In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:23:35 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal
welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about
animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of
sport involving animals. They didn't.

You're saying that you're happy to encourage person A to rape & murder
because person B can get away with rape & murder, that theft should not be
punished unless all theft can be punished. I don't accept that that view
is either valid or moral.

That's good because that is not what I was saying at all.

It's no good trying to move things out of a very specific context and
example into something totally different and unrelated.

The point was very specifically about a poor piece of legislation that was
not enacted for the reasons claimed and which is fundamentally broken.
That's it. Nothing more.

As usual you don't want to look at the consequencies of your logic.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:29:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:23:35 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal
welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about
animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of
sport involving animals. They didn't.

You're saying that you're happy to encourage person A to rape & murder
because person B can get away with rape & murder, that theft should not be
punished unless all theft can be punished. I don't accept that that view
is either valid or moral.

That's good because that is not what I was saying at all.

It's no good trying to move things out of a very specific context and
example into something totally different and unrelated.

The point was very specifically about a poor piece of legislation that was
not enacted for the reasons claimed and which is fundamentally broken.
That's it. Nothing more.

As usual you don't want to look at the consequencies of your logic.

No. As usual, you want to take the discussion into an unrelated and
meaningless area that has nothing to do with the specifics of the
original point.



--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

John Cartmell wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

Roger wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

John Cartmell wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

Andy Hall wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

John Cartmell wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

Andy Hall wrote:
[ snip ]

Blah blah blah.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:10:41 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations.
These are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure
groups whose members are not involved in or affected by fox
hunting; an attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on
country dwellers and last but not least some kind of misplaced
class warfare.

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.


And rural taxpayers subsides all these deary suburbanites who come out
and gawp at the fields, and trees and the ruddy wildlife that WE have to
keep out of the crops and the fields and the gardens so that we can
actually have a countryside for someone to enjoy.

We DON'T have any buses and precious few post offices, and the ones we
do have run at a profit or vanish.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Roger
wrote:
like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

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

"Vermin" is a legal definition in this case. Look it up yourself.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Roger
wrote:
like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

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

"Vermin" is a legal definition in this case. Look it up yourself.

So you agree that you have no objective definition. Your 'other vermin' can
just as easily (actually far easier!) refer to you.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

So where is your evidence

It's normally only asked where there is any question. Are you seriously
questioning it - or have you not even bothered to Google?

Don't be stupid. Of course I am questioning it.

But as I thought you don't have any evidence.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

Vermin is quite adequately defined by law.

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

You really are totally insane if you think for a moment that there is
any truth in your latest statement. Odd really as not so long ago you
were pontificating on philosophy and now you are fantasizing about a
world in which foxes have rational thought, not to mention the right to
murder. Anthropomorphism gone mad.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

Blah blah blah.

I see our self-important self appointed net nanny has finally flipped.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
Blah blah blah.

I see our self-important self appointed net nanny has finally flipped.

More blah blah blah, roger. Got anything interesting to say?
Probably not.

In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

Vermin is quite adequately defined by law.

And defined entirely subjectively. Try to make the definition objective and
what follows is inevitable.

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

You really are totally insane if you think for a moment that there is any
truth in your latest statement.

Truth? The definition is based on the fox's relationship to man. Only by your
overwhelming self-aggrandisement can you fail to appreciate that the
definition could just as well be swapped around.

Odd really as not so long ago you were pontificating on philosophy and now
you are fantasizing about a world in which foxes have rational thought, not
to mention the right to murder.

Well you're struggling with that rational thought bit so I'm not pushing the
fox too far ahead. Even if you did fit the Homo sapiens tag I don't see how an
ability to think gives you the right to murder. If you justify something on
the grounds that you are 'better' - and those are the only moral grounds that
you can claim - then you need to start justifying that 'better' tag too. If
you're claiming the right simply because you have better weapons (and that
*is* the truth) then I find your claim to be without any moral value.

Anthropomorphism gone mad.

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

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have never said that I had any interest at all in being involved in
foxhunting. I simply said that it is not appropriate to waste
parliamentary time and invoking the Parliament Act to force through
legislation for which even the prime minister has little enthusiasm.

All of a sudden you value the PM's opinion?

The percentage of the population that ride to hounds or enjoy viewing this
'spectacle' is tiny. Yet the opposition to this legislation was way out of
proportion to this - but not surprisingly mainly from the Lords.

It would be nice to seeing them spend so much time debating issues that
effect the majority of the country.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.


I'm always in favour of tax cuts. However, subsidies are present all
over the place and in all kinds of facets of life.

Subsidy doesn't imply control.

For example, I'm not sure that the average taxpayer expects to control
how day care centres work when he doesn't have kids to send to one,
but he still pays.

There is free daycare for kids in your area? Do tell where.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Nigel Molesworth wrote:
Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc

Nonsense. The busses and POs are both run by private companies, and
where I live we don't have either.

All public transport is subsidised. Some routes more than others.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

So where is your evidence

It's normally only asked where there is any question. Are you seriously
questioning it - or have you not even bothered to Google?

Don't be stupid. Of course I am questioning it.

Which bit? If you're seriously questioning one, because you seriously haven't
heard of it and cannot find a reference, then you'll say which. If you're
simply being brain-dead awkward then you'll pretend that it's all beyond your
comprehension.

But as I thought you don't have any evidence.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (2000)
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales
London: HMSO.

Ward, N. (1999) 'Foxing the Nation: the economic (in)significance of hunting
with hounds in Britain'.
Journal of Rural Studies.
Vol 15, 389 -403.

Elias, N. (1986)
A Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process
Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Let me know when you have read those...

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:10:41 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations.
These are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure
groups whose members are not involved in or affected by fox
hunting; an attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on
country dwellers and last but not least some kind of misplaced
class warfare.

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.


Are you sure you want us in t'country to restrict your take of "our" water,
mineral workings, power stations etc etc? g
I reckon if we declared an independant republic of Yorkshire we would be in
an excellent trading position. We could charge enough for our natural
resources to forget altogether about taxation within the zone

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

Blah blah blah.

I see our self-important self appointed net nanny has finally flipped.

It's a change from SNIP DRIVEL and just as ridiculous

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:
From discussions with them most of the kills are rapid and must be
less traumatic than dying slowly over a week or so with a bullet or
shotgun
wound festering away, or a partial dose of poison.

You need to justify any sort of killing. Most of the so-called damage
'caused'
by foxes is caused because of the disruption done by killing foxes.
Until you appreciate that the whole thing is done for fun and status - and
not
for any need connected with foxes - you will continue to misunderstand the
whole business.

I need to justify nothing to you. You justify what the F... you like. You
are I suggest a fully entrenched bigot about this matter and as with others
could be faced with any number of pure facts but continue to recite the
party line.


The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices such
as
breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on the basis if
something is said often enough it must be right mustn't it? It is like
many
other things in life - someone makes an outrageous claim which because
there
isn't any data to question or disprove is difficult to refute.

So how do you refute the video-tape evidence? The whole thing is
well-known
and well understood. Evidence is hard to get because those getting it have
been threatened and beaten up. Despite that evidence has been obtained and
publicly aired - so why do you deny its existence?

More party lines from the anti brigade. As to the video evidence unless it
was produced, processed and edited by certified sources (i.e. Absolutely not
a single hint of fakery or creative editing) I wouldn't give it any credence
whatsoever never mind attempt to refute it.

As I said before I don't hunt but I get heartily sick of being subject to
preaching by those who don't either. I "do" shoot foxes or any other vermin
to get rid of them from my land but I certainly will not attempt to justify
this to you or any others with your opinions or viewpoint.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:54:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural
services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take
the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours
then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.


I'm always in favour of tax cuts. However, subsidies are present all
over the place and in all kinds of facets of life.

Subsidy doesn't imply control.

For example, I'm not sure that the average taxpayer expects to control
how day care centres work when he doesn't have kids to send to one,
but he still pays.

There is free daycare for kids in your area? Do tell where.


I didn't say free. There is subsidy, however. The current euphemism
is "early education".


--

..andy

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:52:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have never said that I had any interest at all in being involved in
foxhunting. I simply said that it is not appropriate to waste
parliamentary time and invoking the Parliament Act to force through
legislation for which even the prime minister has little enthusiasm.

All of a sudden you value the PM's opinion?


Not at all. However, one does have to question the behaviour of a
government whose leader does not fully support a piece of legislation
but uses the Parliament Act to get it through.



The percentage of the population that ride to hounds or enjoy viewing this
'spectacle' is tiny. Yet the opposition to this legislation was way out of
proportion to this - but not surprisingly mainly from the Lords.

Exactly. As I've already explained, much of the opposition is not
because of wanting to participate but because of use of a very heavy
parliamentary procedure to address something that only a small number
of people do and which does not involve or limit the freedoms of the
majority.

I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as
well?



It would be nice to seeing them spend so much time debating issues that
effect the majority of the country.


It would be nice to see the government spending time and my money on
things that really matter.


--

..andy

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

Vermin is quite adequately defined by law.

And defined entirely subjectively. Try to make the definition objective and
what follows is inevitable.

You don't find the law of the land adequate? Your problem, not mine.

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

You really are totally insane if you think for a moment that there is any
truth in your latest statement.

Truth? The definition is based on the fox's relationship to man. Only
by 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.

Odd really as not so long ago you were pontificating on philosophy and now
you are fantasizing about a world in which foxes have rational
thought, not
to mention the right to murder.

Well you're struggling with that rational thought bit so I'm not pushing the
fox too far ahead. Even if you did fit the Homo sapiens tag I don't
see how an
ability to think gives you the right to murder. If you justify something on
the grounds that you are 'better' - and those are the only moral
grounds that
you can claim - then you need to start justifying that 'better' tag too. If
you're claiming the right simply because you have better weapons (and that
*is* the truth) then I find your claim to be without any moral value.

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. Murder is a human construct and confined to
humans. Given your extreme views I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn
that you were a leading animal rights terrorist.

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' but homo sapiens is label that applies equally
to everyone from moron to genius and even includes Drivel. Sanity OTOH
is a judgement call and you are obviously insane.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

But as I thought you don't have any evidence.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (2000)
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England
and Wales
London: HMSO.

Ward, N. (1999) 'Foxing the Nation: the economic (in)significance of hunting
with hounds in Britain'.
Journal of Rural Studies.
Vol 15, 389 -403.

Elias, N. (1986)
A Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process
Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Let me know when you have read those...

I will if I ever find the time but as you haven't actually cited any
particular passages to support your claims I suspect that any evidence
is going to be both tendentious and tenuous.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as
well?

Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely
these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the
big difference.

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Roger
wrote: [about the legal definition of 'vermin']
Truth? The definition is based on the fox's relationship to man. Only by
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.

Odd really as not so long ago you were pontificating on philosophy and
now you are fantasizing about a world in which foxes have rational
thought, not to mention the right to murder.

Well you're struggling with that rational thought bit so I'm not pushing
the fox too far ahead. Even if you did fit the Homo sapiens tag I don't
see how an ability to think gives you the right to murder. If you justify
something on the grounds that you are 'better' - and those are the only
moral grounds that you can claim - then you need to start justifying that
'better' tag too. If you're claiming the right simply because you have
better weapons (and that *is* the truth) then I find your claim to be
without any moral value.

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.

Murder is a human construct and confined to humans.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

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'.

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.

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.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , John
wrote:
I "do" shoot foxes or any other vermin to get rid of them from my land but
I certainly will not attempt to justify this to you or any others with
your opinions or viewpoint.

Would you have a moral objection to someone placing the label 'vermin' on you
and shooting you? What then would be your *moral* objection?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Roger
wrote:
but as you haven't actually cited any particular passages

Apart from the 15 pages in Ward. Or is that too much reading? ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:36:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as
well?

Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely
these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the
big difference.

Hmmm..... I think that that one's a bit thin.

In the case of angling, why do it at all - i.e. why not leave the fish
alone? Swimming along, going for what seems to be a tasty tidbit and
then having a hook through the roof of the mouth doesn't strike me as
all that appealling to the fish.



--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Roger
wrote:
like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

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

"Vermin" is a legal definition in this case. Look it up yourself.

So you agree that you have no objective definition. Your 'other vermin' can
just as easily (actually far easier!) refer to you.

Er..what is an objective definition anyway?

If its written in the statute books, its a definition that is objective
to me.

You might as well say there is no objective definition of red.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely
these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the
big difference.

Hmmm..... I think that that one's a bit thin.

In the case of angling, why do it at all - i.e. why not leave the fish
alone? Swimming along, going for what seems to be a tasty tidbit and
then having a hook through the roof of the mouth doesn't strike me as
all that appealling to the fish.

I doubt a lamb much likes being killed for food either.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Roger
wrote:
like other vermin

Define 'vermin' without recourse to entirely subjective* statements.

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

"Vermin" is a legal definition in this case. Look it up yourself.

So you agree that you have no objective definition. Your 'other vermin'
can just as easily (actually far easier!) refer to you.

Er..what is an objective definition anyway?

One that applies to the animal rather than their social relationship to us. Eg
'Mammal' is objective as is 'Homo sapiens' and 'Vulpes vulpes'. 'Vermin' is
defined as those animals that 'we' consider to be pests - but as 'we' may not
agree which animals are pests; the list may vary from time-to-time and
place-to-place; the assumptions trhat 'we' make may be wrong; and 'we' are
frequently the instigator of what becomes a pest the definition is subjective
and has frequently been used to replace understanding or thinking through the
problem. Many an argument has been prematurely ended by someone blithely
stating, "it's vermin" without appreciating that the label may be without
sense.

If its written in the statute books, its a definition that is objective to
me.

It may be to you - if you wish to hide behind such a formulation without
thinking for yourself.

You might as well say there is no objective definition of red.

I can define 'red' by reference to a range of wavelengths of light. I can only
define 'vermin' by pointing to a list that is attached to the definition for
no objective reason. Now should you decide to define 'red' as a dozen or so
wavelengths of light spread across the spectrum - but ones that you
particularly dislike - then the comparison would be valid. You would have a
bloody stupid idea of what 'red' was though.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:36:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as
well?

Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely
these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the
big difference.

Hmmm..... I think that that one's a bit thin.

In the case of angling, why do it at all - i.e. why not leave the fish
alone? Swimming along, going for what seems to be a tasty tidbit and
then having a hook through the roof of the mouth doesn't strike me as
all that appealling to the fish.

So you want to ban fishing as well as strengthening the ban on hunting with
dogs? That's a respectable point of view.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:

I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as
well?

Because enough people do that to represent a sizeable class of
potentially lost votes.

It would be nice to see the government spending time and my money on
things that really matter.

too right...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:01:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely
these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the
big difference.

Hmmm..... I think that that one's a bit thin.

In the case of angling, why do it at all - i.e. why not leave the fish
alone? Swimming along, going for what seems to be a tasty tidbit and
then having a hook through the roof of the mouth doesn't strike me as
all that appealling to the fish.

I doubt a lamb much likes being killed for food either.

Probably spoils its entire day...


--

..andy