Some more things I don't buy: Lager. Britney albums. Colostomy bags.
Princess Diana memorabilia. Glove puppets. Black market plutonium. Scuba
equipment. Cat food. Lump hammers. Guess why? I Have No Use For Them.
Okay. Some things I do buy. Soundtrack albums. Mars bars. Fish and
chips. Selected computer games. Shoes. Cinema pass. Selected horror
DVDs. Red Dwarf DVDs. Internet time. The reason? I like them, or I have
use for them. One way or another, they give me pleasure. (Yes, this is
I was suprised, while button punching through the meagre selection of
Freeview channels, to happen across a DVD review show hosted by talking head
Stuart Maconie. On the subject of cult TV. On the specific subjects of Dr
Who (cue several clips of Patrick Troughton) and, um, Red Dwarf. Maconie
wheeled on someone to chat about these; I think his name was Joe.
Apparently, he'd watched Red Dwarf and didn't like it much. Well, wow.
Hardly a shock, in a county of fifty million people, to find someone who
doesn't really like Red Dwarf. But most people would say "Well, I didn't
like it, but if you do, that's great, I'm happy for you", and it wouldn't
really go any further than that. Not Joe, though. His argument was that
people buy Red Dwarf DVDs because....
RD fans don't "like the show" because they simply "like the show". They
"like the show" because it fits in with what's cool and cult, and liking the
show means they can belong to something, they can bring some meaning into
their lives. Translated: Red Dwarf fans are saddos with no lives, who can
only interact with other saddos and have no reasonable judgement when it
comes to the quality of TV shows (otherwise they'd recognise RD for the
second-rate bunk it is).
Or, more accurately, Joe is a saddo who can't understand why other people
like things he doesn't; and feels the need to denigrate an entire fanbase in
Or, even more accurately, Joe is a twat.
"Blakes 7 fans *are* nutters, though."
> Or, more accurately, Joe is a saddo who can't understand why other people
> like things he doesn't
Or, more accurately, Joe is a humourless fuckwit who can't understand his
own words, let alone those of others.
Have a great day...
...Have a Great Central day.
I would join in this debate, but I feel that I am not sufficiently
intellectually equipped to cope with the mental rigours of the
complex arguments you present.
Why would a haddock kill itself?
> Or, even more accurately, Joe is a twat.
Exactly the sort of drivel I'd expect from someone who doesn't like
cheese & onion crisps.
> Some more things I don't buy: Lager. Britney albums. Colostomy bags.
> Princess Diana memorabilia. Glove puppets. Black market plutonium.
> equipment. Cat food. Lump hammers. Guess why? I Have No Use For Them.
Come on, your life is not complete until you've owned a lump hammer. Buy
one, I think you will be pleasently surprised.
Methinks someone wouldn't know humor if it came up and bit him on the
bollocks just after yelling "this is humor".
Well, I'm married to a Blakes 7 fan and I can confirm their nutter
status. What say you, Ronnie Clark?
Well, I'm a Blakes 7 fan myself and I'm quite normal (well, to a degree
in any case). Difference between me and ole Ronnie there is that I
wouldn't muck about the internet typing "fuck you" at people who make
jokes about those who like the show.
Well, dunno if Hercules doesn't like Blake's 7 or just thinks actual
fan of the show are nutters. I like it, but wouldn't consider myself a
fan. My wife, though, is a Paul Darrow fan, and is therefore a nutter.
Ronnie, I would agree, is a humourless knob.
As for Red Dwarf, that's crap!
I like cheese & onion crisps... cheese & pickle crisps are even more
Garth - Avril Lavigne, Amy Lee and any member of the Donnas.
Eew... that sounds disgusting.
Nothing wrong with that... I've met Paul Darrow and he's really a funny
and nice guy. Sure, he played Avon over the top but it worked for that
That attitude could apply to just about anything connected with science
fiction - books, films, TV shows, little model kits of the Millenium
Falcon... you name it. Check Ansible (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/Ansible/)
for a hilarious monthly article called 'How others see us'
It's literary snobbery. If you stand up in polite company and express
your enthusiasm for anything vaguely SF related you will see it first hand.
Mars Bars 40p? When I left the UK they were about 8p. Wow, 20 years gone
in a blink of the eye.
What, Hercule can make an obviously false jibe without a smiley and I can't?
Poo to you all with brass knobs on!
weren't too bad... part of Walker's crisps *special* packs raising
money for, erm, Comic Relief IIRC.
It was a combination of Cheese & Onion and Pickled Onion flavours..
can't remeber the other 3 combinations..
>weren't too bad... part of Walker's crisps *special* packs raising
>money for, erm, Comic Relief IIRC.
>It was a combination of Cheese & Onion and Pickled Onion flavours..
>can't remeber the other 3 combinations..
There were Barbecue Chicken crisps and Cheese and Bacon Quavers. I
seem to recall Bacon and Ketchup but i'm not sure on that.
Off to job centre today, how much fun will that be? Knowing my luck
I'll get offered a job on the Red Dwarf movie so I'll be unemployed
For some reason I keep hitting CAPS LOCK.
Um, I sorta thought it might be, but then I've been in England long enough
to consider that possibility. :)
Yeah, I actually thought they were quite good, but then, I've come to like
things with pickle in here that I never thought would be good with pickle!
('Course it's debatable how much they even taste like pickle per se....)
Sadly enough, the other big thing I miss from Britain are the banks.
Get charged for everything here.
Or read too much Ganymede & Titan...
Hmm... I think we need to have a "Crisp Off". So send me all your crisps
and I'll compare and declare the best and worst!
I miss Ready Brek and Shreddies. A local store started importing stuff
from the UK until the health department discovered british breakfast
cerials have 1% more vitamin B than allowed by Aus law. (Something
remarkably petty like that.) Apparently an entire container load of the
stuff was consigned to the incinerators.
Yes, people of the UK, according to the Aus government you're all
poisoning yourselves and your children.
I can understand that... Shreddies are very nice cereals...
> A local store started importing stuff from the UK until the health
> department discovered british breakfast cerials have 1% more vitamin
> than allowed by Aus law. (Something remarkably petty like that.)
1% ?!?! that's just silly...
> Apparently an entire container load of the stuff was consigned to the
what a waste...
> Yes, people of the UK, according to the Aus government you're all
> poisoning yourselves and your children.
and I thought Vitamin B was good for me as well...
>> Yes, people of the UK, according to the Aus government you're all
>> poisoning yourselves and your children.
> and I thought Vitamin B was good for me as well...
Some vitamins can be poisonous in excessive dosages, but although I suppose
it's possible, I'm skeptical as to whether 1% over the recommended daily
allowance would make a difference.
Well, I think the UK RDA's are set by the EU anyway, and the whole EU is
many times bigger than Australia (well, the UK is on it's own), so we
must all be killing ourselves with Vitamin B.
>Hal Spacejock wrote:
>> I miss Ready Brek and Shreddies.
>I can understand that... Shreddies are very nice cereals...
>> A local store started importing stuff from the UK until the health
>> department discovered british breakfast cerials have 1% more vitamin
>> than allowed by Aus law. (Something remarkably petty like that.)
>1% ?!?! that's just silly...
>> Apparently an entire container load of the stuff was consigned to the
>what a waste...
...cos I chose to play the fool in a 6 piece band
First night nerves every one night stand
I should be glad to be so inclined
what a waste, what a waste but I don't mind
Sorry, don't know what came over me there
Me neither, but try not to do it again.
*pause*... if it helps, I've been humming "Show me the way to Amarillo"
all day long.
> I miss Ready Brek and Shreddies. A local store started importing stuff
> from the UK until the health department discovered british breakfast
> cerials have 1% more vitamin B than allowed by Aus law. (Something
> remarkably petty like that.) Apparently an entire container load of the
> stuff was consigned to the incinerators.
> Yes, people of the UK, according to the Aus government you're all
> poisoning yourselves and your children.
That's a bit rich considering how much B1 and B12 is in Vegemite. No
warning label on that. Yet, they yum it up here - Vegemite and cream
cheese is one popular variation.
It does to the australian government. You'd think it would be easier for
them to raise their limit a fraction and allow all those overseas cereals.
Hang on, a stray thought occurs to me... by setting the RDI to 1% less
than everyone else, they're protecting the local cereal manufacturers
from imports. Cunning rats.
IT WAS A F***ING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been doing these PS bits for ages as allegedly humourous afterthoughts,
and this is the first time they've been taken seriously. I could have said
"Space Precinct fans *are* nutters, though.", and some twat would have
called me on it.
"Two Terrahawks fans walk into a bar...."
I would, but Thursday night is General Election night, so I'll be staying up
till about three in the morning hopefully watching that odious little shit
being cut down to size. Crisps, drinks, coffee, sweets, choccies, sausage
rolls. It's kind of like Eurovision except we can't blame it all on Norway.
"And here are the results from the Hampstead and Highgate constituency...."
I think you missed the words "I would really like to" out of your post.
Thanks, but no thanks.
"Flattery will get you a smack in the mouth, miladdo."
They're alright, apart from the onion and cheese.
"I'm waiting for 'That Man We Found' flavour."
I don't suppose you've seen the BBC's new version of that video, done as the
title sequence for BBC-1's late night political chatter? With new lyrics
and people like Al Murray and Michael Portillo dancing along with Andrew
"What the **** was THAT?!??!"
Triple Fried Egg, Chilli Sauce and Chutney?
"Warning: may contain salt."
Unfortunetly, I have.
Unfortunetly, I have.
Sadly, no... wait! Barbecued Chicken! a combination of Barbecued Beef
and Roast Chicken!!
Garth - nice, really.
Which one? Bambi, Dracula or Chucky-bum?
.. who forgot to register and will be watching the results come in at
not a Blair-ite then? ;)
66 seats.. not a brilliant majority... and with George Galloway
winning, Blair has to make some "favourable" changes if he's to stay in
power 'til the next election..
Eh? Do you mean Blair specifically (who will have to go at least a year
before the next election if Labour are to have any chance of winning it)
or Labour? Cause Labour can't go before the next election you know...
I think the regulars in the group understand that it's a joke (as would
anyone with even a minute sense of humour) so don't worry about old
Ronnie there. We've all been defending your funny bone to him but I
doubt he's even come back to check on the reaction to his "fuck you"
Bleeeargh. Time for you to get your mop out.
"And I want to see creases."
Fortunately, it's all over now.
"Roll on 2009."
But he's not, is he? He'll be going earlier; the party have to choose the
next leader before the next election; the job is not in Tony's gift. And
with that slashed majority, there are already calls for him to go sooner
rather than later. I suspect he'll call a referendum on the EU
constitution, lose it, and resign on that "issue".
"Next week's lottery numbers...."
About as far from being a Blairite as its possible to be.
Let's be brutally honest here - he's a fundamentally untrustworthy person.
He lied about Iraq, there are no two ways about it. In fact there isn't one
way about it: he lied, that's it. He only got his backbenchers to back his
about-turn on tuition top-ups by throwing them foxhunting - an issue about
which he felt so principled that he didn't vote on it once. The bill was
basically class warfare revisited and has caused foxes to suffer more, not
less. He said he wouldn't put taxes up - well, check your payslips. He
tried to get identity cards underway although we all know it's a stupid idea
that will cost billions and won't work, and even if it did work it won't
actually succeed in its objectives. Since the campaign started he's been
rubbishing Conservative spending proposals on a daily basis as not adding
up, despite the fact that no less than the Institute of Fiscal Studies said
they do, and they should know. He's had eight years to sort all manner of
stuff out which has now shown up as election pledges - cleaner hospitals,
school discipline. What the bloody hell has he been doing for eight years?
The Conservatives knew there was a "vote Blair, get Brown" idea, but it's
not much of a Tory votewinner as many people do like Brown, and the economy
hasn't performed all that disastrously, although all the signs are that it's
going to start getting ugly fairly soon, and he'll have do either cut
spending (boo, hiss, nasty Tories do that), borrow heavily (billions, even
at non-scary interest rates) or put up taxes. There aren't any other
options. And when Blair does go, it's not any guarantee that Brown will be
next. It'll have to be an internal election and there are any number of
spectacularly dodgy candidates: Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Charles Clarke.
People you wouldn't buy Kylie Minogue CDs from at a car boot sale.
"And now over to Dennis with the sport.."
You need to ask? Chuckybum isn't big enough to be cut down to size....
"The League of Ordinary Gentlemen."
Regardless of Blair's actions as PM - which, to be honest, I don't follow
that closely - that drives me crazy, reasoning like that, as if allowing
them to be rended limb by limb by a pack of dogs was so humane. See this
page, http://www.league.uk.com/pro_hunt_propaganda.htm, number 8 in
particular, as that's the only way I've heard that foxes may be supposedly
suffering more, and also number 6, which seems to be a favorite defense of
the indefensible. Fox hunting does not have some honorable environmental
benefit (and even if it did, it certainly couldn't be considered a humane
way of carrying it out), fox hunting is merely a tradition, and we all know
how tenaciously people can cling to tradition, no matter how cruel or
unnecessary it may be.
You're telling me! who does Blair think he is? first he re-instates
Blunkett, then he moves Hewitt over to the Hospital and medical thingie
post and then gives a former aide (who isn't even an MP) a cabinet
Trust? Trust? I'd sooner trust my cat.
Garth - too early in the morning to go ranting.
I think you actually meant this rant to be in response to Hercule's
anti-Blair post - I was only on about the poor little foxies. :)
I did say it was too early in the morning to ranting... what I actually
meant was that is was too early in the morning for me to go ranting..
Sorry. and yes, I do think fox hunting should be, erm, not banned per
say, but more one man and his dog.
Garth - too tired to say anymore.
I understand completely. :)
> Sorry. and yes, I do think fox hunting should be, erm, not banned per
> say, but more one man and his dog.
Well, I'm a bit of a hippie when it comes to hunting, as I don't like the
idea in general, but yes, as my hubby says, if you're going to do so, at
least have it be sporting and not have the fox so seriously outgunned, and
don't dig it out if it goes to ground. And as far as I'm concerned, hunting
is one thing, but mangling is another.
Want to make Fox Hunting fun for everyone... Give the Fox a shotgun.
It's not a hippy thing at all to thing that making a sport out of
something so bloody cruel is wrong. I'm not anti controlling fox
levels, but to pretend that fox-hunting as practised by people in red
jackets with a pack of hounds is an efficient way of doing so is so
banal that it really shouldn't be entertained.
And as for people losing their jobs.. well, cry with the miners and
Well, yes. I think Ian Hislop on HIGNFY put it best: "Blair has listened
and learned, and the first thing he learned was that we all want David
I also hope that on the first occasion that the
non-MP-and-suddenly-peeraged-from-nowhere Andrew Adonis goes onto Newsnight
or Today, the first question that he is asked by Paxman, Dimbleby or whoever
is "Who do you represent?". Because the answer is "Tony".
The Flat Earth society have more credibility than these bastards.
"Of course it's flat! Otherwise how could you play snooker?"
All due respect to you here, but he's our - your - prime minister and you
should be following his actions closely. . We all should, and it beggars
belief that so many people either don't follow his actions, or follow them
but don't hold him to account when he buggers it up.
I wasn't actually talking about the rights and wrongs of foxhunting, but
rather the way Blair used the promise of a vote on the issue as a bribe for
his backbenchers to back him on tuition fee topups. But now you've got me
The most obvious point to make is that the website you cite - the League
Against Cruel Sports - is in no way an unbiased source of information. It's
"Against" - the clue's in the name. Assuming I was arguing in favour of
foxhunting - and I haven't yet - you'd scarcely accept quotes from the
Countryside Alliance as objective. Looking at the page in detail, there are
a number of points open to serious question. (I'm not going to address them
Firstly, "A ban on hunting infringes on civil liberties - WRONG! A previous
challenge on those grounds was rejected in Scotland." Well, no offence to
our Lister or any other Scots present, but what the bloody hell has it got
to do with Scotland? The Scots, in case no-one noticed, passed their own
laws on the subject and a challenge in a Scottish Court to a Scottish law
has bugger all to do with an English Law that at the time had not been
Secondly, "Fox hunting is a class issue - WRONG! The case against hunting is
an animal welfare issue." This is total rubbish. Even the Government's own
people have said there's a class issue here - the downtrodden peasants
having a pop at the idle rich bastards, as Old Labour is wont to do - that's
what it's for, and the Old/New Labour discontent stems from the fact that
New Labour is just as full of idle rich bastards as the supposed landed
gentry. Many, many people are now landed, in a small way - you have a house
rather than a tithed cottage owned by your employer?
Thirdly, and this is the key: "Fox hunting is less cruel than shooting which
would increase with a ban on hunting - WRONG! The fox isn't killed quickly
with a bite to the back of the neck. Foxes not only endure long exhausting
chases, but also the terror and pain of being savaged to death - usually by
disembowelment. Foxes that escape can die from trauma. Foxes that go to
earth can be attacked by the terrier men's dogs and a vicious and stressful
fight can ensue."
Let's look at the basics of it. There are three alternative methods you can
use: basically poisoning, trapping for a humane kill later, and shooting.
These are all seriously flawed. Can anyone guarantee that the poison will
[a] affect only foxes and [b] act instantaneously and painlessly? The
answer to both of those is no, it can't be guaranteed. Any other animal -
rabbits, squirrels, stoats, otters, beavers, dogs - can be affected by it.
Similarly, the traps are not fox-specific and may well cause injury.
Shooting is the most problematic. The fox's brain is the size of a small
human fist, the heart about half the size of that. Can the marksman
guarantee a clean kill? From a distance? Through foliage and undergrowth?
On moving targets that size? No, he damn well can't. If you really want to
get the fox, you need something capable of tracking it through undergrowth
at speed, perhaps something like a dog, especially one that's been bred for
the task over generations. You would also need a method of transportation
across both the open countryside and through woodlands, perhaps something
like a horse. It's not just tradition that stops the hunters from using
4x4s, it's the manoeuverability, the high vantage point unencumbered by
dashboards and window frames, the ability to jump a fence. You can see
where this is going: you can see how the current methods have evolved over
There is only one basic question here: should fox numbers be controlled -
yes or no? No-one (except maybe the League, and again, they're biased)
seriously thinks they shouldn't be controlled. It's all a matter of HOW.
Again, it's in the name: "League Against *CRUEL* Sports".
An aside question: what's "humane" got to do with it? Humanity has spent
thousands of years refining methods of, to coin a phrase, "being really
crappy to each other". Humanity is not only directly responsible for just
about every lousy thing going on, every atrocity, every war, every genocide,
every killing, every torture, every rape, every subjugation, oppression,
exploitation and destruction of fellow humanity; much of humanity positively
revels in it. Humanity is buggering up the environment without a care in
the world (the only one he's got) - why the hell not? It's going to be the
generations a couple of centuries down the line who are going to have to
suffer the consequences. If this government actually, really, gave a shit
about "humane" it would have outlawed the preparation of halal meat. It
would have sought to stop the Spanish from bullfighting and throwing donkeys
off church towers. (And, incidentally, it would be protesting against
Saddam Hussein being faced with the death penalty in the US - as they do
when it's anyone else.)
No. Much of the arguments about foxhunting come from a different moral
perspective than "humane". It's not that people are killing foxes - it's
that people are ENJOYING it. That it's seen as a "sport" rather than a
dirty, sickening job that just has to be done. That people get off on it.
(It's interesting to consider what the response would be if the humane
marksman said that he liked his job.)
It's also yet to be explained just how, during drag hunting, the hunt is
supposed to not charge after the scent of a real fox if the hounds detect
It has also yet to be explained why this activity, sport, whatever you want
to call it, should be banned solely because other people, whose lives it
does not affect one way or the other, find it offensive or obscene or
"inhumane" (whatever "inhumane" might mean). This does not, obviously, mean
that if people want to set fire to cats or kick puppies out of upstairs
windows, they can, and should not be prosecuted. People regularly swat
flies, flush spiders down the drain, spray poison onto wasps and pour
boiling water onto ants nests. Don't ants have rights too? How would any
of us like to have boiling water poured into our homes? We pick and choose
which animals, which creatures we protect, and which ones we believe it's
okay to kill, and under what circumstances. The bulk of this is enshrined
in law, and it's subject to change over the years. Bear baiting was
outlawed years ago - but there's no other purpose to that beyond
entertainment value (i.e. none). There is a purpose to fox hunting above
and beyond the hunt - they are pests, they are scavengers. If farmers
didn't want the hunts, they wouldn't allow them access to their (private)
I am not a hunter, I have never been hunting, and I seriously doubt I ever
will. I doubt I'll even live in the countryside. My main objections to the
bill were its essentially dishonest motives, its inevitable failure to
eradicate the "problem" it was nominally designed for, my natural distaste
for the more lunatic fringes of the animal rights movements, my cynicism
about a ban being the answer to anything (typical examples: Prohibition,
video nasties), and my natural distrust for anything Labour espouses. And
maybe there's a touch of English traditionalism in there as well, but it's
fundamentally the principles.
"Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."
I'd say "Don't get me started" - but it's too late. See elsewhere for
specific fox-based hysterical drooling.
"I do look good in jodhpurs, though."
Efficient or not - you're not the one doing it; if they want to be terribly
inefficient about something that's their business.
> And as for people losing their jobs.. well, cry with the miners and
> steel workers.
So it's okay for them to suffer because other people have suffered?
The world changes, we have to change.
"Confucious he say."
With all due mutual respect, it's not that I don't care about the way the
country is being run, but I've got more immediate personal problems in my
life that don't allow me the energy to follow politics. As for the foxes,
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Thank you, it's nice to know not everyone sees me as a tree-hugging radical
for feeling that way. :)
I'm not anti controlling fox
> levels, but to pretend that fox-hunting as practised by people in red
> jackets with a pack of hounds is an efficient way of doing so is so
> banal that it really shouldn't be entertained.
Again, I'd have to agree; if foxes are really the pests they're claimed to
be, there have to be more humane ways of controlling their levels (and yes,
I'm well aware that the word 'humane' tends to lose some of its meaning in
the face of humanity's varied cruelties, but the implied meaning in this
case should be understood). To me, the main issue is not just that people
are enjoying the hunt, which is repulsive, but to be expected. It's the
excessive suffering of the foxes that I abhor. My husband shot rabbits in
the army as vermin control, and while I don't like the idea, and couldn't
see shooting an animal myself - and yes, I know as a meat-eater, that makes
me a hypocrite - I find that *vastly* different from siccing a pack of dogs
on an animal and allowing them to rend it limb from limb. Yes, a lot of
people in a lot of different countries engage in practices I find
distasteful, and I have no say as to how they lead their lives, but that
doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do. And as far as controlling
the animal population - which wouldn't be such an issue if man lived more in
symbiosis with the rest of the planet, as nature normally takes care of that
sort of thing itself - in this day and age, I just find it hard to believe
that there isn't a better way.
Efficient or not - you're not the one doing it; if they want to be
inefficient about something that's their business.
Inefficient without cruelty is fine. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.
So it's okay for them to suffer because other people have suffered?
(Google groups quoting buggered up again)
Not really the point - these are arguments made by pro-fox hunting
types in order to justify their hobby. There was a remarkable lack of
support from.. well anyone with right-wing political clout, really,
when huge numbers of blue collar workers needed help. Just seems rather
selective and self-serving.
So I shouldn't be surprised, we're all guilty of that.
Ann, reading back at what I wrote, some of it looked like a personal
criticism, which wasn't intended; and I apologise if that's the way it came
across. I really must learn to poof-read my stuff.
I also tend to go off on one over this subject, for reasons which don't have
much to do with foxes.
"Sackcloth is so last year."
LOL, just now read that last sentence again....you must indeed! ;)
Extremely amusing typos aside, I appreciate the sentiment. I'm especially
glad you said that as I felt a bit guilty, because even when I didn't have
as much going on, I had trouble following politics. It's not so much that I
don't care - although I do find it all a bit tedious on the whole - but more
a combination of several factors: I don't know much about how the English
political system works; I have a short attention span; even if you pay
attention to what's being said, it's still often difficult to determine
who's telling the truth and who's going to follow through, especially if you
aren't familiar with the history of the party or person in question; and so
forth. I have enough trouble coming to grips with American politics (though
I did vote in the last few presidential elections) - English politics just
totally baffle me! Then again, that's what politicians are best at,
baffling with bullshit. :p
But anyway, I didn't mean to come off as attacking or personally
criticising, either. It's just that, although I'm not an extremist like
some of the mad PETA-ites out there (I'm sure the organization as a whole
does some good things, but some of its members do go to self-defeating
extremes), I really do have a particular fondness and respect for animals.
And while I know nature is cruel anyway, I hate for them - or anyone,
really - to have to suffer more than necessary, and feel frustrated and sad
that people make so many excuses for harming their fellow creatures, whether
animals or other people.
> I also tend to go off on one over this subject, for reasons which
> don't have much to do with foxes.
I totally understand. Not everyone has sincere intentions when addressing
the issue; it's one of those hot buttons that could easily be used as a
smokescreen to direct attention from other important matters.
That's good... 'cause I didn't. :-)
> > Sorry. and yes, I do think fox hunting should be, erm, not banned
> > say, but more one man and his dog.
> Well, I'm a bit of a hippie when it comes to hunting, as I don't like
> idea in general, but yes, as my hubby says, if you're going to do so,
> least have it be sporting and not have the fox so seriously
> don't dig it out if it goes to ground. And as far as I'm concerned,
> is one thing, but mangling is another.
Indeed. it makes me think no-one in this country's seen "The Fox and