On Topic (for a change)

Ray wrote:

> Again, this is mainly directed at UK posters.
>
> What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
> should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one
> would asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds
> will continue. But, are there enough of us to make a difference, which to
> most people is only a minor subject?
>
> I think certain members of the Labour party have accepted Christmas Gifts!
> They are as corrupt as the Conservative party was under the leadership of
> Thatcher.
>
> Now you tell me who, on the groups, has consistantly doubted that
> 'Foxhunting' will be made illegal under the present Labour party?
>
> WAS I WRONG?

I find this post boring without it's usual racist overtones raytard bitch
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray DeleteThis @syntex.com> wrote:

>Again, this is mainly directed at UK posters.
>
>What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
>should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one would
>asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds will
>continue.

Or maybe they don't want to piss off the hunters. Yet.

>But, are there enough of us to make a difference, which to most
>people is only a minor subject?

What if you get it banned? I seriously doubt that some guys on horses
following dogs are keeping the fox population in check, but is that what
you want to get banned? Or all hunting with dogs? No. You want all hunting
banned, but what are you going after in this example? And if you get it, what
will keep the fox population in check?

>I think certain members of the Labour party have accepted Christmas Gifts!

'Tis the season.

>They are as corrupt as the Conservative party was under the leadership of
>Thatcher.
>
>Now you tell me who, on the groups, has consistantly doubted that
>'Foxhunting' will be made illegal under the present Labour party?

That wouldn't be you, would it?

>WAS I WRONG?

Maybe not. Maybe it's not really going to happen, but they are taking
the approach they think will influence the most votes the way they
want them to go. Consider that they may be more interested in vote
results than in fox hunting, and it could go any way.
What if they stop shooting the foxes with bullets but shoot them with
tranquillisers instead? Then they could crate them up and ship them
directly to you, with the condition that you make sure they don't bother
humans any more...and you pay for shipping of course.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

<dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:aoots0t4730hocqf0541egt00oec2pbmbo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray.DeleteThis@syntex.com> wrote:
>
>>What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
>>should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one
>>would
>>asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds will
>>continue.
>
> Or maybe they don't want to piss off the hunters. Yet.
>
Now they've finally come to the conclusion we've all known for years, that
hunting is barbaric and cruel, they should ban it immediatelly. I can see no
justification whatsoever for delaying it at all.
These people who enjoy killing animals for fun are not going to vote labour
either way, so I don't see the election comes into it.
The idea of letting these thugs have any sway over government policy by
their violence and intimidation is absurd.




> What if you get it banned? I seriously doubt that some guys on horses
> following dogs are keeping the fox population in check, but is that what
> you want to get banned? Or all hunting with dogs?
>
We want all hunting banned! Simple.
People should not be allowed to kill animals for fun.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:17:05 -0000, "Martyn" <Bill.RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:aoots0t4730hocqf0541egt00oec2pbmbo@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray.RemoveThis@syntex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
>>>should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one
>>>would
>>>asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds will
>>>continue.
>>
>> Or maybe they don't want to piss off the hunters. Yet.
>>
>Now they've finally come to the conclusion we've all known for years, that
>hunting is barbaric and cruel, they should ban it immediatelly. I can see no
>justification whatsoever for delaying it at all.
>These people who enjoy killing animals for fun are not going to vote labour
>either way, so I don't see the election comes into it.
>The idea of letting these thugs have any sway over government policy by
>their violence and intimidation is absurd.
>
>
>
>
>> What if you get it banned? I seriously doubt that some guys on horses
>> following dogs are keeping the fox population in check, but is that what
>> you want to get banned? Or all hunting with dogs?
>>
>We want all hunting banned! Simple.
>People should not be allowed to kill animals for fun.

Their populations need to be controlled. I believe human hunting is
more humane than disease, starvation and nonhuman predators.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:20:15 GMT, dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:17:05 -0000, "Martyn" <Bill RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:aoots0t4730hocqf0541egt00oec2pbmbo@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray RemoveThis @syntex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
>>>>should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one
>>>>would
>>>>asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds will
>>>>continue.
>>>
>>> Or maybe they don't want to piss off the hunters. Yet.
>>>
>>Now they've finally come to the conclusion we've all known for years, that
>>hunting is barbaric and cruel, they should ban it immediatelly. I can see no
>>justification whatsoever for delaying it at all.
>>These people who enjoy killing animals for fun are not going to vote labour
>>either way, so I don't see the election comes into it.
>>The idea of letting these thugs have any sway over government policy by
>>their violence and intimidation is absurd.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What if you get it banned? I seriously doubt that some guys on horses
>>> following dogs are keeping the fox population in check, but is that what
>>> you want to get banned? Or all hunting with dogs?
>>>
>>We want all hunting banned! Simple.
>>People should not be allowed to kill animals for fun.
>
> Their populations need to be controlled. I believe human hunting is
>more humane

But you're an ass so it doesn't count.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

"Martyn" <Bill.RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10tnq6n44garr99@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:aoots0t4730hocqf0541egt00oec2pbmbo@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray.RemoveThis@syntex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What is your reaction to the UK Government declaration that 'Foxhunting'
>>>should remain legal until after the next election? At first sight one
>>>would
>>>asssume that the message is - 'Vote For Us', or hunting with hounds will
>>>continue.
>>
>> Or maybe they don't want to piss off the hunters. Yet.
>>
> Now they've finally come to the conclusion we've all known for years, that
> hunting is barbaric and cruel, they should ban it immediatelly. I can see
> no justification whatsoever for delaying it at all.
> These people who enjoy killing animals for fun are not going to vote
> labour either way, so I don't see the election comes into it.
> The idea of letting these thugs have any sway over government policy by
> their violence and intimidation is absurd.
>
>
>
>
>> What if you get it banned? I seriously doubt that some guys on horses
>> following dogs are keeping the fox population in check, but is that what
>> you want to get banned? Or all hunting with dogs?
>>
> We want all hunting banned! Simple.
> People should not be allowed to kill animals for fun.
====================
Then why are you here on usenet? It's for no other reason that *your*
entertainment, and yet it contributes to millions and millions of animals
dying each year. What's up with that, hypocrite? Why is it ok to kill
animals for *your fun, and let them rot, and not to kill them and eat them?


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

"rick etter" <stop DeleteThis @stop.net> wrote in message
news:QpZCd.1490$v76.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Then why are you here on usenet? It's for no other reason that *your*
> entertainment, and yet it contributes to millions and millions of animals
> dying each year. What's up with that, hypocrite? Why is it ok to kill
> animals for *your fun, and let them rot, and not to kill them and eat
> them?

Go away little boy.
Adults are trying to talk here, you are not wanted.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

<dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:c5fot0pb7k4n2k4semifukejjsbdvfeptl@4ax.com...
>>
>>Now they've finally come to the conclusion we've all known for years, that
>>hunting is barbaric and cruel, they should ban it immediatelly. I can see
>>no
>>justification whatsoever for delaying it at all.
>>These people who enjoy killing animals for fun are not going to vote
>>labour
>>either way, so I don't see the election comes into it.
>>The idea of letting these thugs have any sway over government policy by
>>their violence and intimidation is absurd.
>
>>We want all hunting banned! Simple.
>>People should not be allowed to kill animals for fun.
>
> Their populations need to be controlled.

No, they do not need to be controlled.
As 'Raynard's post (05/01/2005 22:45) says, many hunts have been encouraged
to breed more foxes to solve the "problem" of not having enough animals to
kill.
Hunting was only introduced a couple of hundred years ago, for fun. Do you
think the whole countryside was littered with foxes before that? Of course
it wasn't. Nature controlls her own numbers.



> I believe human hunting is
> more humane than disease, starvation and nonhuman predators.

There is no way in the world that I could ever be convinced that
disembowelling an animal while it is still alive is, in any way, 'humane'.
If you really believe that, then you should learn more about it.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

"Martyn" <Bill.RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10tq6r0a3dmpp89@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "rick etter" <stop.RemoveThis@stop.net> wrote in message
> news:QpZCd.1490$v76.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Then why are you here on usenet? It's for no other reason that *your*
>> entertainment, and yet it contributes to millions and millions of animals
>> dying each year. What's up with that, hypocrite? Why is it ok to kill
>> animals for *your fun, and let them rot, and not to kill them and eat
>> them?
>
> Go away little boy.
> Adults are trying to talk here, you are not wanted.
==================
LOL This is what passes for discussion in your neck of the woods, eh
killer? Try getting some facts before spewing your ignorance around the
world, fool....


>
>
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

In message <jdgqt0l6mitvd4vtq3o822njofkj8l8vta.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, Fred Bear
<freddie.DeleteThis@bare.com> writes
>
>They don't need controlling.

And the proof of this sweeping statement is?

--
Malcolm Kane
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

<dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:7jtqt0tb42k6vo2mc1fk2d1t7sthl7hf07@4ax.com...

>>Hunting was only introduced a couple of hundred years ago, for fun. Do you
>>think the whole countryside was littered with foxes before that? Of course
>>it wasn't. Nature controlls her own numbers.
>
> The numbers may have been higher than people liked.

The number of humans on the planet is higher than many people would 'like',
but that doesn't mean we condone killing off the excess for fun, does it?
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

"Malcolm Kane" <malcolm.TakeThisOut@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+3R12vDCGc3BFwC6@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
> In message <jdgqt0l6mitvd4vtq3o822njofkj8l8vta.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Fred Bear
> <freddie.TakeThisOut@bare.com> writes
>>
>>They don't need controlling.
>
> And the proof of this sweeping statement is?

Come on, keep up, we've just been discussing this, and you step in as though
you haven't read any of the posts.
I'll repeat a bit of it for you.

No, they do not need to be controlled.
As 'Raynard's post (05/01/2005 22:45) says, many hunts have been encouraged
to breed more foxes to solve the "problem" of not having enough animals to
kill.
Hunting was only introduced a couple of hundred years ago, for fun. Do you
think the whole countryside was littered with foxes before that? Of course
it wasn't. Nature controlls her own numbers.


Professor Stephen Harris, of Bristol University, who has studied the effects
of fox hunting, added: "This admission reveals the hypocrisy of the pro-hunt
lobby. They don't manage the fox population and they don't control it.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change) 

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:53:54 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm DeleteThis @jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <jdgqt0l6mitvd4vtq3o822njofkj8l8vta DeleteThis @4ax.com>, Fred Bear
><freddie DeleteThis @bare.com> writes
>>
>>They don't need controlling.
>
>And the proof of this sweeping statement is?

Just as well we know you're a pro hunt troll and therefore no response
is necessary.
 >> Stay informed about: On Topic (for a change)