On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:12:07 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

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.

Exactly...


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

too right...

--

..andy

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:33:15 +0000 (UTC) John wrote :
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.

According to the Telegraph more foxes are now being shot than before the
hunting ban, presumably because in hunting areas it was thought to be
bad form to shoot foxes and thus spoil the sport. Therefore if we take
your line that foxes are vermin, the removal of the prejudice against
shooting them should a good thing.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:55:48 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

We have a bus on Thursdays.

--
Nigel M

John Cartmell wrote:

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 define vermin by reference to a range of species.

In the end all definitions are subjective..at what frequency does red
light become orange, for example?

Your logic is flawed, and your prejudices are clear.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:09:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.


Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and
consistency and that hasn't happened.


--

..andy

John wrote:
"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.

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

It doesn't matter, John, does it - there's so much ****e
posted here that a bit more does not matter - you've not
complained about it, anyway, have you.

P.S., thanks for the helpful posts you normally contribute.

Tony Bryer wrote:
According to the Telegraph more foxes are now being shot than before the
hunting ban, presumably because in hunting areas it was thought to be
bad form to shoot foxes and thus spoil the sport. Therefore if we take
your line that foxes are vermin, the removal of the prejudice against
shooting them should a good thing.

Shooting them will not help control numbers either, Cartmell said
in an earlier contribution. ROFL.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
According to the Telegraph more foxes are now being shot than before the
hunting ban, presumably because in hunting areas it was thought to be
bad form to shoot foxes and thus spoil the sport. Therefore if we take
your line that foxes are vermin, the removal of the prejudice against
shooting them should a good thing.

Shooting them will not help control numbers either, Cartmell said
in an earlier contribution. ROFL.

If you find a way of eliminating them without destroying other wildlife then
get in touch with the Australian authorities. they would very much like to
reverse the destruction caused by the introduction of foxes into that country.
Introduced by those wanting to hunt the foxes of course.

--
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 ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

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 define vermin by reference to a range of species.

You cannot. Or at least, if you try, it will have no points of contact with
the current definition.

In the end all definitions are subjective..at what frequency does red
light become orange, for example?

Wrong question; the colour (and description) shades.

Your logic is flawed,

If you can see the difference between labelling a continuous range of
wavelengths with one name and labelling a selection of non-continuous
wavelengths with another name then you can follow my logic.

and your prejudices are clear.

I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and ignorance - especially when
combined as in fox hunting.

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

Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and
consistency and that hasn't happened.

I'm honest & consistent. Don't blame me for those who aren't - and don't
expect me to accept your argument that says we shouldn't promote legislation
unless it includes all possible reforms.

--
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

John Cartmell wrote:

I'm prejudiced

And it shows.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
about his statement: [I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and
ignorance]

I'm prejudiced

And it shows.

But that doesn't alter my valid statements. It does bring into question your
prejudice in cutting the description of my prejudice - and makes one
wonder whose prejudice is in favour of cruelty, for destruction, and to
promote ignorance ... ;-)

--
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 13:22:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
So you want to ban fishing as well as strengthening the ban on hunting with
dogs? That's a respectable point of view.

Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and
consistency and that hasn't happened.

I'm honest & consistent. Don't blame me for those who aren't - and don't
expect me to accept your argument that says we shouldn't promote legislation
unless it includes all possible reforms.


I didn't say that it should include all possible reforms either. I
used angling as an illustration.

The reality is that the government is bankrupt over the whole issue
and it should be exposed for what it is.


--

..andy

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:19:47 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and ignorance - especially when
combined as in fox hunting.


.... or in Nulaber government......


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:22:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
So you want to ban fishing as well as strengthening the ban on hunting
with dogs? That's a respectable point of view.

Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and
consistency and that hasn't happened.

I'm honest & consistent. Don't blame me for those who aren't - and don't
expect me to accept your argument that says we shouldn't promote
legislation unless it includes all possible reforms.

I didn't say that it should include all possible reforms either. I used
angling as an illustration.

The reality is that the government is bankrupt over the whole issue and it
should be exposed for what it is.

I'd rather a government that allowed some reform - rather than one that denied
all reform. Your view reminds me of some entrenched Socialist Worker
supporters who opposed any minor reforms on the grounds that they merely put
off the revolution. I'l support the minor reforms (though push to help make
them a touch larger than the 'powers that be' originally intended. ;-)

--
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 14:48:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:22:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
So you want to ban fishing as well as strengthening the ban on hunting
with dogs? That's a respectable point of view.

Not really. I would simply like there to be some honesty and
consistency and that hasn't happened.

I'm honest & consistent. Don't blame me for those who aren't - and don't
expect me to accept your argument that says we shouldn't promote
legislation unless it includes all possible reforms.

I didn't say that it should include all possible reforms either. I used
angling as an illustration.

The reality is that the government is bankrupt over the whole issue and it
should be exposed for what it is.

I'd rather a government that allowed some reform - rather than one that denied
all reform.

Absolutely. I would start with repeal of part P of the Building
Regulations and this hunting rubbish. We could then move on to the
NHS, but there I would go for euthanasia.

Your view reminds me of some entrenched Socialist Worker
supporters who opposed any minor reforms on the grounds that they merely put
off the revolution. I'l support the minor reforms (though push to help make
them a touch larger than the 'powers that be' originally intended. ;-)


How in your wildest dreams you could imagine that I could be anything
like a Socialist Worker support amazes me.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Your view reminds me of some entrenched Socialist Worker supporters who
opposed any minor reforms on the grounds that they merely put off the
revolution. I'l support the minor reforms (though push to help make them a
touch larger than the 'powers that be' originally intended. ;-)

How in your wildest dreams you could imagine that I could be anything like
a Socialist Worker support amazes me.

But when you say exactly the same nonsense ... ;-)

--
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

John Cartmell wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
about his statement: [I'm prejudiced against cruelty, destruction, and
ignorance]
I'm prejudiced

And it shows.

But that doesn't alter my valid statements.

What? Where.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:26:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Your view reminds me of some entrenched Socialist Worker supporters who
opposed any minor reforms on the grounds that they merely put off the
revolution. I'l support the minor reforms (though push to help make them a
touch larger than the 'powers that be' originally intended. ;-)

How in your wildest dreams you could imagine that I could be anything like
a Socialist Worker support amazes me.

But when you say exactly the same nonsense ... ;-)

??



--

..andy

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

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.

No it is torturing for fun which to my mind is as bad if not worse. It
is also much more prevelant than fox hunting so banning it make a much
bigger contribution to animal welfare than banning fox hunting.

--
Roger Chapman

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
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.

[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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
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:

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

In article ,
Roger 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.

No it is torturing for fun which to my mind is as bad if not worse. It
is also much more prevelant than fox hunting so banning it make a much
bigger contribution to animal welfare than banning fox hunting.

Sorry, Roger, but you don't give the impression you're interested in
animal welfare.

Fish that are caught and returned seem to do rather well. They continue to
put on weight. Even if caught many, many, times. A fox ripped apart by
hounds not.

BTW, I don't fish. I'd rather watch paint dry.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

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

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
unless you are vegan, I see nothing but hypocrisy in your viewpoint

You're working really hard to get that ad hominem irrelevancy to stick! ;-)

--
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 502887 20060222 232130 Roger wrote:
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



Your insults and bad language don't help your case, Roger.

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint.
Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

And it's "tow-rag"!

In article ,
Roger wrote:
And the right to shoot vermin (and various other animals with certain
restrictions) is still the law of the land.

o to the right land at the right time and you find the right to shoot a
diverse bunch of animals - including Welshmen at one time. Was that intended
as some form of justification?

--
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:
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 I did. I get the impression that you struggle with your
understanding of the English language. If you (or the law) apply the word
'vermin' with no reason (other than to animals that you take a dislike to)
then there is no moral reason for you (or the whole of our species) to be
added to that list. Can you think of any reason why foxes wouldn't stick H.
sapiens on the list of 'vermin'?

--
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:
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.

Oh dear! I mentioned the early history in my original mailing. Some people
have hunted foxes for a long time but what we now regard as Fox Hunting with
Hunts and packs of dogs was very rare until the 19th century. The 'It's part
of our heritage' claim is pure bunkum.

--
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 "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

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.

No it is torturing for fun which to my mind is as bad if not worse. It
is also much more prevalent than fox hunting so banning it make a much
bigger contribution to animal welfare than banning fox hunting.

Sorry, Roger, but you don't give the impression you're interested in
animal welfare.

You could say I am disinterested. What gets my goat* is the hypocrisy of
the likes of Tony Banks whose opposition to fox hunting was driven by
class hatred rather than genuine welfare considerations and that of
those who think foxes should be protected because they look nice and
cuddly but cheerfully support the slaughter of other vermin because they
do not.

Fish that are caught and returned seem to do rather well. They continue to
put on weight. Even if caught many, many, times. A fox ripped apart by
hounds not.

But they suffer every time they are caught. Foxes frequently evade
capture and in doing so probably suffer less than a hooked fish. The
foxes that are caught are frequently those that are old and infirm and
heading for a nasty death anyway. Being killed by a pack of dogs cannot
be a pleasant experience but neither is dying a lingering death from
untreated disease or starvation. For wild animals a comfortable death is
very much the exception.

BTW, I don't fish. I'd rather watch paint dry.

Ditto.

*And of course those who put animals on an equal or superior level to humans.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Bob Martin contains these words:

Your insults and bad language don't help your case, Roger.

I can't stand dishonesty. I try and resist answering insults with
insults these days but occasionally it seems justified.

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint.

A pretty strange viewpoint that has the life of a fox, or indeed of any
other animal, as valuable as the life of a human.

Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

I'd agree with you there apart from the actual extermination. The
species will probably survive but not civilisation as we know it.

And it's "tow-rag"!

Except that it isn't.

A tow-rag would be useful (not that it appears in my dictionary). A
toerag (no hyphen apparently) is not. According to Collins the
derivation is from pieces of rag beggars or tramps wrapped round their
feet.

--
Roger Chapman

Bob Martin wrote:


Your insults and bad language don't help your case, Roger.

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint.
Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

Possibly. I often wonder what the response would be of a member of the
anti-hunt brigade, faced with a rabid fox, a pack of dogs and a child
with its face half ripped off.

Presumably kill the child, and the dogs....and take the fox to hospital..

in 502988 20060223 114821 Roger wrote:

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint.

A pretty strange viewpoint that has the life of a fox, or indeed of any
other animal, as valuable as the life of a human.

I was thinking of the fox's point of view ;-)
Anyway, valuable to whom? Obviously, the life of a human is more valuable
to another human. The fox population is tiny and fairly static, but the human
population is horrendously large and growing at an unsustainable rate.
From a detached and objective point of view a human life is not worth much.

My garden has grey squirrels, foxes and the occasional badger, and I feel my
life is enriched by them.

Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

I'd agree with you there apart from the actual extermination. The
species will probably survive but not civilisation as we know it.

The few that do survive will be back in the stone age. Have you seen
the Horizon programme on global dimming?

Bob Martin wrote:
Have you seen
the Horizon programme on global dimming?


Is that why people are doing strange things like banning foxhunting? A
global reduction in IQ?

Seems plausible ;-)

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Roger wrote:
And the right to shoot vermin (and various other animals with certain
restrictions) is still the law of the land.

o to the right land at the right time and you find the right to shoot a
diverse bunch of animals - including Welshmen at one time. Was that intended
as some form of justification?

Nothing is any justification for anything.

You are alive. That means you live of other peoples efforts and other
creatures deaths.

Sometimes those deaths are not pleasant.

Fox hunting at least is a tribute to the bloody fox...he gets a chase,
and a quick end, or escapes.

Rather than a lingering death of failing organs and starvation.

I hope you too suffer a long and lingering death, where, as you silently
scream for something - even a pack of hounds - to come along and break
your shabby neck, you are nonetheless surrounded by 'caring and
concerned humanitarians' who keep you alive long enough to fully
experience the total agony of some chronic wasting disease.

I feel that would be a just and fitting tribute to your views.

in 503023 20060223 130954 The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I hope you too suffer a long and lingering death, where, as you silently
scream for something - even a pack of hounds - to come along and break
your shabby neck, you are nonetheless surrounded by 'caring and
concerned humanitarians' who keep you alive long enough to fully
experience the total agony of some chronic wasting disease.

I feel that would be a just and fitting tribute to your views.

So that's how you feel about anyone who's views differ from your own?
I don't think I'll take any future notice of your opinions.

in 503010 20060223 124929 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:


Your insults and bad language don't help your case, Roger.

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint.
Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

Possibly. I often wonder what the response would be of a member of the
anti-hunt brigade, faced with a rabid fox, a pack of dogs and a child
with its face half ripped off.

Presumably kill the child, and the dogs....and take the fox to hospital..

Sounds as if you are the one who is rabid.
It's easy to spot the hunt supporters in any discussion about fox-hunting,
they are the ones with the nasty, vicious, extreme views.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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.

Oh dear! I mentioned the early history in my original mailing. Some people
have hunted foxes for a long time but what we now regard as Fox Hunting with
Hunts and packs of dogs was very rare until the 19th century. The 'It's part
of our heritage' claim is pure bunkum.

Do you or do you not deny that prior to what you claim is your original
mailing you told Andy that fox hunting had not been around for
centuries?

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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 I did. I get the impression that you struggle with your
understanding of the English language. If you (or the law) apply the word
'vermin' with no reason (other than to animals that you take a dislike to)
then there is no moral reason for you (or the whole of our species) to be
added to that list. Can you think of any reason why foxes wouldn't stick H.
sapiens on the list of 'vermin'?

And you claim not to "attribute human thoughts and emotions to foxes".
You're as nutty as a fuit cake.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Bob Martin contains these words:

As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of
viewpoint.

A pretty strange viewpoint that has the life of a fox, or indeed of any
other animal, as valuable as the life of a human.

I was thinking of the fox's point of view ;-)

Foxes don't have a POV.

Anyway, valuable to whom? Obviously, the life of a human is more valuable
to another human. The fox population is tiny and fairly static, but
the human
population is horrendously large and growing at an unsustainable rate.
From a detached and objective point of view a human life is not worth much.

Not to members of other species perhaps but other species don't have the
mental equipment to formulate a POV.

My garden has grey squirrels, foxes and the occasional badger, and I feel my
life is enriched by them.

Maybe, but if you had red squirrels and a garden full of free range
chickens would you see it differently?

Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this
planet has
ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.

I'd agree with you there apart from the actual extermination. The
species will probably survive but not civilisation as we know it.

The few that do survive will be back in the stone age. Have you seen
the Horizon programme on global dimming?

I tend to watch programs like Horizon but I can't call it to mind. Was
it recent, or perhaps one of those programs the BBC is using as bait to
persuade the reluctant to switch to digital?

Anyway stone age seems a bit extreme. Working with iron is not exactly
rocket science and there will be plenty of scrap around following any
catastrophic disaster.

--
Roger Chapman