These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of all
time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so called
"global warming"

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:56:26 -0400, mike hide AKA ShitForBrains wrote:

> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of all
> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so called
> "global warming"

he he he <smirk> he he he

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of 
> all
> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
> called
> "global warming"


Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake of 
protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently and not 
against the law at all!!!

JB
x
>
>

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:WqGdneFFJ-swvlHVnZ2dnUVZ8t_inZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message 
> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of 
>> all
>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
>> called
>> "global warming"
>
>
> Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake of 
> protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently and not 
> against the law at all!!!

Hey JB, you are becoming a bit right wing lately aren't you? :-)

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:Sb2dneoWb9QMu1HVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "JB"  wrote in message 
> news:WqGdneFFJ-swvlHVnZ2dnUVZ8t_inZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "mike hide"  wrote in message 
>> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of 
>>> all
>>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
>>> called
>>> "global warming"
>>
>>
>> Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake of 
>> protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently and not 
>> against the law at all!!!
>
> Hey JB, you are becoming a bit right wing lately aren't you? :-)

Lol! No! I'm becoming a little bit older... (and more grumpy)

JB
x
>
>

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:oPCdnWU2iZXuulHVnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:Sb2dneoWb9QMu1HVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "JB"  wrote in message 
>> news:WqGdneFFJ-swvlHVnZ2dnUVZ8t_inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "mike hide"  wrote in message 
>>> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot 
>>>> of all
>>>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
>>>> called
>>>> "global warming"
>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake 
>>> of protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently and 
>>> not against the law at all!!!
>>
>> Hey JB, you are becoming a bit right wing lately aren't you? :-)
>
> Lol! No! I'm becoming a little bit older... (and more grumpy)

I find grumpy older women quite sexy.  Mind you, not too grumpy and not too 
old! Any grumpy women over 44 are a no-no! :-)

"mike hide"  wrote in message
news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of
all
> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
called
> "global warming"

I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for the
greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they were
just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate change is
serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the guy
standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their aims.

The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst most
will probably agree that something has to be done about climate change, this
is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour of the
moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their efforts
in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same people to
sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic intentions.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:0dSdnXlja9Eat1HVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "JB"  wrote in message 
> news:oPCdnWU2iZXuulHVnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
>> news:Sb2dneoWb9QMu1HVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "JB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:WqGdneFFJ-swvlHVnZ2dnUVZ8t_inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "mike hide"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot 
>>>>> of all
>>>>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
>>>>> called
>>>>> "global warming"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake 
>>>> of protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently and 
>>>> not against the law at all!!!
>>>
>>> Hey JB, you are becoming a bit right wing lately aren't you? :-)
>>
>> Lol! No! I'm becoming a little bit older... (and more grumpy)
>
> I find grumpy older women quite sexy.  Mind you, not too grumpy and not 
> too old! Any grumpy women over 44 are a no-no! :-)

Lol.... and you know my age!! ;-)

JB
x
>
>

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:wXVyk.22280$uW7.20286@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of
> all
>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
> called
>> "global warming"
>
> I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for the
> greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they 
> were
> just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate change is
> serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the guy
> standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their 
> aims.

Oh come on, don't be daft, the guy standing in front of the tanks knew he 
was likely to be executed and I think was. These guys had 15 minutes of fame 
to look forward to.

>
> The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst most
> will probably agree that something has to be done about climate change, 
> this
> is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
> actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour of 
> the
> moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their 
> efforts
> in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same people to
> sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic intentions.

What is all this "climate change" bollocks? A few months ago you guys were 
spouting on about "global warming". After the worst summer for years I 
suppose you have to muddy the waters. Amusing really, in the 70s everyone 
was going on about " a new ice age". It makes no sense, in 30 years we have 
gone from a predicted ice age to global warming. It's crap! Concentrate on 
pollution and I'll take notice.

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:WYidnZNG3PiXsVHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:0dSdnXlja9Eat1HVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "JB"  wrote in message 
>> news:oPCdnWU2iZXuulHVnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
>>> news:Sb2dneoWb9QMu1HVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "JB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:WqGdneFFJ-swvlHVnZ2dnUVZ8t_inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "mike hide"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot 
>>>>>> of all
>>>>>> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> "global warming"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ridiculous isnt it? Let's all break into the powerstation for the sake 
>>>>> of protecting everyone from global warming.... it's fine apparently 
>>>>> and not against the law at all!!!
>>>>
>>>> Hey JB, you are becoming a bit right wing lately aren't you? :-)
>>>
>>> Lol! No! I'm becoming a little bit older... (and more grumpy)
>>
>> I find grumpy older women quite sexy.  Mind you, not too grumpy and not 
>> too old! Any grumpy women over 44 are a no-no! :-)
>
> Lol.... and you know my age!! ;-)

You are still in with a chance then! :-)

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
news:BcadnRj3CvD6sFHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:wXVyk.22280$uW7.20286@newsfe13.ams2...
> >
> > "mike hide"  wrote in message
> > news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot
of
> > all
> >> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
> > called
> >> "global warming"
> >
> > I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for the
> > greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they
> > were
> > just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate change
is
> > serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the guy
> > standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their
> > aims.
>
> Oh come on, don't be daft, the guy standing in front of the tanks knew he
> was likely to be executed and I think was. These guys had 15 minutes of
fame
> to look forward to.
>
> >
> > The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst most
> > will probably agree that something has to be done about climate change,
> > this
> > is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
> > actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour of
> > the
> > moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their
> > efforts
> > in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same people
to
> > sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic
intentions.
>
> What is all this "climate change" bollocks? A few months ago you guys were
> spouting on about "global warming". After the worst summer for years I
> suppose you have to muddy the waters. Amusing really, in the 70s everyone
> was going on about " a new ice age". It makes no sense, in 30 years we
have
> gone from a predicted ice age to global warming. It's crap! Concentrate on
> pollution and I'll take notice.

I'm not a greenpeace member or anything of the sort, neither has my brain
been brainwashed by the establishment who have found a convenient way to
charge for green taxes or whatever conspiracy theory shite you right wingers
go on about when affronted with facts. The seasons are all messed up,
permanently it seems - only a day ago for example, I caught a mackerel
during the day and a codling at night - so what you say - until you learn
that one's exclusively a summer fish, the other, exclusively a winter fish.
How else do you explain all the oddities that seem to be occurring in the
world's weather patterns - all the extreme weather incidents over the past 4
or 5 years? Random events that on average occur once in a hundred years?
What, a dozen of them one after the other? Give me a break!

For god's sake wake up man and stop burying your head in the sand!

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:QHWyk.18531$KW1.10225@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:BcadnRj3CvD6sFHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:wXVyk.22280$uW7.20286@newsfe13.ams2...
>> >
>> > "mike hide"  wrote in message
>> > news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot
> of
>> > all
>> >> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
>> > called
>> >> "global warming"
>> >
>> > I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for 
>> > the
>> > greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they
>> > were
>> > just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate change
> is
>> > serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the guy
>> > standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their
>> > aims.
>>
>> Oh come on, don't be daft, the guy standing in front of the tanks knew he
>> was likely to be executed and I think was. These guys had 15 minutes of
> fame
>> to look forward to.
>>
>> >
>> > The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst 
>> > most
>> > will probably agree that something has to be done about climate change,
>> > this
>> > is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
>> > actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour of
>> > the
>> > moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their
>> > efforts
>> > in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same people
> to
>> > sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic
> intentions.
>>
>> What is all this "climate change" bollocks? A few months ago you guys 
>> were
>> spouting on about "global warming". After the worst summer for years I
>> suppose you have to muddy the waters. Amusing really, in the 70s everyone
>> was going on about " a new ice age". It makes no sense, in 30 years we
> have
>> gone from a predicted ice age to global warming. It's crap! Concentrate 
>> on
>> pollution and I'll take notice.
>
> I'm not a greenpeace member or anything of the sort, neither has my brain
> been brainwashed by the establishment who have found a convenient way to
> charge for green taxes or whatever conspiracy theory shite you right 
> wingers
> go on about when affronted with facts. The seasons are all messed up,
> permanently it seems - only a day ago for example, I caught a mackerel
> during the day and a codling at night - so what you say - until you learn
> that one's exclusively a summer fish, the other, exclusively a winter 
> fish.
> How else do you explain all the oddities that seem to be occurring in the
> world's weather patterns - all the extreme weather incidents over the past 
> 4
> or 5 years? Random events that on average occur once in a hundred years?
> What, a dozen of them one after the other? Give me a break!
>
> For god's sake wake up man and stop burying your head in the sand!

How many have you had? More than me by the looks of it and that is saying 
something! lol

You are talking bollocks as your own examples demonstrate. Extreme weather 
conditions over the past 4/5 years? What percentage is that in a millennium? 
The Thames froze in Victorian times! And in 1987 there was a hurricane in my 
back yard.

And you have pissed me off with your fishing stuff. Right wing I might be. 
Fishing and hunting I abhor!

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:wXVyk.22280$uW7.20286@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> "mike hide"  wrote in message
> news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of
> all
> > time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
> called
> > "global warming"
>
> I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for the
> greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they
were
> just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate change is
> serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the guy
> standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their
aims.
>
> The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst most
> will probably agree that something has to be done about climate change,
this
> is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
> actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour of
the
> moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their
efforts
> in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same people to
> sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic intentions.
>
>
Just lets say hypothetically you are burning a wood fire in your house this
winter and some of these idiots decide it might harm the environment. Then
given this stupid ruling they will be within their rights to destroy or
otherwise damage your property or you without recourse.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:QHWyk.18531$KW1.10225@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message
> news:BcadnRj3CvD6sFHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
> > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:wXVyk.22280$uW7.20286@newsfe13.ams2...
> > >
> > > "mike hide"  wrote in message
> > > news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot
> of
> > > all
> > >> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so
> > > called
> > >> "global warming"
> > >
> > > I'd say that this case shows definite illegality being committed for
the
> > > greater moral good. I don't condone it, but somehow I don't think they
> > > were
> > > just trying to break into the power station for a laugh. Climate
change
> is
> > > serious and I'm sure the protestors felt like they were akin to the
guy
> > > standing in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square in terms of their
> > > aims.
> >
> > Oh come on, don't be daft, the guy standing in front of the tanks knew
he
> > was likely to be executed and I think was. These guys had 15 minutes of
> fame
> > to look forward to.
> >
> > >
> > > The main political problem is and its rarely stated, is that whilst
most
> > > will probably agree that something has to be done about climate
change,
> > > this
> > > is not the way to do it, because it has so many parallels to terrorist
> > > actions that you can't really negate the illegality aspect in favour
of
> > > the
> > > moral dimension. They are clearly guilty. But if they had put their
> > > efforts
> > > in elswhere in a more socially acceptable way, I'm sure the same
people
> to
> > > sentence them would also give them praise for their altruistic
> intentions.
> >
> > What is all this "climate change" bollocks? A few months ago you guys
were
> > spouting on about "global warming". After the worst summer for years I
> > suppose you have to muddy the waters. Amusing really, in the 70s
everyone
> > was going on about " a new ice age". It makes no sense, in 30 years we
> have
> > gone from a predicted ice age to global warming. It's crap! Concentrate
on
> > pollution and I'll take notice.
>
> I'm not a greenpeace member or anything of the sort, neither has my brain
> been brainwashed by the establishment who have found a convenient way to
> charge for green taxes or whatever conspiracy theory shite you right
wingers
> go on about when affronted with facts. The seasons are all messed up,
> permanently it seems - only a day ago for example, I caught a mackerel
> during the day and a codling at night - so what you say - until you learn
> that one's exclusively a summer fish, the other, exclusively a winter
fish.
> How else do you explain all the oddities that seem to be occurring in the
> world's weather patterns - all the extreme weather incidents over the past
4
> or 5 years? Random events that on average occur once in a hundred years?
> What, a dozen of them one after the other? Give me a break!
>
> For god's sake wake up man and stop burying your head in the sand!
>
>

I don't care about global warming, I live on top of a hill

"mike hide"  wrote in message 
news:n46dnS15PYx6YlbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> These people have to have proven thenselves some of the biggest idiot of 
> all
> time. So I suppose anarchy is now fine so long as tou blame it on so 
> called
> "global warming"
>

I wonder just how stupid people can be at times. Then along comes a case 
like this and I stop having to wonder.

How would the jury react if the returned to their cars to find some tree 
hugger had wrecked it or when they returned home to find their gas and 
electric supplies had been disconnected to reduce "global warming"?

Brian

> You are talking bollocks as your own examples demonstrate. Extreme weather
> conditions over the past 4/5 years? What percentage is that in a
millennium?

Exactly and look at all the stuff that's been crammed into that short space
of time. These events ought to come along once in a blue moon, not every few
months...flood after flood after flood, hurricanes, super-storms, etc. I
think statistically speaking, that's not just an anomaly.  How many times
have you heard the phrase "the worst [insert flood/storm/hurricane/etc,
here] since records began", or at very least - "the worst in 50 years" - on
the news in the past few years? What does that tell you? Amazing coincidence
or an alarming pattern emerging with increasing regularity?

> The Thames froze in Victorian times! And in 1987 there was a hurricane in
my
> back yard.

Well there you go, the Victorians started it with their Industrial
Revolution, so perhaps they got the first dose of unseasonable weather too.

> And you have pissed me off with your fishing stuff. Right wing I might be.
> Fishing and hunting I abhor!

You must be a veggie then.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:t06zk.21447$Jv3.3951@newsfe23.ams2...
>> You are talking bollocks as your own examples demonstrate. Extreme 
>> weather
>> conditions over the past 4/5 years? What percentage is that in a
> millennium?
>
> Exactly and look at all the stuff that's been crammed into that short 
> space
> of time. These events ought to come along once in a blue moon, not every 
> few
> months...flood after flood after flood, hurricanes, super-storms, etc. I
> think statistically speaking, that's not just an anomaly.  How many times
> have you heard the phrase "the worst [insert flood/storm/hurricane/etc,
> here] since records began", or at very least - "the worst in 50 years" - 
> on
> the news in the past few years? What does that tell you? Amazing 
> coincidence
> or an alarming pattern emerging with increasing regularity?

That means diddly squot! 1947 and 1963 were the coldest winters of the 
century. 1953 was the year of the great flood. 1976 was the driest on record 
and 2001 was one of the wettest. 10,000 years ago there was an ice age. What 
caused the ice to melt? Co2 caused by the Flintstones? You can't extrapolate 
from 50 years, it's too short a time.

>
>> The Thames froze in Victorian times! And in 1987 there was a hurricane in
> my
>> back yard.
>
> Well there you go, the Victorians started it with their Industrial
> Revolution, so perhaps they got the first dose of unseasonable weather 
> too.

You mean they caused global cooling?


>
>> And you have pissed me off with your fishing stuff. Right wing I might 
>> be.
>> Fishing and hunting I abhor!
>
> You must be a veggie then.

No, just don't like the idea of killing things for fun. Angling is classed 
as a "sport" isn't it?

> That means diddly squot! 1947 and 1963 were the coldest winters of the
> century. 1953 was the year of the great flood. 1976 was the driest on
record
> and 2001 was one of the wettest. 10,000 years ago there was an ice age.
What
> caused the ice to melt? Co2 caused by the Flintstones? You can't
extrapolate
> from 50 years, it's too short a time.

So according to you, we should all just wait and see what happens then?
Another couple of thousand years and then we'll review the stats? Melting
ice caps are a figment of the world's imagination are they? I suppose you
think that carbon levels at a greater level than ever before is probably
nothing to be overly concerned about? That the odd, nay, regular, hurricane
or flood won't hurt anyone, that we're all being a little bit paranoid of
late? That the expansion of the Sahara desert and the droughts in Australia,
Spain, etc are totally unrelated to a change in the world's climate? Fool.

Regardless of what has caused climate change, shouldn't we ought to try and
solve the problem before the planet becomes any more inhospitable for its
inhabitants?


> >> And you have pissed me off with your fishing stuff. Right wing I might
> >> be.
> >> Fishing and hunting I abhor!
> >
> > You must be a veggie then.
>
> No, just don't like the idea of killing things for fun. Angling is classed
> as a "sport" isn't it?

Oh here we go! Not all anglers kill what they catch. And the fun isn't in
the killing its everything else about it (the planning, preparation, the
anticipation, the bonding with the world, learning about nature, acquiring
knowledge and skills, meeting new people, etc, etc).

If you eat meat, which presumerably you do, you should at some stage in your
life be prepared to kill it and prepare it yourself. If you don't, I can't
see that you are any better than I for doing it myself.  Sea fishing is most
probably one of the best things you can do in my opinion - you can
potentially sustain yourself, your family and friends with free, healthy
meals in a sustainable way. Not only that but you get to relax, enjoy the
outdoors and learn new topics in a meaningful way like how the natural world
interacts with lunar cycles, spotting constellations and wildlife,
understanding what's out there in the marine environment, etc, etc. You
should try it some time. Its fun even if you don't catch a single thing.

Fox hunting though, that's a different kettle of fish and I agree - that's
just poncified cruelty.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4xkzk.42130$r92.25214@newsfe24.ams2...
>> That means diddly squot! 1947 and 1963 were the coldest winters of the
>> century. 1953 was the year of the great flood. 1976 was the driest on
> record
>> and 2001 was one of the wettest. 10,000 years ago there was an ice age.
> What
>> caused the ice to melt? Co2 caused by the Flintstones? You can't
> extrapolate
>> from 50 years, it's too short a time.
>
> So according to you, we should all just wait and see what happens then?
> Another couple of thousand years and then we'll review the stats? Melting
> ice caps are a figment of the world's imagination are they? I suppose you
> think that carbon levels at a greater level than ever before is probably
> nothing to be overly concerned about? That the odd, nay, regular,
> hurricane
> or flood won't hurt anyone, that we're all being a little bit paranoid of
> late? That the expansion of the Sahara desert and the droughts in
> Australia,
> Spain, etc are totally unrelated to a change in the world's climate? Fool.
>
> Regardless of what has caused climate change, shouldn't we ought to try
> and
> solve the problem before the planet becomes any more inhospitable for its
> inhabitants?

What incredible arrogance, and ignorant and illogical rubbish! As far as I'm
aware nobody with half a brain is worried about "carbon" levels, it is the
fourth or fifth most common element on the planet. Carbon dioxide, a gas,
is what people are concerned about! A liitle precision is called for by you
doom-mongers if you want to be taken seriously.

In the 1930s, the midwest of America was hit by drought for several years, I
presume you have heard of the "dust bowl". It reverted back to normal
subsequently.  For storms, drought, hurricanes etc to be more intense than
usual within a few years is not significant, a change in the short-term
weather pattern can be caused by sun-spots, ocean currents in the Pacific
and volcano eruptions, and such small perturbations manifest
themselves as "extreme" weather conditions.

And your statement, "regardless of what has caused climate change..." is
ludicrous. If we do not know what has caused climate change how can we do
something about it?

If you must have something to get uptight about why not pollution, in the
air, sea and ground? Anyone driving north to the Blackwall Tunnel can see on
a sunny day a peculiar haze in the sky caused by chemical pollution and
particulates. Just ten years ago I could see Dungeness and the sea beyond
from my house on the North Downs. Not anymore, not if the air is still.
The sea is full of plastic, mercury, oil, and carcinogenic substances dumped
into it. Tuna is now so polluted that food scientists advise not eating
it more than twice a week. The same with salmon. The earth is so polluted
with chemicals from intensive farming that bees, essential to life, are
dying by the billions. All these pollutants are responsible for deformities
and hyper-activity in children and illness in adults, especially cancer.

Your huffing and puffing about so-called climate change is specious, you 
just
need something to be outraged about and feel good  because you've fitted
energy efficient lighbulbs, which are the biggest load of crap to be
invented because a) a 100w bulb gives about 50W of light and when it is
broken it spews mercury into the atmosphere for us all to breath. Start
worrying about the pollution problem we can all see now and who knows, if it
is cured it might stabilise the earths' temperature. If it needs
stabilising!




> >> And you have pissed me off with your fishing stuff. Right wing I might
> >> be.
> >> Fishing and hunting I abhor!
> >
> > You must be a veggie then.
>
> No, just don't like the idea of killing things for fun. Angling is classed
> as a "sport" isn't it?

>Oh here we go! Not all anglers kill what they catch.

So it is classed as a "sport" then. You don't kill them, just stick a barbed
hook through their lips, drag them out of their environment, pull the hook
out, and chuck them back. I'm sure the fish are very grateful.

> And the fun isn't in
>the killing its everything else about it (the planning, preparation, the
>anticipation, the bonding with the world, learning about nature, acquiring
>knowledge and skills, meeting new people, etc, etc).

Lol! What are you on about? "bonding with the world", "meeting new people".
The anglers I've seen are masochistic loners who spend hours sitting in the
freezing rain looking blank waiting for Godot.



>If you eat meat, which presumerably you do, you should at some stage in
>your
>life be prepared to kill it and prepare it yourself. If you don't, I can't
>see that you are any better than I for doing it myself.  Sea fishing is
>most
>probably one of the best things you can do in my opinion - you can
>potentially sustain yourself, your family and friends with free, healthy
>meals in a sustainable way. Not only that but you get to relax, enjoy the
>outdoors and learn new topics in a meaningful way like how the natural
>world
>interacts with lunar cycles, spotting constellations and wildlife,
>understanding what's out there in the marine environment, etc, etc. You
>should try it some time. Its fun even if you don't catch a single thing.

Total waffle and illogical. I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
living creature for enjoyment.

>Fox hunting though, that's a different kettle of fish and I agree - that's
>just poncified cruelty.

It's a matter of degree. I see you are a man of flexible principles. But I
have no intention of getting into a serious debate about hunting. The Hatter
and I did it to death a few years back and got nowhere in that neither of us
changed our views. If anything we each became more convinced of the
certainty of our case.

> What incredible arrogance, and ignorant and illogical rubbish!

What is? Your posts?!

> As far as I'm
> aware nobody with half a brain is worried about "carbon" levels, it is the
> fourth or fifth most common element on the planet. Carbon dioxide, a gas,
> is what people are concerned about! A liitle precision is called for by
you
> doom-mongers if you want to be taken seriously.

You know full well that I was using carbon as an abbreviation for carbon
dioxide. Having to say carbon dioxide is so passe, you see. You'd best write
to the international community at large then to tell them to stop using the
term "carbon credits", etc too...

> And your statement, "regardless of what has caused climate change..." is
> ludicrous. If we do not know what has caused climate change how can we do
> something about it?

I meant regardless of what you think may have caused the problem, don't you
agree that something should be done? You seem to be arguing rather
beguilingly that there are no problems and that we ought to take no action.
I meant even if you don't agree that its CO2 levels causing the problems,
then surely you ought to admit that something is causing the change in
global climate. Perhaps you could look for what you think the solution is
whilst others continue to address the problems caused by the CO2...

> The sea is full of plastic, mercury, oil, and carcinogenic substances
dumped
> into it. Tuna is now so polluted that food scientists advise not eating
> it more than twice a week. The same with salmon.

Indeed, google bioaccumulation.


> > No, just don't like the idea of killing things for fun. Angling is
classed
> > as a "sport" isn't it?
>
> >Oh here we go! Not all anglers kill what they catch.
>
> So it is classed as a "sport" then. You don't kill them, just stick a
barbed
> hook through their lips, drag them out of their environment, pull the hook
> out, and chuck them back. I'm sure the fish are very grateful.

Not all hooks are barbed. Many fishermen catch the same fish multiple times.
In fact studies have been made showing that some species even put themselves
at a high risk of being caught (because they know they will be thrown back),
just to have a quick bite to eat. Its almost as if there's a trade-off. You
feed me, I'll be thrown back. Plus, fish do seem to make a conscious sport
of teasing fishermen too. Its a weird world indeed.

Still, dragging a cow or a sheep out of its field and killing it so you can
eat burgers or lamp chops isn't really any different is it?


> > the fun isn't in
> >the killing its everything else about it (the planning, preparation, the
> >anticipation, the bonding with the world, learning about nature,
acquiring
> >knowledge and skills, meeting new people, etc, etc).
>
> Lol! What are you on about? "bonding with the world", "meeting new
people".

Think about. Fishermen turn up on a beach, by a river, lake, etc. People are
out walking about, enjoying the day. The fisherman being largely stationary,
watches the sun rise, the birds make their rounds, the fish shoals chasing
other fish, the clouds and the weather patterns, he sees the way other
people have fun in the world around him, he watches all the creatures great
and small, the boats and the aeroplanes going their different ways, for
different reasons. Then he watches the sun slowly set and admires all the
bright and vibrant colours, or perhaps the refreshing wetness of the rain
and glances up to the heavens to see the moon, spotting shooting stars,
constellations wheeling overhead. Its is during these times that you are
aware that you are a tiny, insignificant mortal being, alive for a brief
moment in the long span of time and that you are on a tiny planet amongst a
massive, truly massive, beyond all imagination, universe and suddenly you
feel very priveleged to be here. I'd call that bonding with the world,
wouldn't you? I know it's easy to take the piss out of such lyrical
language, but I couldn't give a toss, its all true stuff whether you can see
it or not.

> The anglers I've seen are masochistic loners who spend hours sitting in
the
> freezing rain looking blank waiting for Godot.

Some are indeed!


> >If you eat meat, which presumerably you do, you should at some stage in
> >your
> >life be prepared to kill it and prepare it yourself. If you don't, I
can't
> >see that you are any better than I for doing it myself.  Sea fishing is
> >most
> >probably one of the best things you can do in my opinion - you can
> >potentially sustain yourself, your family and friends with free, healthy
> >meals in a sustainable way. Not only that but you get to relax, enjoy the
> >outdoors and learn new topics in a meaningful way like how the natural
> >world
> >interacts with lunar cycles, spotting constellations and wildlife,
> >understanding what's out there in the marine environment, etc, etc. You
> >should try it some time. Its fun even if you don't catch a single thing.
>
> Total waffle and illogical.

Your opinion and intriguingly, you don't say why.
What's illogical about any of that?

I can't see how you can stand the moral high ground if you eat meat and
criticise me for taking fish home for my family to eat. What's changed since
the dawn of time? I suppose you'd criticise a poor African taking fish out
of their environment to eat them as well then?

> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
> living creature for enjoyment.

Utter tosh and you know it.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7UAzk.70132$uW7.68974@newsfe13.ams2...
>> What incredible arrogance, and ignorant and illogical rubbish!
>
> What is? Your posts?!
>
>> As far as I'm
>> aware nobody with half a brain is worried about "carbon" levels, it is 
>> the
>> fourth or fifth most common element on the planet. Carbon dioxide, a gas,
>> is what people are concerned about! A liitle precision is called for by
> you
>> doom-mongers if you want to be taken seriously.
>
> You know full well that I was using carbon as an abbreviation for carbon
> dioxide. Having to say carbon dioxide is so passe, you see.

Writing "passe" for passé certainly is.

> You'd best write
> to the international community at large then to tell them to stop using 
> the
> term "carbon credits", etc too...

That does not make it right as anyone with a modicum of  scientific 
knowledge knows. The term "carbon credits" and "carbon footprints" are 
deliberate esoteric jargon dreamed up by the climate change promotors to 
give some credibility and clubbishness to their cause. This is a problem 
these days, our so-called leaders never say what they mean.

>
>> And your statement, "regardless of what has caused climate change..." is
>> ludicrous. If we do not know what has caused climate change how can we do
>> something about it?
>
> I meant regardless of what you think may have caused the problem, don't 
> you
> agree that something should be done? You seem to be arguing rather
> beguilingly that there are no problems and that we ought to take no 
> action.
> I meant even if you don't agree that its CO2 levels causing the problems,
> then surely you ought to admit that something is causing the change in
> global climate. Perhaps you could look for what you think the solution is
> whilst others continue to address the problems caused by the CO2...
>

Oh, you've switched to CO2 levels now. Carbon levels become passé have they?

>> The sea is full of plastic, mercury, oil, and carcinogenic substances
> dumped
>> into it. Tuna is now so polluted that food scientists advise not eating
>> it more than twice a week. The same with salmon.
>
> Indeed, google bioaccumulation.
>

Indeed, bollocks! How can I have a serious discussion with you on "climate 
change" when you snip the most relevant points of my post. You deleted 
everything on the dust bowl, sun spots, currents in the Pacific and 
volcanoes, and left in only the couple of sentences above. Nothing about 
pollution in the air and ground, nothing about polluting "energy saving" 
light bulbs. And your only comment to the few sentences you left in was 
"google bioaccumulation". I don't need to matey, I know about it already.

>
>> > No, just don't like the idea of killing things for fun. Angling is
> classed
>> > as a "sport" isn't it?
>>
>> >Oh here we go! Not all anglers kill what they catch.
>>
>> So it is classed as a "sport" then. You don't kill them, just stick a
> barbed
>> hook through their lips, drag them out of their environment, pull the 
>> hook
>> out, and chuck them back. I'm sure the fish are very grateful.
>
> Not all hooks are barbed. Many fishermen catch the same fish multiple 
> times.
> In fact studies have been made showing that some species even put 
> themselves
> at a high risk of being caught (because they know they will be thrown 
> back),
> just to have a quick bite to eat. Its almost as if there's a trade-off. 
> You
> feed me, I'll be thrown back. Plus, fish do seem to make a conscious sport
> of teasing fishermen too. Its a weird world indeed.

Have you lost the plot? How do fish "know" the bait to take which means they 
will be thrown back, and the bait to avoid as it means your frying pan? 
Arrant nonsense! The only thing weird is if you actually believe that 
rubbish.


>
> Still, dragging a cow or a sheep out of its field and killing it so you 
> can
> eat burgers or lamp chops isn't really any different is it?
>
>
>> > the fun isn't in
>> >the killing its everything else about it (the planning, preparation, the
>> >anticipation, the bonding with the world, learning about nature,
> acquiring
>> >knowledge and skills, meeting new people, etc, etc).
>>
>> Lol! What are you on about? "bonding with the world", "meeting new
> people".
>
> Think about. Fishermen turn up on a beach, by a river, lake, etc. People 
> are
> out walking about, enjoying the day. The fisherman being largely 
> stationary,
> watches the sun rise, the birds make their rounds, the fish shoals chasing
> other fish, the clouds and the weather patterns, he sees the way other
> people have fun in the world around him, he watches all the creatures 
> great
> and small, the boats and the aeroplanes going their different ways, for
> different reasons. Then he watches the sun slowly set and admires all the
> bright and vibrant colours, or perhaps the refreshing wetness of the rain
> and glances up to the heavens to see the moon, spotting shooting stars,
> constellations wheeling overhead. Its is during these times that you are
> aware that you are a tiny, insignificant mortal being, alive for a brief
> moment in the long span of time and that you are on a tiny planet amongst 
> a
> massive, truly massive, beyond all imagination, universe and suddenly you
> feel very priveleged to be here. I'd call that bonding with the world,
> wouldn't you? I know it's easy to take the piss out of such lyrical
> language, but I couldn't give a toss, its all true stuff whether you can 
> see
> it or not.


Two points here. I have a sneaking feeling you plagiarised that from your 
favourite google fishing site for the demented, or, if you did write it, I 
can hear the sound of white coats flapping. You can do all that  strolling 
along the Pilgrims Way.

>> The anglers I've seen are masochistic loners who spend hours sitting in
> the
>> freezing rain looking blank waiting for Godot.
>
> Some are indeed!
>
>
>> >If you eat meat, which presumerably you do, you should at some stage in
>> >your
>> >life be prepared to kill it and prepare it yourself. If you don't, I
> can't
>> >see that you are any better than I for doing it myself.  Sea fishing is
>> >most
>> >probably one of the best things you can do in my opinion - you can
>> >potentially sustain yourself, your family and friends with free, healthy
>> >meals in a sustainable way. Not only that but you get to relax, enjoy 
>> >the
>> >outdoors and learn new topics in a meaningful way like how the natural
>> >world
>> >interacts with lunar cycles, spotting constellations and wildlife,
>> >understanding what's out there in the marine environment, etc, etc. You
>> >should try it some time. Its fun even if you don't catch a single thing.
>>
>> Total waffle and illogical.
>
> Your opinion and intriguingly, you don't say why.
> What's illogical about any of that?
>
> I can't see how you can stand the moral high ground if you eat meat and
> criticise me for taking fish home for my family to eat. What's changed 
> since
> the dawn of time? I suppose you'd criticise a poor African taking fish out
> of their environment to eat them as well then?

A poor African fishes so he will not starve. He has no choice. He does not 
hunt fish for fun. He does not throw fish back into the lake. He takes what 
he needs and leaves it at that. He is more in tune with the environment than 
a bunch of western middle class phoneys contemplating their navel and 
"bonding with the world".


>> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
>> living creature for enjoyment.
>
> Utter tosh and you know it.
>
>

On 16 sep, 10:57, "Toooldtocare"  wrote:
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
> >> living creature for enjoyment.

As a fisherman, I'll admit to getting enjoyment from my fishing - why
else would I do it?  However, I usually kill what I catch and take it
home and eat it.  In moral terms, I don't see the difference between
that and getting a couple of lamb chops from the butchers.

Harry Keane

wrote in message 
news:880a720b-4ccb-4900-b0d2-30a10e0b8aac@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 sep, 10:57, "Toooldtocare"  wrote:
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> >> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
>> >> living creature for enjoyment.
>
> As a fisherman, I'll admit to getting enjoyment from my fishing - why
> else would I do it?  However, I usually kill what I catch and take it
> home and eat it.  In moral terms, I don't see the difference between
> that and getting a couple of lamb chops from the butchers.

There is a difference in principle, subtle I'll give you that, between 
enjoying killing animals for food and killing them out of necessity. If you 
can't see it, you can't see it. For some people it is blindingly obvious.

> > dioxide. Having to say carbon dioxide is so passe, you see.
>
> Writing "passe" for passé certainly is.

Yes, the e ecoute key combo doesn't work on this keyboard! See?!

> Oh, you've switched to CO2 levels now. Carbon levels become passé have
they?

Well, I suppose its shorter to type. Although a pain to capitalise.

> >> The sea is full of plastic, mercury, oil, and carcinogenic substances
> > dumped
> >> into it. Tuna is now so polluted that food scientists advise not eating
> >> it more than twice a week. The same with salmon.
> >
> > Indeed, google bioaccumulation.
> >
>
> Indeed, bollocks! How can I have a serious discussion with you on "climate
> change" when you snip the most relevant points of my post. You deleted
> everything on the dust bowl, sun spots, currents in the Pacific and
> volcanoes, and left in only the couple of sentences above. Nothing about
> pollution in the air and ground, nothing about polluting "energy saving"
> light bulbs. And your only comment to the few sentences you left in was
> "google bioaccumulation". I don't need to matey, I know about it already.

You are so hypocritical its unbelievable! You've done the same with my posts
from the beginning! I snip for neatness, after all this is rambling nonsense
by now and nobody is interested in reading it except me and you, and we
already know what we've said and if anyone is dull enough to be interested
in it, they can click on the previous posts if they for whatever reason
joined in halfway through. I snip things that I consider too obvious to
reply to or that which seems pointless to discuss.


> > Not all hooks are barbed. Many fishermen catch the same fish multiple
> > times.
> > In fact studies have been made showing that some species even put
> > themselves
> > at a high risk of being caught (because they know they will be thrown
> > back),
> > just to have a quick bite to eat. Its almost as if there's a trade-off.
> > You
> > feed me, I'll be thrown back. Plus, fish do seem to make a conscious
sport
> > of teasing fishermen too. Its a weird world indeed.
>
> Have you lost the plot? How do fish "know" the bait to take which means
they
> will be thrown back, and the bait to avoid as it means your frying pan?

You've clearly never been fishing have you! Mullet and carp are notorious
for working out what is baited and what is not. Roach for example wait for
the splash of a float and descend on it, despite every time one of them
being hoiked out and thrown back in. I'm not saying its proof, but there
have been stuides into this behavioural pattern.

> Arrant nonsense! The only thing weird is if you actually believe that
> rubbish.

Stranger things happen at sea.


> Two points here. I have a sneaking feeling you plagiarised that from your
> favourite google fishing site for the demented, or, if you did write it, I
> can hear the sound of white coats flapping. You can do all that  strolling
> along the Pilgrims Way.

Not plagiarised at all. Just writing what I feel. There's no need to be so
smarmy all the time you know. You don't really get the same experience by
walking about, you need to stay still to see how the world wakes up and the
activity goes on around you throughout the day. A bit like a tree I suppose.
But yes, walking is a marvellous pursuit too and the two activities lead
pretty much to the same thing.

> > Your opinion and intriguingly, you don't say why.
> > What's illogical about any of that?
> >
> > I can't see how you can stand the moral high ground if you eat meat and
> > criticise me for taking fish home for my family to eat. What's changed
> > since
> > the dawn of time? I suppose you'd criticise a poor African taking fish
out
> > of their environment to eat them as well then?
>
> A poor African fishes so he will not starve. He has no choice. He does not
> hunt fish for fun. He does not throw fish back into the lake. He takes
what
> he needs and leaves it at that. He is more in tune with the environment
than
> a bunch of western middle class phoneys contemplating their navel and
> "bonding with the world".

Bullshit! He will throw fish back that are too small so he can catch them
another day when they are bigger - just like I do. He has a choice - he
could try and pursue something else to eat - or become a veggie. He doesn't
necessarily take what he needs and leaves it at that (might be selling
surplus fish on for profit). Why do you think that because someone from the
Western world does the same thing, its not equivalent to someone doing the
same thing in the rest of the world?! We've all got to eat and have to pay
for it somehow! He fishes, I fish, we both eat fish. How can one be any
different to another? I'll be eating fish whether I buy it from the
supermarket, the fishmongers or if I catch it myself. I'm cutting out the
middle man. Which means less creatures die overall (no bycatch). For every
pound of prawns for example something like 5lbs of fish will die. Not to
mention marine habitats being disturbed as the ground is ploughed up with
great big trawling nets. Basically, I'm employing the same survival strategy
by fishing as anyone else on the planet - past, present and future. Every
human is equal.

> >> >> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
> >> >> living creature for enjoyment.
> >
> > As a fisherman, I'll admit to getting enjoyment from my fishing - why
> > else would I do it?  However, I usually kill what I catch and take it
> > home and eat it.  In moral terms, I don't see the difference between
> > that and getting a couple of lamb chops from the butchers.
>
> There is a difference in principle, subtle I'll give you that, between
> enjoying killing animals for food and killing them out of necessity. If
you
> can't see it, you can't see it. For some people it is blindingly obvious.

Just what do you mean by necessity here? Do you mean unless we're actually
on the point of starvation, we ought not to catch fish and eat them?! If
that's the case you shouldn't eat your lamp chops and burgers then mate
unless your starving either! What a moronic hypocrit!

wrote in message
news:880a720b-4ccb-4900-b0d2-30a10e0b8aac@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 sep, 10:57, "Toooldtocare"  wrote:
> > <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > >> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
> > >> living creature for enjoyment.
>
> As a fisherman, I'll admit to getting enjoyment from my fishing - why
> else would I do it?  However, I usually kill what I catch and take it
> home and eat it.  In moral terms, I don't see the difference between
> that and getting a couple of lamb chops from the butchers.
>
> Harry Keane

Good on you Harry! You see, I reckon as long as everything's by the book -
minimum landing sizes are adhered to, only taking fish that aren't
endangered, etc and general respect when handling the fish that go back and
the one's you take, its no different to popping down to Tescos. Except of
course that it far, far exceeds taste, quality and freshness, leading to a
much higher overall enjoyment and satisfaction.

Tooold, when was the last time you sat down to your chicken kiev dinner and
really wondered in awe about where it came from, knowing how it arrived on
your plate and savoured every last mouthful? I would bet my life's savings
on that you don't appreciate it as much as I do when I eat fish that I've
brought home for tea!

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:6mRzk.40198$JK3.34101@newsfe14.ams2...
>> >> >> I regrettably eat meat to live. You kill a
>> >> >> living creature for enjoyment.
>> >
>> > As a fisherman, I'll admit to getting enjoyment from my fishing - why
>> > else would I do it?  However, I usually kill what I catch and take it
>> > home and eat it.  In moral terms, I don't see the difference between
>> > that and getting a couple of lamb chops from the butchers.
>>
>> There is a difference in principle, subtle I'll give you that, between
>> enjoying killing animals for food and killing them out of necessity. If
> you
>> can't see it, you can't see it. For some people it is blindingly obvious.
>
> Just what do you mean by necessity here? Do you mean unless we're actually
> on the point of starvation, we ought not to catch fish and eat them?! If
> that's the case you shouldn't eat your lamp chops and burgers then mate
> unless your starving either! What a moronic hypocrit!

Lol! I'm the moron? I'm not sure what a hypocrit is so I'll pass on that
one.

If you want to get into a slanging match that is fine with me. I've been
insulted by experts so I'll have no trouble dealing with a silly little
affected twerp. Right now your performance is so below ulk par for a spat I
can't be bothered.

My answer to Harry stands. If you can't see the difference between killing
animals for food, and *enjoying* killing them, albeit if you still eat them,
that says enough about you. Period!

Your previous post was pathetic so I've not bothered to reply except that
part which explains how an African thinks.

It appears you are a generalist, you know something about a lot courtesy of
Google, but not a lot about anything. You spout off about African tribesman
as if you have detailed knowledge of them. I spent 25 years travelling to,
and working in, many countries in Africa. I think I know as much as you
about how and what Africans do to survive. I pointed it out previously but
you were too wrapped up in yourself to get it. Don't assume there are no
experts on here just because they mostly confine themselves to trivia. A
little humility wouldn't come amiss.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fjRzk.40109$JK3.27417@newsfe14.ams2...
>> > I can't see how you can stand the moral high ground if you eat meat and
>> > criticise me for taking fish home for my family to eat. What's changed
>> > since
>> > the dawn of time? I suppose you'd criticise a poor African taking fish
> out
>> > of their environment to eat them as well then?
>>
>> A poor African fishes so he will not starve. He has no choice. He does
>> not
>> hunt fish for fun. He does not throw fish back into the lake. He takes
> what
>> he needs and leaves it at that. He is more in tune with the environment
> than
>> a bunch of western middle class phoneys contemplating their navel and
>> "bonding with the world".
>
> Bullshit! He will throw fish back that are too small so he can catch them
> another day when they are bigger - just like I do. He has a choice - he
> could try and pursue something else to eat - or become a veggie.

He has a choice??? Yea, of course he does. He goes home to his wife and 8
kids and says, "Now dear, do you fancy steak, bream or veggie quiche
tonight?". His wife replys, " No, I'll make do with mealie-meal like we have
had every night for the past 20 years!"
Get real! Many Africans hardly have a choice between living and dying!

Such ignorance of the rest of the world exemplifies the liberal middle 
classes in this country. Instead of climbing onto a real cause, poverty, 
malnutrition and starvation, Aids, TB and malaria in the Third World, or 
pollution in the air they breath or food they eat, they find a cosy cause 
such as "global change", install a couple of polluting low energy dim 
lightbulbs, and then sit back, "bond with the world" and feel very pleased 
with themselves. All this global change is garbage when there are many more 
greater and immediate dangers facing us.

> My answer to Harry stands. If you can't see the difference between killing
> animals for food, and *enjoying* killing them, albeit if you still eat
them,
> that says enough about you. Period!

What makes you believe that we enjoy the killing? We enjoy the catching and
the eating - but it takes a sick nutter to enjoy the killing. In fact its
the only bit about fishing that I hate, but if you want to eat fish/meat,
etc, you have to see first hand what it means in order to bring it home.

I put it to you that you enjoy letting other people do your dirty work for
you so you can blithely consume your meat guilt free. What a warped
perspective on the world you hold.

> You spout off about African tribesman
> as if you have detailed knowledge of them.

Who said anything about African tribesmen?! Racist. I said a 'poor African'.

> I spent 25 years travelling to,
> and working in, many countries in Africa. I think I know as much as you
> about how and what Africans do to survive. I pointed it out previously but
> you were too wrapped up in yourself to get it. Don't assume there are no
> experts on here just because they mostly confine themselves to trivia. A
> little humility wouldn't come amiss.

And by the way, I am an African.

> He has a choice??? Yea, of course he does. He goes home to his wife and 8
> kids and says, "Now dear, do you fancy steak, bream or veggie quiche
> tonight?". His wife replys, " No, I'll make do with mealie-meal like we
have
> had every night for the past 20 years!"

So, by your reckoning then, its wrong to eat meat, unless you're starving,
after which point, its OK; but if you have access to other foods, including
meat in more affluent parts of the world, then you can a) eat meat, but be
ashamed of yourself, or b) ought to become a vegan if you really are on the
ball, morally speaking?

That's a bit of a strange and selective attitude to animals and food isn't
it? Even God in the Bible tells his believers that they can all eat the meat
of his animals. I don't recall reading anything about unless you are a
Westerner when you really should know better...


> Get real! Many Africans hardly have a choice between living and dying!

My argument is not about Africans being able to eat fish out of necessity,
it is about your odd belief that we are somehow different, morally speaking
if we have a, hmm, I'm guessing you're a Waitrose or M&S man, nearby in
order to choose something more suitable to eat like a prepacked luxury fish
pie, rather than going fishing and catching the fish and turning it into an
even better luxury fish pie yourself. You seem to be suggesting that eating
fish is more or less morally wrong depending on who you are and what your
circumstances are, rather than it is wrong to eat fish (or any other animal
come to think of it) fullstop. That makes abso-bloody-lutely no sense.

> Such ignorance of the rest of the world exemplifies the liberal middle
> classes in this country.

Precisely. Go fishing, see what it means to hunt like many other cultures do
around the world and bring your dinner home, then tell me about it.

> Instead of climbing onto a real cause, poverty,
> malnutrition and starvation, Aids, TB and malaria in the Third World, or
> pollution in the air they breath or food they eat, they find a cosy cause
> such as "global change", install a couple of polluting low energy dim
> lightbulbs, and then sit back, "bond with the world" and feel very pleased
> with themselves. All this global change is garbage when there are many
more
> greater and immediate dangers facing us.

Some of that is true but I'm not agreeing to a picture you may be trying to
paint of me there. Dunno what your "global change" is though. I think the
point about "climate change" is that it will affect _everyone_ if nothing is
done to correct or lessen it.

Some of the other issues you quite rightly have highlighted are of course of
extreme desparation to many people around the world too and something should
be done about those things also as they are happening right now.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:CVSzk.63123$6Y7.32841@newsfe29.ams2...
>> My answer to Harry stands. If you can't see the difference between 
>> killing
>> animals for food, and *enjoying* killing them, albeit if you still eat
> them,
>> that says enough about you. Period!
>
> What makes you believe that we enjoy the killing? We enjoy the catching 
> and
> the eating - but it takes a sick nutter to enjoy the killing. In fact its
> the only bit about fishing that I hate, but if you want to eat fish/meat,
> etc, you have to see first hand what it means in order to bring it home.
>
> I put it to you that you enjoy letting other people do your dirty work for
> you so you can blithely consume your meat guilt free. What a warped
> perspective on the world you hold.

And I put it to you that by your extreme reaction to my anti-fishing stance 
as a sport I have hit a raw nerve. You have tried to move the argument to 
the morality of eating meat and fish. That is not the argument. It is 
whether fishing and hunting are worthy pursuits. My position is they are 
not. You can agree or disagree but someone who disagrees need only say they 
enjoy it, "for the thrill of the chase" or however it is you justify it. No 
tendentious waffle about meat eating is relevant.

>
>> You spout off about African tribesman
>> as if you have detailed knowledge of them.
>
> Who said anything about African tribesmen?! Racist. I said a 'poor 
> African'.

Racist lol! You are an ignorant git. Most Africans still belong to a tribe, 
especially in the bush where most of them scratch a living. Belonging to a 
tribe is a source of strength and community and something of which to be 
proud. Typical middle class liberals would automatically see it as racist 
term, it shows them up for the condescending class they are.




>> I spent 25 years travelling to,
>> and working in, many countries in Africa. I think I know as much as you
>> about how and what Africans do to survive. I pointed it out previously 
>> but
>> you were too wrapped up in yourself to get it. Don't assume there are no
>> experts on here just because they mostly confine themselves to trivia. A
>> little humility wouldn't come amiss.
>
> And by the way, I am an African.

So am I, so is everyone, all our ancestors came from Kenya. But if you 
really are from modern day Africa, I can guess your accent. Ugh! It does 
explain your arrogance and conceit.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:NdTzk.116146$uW7.92894@newsfe13.ams2...
>> He has a choice??? Yea, of course he does. He goes home to his wife and 8
>> kids and says, "Now dear, do you fancy steak, bream or veggie quiche
>> tonight?". His wife replys, " No, I'll make do with mealie-meal like we
> have
>> had every night for the past 20 years!"
>
> So, by your reckoning then, its wrong to eat meat, unless you're starving,
> after which point, its OK; but if you have access to other foods, 
> including
> meat in more affluent parts of the world, then you can a) eat meat, but be
> ashamed of yourself, or b) ought to become a vegan if you really are on 
> the
> ball, morally speaking?
>
> That's a bit of a strange and selective attitude to animals and food isn't
> it? Even God in the Bible tells his believers that they can all eat the 
> meat
> of his animals. I don't recall reading anything about unless you are a
> Westerner when you really should know better...

I was taking the piss! Your lack of irony is one more piece of evidence 
indicating your ethnic source.

>
>> Get real! Many Africans hardly have a choice between living and dying!
>
> My argument is not about Africans being able to eat fish out of necessity,
> it is about your odd belief that we are somehow different, morally 
> speaking
> if we have a, hmm, I'm guessing you're a Waitrose or M&S man, nearby in
> order to choose something more suitable to eat like a prepacked luxury 
> fish
> pie, rather than going fishing and catching the fish and turning it into 
> an
> even better luxury fish pie yourself. You seem to be suggesting that 
> eating
> fish is more or less morally wrong depending on who you are and what your
> circumstances are, rather than it is wrong to eat fish (or any other 
> animal
> come to think of it) fullstop. That makes abso-bloody-lutely no sense.
>
>> Such ignorance of the rest of the world exemplifies the liberal middle
>> classes in this country.
>
> Precisely. Go fishing, see what it means to hunt like many other cultures 
> do
> around the world and bring your dinner home, then tell me about it.

No thanks, I can get my thrills in more humane ways.

>
>> Instead of climbing onto a real cause, poverty,
>> malnutrition and starvation, Aids, TB and malaria in the Third World, or
>> pollution in the air they breath or food they eat, they find a cosy cause
>> such as "global change", install a couple of polluting low energy dim
>> lightbulbs, and then sit back, "bond with the world" and feel very 
>> pleased
>> with themselves. All this global change is garbage when there are many
> more
>> greater and immediate dangers facing us.
>
> Some of that is true but I'm not agreeing to a picture you may be trying 
> to
> paint of me there. Dunno what your "global change" is though. I think the
> point about "climate change" is that it will affect _everyone_ if nothing 
> is
> done to correct or lessen it.
>
> Some of the other issues you quite rightly have highlighted are of course 
> of
> extreme desparation to many people around the world too and something 
> should
> be done about those things also as they are happening right now.

 "global change"? I heard one of your band call it that on the news 
yesterday. The "global warming" brigade have moved to euphemisms such as 
"global and climate change" because calling it "warming" doesn't go down too 
well with Joe Public after the coldest summer for years!

With all due respect, I'm stretching that term a bit, why don't you go back 
to waffling on about nothing in particular like you used to? You made more 
sense. All this "I care about the planet, new age bonding, at one with 
nature"  cobblers comes across as puke inducing sentimentality. Especially 
when pronounced pompously from the comfort of a centrally heated house in 
Kent.

Do yourself a favour, turn off a light bulb and make yourself feel good! 
I've got every light in my house on at the moment plus the outside ones. I 
need to warm the planet up tonight, it's damn cold for September.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:wLSdnSgH3OzZjU3VnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:NdTzk.116146$uW7.92894@newsfe13.ams2...
>>> He has a choice??? Yea, of course he does. He goes home to his wife and 
>>> 8
>>> kids and says, "Now dear, do you fancy steak, bream or veggie quiche
>>> tonight?". His wife replys, " No, I'll make do with mealie-meal like we
>> have
>>> had every night for the past 20 years!"
>>
>> So, by your reckoning then, its wrong to eat meat, unless you're 
>> starving,
>> after which point, its OK; but if you have access to other foods, 
>> including
>> meat in more affluent parts of the world, then you can a) eat meat, but 
>> be
>> ashamed of yourself, or b) ought to become a vegan if you really are on 
>> the
>> ball, morally speaking?
>>
>> That's a bit of a strange and selective attitude to animals and food 
>> isn't
>> it? Even God in the Bible tells his believers that they can all eat the 
>> meat
>> of his animals. I don't recall reading anything about unless you are a
>> Westerner when you really should know better...
>
> I was taking the piss! Your lack of irony is one more piece of evidence 
> indicating your ethnic source.
>
>>
>>> Get real! Many Africans hardly have a choice between living and dying!
>>
>> My argument is not about Africans being able to eat fish out of 
>> necessity,
>> it is about your odd belief that we are somehow different, morally 
>> speaking
>> if we have a, hmm, I'm guessing you're a Waitrose or M&S man, nearby in
>> order to choose something more suitable to eat like a prepacked luxury 
>> fish
>> pie, rather than going fishing and catching the fish and turning it into 
>> an
>> even better luxury fish pie yourself. You seem to be suggesting that 
>> eating
>> fish is more or less morally wrong depending on who you are and what your
>> circumstances are, rather than it is wrong to eat fish (or any other 
>> animal
>> come to think of it) fullstop. That makes abso-bloody-lutely no sense.
>>
>>> Such ignorance of the rest of the world exemplifies the liberal middle
>>> classes in this country.
>>
>> Precisely. Go fishing, see what it means to hunt like many other cultures 
>> do
>> around the world and bring your dinner home, then tell me about it.
>
> No thanks, I can get my thrills in more humane ways.
>
>>
>>> Instead of climbing onto a real cause, poverty,
>>> malnutrition and starvation, Aids, TB and malaria in the Third World, or
>>> pollution in the air they breath or food they eat, they find a cosy 
>>> cause
>>> such as "global change", install a couple of polluting low energy dim
>>> lightbulbs, and then sit back, "bond with the world" and feel very 
>>> pleased
>>> with themselves. All this global change is garbage when there are many
>> more
>>> greater and immediate dangers facing us.
>>
>> Some of that is true but I'm not agreeing to a picture you may be trying 
>> to
>> paint of me there. Dunno what your "global change" is though. I think the
>> point about "climate change" is that it will affect _everyone_ if nothing 
>> is
>> done to correct or lessen it.
>>
>> Some of the other issues you quite rightly have highlighted are of course 
>> of
>> extreme desparation to many people around the world too and something 
>> should
>> be done about those things also as they are happening right now.
>
> "global change"? I heard one of your band call it that on the news 
> yesterday. The "global warming" brigade have moved to euphemisms such as 
> "global and climate change" because calling it "warming" doesn't go down 
> too well with Joe Public after the coldest summer for years!
>
> With all due respect, I'm stretching that term a bit, why don't you go 
> back to waffling on about nothing in particular like you used to? You made 
> more sense. All this "I care about the planet, new age bonding, at one 
> with nature"  cobblers comes across as puke inducing sentimentality. 
> Especially when pronounced pompously from the comfort of a centrally 
> heated house in Kent.
>
> Do yourself a favour, turn off a light bulb and make yourself feel good! 
> I've got every light in my house on at the moment plus the outside ones. I 
> need to warm the planet up tonight, it's damn cold for September.

Is it? Yes guess it is, I had hiccups last night and went outside for fresh 
air and caught my breath in the air as I exhaled!! Still I've got my windows 
open and no central heating... oh and just the tv and one lamp on..... I'm 
saving on electricity bills though! lol....

JB
x
>

> > I put it to you that you enjoy letting other people do your dirty work
for
> > you so you can blithely consume your meat guilt free. What a warped
> > perspective on the world you hold.
>
> And I put it to you that by your extreme reaction to my anti-fishing
stance
> as a sport I have hit a raw nerve. You have tried to move the argument to
> the morality of eating meat and fish. That is not the argument. It is
> whether fishing and hunting are worthy pursuits. My position is they are
> not. You can agree or disagree but someone who disagrees need only say
they
> enjoy it, "for the thrill of the chase" or however it is you justify it.
No
> tendentious waffle about meat eating is relevant.

Of course its relevant. Its the entire point. If you catch a fish -
personally speaking - its to eat it (if its big enough, etc, etc).  If you
are a hunter or a farmer, you are still harvesting animals for food. I'm
sure many farmers "enjoy" their work. I'm sure they too don't enjoy the
killing aspect, but are mature enough to realise that that's what its all
about at the end of the day. Fishing isn't about recklessly catching and
killing fish wantonly. Its about making sure your food is fresh and
sustainable. Plus you get to trace the path the food takes all the way to
the plate. That's what I personally "enjoy". I'd call that a worthy ideal to
achieve, never mind about "pursuit".

> >> You spout off about African tribesman
> >> as if you have detailed knowledge of them.
> >
> > Who said anything about African tribesmen?! Racist. I said a 'poor
> > African'.
>
> Racist lol! You are an ignorant git. Most Africans still belong to a
tribe,
> especially in the bush where most of them scratch a living.

Unbelievable! Honestly you are unbelievable! What an antiquated and
offensive view of Africa you hold. You're not Prince Philip in disguise are
you? "Er, er, er, do you still throw spears at each other?".

> > And by the way, I am an African.
>
> So am I, so is everyone, all our ancestors came from Kenya. But if you
> really are from modern day Africa, I can guess your accent. Ugh! It does
> explain your arrogance and conceit.

I'm not South African if that's what you're guessing. But enough. From the
way you write, you strike me as an arrogant, morally deluded, racist (or at
the very least, ill-informed) hypocrite and so consequently, I bow out of
this one.

The End.

> >> He has a choice??? Yea, of course he does. He goes home to his wife and
8
> >> kids and says, "Now dear, do you fancy steak, bream or veggie quiche
> >> tonight?". His wife replys, " No, I'll make do with mealie-meal like we
> > have
> >> had every night for the past 20 years!"
> >
> > So, by your reckoning then, its wrong to eat meat, unless you're
starving,
> > after which point, its OK; but if you have access to other foods,
> > including
> > meat in more affluent parts of the world, then you can a) eat meat, but
be
> > ashamed of yourself, or b) ought to become a vegan if you really are on
> > the
> > ball, morally speaking?
> >
> > That's a bit of a strange and selective attitude to animals and food
isn't
> > it? Even God in the Bible tells his believers that they can all eat the
> > meat
> > of his animals. I don't recall reading anything about unless you are a
> > Westerner when you really should know better...
>
> I was taking the piss! Your lack of irony is one more piece of evidence
> indicating your ethnic source.

Were you? Your dialogue was piss-taking, but your argument behind it wasn't
being presented as such.

> No thanks, I can get my thrills in more humane ways.

Dinner party food courtesy of M&S?

> With all due respect, I'm stretching that term a bit, why don't you go
back
> to waffling on about nothing in particular like you used to? You made more
> sense. All this "I care about the planet, new age bonding, at one with
> nature"  cobblers comes across as puke inducing sentimentality.

If you're in cloud cuckoo land and in denial that the planet's climate is
changing, I suppose it would get a bit annoying with everyone going on about
it. But you are in the minority it seems, so this argument will roll on with
or without my input.
Anyway, what shall we talk about instead then? Mindless drivel? How bloody
boring.

> Especially
> when pronounced pompously from the comfort of a centrally heated house in
> Kent.

I wish!

> Do yourself a favour, turn off a light bulb and make yourself feel good!
> I've got every light in my house on at the moment plus the outside ones. I
> need to warm the planet up tonight, it's damn cold for September.

Its the way you tell 'em innit.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:MWUzk.32292$t_1.22884@newsfe30.ams2...
>> > I put it to you that you enjoy letting other people do your dirty work
> for
>> > you so you can blithely consume your meat guilt free. What a warped
>> > perspective on the world you hold.
>>
>> And I put it to you that by your extreme reaction to my anti-fishing
> stance
>> as a sport I have hit a raw nerve. You have tried to move the argument to
>> the morality of eating meat and fish. That is not the argument. It is
>> whether fishing and hunting are worthy pursuits. My position is they are
>> not. You can agree or disagree but someone who disagrees need only say
> they
>> enjoy it, "for the thrill of the chase" or however it is you justify it.
> No
>> tendentious waffle about meat eating is relevant.
>
> Of course its relevant. Its the entire point. If you catch a fish -
> personally speaking - its to eat it (if its big enough, etc, etc).  If you
> are a hunter or a farmer, you are still harvesting animals for food. I'm
> sure many farmers "enjoy" their work. I'm sure they too don't enjoy the
> killing aspect, but are mature enough to realise that that's what its all
> about at the end of the day. Fishing isn't about recklessly catching and
> killing fish wantonly. Its about making sure your food is fresh and
> sustainable. Plus you get to trace the path the food takes all the way to
> the plate. That's what I personally "enjoy". I'd call that a worthy ideal
> to
> achieve, never mind about "pursuit".

Oh, it's to eat is it? Not a sport at all? Now tell me, if that is the case
why did you post:

"Many fishermen catch the same fish multiple times.
In fact studies have been made showing that some species even put themselves
at a high risk of being caught (because they know they will be thrown back),
just to have a quick bite to eat. Its almost as if there's a trade-off. You
feed me, I'll be thrown back."

You need to make your mind up mate, either you fish for fun or you fish to
eat. You seem to want it both ways depending on how big the hole is you've
dug yourself into.


>
>> >> You spout off about African tribesman
>> >> as if you have detailed knowledge of them.
>> >
>> > Who said anything about African tribesmen?! Racist. I said a 'poor
>> > African'.
>>
>> Racist lol! You are an ignorant git. Most Africans still belong to a
> tribe,
>> especially in the bush where most of them scratch a living.
>
> Unbelievable! Honestly you are unbelievable! What an antiquated and
> offensive view of Africa you hold. You're not Prince Philip in disguise
> are
> you? "Er, er, er, do you still throw spears at each other?".

Are you pleased with that? You shouldn't be, what you have tried on there is
the oldest trick in the newsgroup book. Take a paragraph, snip two thirds of
it, and keep the remaining third so you can portray (at least attempt to) 
the
poster in the opposite manner to that intended. Let me remind you of the
whole paragraph:

"Racist lol! You are an ignorant git. Most Africans still belong to a tribe,
especially in the bush where most of them scratch a living. Belonging to a
tribe is a source of strength and community and something of which to be
proud. Typical middle class liberals would automatically see it as racist
term, it shows them up for the condescending class they are."

Paints a rather different picture doesn't it. You'll have some difficulty
playing the racist card now. But if you are considering trying let me
puncture your balloon now. As you left in "bush" and "scratch a living" they
must be words you thought you could use to your advantage. The word "bush"
is what Africans call undeveloped rural areas, hardly contentious. "scratch
a living" is what millions of destitute Africans do everyday. There is no
other way for them to make a living after misappropriated aid funds,
corruption, civil strife, dictators and government incompetence have bled
their countries dry. I've seen it in reality but all of us must have seen on
the televison some poor sod walking miles for water and scratching at some
dried earth trying to grow something.

Of course your view of Africa might be somewhat different. Maybe you think
they are all doing fine. Forget Ruanda, Congo, Somalia, Kenya and Zimbabwe 
eh?


>
>> > And by the way, I am an African.
>>
>> So am I, so is everyone, all our ancestors came from Kenya. But if you
>> really are from modern day Africa, I can guess your accent. Ugh! It does
>> explain your arrogance and conceit.
>
> I'm not South African if that's what you're guessing. But enough. From the
> way you write, you strike me as an arrogant, morally deluded, racist (or
> at
> the very least, ill-informed) hypocrite and so consequently, I bow out of
> this one.

No, I was thinking somewhere to the east and slightly north of South Africa.

And seeing as you passed your opinion of my qualities I'll do the same for
you. Flexible principles, selfish, misogynist, inconsistent, untrustworthy,
devious, unimaginative, populist, superficial, too clever by half and too
thick to be taken seriously.

> The End.

And those last two words are typical, for not 11 minutes later you posted to
the same thread. Now be gone, I'm bored with you, you are well below par!