Re: I might be getting
T h � M u n t d r � g g � r
> Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> Because I like wild animals, I want to see hunting with hounds back.
>>
>> How can anyone claim to like wild animals yet be prepared to see them
>> treated cruelly?
>
> How can anyone suggest that I want to see animals treated cruelly?
Because *amazingly* you think chasing them on horseback with a pack of
baying hounds is acceptable.
> As I've pointed out, there are more of any hunted species in areas
> where there is hunting.
Hardly, unless your talking about stocked game birds. Surely the idea
of hunting foxes, is to reduce numbers
> How can you be in favour of getting rid of hunting, when getting rid
> of hunting is proven to reduce the number of hunted animals?
Tell it to the Dodo
> Hunting is good for the wildlife - more foxes get to live for longer
> in hunting areas.
Only on planet Rowland does killing something make it live longer
i> More leopards get to live for longer in hunting areas.
So we should hunt endangered species ?
> Why do you want to see a reduction in such wildlife? What have you
> got against leopards and lions and foxes and so on?
Yes, its every wild animals right to be killed viciously by packs
of baying hounds
>>> Yes, in the case of deer hunting too. Hunting with hounds is more
>>> respectful to the animals than culling them with a rifle shot to the
>>> head, which I find a truly disgusting way to end the life of a wild
>>> animal.
>>
>> Would you rather be set upon by hounds to be torn to pieces until you
>> are dead (you think that's respectful?)
>
> It's disrespectful to shoot the buggers, yes. And also disrespectful
> to poison them and trap them.
So don't do any of them. Why not just admire them and let the, live ?
> It's both natural and respectful to hunt them with hounds - if they
> get away, all well and good. If they get caught, the end is very
> quick and painless from what I've seen of it.
So a regular hunt goer are your Rowly. Tally ho !!
> The process is natural and respectful - quite unlike poisoning or
> trapping or shooting.
Yep I'm sure foxes being torn limb from limb in screaming agony would
completely ageee
> Foxes mostly get poisoned or trapped, btw. It's only deer that they
> shoot (on the whole).
Which shows just how little you know
> I'd much rather be hunted and torn to pieces by dogs (if I were fox
> sized) than poisoned or trapped.
My and my Jack Russell would be happy to oblige you at any time.
> Once the dogs have you, you're torn to shreds very quickly. Poison
> and trapping are both slow deaths. Shooting is slow if the gunman
> misses his mark - you never get that problem with a pack of hounds.
How very comforting
> Compared to poison, traps, and guns, dogs are a more reliably humane
> way of killing once the animal is caught from what I've seen. You've
> got a pack on an exhausted fox, and that fox is *NOT* going to end up
> wounded and in pain. It's going to end up very dead very quickly.
>
>> or killed humanely?
Quite
>
> It *IS* humane to be killed by hounds. You are setting up a false
> dichotomy.
>
Only one dich in this thread and its not me or Shade
> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
> was very quick painless deaths.
You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
No shit Sherlock
--
TheMuntDregger
dh
<TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
>> was very quick painless deaths.
Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals. They promote
no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
dogs...or cows or cats...
Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it? Okay, so it is in regards
to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. Things which produce more
suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
young and baby animals than human hunting does of course. Only humans
even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
environment, and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
"for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
that is.
>You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>
>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>
>No shit Sherlock
What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
about the animals at all. What they care about is that they are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
any animals.
���hw��f
of<p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>
>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show
quick
>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI*
hunting
>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I
saw
>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>
> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
Nice conspiracy theory, k00k.
They promote
>no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>dogs...or cows or cats...
How'd that work? Would the "animal rights" people kill them all?
<snicker>
> Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it?
Since you poasted it, it likely is :)
Okay, so it is in regards
>to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
>misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
>same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
>electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
>Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
>them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
No such thing as striking a ballance? No shades of grey?
Its an either/or situation, dimmy?
:)
> Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
>dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
>but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
>Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
>population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
>starvation, disease and nonhuman predators.
So in your first example humans *cant* provide the answer, but now you
say they are *the* answer?
Hmmm...nicely waffled, pinhead :)
Things which produce more
>suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
>young and baby animals than human hunting does of course.
When was the last time you were shot by a hunter? You seem to have some
inside info on the suffering thing. So unless you can mind meld with
the animals your claims are spurious, at best.
Only humans
>even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>environment,
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Poast spoilers,d00d! Humans take little effort at controlling their own
population.
Seriously, wtf?
and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
>Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
>"for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
>that is.
>
Your strawman is appreciated, dimmy.
Now go stand in the corner.
>>You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>>
>>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that
the
>>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>>
>>No shit Sherlock
>
Quick & painless to bleed to death running for your life?
Yer a fuckin idiot, mate.
> What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
>about the animals at all.
And *you* care so much that you show it by killing them.
LULZ!
Suck my motherfucking dick, k00k.
^_^
What they care about is that they are
>disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
>hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
>them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
>any animals.
>
A planet without humans would be a real eco-disaster huh, dimmy?
Now go stand in front of a train.
^_^
Wanderer
domesticated animals; it's one of their stated goals. They bluntly state
that owning pets is "slavery", as are circuses, zoos, aquariums, and farms.
(They even have a bumper sticker: "Abolish Slavery. Boycott the circus.")
Making matters worse, their "animal rescue" operations conduct more animal
kills than city animal shelters, and under false colors:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
In that article alone, you have 31 animals that PETA took out of an actual
animal shelter and killed. In 1992, they "rescued" 32 lab animals and
killed them all.
It's just the facts, Snuh; PETA is, at best, deluded. At worst, they're
practicing the opposite of what they preach.
Yours with a distinct distaste for PETA,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!
-- a. a. milne, *On A Spring Day*
���hw��f
of<h2effp$2umq$2...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>Snuh, I hate to break it to you,
He said with a grin...
but PETA really does want to eliminate
>domesticated animals; it's one of their stated goals. They bluntly
state
>that owning pets is "slavery",
No CITE for that claim?
No suprises :)
> as are circuses, zoos, aquariums, and farms.
Different kettle of fish. Thats exploiting animals for profit.
Pets are "companion animals".
FYI
>(They even have a bumper sticker: "Abolish Slavery. Boycott the
circus.")
>
And circus animals are pets how? PT Barnum lurves you mang!
:)
>Making matters worse, their "animal rescue" operations conduct more
animal
>kills than city animal shelters, and under false colors:
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
>
From the article, Spankard:
" two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal
cruelty each"
What part of two fuckups get their come-uppance dont you get?
And as far as this is concerned:
We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex
Pacheco told the Washington Times.
Pacheco was voted out since he was an incompetent fucknuckle.
You might notice the "then" part.
>In that article alone, you have 31 animals that PETA took out of an
actual
>animal shelter and killed. In 1992, they "rescued" 32 lab animals and
>killed them all.
>
>It's just the facts, Snuh; PETA is, at best, deluded.
Uh huh. Or....this is you Jesus boi being true to your xtian
indoctrination that "animals are here to serve man".
Says so right in the "good book" right?
At worst, they're
>practicing the opposite of what they preach.
>
>Yours with a distinct distaste for PETA,
>
>The wolfish,
>
>Wanderer
>
Bite me :)
dh
>I haven't read quite so much rubbish since the last time I looked on
>usenet.
>
>I'll reiterate the important issue as you appear to have missed it:
>using a dog pack to restrain and kill wild animals is unnecessary.
>Animals pursued and captured by dogs appear to suffer distress. It is
>reasonable to make moral judgements about animal suffering when we
>humans cause that suffering. Consequently, hunting animals with dogs
>is cruel.
In some cases it is. In others it doesn't make as much difference
in regards to suffering, depending on what the dogs actually do. But
people who are opposed to hunting will often support the idea of
non-human predators. There's no doubt wolves cause more suffering than
humans with dogs, though some people don't care and sometimes even
want to deny the fact.
dh
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>dh@. pinched out a steaming pile
>of<p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show
>quick
>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI*
>hunting
>>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I
>saw
>>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>>
>> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>>For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>>themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>>represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>
>Nice conspiracy theory, k00k.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We
have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal
People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty
cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral,
practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard
the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling,
and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized
by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and
animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly
endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy;
however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal
values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the
responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship,
food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and
animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
>They promote
>>no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>>dogs...or cows or cats...
>
>How'd that work? Would the "animal rights" people kill them all?
><snicker>
_________________________________________________________
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant
... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they
drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30
seconds."
Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered
more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where
the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs,
cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia
headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs
and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent
of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death
pattern shows
no sign of changing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter,
Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of
the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat
described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63
percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia
expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever
were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical
Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a
tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.
A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe --
reaches
U.S. shores.
''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less
than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host
of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel
from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
���������������������������������������������������������
. . .
> Only humans
>>even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>>environment,
>
>BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>Poast spoilers,d00d! Humans take little effort at controlling their own
>population.
>Seriously, wtf?
You misnomer huggers don't care about the animals. You only care
about the fact that you're disturbed because other humans eat meat,
wear skins, and hunt.
Reese Dorrycott
wrote:
>Yours with a distinct distaste for PETA,
Maybe they are an animal PONZI scheme?
the mousy
Mr. David R. Dorrycott
Reese Dorrycott
> In some cases it is. In others it doesn't make as much difference
>in regards to suffering, depending on what the dogs actually do. But
>people who are opposed to hunting will often support the idea of
>non-human predators. There's no doubt wolves cause more suffering than
>humans with dogs, though some people don't care and sometimes even
>want to deny the fact.
I do not own any firearm anymore, however I have no problem with
people hunting or fishing to put food on the table. It is the people
who claim that they need a fully automatic, gold plated, glitter
finish AK-47 to hunt deer with that I have a problem.
Why don't I hunt? Simple, I hunterd two legged animals while in the
military. I keep seeing Bambi as two people. Just can't do it.
T h e M u n t D r e g g e r
<dh@.> wrote in message news:p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com...
Serlock ?????
Dyslexia is such a bitch (lol)
--
Munty
T h e M u n t D r e g g e r
"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2d658$bug$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Agreed Snuh,
I didn't much care one way or the other until a hunt road over my land
without permission.
I didn't see any local people, just a load of public school gits in red
coats who had about
as much regard for other peoples property or feelings as they did about
foxes.
Thank God for hosepipes, although the huntards didn't think that. Nothing
like soaking a
fuckwit to bring it back down to Earth with a bang. Also held 5 foxhounds to
ransome
in my pigsty against damages to my fences and paddock.
Now the old fox (for he is a damn great big dog fox) has made my paddock his
own (and
my bloody dustbin). He's a cheeky fucker with a taste for cat food lol. He's
not exactly
tame, just very bold, and will eat the bloody catfood outside the backdoor
within
sight of me. However, he's a very impressive chap in brilliant condition and
what looks
like a smile on his face lol
--
Munty
Wanderer
> Wanderer <wand...@gaiges.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<h2effp$2umq$2...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>
>>Snuh, I hate to break it to you,
>
> He said with a grin...
Where PETA is concerned, I don't smile. I occasionally grimace, mind you...
>
> but PETA really does want to eliminate
>>domesticated animals; it's one of their stated goals. They bluntly
> state
>>that owning pets is "slavery",
>
> No CITE for that claim?
> No suprises :)
"In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human
interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme, as
they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some parts
of the undeveloped world." -- PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or
Prisoners?
"... slaves, even if well-kept slaves." -- Pamphlet, PETA's Statement on
Companion Animals.
I'm sorry for leaving it out before; I was taking care of my four-year-old
nephew, and he's a lot easier to handle if he can play games on the
computer. But yes, PETA actually said that.
>
>> as are circuses, zoos, aquariums, and farms.
>
> Different kettle of fish. Thats exploiting animals for profit.
> Pets are "companion animals".
> FYI
As indicated above, I'm aware PETA makes the distinction in print. I do not
agree with their conclusions, but I am aware of their words.
>
>>(They even have a bumper sticker: "Abolish Slavery. Boycott the
> circus.")
>>
>
> And circus animals are pets how? PT Barnum lurves you mang!
> :)
I mentioned circuses before; it would have been dishonest to leave them out,
don't you think? Or are you advocating I argue like you, and merely insult
people until they leave?
>
>>Making matters worse, their "animal rescue" operations conduct more
> animal
>>kills than city animal shelters, and under false colors:
>>
>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
> bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
>>
>
> From the article, Spankard:
> " two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal
> cruelty each"
>
> What part of two fuckups get their come-uppance dont you get?
That would be the part where the current administration of PETA says the
only thing those two did wrong was dumping carcasses into a dumpster:
http://www.nokillnow.com/PETApilotonlinepetaworkersface25felonies.htm
That's without considering the fact that they apparently lied to a vet in
order to get and kill cats that were supposed to be finding homes,
*according to the veterinarian*!
Snuh, you are defending the indefensible. Given PETA's determination to
commit such acts and undermine your devotion, I recommend you let Fort
Zinderneuf fall.
>
> And as far as this is concerned:
> We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex
> Pacheco told the Washington Times.
>
> Pacheco was voted out since he was an incompetent fucknuckle.
> You might notice the "then" part.
And yet, the policy remains the same. From
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=377, an
interview with Bruce Friedrich, PETA's Vice President for Policy and
Government Affairs:
SP: When I was going around campus and talking to people, what they always
brought up was a report filed by Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA's Vice President
of Cruelty Investigations, which says that PETA took in around 8,362 pets
during 2007. The majority of these animals, 6,361 were taken to be
sterilized and held until claimed by their owner. In terms of releasing
animals, 75% of animals were reclaimed by their owner. Less than one
percent, 17 animals, were adopted in 2007. Of the remaining 1,896 animals,
95% were euthanized. You already addressed this a little, but what societal
pressures have contributed to PETA taking this policy?
BF: The thing about those figures is "adoptable animals" we send to
shelters. We don't have an adoption program, and there five shelters in a
ten mile radius of our office, so if we take in an adoptable animal for
something other than spaying or neutering we send the animal to one of the
shelters-which is where people who want to adopt an animal will go. The
animals who we euthanize are not adoptable. All of the shelters in our area
are also euthanizing, so I guess we could send all the animals that come to
us to the shelters so we don't have to do the dirty work. but that doesn't
make any sense. We have the capacity to euthanize, we can give the animals a
humane death, and we adopt a few animals out if somebody on staff decides
they want to adopt an animal-or we have PETA members who say "when you get a
dog or a cat we'd like to adopt them." We facilitate that, but all the other
adoptable animals go to shelter.
SP: Well, I'm looking at these numbers and along with the adopted list
there is a list of animals transferred to either another Virginia leasing
agency or somewhere out of state [note: PETA headquarters are in Virginia].
Those numbers still total up to only 35.
BF: That's because through our community animal project, the vast majority
of the animals they save.right now on PETA's homepage there is a "why we
euthanize" link, and if you click on that link you will see the sorts of
animals who come into our care. It is rare that we are in Virginia or North
Carolina and we find an animal who is healthy and who the owner wants to
surrender. I guess according to those numbers it happened 35 times, but
usually the animals who owners want to surrender are emaciated or they are
covered in parasites or they have their collars dug into their skin or some
other reason.
You read it as well as I did, I trust; out of the 1,913 animals PETA took
in, only 35 weren't killed. That's less than 2%. And then when he lists
reasons animals were euthanized, he includes parasites and emaciation, both
treatable conditions.
>
>>In that article alone, you have 31 animals that PETA took out of an
> actual
>>animal shelter and killed. In 1992, they "rescued" 32 lab animals and
>>killed them all.
>>
>>It's just the facts, Snuh; PETA is, at best, deluded.
>
> Uh huh. Or....this is you Jesus boi being true to your xtian
> indoctrination that "animals are here to serve man".
> Says so right in the "good book" right?
In the first place, I appreciate other animal rights groups. I like
Greenpeace, I like Sea Shepherd. It's the double-standard, "there should be
no such things as pets" people at PETA I don't like.
In the second place:
Genesis 1:26 (KJV): And God said , Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Dominion, Snuh. Not ownership. As the parable of the talents relates,
we're going to have to explain ourselves later. Now, if you're done
Christian-bashing?
>
> At worst, they're
>>practicing the opposite of what they preach.
>>
>>Yours with a distinct distaste for PETA,
>>
>>The wolfish,
>>
>>Wanderer
>>
>
> Bite me :)
>
Nah, I don't like you that much. I'll bury you and let you ripen a while,
though.
Yours truly,
The carnivorous,
���hw��f
>"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h2fo8l$3uv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Wanderer <wand...@gaiges.net> pinched out a steaming pile
>> of<h2effp$2umq$2...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>>
>>>Snuh, I hate to break it to you,
>>
>> He said with a grin...
>
>Where PETA is concerned, I don't smile. I occasionally grimace, mind
you...
>
And this differs from your usual bizzare mannerisms how?
^_^
>>
>> but PETA really does want to eliminate
>>>domesticated animals; it's one of their stated goals. They bluntly
>> state
>>>that owning pets is "slavery",
>>
>> No CITE for that claim?
>> No suprises :)
>
>"In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of
human
>interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological
scheme, as
>they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some
parts
>of the undeveloped world." -- PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets
or
>Prisoners?
>
They obviously give some philosopical leeway with the "in a perfect
world" clause. Suggests that since we already have pets we must respect
them as sentient beings with inherent rights. But then, *I* can parse
such subtlties with *ease*.
>"... slaves, even if well-kept slaves." -- Pamphlet, PETA's Statement
on
>Companion Animals.
>
They do "serve" us, do they not? They *serve* our need for
companionship. I can do without humans just fine, but its nice to have
a pet around.
Jus Sayin[tm]
>I'm sorry for leaving it out before; I was taking care of my four-
year-old
>nephew, and he's a lot easier to handle if he can play games on the
>computer. But yes, PETA actually said that.
>
I have no qualms whatsoever with those statements.
A human-free earth would be ecologicaly superior, obviously.
>>
>>> as are circuses, zoos, aquariums, and farms.
>>
>> Different kettle of fish. Thats exploiting animals for profit.
>> Pets are "companion animals".
>> FYI
>
>As indicated above, I'm aware PETA makes the distinction in print. I
do not
>agree with their conclusions, but I am aware of their words.
>
And you're *wrong*.
So there.
>>
>>>(They even have a bumper sticker: "Abolish Slavery. Boycott the
>> circus.")
>>>
>>
>> And circus animals are pets how? PT Barnum lurves you mang!
>> :)
>
>I mentioned circuses before; it would have been dishonest to leave
them out,
>don't you think? Or are you advocating I argue like you, and merely
insult
>people until they leave?
>
I was raised by pit bulls....real *bulls*...in a pit!
Jus Sayin[tm]
>>
>>>Making matters worse, their "animal rescue" operations conduct more
>> animal
>>>kills than city animal shelters, and under false colors:
>>>
>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
>> bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
>>>
>>
>> From the article, Spankard:
>> " two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal
>> cruelty each"
>>
>> What part of two fuckups get their come-uppance dont you get?
>
>That would be the part where the current administration of PETA says
the
>only thing those two did wrong was dumping carcasses into a dumpster:
>
>http://www.nokillnow.com/PETApilotonlinepetaworkersface25felonies.htm
>
They arnt looking to incur further charges in a bad situation by
admitting to more than is necessary. Like I said: bad apples.
>That's without considering the fact that they apparently lied to a vet
in
>order to get and kill cats that were supposed to be finding homes,
>*according to the veterinarian*!
>
So you're going to post snippets of the *same* crime over and over in
an effort to portray PETA as once guilty-always guilty?
Lazy bastard you are :)
>Snuh, you are defending the indefensible.
Where do I defend the actions of two fuckups who were punished in the
90's?
Moving on...
> Given PETA's determination to
>commit such acts
One fucking example is chronic and applicable to the present?
Nice strawman, cabrone.
> and undermine your devotion, I recommend you let Fort
>Zinderneuf fall.
>
<yawn>
So PETA's success/failure rate differs from HSUS, ASPCA, etc?
Your whole fucking argument is that PETA is somehow held to an
imaginary standard of perfection which *no* similar rescue-group can
attain.
Reality's a bitch, mate. Humans are irresponsible cuntflaps when it
comes to their pets. Some pisswit tied their dog to a tree near a
hiking trail up here and abandoned it. Luckily, it was found by a
hiker.
Jus Sayin[tm]
^_^
>BF: The thing about those figures is "adoptable animals" we send to
>shelters. We don't have an adoption program, and there five shelters
in a
>ten mile radius of our office, so if we take in an adoptable animal
for
>something other than spaying or neutering we send the animal to one of
the
>shelters-which is where people who want to adopt an animal will go.
The
>animals who we euthanize are not adoptable.
JUST LIKE STATE AGENCIES DO!!!1111!!!!
HORRORS!!!!! Reality sucks, deal with it.
Or open your fucking pocketbook and show you *really* care
Wanderer...as opposed to the usual faux holier than thou bullshit.
Word.
And the whiner sudenly opened up his pocket book and walked the walk as
opposed to just talking the talk?
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not likely.
Pet overpoulation is a huge ass problem. People are irresponsible
shitheads. Animals are seen as property and expendable.
You think you can tackle the fucking problem?
Step up or shut the fuck up.
>>
>>>In that article alone, you have 31 animals that PETA took out of an
>> actual
>>>animal shelter and killed. In 1992, they "rescued" 32 lab animals
and
>>>killed them all.
>>>
>>>It's just the facts, Snuh; PETA is, at best, deluded.
>>
>> Uh huh. Or....this is you Jesus boi being true to your xtian
>> indoctrination that "animals are here to serve man".
>> Says so right in the "good book" right?
>
>In the first place, I appreciate other animal rights groups. I like
>Greenpeace, I like Sea Shepherd. It's the double-standard, "there
should be
>no such things as pets" people at PETA I don't like.
>
"in a perfect world"...too difficult for you to parse that?
No suprises there.
^_^
>In the second place:
>
>Genesis 1:26 (KJV): And God said , Let us make man in our image,
after our
>likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the
>fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every
>creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>
>Dominion, Snuh.
Domination. Nice how you put yourself above critters.
Not ownership. As the parable of the talents relates,
>we're going to have to explain ourselves later. Now, if you're done
>Christian-bashing?
>
Fuck Jesus.
^_^
>>
>> At worst, they're
>>>practicing the opposite of what they preach.
>>>
>>>Yours with a distinct distaste for PETA,
>>>
>>>The wolfish,
>>>
>>>Wanderer
>>>
>>
>> Bite me :)
>>
>
>Nah, I don't like you that much. I'll bury you and let you ripen a
while,
>though.
>
You can dance on my grave!
^_^
Btw, I eat meat as well, jackass. Diabetes took carbs out of my diet
and in-order-to-avoid starvation...well...would you like a peice of
jerky?
���hw��f
pile of<h2fuff$4lk$1...@tioat.net>:
Townies claiming some kind of tradition would be "lost" without their
blood-sport.
Heh.
>Thank God for hosepipes, although the huntards didn't think that.
Nothing
>like soaking a
>fuckwit to bring it back down to Earth with a bang. Also held 5
foxhounds to
>ransome
>in my pigsty against damages to my fences and paddock.
>
Sounds reasonable :)
>Now the old fox (for he is a damn great big dog fox) has made my
paddock his
>own (and
>my bloody dustbin). He's a cheeky fucker with a taste for cat food
lol. He's
>not exactly
>tame, just very bold, and will eat the bloody catfood outside the
backdoor
>within
>sight of me. However, he's a very impressive chap in brilliant
condition and
>what looks
>like a smile on his face lol
>
Nice picture in my head of that.
^_^
Wanderer
Snuh, I'm a wolf at heart, and we don't graze in pastures. Take the "my
opponent is a vegan" shtick somewhere else. Heck, once they hear me
rhapsodize about the flavor of a well-cooked lamb, they never try to convert
me again.
As for PETA, the only way it's "one incident" is if you've decided to forget
the others (which I listed, thanks) in order to keep arguing. So, without
further ado, adieu.
§ñühw¤£f
^_^
--
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
dh
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:30 +0100, Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>>>><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>>>painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox.
>
>This is contrary to previous claims by this poster that he'd never seen
>a live kill and wasn't going to watch any videos because he 'knew' that
>hounds killed foxes efficiently. Not a credible witness.
>There's a strong correlation, for no-brainer and evolutionary reasons,
>between solitary predators and efficient predation, and pack animals and
>inefficient predation.
>
>Hunting foxes with a single hound is still legal because a single hound
>is not able to catch and overpower a healthy fox on its own, but it can
> flush out a fox to be shot by a marksman.
>
>Wolves operate in smaller packs than hounds and are somewhat more
>efficient predators. A claim that they cause more suffering per kill is
>very unlikely.
They live in the area with their prey and cause them to live in
fear a much greater percentage of the time of the time than dogs do.
So of course why do you want people to believe it's different than it
is, and how do you want them to think it's different?
>In any case, wolves kill to survive, hounds kill to
>provide fun for their owners, so the ethical and moral cases are
>substantially different.
Not for the prey animals, the wolves or the dogs, so for whom do
you think it is different and why do you think that should matter more
than how it matters to the prey?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> "In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human
> interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme, as
> they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some parts
> of the undeveloped world." -- PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or
> Prisoners?
My understanding is that dogs coevolved with human. The dog's
ecologiacal niche is within human settlements.
���hw��f
steaming pile of<slrnh4qf1j....@localhost.localdomain>:
Stop trying to inject facts into this thread.
Theres simply no place for that :)
Reese Dorrycott
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>My understanding is that dogs coevolved with human. The dog's
>>ecologiacal niche is within human settlements.
>>
>Stop trying to inject facts into this thread.
>Theres simply no place for that :)
Everyone please. You are waisting your time with logic and truth.
This person is a Fanatic and can be swayed by nothing short of having
it all their way.
This flame war has gone on long enough. Simply ignore it and move
along with your lives.
Please.
§ñühw¤£f
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:26:29 +0000 (UTC), ���hw��f
> <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>My understanding is that dogs coevolved with human. The dog's
> >>ecologiacal niche is within human settlements.
> >>
> >Stop trying to inject facts into this thread.
> >Theres simply no place for that :)
>
> Everyone please. You are waisting your time with logic and truth.
> This person is a Fanatic and can be swayed by nothing short of having
> it all their way.
>
You're being kinda hard on Dave Formosa, arnt you?
> This flame war has gone on long enough. Simply ignore it and move
> along with your lives.
>
> Please.
>
Gimme a dollar :)
Wanderer
news:4a4e3c43...@news.critter.net...
> Everyone please. You are waisting your time with logic and truth.
> This person is a Fanatic and can be swayed by nothing short of having
> it all their way.
>
> This flame war has gone on long enough. Simply ignore it and move
> along with your lives.
>
Actually, Snuh is something of a paradox; a troll who occasionally has
something worthwhile to say. He enjoys annoying people -- it's his favorite
pastime -- but, annoyingly, he'll just as often say something intelligent
and thought-provoking as he will claim to be a member of PETA or some such
silliness.
I find it best to consider him as someone who's smart enough to think, but
insecure enough to believe it doesn't matter unless he can make someone mad.
Whether accurate or not, it predicts his behavior nicely.
Farry
>Actually, Snuh is something of a paradox; a troll who occasionally has
>something worthwhile to say. He enjoys annoying people -- it's his favorite
>pastime -- but, annoyingly, he'll just as often say something intelligent
>and thought-provoking as he will claim to be a member of PETA or some such
>silliness.
OK. I'd gathered that from the posts he'd made in this thread.
>I find it best to consider him as someone who's smart enough to think, but
>insecure enough to believe it doesn't matter unless he can make someone mad.
>Whether accurate or not, it predicts his behavior nicely.
I recall him from some previous crossposts from alf. This being aff
rather than alf, though, can I ask you not to respond to him at all in
this group, since he's like that? This sort of stuff about how you relate
to animals, thought provoking or not, is more an alf than an aff thing
anyway. And if he's just going to turn any discussion into insults, as is
obvious, then I can see no point at all in engaging him. Does your
newsreader allow to put somebody in a group-specific killfile? I've
killfiled him, now. If you do see reason to discuss this sort of thing
with him, if you're happy to round of each discussion by receiving
unpleasant derision, then please take it to alf.
--
Farry
���hw��f
of<h2mrug$1fvl$1...@stelleri.critter.net>:
AWWWWWWW...GARWSH!
<blushes>
^_^
Wanderer
make a comment or ask a question that's worth responding to. A diamond in a
dungheap is still a diamond.
Besides, I'm spending most of my time, day and night, stuck in my sister's
house with nobody to talk to but my 9-year-old niece and 4-year-old nephew.
I'm just about stir crazy fro not havign any privacy or any downtime.
Or, bluntly: Be glad I'm as sane as I am.
Yours wearily,
The waiting-'til-their-father-gets-home,
���hw��f
of<h2tvp3$etl$1...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>I *do* restrict myself when it comes to Snuh, but he *does*
occasionally
>make a comment or ask a question that's worth responding to. A
diamond in a
>dungheap is still a diamond.
>
>Besides, I'm spending most of my time, day and night, stuck in my
sister's
>house with nobody to talk to but my 9-year-old niece and 4-year-old
nephew.
>I'm just about stir crazy fro not havign any privacy or any downtime.
>
What happened to the house your moms left ya's?
>Or, bluntly: Be glad I'm as sane as I am.
>
Dude, thats crazy talk...
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
dh
>Is there any evidence that prey live in fear when there is no
>perceptible immediate threat?
Whenever they fear a threat that's not immediate there is, yes.
One example I witnessed was of a little bird trying to eat something
out in the open. If it was aware of an immediate threat it would have
flown somewhere else or hidden in the area. Since is was not aware of
one but always afraid of one showing up it had a pattern: In quick
snappy movements it would look to one side, then the other, then back
the first way, then take one peck of the food...then repeat. In
contrast to that obvious constant fear of attack spending 3/4 of its
eating time not eating but looking for an attacker, most domestic
birds like chickens never even experience such fear much less does it
rule their entire lives.
>>>In any case, wolves kill to survive, hounds kill to
>>>provide fun for their owners, so the ethical and moral cases are
>>>substantially different.
>>
>>
>> Not for the prey animals, the wolves or the dogs, so for whom do
>> you think it is different and why do you think that should matter more
>> than how it matters to the prey?
>
>Because humans are supposed to be the creatures with the time and
>intellectual faculties to have a conscience.
Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
with dogs.
>Causing unnecessary pain
>and suffering to lower animals is a step towards becoming emotionally
>detached to pain and suffering of higher animals
That's why I explained that misnomer huggers don't care how
anti-hunting can be worse for the prey animals than human hunting is.
>and eventually other humans.
By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
people undoubtedly contribute to the future suffering of countless
humans and other animals:
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research
funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.
Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.
Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.
7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.
There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.
Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.
Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and
many others would join the two million people already killed by the
disease.
Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have
died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia,
rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to
animal research.
http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research
hasimproved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation,
improved cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart
disease, brain disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field,
the prevention of genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only
because of humane work on animals.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing
their assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of
"experiments" banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
...
Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people
believe that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie.
Animals do not give information that is 100% accurate when applied to
humans, but they do provide invaluable information that cannot be
replaced by computer modelling, cell culture or human experimentation.
Mice have virtually the same genes as humans, which is why they are so
useful for exploring human physiology.
Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for
physiology or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they
could not have made their discoveries without animals. Polio would
still be claiming hundreds of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for
animal research by the Nobel laureate Albert Sabin. "There could have
been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals," he
once said."
...
The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of
animal research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects
were revealed, the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on
pregnant animals for the first time. Birth defects were quickly seen
in mice and rabbits. This prompted an overhaul of the legislation and
is the basis for our laws on drug development.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1786503,00.html#article_continue
���������������������������������������������������������
purpleveggie
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
fucking hell man do you seriously expect anyone to read all this crap?
Wanderer
> What happened to the house your moms left ya's?
Mother didn't believe in preventive maintenance, and I didn't have a big
enough paycheck to fix the roof. As we speak, I'm four hours past when my
sister should've been home because she...
(goes to answer yet another call for help from his niece playing an MMO...)
(niece abandons the MMP and turns off the Michael Jackson Memorial)
(nephew continues complaining from his room, where he's receiving a time-out
for pitching a fit every time someone goes sad on Toontown Online)
... because she might not have a job next week (who knew a funeral home
could have an economic downturn?), and is out making herself feel better.
Meanwhile, I have a pounding headache. So understand if I have a bit less
patience than usual for your "jokes".
Yours in agony,
The feeling-like-he's-got-an-anchor-bolt-sunk-between-his-eyes,
purpleveggie
> Seen this before? An attempt to camouflage an inability to reason
> logically through long-windedness?
an attempt (which succeeded)in trying to bore the crap out of me!!
§ñühw¤£f
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> purpleveggie wrote:
>
> > On 7 July, 11:24, dh@. wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:29 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
> >>consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
> >>that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
> >>with dogs.
>
> higher intellect" type of argument.
>
> >> By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
> >>people
>
>
> > fucking hell man do you seriously expect anyone to read all this crap?
>
> logically through long-windedness?
>
testing that led to the thalidomide births, mate?
Thalidomide was extensively tested on animals. Then released to the public.
There were no unusual deviations in the births of the animals it was tested
upon. So much for using animals as human counterparts in biomedicine.
Just a little heads up for you. Oh, and I can back up *my* assertions with
plenty of CITEs.
^_^
--
http://www.milksucks.com/pus.asp
§ñühw¤£f
illness and research, with dummies like him :)
§ñühw¤£f
> "���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h2vho6$bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > What happened to the house your moms left ya's?
>
> Mother didn't believe in preventive maintenance, and I didn't have a big
> enough paycheck to fix the roof.
Too bad you wern't the handyman type. Shingle roofs are easy to lay.
Getting the old ones off is the PITA :)
> As we speak, I'm four hours past when my
> sister should've been home because she...
>
> (goes to answer yet another call for help from his niece playing an MMO...)
>
> (niece abandons the MMP and turns off the Michael Jackson Memorial)
>
> (nephew continues complaining from his room, where he's receiving a
> time-out
> for pitching a fit every time someone goes sad on Toontown Online)
>
D00d...learn to set some personal boundaries.
Just say "No! Shut up!"
> .... because she might not have a job next week (who knew a funeral home
> could have an economic downturn?), and is out making herself feel better.
> Meanwhile, I have a pounding headache. So understand if I have a bit less
> patience than usual for your "jokes".
>
Yeah...well I have two nephews here and they are both PITAsses.
One eats everything in sight and the other is into NA 12 step.
> Yours in agony,
>
> The feeling-like-he's-got-an-anchor-bolt-sunk-between-his-eyes,
>
Smoak a joint and fuggedaboudit.
Or do a shot of JD.
HTH
I feel your pain...relatives suck.
NP: Frank Zappa -Fembot in a wet t-shirt
Wanderer
news:h30isk$sr6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In message <h3008f$qe2$1...@stelleri.critter.net>, "Wanderer" wrote:
>> "���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2vho6$bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > What happened to the house your moms left ya's?
>>
>> Mother didn't believe in preventive maintenance, and I didn't have a big
>> enough paycheck to fix the roof.
>
> Too bad you wern't the handyman type. Shingle roofs are easy to lay.
> Getting the old ones off is the PITA :)
Snuh, I worked for Wal-Mart, and was commuting from Mesquite to McKinney. I
couldn't have bought the shingles in the first place, much less replaced the
water-damaged drywall.
>
>> As we speak, I'm four hours past when my
>> sister should've been home because she...
>>
>> (goes to answer yet another call for help from his niece playing an
>> MMO...)
>>
>> (niece abandons the MMP and turns off the Michael Jackson Memorial)
>>
>> (nephew continues complaining from his room, where he's receiving a
>> time-out
>> for pitching a fit every time someone goes sad on Toontown Online)
>>
> D00d...learn to set some personal boundaries.
>
> Just say "No! Shut up!"
Not very helpful when dealing with an autistic four-year-old who acts like a
two-year-old; all that happens when you say "No" is that he throws a fit and
tries again. And again. And again...
His nine-year-old drama-princess sister, on the other paw, really did have a
problem; the Mac client for that MMO keeps seizing up to where you lose the
ability to click on anything... including the "Exit Program" and "Minimize"
options. We keep having to cold-restart the system. Now she knows, though,
so I won't be needed on that front again.
In any event, it's not like I have somewhere else to be; my RPG group
disbanded after one of our GMs died. And since there's no game shop out
this way, (heck, there's barely a bookstore), there's no easy way to find a
new one.
>
>> .... because she might not have a job next week (who knew a funeral home
>> could have an economic downturn?), and is out making herself feel better.
>> Meanwhile, I have a pounding headache. So understand if I have a bit
>> less
>> patience than usual for your "jokes".
>>
> Yeah...well I have two nephews here and they are both PITAsses.
>
> One eats everything in sight and the other is into NA 12 step.
You have my sympathies, though at least you can get some time away from
them. Since I'm the babysitter of first resort and literally have nothing
better to do, (except find somwhere quiet to read, maybe), I was stuck with
the kids for 12 hours straight. I love them, but when you have a headache,
screaming kids are the last thing you want in your vicinity.
>
>> Yours in agony,
>>
>> The feeling-like-he's-got-an-anchor-bolt-sunk-between-his-eyes,
>>
> Smoak a joint and fuggedaboudit.
> Or do a shot of JD.
> HTH
Can't stand smoke, can't stand alcohol. Next?
>
> I feel your pain...relatives suck.
>
Eh. They're not SO bad... but I could use smaller doses of their company.
Yours truly,
The lonesome,
Reese Dorrycott
wrote:
>In any event, it's not like I have somewhere else to be; my RPG group
>disbanded after one of our GMs died. And since there's no game shop out
>this way, (heck, there's barely a bookstore), there's no easy way to find a
>new one.
Wanderer
Thanks, but I prefer a pen-and-paper game. Among other things, it gives me
a chance to get out of my sister's house for a while. (My room has no lock
on the door; there's a reason I've been getting online after midnight,
here.)
I tried signing up for the RPG registry -- they have at least two people in
my area -- but their server's horked and their admin's account is dead.
Any suggestions?
Reese Dorrycott
wrote:
>I tried signing up for the RPG registry -- they have at least two people in
>my area -- but their server's horked and their admin's account is dead.
>
>Any suggestions?
Where are you?
dh
If someone cares they will. If they don't, then they won't. I
present the information in case someone comes along who already gives
a shit or could learn to, not for those of you who can't care at all.
dh
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>purpleveggie wrote:
>
>> On 7 July, 11:24, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:29 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
>>>consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
>>>that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
>>>with dogs.
>
>Aha, the "throw in an unsubstantiable claim purporting to be from a
>higher intellect" type of argument.
>
>>> By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
>>>people
>
>Aha, I'm now part of a "you people" based on no evidence whatsoever.
Most of the people who oppose considering the influence misnomer
huggers want to have on animals, are misnomer huggers themselves. In
fact from my experience they are the ONLY people who want to oppose
it, which is very strong evidence to me that you must be one yourself.
���hw��f
>"���hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:h30isk$sr6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In message <h3008f$qe2$1...@stelleri.critter.net>, "Wanderer" wrote:
>>> "���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2vho6$bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> > What happened to the house your moms left ya's?
>>>
>>> Mother didn't believe in preventive maintenance, and I didn't have
a big
>>> enough paycheck to fix the roof.
>>
>> Too bad you wern't the handyman type. Shingle roofs are easy to lay.
>> Getting the old ones off is the PITA :)
>
>Snuh, I worked for Wal-Mart,
My sincerest condolences...
>and was commuting from Mesquite to McKinney. I
>couldn't have bought the shingles in the first place, much less
replaced the
>water-damaged drywall.
>
Ouch.
>>
>>> As we speak, I'm four hours past when my
>>> sister should've been home because she...
>>>
>>> (goes to answer yet another call for help from his niece playing an
>>> MMO...)
>>>
>>> (niece abandons the MMP and turns off the Michael Jackson Memorial)
>>>
>>> (nephew continues complaining from his room, where he's receiving a
>>> time-out
>>> for pitching a fit every time someone goes sad on Toontown Online)
>>>
>> D00d...learn to set some personal boundaries.
>>
>> Just say "No! Shut up!"
>
>Not very helpful when dealing with an autistic four-year-old who acts
like a
>two-year-old; all that happens when you say "No" is that he throws a
fit and
>tries again. And again. And again...
>
Wow. Its a growing problem: autism. Good show on PBS discussing how
theyve isolated a segment of a gene responsible for it last nite.
>His nine-year-old drama-princess sister, on the other paw, really did
have a
>problem; the Mac client for that MMO keeps seizing up to where you
lose the
>ability to click on anything... including the "Exit Program" and
"Minimize"
>options. We keep having to cold-restart the system. Now she knows,
though,
>so I won't be needed on that front again.
>
What OS is it? Classic or OSX?
>In any event, it's not like I have somewhere else to be; my RPG group
>disbanded after one of our GMs died. And since there's no game shop
out
>this way, (heck, there's barely a bookstore), there's no easy way to
find a
>new one.
>
Internets?
>>
>>> .... because she might not have a job next week (who knew a funeral
home
>>> could have an economic downturn?), and is out making herself feel
better.
>>> Meanwhile, I have a pounding headache. So understand if I have a
bit
>>> less
>>> patience than usual for your "jokes".
>>>
>> Yeah...well I have two nephews here and they are both PITAsses.
>>
>> One eats everything in sight and the other is into NA 12 step.
>
>You have my sympathies, though at least you can get some time away
from
>them. Since I'm the babysitter of first resort and literally have
nothing
>better to do, (except find somwhere quiet to read, maybe), I was stuck
with
>the kids for 12 hours straight. I love them, but when you have a
headache,
>screaming kids are the last thing you want in your vicinity.
>
JOIN THE FREnCh FOREiGN LEgION!!!!1111!!!!
:)
>>
>>> Yours in agony,
>>>
>>> The feeling-like-he's-got-an-anchor-bolt-sunk-between-his-eyes,
>>>
>> Smoak a joint and fuggedaboudit.
>> Or do a shot of JD.
>> HTH
>
>Can't stand smoke, can't stand alcohol. Next?
>
Look at furry pr0n?
>>
>> I feel your pain...relatives suck.
>>
>
>Eh. They're not SO bad... but I could use smaller doses of their
company.
>
Agreed, in spades.
Wanderer
Forney, TX. Nice little place, but the accent's on "little". If you're
looking for it on a map, follow Highway 80 east out of Dallas, through
Mesquite, and over into Kaufman County. If you hit Terrell, you've gone too
far.
Wanderer
> What OS is it? Classic or OSX?
OSX, but running an XP emulator on the same HD might be interfering.
>
> Internets?
It's not much of a social life, but here I am.
>
> Look at furry pr0n?
Eh. :/ Not my thing.
> Agreed, in spades.
>
Heh, yeah. A complete lack of privacy is never good; heck, I had more alone
time when I lived with Mother, God rest her soul.
Yours truly,
The always-on-call,
Reese Dorrycott
wrote:
>Forney, TX.
Sorry, can't help you. I'm in San Antonio and the last group I knew
ofd broke up when people moved. And died. The last one I was in was
onBlanco Road, a thirty mile trip one way. Face to face RPG's are
pretty difficult to find. Especiall whe you hit your fifties.
���hw��f
>"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h3294n$ohs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> What OS is it? Classic or OSX?
>
>OSX, but running an XP emulator on the same HD might be interfering.
>
So the game itself is a windows game and you do VM to run it?
To run VM's you need a pretty stout system.
>>
>> Internets?
>
>It's not much of a social life, but here I am.
>
Its either that or the clock tower...
>>
>> Look at furry pr0n?
>
>Eh. :/ Not my thing.
>
Wow. Are you sure you're okay?
>> Agreed, in spades.
>>
>
>Heh, yeah. A complete lack of privacy is never good; heck, I had more
alone
>time when I lived with Mother, God rest her soul.
>
No doubt. I think one of my annoyances is leaving today :)
Yay!
Reese Dorrycott
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>No doubt. I think one of my annoyances is leaving today :)
>Yay!
"Hi. We're coming to San Antonio for a visit. Hope to see you soon."
"Looking forward to it. By the way, we have no spare room. Attached
it a list of local Hotels & Motels."
Silence. No visit, no further messages ever.
You see, we have Sea World and Fesita Texas nearby, to start.
Everyone immediately tagged us as 'free motel, free eats' and after
the first near two week visit, we had it. We are not a free maid
service, taxi service, tourist service, local guide or restaurant.
Nor are we an open source of cash because someone ran short/wanted
something and had no intention of repaying.
Relatives can be jerks. Both ways. No one likes us because we won't
house them. We don't like them because we are not free housing.
Overnight is one thing, but after sleeping on the living room floor
overnight with no AC and a wandering cat, they get the idea. No, we
will NOT lock our cat outside/in a room simply because you do not like
or are allergic to cats. This is our house, and you didn't do it with
your horse of a dog when we visited for the day either.
���hw��f
of<4a563e4...@news.critter.net>:
>On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:27:59 +0000 (UTC), ���hw��f
><snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>No doubt. I think one of my annoyances is leaving today :)
>>Yay!
>
>
>"Hi. We're coming to San Antonio for a visit. Hope to see you soon."
>
>"Looking forward to it. By the way, we have no spare room. Attached
>it a list of local Hotels & Motels."
>
>Silence. No visit, no further messages ever.
>
We do that in the winter when they cant sleep in the RV :)
>You see, we have Sea World and Fesita Texas nearby, to start.
>Everyone immediately tagged us as 'free motel, free eats' and after
>the first near two week visit, we had it. We are not a free maid
>service, taxi service, tourist service, local guide or restaurant.
>Nor are we an open source of cash because someone ran short/wanted
>something and had no intention of repaying.
>
Sounds painfully familiar.
>Relatives can be jerks. Both ways. No one likes us because we won't
>house them. We don't like them because we are not free housing.
>Overnight is one thing, but after sleeping on the living room floor
>overnight with no AC and a wandering cat, they get the idea. No, we
>will NOT lock our cat outside/in a room simply because you do not like
>or are allergic to cats. This is our house, and you didn't do it with
>your horse of a dog when we visited for the day either.
>
>
They ask for money to bail them out of their fucked up financial
situation too...my sister is 250,000 in the hole after she refinanced
her house.
Mheh...
Reese Dorrycott
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They ask for money to bail them out of their fucked up financial
>situation too...my sister is 250,000 in the hole after she refinanced
>her house.
>Mheh...
Every family is the same.
I have a (disowned by me) brother who is into our 79 year old mother
some $90,000, and just blew up because she nor any of the other family
will pay his wifes legal bills (driving with no insurance, no
registration, wrong address on license, gave the officer her sisters
name) or repair his centeral AC.
Yes, San Antonio is in the 100's. No, the family is not a pot of
gold. In fact Anna and I are picking out things we have owned for
over twenty years to sell just to make the bills.
And he asked us for $1200 to fix his AC. He grew up here in the 60's
without any AC for Goddess sake (so did I.)
Bah, Humbug. Let 'em melt I say. Let 'em melt.
(insert 1930's mad scientist laughter here.)
§ñühw¤£f
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:57:37 +0000 (UTC), ���hw��f
> <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >They ask for money to bail them out of their fucked up financial
> >situation too...my sister is 250,000 in the hole after she refinanced
> >her house.
> >Mheh...
>
> Every family is the same.
>
> I have a (disowned by me) brother who is into our 79 year old mother
> some $90,000, and just blew up because she nor any of the other family
> will pay his wifes legal bills (driving with no insurance, no
> registration, wrong address on license, gave the officer her sisters
> name) or repair his centeral AC.
>
Sounds like a real punk. He needs a kick in the jimmy junk.
My nephew tried for 6 months to get my dad to shell out for his work-related
training. Finally flew up here to do it face to face.
All the time hes visiting he's spending money on visits to the local gym,
drinking "sparkling water", etc.
He's a real fucknugget :(
> Yes, San Antonio is in the 100's. No, the family is not a pot of
> gold. In fact Anna and I are picking out things we have owned for
> over twenty years to sell just to make the bills.
>
Ouch. Condolences.
> And he asked us for $1200 to fix his AC. He grew up here in the 60's
> without any AC for Goddess sake (so did I.)
>
> Bah, Humbug. Let 'em melt I say. Let 'em melt.
>
> (insert 1930's mad scientist laughter here.)
>
>
Heh...swamp coolers were good enough for us kids...
Wanderer
I'm only in my thirties (coming up on my forties); the bigger factor is the
lack of any main gathering place for RPG players within several miles. (The
closest bookstore, in Terrell, is a used book store; they have short hours
as a rule. I suppose I could see if they have a bulletin board, though I
don't recall one last time I visited.)
Heck, even the Whataburger isn't 24-hour anymore, thanks to some idiot
robber.
Oh, well. I'll keep looking.
Wanderer
> Wanderer <wand...@gaiges.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<h33sr1$13rn$1...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>
>>"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h3294n$ohs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> What OS is it? Classic or OSX?
>>
>>OSX, but running an XP emulator on the same HD might be interfering.
>>
> So the game itself is a windows game and you do VM to run it?
> To run VM's you need a pretty stout system.
No, the MMO doesn't need a VM. The fact that a VM is on the machine has
made things "interesting", however. (Imagine a Mac where you can
right-click.)
There's literally no warning; it just suddenly stops responding to the
mouse. Which is a real problem when you're on a free account and run into
the in-game banner ad proclaiming, "You can't do that one a Free Account --
Click Here To Close".
>
>>>
>>> Internets?
>>
>>It's not much of a social life, but here I am.
>>
> Its either that or the clock tower...
He. No clock tower around here. :> But yes, I know what you mean.
>
>>>
>>> Look at furry pr0n?
>>
>>Eh. :/ Not my thing.
>>
> Wow. Are you sure you're okay?
(look askance) Snuh, I've never enjoyed porn of any kind. Not when we were
in AHWW, and not now. Do you have me confused with someone else?
>
>>> Agreed, in spades.
>>>
>>
>>Heh, yeah. A complete lack of privacy is never good; heck, I had more
> alone
>>time when I lived with Mother, God rest her soul.
>>
> No doubt. I think one of my annoyances is leaving today :)
> Yay!
>
Heh. :) I look forward to the day *I* can leave for a place of my own.
Anyway, I'm for bed. I have work in the morning. Later, Snuh!
���hw��f
>"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h34r8u$2g7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Wanderer <wand...@gaiges.net> pinched out a steaming pile
>> of<h33sr1$13rn$1...@stelleri.critter.net>:
>>
>>>"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:h3294n$ohs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> What OS is it? Classic or OSX?
>>>
>>>OSX, but running an XP emulator on the same HD might be interfering.
>>>
>> So the game itself is a windows game and you do VM to run it?
>> To run VM's you need a pretty stout system.
>
>No, the MMO doesn't need a VM. The fact that a VM is on the machine
has
>made things "interesting", however. (Imagine a Mac where you can
>right-click.)
>
Logitech made a 3 button mouse for the Mac back in the 90's...its not a
new concept.
>There's literally no warning; it just suddenly stops responding to the
>mouse. Which is a real problem when you're on a free account and run
into
>the in-game banner ad proclaiming, "You can't do that one a Free
Account --
>Click Here To Close".
If it only happens when you're running that one program its an issue
with that program.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Internets?
>>>
>>>It's not much of a social life, but here I am.
>>>
>> Its either that or the clock tower...
>
>He. No clock tower around here. :> But yes, I know what you mean.
>
You can always talk to the pigeons...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Look at furry pr0n?
>>>
>>>Eh. :/ Not my thing.
>>>
>> Wow. Are you sure you're okay?
>
>(look askance) Snuh, I've never enjoyed porn of any kind. Not when
we were
>in AHWW, and not now. Do you have me confused with someone else?
>
No. Just never knew you were such a goody goody.
What part of nudity bothers you? The unclothed bit I assume :)
Or is it the big spurting shafts?
Triple 'D' jugs not your thing?
>>
>>>> Agreed, in spades.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Heh, yeah. A complete lack of privacy is never good; heck, I had
more
>> alone
>>>time when I lived with Mother, God rest her soul.
>>>
>> No doubt. I think one of my annoyances is leaving today :)
>> Yay!
>>
>
>Heh. :) I look forward to the day *I* can leave for a place of my
own.
>
Still playing the lotto then?
>Anyway, I'm for bed. I have work in the morning. Later, Snuh!
>
>
My condolences.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:30 +0100, Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>>> <TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
>>>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
>>>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>>> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>>> For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>>> themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals. They promote
>>> no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>>> dogs...or cows or cats...
>>> Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it? Okay, so it is in regards
>>> to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
>>> misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
>>> same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
>>> electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
>>> Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
>>> them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
>>> Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
>>> dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
>>> but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
>>> Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
>>> population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
>>> starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. Things which produce more
>>> suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
>>> young and baby animals than human hunting does of course. Only humans
>>> even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>>> environment, and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
>>> Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
>>> "for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
>>> that is.
>>>
>>>> You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>>>>
>>>>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
>>>>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>>>> No shit Sherlock
>>> What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
>>> about the animals at all. What they care about is that they are
>>> disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
>>> hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
>>> them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
>>> any animals.
>> I haven't read quite so much rubbish since the last time I looked on
>> usenet.
>>
>> I'll reiterate the important issue as you appear to have missed it:
>> using a dog pack to restrain and kill wild animals is unnecessary.
>> Animals pursued and captured by dogs appear to suffer distress. It is
>> reasonable to make moral judgements about animal suffering when we
>> humans cause that suffering. Consequently, hunting animals with dogs
>> is cruel.
>
> In some cases it is.
It is, period.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:30 +0100, Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>>>>> <TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox.
>> a live kill and wasn't going to watch any videos because he 'knew' that
>> hounds killed foxes efficiently. Not a credible witness.
>>> in regards to suffering, depending on what the dogs actually do. But
>>> people who are opposed to hunting will often support the idea of
>>> non-human predators. There's no doubt wolves cause more suffering than
>>> humans with dogs, though some people don't care and sometimes even
>>> want to deny the fact.
>> There's a strong correlation, for no-brainer and evolutionary reasons,
>> between solitary predators and efficient predation, and pack animals and
>> inefficient predation.
>>
>> Hunting foxes with a single hound is still legal because a single hound
>> is not able to catch and overpower a healthy fox on its own, but it can
>> flush out a fox to be shot by a marksman.
>>
>> Wolves operate in smaller packs than hounds and are somewhat more
>> efficient predators. A claim that they cause more suffering per kill is
>> very unlikely.
>
> They live in the area with their prey and cause them to live in
> fear a much greater percentage of the time of the time than dogs do.
Unimportant.
> So of course why do you want people to believe it's different than it
> is, and how do you want them to think it's different?
Humans don't artificially organize the wolves and lead them out to kill
animals.
§nühw¤£f
Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
"hunting".
In most cases nowadays it has little to do with survival.
"Sport" hunting is done to give stupid rednecks an outlet for thier
agressions and an excuse to be outside in the natural world they
secretly fear.
--
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/22-10
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
§nühw¤£f
> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>> "hunting".
>
> Hunting per se isn't
As accepted as it used to be.
Yep.
^_^
ex-PFC Wintergreen
�n�hw��f wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>> "hunting".
>>
>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>
> [crap]
Try to say something relevant.
§nühw¤£f
> punk's dead
Agreed. It has been replaced by techno.
>
> �n�hw��f wrote:
>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>>> "hunting".
>>>
>>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>>
>> [crap]
>
> Try to say
Yes?
Yes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fvZdA3iydw
ex-PFC Wintergreen
�n�hw��f wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> stupid shit-eating punk's vandalism repaired
>
> Agreed
Good.
>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>>>> "hunting".
>>>>
>>>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>>>
>>> [crap]
>>
>> Try to say something relevant.
>
> Yes?
> Yes?
You still fail. You're an idiot.
§nühw¤£f
> stupid shit-eating punk
---
> an idiot.
My condolences!
maybe you need a check-up from the neck-up!
Nice sig btw, its accurate and to the point.
^_^
David N. Harrison
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> stupid shit-eating punk
>> still fail
> ---
>> an idiot.
>
Right.
§nühw¤£f
> I am an asshole.
>
> Right?
I concur whole-heartedly!
David N. Harrison
>
> I am an asshole.
>
> Right?
>
> I concur whole-heartedly!
Good - it's always good to agree with yourself.
§nühw¤£f
> shit-4-braincell, admitted.
Maybe you can get out with good behaviour.
dh
How do you think your pre-existence prevents you from
benefitting from your own existence now, Goo?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
Quit asking that question idiot, it is meaningless.
§nühw¤£f
>
>
> Quit
Never.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
Only to Goo who can't explain why he disagrees with himselves.
dh
There is an excellent example of "Dutch" doing that same
thing in the thread:
What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
After all his years of maniacally insisting that the lives of NO
beings should ever be given any moral consideration, he's now in
dispute with dorayme and Patricia Aldoraz because he doesn't feel
that dorayme is giving as much consideration to the lives of some
people as to others, or some such thing. It's probably more
examples of his dishonesties but the point is that with them he's
trying to pretend he does consider the lives of at least some
beings, while he has been denying to me that people should ever
consider the lives of any beings for about a decade now. I doubt
the poor fool will ever be able to try explaining how he thinks
he disagrees with himself about this one. So what are his options
from this point? Whatever they are, they almost certainly must
involve more dishonesty and maybe more disagreeing with himself.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:e0cfaed3-d55d-4a23...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
-------->
Check your meds..
Dutch
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 09:19:18 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 1, 1:31 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in
>>> messagenews:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26:13 -0800, "David N. Harrison"
>>> > <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Dave Norris, shit-4-braincell, admitted:
>>>
>>> >>> I am an asshole.
>>>
>>> >>> Right?
>>>
>>> >>> I concur whole-heartedly!
>>>
>>> >>Good - it's always good to agree with yourself.
>>>
>>> > How do you think your pre-existence prevents you from
>>> > benefitting from your own existence now, Goo?
>>>
>>> Quit asking that question idiot, it is meaningless.-
>>
>>
>>Only to Goo who can't explain why he disagrees with himselves.
>
> There is an excellent example of "Dutch" doing that same
> thing in the thread:
>
> What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
>
> After all his years of maniacally insisting that the lives of NO
> beings should ever be given any moral consideration
The life of any animal (or human) does not provide you with an argument to
justify killing it.
THAT is the invalid "consideration" you are pushing.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Get Goobs to explain why he disagrees with himselves.
That should clear things up once and for all...............if we all
don't die laughing.
Dutch
----->
I'm going to die of boredom reading your posts.
§nühw¤£f
>
> I'm going to die of boredom reading your posts.
>
>
Mr.Smartypants
but you'll keep reading them.............you can't help yourself.
You want to be present when I'm kicking your ass.
LOL!!
Dutch
LOL!!
--->
This seems like a perfect place for this <plonk>
Mr.Smartypants
You wouldn't dare killfile me.
You absolutely *have* to know what I'm saying about your boy Goobs at
all times.
You cannot live without knowing.