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.

>>
>>>>
>>>>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.

-- 
Malcolm