On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 10:50 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:36:32 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 11:29 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:15:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> >> >> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.
>
> >> >> >Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
> >> >> >increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
> >> >> >shots most "hunters" are.
>
> >> >> Of course they are and that's why shooting should be banned as well.
>
> >> >Unrealistic to expect this.
>
> >> You probably thought this about hunting with hounds a few years ago.
> >> The ban has changed things dramatically.
>
> >> >Better to try for stronger regulation of
> >> >gun users in the first instance.
>
> >> Not at all.
>
> >> >Don't you care about a coming
> >> >generation of wounded foxes living in misery, simply because A/R
> >> >takes an inflexible position on hunting?
>
> >> This is why it needs banning.
>
> >Politics ensure that no blanket ban of the kind you want will appear
> >in our lifetime.
>
> In what way?
>
> >Tightening up up the legislation is always feasible
> >using diligence coupled with rational argument.
>
> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
> this.

There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
talked to them about it?

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:32:15 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:09:36 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:50:27 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:28 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>, John
>>>>>>>>>M.  writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
>>>>>>>>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
>>>>>>>>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
>>>>>>>>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
>>>>>>>>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
>>>>>>>>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
>>>>>>>>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
>>>>>>>>>>talked to them about it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
>>>>>>>>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference which shows
>>>>>>>>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
>>>>>>>>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is
>>>>>>>cruel".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They commissioned it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do they use the phrase "shooting is cruel"?
>>>>
>>>>Up to 40% injured is cruel.  Their survey confirms this.
>>>>
>>>I see that, unsurprisingly, you have indulged in your usual habit of
>>>failing to answer a straightforward question, so I'll ask it again.
>>>
>>>Do BASC use the phrase "shooting is cruel", in their report.
>>>
>>
>>Where did I say they did?   Read what I wrote.
>>
>You said that their survey confirmed that "shooting is cruel".

Yes. It did.

>
>As soon as I asked whether the survey even mentioned the word "cruel" 
>you went into typical wriggling mode indicating that, clearly, it did 
>not.

Injuring birds is cruel.  

>
>Yet another example of Angus twisting words and meanings :-(
>

Not at all.

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Typically, you have failed to produce it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's in the public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So you don't know where it is. Thought not.
>>>>
>>>>Do your own research
>>>>
>>>So you don't know.
>>
>>Of course I do and so do you.
>>
>Another typical Angus response.

Another typical Malcolm response.

>
>He claims there is a report in the public domain, but when asked for the 
>reference, fails to produce it.

Look it up yourself like I did. 


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 10, 1:33 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:32:15 +0000, Malcolm
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:09:36 +0000, Malcolm
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>In article ,
> >>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:50:27 +0000, Malcolm
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>In article ,
> >>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:28 +0000, Malcolm
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>In article ,
> >>>>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>In article
> >>>>>>>>>, John
> >>>>>>>>>M.  writes
> >>>>>>>>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
> >>>>>>>>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
> >>>>>>>>>>> this.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
> >>>>>>>>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
> >>>>>>>>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
> >>>>>>>>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
> >>>>>>>>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
> >>>>>>>>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
> >>>>>>>>>>talked to them about it?
>
> >>>>>>>>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
> >>>>>>>>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference which shows
> >>>>>>>>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>
> >>>>>>>>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
> >>>>>>>>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>
> >>>>>>>You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is
> >>>>>>>cruel".
>
> >>>>>>They commissioned it.
>
> >>>>>Do they use the phrase "shooting is cruel"?
>
> >>>>Up to 40% injured is cruel.  Their survey confirms this.
>
> >>>I see that, unsurprisingly, you have indulged in your usual habit of
> >>>failing to answer a straightforward question, so I'll ask it again.
>
> >>>Do BASC use the phrase "shooting is cruel", in their report.
>
> >>Where did I say they did?   Read what I wrote.
>
> >You said that their survey confirmed that "shooting is cruel".
>
> Yes. It did.
>
>
>
> >As soon as I asked whether the survey even mentioned the word "cruel"
> >you went into typical wriggling mode indicating that, clearly, it did
> >not.
>
> Injuring birds is cruel.
>
>
>
> >Yet another example of Angus twisting words and meanings :-(
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.
>
> >>>>>>>Typically, you have failed to produce it.
>
> >>>>>>It's in the public domain.
>
> >>>>>>Look it up yourself.
>
> >>>>>So you don't know where it is. Thought not.
>
> >>>>Do your own research
>
> >>>So you don't know.
>
> >>Of course I do and so do you.
>
> >Another typical Angus response.
>
> Another typical Malcolm response.
>
>
>
> >He claims there is a report in the public domain, but when asked for the
> >reference, fails to produce it.
>
> Look it up yourself like I did.

I recognise that I am just another silly old git like the two of you,
but surely you both know that exchanges like this are hardly a
substitute for reality. Why don't you just attach the reference,
Angus, and put paid to this nonsense. Even he/she/it of a thousand-and-
one names fills his/her/its posts with relevant URLs.

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:32:15 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:09:36 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:50:27 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:28 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>, 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>M.  writes
>>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel. Even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
>>>>>>>>>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
>>>>>>>>>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
>>>>>>>>>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
>>>>>>>>>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
>>>>>>>>>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
>>>>>>>>>>>talked to them about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
>>>>>>>>>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference 
>>>>>>>>>>which shows
>>>>>>>>>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
>>>>>>>>>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is
>>>>>>>>cruel".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They commissioned it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do they use the phrase "shooting is cruel"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Up to 40% injured is cruel.  Their survey confirms this.
>>>>>
>>>>I see that, unsurprisingly, you have indulged in your usual habit of
>>>>failing to answer a straightforward question, so I'll ask it again.
>>>>
>>>>Do BASC use the phrase "shooting is cruel", in their report.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where did I say they did?   Read what I wrote.
>>>
>>You said that their survey confirmed that "shooting is cruel".
>
>Yes. It did.
>
>>
>>As soon as I asked whether the survey even mentioned the word "cruel"
>>you went into typical wriggling mode indicating that, clearly, it did
>>not.
>
>Injuring birds is cruel.
>
>>
>>Yet another example of Angus twisting words and meanings :-(
>>
>
>Not at all.
>
Absolutely and deliberately.

Thank you for this confirmation.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Typically, you have failed to produce it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's in the public domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you don't know where it is. Thought not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do your own research
>>>>>
>>>>So you don't know.
>>>
>>>Of course I do and so do you.
>>>
>>Another typical Angus response.
>
>Another typical Malcolm response.
>
>>
>>He claims there is a report in the public domain, but when asked for the
>>reference, fails to produce it.
>
>Look it up yourself like I did.
>
Thank you for this failure to produce a reference, Angus. It says a 
great deal about you.

-- 
Malcolm