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"?

>>
>>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.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:58:58 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 10, 10:38 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:26:13 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> Let him look it up.
>
>Of course. So give him the reference and let him look it up.

Let him look it up.

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)