Foxhunting - a modest proposal for how really to smash it
banana
FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
=========================================================
[Please circulate]
0) INTRODUCTION
In the following article, it is argued that the struggle over foxhunting
- which is, of course, much more than just that - is going to escalate.
Whatever happens, the anti-foxhunting side will not win if they stay
sitting on their arses. In particular, it is argued that for starters,
- for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
defend themselves and more;
- for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
imagination.
1) THE ENEMY IS WELL-ORGANISED AND DOES NOT INTEND TO LOSE
I have long argued that the 'issue' of foxhunting has got the capacity
to play a major part in the large-scale exacerbation of
fault-lines in the UK-based part of the ruling class; and that behind
the 'issue' of foxhunting lies the issue of the monarchy.
I won't rehearse all that now - except to mention for the benefit of
those who are interested in what I have to say, but currently sceptical,
that we're talking of circumstances where General Sir Peter de la
Billiere, former head of the SAS and commander of British forces in Gulf
War 2 (1991), has led a protest march today 'in defence of the
countryside'; where the Countryside Alliance (largely formed from the
Countryside Movement, which was just the British Field Sports Society -
i.e. organised UK foxhunting - under another name) has received funding
from within the Windsor family household (Lord Inchyra); and where
officers of some of the most prestigious Army regiments are
'automatically' members of some prestigious county hunts. Oh yes and the
Beaufort Hunt, riding out for the first time (officially) after 'foot
and mouth', started out from...'Prince' Charles's residence at
Highgrove. (The Beaufort BTW is one of those hunts where deer corpses
are left out in the woods, to make sure that the fox population doesn't
decline). I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000. (A believer in the crap
churned out by the UK press would be forgiven for believing that farmers
were angry about VAT on fuel - odd, huh, when they buy fuel VAT-free?)
2) HOW THE WINDSOR FAMILY WON THE REFERENDUM IN AUSTRALIA
OK...many will have noticed that there has been talk of a 'debate on
constitutional reform' in the UK, e.g. the Guardian has called for an
eventual referendum on the monarchy at the same time as asserting that
the monarchy will win such a referendum (bit of a giveaway); and while
choosing as their alleged 'point of attack' the call for reform of the
Act of Settlement in order to allow a monarch or an heir to the throne
to be a Roman Catholic. Yes folks this is the 21st century although one
would be forgiven for thinking it was the 16th or the 18th, and they
call this a 'modernising reform', even though its source appears to be
none other than the Windsor family's strategic 'Way Ahead Committee'. It
should be clear what sort of 'modernisation' they have in mind, and in
whose interests.
The case that really has to be studied by anyone interested in this from
a critical anti-monarchist anti-foxhunting anti-ruling-class point of
view is the referendum in Australia in 1999. For sure, this has been
studied in depth by Windsorite strategists in the UK. The Australian
referendum was a case of one of the most brilliant campaigns of
political manipulation in recent times. In a country where a large
majority of people oppose the monarchy, things were arranged so that the
monarchy won the referendum. How was this done? Two ways. First, the
anti-monarchist alternative was set up to be a complete bunch of shit
easily (and not exactly inaccurately) characterisable as a plan for a
president to be chosen by a roomful of corrupt politicians. (I say 'not
exactly inaccurately' because those politicians are themselves in the
pockets of big business, and of course the monarchist campaign didn't
mention that). As part of this way of setting up the referendum, it was
the pro-Windsor vote that came under the 'NO' rubric. By this means,
voting in favour of the Windsors was portrayed as being a matter of
popular resistance to manipulation by politicians. (I'm not joking!)
Second, and just as importantly, it was arranged so that ALL of the
official spokespeople for the 'YES' campaign were in agreement that the
Windsor family itself was above criticism. So all people were treated to
on the republican side was a bunch of boring, often 'glamorous',
PR-trained politicians talking with forked tongues about legal
administrative 'constitutional' reform. Not one of them attacked the
Windsor scum or exposed anything they didn't want exposed. Again, I'm
not joking, and clearly with 'enemies' like that the Windsor family
doesn't need friends. What this illustrated was the *centralised* nature
of the control over political organisations and opinion formation.
(Similarly, how many people in the UK are aware that there have not yet
been any verdicts in the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and
Dodi Fayed in Paris, where they were murdered five years ago? Or that at
Princess Diana's inquest, the law is that any jurors appointed will have
to be officers of the royal household? [See the newsgroup
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana]). Surprise surprise, no 'public figure'
in Australia raised the issue of Windsor finances, for example.
What has this got to do with fox-hunting in the UK? A lot.
3) OPPOSITION TO FOXHUNTING,
OR AN 'OH DEAR, WE LOST' PSEUDO-OPPOSITION?
In the UK, the vast majority of people are opposed to fox-hunting and
want to see an absolute and complete ban on it. This is true both in the
towns and in the countryside. If anything, the anti-foxhunting majority
in the countryside may well be even larger than it is in the towns,
because more people have first-hand experience of just what an extremely
arrogant, violent, fascist-style bunch of scumsuckers the redcoat
foxhunters actually are. And the majority in the countryside has
doubtless got even larger in the last few years, during which the
'country set' have proclaimed that they represent 'everyone in the
countryside', which supposedly includes low-paid rural workers who in
actual fact have been forced for generations to eat the shit deposited
by rich whip-carrying bastards on horseback.
At the same time, guess what. Yes, while good and admirable work
continues to be done by hunt saboteurs, all the really big
demonstrations are by supporters of foxhunting. Odd, huh? Well there's a
reason for that. It's the same reason that the Windsors won the
referendum in Australia despite the fact that the vast majority of the
population in Australia are anti-monarchist. Odd, isn't it, how none of
the organisations supposedly opposed to foxhunting has called, either
individually or collectively, for a massive counter-demonstration when
the pro-foxhunting scumsuckers have paraded through London?
Well this is what I'd like to see:
- for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
defend themselves and more;
- for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
imagination.
This battle will *not* be won by putting faith in politicians or
parliament, faith in those RADA-trained creeps who get their special
parliamentary 'Silk Cut' cigarettes at, what is it, £1.30 per packet?;
who think they've hit the big-time when they get corporate credit-notes
for massage-parlours; a holiday courtesy of a supermarket chain, a
tobacco firm, an oil company, a drugs firm, an aerospace firm, etc.; or
when someone sorts them out a bank account in Switzerland or the Channel
Islands with a couple of hundred thousand pounds in it; who think
they're Al Capone when they fiddle their parliamentary car allowances;
and who relish the impression they give when they let it drop that, on
one or two occasions, they have spoken for 10 seconds with someone whose
brother-in-law's a permanent secretary and who once danced with, gasp,
the 'Prince of Wales'.
Nor will it be won by following 'spokespeople' 'putting the case for
abolition' in the media.
***********************************
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '01:51:06' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
Not sure how the words 'led' and 'today' crept in. He has attended at
least one Countryside Alliance demo - in 2000. Apologies for any
confusion caused.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '01:51:06' on 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002',
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>***********************************
>
>FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>=========================================================
>
>[Please circulate]
<snip>
>I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
>part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000.
See
'Reasons for anti-fuel tax action in UK', 5 November 2000:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=FSUotEAghbB6EwJN%40borve.demon.co.uk>
--
banana
Robin Carmody
news:8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> ***********************************
>
> Well this is what I'd like to see:
>
> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
> defend themselves and more;
>
> - for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
> should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
> necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
> actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
> imagination.
I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Steve Glynn
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aia6oa$1m7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
There's radical for you! I bet you've been lippy with a few policemen
(sorry, 'Fascist Pigs') in your time, too.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
peter
<steve...@ntlworld.com> stated: -
>
>"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aia6oa$1m7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk...
>> > ***********************************
>> >
>> > Well this is what I'd like to see:
>> >
>> > - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
>> > anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
>> > defend themselves and more;
>> >
>> > - for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
>> > should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
>> > necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
>> > actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
>> > imagination.
>>
>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration
>at
>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>> --
>> Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
>>
>>
we'll see you there then!
>
>There's radical for you! I bet you've been lippy with a few policemen
>(sorry, 'Fascist Pigs') in your time, too.
>
>Steve
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
>
>
--
peter
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ***********************************
>
> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
> =========================================================
[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
Go away you silly boy.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '01:51:06' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
2002', banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>***********************************
>
>FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>=========================================================
>
>[Please circulate]
<snip>
>Odd, isn't it, how none of
>the organisations supposedly opposed to foxhunting has called, either
>individually or collectively, for a massive counter-demonstration when
>the pro-foxhunting scumsuckers have paraded through London?
>
>Well this is what I'd like to see:
>
>- for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
>anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
>defend themselves and more;
>
>- for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
>should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
>necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
>actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
>imagination.
Another thing that's 'odd' is that none of the organisations opposed to
foxhunting has called for a referendum on the issue, despite the fact
that one would have thought this was strong ground, given the large
anti-foxhunting majority in the UK.
--
banana
banana
posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion, but what does ECP
mean?
--
banana
Joseph Hutcheon
Elizabeth Charles Philip?
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:26:00' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
OK I've found out, it means 'Excessive Cross-Posting'. False, because a)
it is in my serious opinion on-topic for all groups posted to (which you
don't even bother denying before you reach into what is probably your
rather impoverished collection of insults), and b) on the purely
objective criterion of the Breidbart Index, it is nowhere near the
threshold.
Follow-ups set.
--
banana
Zeronic
I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
> part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000. (A believer in the crap
> churned out by the UK press would be forgiven for believing that farmers
> were angry about VAT on fuel - odd, huh, when they buy fuel VAT-free?)
I think the farmers were protesting at the oil companies for raising
basic fuel prices out of proportion to the worldwide oil price movement.
The users of duty free fuel (who aren't just farmers btw) had their fuel
costs increase by a large percentage.
Other people were concerned with the level of taxation.
--
Best wishes,
Zeronic
bigboard
> Another thing that's 'odd' is that none of the organisations opposed to
> foxhunting has called for a referendum on the issue, despite the fact
> that one would have thought this was strong ground, given the large
> anti-foxhunting majority in the UK.
Or possibly that the only people who really give a shit about the issue
are a tiny minority of animal rights loonies and the hunting community.
If there was really a huge groundswell of people opposed to hunting we
would see protest marches the size of the Countryside March. However, we
don't.
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
However you are polluting a newsgroup I read with off-topic material
you are disingenuously trying to pass off as relevalant. What's up?
No one buying your 'Poor old Al-Fayed, nasty nasty Windsors' in a.c.p-d
and now your deperately trying anywhere?
> but what does ECP
> mean?
Excessively Cross Posted.
Namely:-
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.parliament,
uk.people.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, uk.politics.animals,
free.uk.politics.animal-rights
Can you tell us what the connection is between the death of Diana, a
kook theory that she was murdered by the Windsors, animal welfare and
rights and rural issues is - assuming it is not a lame troll? I for one
would be intrigued to know.
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
> >> an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
> >
> >OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion, but what does ECP
> >mean?
>
> OK I've found out, it means 'Excessive Cross-Posting'.
Well done.
> False,
Nope. Correct. It breaches the charter rules of many of these groups regarding
both crossposting limits and which uk.* groups can and cannot be. It also
breaches Usenet guidelines on the maximum number of crossposts, therefore
it is ECP on both counts.
> it is in my serious opinion on-topic for all groups posted
1) Irrelevant to the issue of ECP.
2) Disingenuous. It is an attempt to push a quite seperate agenda, which
is unrelated to many of these newsgroups by hitching a ride on issues
which are relevant. It is the old Trojan Horse tactic.
>(which you
> don't even bother denying before you reach into what is probably your
> rather impoverished collection of insults),
I already told you. It was a Trojan Horse troll to push a silly kook
conspiracy theory.
> and b) on the purely
> objective criterion of the Breidbart Index, it is nowhere near the
> threshold.
Irrelevant, BI is not a measure of crossposting limits, it is a technical
measure for spam. You are being dishonest again. The objective criterion
for crossposting is contained in the charters for the various uk.* groups
where, you will find, they generally set the limit to 3-4 of which no more
than 2 can be uk.politics.*. For example, from the charter for uk.p.misc:-
Cross posting
[..]Cross posting to more than two special-topic uk.politics.* groups, or to
uk.politics.misc and special-topic group(s) simultaneously is not allowed.
Cross posting to more than a total of 4 groups (including this one) is
strongly discouraged.
For wider Usenet groups, RFC1855 sets it at around 5-6.
You have crossposted to 7 groups, of which 3 are uk.politics.* and includes
uk.p.m, therefore, by all objective criterion, it is excessively cross
posted .. ECP.
> Follow-ups set.
Good idea. This time it's set for the appropriate group. Feel free to rave
away in it.
T N Nurse
(Joseph Hutcheon) wrote:
Does that kook Klaus Wagner have anything to do with this?
He used to rabbit on in a similar manner about Queen Elizardbeast
and her treatment of poor old Di.
JudGeDreD
Nurse) wrote:
>In article <AvFat4A4...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
>> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >In article <8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ***********************************
>> >>
>> >> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>> >> =========================================================
>> >
>> >[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
>> > an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
>>
>> OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion,
>
>However you are polluting a newsgroup I read with off-topic material
>you are disingenuously trying to pass off as relevalant. What's up?
>No one buying your 'Poor old Al-Fayed, nasty nasty Windsors' in a.c.p-d
>and now your deperately trying anywhere?
Tough fukin tits Saunby, Far better his posts then the shit you post
especially when in nymshift mode.
Funny how anything to do with the cessation of foxhunting gets you
stamping up and down!!
JudGeDreD
Chickenshit. It's so ineffective that is why Scotland banned it
Bwahahahahahahaha 3 cheers for the anti hunting lobby.
Mark
> - which is, of course, much more than just that - is going to escalate.
Nice to see a lefty admit that their anti-hunting campaign is nothing
to do with "saving the pretty animals" and all to do with stupid
"class war" crap.
> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
> defend themselves and more;
And where are you going to get these people from? You see, the vast
majority of the population _don't care_ about fox-hunting; oh, sure,
they "care" in the "oh, don't hurt the poor wittle foxy" sense if some
opinion pollster comes around, but they don't care enough to get off
their backside and protest about it, and if they were asked what are
the most important things the government should worry about then
fox-hunting wouldn't even make the top hundred.
> I have long argued that the 'issue' of foxhunting has got the capacity
> to play a major part in the large-scale exacerbation of
> fault-lines in the UK-based part of the ruling class;
And they care even less about your "class war" wet-dreams.
Frankly, having actually lived in the country and had to put up with
the murderous little bastards, I think it's time we legalised
fox-hunting with napalm...
Mark
JudGeDreD
Nurse) wrote:
>In article <r+1ApQB5...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
>> >> an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
>> >
>> >OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion, but what does ECP
>> >mean?
>>
>> OK I've found out, it means 'Excessive Cross-Posting'.
>
>Well done.
>
>> False,
>
>Nope. Correct. It breaches the charter rules of many of these groups regarding
>both crossposting limits and which uk.* groups can and cannot be. It also
>breaches Usenet guidelines on the maximum number of crossposts, therefore
>it is ECP on both counts.
PissOff ya fukin troll YAUNBY for a spammer, nymshifter, troll, rogue
cancel bot and goat shagger you sure have some high standards for
other people.
Joseph Hutcheon
Maybe. There's a loony theory to the effect that the NWO is being
controlled by the House of Windsor, which has the entire Western world
in its thrall.
bigboard
You seem to be replying to a completely different post than the one I
made. Where did I ever say the anti-hunting lobby was ineffective?
Oh, I didn't.
JudGeDreD
NO SHIT. where did I say you did?
JudGeDreD
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
>> In the following article, it is argued that the struggle over foxhunting
>> - which is, of course, much more than just that - is going to escalate.
>
>Nice to see a lefty admit that their anti-hunting campaign is nothing
>to do with "saving the pretty animals" and all to do with stupid
>"class war" crap.
Either way you lose pissant.
>> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
>> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
>> defend themselves and more;
>And where are you going to get these people from? You see, the vast
>majority of the population _don't care_ about fox-hunting; oh, sure,
>they "care" in the "oh, don't hurt the poor wittle foxy" sense if some
>opinion pollster comes around, but they don't care enough to get off
>their backside and protest about it, and if they were asked what are
>the most important things the government should worry about then
>fox-hunting wouldn't even make the top hundred.
That's funny, there seems to be enough support to ban it in Scotland &
England will be along shortly. Kinda puts you up shit creek huh?
It's a bit like me kicking yer fukin head in. You would soon care if
someone came along and said "Oh look he is beatin the crap outta that
poor ickle troll, someone stop him" huh dickwad?
>> I have long argued that the 'issue' of foxhunting has got the capacity
>> to play a major part in the large-scale exacerbation of
>> fault-lines in the UK-based part of the ruling class;
>And they care even less about your "class war" wet-dreams.
I'd like to put all the pro hunt lobby in a room full of tigers & lets
see how keen they were one to one!!!
>Frankly, having actually lived in the country and had to put up with
>the murderous little bastards, I think it's time we legalised
>fox-hunting with napalm...
Wet dreams!!!
bigboard
What, apart from where you said 'It's so ineffective that is why
Scotland banned it'?
JudGeDreD
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:36:35' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
Thanks for this info. I'd be interested to know what the percentage
increase was, in the basic price, over what sort of time period. I still
don't believe that the oil companies were really being prevented solely
by the physical force of fuel protestors from getting petrol and diesel
to the pumps. The famous demo in Hull which led Blair to hotfoot back to
London (and presumably, straight to Cobra, the Cabinet Office Briefing
Room) was a hunt thing, although this was little publicised at the time.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '12:51:27' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
2002', Joseph Hutcheon <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk> writes:
>On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:18:24 +0100, tnn...@nospamhotmail.com (T N
>Nurse) wrote:
>
>>In article <3d490d09....@news.cis.dfn.de>, j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk
>>(Joseph Hutcheon) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:26:00 +0100, banana
>>> <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>>> >posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
>>> >'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>>> >
>>> >>In article <8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>>> >><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> ***********************************
>>> >>>
>>> >>> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>>> >>> =========================================================
<snip>
>There's a loony theory to the effect that the NWO is being
>controlled by the House of Windsor, which has the entire Western world
>in its thrall.
Have you heard of the 'New World Order Forum'?
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22new+world+order+forum%22>.
Or just try: <http://www.new-worldorder.org> (which is not a spoof
site).
--
banana
banana
posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:41:58' on
'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>In article <AvFat4A4...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
>> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >In article <8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ***********************************
>> >>
>> >> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>> >> =========================================================
>> >
>> >[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
>> > an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
>>
>> OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion,
>
>However you are polluting a newsgroup I read with off-topic material
>you are disingenuously trying to pass off as relevalant.
I believe it's relevant. Not being disingenuous at all. Your mileage may
vary. BTW which newsgroup are you reading this on?
<snip>
>Excessively Cross Posted.
>
>Namely:-
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.parliament,
>uk.people.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, uk.politics.animals,
>free.uk.politics.animal-rights
>
>Can you tell us what the connection is between the death of Diana, a
>kook theory that she was murdered by the Windsors, animal welfare and
>rights and rural issues is - assuming it is not a lame troll? I for one
>would be intrigued to know.
Trick question - although hardly fiendishly constructed - because I
wasn't referring to, or advancing, any 'kook' 'theory' [1]. I will
answer it though. I believe the issue of foxhunting is closely bound up
with the issue of monarchy (hell, even Mandelson puts them in the same
box); I also believe the issue of monarchy in the UK is inseparable from
the issue of the doings of the Windsor family and dynasty (a view not
put forward, as I said, by those who ran the 'YES' campaign in
Australia). I'm on record as having put these views forward on numerous
occasions for a number of years.
(1) There was, of course, foul play. Vehicles such as Fiat Unos cannot
'disappear' without trace - ostensibly even without their registration
numbers having been recorded - from one of the most heavily surveilled
areas in the world (the middle of Paris embassyland), without foul play
having occurred. Meanwhile, an SIS (MI6) report was prepared for the
Windsor family's Way Ahead Committee at that time, regarding the
implication for the family of their former daughter-in-law's
relationship with Dodi Fayed. If you're interested, you may care also to
refer to Christopher Andrew's piece published in the Sunday Times on 31
August 1997 - printed prior to the crash - as well as to a whole number
of other points discussed over the last five years on
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and elsewhere.
--
banana
David-S
>
> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
Wanker
Steve Smith
news:aiatu9$11lca1$2...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aia6oa$1m7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > news:8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Well this is what I'd like to see:
> > >
> > > anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
> > > defend themselves and more;
> > >
> > > should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done;
not
> > > necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
> > > actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force
and
> > > imagination.
> >
> at
> > the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the
Conservative
> > conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
> > Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
> >
> >
>
> (sorry, 'Fascist Pigs') in your time, too.
>
> Steve
>
Is that Citizen Robin of the Tooting Popular Front? Teehee!!!!
STeve
Robin Carmody
news:3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com...
> Robin Carmody wrote:
>
> >
> > I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration
at
> > the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the
Conservative
> > conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>
> Wanker
Anything constructive to say, David?
JudGeDreD
Yeah. You are a lyin shit!
Any good?
alanG
<sa...@aviation-procurement.com> wrote:
>Robin Carmody wrote:
>
>>
>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>
>Wanker
>
At his stage of life that is a distinct probability.
--
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
Zeronic
>
> In article <3D490F33...@uk2.net>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:36:35' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
> 2002', Zeronic <Put_My_Name_Here_I...@uk2.net> writes:
>
> >banana wrote:
> >
> > I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
> >> part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000. (A believer in the crap
> >> churned out by the UK press would be forgiven for believing that farmers
> >> were angry about VAT on fuel - odd, huh, when they buy fuel VAT-free?)
> >
> >I think the farmers were protesting at the oil companies for raising
> >basic fuel prices out of proportion to the worldwide oil price movement.
> >The users of duty free fuel (who aren't just farmers btw) had their fuel
> >costs increase by a large percentage.
> >Other people were concerned with the level of taxation.
>
> Thanks for this info. I'd be interested to know what the percentage
> increase was, in the basic price, over what sort of time period.
At the time someone (who bought red diesel in bulk) told me that over
the course of about a year the price had risen by....and that's the bit
I can't remember, but it was definitely a hefty rise, say 50%+. But that
might be wrong. Anyone know where to find any figures on this?
>I still
> don't believe that the oil companies were really being prevented solely
> by the physical force of fuel protestors from getting petrol and diesel
> to the pumps.
Don't you recall the oil companies came in for criticism by the
government for seemingly almost encouraging the protests! I should think
the oil co's aren't all that happy about the highest rate of taxation in
Europe on their products.
> The famous demo in Hull which led Blair to hotfoot back to
> London (and presumably, straight to Cobra, the Cabinet Office Briefing
> Room) was a hunt thing, although this was little publicised at the time.
Don't recall that, please tell all.
--
Best wishes,
Zeronic
Mark
> Either way you lose pissant.
No, the left are losing; as you clearly demonstrate by the way you
have to resort to threats of violence rather than make any rational or
moral argument.
> >And where are you going to get these people from? You see, the vast
> >majority of the population _don't care_ about fox-hunting; oh, sure,
> >they "care" in the "oh, don't hurt the poor wittle foxy" sense if some
> >opinion pollster comes around, but they don't care enough to get off
> >their backside and protest about it, and if they were asked what are
> >the most important things the government should worry about then
> >fox-hunting wouldn't even make the top hundred.
> That's funny, there seems to be enough support to ban it in Scotland &
> England will be along shortly.
Exactly as I said; those people "care" when a pollster comes around.
Now, how many do you think are going to miss their favorite TV soap to
man the barricades with you? Very, very few.
On the other hand, the pro-hunters see this as just another attempt by
idiot urban lefties to destroy their way of life; it's hardly
surprising, therefore, that they're rather more motivated to protest.
> It's a bit like me kicking yer fukin head in. You would soon care if
> someone came along and said "Oh look he is beatin the crap outta that
> poor ickle troll, someone stop him" huh dickwad?
I'll leave that incomprehensible gibberish to stand for itself.
Mark
JudGeDreD
>JudGeDreD <judg...@rr.net> wrote in message news:<3d5d368a...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net>...
>> Either way you lose pissant.
>
>No, the left are losing;
Wet Dreams.
>as you clearly demonstrate by the way you
>have to resort to threats of violence rather than make any rational or
>moral argument.
Oh fuk me Mammy, mammy do. Next you'll be whining to the usenet
moderators!!!
So you support a horrible amount of violence on innocent animals and
yet feel unwilling to partake of said, yourself?
>> >And where are you going to get these people from? You see, the vast
>> >majority of the population _don't care_ about fox-hunting; oh, sure,
>> >they "care" in the "oh, don't hurt the poor wittle foxy" sense if some
>> >opinion pollster comes around, but they don't care enough to get off
>> >their backside and protest about it, and if they were asked what are
>> >the most important things the government should worry about then
>> >fox-hunting wouldn't even make the top hundred.
>> That's funny, there seems to be enough support to ban it in Scotland &
>> England will be along shortly.
>Exactly as I said; those people "care" when a pollster comes around.
>Now, how many do you think are going to miss their favorite TV soap to
>man the barricades with you? Very, very few.
Dont need to, it just helps. The job is about done anyhow.
>On the other hand, the pro-hunters see this as just another attempt by
>idiot urban lefties to destroy their way of life;
This has NOTHING to do with hunting in the whole. This is a very small
group of perverted sado masochistic assholes who get kicks
deliberately abusing animals. Slowly, as they are now finding out,
they have been isolated and pissed on from a great height.
> it's hardly
>surprising, therefore, that they're rather more motivated to protest.
It's inbred in them see. They think animal abuse is a necessary part
of life. It's not.
>> It's a bit like me kicking yer fukin head in. You would soon care if
>> someone came along and said "Oh look he is beatin the crap outta that
>> poor ickle troll, someone stop him" huh dickwad?
>I'll leave that incomprehensible gibberish to stand for itself.
If there is any part of it you need help understanding then just
holler.
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:41:58' on
> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>
> >In article <AvFat4A4...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
> >> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
> >> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
> >> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ***********************************
> >> >>
> >> >> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
> >> >> =========================================================
> >> >
> >> >[Hitching a lift on the foxhunting issue for the purpose of pushing
> >> > an ECP kook Princess Diana conspiracy theory]
> >>
> >> OK no-one is making you take part in any discussion,
> >
> >However you are polluting a newsgroup I read with off-topic material
> >you are disingenuously trying to pass off as relevalant.
>
> I believe it's relevant. Not being disingenuous at all.
I believe you are and I outline in a posting yesterday.
> vary. BTW which newsgroup are you reading this on?
uk.p.misc and occassionally uk.p.a.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Excessively Cross Posted.
> >
> >Namely:-
> >alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.parliament,
> >uk.people.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, uk.politics.animals,
> >free.uk.politics.animal-rights
> >
> >Can you tell us what the connection is between the death of Diana, a
> >kook theory that she was murdered by the Windsors, animal welfare and
> >rights and rural issues is - assuming it is not a lame troll? I for one
> >would be intrigued to know.
>
> Trick question
Not a trick question at all. It's very straightforward, given that all
of the above were mentioned in the OP.
- although hardly fiendishly constructed - because I
> wasn't referring to, or advancing, any 'kook' 'theory' [1]. I will
> answer it though. I believe the issue of foxhunting is closely bound up
> with the issue of monarchy
Which, of course, is a kook theory of yours cobbled together with
black helicopters and secret cabals.
> box); I also believe the issue of monarchy in the UK is inseparable from
> the issue of the doings of the Windsor family and dynasty (a view not
> put forward, as I said, by those who ran the 'YES' campaign in
> Australia). I'm on record as having put these views forward on numerous
> occasions for a number of years.
As I, and indeed others, have said - kook conspiracy theory using
pertinent and serious issues as a trojan horse to get it aired.
[Silly nonsense about the so-called diana conspiracy and disappearing cars]
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and elsewhere.
And I have set the followups to this newsgroup where the black helicopter
brigade belong.
BOEDICIA
>From: "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2002 22:33 EDT
>Message-id: <aia6oa$1m7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Well this is what I'd like to see:
>>
>> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
>> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
>> defend themselves and more;
>> - for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
>> should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
>> necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
>> actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
>> imagination.
>
>I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
I thought your mental problem prevented you from associating with people.
However since you can apparently go out and demonstrate against the toffs, does
that mean you are capable of getting a job.
How about demonstrating against coursing? So who cares if that imbecile
Bernadette Devlin has to give up her favourite sport - after breeding, I mean.
Poor toffs. Every loony lefty is against them. They just can't bear to see
them in their pinks, jumping hedges followed by the hounds trying to catch
that wily fox
who has just murdered a chicken. Let the farmers blow their heads off I say.
BOEDICIA
>Date: Thu, Aug 1, 2002 08:57 EDT
>Message-id: <69e61443.02080...@posting.google.com>
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> In the following article, it is argued that the struggle over foxhunting
>> - which is, of course, much more than just that - is going to escalate.
>Nice to see a lefty admit that their anti-hunting campaign is nothing
>to do with "saving the pretty animals" and all to do with stupid "class war"
crap.
Quite. You don't see them demonstrating against "working class" sports that
kill animals do you?
>Frankly, having actually lived in the country and had to put up with
>the murderous little bastards, I think it's time we legalised
>fox-hunting with napalm...
Fox are considered vermin and the farmer kills them at will or risks losing his
stock. If these hunters wore cloth caps and clogs the loony left idiots
wouldn't utter a word.
T N Nurse
<judg...@rr.net> wrote:
Well, we could tell them all about your lame habitual trolling and homophobic
tendancies, couldn't we Pete/Bishop Mbongo/and dozens of other psuedonyms
and sock puppets you go under? How's Essex?
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3D490F33...@uk2.net>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:36:35' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
> 2002', Zeronic <Put_My_Name_Here_I...@uk2.net> writes:
>
> >banana wrote:
> >
> > I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
> >> part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000. (A believer in the crap
> >> churned out by the UK press would be forgiven for believing that farmers
> >> were angry about VAT on fuel - odd, huh, when they buy fuel VAT-free?)
> >
> >I think the farmers were protesting at the oil companies for raising
> >basic fuel prices out of proportion to the worldwide oil price movement.
> >The users of duty free fuel (who aren't just farmers btw) had their fuel
> >costs increase by a large percentage.
> >Other people were concerned with the level of taxation.
>
> Thanks for this info. I'd be interested to know what the percentage
> increase was, in the basic price, over what sort of time period.
Why don't you just look it up? The Telegraph isn't eactly hard to find.
In Jan 1999 the refinery gate price was 4.8p per litre. By June 2000,
18 months later, it 16.4p/l a rise of over 300%. This is the sort
of rise farmers and other users of duty free fuel would have seen in
their fuel costs over that period.
Over the same period petrol went from 62p/l to 80p/l - a rise of 29%
I still
> don't believe that the oil companies were really being prevented solely
> by the physical force of fuel protestors from getting petrol and diesel
> to the pumps.
Believe what you like, the facts say otherwise.
> The famous demo in Hull which led Blair to hotfoot back to
> London (and presumably, straight to Cobra, the Cabinet Office Briefing
> Room) was a hunt thing, although this was little publicised at the time.
Translation: I'm making this all up, that's why it was 'little publicised'
peter
I wonder if you are as ugly as your language.
If you think people are going to stop hunting because of a bunch of
communists in black dust bin liners you must need an injection. Law or
no law. There is a law against handguns but the Yardies defy it daily.
The government simply will not be able to jail a million people. Sorry
the law will be ignored. And the hunt will continue - The hunting lobby
made a big mistake asking for support for "job losses" given the British
government has destroyed jobs in mining, fishing, ship building and
steel. The real reason hunting will go on is that it is part of OUR
culture and as the BBC tells us day after sickening day "We live in a
multi'kultural society" - according to the liberal bigots. So you will
just have to put up with it. And hunting is fun! And if the fox looked
like a cockroach you'd clime up a hunter's leg to get away from it
"PLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZEEEEEEE SAVE ME FROM THE COCKROACHFOX
CREATURE!!!!!!!"" but you recall your teddy and think foxes are like
teddies. They are not. They are beasts.
123 456 789
ABC DEF GHI
JKL MNO PQR
STU VWX YZ
FOR FOX READ BEAST - 666
THE BLUE AVENGER
In article <3d77bc81...@news.rr.mex.ecoterminal.net>, JudGeDreD
<judg...@rr.net> stated: -
--
peter
JudGeDreD
Well you could M Saunby aka T N Nurse aka GeTravis aka Mr Liar etc,
etc, etc. However it has not helped you much in the past has it? in
fact it has done you far more harm then good, lying. But that's your
choice. Personally I love the attention, but then Top dog always
does!!
> How's Essex?
Stateside or UK? both are very nice, however I far prefer the UK
Essex. Such nice, friendly people. (throws hook) why do you ask?
Bwahahahahahahahaha
wot a dick.
And stop cross-posting to irrelevant groups you fool.
JudGeDreD
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I wonder if you are as ugly as your language.
>If you think people are going to stop hunting because of a bunch of
>communists in black dust bin liners you must need an injection. Law or
>no law. There is a law against handguns but the Yardies defy it daily.
>The government simply will not be able to jail a million people. Sorry
>the law will be ignored. And the hunt will continue - The hunting lobby
>made a big mistake asking for support for "job losses" given the British
>government has destroyed jobs in mining, fishing, ship building and
>steel. The real reason hunting will go on is that it is part of OUR
>culture and as the BBC tells us day after sickening day "We live in a
>multi'kultural society" - according to the liberal bigots. So you will
>just have to put up with it. And hunting is fun! And if the fox looked
>like a cockroach you'd clime up a hunter's leg to get away from it
>"PLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZEEEEEEE SAVE ME FROM THE COCKROACHFOX
>CREATURE!!!!!!!"" but you recall your teddy and think foxes are like
>teddies. They are not. They are beasts.
They are REAL WET DREAMS you are having there pervert. You will be
forced underground like all the other perverts of you kind.
Try getting a real life wacko. One where animal abuse does not turn
you on.
T N Nurse
<ab...@uk.tiscali.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 10:40:47 +0100, tnn...@nospamhotmail.com (T N
> Nurse) wrote:
>
> >In article <3d77bc81...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, JudGeDreD
> ><ab...@uk.tiscali.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Aug 2002 15:50:16 -0700, mma...@my-deja.com (Mark) wrote:
> >>
> >> If there is any part of it you need help understanding then just
> >> holler.
> >
> >Well, we could tell them all about your lame habitual trolling and homophobic
> >tendancies, couldn't we Pete/Bishop Mbongo/and dozens of other psuedonyms
> >and sock puppets you go under?
>
> Well you could M Saunby aka T N Nurse aka GeTravis aka Mr Liar etc,
> etc, etc.
Ah, his addled mind confuses seperate posters.
Its all in Google for anyone to read. So what was the disappearance
this time? Yet another account lost through net-abuse?
> choice. Personally I love the attention,
I know you do. That's why I make a point of drawing everyone's attention
to the fact that you are a recreational troller who has little or no
interest in the subject matter he purports to post on. Deprives you
of that attention your sad little life desperately seeks.
> And stop cross-posting to irrelevant groups you fool.
But it is relavent dear boy - warning all those dear people away from your
lame trolling. Don't you want them to know all about your net abuse and
many lost accounts?
Oops! Is that the time? Must fly. Bye troll, keep those sock puppets moving.
f/u set. Don't reset them now.
banana
posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:39:26' on
<snip>
You included the 'kook' assumption in your question. Ever heard the
question 'when did you stop beating your wife?'
--
banana
JudGeDreD
Nurse) wrote:
>In article <3d4a774...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, JudGeDreD
><ab...@uk.tiscali.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 10:40:47 +0100, tnn...@nospamhotmail.com (T N
>> Nurse) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3d77bc81...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, JudGeDreD
>> ><ab...@uk.tiscali.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1 Aug 2002 15:50:16 -0700, mma...@my-deja.com (Mark) wrote:
>> >>
>
>> >> If there is any part of it you need help understanding then just
>> >> holler.
>> >
>> >Well, we could tell them all about your lame habitual trolling and homophobic
>> >tendancies, couldn't we Pete/Bishop Mbongo/and dozens of other psuedonyms
>> >and sock puppets you go under?
>>
>> Well you could M Saunby aka T N Nurse aka GeTravis aka Mr Liar etc,
>> etc, etc.
>
>Ah, his addled mind confuses seperate posters.
>Its all in Google for anyone to read. So what was the disappearance
>this time? Yet another account lost through net-abuse?
What we see there Saunby is the very reason you are so often
highlighted as a troll and why we just love having fun with you.
>> choice. Personally I love the attention,
>
>I know you do. That's why I make a point of drawing everyone's attention
>to the fact that you are a recreational troller who has little or no
>interest in the subject matter he purports to post on. Deprives you
>of that attention your sad little life desperately seeks.
It's working great. Thanks.
>> And stop cross-posting to irrelevant groups you fool.
>
>But it is relavent dear boy - warning all those dear people away from your
>lame trolling. Don't you want them to know all about your net abuse and
>many lost accounts?
You are a blessing in disguise.
Keep up the good work.
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It is not an assumption, it is an accurate personal assessment of the claims.
> Ever heard the
> question 'when did you stop beating your wife?'
Yes. Ever hear of a 'false analogy'?
Now please keep this in the pricless diana newsgroup, where I have set the
followup.
banana
posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '15:12:13' on
'Fri, 2 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>In article <J3UY74A+...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:39:26' on
>> 'Fri, 2 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >In article <OqvJMWAQ...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>> >> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:41:58' on
>> >> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <AvFat4A4...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>> >> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <tnnurse-ya0235800...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>> >> >> posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '09:49:53' on
>> >> >> 'Thu, 1 Aug 2002', T N Nurse <tnn...@nospamhotmail.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
>> >> >> ><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> >> Trick question
>> >
>> >Not a trick question at all. It's very straightforward, given that all
>> >of the above were mentioned in the OP.
>>
>> You included the 'kook' assumption in your question.
>
>It is not an assumption, it is an accurate personal assessment of the claims.
>
>> Ever heard the
>> question 'when did you stop beating your wife?'
>
>Yes. Ever hear of a 'false analogy'?
Stop trolling.
Follow-ups set.
--
banana
T N Nurse
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Now that's a pretty rich accusation coming from the guy who's indulged
in ECP, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, using a trojan horse to float
his pet theory in inappropriate group, resets followups to the correct
newsgroup back to the inappropriate block, then sets the followups to
alt.dev.null. Pot, kettle, black methinks.
>
> Follow-ups set.
Indeed. As I said in a previous article, to the appropriate newsgroup and
stop trolling this one with your trojan.
JudGeDreD
So. Now we know how you carry out your trolling. Tell us about the
others?
>> Follow-ups set.
>
>Indeed. As I said in a previous article, to the appropriate newsgroup and
>stop trolling this one with your trojan.
In case anyone has any doubts. T N Nurse is also known as GeTravis aka
M Saunby aka The Rev aka Mr Liar and a few others we got too bored
tracking.
Robin Carmody
news:20020802050957...@mb-mt.aol.com...
>
> If these hunters wore cloth caps and clogs the loony left idiots
> wouldn't utter a word.
Nobody wears cloth caps apart from the Commonwealth Games volunteers, who
only wear them to send up the old stereotypes of the North, and nobody wears
clogs at all, so your argument automatically ceases to make sense.
Robin Carmody
news:200208031...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <aiemn1$r2f$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> from "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > Nobody wears cloth caps apart from the Commonwealth Games volunteers,
who
> > only wear them to send up the old stereotypes of the North, and nobody
wears
> > clogs at all, so your argument automatically ceases to make sense.
>
>
> I didn't realise that HRH Phil the Greek, John Noakes and Phil Drabble
> (not sure if he's dead or not, but even if he is he'll still have a flat
> cap) etc were all CG volunteers?
>
> I also have a very expensive pair of hand made cloggs!!
You know what I was getting at. Look at a Bolton or Manchester City crowd
these days. Do they dress like Northern working-class people dressed in
those photos of football crowds in the 1920s and 30s, or in L.S. Lowry's
"Going To The Match" painting? Do they 'eck as like :).
Jonathan Bratt
<sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>Robin Carmody wrote:
>
>>
>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>
>Wanker
If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
wankers around. Hunting has outlived its time, and will soon -
thankfully - be part of the past.
--
Jonathan Bratt
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
><sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>>Robin Carmody wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>>
>>Wanker
>
>If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
>wankers around.
what 500,000? are you coming to jeer on 22/09 ?
> Hunting has outlived its time, and will soon -
>thankfully - be part of the past.
I don't think so...........................................!
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <76hgEJBJZ$S9E...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
>><sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>>>Robin Carmody wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>>>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>>>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>>>
>>>Wanker
>>
>>If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
>>wankers around.
>
>what 500,000? are you coming to jeer on 22/09 ?
Assuming that is another 'countryside march', I trust that my fellow
Londoners will join me in proffering the best countryside hospitality.
'Get orrrf my laaaaaaaaaaand'.
>
>> Hunting has outlived its time, and will soon -
>>thankfully - be part of the past.
>
>
>I don't think so...........................................!
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<Jona...@aol.com> writes
>In article <Ad4mkoJ0r$S9E...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <76hgEJBJZ$S9E...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
>>><sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>>>>Robin Carmody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>>>>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>>>>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>>>>
>>>>Wanker
>>>
>>>If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
>>>wankers around.
>>
>>what 500,000? are you coming to jeer on 22/09 ?
>
>Assuming that is another 'countryside march', I trust that my fellow
>Londoners will join me in proffering the best countryside hospitality.
>'Get orrrf my laaaaaaaaaaand'.
Then again I may well be nursing a prize hangover, it being the day
after my birthday - he says soliciting vast amounts of e-cards ;-)
--
Jonathan Bratt
peter
<Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>In article <Ad4mkoJ0r$S9E...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>, peter
><Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <76hgEJBJZ$S9E...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
>><Jona...@aol.com> stated: -
>>>In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
>>><sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>>>>Robin Carmody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pleased to say that I mounted an anti-hunting counter demonstration at
>>>>> the so-called "Countryside Fair" (read "Hunting Fair") at the Conservative
>>>>> conference in Bournemouth on 4th October 2000.
>>>>
>>>>Wanker
>>>
>>>If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
>>>wankers around.
>>
>>what 500,000? are you coming to jeer on 22/09 ?
>
>Assuming that is another 'countryside march',
it can't be stopped now
well , God could stop it but He supports hunting -
>I trust that my fellow
>Londoners will join me in proffering the best countryside hospitality.
>'Get orrrf my laaaaaaaaaaand'.
would they heck! Last time they filled the office windows with Union
Flags, English Flags and cheers!
>>
>>> Hunting has outlived its time, and will soon -
>>>thankfully - be part of the past.
>>
>>
>>I don't think so...........................................!
>
nor does my dog.............
Jonathan Bratt
<Pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>nor does my dog.............
>
>
A man is known.....
--
Jonathan Bratt
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '21:46:48' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
2002', Zeronic <Put_My_Name_Here_I...@uk2.net> writes:
>banana wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D490F33...@uk2.net>, posted to
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:36:35' on 'Thu, 1 Aug
>> 2002', Zeronic <Put_My_Name_Here_I...@uk2.net> writes:
>>
>> >banana wrote:
<snip>
>> >I think the farmers were protesting at the oil companies for raising
>> >basic fuel prices out of proportion to the worldwide oil price movement.
>> >The users of duty free fuel (who aren't just farmers btw) had their fuel
>> >costs increase by a large percentage.
>> >Other people were concerned with the level of taxation.
<snip>
>> I'd be interested to know what the percentage
>> increase was, in the basic price, over what sort of time period.
>
>At the time someone (who bought red diesel in bulk) told me that over
>the course of about a year the price had risen by....and that's the bit
>I can't remember, but it was definitely a hefty rise, say 50%+.
Thanks for this info.
>But that
>might be wrong. Anyone know where to find any figures on this?
I'd be interested to know too.
>>I still
>> don't believe that the oil companies were really being prevented solely
>> by the physical force of fuel protestors from getting petrol and diesel
>> to the pumps.
>
>Don't you recall the oil companies came in for criticism by the
>government for seemingly almost encouraging the protests!
Yes indeed, this was where I was coming from. Senior UK executives of
the major oil companies were reported at the height of the 'trouble' as
having been called to Downing Street to be told to stop pretending that
the protests were really so strong as to make distribution impossible.
>I should think
>the oil co's aren't all that happy about the highest rate of taxation in
>Europe on their products.
Demand is fairly inelastic though...
>> The famous demo in Hull which led Blair to hotfoot back to
>> London (and presumably, straight to Cobra, the Cabinet Office Briefing
>> Room) was a hunt thing, although this was little publicised at the time.
>
>Don't recall that, please tell all.
According to reports, Blair was going to a dinner in a Chinese
restaurant in Hull to celebrate John Prescott's 30 years in parliament.
There were protests in the area which led him to cancel the engagement
and get back to London pronto. His failure to get to the dinner and his
return to London were publicised a lot, but the involvement of hunting
protestors was hardly publicised at all, although Leanda de Lisle
mentioned it. A BBC report is at:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/review_of_t
he_year/sep.stm>
(I was going to create a 'TinyURL' for this, but unfortunately the
facility at <http://www.tinyurl.com> has been disabled because of abuse
by spammers).
COBRA, the Cabinet Office Briefing Room, is the Whitehall coordinating
centre for emergencies and has been for decades, but curiously a search
on 'COBRA' using the search engine at the Cabinet Office's website
doesn't bring up any references:
<http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/index/search/search.asp>.
(I hate government websites - their undeniable crappiness is a great
indicator of how the government awards contracts! The existence of COBRA
is not a State secret).
--
banana
Zeronic
>
> >>I still
> >> don't believe that the oil companies were really being prevented solely
> >> by the physical force of fuel protestors from getting petrol and diesel
> >> to the pumps.
> >
> >Don't you recall the oil companies came in for criticism by the
> >government for seemingly almost encouraging the protests!
>
> Yes indeed, this was where I was coming from. Senior UK executives of
> the major oil companies were reported at the height of the 'trouble' as
> having been called to Downing Street to be told to stop pretending that
> the protests were really so strong as to make distribution impossible.
>
> >I should think
> >the oil co's aren't all that happy about the highest rate of taxation in
> >Europe on their products.
>
> Demand is fairly inelastic though...
But if the gov. were to keep increasing taxation it leaves less room for
the oil companies to hike their prices to increase profits - a price
cutting war is likely to break out to attract customers as the motorist
gets increasingly fed up with being fleeced. Basically the companies
would want lower taxation so they could maintain the same price by
taking higher profits. etc.
>
> >> The famous demo in Hull which led Blair to hotfoot back to
> >> London (and presumably, straight to Cobra, the Cabinet Office Briefing
> >> Room) was a hunt thing, although this was little publicised at the time.
> >
> >Don't recall that, please tell all.
>
> According to reports, Blair was going to a dinner in a Chinese
> restaurant in Hull to celebrate John Prescott's 30 years in parliament.
> There were protests in the area which led him to cancel the engagement
> and get back to London pronto. His failure to get to the dinner and his
> return to London were publicised a lot, but the involvement of hunting
> protestors was hardly publicised at all, although Leanda de Lisle
> mentioned it. A BBC report is at:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/review_of_t
> he_year/sep.stm>
Hmmm, interesting, thanks.
> COBRA, the Cabinet Office Briefing Room, is the Whitehall coordinating
> centre for emergencies and has been for decades, but curiously a search
> on 'COBRA' using the search engine at the Cabinet Office's website
> doesn't bring up any references:
> <http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/index/search/search.asp>.
>
> (I hate government websites - their undeniable crappiness is a great
> indicator of how the government awards contracts! The existence of COBRA
> is not a State secret).
Looks like they're a bit touchy about COBRA for some reason:
~~~~~~~~
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5028.asp
Wednesday 22 May PM lobby briefing
[22 May 2002]
<snip>
Asked whether this morning's street crime meeting had taken place under
the auspices of COBRA, the PMOS noted how amazing it was that
journalists could get so excited by the word 'COBRA'. He said that the
meeting today had indeed been held in the Cabinet Office, although he
was not entirely sure what room. That said, a large number of people had
attended, so it was just possible it could have taken place in that
secret location called COBRA - but only because it was the only room
that could accommodate them all comfortably.
<snip>
~~~~~~~~~
But what does 'COBRA' stand for? According to this DTI page
(http://www.dti.gov.uk/modernisingdti/action5.htm) cached on Google it's
"co-ordinated briefing and rebuttals advice (COBRA)"
Strange is it not?
--
Best wishes,
Zeronic
Robin Carmody
news:nlgXTlBL...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
>
> Assuming that is another 'countryside march', I trust that my fellow
> Londoners will join me in proffering the best countryside hospitality.
> 'Get orrrf my laaaaaaaaaaand'.
I wish the hunting mob would get off my land as well :).
Peter, were you at the hunting rally that was held in Dorchester today?
Thankfully there are many fewer hunting types down here at the southern tip
of Dorset so we don't get bothered so much round here, although there is a
Land Rover in my road with various Countryside Alliance / British Field
Sports Society stickers - the people who own it go hunting with a springer
spaniel IIRC.
David-S
>
> In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
> <sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
> >Robin Carmody wrote:
> >
> >Wanker
>
> If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
> wankers around.
Sad but true.
> Hunting has outlived its time,
In your narrow minded opinion.
> ...and will soon -
> thankfully - be part of the past.
So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
visit, are you? Like you said, wanker.
> --
> Jonathan's a Pratt
David-S
>
> >>>Wanker
> >>
> >>If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
> >>wankers around.
> >
> >what 500,000? are you coming to jeer on 22/09 ?
>
> Assuming that is another 'countryside march', I trust that my fellow
> Londoners will join me in proffering the best countryside hospitality.
> 'Get orrrf my laaaaaaaaaaand'.
Pratt! That last of yours is the classic mental masturbation statement
of wishful thinking.
JudGeDreD
<house-in-...@aviation-procurement.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D4966E3...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
>> <sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>> >Robin Carmody wrote:
>> >
>> >Wanker
>>
>> If he is then you're going to find out that there are a lot of us
>> wankers around.
>
>Sad but true.
Only possible if you have a dick. sadly you don't qualify!
>> Hunting has outlived its time,
>
>In your narrow minded opinion.
Nothing narrow about it. The perverts in the countryside have been
brought to heel. Hunting is just another part of it.
>> ...and will soon -
>> thankfully - be part of the past.
>So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
>visit, are you? Like you said, wanker.
NO ONE comes to the UK to see animals abused. The pro animal abuse
assholes do NOTHING FOR the countryside and anyone who thinks they
have has been to far to many CA dinners!!
Get rid of the little shits and then prime animal abuse land will be
worthless and it can be returned to the countryside by people who
really do care.
Robin Carmody
news:3D4C6B55...@aviation-procurement.com...
>
> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> >
> > (hunting) will soon -
> > thankfully - be part of the past.
>
> So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
> visit, are you?
What on earth convinces you that tourists come to the UK to see foxes being
hunted to death?
Tamas Gyursanszky
> Wanker
I wonder what the Palace makes of it all, David.
JudGeDreD
Naivety. Vanity, Stupidity. No wonder the Countryside Alliance are so
useless.
David-S
David-S
>
> Only possible if you have a dick. sadly you don't qualify!
So, that Peeping Tom was you, was it?
> >> Hunting has outlived its time,
> >
> >In your narrow minded opinion.
>
> Nothing narrow about it. The perverts in the countryside have been
> brought to heel.
Does that include the peeping toms?
> Hunting is just another part of it.
How sad you misunderstand.
> >> ...and will soon -
> >> thankfully - be part of the past.
>
> >So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
> >visit, are you? Like you said, wanker.
>
> NO ONE comes to the UK to see animals abused.
Correct, but people do come to see and participate in hunting. Are you
against river, pond and lake fishing as well? Are you also a vegetarian?
> The pro animal abuse
> assholes do NOTHING FOR the countryside and anyone who thinks they
> have has been to far to many CA dinners!!
Again this is just an opinion that you have and are entitled to.
However, in *my* opinion, you are not correct.
> Get rid of the little shits and then prime animal abuse land will be
> worthless and it can be returned to the countryside by people who
> really do care.
Are, a nationalise the countryside person as well. Interesting. What
about firearm ownership?
David-S
I personally know some that travel from here every year. That is how I
know.
Robin Carmody
news:3D4D560C...@aviation-procurement.com...
> Robin Carmody wrote:
> >
> >
> > What on earth convinces you that tourists come to the UK to see foxes
being
> > hunted to death?
>
> I personally know some that travel from here every year. That is how I
> know.
Ah I see, you don't live in the UK. A sentimental outsider, then ...
JudGeDreD
<sa...@aviation-procurement.com> wrote:
>JudGeDreD wrote:
>>
>> Only possible if you have a dick. sadly you don't qualify!
>
>So, that Peeping Tom was you, was it?
Is that part of English animal abuser humor? It sux. Go figure.
>> >> Hunting has outlived its time,
>> >
>> >In your narrow minded opinion.
>>
>> Nothing narrow about it. The perverts in the countryside have been
>> brought to heel.
>
>Does that include the peeping toms?
>
>> Hunting is just another part of it.
>
>How sad you misunderstand.
Of course, animal abuse is extremely difficult to understand. WHY
would anyone want to do it?
>> >> ...and will soon -
>> >> thankfully - be part of the past.
>>
>> >So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
>> >visit, are you? Like you said, wanker.
>>
>> NO ONE comes to the UK to see animals abused.
>Correct, but people do come to see and participate in hunting. Are you
>against river, pond and lake fishing as well? Are you also a vegetarian?
Yes.
>> The pro animal abuse
>> assholes do NOTHING FOR the countryside and anyone who thinks they
>> have has been to far to many CA dinners!!
>Again this is just an opinion that you have and are entitled to.
>However, in *my* opinion, you are not correct.
But then you are biased. I am not.
>> Get rid of the little shits and then prime animal abuse land will be
>> worthless and it can be returned to the countryside by people who
>> really do care.
>Are, a nationalise the countryside person as well. Interesting. What
>about firearm ownership?
Firearms should NEVER be left in the hands of proven loonies who
wantonly abuse animals.
David-S
Hardly sentimental! Born and educated in the UK, visit often. May even
consider re-establishing a home there, but would prefer it when most of
the left wing loonies are locked up, and the Blair dictatorship is
ended.
> --
> Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Used to have a house in Poole.
David-S
I think some there may think these stupid restrictions may not apply to
them, should the whingers get their 'down with everything we don't like'
way. To say it is due to their idea of animal protection, is in my
opinion arrant clap trap. It is more a left wing case of "I'll bring
these bastards down to my level" instead of wanting to improve anything
it would appear they prefer to destroy everything.
David-S
>
> On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 12:11:13 -0400, David-S
> <sa...@aviation-procurement.com> wrote:
>
> >JudGeDreD wrote:
> >>
> >> Only possible if you have a dick. sadly you don't qualify!
> >
> >So, that Peeping Tom was you, was it?
>
> Is that part of English animal abuser humor? It sux. Go figure.
I live in rural Georgia, and please explain where there is any so called
animal abuse in what I wrote. If you can of course.
> >> >> Hunting has outlived its time,
> >> >
> >> >In your narrow minded opinion.
> >>
> >> Nothing narrow about it. The perverts in the countryside have been
> >> brought to heel.
> >
> >Does that include the peeping toms?
> >
> >> Hunting is just another part of it.
> >
> >How sad you misunderstand.
>
> Of course, animal abuse is extremely difficult to understand. WHY
> would anyone want to do it?
Define animal abuse.
> >> >> ...and will soon -
> >> >> thankfully - be part of the past.
> >>
> >> >So, you are another one hoping for the demise of the UK as a place to
> >> >visit, are you? Like you said, wanker.
> >>
> >> NO ONE comes to the UK to see animals abused.
>
> >Correct, but people do come to see and participate in hunting. Are you
> >against river, pond and lake fishing as well? Are you also a vegetarian?
>
> Yes.
To both questions? Are you religious as well? Do you wish to stop the
sales of meat and fish? How about eggs for breakfast? Milk in tea or
coffee?
> >> The pro animal abuse
> >> assholes do NOTHING FOR the countryside and anyone who thinks they
> >> have has been to far to many CA dinners!!
>
> >Again this is just an opinion that you have and are entitled to.
> >However, in *my* opinion, you are not correct.
>
> But then you are biased. I am not.
Excuse me? You are a vegan and want to ban hunting and fishing but state
you are not biased!!! Perhaps you should go to http://www.dictionary.com
and look up the word 'biased' and think again.
> >> Get rid of the little shits and then prime animal abuse land will be
> >> worthless and it can be returned to the countryside by people who
> >> really do care.
>
> >Are, a nationalise the countryside person as well. Interesting. What
> >about firearm ownership?
>
> Firearms should NEVER be left in the hands of proven loonies who
> wantonly abuse animals.
Who is to decide on which person is a loony? Who is to decide what
wanton abuse of an animal is? and, who is to undertake the confiscation
of said firearms? For in my opinion you are a biased and closed minded
loony.
Robin Carmody
>
> Hardly sentimental! Born and educated in the UK, visit often. May even
> consider re-establishing a home there, but would prefer it when most of
> the left wing loonies are locked up, and the Blair dictatorship is
> ended.
Ah, I see. You're precisely the sort of person I think Britain can do
without, to be honest.
> Used to have a house in Poole.
Which is a very nice place IMHO.
Planter
silly!)
Bright Blessings
King Amdo
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> ***********************************
>
> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
> =========================================================
>
> [Please circulate]
>
>
> 0) INTRODUCTION
>
>
> In the following article, it is argued that the struggle over foxhunting
> - which is, of course, much more than just that - is going to escalate.
> Whatever happens, the anti-foxhunting side will not win if they stay
> sitting on their arses. In particular, it is argued that for starters,
>
> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
> defend themselves and more;
>
> - for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
> should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
> necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
> actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
> imagination.
>
>
>
> 1) THE ENEMY IS WELL-ORGANISED AND DOES NOT INTEND TO LOSE
>
>
> I have long argued that the 'issue' of foxhunting has got the capacity
> to play a major part in the large-scale exacerbation of
> fault-lines in the UK-based part of the ruling class; and that behind
> the 'issue' of foxhunting lies the issue of the monarchy.
>
> I won't rehearse all that now - except to mention for the benefit of
> those who are interested in what I have to say, but currently sceptical,
> that we're talking of circumstances where General Sir Peter de la
> Billiere, former head of the SAS and commander of British forces in Gulf
> War 2 (1991), has led a protest march today 'in defence of the
> countryside'; where the Countryside Alliance (largely formed from the
> Countryside Movement, which was just the British Field Sports Society -
> i.e. organised UK foxhunting - under another name) has received funding
> from within the Windsor family household (Lord Inchyra); and where
> officers of some of the most prestigious Army regiments are
> 'automatically' members of some prestigious county hunts. Oh yes and the
> Beaufort Hunt, riding out for the first time (officially) after 'foot
> and mouth', started out from...'Prince' Charles's residence at
> Highgrove. (The Beaufort BTW is one of those hunts where deer corpses
> are left out in the woods, to make sure that the fox population doesn't
> decline). I'll also mention that organised foxhunting played a major
> part in the so-called 'fuel protests' of 2000. (A believer in the crap
> churned out by the UK press would be forgiven for believing that farmers
> were angry about VAT on fuel - odd, huh, when they buy fuel VAT-free?)
>
>
> 2) HOW THE WINDSOR FAMILY WON THE REFERENDUM IN AUSTRALIA
>
>
> OK...many will have noticed that there has been talk of a 'debate on
> constitutional reform' in the UK, e.g. the Guardian has called for an
> eventual referendum on the monarchy at the same time as asserting that
> the monarchy will win such a referendum (bit of a giveaway); and while
> choosing as their alleged 'point of attack' the call for reform of the
> Act of Settlement in order to allow a monarch or an heir to the throne
> to be a Roman Catholic. Yes folks this is the 21st century although one
> would be forgiven for thinking it was the 16th or the 18th, and they
> call this a 'modernising reform', even though its source appears to be
> none other than the Windsor family's strategic 'Way Ahead Committee'. It
> should be clear what sort of 'modernisation' they have in mind, and in
> whose interests.
>
> The case that really has to be studied by anyone interested in this from
> a critical anti-monarchist anti-foxhunting anti-ruling-class point of
> view is the referendum in Australia in 1999. For sure, this has been
> studied in depth by Windsorite strategists in the UK. The Australian
> referendum was a case of one of the most brilliant campaigns of
> political manipulation in recent times. In a country where a large
> majority of people oppose the monarchy, things were arranged so that the
> monarchy won the referendum. How was this done? Two ways. First, the
> anti-monarchist alternative was set up to be a complete bunch of shit
> easily (and not exactly inaccurately) characterisable as a plan for a
> president to be chosen by a roomful of corrupt politicians. (I say 'not
> exactly inaccurately' because those politicians are themselves in the
> pockets of big business, and of course the monarchist campaign didn't
> mention that). As part of this way of setting up the referendum, it was
> the pro-Windsor vote that came under the 'NO' rubric. By this means,
> voting in favour of the Windsors was portrayed as being a matter of
> popular resistance to manipulation by politicians. (I'm not joking!)
> Second, and just as importantly, it was arranged so that ALL of the
> official spokespeople for the 'YES' campaign were in agreement that the
> Windsor family itself was above criticism. So all people were treated to
> on the republican side was a bunch of boring, often 'glamorous',
> PR-trained politicians talking with forked tongues about legal
> administrative 'constitutional' reform. Not one of them attacked the
> Windsor scum or exposed anything they didn't want exposed. Again, I'm
> not joking, and clearly with 'enemies' like that the Windsor family
> doesn't need friends. What this illustrated was the *centralised* nature
> of the control over political organisations and opinion formation.
> (Similarly, how many people in the UK are aware that there have not yet
> been any verdicts in the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and
> Dodi Fayed in Paris, where they were murdered five years ago? Or that at
> Princess Diana's inquest, the law is that any jurors appointed will have
> to be officers of the royal household? [See the newsgroup
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana]). Surprise surprise, no 'public figure'
> in Australia raised the issue of Windsor finances, for example.
>
> What has this got to do with fox-hunting in the UK? A lot.
>
>
> 3) OPPOSITION TO FOXHUNTING,
> OR AN 'OH DEAR, WE LOST' PSEUDO-OPPOSITION?
>
>
> In the UK, the vast majority of people are opposed to fox-hunting and
> want to see an absolute and complete ban on it. This is true both in the
> towns and in the countryside. If anything, the anti-foxhunting majority
> in the countryside may well be even larger than it is in the towns,
> because more people have first-hand experience of just what an extremely
> arrogant, violent, fascist-style bunch of scumsuckers the redcoat
> foxhunters actually are. And the majority in the countryside has
> doubtless got even larger in the last few years, during which the
> 'country set' have proclaimed that they represent 'everyone in the
> countryside', which supposedly includes low-paid rural workers who in
> actual fact have been forced for generations to eat the shit deposited
> by rich whip-carrying bastards on horseback.
>
> At the same time, guess what. Yes, while good and admirable work
> continues to be done by hunt saboteurs, all the really big
> demonstrations are by supporters of foxhunting. Odd, huh? Well there's a
> reason for that. It's the same reason that the Windsors won the
> referendum in Australia despite the fact that the vast majority of the
> population in Australia are anti-monarchist. Odd, isn't it, how none of
> the organisations supposedly opposed to foxhunting has called, either
> individually or collectively, for a massive counter-demonstration when
> the pro-foxhunting scumsuckers have paraded through London?
>
> Well this is what I'd like to see:
>
> - for every pro-foxhunting demonstration, there should be a massive
> anti-foxhunting demonstration in the same area, of people prepared to
> defend themselves and more;
>
> - for every motorway blocked by pro-foxhunting forces, more motorways
> should be blocked by their opponents, or other similar actions done; not
> necessarily actions of exactly the same kind, nor necessarily merely
> actions in response, but actions of at least the same level of force and
> imagination.
>
>
> This battle will *not* be won by putting faith in politicians or
> parliament, faith in those RADA-trained creeps who get their special
> parliamentary 'Silk Cut' cigarettes at, what is it, £1.30 per packet?;
> who think they've hit the big-time when they get corporate credit-notes
> for massage-parlours; a holiday courtesy of a supermarket chain, a
> tobacco firm, an oil company, a drugs firm, an aerospace firm, etc.; or
> when someone sorts them out a bank account in Switzerland or the Channel
> Islands with a couple of hundred thousand pounds in it; who think
> they're Al Capone when they fiddle their parliamentary car allowances;
> and who relish the impression they give when they let it drop that, on
> one or two occasions, they have spoken for 10 seconds with someone whose
> brother-in-law's a permanent secretary and who once danced with, gasp,
> the 'Prince of Wales'.
>
> Nor will it be won by following 'spokespeople' 'putting the case for
> abolition' in the media.
>
> ***********************************
> --
> banana
peter
.freeserve.co.uk> stated: -
>The Dalai Lama asks you not to us violence (on animals because you are one
>silly!)
>
>Bright Blessings
>
>King Amdo
>
Howdy King Amdo
You may be an animal I am not. I am a human being. All humans are
mammals but not all mammals are human. When you can find me a chess
playing giraffe I will stop eating venison.
Bless you too.
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8XFVjcB6...@borve.demon.co.uk...
>> ***********************************
>>
>> FOXHUNTING - A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR HOW REALLY TO SMASH IT
>> =========================================================
>>
>> [Please circulate]
>>
>>
>> 0) INTRODUCTION
>>
>>
snipped for brevity
David-S
>
> David-S <house-in-...@aviation-procurement.com> wrote in message
> news:3D4DC309...@aviation-procurement.com...
> >
> > Hardly sentimental! Born and educated in the UK, visit often. May even
> > consider re-establishing a home there, but would prefer it when most of
> > the left wing loonies are locked up, and the Blair dictatorship is
> > ended.
>
> Ah, I see. You're precisely the sort of person I think Britain can do
> without, to be honest.
Odd, I was thinking the same about you.
> > Used to have a house in Poole.
>
> Which is a very nice place IMHO.
Yes, but I doubt that I would settle there again. Not enough field sport
there.
David-S
>
> In article <ailk1e$797$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Planter <planter@frforest
> .freeserve.co.uk> stated: -
>
> >The Dalai Lama asks you not to us violence (on animals because you are one
> >silly!)
> >
> >Bright Blessings
> >
> >King Amdo
> >
>
> Howdy King Amdo
>
> You may be an animal I am not. I am a human being. All humans are
> mammals but not all mammals are human. When you can find me a chess
> playing giraffe I will stop eating venison.
Wouldn't want to play cards with one though...
> Bless you too.
Nice one.
Jonathan Bratt
in-the...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
Have you ever read Viz?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
in-the...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
Since when did hordes of tourists come to go/watch hunting.
It might look like a pretty spectacle. And there's no reason do do away
with that. Let them hunt drag.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Robin Carmody
> Robin Carmody wrote:
> >
> > > Used to have a house in Poole.
> >
> > Which is a very nice place IMHO.
>
> Yes, but I doubt that I would settle there again. Not enough field sport
> there.
You can have North and West Dorset, and North and West Dorset can have you,
my friend ...
--
Robin Carmody
David-S
> Have you ever read Viz?
No
> --
> Jonathan Bratt
David-S
>
> You can have North and West Dorset, and North and West Dorset can have you,
> my friend ...
Wow! I've got a friend! Yippee!!! Ya wanna go for a beer or summat?
> --
> Robin Carmody
Jonathan Bratt
<sa...@aviation-procurement.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>
>> Have you ever read Viz?
>
>No
Then I am afraid the humour is lost. It is a magazine of extreme parody
- tho with no little truth - and my quite was taken from 'Farmer Giles'.
--
Jonathan Bratt
peter
<sa...@aviation-procurement.com> stated: -
Carmody can't offer North Dorset to you as he doesn't live here.
plus you are in the US - aren't you?
is your e-mail real?
David-S
> In article <3D4EE5D2...@aviation-procurement.com>, David-S
> <sa...@aviation-procurement.com> stated: -
> >Robin Carmody wrote:
> >>
> >> You can have North and West Dorset, and North and West Dorset can have you,
> >> my friend ...
> >
> >Wow! I've got a friend! Yippee!!! Ya wanna go for a beer or summat?
> >
> >> --
> >> Robin Carmody
> >
>
> Carmody can't offer North Dorset to you as he doesn't live here.
Pity there's some good hunting between Shaftesbury and Bath.
> plus you are in the US - aren't you?
Yes, rural Georgia where everyone carries guns, and last year DNR sold
over 3.5 million firearm hunting licences. I have deer on my property
and they are a major pest. One thing I have always found odd, is the
fact that the hunting and mating season are the same.
> is your e-mail real?
Yes, try it.
Robin Carmody
news:3dSzGbC5...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk...
>
> Carmody can't offer North Dorset to you as he doesn't live here.
*breathes sigh of relief that he doesn't*
although Shaftesbury is pretty, I have to admit.
Smithy
"Jonathan Bratt" <Jona...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:yY$CsaA2E...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
> Since when did hordes of tourists come to go/watch hunting.
>
> It might look like a pretty spectacle. And there's no reason do do away
> with that. Let them hunt drag.
Hmm, men on horseback with packs of hounds hunting Lilly Savage lookalikes?
I'd pay good money to see that!
Lotus
HUNTING AND ENVIRONMENTALISM
This is the second contribution to the Great Debate from Dave Eaton,
who has been vegan for 13 years and has recently finished a Masters
degree in environmental philosophy at Lancaster University.
In his recent paper for the Great Debate, Adam Kyd discussed the issue
of deep ecology and the fact that some deep ecologists find a
justification for hunting in their ideology. Deep ecologists share a
little common ground with animal liberationists in that both want to
end the way that western humans see the human species as inherently
different from all other creatures - as inherently more important.
Both want to overthrow the conceptual boundary between humans and
other species. Deep ecologists are very concerned with the problems
caused by human alienation from nature and wish to re-embed humanity
more firmly in the functioning of natural ecosystems. They tend to
take the philosophical view that it is possible to derive moral values
directly from nature.
This philosophical view is often called the 'naturalistic fallacy' and
tends to be opposed by most moral philosophers (Peter Singer, for
example, claims that "We do not find our ethical premises in our
biological nature, or under cabbages either. We choose them" (1)).
Deep ecologists have what I believe is a very strong case when they
point to the need for humans to think in ways that are more in tune
with natural systems, however this cannot be a wholesale adoption of
the 'law of the jungle' as the only principle to guide behaviour. Such
an attitude is short sighted and extremely dangerous in allowing no
negotiation with other moral principles. As the French writer Luc
Ferry has claimed "From Lenin to Hitler, the notion that one is basing
one's actions on an objective science of nature or of history has
always ended in human catastrophe" (2).
The perception by deep ecologists that many environmental problems are
caused by human alienation from nature has been adapted by some
hunting enthusiasts to provide a justification for their hobby. They
claim that hunting is an activity that connects humans on a symbolic
and practical level to natural processes and to the functioning of
natural systems such as food chains. This argument is most strongly
espoused by American environmental writers such as Paul Shepard (3)
who see many environmental problems as arising from human reluctance
to come to terms with our own animality, and who claim that hunting
constitutes a means of renewing the vitality of human connection to
the land. This argument is obviously at its strongest when hunted
animals are taken as food, however "sport" hunting is also included
because of its symbolic dimensions and because the practicalities of
hunting bring hunters into contact with nature. In the American
context it tends to be associated with stalking and shooting, which
perhaps rely rather more on the wits of the hunter than hunting with
hounds as practiced in Britain.
However, the argument that hunting restores a symbolic bond with
nature has been adapted and applied to the British context by Roger
Scruton (not a deep ecologist), who links the pursuit of foxes by a
group of mounted hunters with hounds to the experience of
hunter-gatherer tribes. He does this through the concept of totemism,
by which the individual animal pursued symbolically comes to represent
its species. Scruton claims that "The experience of the hunter
involves a union of opposites - absolute antagonism between
individuals resolved through a mystical identity of species. By
pursuing the individual and worshipping the species, the hunter
guarantees the eternal recurrence of his prey" (4). Scruton's account
is essentially incoherent when applied to fox-hunting as the common
representation by hunters of the fox as a pest cannot be equated with
"worship" and, as in the case of the otter (which is fortunately no
longer hunted), sport hunting may contribute to the serious decline of
a hunted species. Although modern hunters may have learnt the need to
refrain from overhunting if their pleasure is not to be curtailed in
the future, history suggests that there is nothing inherent in the
nature of sporthunting that ensures that this will happen. Scruton
himself claims that "Although the conditions no longer obtain, in
which totemism could be a real moral force, the desire for guiltless
killing endures" (5). Scruton manages to offer no evidence that this
desire is anything more than a romanticisation of violence and a
fascination with the ability to impose one's will on the world.
Others have claimed, however, that the desire to kill represents the
awareness in an individual human of being part of ecological processes
that transcend the individual. Shepard claims that "To share in life
is to participate in a traffic of energy and materials the ultimate
origin of which is a mystery, but which has its immediate source in
the bodies of plants and other animals. As a society, we may be in
danger of losing sight of this fact. It is kept most vividly before us
in hunting" (6). Shepard's argument draws upon a particular
representation of nature and ecology as a system of energy flows
within which individual plants and animals are what he calls
"temporary formations". He is therefore able to condemn the "naďve
assumption that order in nature is epitomized by living objects" (7).
For Shepard, to destroy these temporary formations offers access to
the sublime and somehow permits him knowledge of the "mystery" which
is lost to those who do not hunt.
This interpretation of the ritual significance of hunting seems to
ground it in basic ecological discourse, yet it is not unproblematic.
Matt Cartmill (8) and Roger King (9) both link hunting in complex ways
with rape, pointing out the sexual imagery that tends to accompany
many descriptions of hunting. Cartmill points out the confused nature
of many emotions associated with the hunt, among which "The false and
contemptuous affection for the victim, the refusal to think of the
victim as an individual - are also common feelings among rapists"
(10). These emotions are particularly relevant here as Scruton rather
falsely writes of "worshipping" the fox while both him and Shepard
base the major part of their argument on a denial of the status of the
hunted creature as an individual, and invoke differing discourses in
order to do this. The purpose of discussing this here is to illustrate
that the psychological and metaphorical processes underlying hunting
may not be as environmentally benign as hunting enthusiasts claim.
King emphasizes the process of objectification that is required in
order to abstract a hunted animal both from its status as a creature
that can suffer and from its web of living, familial and ecological
relationships. The effect of this is that the hunter "Must in fact be
blind to much that is present in the lives of animals, regarding the
animal as a social atom, an object, living in no essential relations
to other individuals" and that predation, for hunters is, "not just
the primary animal relation; it is the only one which they notice"
(11). Therefore, the claim that hunting restores the human hunter to a
natural order that is otherwise inaccessible may be seen to be
somewhat delusional. Indeed, "Men pursue game as they pursue women who
evade them, as vigilantes pursue the escaping slave. The hunter must
not only defend the hunt, therefore, but also the very desire to hunt.
The will to violence demands moral justification no matter what its
object" (12).
This account of the motivations behind hunting and the justifications
advanced for it is dependant upon context. It refers to hunting that
is carried out without any necessity being involved, but upon which
cultural understandings and indeed even entire worldviews may be
based. For example, Shepard's claim that hunting keeps "vividly before
us" the "complex flow patterns" (13) which are, to him, the only true
understandings of nature is actually crucially dependant upon a
cultural construction of ecology that allows such an interpretation.
It may either be naively taken at face value or seen as an
opportunistic rationalization of a drive toward violence and conquest.
Whether this drive is considered "natural" will depend upon how
"nature" is understood, but to label it as environmentalism would be
to ignore the role it has already played, in diverse ways, in the
destruction of nature and the creation of environmental problems.
Cartmill describes two distinct strands of thinking about nature:
The tender-minded, romantic vision of nature as a harmony threatened
by human incursion has encouraged the growth of such political
phenomena as animal-rights activism, Greenpeace, tree spiking,
ecofeminism, and the Green parties of Western Europe. The
tough-minded, Rooseveltian view of nature as a competitive hierarchy
was intimately connected with nineteenth-century European imperialism
and doctrines of white supremacy, and it continues to make an
important contribution to conservative political thinking. (14)
The discourses in favour of hunting locate it unambiguously in the
latter category. Although nature itself clearly manifests itself in
both of the two extremes described, as well as many shades in between,
it is a reasonable argument that environmentalism should be
constituted as an attempt to reverse some of the effects of human
destructiveness. Arguments in favour of hunting seem invariably to be
opportunistic attempts to disguise what it is really all about and to
excuse the pleasure that some people find in extinguishing less
powerful lives than their own.
References:
Peter Singer, The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology (1981),
Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., p.114
Luc Ferry, The New Ecological Order (1995), Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, p.86
For example in Paul Shepard, Encounters with Nature (1999), Washingon
DC: Island Press
Roger Scruton, "From a View to a Death, Culture, Nature and the
Huntsman's Art" in Environmental Values, Vol.6, No. 4, p.474
Scruton, "From a View", p.478
Shepard, Encounters, p.69
Ibid., p.69
Matt Cartmill, A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature
Through History (1993), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p.239-240
Roger J.H. King, "Environmental Ethics and the Case for Hunting",
Environmental Ethics, Spring 1991, Vol. 13, No.1, p.79-84
Cartmill, A View to a Death, p.240
King, "Environmental Ethics", p.83
Ibid., p.84
Shepard, Encounters, p.69
Cartmill, A View to a Death, p.156
Remember, you don't have to be a philosophy graduate to take part in
the Great Debate. No do you have to speak a complicated special
language. If you have a thoughtful, well reasoned set of ideas that
you believe would carry the debate forward, then we want to hear from
you. Please send an outline of your proposed article (no more than 200
words) to in...@animalaid.org.uk - mark it: GREAT DEBATE.
Please tell your friends and add a link from your own website - the
address for the Great Debate is www.animalaid.org.uk/debate.
Dutch
> The Great Debate: August 2002
(1) Why post the whole damn page when a link would have sufficed?
(2) Why offer NO opinion on the content?
(3) When did you become such a troll? (see alt.conspiracy.princess-diana)
(4) "Great Debate" my ass. The site is completely biased towards an AR
point-of-view, opposing opinions are given short editorial shrift.
Lotus
>
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote
> > The Great Debate: August 2002
> -snip- www.animalaid.org.uk/debate.
>
> (1) Why post the whole damn page when a link would have sufficed?
Why do you feel a need to 'police' my actions?
> (2) Why offer NO opinion on the content?
Because I rather readers form their own opinions.
Why haven't you?
> (3) When did you become such a troll? (see alt.conspiracy.princess-diana)
When did you become such a net nanny, troll?
> (4) "Great Debate" my ass. The site is completely biased towards an AR
> point-of-view, opposing opinions are given short editorial shrift.
Ahhhhh.
Ron Gaul
--
"Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:3D7B67F8...@esatclear.ie...
> Dutch wrote:
[...]
> > (4) "Great Debate" my ass. The site is completely biased towards an AR
> > point-of-view, opposing opinions are given short editorial shrift.
>
> Ahhhhh.
Ahhhh, bullshit. Where's the debate Lotus? The essay is a political hack job
dressed up as a scholarly essay. It's a complete cart of ponyload.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote
> > > The Great Debate: August 2002
> > -snip- www.animalaid.org.uk/debate.
> >
> > (1) Why post the whole damn page when a link would have sufficed?
>
> Why do you feel a need to 'police' my actions?
Why do you insist on answering a question with another question?
> > (2) Why offer NO opinion on the content?
>
> Because I rather readers form their own opinions.
They will ALWAYS do that anyway.
> Why haven't you?
If you read on, I did.
> > (3) When did you become such a troll? (see
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana)
>
> When did you become such a net nanny, troll?
Stop evading and answer the question. Why alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, why
uk.politics.parliament,?
> > (4) "Great Debate" my ass. The site is completely biased towards an AR
> > point-of-view, opposing opinions are given short editorial shrift.
>
> Ahhhhh.
It's true. AR ideas are presented and accepted at face value, other ideas
are dismissed rudely with unsupported dismissive conclusions like "Arguments
in favour of hunting seem invariably to be opportunistic attempts to
disguise what it is really all about and to excuse the pleasure that some
people find in extinguishing less powerful lives than their own."
There is no forum for debate there, just a platform for AR rhetoric.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote
> > > The Great Debate: August 2002
> > -snip- www.animalaid.org.uk/debate.
> >
> > (1) Why post the whole damn page when a link would have sufficed?
>
> Why do you feel a need to 'police' my actions?
Why do you feel the need to evade a perfectly good
question, ~~illweed~~, you little guttersnipe? When
Malcolm posted a lengthy excerpt, you snottily asked if
you could get a word in. It isn't necessary,
generally, to post an entire article. Post a link.
We're capable of reading it on our own.
>
> > (2) Why offer NO opinion on the content?
>
> Because I rather readers form their own opinions.
Bullshit. You want to try to manipulate readers'
opinions.
>
> Why haven't you?
>
> > (3) When did you become such a troll? (see alt.conspiracy.princess-diana)
>
> When did you become such a net nanny, troll?
How is asking why you are such vile, dishonest troll
being a "net nanny"? It isn't.
>
> > (4) "Great Debate" my ass. The site is completely biased towards an AR
> > point-of-view, opposing opinions are given short editorial shrift.
>
> Ahhhhh.
Yes. That's how we know you are lying when you write
"I rather readers form their own opinions." You would
readers read only a completely biased, bullshit
pro-"ar" account.
ron
When a perfectly sane man starts talking about how the fox feels
during the hunt and the kill (like a Dr. Dolittle) and argues it keeps
the numbers down (when mother nature does a very good job, herself by
the supply/demand of food method)then I know that it is an attempt to
show that there is a deep purpose behind hunting. When in reality
there isn't. If only they would tell the truth.
Strangely, if indeed they did, there would not be much of an argument
against hunting.
Ron Gaul
--
"ron" <ron_...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:4981b521.02091...@posting.google.com...
[...]
>
> When a perfectly sane man starts talking about how the fox feels
> during the hunt and the kill (like a Dr. Dolittle) and argues it keeps
> the numbers down (when mother nature does a very good job, herself by
> the supply/demand of food method)then I know that it is an attempt to
> show that there is a deep purpose behind hunting. When in reality
> there isn't. If only they would tell the truth.
> Strangely, if indeed they did, there would not be much of an argument
> against hunting.
It's for cermonial purpose, the same reson native americans shoot raptors
for their feathers. Get over it, or do you want to continue the colonial
campaign to rid the heathens of their culture? Ceremony is also the reason
the animal rights theocrats want to let introduced and invasive species run
amuck and destroy native species and habitat, like with the burro in
California. Only the ARM has the petulance and indulgence of privileged
classed dilettantes to be satisfied.