In article , 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.

Packs of dogs can do terrible injuries - especially to children.

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

There's nothing you could do for the fox, the pack need to be broken up and
sent to good homes (wherever that might be possible), the child taken to
hospital, and the idiots who allowed rabies into the country - and those
(ir)responsible for packs of dogs - need to be thrown into prison.

--
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:
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.

Is this some strange belief system of yours - or can you give references to a
peer-reviewed research article that gave you such extra-ordinary insight?

[Snip]

I tend to watch programs like Horizon but I can't call it to mind.

From the last/current series. It got a re-run this week.

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.

Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough skilled
people capable even of stone-age technology.

--
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:
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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one hunted
foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently clear. I do
(still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a large number of
Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is an invention of the
19th century.

--
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:27:24 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Roger
wrote:
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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one hunted
foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently clear. I do
(still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a large number of
Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is an invention of the
19th century.


The reality is that some date back many centuries (e.g. Garth 1770,
Oakley 1800, Cambridgeshire late 18th century, Grafton 1735, ) while
others are as recent as the last few years.

http://www.mfha.co.uk/hunts/vale_of_...ks_hunt. html

For many of them, there are records predating 1800 indicating that
there were packs of hounds and that hunting took place on the land. In
that sense, it is a tradition spanning several centuries.

Clearly a lot were set up in the early 19th century in their present
form, but that does not detract from the long history of fox hunting
with hounds in the UK.

I can't think of any sporting activity that has remained unchanged
from inception to the present day, but nobody argues that rugby or
cricket don't have long traditions.



--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I can't think of any sporting activity that has remained unchanged
from inception to the present day, but nobody argues that rugby or
cricket don't have long traditions.

Rugby and Cricket are pushing 150 years old - even though a history of them
may very well mention games going back hundreds of years.

--
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:
Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough skilled
people capable even of stone-age technology.

UKDIY of course.

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:27:24 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Roger
wrote:

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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one hunted
foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently clear. I do
(still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a large number of
Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is an invention of the
19th century.



The reality is that some date back many centuries (e.g. Garth 1770,
Oakley 1800, Cambridgeshire late 18th century, Grafton 1735, ) while
others are as recent as the last few years.

http://www.mfha.co.uk/hunts/vale_of_...ks_hunt. html

For many of them, there are records predating 1800 indicating that
there were packs of hounds and that hunting took place on the land. In
that sense, it is a tradition spanning several centuries.

Clearly a lot were set up in the early 19th century in their present
form, but that does not detract from the long history of fox hunting
with hounds in the UK.

I can't think of any sporting activity that has remained unchanged
from inception to the present day, but nobody argues that rugby or
cricket don't have long traditions.



Is not fox hunting an extension of boar hunting as commonly occurred in
Epping forest and else where, for millenia?

So boar hunting is a no no also?

When do we get dIMM hunting?

Regards
Capitol

The message
from John Cartmell 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.

Is this some strange belief system of yours - or can you give
references to a
peer-reviewed research article that gave you such extra-ordinary insight?

The strange belief system is yours and so should the proof be.

[Snip]

I tend to watch programs like Horizon but I can't call it to mind.

From the last/current series. It got a re-run this week.

You mean the item on UKTV History at 4pm on monday? No wonder I didn't see it.

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.

Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough skilled
people capable even of stone-age technology.

From the ranks of this very newsgroup if it was necessary atm. Most of
us (Dribble excepted) have a good many practical skills but I think you
have the difficulty the wrong way round. With iron to hand ISTM that
working with iron might actually be easier than working with stone.
However a return to the stone age is also intrinsically unlikely as the
artifacts of the post stone age world (including a good many mechanical
tools) would not all disappear overnight unless the planet was totally
distroyed in which case there really would be no one left.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:


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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one hunted
foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently clear. I do
(still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a large number of
Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is an invention of the
19th century.

"BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No"

That looks like pretty positive evidence to me.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Capitol
wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:
Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough
skilled people capable even of stone-age technology.

UKDIY of course.

So any advice on which shed to get supplies of decent flint from ...?

--
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:

I can't think of any sporting activity that has remained unchanged
from inception to the present day, but nobody argues that rugby or
cricket don't have long traditions.

Rugby and Cricket are pushing 150 years old - even though a history of them
may very well mention games going back hundreds of years.

Hunting on horseback goes back a millennium or more but wild boar (among
other quarry) have not been available for many a long year (at least not
until very recently).

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

The reality is that some date back many centuries (e.g. Garth 1770,
Oakley 1800, Cambridgeshire late 18th century, Grafton 1735, ) while
others are as recent as the last few years.

http://www.mfha.co.uk/hunts/vale_of_...ks_hunt. html

For many of them, there are records predating 1800 indicating that
there were packs of hounds and that hunting took place on the land. In
that sense, it is a tradition spanning several centuries.

I wouldn't have thought an otherwise obscure Cumbrian farmer (John Peel)
would have taken to it in a big way if it hadn't already been a country
pursuit in the North of England.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
[specifically about V. vulpes - but generally about all animals except H.
sapiens]

They can learn from experience but much of their behaviour is driven by
instinct.

As arguably is much of yours - including, as an example, the acquisition of
grammar. Foxes are social animals and much of their behaviour is based on
learning rather than instinct alone. Much like yours.



To claim they can reason to any meaningful extent is ludicrous.
Sticking "H. sapiens on the list of 'vermin'" would be a uniquely human
action.

--
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:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:


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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one
hunted foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently
clear. I do (still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a
large number of Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is
an invention of the 19th century.

"BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No"

That looks like pretty positive evidence to me.

Distinguish between 'hunting foxes' and 'Fox-hunting'. As I've already said,
if you didn't pick up the distinction then I apologise for not making it
clearer.

--
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

Bob Martin wrote:
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.

Not at all. Thats how I feel about someone whose attitudes are so far
removed from the reality of life, that sooner or later, this is
precisely what will happen to them.

Bob Martin wrote:
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.

nan nah ne nah.
Those aren't MY views. Those are animal rights sort of views.

Roger wrote:

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?


From wikipedia.

Using scenthounds to track prey dates back to Assyrian, Babylonian and
ancient Egyptian times, and is known as venery. In England, hunting with
hounds was popular before the Romans arrived, using the Agassaei breed.
The Romans brought their Castorian and Fulpine hound breeds, along with
importing the brown hare (the mountain hare is native) and additional
species of deer as quarry. Wild boar was also hunted. The Norman hunting
traditions were added when William the Conqueror arrived, along with the
Gascon and Talbot hounds; indeed, the traditional hunting cry 'tally ho'
derives from the Norman French equivalent of 'il est haut' (he is up);
ie. the stag has started running. By 1340 the four beasts of venery were
the hare, the hart, the wolf and the wild boar. The five beasts of the
chase were the buck, the doe, the fox, the marten and the roe.

The earliest known attempt to hunt a fox with hounds was in Norfolk,
England, in 1534, where farmers began chasing down foxes with their dogs
as pest control. By the end of the seventeenth century many organised
packs were hunting both hare and fox, and during the eighteenth century
packs specifically for fox hunting were appearing. The passing of the
Enclosure Acts from 1760 to 1840 had made hunting deer much more
difficult in many areas of the country, as that requires great areas of
open land. Also, the new fences made jumping the obstacles separating
the fields part of the hunting tradition. With the onset of the
Industrial Revolution, people began to move out of the country and into
towns and cities to find work. Roads, rail and canals split the hunting
country, but also made hunting accessible to more people. Shotguns were
improved during the nineteenth century and game shooting became more
popular. To protect the pheasants for the shooters, gamekeepers culled
the foxes almost to extirpation in popular areas, which caused the
huntsmen to improve their coverts. Finally the Game Laws were relaxed in
1831 and later abolished, which meant anyone could obtain a permit to
take rabbits, hares and gamebirds.

Although viewed as a typically traditional rural British activity,
hunting with hounds takes place all over the world. Hunts in the United
States, Canada, Ireland and India are legacies of the British Empire to
some extent, although some claim that the first pack devoted to hunting
only fox was located in the United States. In 2004 the Masters of
Foxhounds Association of America included 170 registered packs in the US
and Canada, and there are many additional farmer (non-recognised) packs.

Many other Greek- and Roman-influenced countries have their own long
tradition of hunting with hounds. France and Italy for example, have
thriving fox hunts. In Switzerland and Germany, where fox hunting was
once popular, the activity has been outlawed, although Germany continues
to allow deer to be driven by dogs to guns. In some countries drag
hunting is also popular, either instead of or in addition to quarry
hunting, in which a scented bag is dragged over a pre-determined course.
Bloodhounds are used in some areas to hunt the "clean boot", a human
runner, for sport.

When fox hunting in the United States, the fox is rarely caught. In
fact, much effort goes into training the foxes so that they do not get
caught. In the late summer of the year, the hunt take the young hounds
out "cubbing". They teach the puppies to hunt while they are teaching
the young foxes to give chase. In Britain "cubbing" consists of training
the young hounds in hunting by firstly surrounding a covert and then
'drawing' it with the puppies, allowing them to hunt and kill within the
surrounded wood. Once the season proper starts (usually from early
November), the idea is to drive the fox from the covert and chase it
over open countryside.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:13:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Capitol
wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:
Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough
skilled people capable even of stone-age technology.

UKDIY of course.

So any advice on which shed to get supplies of decent flint from ...?



Focus, but the surly teenagers won't sell it to you.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:

In article , Capitol
wrote:



John Cartmell wrote:

Back on topic. Perhaps you would like to suggest where we get enough
skilled people capable even of stone-age technology.


UKDIY of course.


So any advice on which shed to get supplies of decent flint from ...?

My ( and probably your) back garden(s).

Regards
Capitol

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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?

I do deny that I made a posting prior to my original posting! I haven't
changed my claim. If you read that original as my saying that no-one
hunted foxes at all then I apologise for not making it sufficiently
clear. I do (still) claim that what we now recognise as Fox Hunting - a
large number of Hunts set up as Fox Hunts and having regular meets - is
an invention of the 19th century.

"BTW - you're misleading yourself. Centuries? Fox-hunting? No"

That looks like pretty positive evidence to me.

Distinguish between 'hunting foxes' and 'Fox-hunting'. As I've already said,
if you didn't pick up the distinction then I apologise for not making it
clearer.

Weasel words. Fox-hunting - per Collins "a sport in which hunters follow
a pack of hounds in pursuit a fox" has undoubtedly been around for more
than 2 centuries and that is precisely what you denied and ISTM are
still denying behind the smokescreen above.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

UKDIY of course.

So any advice on which shed to get supplies of decent flint from ...?



Focus, but the surly teenagers won't sell it to you.

Surely on this ng the proper advice is to diy. Get an antler pick (to be
authentic) and visit Grimes Graves.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

[specifically about V. vulpes - but generally about all animals except H.
sapiens]

They can learn from experience but much of their behaviour is driven by
instinct.

As arguably is much of yours - including, as an example, the acquisition of
grammar. Foxes are social animals and much of their behaviour is based on
learning rather than instinct alone. Much like yours.

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but foxes
do not reason.

To claim they can reason to any meaningful extent is ludicrous.
Sticking "H. sapiens on the list of 'vermin'" would be a uniquely human
action.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
Distinguish between 'hunting foxes' and 'Fox-hunting'. As I've already said,
if you didn't pick up the distinction then I apologise for not making it
clearer.

Weasel words. Fox-hunting - per Collins "a sport in which hunters follow
a pack of hounds in pursuit a fox" has undoubtedly been around for more
than 2 centuries and that is precisely what you denied and ISTM are
still denying behind the smokescreen above.

Woof! Snarl! Growl!

Why don't you two lovely boys read "Handley Cross" and then come back.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
So any advice on which shed to get supplies of decent flint from ...?

My ( and probably your) back garden(s).

You obviously haven't seen my back garden! 8 feet of builder's rubble on top
of many more feet of Mersey floodplain.

--
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:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

[specifically about V. vulpes - but generally about all animals except H.
sapiens]

They can learn from experience but much of their behaviour is driven by
instinct.

As arguably is much of yours - including, as an example, the acquisition
of grammar. Foxes are social animals and much of their behaviour is based
on learning rather than instinct alone. Much like yours.

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but foxes do
not reason.

The moot has met and more has been decided than you appreciate. And foxes do
reason - no question. They learn and they make decisions.

--
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 503194 20060223 215014 Roger wrote:
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

[specifically about V. vulpes - but generally about all animals except H.
sapiens]

They can learn from experience but much of their behaviour is driven by
instinct.

As arguably is much of yours - including, as an example, the acquisition of
grammar. Foxes are social animals and much of their behaviour is based on
learning rather than instinct alone. Much like yours.

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but foxes
do not reason.

That's right, Roger, stick to your view that humans are special and unique,
put here by God, who also put a few million other species here for us to eat
and play with. You are closer to the chimpanzee than you think.

The message
from Bob Martin contains these words:

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but foxes
do not reason.

That's right, Roger, stick to your view that humans are special and unique,
put here by God, who also put a few million other species here for us to eat
and play with. You are closer to the chimpanzee than you think.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is a very high probability that your
notions above reflect your view of the world much more closely than they
do mine.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

[specifically about V. vulpes - but generally about all animals
except H.
sapiens]

They can learn from experience but much of their behaviour is
driven by
instinct.

As arguably is much of yours - including, as an example, the acquisition
of grammar. Foxes are social animals and much of their behaviour
is based
on learning rather than instinct alone. Much like yours.

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but
foxes do
not reason.

The moot has met and more has been decided than you appreciate. And foxes do
reason - no question. They learn and they make decisions.

Learnt responses don't require thinking and decisions at a foxes level
are driven by learnt response and instinct, not rational thought. You
have to stretch the meaning of words such as 'thinking' and 'rational
thought' well past breaking point to get them to apply to foxes.
Decisions such as putting man on the vulpine list of vermin are
impossible for foxes as is even thinking about such a concept.

--
Roger Chapman

in 503273 20060224 090813 Roger wrote:
The message
from Bob Martin contains these words:

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but foxes
do not reason.

That's right, Roger, stick to your view that humans are special and unique,
put here by God, who also put a few million other species here for us to eat
and play with. You are closer to the chimpanzee than you think.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is a very high probability that your
notions above reflect your view of the world much more closely than they
do mine.

Really? Well, I'm an atheist, believe in evolution and think that the differences
between the species are far less than generally thought.

Unlike the lawyer for the Countryside Alliance who famously said "we don't know if foxes
feel pain, and until we do we should assume that they don't." Yes, she really said that.

In article , Roger
wrote:
Learnt responses don't require thinking and decisions at a foxes level are
driven by learnt response and instinct, not rational thought.

You have no evidence for anything you have written here. Much depends on
definitions and some people would say that humans operate on the same level
you describe. What you need to show is a clear difference in more than just
degree between H. sapiens and other animals. You cannot do so.

You have to stretch the meaning of words such as 'thinking' and 'rational
thought' well past breaking point to get them to apply to foxes.

They are more than capable of being stretched. Evidence is available that
proves quite conclusively that decisions made by humans are no such thing -
but are simply justifications made after the event. Whether you accept that or
not there is one thing that is abundantly clear - and that's that your
simplistic distinction between H. sapiens and the other animals has no
foundation in fact.

Decisions such as putting man on the vulpine list of vermin are impossible
for foxes as is even thinking about such a concept.

Come back to me when you can explain just how a fox can think. Most of us find
it hard enough to appreciate the differences between humans.

--
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 , Bob Martin
wrote:
in 503273 20060224 090813 Roger wrote:
The message from Bob Martin
contains these words:

It is a moot point how much is learnt and how much is instinct but
foxes do not reason.

That's right, Roger, stick to your view that humans are special and
unique, put here by God, who also put a few million other species here
for us to eat and play with. You are closer to the chimpanzee than you
think.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is a very high probability that your
notions above reflect your view of the world much more closely than they
do mine.

Really? Well, I'm an atheist, believe in evolution and think that the
differences between the species are far less than generally thought.

Unlike the lawyer for the Countryside Alliance who famously said "we don't
know if foxes feel pain, and until we do we should assume that they don't."
Yes, she really said that.

And we know that they do - at least as certainly as we know that other humans
feel pain.

--
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 Bob Martin contains these words:

You couldn't be more wrong. There is a very high probability that your
notions above reflect your view of the world much more closely than they
do mine.

Really?

Yes really. The picture you tried to paint of me would fit the majority
of the population much closer so the chances were that you fitted in
there too.

Well, I'm an atheist,

snap

believe in evolution

snap

and think that the differences between the species are far less than
generally thought.

We differ very little on that as well but I seem to interpret that in a
different way.

Unlike the lawyer for the Countryside Alliance who famously said "we
don't know if foxes
feel pain, and until we do we should assume that they don't." Yes,
she really said that.

Did she really? (Sounds more like Tony Banks on fishing). But then you
can't trust anything a lawyer says without taking a second opinion. They
are after all the only lawful profession where those held in greatest
regard are those who can engineer the greatest miscarriages of justice.

Incidentally a scientist interviewed on the box recently said something
to the effect that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and 40% with
bananas and he had no affinity for bananas.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

Learnt responses don't require thinking and decisions at a foxes level are
driven by learnt response and instinct, not rational thought.

You have no evidence for anything you have written here. Much depends on
definitions and some people would say that humans operate on the same level
you describe. What you need to show is a clear difference in more than just
degree between H. sapiens and other animals. You cannot do so.

As usual you are putting the cart before the horse. It is not for me to
prove that foxes don't think but for you to prove that they do.

You have to stretch the meaning of words such as 'thinking' and 'rational
thought' well past breaking point to get them to apply to foxes.

They are more than capable of being stretched. Evidence is available that
proves quite conclusively that decisions made by humans are no such thing -
but are simply justifications made after the event. Whether you accept
that or
not there is one thing that is abundantly clear - and that's that your
simplistic distinction between H. sapiens and the other animals has no
foundation in fact.

I find it impossible even to contemplate how someone who has decided to
end their life can justify that decision after the event and would very
much like to see your conclusive evidence.

Decisions such as putting man on the vulpine list of vermin are impossible
for foxes as is even thinking about such a concept.

Come back to me when you can explain just how a fox can think. Most of
us find
it hard enough to appreciate the differences between humans.

Have you been drinking to excess. The above paragraph really makes no
sense at all. Firstly it is up to you, not me, to explain how foxes can
think, let alone draw up a list of vermin, having carefully defined the
term first. And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom
can demonstrate they can think at least to a certain extent, seem to
have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals. Incidentally
you should note before you attempt to take me to task for using animals
in this context again that one of the several dictionary definitions
specifically excludes man.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
As usual you are putting the cart before the horse. It is not for me to
prove that foxes don't think but for you to prove that they do.

I don't think that you think. Prove I'm wrong or accept that I can treat you
like you'd treat a fox.

Anyone got a spare shotgun?

--
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:
They are more than capable of being stretched. Evidence is available that
proves quite conclusively that decisions made by humans are no such thing
- but are simply justifications made after the event. Whether you accept
that or not there is one thing that is abundantly clear - and that's that
your simplistic distinction between H. sapiens and the other animals has
no foundation in fact.

I find it impossible even to contemplate

I appreciate that you're struggling with these ideas.

how someone who has decided to end their life can justify that decision
after the event and would very much like to see your conclusive evidence.

Think about it - and let us know when you have worked that to its conclusion.
You *should* be able to work out where you have confounded yourself! ;-)

In the meantime it has been shown that it's possible for people to react to a
stimulus faster than it's possible for the signals to go to the brain and back
- and yet for the subject to insist that the reaction was as a result of a
conscious decision. That would be impossible and it's clear that the subjects
were making sense of their automatic reaction after the event.

What you think you know aint necessarily the case.

--
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:
And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can demonstrate
they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

Incidentally you should note before you attempt to take me to task for
using animals in this context again that one of the several dictionary
definitions specifically excludes man.

I understood that we were discussing science and ethics. If you're relying on
dictionary and legal definitions its no surprise that your understanding is
limited. You might as well confine yourself to the science of Genesis.

--
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:

As usual you are putting the cart before the horse. It is not for me to
prove that foxes don't think but for you to prove that they do.

I don't think that you think. Prove I'm wrong or accept that I can treat you
like you'd treat a fox.

As I said before all you are doing is demostrating your insanity. If I
don't think how could I possibly have thought that you were lying when
you denied that fox-hunting had been around for centuries.

Anyone got a spare shotgun?

Now what would you want that for? No don't answer that. You have amply
demostrated your murderous intent in the past and the last thing I want
to do is encourage you.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can demonstrate
they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

Certainly the lack of rational thought can be assessed by their
behaviour but you would have us believe that they are capable of
rational thought and not just some statistical anomaly but actually
creating the concept of vermin and construct a list of vermin.

Incidentally you should note before you attempt to take me to task for
using animals in this context again that one of the several dictionary
definitions specifically excludes man.

I understood that we were discussing science and ethics. If you're
relying on
dictionary and legal definitions its no surprise that your understanding is
limited. You might as well confine yourself to the science of Genesis.

If you weren't so keen to demonstrate what a patronising prat you are
this argument would be over much sooner. In order to communicate we need
a common language. I use English and when in doubt I consult a
dictionary for the accepted meanings of the words in question. You on
the other hand are happy to distort meanings to fit your arguments with
no regard to actual meaning. And as for Genesis if you believe there is
any science in Genesis you are a bigger prat than even I took you to be.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

They are more than capable of being stretched. Evidence is
available that
proves quite conclusively that decisions made by humans are no
such thing
- but are simply justifications made after the event. Whether you accept
that or not there is one thing that is abundantly clear - and
that's that
your simplistic distinction between H. sapiens and the other animals has
no foundation in fact.

I find it impossible even to contemplate

I appreciate that you're struggling with these ideas.

Pompous prat.

how someone who has decided to end their life can justify that decision
after the event and would very much like to see your conclusive evidence.

Think about it - and let us know when you have worked that to its
conclusion.
You *should* be able to work out where you have confounded yourself! ;-)

You have no evidence, conclusive or not, so you resort to your usual
mode of mindless denigration.

In the meantime it has been shown that it's possible for people to
react to a
stimulus faster than it's possible for the signals to go to the brain
and back
- and yet for the subject to insist that the reaction was as a result of a
conscious decision. That would be impossible and it's clear that the
subjects
were making sense of their automatic reaction after the event.

Simple reflex actions are well known. Whether subjects then try to
justify them as conscious decisions is certainly a possibility but that
is a far cry from your blanket claim that decisions (without any
qualification) are " simply justifications made after the event".

What you think you know aint necessarily the case.

Certainly the case with you.

If humans really were driven as much by instinct as you seem to think
then the one thing we would all do instinctively is hunt. Man was a
hunter long before he was a farmer and for much longer so hunting should
be in the genes even if farming isn't.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
Now what would you want that for? No don't answer that. You have amply
demostrated your murderous intent in the past and the last thing I want
to do is encourage you.

I could interpret that as an indication that you cannot think. In fact that is
probably the best way of dealing with your 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