 'catch-on' generally until after those officers
returned
home and it mushroomed in the last half of the 19th century.

You are just a lying toe-rag. The message has expired on my machine and
I can't be bothered to go looking for the original but when Andy said
fox hunting had been around for centuries you denied it and you're still
trying to cast doubt on it having origins as early as the 1750s. Even
your soul-mates at the league against cruel sports accept that it has
been around for 250 years.

If you had had a bit more concern for the truth and a bit less for
your ego
we wouldn't have started arguing again and your reputation wouldn't be
quite so threadbare as it is now.

It's easy to attack someone if you distort their comments.

You should know, you're for ever doing it when the argument doesn't go
your way.

--
Roger Chapman