1. Why were the protestors that stormed the Commons not shot? Security is a fucking joke.
2. When did the police stop beating up miners and crusties and blacks, and start brutalising toffs and their oiks? Did anyone else get that memo?
3. What do forites think? Me, I don't give a shit either way about foxhunting, fox hunters, foxes. I do despise farmers though, greedy susidised fucks. The dappybitch is a farmer's daughter actually. Sold his land to Barrat Homes or whoever, which is the way forward totally. Fucking farmers. Hate them. Oh, look, John Snow is talking to the poshest ever Met spokeswoman. I guess the police, bless them, are trying to get the country and their media (primarily Evening Standard) on side. But yeah, I'm neutral on this issue. Don't care.
[ 15.09.2004, 14:58: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by Dux (Member # 279) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: I do despise farmers though, greedy susidised fucks. The dappybitch is a farmer's daughter actually. Sold his land to Barrat Homes or whoever, which is the way forward totally. Fucking farmers.
Only know one farmer, the father of a friend. Understand he is subsidised to the tune of £80k for all the grain he produces. Not that they have much to show for the 15 hour days (apart from a humungous combine harvester that is). Probably one of the most decent, hard working people I have come across though - a real old-fashioned gentleman farmer.
Still I only know the one farmer... probably if I was better informed and met more of them I would also despise them as greedy subsidised fucks.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
I am at this very moment in the South Holland district of Lincolnshire. A very fertile, very flat part of the world. People here stare into the sun too long. It's where I spent most of my youth.
Agriculture should be allowed to go to hell. I don't see why I should subsidise this sector and pay higher food prices, just to keep farmers in business. Agriculture constitutes under 1% of the economy. It receives more subsidy than the other 99% put together. The protectionism that the EU practises kills Africans. A major industry that Africa can compete in, they are not allowed to, contributing to chronic underdevelopment. And for what? To help featherbedded farmers! I'd rather my money went to Africa. The rest of the saved CAP cash can be used to manage rural Britain. Farming = Genocide. Don't ban fox hunting, ban farming!
[ 15.09.2004, 16:02: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: Oh, look, John Snow is talking to the poshest ever Met spokeswoman. I guess the police, bless them, are trying to get the country and their media (primarily Evening Standard) on side. But yeah, I'm neutral on this issue. Don't care.
You may be talking about a different Jon Snow conversation, but the woman that I think you mean (I don't recall seeing him talk to any others on C4 news) was Elinor Goodman, Channel 4's Political Editor.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
I bloody well know who Eleanor Goodman is, you patronising ****
No, just before that. Okay, maybe she wasn't that posh, but quite, certainly more than you would expect of the London police, or at least more than I would expect.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
For once, I'm generally agreeing with most of what you're saying here Vikram!! Generalisations not withstanding, it does seem that the level of subsidies received by the agricultural sector are way out of kilter with the total value of the assets on many farms.
Nor is Dux wrong when he raises his own anecdotal experience of thoroughly decent hard-working farmers, with very little to show for their efforts, huge capital investment and subsidy.
Either way, it points to something beng seriously amiss with the whole of Europe's (and the world's) agricultural policy. It would be good to see European Community Nations getting their individual and collective acts in order. As Vik says, this would make an enormous difference to the developing world.
Perhaps the end of subsidies would encourage some farmers to be less eager to climb into bed with the supermarkets, and consider more sales of produce directly to the public, though the cynic in me knows that if this was to happen, the consumer would not be paying less for the end product than if he'd shopped at Sainsbury's.
[ 15.09.2004, 17:25: Message edited by: StevieX ]
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: I bloody well know who Eleanor Goodman is, you patronising ****
Then you know how she spells her name?? Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
btw I don't really hate farmers. and actually I felt sorry for the protestors. i like the country. i don't like police seemingly randomly bashing people over the head.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
those people getting bashed were hitting a fox's HOME with sticks last week! how would you like it if people with dogs came and beat at your door with sticks, and you were a fox?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Okey dokes. I live in a very rural area. A lot of my friends are farmers and yes, there are the odd one or two farmers who have a lot of money and drive around in their brand new Freelanders braying at all those who dare get in their way, but on the whole, farmers are hard working genuine people. [At least they are around here]. It's a bloody hard life and it doesn't matter what the weather's like, or how ill you might feel, you just have to get on with it every day.
I tend to think as farmers more as custodians of the countryside [and yes, I am well aware that certain farming methods may be deemed not to be appropriate to this]. The land has to managed and cared for but the actual production of food doesn't pay enough for most people to do this without help. The cost of raising a sheep/cow/crop is nowhere near covered by the selling price. Without subsidies people would stop raising them altogether, come out of farming and the countryside would either be in a total shambles or completely covered in tarmac and Beazer homes. Subsidies are there for a reason but like most things there are loopholes that mean they can be abused by those who don't genuinely need them.
Some info Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
You silly urbanites, we have to subsidise farming so the industry will survive. That way if there's a large scale war (or similar disruption to trade) we will have something to eat. A nation that lets its agriculture die is asking for trouble.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
as an urbanite, i similtaneously agree with everyone on this thread. as in, i think my pretending to have an opinion on what goes on in leicestershire is akin to farmer giles having an opinion on the privatisation of the tube. i know nothing of it, its so out of sight as to be completely out of mind, and. anyway, i think foxes are twats, they make sex loudly outside my bedroom at 4am and i cant put my rubbish out at a civilised time (ie overnight) because fucking renard the wily will rip the bags open and bestrew teabags and used sanitary requisites all over my doorstep. so yeah. foxhunting. stab em all and douse 'em in petrol, let gaia sort 'em out. i honestly couldnt give a tinkers wab.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: i honestly couldnt give a tinkers wab.
I'll use this in conversation today!
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Personally I'm against a ban on Fox hunting, hare coarsing, etc. I think we should reserve the right to terrorise and kill those smaller and weaker than ourselves, particularly the dumb animals.
Despite the above sarcasm I am actually against a ban on fox hunting because, apart from the fact that I couldn't give a flying fuck about foxes, I think it makes hypotcrites of a nation that still allows both the factory farming of animals and animal testing.
As for farmers and grain subsidy I think there was a suggestion in that Guardian 2020 suppliment at the Weekend that surplus grain produced by Western countries could be used as 'virtual water' (something like 80% of a countries water use being on food crop production). Theoretically this would allow the transportaion of water (virtually, in the form of the surplus grain or whatever) for far lower costs than those of actually moving water/irrigating land in arid/water poor climates, and allowing what water resources those countries had to go towards having clean fresh water available for the use of their populations.
[ 16.09.2004, 04:49: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: hair coursing
??
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
That'd be a spelling error Stevie, or a treatment for baldness.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: I'd rather my money went to Africa.
I can definately help you out there. In fact if you want, just buy an IPod and send it to me here in Botswana. I'm not greedy, a 20GB will do.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Joking aside, Boy Racer has a point.
I think it's high time that we got a grip in this country on this whole issue.
Alongside fox-hunting, the re-legitimisation of a whole range of country pursuits is long overdue. Foxes are a pest when all is said and done, and even though most foxes in Britain today are descended from deliberately introduced European foxes (after hunting pretty much wiped out our own), it's not too late to correct the mistakes of the past.
Of course many people get dewey-eyed over some of our other wildlife - otters, badgers and the like - which I suppose could be explained, at least a little, by what I've always termed the Beatrix Potter Effect and the Tarka Effect. Badgers are a leading cause of a particularly unpleasant disease called bruscellosis, which affects cattle. Otters can devastate fish stocks in rivers, and far from their cutesy image, are aggressive little blighters - just ask Terry Nutkins!. Both of these creatures can have a dramatic impact upon the rural economy. By hunting down these animals, not only are important problems being tackled, but the 'social' side to these activities, as well as the activities themselves, is an important part of rural tradition.
It is, obviously, less easy to defend hare coarsing, as hares are not a significant pest, but traditions are important, are they not? That's before we even consider the massive potential economic benefits were full and unfettered hunting rights restored.
So, not only will I be (loudly) opposing any ban on fox hunting but will be trying to spread the truth about those country pursuits that have already been consigned to the history books by successive nannying governments.
[ 16.09.2004, 04:15: Message edited by: StevieX ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Buy an african childe a CD player and he can listen to music. Buy him an iPod and he can pirate music!
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
Well, Vikram, that's a little harsh but i get your point. The whole farming issues is pretty wrong but the foxhunting debate is a little bit of labour class war. I personally love the fact that you can save little foxes AND piss off toffs at the same time. What really irks me is conseravatism. These C***s are really pissed off about it; look just accept it's no longer acceptable and move on. Is your life REALLY any worse for not being able to fox? Just get on with your life... I mean really Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
quote: I think it makes hypotcrites of a nation that still allows both the factory farming of animals and animal testing.
Weeeell yes, but I think there is a difference between killing for 'fun', or making the necessary control of a pest 'fun', and the rigidly controlled use of animals in medical research. There is also an absurd gulf between what is permitted in factory farming as you mentioned, and the conditions under which lab animals are kept.
That said I am unable to see the issue of hunting as being of major importance in the world today, there are plenty bigger problems to worry about.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Maybe we could hunt lab animals and then eat them?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Of course many people get dewey-eyed over some of our other wildlife - otters, badgers and the like - which I suppose could be explained, at least a little, by what I've always termed the Beatrix Potter Effect and the Tarka Effect. Badgers are a leading cause of a particularly unpleasant disease called bruscellosis, which affects cattle. Otters can devastate fish stocks in rivers, and far from their cutesy image, are aggressive little blighters - just ask Terry Nutkins!. Both of these creatures can have a dramatic impact upon the rural economy.
The argument that townsfolk think foxes, badgers and otters are cute, whereas country people know they're not, is redundant. Cows are repulsive creatures up close; their hide is covered in shit and they have flies crawling around their wet eyes. The same is true of some horses -- who can also be aggressive, and rather more dangerous than otters. Even farm cats, those kept for their hunting abilities rather than as furry companions, are not the kind of beast you would want to stroke.
Whether an animal is attractive or not -- and most animals on farms or in the wild are unfriendly and unappealing in real life; only domestic pets are tame, clean and cuddly -- is irrelevant. Surely a more important question is what ethical duties guide our behaviour towards these "lower" animals.
quote: the 'social' side to these activities, as well as the activities themselves, is an important part of rural tradition.
I don't think the "social" side cuts any ice. Many social activities are indefensible. If you defend hunting as a traditional get-together, you must also defend cock- and dog-fighting. Illegal bare-knuckle boxing is a social activity. Teenage delinquency is a social activity. Neo-Nazi meetings occur with a social network that I'm sure has a great deal of historical tradition behind it, enables friendships to thrive, involves drinking, dancing, singing and conversation, and gives the members a lot of pleasure.
quote: but traditions are important, are they not?
As this objection is so banal, I have no hesitation about countering with the equally banal and obvious point that slavery, voting rights confined to privileged men and public hangings are also traditional.
I think a society is entitled to judge whether some practices are no longer acceptable, whether or not they've been allowed to continue for centurues.
quote:successive nannying governments.
A government only becomes "nannying" when it makes illegal something you would rather was legal. When it acts to prohibit something you agree should be prohibited, like smoking on public transport, you would see it as right-headed and acting in the majority interest. The NHS is a product of "nanny" government thinking it knows what's right for the British people and trying to look after them. Warning against global warning is an act of "nanny" government: why do they have to lecture and try to tell us what they think's best for us? Why can't we go on doing what we want to the planet, it's our environment too.
Again, this argument is entirely inconsistent.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kobra: Is your life REALLY any worse for not being able to fox? Just get on with your life... I mean really
For some people it is though - there's a whole cottage industry based around fox hunting, so for these people it's their livelihood. Whether you agree with it or not, to state that it's "no big deal" to the people involved, suggests that you haven't really grasped the issue involved, and only a fool would claim to know something about something he knows nothing about.
I think that's what pisses people off the most: when you have some guy just rolling in saying "Ban fox hunting!" without any real idea of what they're saying.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I'm sure people were mighty pissed off when they banned cock-fighting in pubs, bear-baiting, you know. "Oh, it's traditional. Those pit-bulls will become an extinct breed. What will happen to the bantam-breeders?" It's all bollocks. Fox hunting will stop. The people who make a living out of it will have to find something else to do.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I am not convinced that the whole industry around fox-hunting -- the costumes, the hounds, the horses, the horns; the stabling, outfitting, catering that must go into preparing for such events -- is necessary for the controlling and containment of foxes.
I would think that anyone involved in producing the paraphenalia doesn't base their entire career around this single tradition -- but if it's really going to cripple some individuals, so be it I'm afraid. Closing down sweatshop labour would be a blow for the owners, too. Police raids on heroin suppliers are probably a real nuisance for a lot of people in that business chain.
If something's needlessly exploitative and on balance, reflects badly on us as a culture, I don't see why we should spend too long sympathising with people who get stung because of their involvement in it.
Couldn't anyone with savvy see a ban coming anyway, and perhaps branch out into something less specialised, less doomed as a specific industry?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: I'm sure people were mighty pissed off when they banned cock-fighting in pubs, bear-baiting, you know. "Oh, it's traditional. Those pit-bulls will become an extinct breed. What will happen to the bantam-breeders?" It's all bollocks. Fox hunting will stop. The people who make a living out of it will have to find something else to do.
EDIT: To add that I can see I jumped in a bit late with the above. Still...
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Perhaps I should have been clearer about my definition of animal testing, as I'd suggest there is indeed a world of difference between medical and say, costmetics or tobacco testing on animals.
I agree with Stevie's assurtion about the place of fox hunting etc as rural traditions, although possibly not as pest control (there have to be more energy effective ways of culling foxes than charging around on horseback, innit), and as Barry points out there are plenty of other traditions we've been only too glad to get rid of.
I do think that people today are far too removed from life and death in the food chain though. Cities are full of people who are perfectly prepared to eat bits of dead animals if they're nicely presented to them on a supermarket shelf, but are so squeamish they can't even gut a fish.
Some people like to assurt that how we treat animals is an extension of how we treat people, to them I point out that Hitler was a vegetarian.
[ 16.09.2004, 05:16: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: to them I point out that Hitler was a vegetarian.
He was also inventor of the smoothie.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Er, Kovacs, the gist of my post was not actually serious, but thanks for replying!
[ 16.09.2004, 05:11: Message edited by: StevieX ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: to them I point out that Hitler was a vegetarian.
He was also inventor of the smoothie.
Really? I thought it was The Beetle he invented.
[ 16.09.2004, 05:35: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: if it's really going to cripple some individuals, so be it I'm afraid. Closing down sweatshop labour would be a blow for the owners, too. Police raids on heroin suppliers are probably a real nuisance for a lot of people in that business chain.
Oh, yeah. It's not an argument for not banning it, but I think saying "It's hardly going to make a difference to you" when, it is is part of the reason people involved get fucked off. It becomes easy to perceieve the argument against fox hunting as ill-informed 'city-folk' rattling on about something they don't really grasp, and actually harms the argument against.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I thought it was The Beetle he invented.
A common misconception, he just popularised it among the surfing community.
EDIT: 'it'
[ 16.09.2004, 05:19: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I heartily concur with everything Kovacs has said, and applaud his way of saying it.
Bravo sir. Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: A common misconception, he just popularised it among the surfing community.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Police raids on heroin suppliers are probably a real nuisance for a lot of people in that business chain.
Also - this is a bit of a shit argument, insofar as heroin suppliers are doing something that's already illegal. A better example may be if Britain outlawed the production of nuclear submarines. Perhaps a step towards a better world, but you would need to consider the needs and wants of all the people who rely on that industry to eat "&c".
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Er, Kovacs, the gist of my post was not actually serious, but thanks for replying!
I wondered about that but I'm afraid I don't know "you" well enough to be certain whether these were genuine views... My bad.
But usefully, you have espoused a set of opinions that a lot of people do hold, and I've responded to those stock objections so it's not an entirely wasted post. Perhaps anyone who does agree with your (parodied) viewpoint can just pretend I replied to them instead.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Some people like to assurt that how we treat animals is an extension of how we treat people, to them I point out that Hitler was a vegetarian.
This is a myth. Hitler was prescribed a meat free diet by his doctor because he had chronic flatulence as a result of some unfortunate intestinal disorder. He regularly stuffed his face with sausages, grilled meats and stuffed pidgeon on the sly.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Hitler was prescribed a meat free diet by his doctor because he had chronic flatulence as a result of some unfortunate intestinal disorder.
No wonder he looked so pissed-off all the time. Poor Adolf. Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
For some people it is though - there's a whole cottage industry based around fox hunting, so for these people it's their livelihood. Whether you agree with it or not, to state that it's "no big deal" to the people involved, [/QB][/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But where were these people when the minors, the dockers, or the factory workers were having their livelihood's trampled upon? Its' foxhunting? Foxes shouldn't be killed in some kind of sick ritual.
I'm totally in favour of more attention being paid to the countryside. But change happens and not everyone can be happy.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It becomes easy to perceieve the argument against fox hunting as ill-informed 'city-folk' rattling on about something they don't really grasp, and actually harms the argument against.
1. Why is it impossible to view the "country-folk" as being so immersed in their fox-hunting culture that they don't really grasp the nature of the argument? Perhaps they're mired in an old-fashioned, blinkered, arguably-barbaric culture and unable to understand civilised 21st century behaviour.
2. Not only does the stupid invasion of the Commons and charging at police lines support this argument, but it severely weakens their case by making the Countryside Alliance look like thugs -- something the anti-hunt campaign had always suggested.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Really? I thought it was The Beatle he invented.
It's true. Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
That's very interesting Astro, thank you. Hitler had pets though didn't he? Dogs? Do you think he'd have sent them to the gas chamber? Regardless of this, the fact remains that there are still people who are fucked up enough to believe that animals deserve the same or better rights than some human beings, for example animal rights protesters that blow up testing facilities and murder scientists.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 1. Why is it impossible to view the "country-folk" as being so immersed in their fox-hunting culture that they don't really grasp the nature of the argument? Perhaps they're mired in an old-fashioned, blinkered, arguably-barbaric culture and unable to understand civilised 21st century behaviour.
Perhaps that's true - if someone from the countryside alliance posts something that totally misses the point of the anti fox hunting stance, I'll be sure to pick them up on it.
quote:2. Not only does the stupid invasion of the Commons and charging at police lines support this argument, but it severely weakens their case by making the Countryside Alliance look like thugs -- something the anti-hunt campaign had always suggested.
Ye-es, although I suspect the invasion of the commons was motivated by the frustration of not having their voices heard eg "Why not ban fox hunting, it's not as if it makes any difference to anyone."
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
It's not relevant if Hitler kept bunnies called Foo-Foo and Dixie. Most fascists are deeply sentimental and contridictory.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kobra:
Fair enough. But where were these people when the minors, the dockers, or the factory workers were having their livelihood's trampled upon?
I don't see your point - the dockers and the miners also engaged in violent protest when their livelihoods were at risk. And it's not as though these are great examples to point to when trying to calm a community that fears its livelihood and indentity is about to be stripped away. "Don't worry about it! It'll be fine! Look at how well all the old mining towns are doing!" Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
Again... the country seems to have woken up only when it's on its knees. And it cheapens the serious issues of farming by getting all irrate about frivolous nonsense like Fox Hunting.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 1. Why is it impossible to view the "country-folk" as being so immersed in their fox-hunting culture that they don't really grasp the nature of the argument? Perhaps they're mired in an old-fashioned, blinkered, arguably-barbaric culture and unable to understand civilised 21st century behaviour.
Can I just put my hand up here and point out that it is only a very small percentage of "country-folk" that ever go hunting or are pro-hunting. Not all farmers or countryside dwellers are blood thirsty hunt members. [I know you were probably only generalising cos it's easier than typing "some people that live in the country and do support fox hunting and the like" but I just wanted to clarify this point]
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
[/QUOTE]I don't see your point - the dockers and the miners also engaged in violent protest when their livelihoods were at risk. And it's not as though these are great examples to point to when trying to calm a community that fears its livelihood and indentity is about to be stripped away. "Don't worry about it! It'll be fine! Look at how well all the old mining towns are doing!" [/QB][/QUOTE]
My point is that they did't get a whole lot of support. Farmers have not often used their (immense) power for the betterment of "workers". My point is also that the "serfs" are pawns for rich landowners and that Countryside issues are secondary (it seems) to the right to watch dogs tear foxes apart.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Er, Kovacs, the gist of my post was not actually serious, but thanks for replying!
I wondered about that but I'm afraid I don't know "you" well enough to be certain whether these were genuine views... My bad.
But usefully, you have espoused a set of opinions that a lot of people do hold, and I've responded to those stock objections so it's not an entirely wasted post. Perhaps anyone who does agree with your (parodied) viewpoint can just pretend I replied to them instead.
That's fair enough. Most of the pro-arguments are, as you say, pretty much stock justifications for this activity. For a long time now, rather than bang my head against a brick wall and argue the toss with the many pro-hunt folk I've known over the years I prefer to adopt this straight-faced "ultra libertarian" (?) position and see how they respond.
The alleged economic impact of a hunting ban is the one "argument" to which I object most strongly. Every aspect of fox-hunting, other than the actual killing of the fox, could continue unabated in the face of the ban. Any claim to the contrary amounts to no more than a spitting of the dummy by the pro-hunting lobby.
However, even if it were true that a ban would cost some jobs (tens of thousands, apparantly!!), I don't see how this is any different to other industries/sectors where the economic realities have led to massive actual job losses and the complete economic undermining of entire communities. Strangely, I can't remember too many instances of the CA/pro-hunt lobby having much to say about this, nor any shows of solidarity.
To others who cite the hypocrisy of squeamish urbanites, happy with their supermarket meat, I would suggest that the majority of active anti-hunt campaigners are equally vocal in their condemnation of the shitty treatment meted out to animals on factory farms, in testing labs, in zoos and circuses, wherever.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: That's very interesting Astro, thank you. Hitler had pets though didn't he? Dogs? Do you think he'd have sent them to the gas chamber?
I believe that his 'best' pet (a German Shepherd?) was actually euthanised at the same time as AH and Eva bought the, er, farm.
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Regardless of this, the fact remains that there are still people who are fucked up enough to believe that animals deserve the same or better rights than some human beings, for example animal rights protesters that blow up testing facilities and murder scientists.
Yes there are, but this is hardly reflects the mainstream of animal rights activists or even of direct-action anti-vivisectionists. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that the nutters do as much damage to the animal rights lobby, as the thug element did to the rural issues lobby yesterday.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: if someone from the countryside alliance posts something that totally misses the point of the anti fox hunting stance, I'll be sure to pick them up on it.
"Why not ban fox hunting, it's not as if it makes any difference to anyone."
I think you've fallen over. Please pick yourself up.
But in fairness! It's well-known that I live in a city whereas Thorn lives out in the country of Croydon.
Perhaps I can ask you, Thorn, to educate me, so I know what valid arguments remain for fox-hunting.
Here are the points as I understand them:
1. "Foxes aren't cute and cuddly, if you lived in the country you'd know that." I am aware that, as I said, very few animals outside the domestic environment are clean, cute or cuddly. I don't think our ethical behaviour towards them should be guided by their appearance. We object to battery hens not because hens, in their battery or free-range holdings, are remotely attractive. We treat horses with respect and affection although they are, as I noted, pretty unattractive up close, and potentially dangerous to humans. I don't see how looks come into it.
2. "It's traditional and you wouldn't understand that." I think I have dealt above with "tradition" and the argument that the long heritage and social appeal associated with an activity do not necessarily justify its continuation.
3. "People will lose their livelihood." I've asked whether anyone has their entire career invested in fox-hunting, rather than it being an aspect of, say, stabling, catering, outfitting. I also asked why anyone with any sense would build a career on fox-hunting when its future was so precarious. Finally, I agree with those who argue that the loss of jobs in this context is a lesser and necessary evil.
4. "Foxes are vermin, they have to be controlled." I am not at all convinced that fox-hunting as it now stands, with all the hoopla and ritual, is the most humane, effective and economical way to control foxes.
So I'm a city-boy who doesn't understand the complexity of the issues. You fill me in.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: To others who cite the hypocrisy of squeamish urbanites, happy with their supermarket meat, I would suggest that the majority of active anti-hunt campaigners are equally vocal in their condemnation of the shitty treatment meted out to animals on factory farms, in testing labs, in zoos and circuses, wherever.
I wasn't talking about 'active anti-hunt campaigners'. But I would suggest that these people might more productively spend their time trying to improve the lot of human beings.
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Yes there are, but this is hardly reflects the mainstream of animal rights activists or even of direct-action anti-vivisectionists. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that the nutters do as much damage to the animal rights lobby, as the thug element did to the rural issues lobby yesterday.
My point was not that these people reflect the attitude of mainstream animal rights activists but that they are representative of a general focusing, and campaigning for animal rights before those of humans.
I may be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that in terms of charitable donations in the UK the animal charities are the biggest earners.
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
quote:
The alleged economic impact of a hunting ban is the one "argument" to which I object most strongly. Every aspect of fox-hunting, other than the actual killing of the fox, could continue unabated in the face of the ban. Any claim to the contrary amounts to no more than a spitting of the dummy by the pro-hunting lobby.
If hunting returned to a more natural "organic" local methodology they're be jobs a plenty. It's a shit argument. They're trad, they don't like change and they want to hunt foxes. That's the argument.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Kovacs - you seem to want me to argue pro foxhunting, which was never really my desire/ point, and I think that's clear from this...
[QUOTE]A better example may be if Britain outlawed the production of nuclear submarines. Perhaps a step towards a better world, but you would need to consider the needs and wants of all the people who rely on that industry to eat "&c".[QUOTE]
I do think that the needs of those who will be affected should be addressed, and I have to say that comments like "Just get on with your life..." clearly don't take into account the strength of feeling the issue provokes and seems at least as ignorant as someone who refuses to understand why someone might find fox hunting abhorrent. I think such a dismissal of the community's fears and thoughts is bound to create ill feeling, and does push people towards frustrated protests. I guess all I'm saying is that it doesn't take much to at least give the impression of listening to the other side's point of view and Kobra's dismissal with "Why can't you just give it up?" seemed anything other than that. I think that's why the countryside folk get pissed off.
(NB: I'm not accusing Kobra itself of being directly responsible for all ill feeling over this issue, but I think that the general sentiment is.)
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Boy Racer - such a suggestion sounds largely rhetorical (and a touch hypocritical) unless coming from someone who spends the majority of their free time helping improve the general condition of humanity!
There are always going to be a huge range of "actionable issues" that will demand greater or lesser degrees of involvement from the concerned public. What are we to do; place all of the issues affecting the planet on a list based upon hierarchy of importance? Deal with them in that order?
[slightly flippant]How then would we justify spending money, say, improving play-facilities for inner city kids when children are dying in Africa!! [/slightly flippant]
I do see, I think, what you are getting at, but do people not have a very fundamental right to make their charitable donations entirely as they see fit and to support those organisations that do work (with people or animals) that appeal to their sensibilities?
Another argument that could be deployed here is that the condition and treatment of animals is fundamentally and inextricably linked with human welfare - if we had taken our responsibilities in animal husbandry just a little more seriously, would we now be concerned about a potential CJD timebomb. Just one example.
[ 16.09.2004, 06:29: Message edited by: StevieX ]
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
quote: (NB: I'm not accusing Kobra itself of being directly responsible for all ill feeling over this issue, but I think that the general sentiment is.)
Aye point taken, but who feels listened to by (nu)labour? All things to all people I guess. Britain is very tribal these days. I'm not sure what the answer is btw. I'm not an animal rights nut but killings foxes seems a little cruel. I can accept ANY other pro-countryside argument to an extent.
[ 16.09.2004, 06:35: Message edited by: Kobra ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Y'know, I wonder if the sport was called URBAN FOXHUNTING and it was carried out by 'normal folks' riding a fleet of Honda Quad-bikes and chasing an Urban Fox through the back alleys and streets of Lewisham accompanied by a pack of Rottweilers how long it would have been allowed to last.
If we don't ban Fox Hunting then we may as well never have banned Badger Baiting, Dog Fights or Cock Fights.
But then again, the Spanish do all sorts of horrible things to Bulls for fun.
If you want to torture an animal, no matter what your reasons are, no matter how you try to justify it, no matter what you claim at the end of the day you're nothing more than a c.u.n.t pure and simple.
[ 16.09.2004, 06:40: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by Kobra (Member # 740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: Y'know, I wonder if the sport was called URBAN FOXHUNTING
Good point, or even Cat hunting, or getting trained lions to chase after horses or the public execution of great apes, or bird raping???
[ 16.09.2004, 06:42: Message edited by: Kobra ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: the Spanish do all sorts of horrible things to Bulls for fun
For art, dear boy, for art.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: What are we to do; place all of the issues affecting the planet on a list based upon hierarchy of importance? Deal with them in that order?
Might be a start, yes.
That is not to say that I don't understand that people feel strongly about animal rights, or that I think that animals don't have them, I just think we need to get our priorties sorted out. And I do think we need to start thinking about all of the big issues affecting the planet, and how to tackle them, on a global level.
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Another argument that could be deployed here is that the condition and treatment of animals is fundamentally and inextricably linked with human welfare - if we had taken our responsibilities in animal husbandry just a little more seriously, would we now be concerned about a potential CJD timebomb. Just one example.
I completely agree with this. This is the principle reason why I raised factory farming of livestock as an issue, one I personally feel is of far greater import to the people of this country than fox hunting. We consume a vast amount of meat that has been produced in the most appalling ways, for our own health as well as the conditions in which the livestock are kept or slaughtered. The ramifications of these methods and conditions are huge, and not simply in terms of CJD.
[ 16.09.2004, 07:03: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
The cat is art isn't Bullfighting just entertainment ?
I always loved the TORO-PISCINE or Circus bullfights
Here hypocrisy is the rule. There is no blood but the bulls and cows are toys for "entertainment". The same animals are used several times in these shows. The young terrified calves are chased by the group that attack them, twisting their heads and tails to make them fall, exploding fireworks to terrify them, kicking and striking them and forcing them to walk on two legs, in spite of all the pain caused. During these shows the public are invited to the bullring where men, excited by the preceding events, violently attack them. Sometimes to entertain the youth, a little cow is put in the bullring. The children, after seeing adults molesting the animals, do the same.
Oh, that's the French though....
Humanity... We're all sick fucks - let's ban us.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 1. "Foxes aren't cute and cuddly, if you lived in the country you'd know that." I am aware that, as I said, very few animals outside the domestic environment are clean, cute or cuddly. I don't think our ethical behaviour towards them should be guided by their appearance. We object to battery hens not because hens, in their battery or free-range holdings, are remotely attractive. We treat horses with respect and affection although they are, as I noted, pretty unattractive up close, and potentially dangerous to humans. I don't see how looks come into it.
You can't ignore the fact that a lot of the steam behind the anti-hunting tradition comes from the romantic and sentimental conception of the fox. People don't give half so much of a fuck about - say - the thousands of fish that get a hook through the roof of their mouth in the name of recreation every week. Fish simply don't have that same affective appeal.
Simlarly, if you were talking about the net amount of "suffering" endured by animals in the UK, I'd guess that thousands of overfed, underexercised family pets suffered a great deal more (obesity, cancer etc) and over a much longer period than the few hundred or so foxes hunted by hounds. This more mundane sort of suffering simply doesn't capture the imagination in the same way as a lone animal pursued by a baying pack.
And I'd query the "we" with reference to people being concerned about battery farming of chickens. Most people in the UK couldn't give a flying frig about the predicament of battery farmed poultry - with that number rising when we're talking about chicken consumed in processed food or in restaurants. People might buy a roaster with "free range" emblazoned across the plastic wrapper but they aren't quite concerned enough to question the provenance of the chicken used in, say a curry or on top of a pizza.
Also: "free range" only means swapping a tiny cage for a gigantic, sunless shed, pulsing with the roar of several thousand other chickens. Hope no one was harbouring any illusions about some sort of Old Mcdonalds arrangement.
Again, I think it comes down to the romantic, sentimental or anthropomorphic appeal of the fox over a creature as dull and inscrutable as the average broiler.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 2. "It's traditional and you wouldn't understand that." I think I have dealt above with "tradition" and the argument that the long heritage and social appeal associated with an activity do not necessarily justify its continuation.
You dismissed the idea of a "tradition" being of intrinsic value, but I don't sense much effort on your part to understand what that might be worth to people. Human culture the world over must indeed be baffling to someone of your antiseptically commonsensical persuasion.
In fairness, I don't think pro-hunt people have made enough of an effort to communicate to outsiders just why it is their traditions mean so much to them. Imagine for a moment, though, growing up in an environment where the whole fabric of your social experience - and that of your parents and grandparents before you - was saturated with a particular culture and activity.
If, apparently whimsically, a geographically and culturally alien group attempts to impose its values on you, you're going to fight back, yes?
The example you gave of "objectionable" traditions was doubly inapposite. On the one hand, neo-Nazis can hardly be described as a "tradition" in contrast to a way of life that's existed in the British countryside for centuries - on the other hand, neo-Nazis will still be allowed to have their rallies.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 3. "People will lose their livelihood." I've asked whether anyone has their entire career invested in fox-hunting, rather than it being an aspect of, say, stabling, catering, outfitting. I also asked why anyone with any sense would build a career on fox-hunting when its future was so precarious. Finally, I agree with those who argue that the loss of jobs in this context is a lesser and necessary evil..
I think the pro-hunt people shot themselves through the foot with this one by bandying about ridiculous numbers when a ban was first mooted. I would say that once the economic element of hunting (people looking after hounds, farriers, tailoring etc etc) is destroyed, the real heart of that culture's been ripped out.
I don't know. Do we want 'British culture' to be limited to fancy dress activities like morris dancing? I think we live on a big enough island for people to be allowed to carry on as they wish if they aren't harming anyone.
Your blithe attitude towards those who who'd be losing their livelihoods is symptomatic of attitudes expressed by a lot of anti-hunt people and indicates failures to empathise made on both sides of the argument.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: 4. "Foxes are vermin, they have to be controlled." I am not at all convinced that fox-hunting as it now stands, with all the hoopla and ritual, is the most humane, effective and economical way to control foxes.
I think "managed" is perhaps more accurate than "controlled". I would guess that the imposition of a hunt ban would result in the extermination (gassing, shooting) of foxes in areas where they'd previously been regarded as part of the warp and weft of the environment. A move in the opposite direction from the 'more organic' way of ordering things that people seem to desire.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Do we need animal auditions then?
As Dennis Leary would have it:
quote:What are you?
I'm an Otter.
What do you do?
I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands.
You're free to go. What are you?
I'm a cow.
Get in the fuckin' truck.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Bloodsports Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
I think we should legalise hunting Denis Leary. Shameless plagiarising grave-robber.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
That's the ticket Masky, skin a cat or kick a puppy = BAD&CRUEL - Rip a knackered fox to bits with dog teeth = Hunting and a jolly fun day out for the kiddies !
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: That's the ticket Masky, skin a cat or kick a puppy = BAD&CRUEL - Rip a knackered fox to bits with dog teeth = Hunting and a jolly fun day out for the kiddies !
What are you saying? That people should have the right to kick a puppy to death? What are you sick in the head or something?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
I fucking hate dogs.
*Edit*
Are you joking with me or serious Thorn ?
To make myself clear - I think it's pointless to get all teary eyed and blub about how sad it is when ONE puppy gets kicked to death or ONE cat gets skinned alive when hundreds of foxes get ripped to bits by dogs, at least one goat a year gets chucked out of a window in some Spanish tower and conceivably thousands of bulls get tortured in the name of entertainment.
Nobody has the right to be deliberately cruel to any animal.
[ 16.09.2004, 07:43: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I think I've stated at least once before, on this very forum, that I would love to punch a parrot off its perch. Is that so wrong?
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I may be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that in terms of charitable donations in the UK the animal charities are the biggest earners.
I believe this is the case. Which makes me very sad and a little bit angry.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
If they're worried that 1000s of beagles will be needlessly slaughtered they could send them here
EDIT: Don't bother looking, they don't have an image gallery.
[ 16.09.2004, 07:40: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: I think we should legalise hunting Denis Leary. Shameless plagiarising grave-robber.
Yes, and let's canonise a mysogynist while we're at it.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Yes, and let's canonise a mysogynist while we're at it.
Standard practice, no?
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Yes, and let's canonise a mysogynist while we're at it.
Wait! Is this a slag of Bill Hicks??
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
No, it's a slag of people who worship an extremely flawed man like some sort of second fucking coming. I love Bill.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: "Sorry. I'm a schizophrenic."
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
I don't worship Bill Hicks: I just resent the fact that Denis Leary made his fortune by riding so blatantly on his coat-tails.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
I was going to launch into a 'male feminists make me sick' rant, but to be honest Bill's goatboy/sex stuff is by far his least funny material. So fair play.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Oh, let it go Astro, it was a long time ago.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: You can't ignore the fact that a lot of the steam behind the anti-hunting tradition comes from the romantic and sentimental conception of the fox. People don't give half so much of a fuck about - say - the thousands of fish that get a hook through the roof of their mouth in the name of recreation every week. Fish simply don't have that same affective appeal.
Yeah but fish are going to be caught between now and the end of time. Regardless. So thats a bit redundant really.
quote:I'd guess that thousands of overfed, underexercised family pets suffered a great deal more (obesity, cancer etc) and over a much longer period than the few hundred or so foxes hunted by hounds.
According to Sky yesterday there are 250 thousand foxes in the UK of which 16,000 are hunted a year. Which doesnt make your point of pet neglect any less valid but if that number is true then thats 16,000 foxes suffering an unnecessarily cruel death.
quote:Also: "free range" only means swapping a tiny cage for a gigantic, sunless shed, pulsing with the roar of several thousand other chickens. Hope no one was harbouring any illusions about some sort of Old Mcdonalds arrangement.
It makes people feel better about themselves.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: I was going to launch into a 'male feminists make me sick' rant, but to be honest Bill's goatboy/sex stuff is by far his least funny material. So fair play.
This makes Goatboy sad! Goatboy will have to try harder to please Joe. Maybe Joe is free tonight? Gotaboy could have fun with Joe! Mwahahahaha! Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
LOL
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Oh, let it go Astro, it was a long time ago.
I was only saying. I can't help it, anyway. My Leary aversion is like a motor response: I become momentarily enraged every time someone mentions his name. I'm the same with Sting. And monkeys.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
What about Sting Monkeys?
Just thinking of John, Jackie!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
[sidenote]I watched a secret Lamb gig on Saturday and in-between the bar and the gig was a cinema room that was showing Bill Hicks. I could skip between watching bands, stocking up on beer and laughing my sphincter against my tonsils.[/sidenote]
I think everything on the subject has been said regarding the fox hunting ban, my feelings towards the argument of 'loss of jobs for hunters' and the moral high-ground that falls inbetween. I'll share a couple of stories though.
I knew of a girl who was campaigning in Gloucestershire to raise awareness that the local farmers were creating a 'butter mountain' and letting the product go to waste so that they would stabalise their subsidies coming in from the government. They didn't support local communities by knocking down the price and distributing it evenly. Many other industries across different continents, including our own of course are forced to give it to other countries either through trade or by donation. An article here gives you an example of the usual story. As far as I am aware. Gloucester Council weren't interested in the story or applying pressure for the farmers to utilise the goods. So; rotten butter, rotten farmers, fat subsidies. It did make me wonder why they turned a blind eye, as I don't see how they could have benefitted. I appreciate this is an isolated incident, but I am told they were many more examples from the past and I assume it continues to happen, somewhere in farmsville, UK. I can't agree that a decision to withold the stock at the risk of prices lowering, is a better alternative to letting the product run into it's sell-by-date? Small hmm at that.
Fox-hunting? We were stopped on the road by a fox hunt once. They were riding out onto the main road and a gentleman rode in front of the car to which screeched to a halt. He held out his hand like a policeman and the hunter rode to the side window and bent down. He was yelling at the lady driving the 4x4 (which was my friends mother) and said 'what do you think you're doing? You could have hit me!' and she was to put it midly, perplexed at his attitude and was stunned into silence. There then proceeded a large amount of dogs running past, horn-blowing and tally-ho-ing. He then said 'I know who you work for....I could have you fired!' and turned around and rode off. I was shocked at his manner and a little worried at what he said. She laughed as rode off and my friend just leant over and said in a quiet reassuring voice 'She works for my dad'
funking hell, spellcheck boy
[ 16.09.2004, 08:58: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: 'She works for my dad'
Who works for whose Dad?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: 'She works for my dad'
Who works for whose Dad?
Doh, I knew that wouldn't come across. It was I, my friend and his mum who was in the car. His dad is her boss.
:sulk:
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
You mean she worked for her husband?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
As if I wasn't paranoid about my ability to write effectively and with the correct tense!
I'm going to a cigarrete.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: You mean she worked for her husband?
:tear:
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Genuine question. Jesus Christ.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I thought he meant the man on the horse was a 'she'.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Doh, I knew that wouldn't come across. It was I, my friend and his mum who was in the car. His dad is her boss.
I think i get it - the joke is that the huntsman either a) didn't actually know who she worked for and was bluffing or b) may have known who she worked for, but didn't realise she was married to him thus meaning any leverage he had over her employment was meaningless in the face of her nuptials (ie the husband would be unlikely to sack his own wife on the say so of some guy on a horse). Am I right?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
The horse was a she?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hold on, so the woman on the horse was your mum?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Your mum's a fox.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Oh no hang on I get it now. Thanks Thorn.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
lol@mikee'sstory
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by mooch: Yeah but fish are going to be caught between now and the end of time. Regardless. So thats a bit redundant really.
Not at all - your fatalistic attitude towards their fate and (presumably) suffering illustrates my point rather neatly.
quote:According to Sky yesterday there are 250 thousand foxes in the UK of which 16,000 are hunted a year. Which doesnt make your point of pet neglect any less valid but if that number is true then thats 16,000 foxes suffering an unnecessarily cruel death.
Is an unnecessarily cruel death worse than an unnecessarily cruel continued existence? One would have thought, given that pets are supposedly kept for companionship or whatever that the latter was doubly cruel - particularly given the length of time that suffering might continue for.
If hunting is culling around 3% of foxes per year, one would presume that's the most elderly and infirm portion of the population - which would otherwise perish from disease or starvation. How would you decribe death from disease or starvation? "Necessarily cruel"?
Would that domestic pets had such care lavished upon them.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: If hunting is culling around 3% of foxes per year, one would presume that's the most elderly and infirm portion of the population - which would otherwise perish from disease or starvation. How would you decribe death from disease or starvation? "Necessarily cruel"?
Would that domestic pets had such care lavished upon them.
Most healthy foxes are killed in their ceaseless struggle with the evil stoat empire. Elderly foxes get a sort of viking funeral, with a pyre of acorns. The badger army all stand to attention and the dormouse monks say a special woodland mass. I read it. In a book.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: I knew of a girl who was campaigning in Gloucestershire to raise awareness that the local farmers were creating a 'butter mountain' and letting the product go to waste so that they would stabalise their subsidies coming in from the government. They didn't support local communities by knocking down the price and distributing it evenly. Many other industries across different continents, including our own of course are forced to give it to other countries either through trade or by donation. An article here gives you an example of the usual story. As far as I am aware. Gloucester Council weren't interested in the story or applying pressure for the farmers to utilise the goods. So; rotten butter, rotten farmers, fat subsidies.
Mikee, butter does not come from cows - or if it does, those are cows with some fucked up udders.
Milk is sold by farmers to the dairy processors - who make the butter. Farmers are screwed by the dairy industry on a daily basis.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Most healthy foxes are killed in their ceaseless struggle with the evil stoat empire. Elderly foxes get a sort of viking funeral, with a pyre of acorns. The badger army all stand to attention and the dormouse monks say a special woodland mass. I read it. In a book.
Ah. Ted Hughes fan.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Mart, you vulture. You made a single milky white tear draw down my cheek like a manga character when they recall the night their cousin was savagely brutalised by demons from the realm of Ten'ta'coq.
BM, I haven't forgiven you for endorsing Devul lager.
If any of you need me, I'll be in my mood.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
It's probably all Wal-Mart's fault. Everything. The dead foxes, Mike's mood, the dairy industry. Blame WalMart, I say. There's nothing like a wholesale scapegoat.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Milk is sold by farmers to the dairy processors - who make the butter. Farmers are screwed by the dairy industry on a daily basis.
This is true. Livestock farmers are generally fucked. They don't get the kind of subsidies that crop farmers do. Also, they are better, cuz they make the country side more pretty with grazing land and don't spray pesticide everywhere. I don't hate these kind of farmers.
The thing that unnerves me about the fox hunting ban is the class war aspect. Yeah, nobody likes braying toffs in stupid red jackets riding their horses and horsey women, but to outlaw an activity on this basis is fundamentally anti-democratic. The only legitimate reasons to ban fox hunting are on animal welfare grounds. I don't really know mnuch about it. Is this bill evidence-led or populist posturing?
is it like the anti-fur drama queens? Not the vegans, but the others, the envious hypocrites.
Also: are you saying organic eggs come from sad hens?
[eta: hens, not chickens, stupid me]
[ 16.09.2004, 09:51: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: They don't get the kind of subsidies that crop farmers do.
Yeah, but check out all that beef.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Jews are pigs? Go figure...
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Mikee, butter does not come from cows - or if it does, those are cows with some fucked up udders.
Milk is sold by farmers to the dairy processors - who make the butter. Farmers are screwed by the dairy industry on a daily basis.
Thanks for that! I had always believed that it came from a breed of animals called 'I can't believe it's not a cow'
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
The eggs I eat are laid by happy hens. Check dis:
Clarence Court Free Range Eggs are laid by hens which are free to range and forage on green pasture from dawn to dusk, leading a natural and happy life. Our birds enjoy the finest quality cereal based non-GM vegetarian diet, the privacy of warm secluded nest boxes, trees and shrub for cover, dust baths - infact everything that a normal healthy hen requires for its freedom of expression and fullness of life, to bring you a truly Free Range Fresh Farm Egg.
They come in all pretty pastel colours as well.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
That ad is definitely not Kosher.
(for the millionth time - sorry, vut it is my fave thing evah: ***)
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Budder? Buddah. Buddha. ..?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hamass.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: That ad is definitely not Kosher.
(for the millionth time - sorry, vut it is my fave thing evah: ***)
That reminds me of my superb idea for a novel about the Irish Troubles. Each chapter would be told from the point of view of an animal that got blown up or shot in a terrorist outrage. There's no way that book would not have been a masterpiece of infinite compassion and political insight.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
A wasp in an Omagh butcher's shop window...
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
The friendly face of fox hunting Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: That reminds me of my superb idea for a novel about the Irish Troubles. Each chapter would be told from the point of view of an animal that got blown up or shot in a terrorist outrage. There's no way that book would not have been a masterpiece of infinite compassion and political insight.
I reckon it still would have been better than Night of the Toxic Ostrich Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: If any of you need me, I'll be in my mood.
Is that the usual mood, NWoD? Top of the stairs, turn left, third door on the right (marked Mildly Aroused)?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: infact everything that a normal healthy hen requires for its freedom of expression
Hen #1: And whither comst the pigs in the animal equality hierarchy?
Hen #2: Two wings good, no wings bad!
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
hm. I wonder who this could be.
Reviewer: A reader from Dorset, England
I'm not really sure why this has been compared to the excellent "White Teeth", which is a vivid, subtle, well paced and original story. I'm even less sure what the point of Revell's novel is. A collection of unlikeable, cliched, one-dimensial characters limp their way towards a farcical climax for no apparent reason. This has to be one of the worst literary depictions of London; described in a smug, arrogant and predictable way that tries to patronise non-London dwelling readers, but instead makes them glad they live a healthy two hour train journey away from the place that inspired such sub-GCSE level prose. I truly can't think of a worse novel, including John Grisham and Ben Elton.
Louche: I like to imagine the hens doing sculpture and gestalt therapy.
[ 16.09.2004, 10:02: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: The eggs I eat are laid by happy hens..
Shit! I bought a box of eggs that say this;
Clungon Bay Opressed Eggs are begrudgingly pushed out my hens which are only allowed out from 4.30 in the afternoon until 6.00 Tuesdays to Wednesdays, causing brutal depression and the need to don Ray-Bans during this time. Our paltry poultry are treated to Beef & Tomato Pot Noodles and are allowed to wash it down with a warm mug of Pandas Blue-Cola fizzy pop. Each chook is allowed an old Iron Maiden T-shirt for bedding and occasionally, they peck each others faces off for an old Donnay sock used for a pillow. They spend their time reading Edgar Allen Poe in their cages if they are not busy pecking 'Life is pain' into the ashen dirt of the battery floor.
Sultans Mini-market have a lot to answer for!
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
maximo-lol, Nwode! Especially about "life is pain".
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Hen #2: Two wings good, no wings bad!
[ 16.09.2004, 10:05: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: This is true. Livestock farmers are generally fucked. They don't get the kind of subsidies that crop farmers do.
Did you know right, that should you happen to live on the top of a very tall hill and have a particular type of sheep you can get over a hundred pouns per sheep!!! Per year!!!
Also, much lol to NWoD.
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Most healthy foxes are killed in their ceaseless struggle with the evil stoat empire. Elderly foxes get a sort of viking funeral, with a pyre of acorns. The badger army all stand to attention and the dormouse monks say a special woodland mass. I read it. In a book.
quote:The heroes are peace-loving mice, moles, shrews, squirrels, and their friends who exhibit human characteristics in a medieval setting. They face the dark side of the animal world, represented by rats, weasels, stoats, foxes, and their villain allies, in the day-to-day struggle of good versus evil, life versus death.
[ 16.09.2004, 10:45: Message edited by: philomel ]
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
Couldn't we solve the problem by asking the anti-hunt lot if they were willing to subsidise the rehoming and re-employing of all the hunt staff, and the cost to farmers of fox-eaten lambs (how expensive are fox-kills really though?).
Then ask the pro-hunt lot if they'll pay a Cruelty Tax every time they rip through the country.
Finally get all the Fence Sitters to pay a fiver each time they say, "well, I can see both sides of the argument".
Whoever contributes most money is the winner.
ETA: oi, stop with the Brian Jacques slagging. I love the Redwall books.
[ 16.09.2004, 10:51: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
O. But Brian Jacques say: fox is evil. :sadd:
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
quote: Also, they are better, cuz they make the country side more pretty with grazing land and don't spray pesticide everywhere.
Does cow poo not go into the waterways and make ALGAL BLOOMS111!!1!11!
Also overuse of antibiotics in livestock makes UNSTOPABLE KILLER BACTERIA!!11!111
Hurrah for exploding donkeys!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
You may wonder how Brian Jacques comes up with so many great ideas for his adventures. Well, for inspiration, he takes his dog "Teddy" (a West Highland White Terrier), out for a walk in his childhood neighbourhood. Whatever limp, torn, bloody creature Teddy rips from the undergrowth Brian puts in his stories. Sometimes, ideas even come to him in his dreams at night, or while he's wanking.
Mainly, his stories are based on adventures that he or his friends have actually lived. Brian is actually a vole. Many of his relatives are seals. And many have had tales to tell.
Born on the eve of World War II, he has been greatly influenced by the effects of the war. During the Battle of Britain, bombs fell on Liverpool daily, in even greater numbers around the dock area where he grew up. Unfortunately, despite the Luftwaffes best efforts liverpool still stands. And who was it that saved the day then? Why those reckless, yet fearless young mice The Beatles. The shrews are Liverpool's dockworkers, who steal anything that's not bolted down. And, as for the moles, with their fascinating speech, they are the moles that live in Brian's head...
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
He was ever so good on seventies/eighties sportshow Superstars, though. Not as good as Geoff Capes, mind.
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
I have a colleague who very closely resembles a mole. He has a snoutish face and velvety-looking dark hair that sticks up and is about 1 cm long all over. He grapples with papers at meetings with tiny, claw like hands, with which he also makes burrowing motions when trying to articulate an important point. He wears round glasses with very thick lenses, which magnify his pale eyes. He is small with narrow, rounded shoulders and a pot belly. I imagine that, if he were to suddenly remove his shirt during a meeting, his body would be covered in dark fur, apart from a large, pink oval of flesh on his chest and abdomen (like cartoon moles have).
Philomel would probably want to marry him.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
Geoff Capes lives round ere. he keeps canaries.
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sidney: Philomel would probably want to marry him.
If he had a proper pelt it could be beautiful <sniffle> Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
I am sure that my friend lives on the same street as the Chuckle Brothers. At least, I saw a big bus type vehicle parked outside one of the houses with "The Chuckle Bus - Chuckle Tour 2004" written on it.
The Chuckle Brothers are stoats.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sidney: The Chuckle Brothers are stoats.
no weasels. same family. but smaller.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
stoats are stoatally different, whereas weasels are weaselly recognised.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
O Damo. They're stoatally different.
*falls over laughing*
Yeah. Lambs, right. Farmers can't have it both ways - are they're right valuable and every one that naughty reynard kills causes immediate bankrupcy, or are they utterly worthless and cost more to rear than they're worth at t'market, like it sez on the Archers? Eh?
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I 'ate you DD Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: I 'ate you DD
Why is six afraid of seven? Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: O Damo. They're stoatally different.
*falls over laughing*
Yeah. Lambs, right. Farmers can't have it both ways - are they're right valuable and every one that naughty reynard kills causes immediate bankrupcy, or are they utterly worthless and cost more to rear than they're worth at t'market, like it sez on the Archers? Eh?
its because they're utterly worthless at market that each one killed is valuable to the farmer...
duh.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: stoats are stoatally different, whereas weasels are weaselly recognised.
That's my sister-in-law's favourite joke. We may have to have her sectioned.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: I ate you DD
Yes, but as luck would have it there is at least two cures for that on here!
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
That rocks Mikee. Carter & Vikram have already rules 'emselves out, I guess.
Oh dear. Drunk more wine with dinner than I thought.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Oh dear. Drunk more wine with dinner than I thought.
I'm not sure whether this makes you sound really bourgeois because you get pissed in such a "comfortable" way, or working-class because you have your supper prior to 7.30, which I think makes it perilously close to "tea".
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
I'm everything I purport to despise, if that helps.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Oh dear. Drunk more wine with dinner than I thought.
I'm not sure whether this makes you sound really bourgeois because you get pissed in such a "comfortable" way, or working-class because you have your supper prior to 7.30, which I think makes it perilously close to "tea".
Sometimes Kovacs, only sometimes mind, I think I nearly love you. You sound like a maiden aunt lecturing a wayward niece on etiquette.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Then my mission is complete.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Far from it, K - I feel barely castigated.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Is having 'tea' a sign of working classdom then? If so I'm down with the proles!
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Is having 'tea' a sign of working classdom then? If so I'm down with the proles!
I believe that the correct idiom is to 'take tea'...
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Depends if 'tea' is spam sandwiches or Earl Grey.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Tea, for me, is evening meal. Fish fingers and chips, usually.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Yesterday I (genuinely) had two cups of tea, two cucumber sandwiches and a "Congress Tart" (sort of macaroon) at 5pm. That is respectable tea for people of my class, I think.
Working-class tea would be tinned spaghetti hoops, alpha-bite potato shapes, can of coke and a mars bar at 5pm. With the TV on.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Working-class tea would be tinned spaghetti hoops, alpha-bite potato shapes, can of coke and a mars bar at 5pm. With the TV on.
This is actually Julian's favourite treat, working class scummer that she clearly is.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I know about the dinner/lunch, tea/dinner thing, but I've never heard of timing coming in to it.
I always have my "tea" as early as possible, 5 pm ideally, but usually 6 by the time I get home from work. This is because I am always fucking starving when I get home and want to get the boring cooking/washing up thing out of the way as quickly as possible. Are the upper classes too genteel to ever feel hunger?
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
does that not mean that by 9pm you're all hungry again?
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: does that not mean that by 9pm you're all hungry again?
Yes, so you have supper (usually toast, Tesco pate and cracker barrel cheese) at 9! This is why the working class are all fat.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Yes the working class thing is a big tea at 5-6pm, then another supper (sandwich, chocolate bar) at 10pm.
The middle-class thing is a small snack at 4pm (cake, cup of tea) and then your main supper between 7-9pm, I would say.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: does that not mean that by 9pm you're all hungry again?
Not if your 6pm meal consists of a 5 egg omlette made with mushrooms, two tomatos and four sausages stripped of their skin and torn up into chunks. After that you tend not to feel hungry again until around midday the next day.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
so I have an evening meal between 7-9pm, but I call it "tea". Or at least I would if I was allowed to
I must be aspirational.
edit: Thorn I couldn't eat that because 1) it's got mushrooms in it and 2) I wouldn't be able to eat that much food all at once.
[ 17.09.2004, 06:21: Message edited by: Modge ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: does that not mean that by 9pm you're all hungry again?
Not always, but if so there's always tasty lardy snacks available. Eating + reading in bed = the best.
I seem to do everything earlier than everyone else: getting up/breakfast/lunch/tea/bed. It's a bit late now to start telling my body to get in line with everyone else.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Modge: does that not mean that by 9pm you're all hungry again?
Not if your 6pm meal consists of a 5 egg omlette made with mushrooms, two tomatos and four sausages stripped of their skin and torn up into chunks. After that you tend not to feel hungry again until around midday the next day.
Five eggs? I can eat 50 eggs in one hour!
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Yes the working class thing is a big tea at 5-6pm, then another supper (sandwich, chocolate bar) at 10pm.
The middle-class thing is a small snack at 4pm (cake, cup of tea) and then your main supper between 7-9pm, I would say.
And dinner fits into this scheme where exactly??
This notion of supper as any kind of main meal (outside the context of pre- post- theatre suppers is quite alien to me.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Early Morning: Breakfast
10.30am - 11.30am: Elevens'/Brunch
Middle of day: Lunch
4.00-6.00pm: Tea (snack or main meal variable)
7.00-9.00pm: Dinner
9.30 +: Supper (Late meal or snack variable)
Any clearer?
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Meals I eat:
Breakfast (self explanatory)
Lunch (obvious, again)
Tea (evening meal eaten in the house)
Dinner (evening meal eaten in a restaurant)
Supper plays no part in this. Nor does the hideous 'brunch'.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Just to note that my list is not my daily meal regimen.
I am not a Hobbit.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I am not a Hobbit.
Yes, I get this a lot, but because of stature and length of hairs on toes. Also, being slightly square.
Posted by The Preacher (Member # 726) on :
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Meals I eat:
Dinner (evening meal eaten in a restaurant)
You always have dinner in a restaurant ? What are you, rich ?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I am not a Hobbit.
Yes, I get this a lot, but because of stature and length of hairs on toes. Also, being slightly square.
And you're always banging on about your 'ring'.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Preacher:
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Meals I eat:
Dinner (evening meal eaten in a restaurant)
You always have dinner in a restaurant ? What are you, rich ?
Nah, just fast on my feet.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: And dinner fits into this scheme where exactly??
I would see "dinner" as a slightly less acceptable term for "supper", the main evening meal.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
we've had this conversation before.
it is common/ northern to refer to any meal after lunch as 'tea' if it does not actually involve the drinking of tea.
conversely, according to my sister, it is common/ northern to drink tea with any evening meal that is not 'tea', ie, the one you have between lunch and dinner/ supper.
lunch is called lunch, not dinner. dinner = common/ northern.
drinking hot vimto with your tea in wintertime is northern, but okay, even encouraged, because its what ma used to drink after swimming lessons at oldham municipal baths circa 1950. hot vimto with supper is an aberration.
[ 17.09.2004, 08:17: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
lol. What disco sed.
[ 17.09.2004, 08:18: Message edited by: Louche ]
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Do people really regularly eat a meal between lunch and 'evening meal'? Isn't that four (five if the 'supper' rumours are to be believed) meals a day, and as BR pointed out, Hobbitesque?
Also, I knew someone from Newcastle who refused to drink anything alcoholic while eating, no wine even. Is that a northern thing?
Other questions: Is drinking beer with a meal 'common'? What about a pint in an indian?
I have to admit that I get appalled when I see someone sitting with a pint in a restaurant, but find bottled beer acceptable.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I often have 4 meals a day, some of them are quite small, but I can't happily go more than 4 hours without a little something.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
i think tea has shrunk from its original status as sitdown sandwiches/toast and cup of tea- possibly a round of drop scones- to slam door behind you, dump coat and bag, stand at kitchen counter eating ham sandwich whilst rifling through junk mail and reading bank statements, which is sad, because its a good, necessary meal blood-sugars wise and a proper english tradition.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Do people really regularly eat a meal between lunch and 'evening meal'? Isn't that four (five if the 'supper' rumours are to be believed) meals a day, and as BR pointed out, Hobbitesque?
Yes, I have a sandwich or toast and pints of water between 4-5, otherwise I fear my insides would devour themselves.
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Other questions: Is drinking beer with a meal 'common'? What about a pint in an indian?
I dunno about it being 'common' so much as lacking class, but it would depend entirely on the meal, the type of beer, and the vessel utilized, I'd say.
[ 17.09.2004, 08:36: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I don't drink alcohol with food.
But then, I don't drink wine, or on my own, or in small measures, or lots of other things that other people seem to use alcohol for.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
On an average day:
09:00 - Breakfast: Black Coffee + biscuit 13:00 - Lunch: Sandwich or Soup 18:30 - Snack (tea?): Drink + biscuit 21:30 - Dinner: Main meal (cooked from fresh ingredients by Kellifer) 00:00 - Munchies!
...hence the gut.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The whole day is one long meal to me
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: And dinner fits into this scheme where exactly??
I would see "dinner" as a slightly less acceptable term for "supper", the main evening meal.
Hmm. I disagree.
Supper and dinner, to my mind, are two entirely seperate entities, dinner being the main evening meal, supper being a light meal or snack pretty much exclusively eaten just before bedtime.
I tend to defer to the French on this score, which strikes me as fairly logical being as how they pretty much invented food.
le petit déjeuner = breakfast le déjeuner = lunch le dîner = dinner le souper = supper
Rarely will you see le souper on a French menu! There is no direct French equivalent of High Tea, which I've always assumed to be a very English thing, although many of you may remember le gouter from your Tricolor days as an approximate equivalent where French schoolkids stuff their hungry maws withun pain au chocolat or un croque-monsieur.
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
I've gone higgledy-piggledy:
Sometime between midday and 2pm - lunch
Sometime between 7pm and 9.30pm - tea
Friday to Sunday, from 10pm onwards - wine and chocolate feast Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
there is no food in my house! i want my lunch. maybe i will have to go out and kil a fox with my bare hands.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: And dinner fits into this scheme where exactly??
This notion of supper as any kind of main meal (outside the context of pre- post- theatre suppers is quite alien to me. [/QB]
damn str8 brer X.
dinner = any meal apart from breakfast.
f'rinstance lunch = dinner and evening meal = dinner
as in "mum whats for dinner? i'm starving."
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
kovacs' family is the only one I've ever known who use "supper" to mean "evening meal". It doesn't make any sense at all.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Thank you lil' bro'
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
Apart from the chocolate I'm exactly the same as you Sidders, even down to a bizarre 10pm watershed for opening a bottle of wine, not sure where it came from but 10pm = open bottle of wine and settle down with good film/multiple episodes of something downloaded from web time. If I snacked in the afternoon as well as cooking an evening meal my gut would bulge more than it already does..
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer:
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Other questions: Is drinking beer with a meal 'common'? What about a pint in an indian?
I dunno about it being 'common' so much as lacking class, but it would depend entirely on the meal, the type of beer, and the vessel utilized, I'd say.
bollocks. beer with food = as good as drinking wine with food.
take your hoitty toitty ways and go on back to saff lahndahn.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
lol, someones never been to lewisham.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
18:30 - Tea 18:35 - Left overs of everyone else's Tea 18:40 - Seconds 18:45 - Bit left over in saucepan, slightly cold 18:50 - Pudding. Four puddings actually as no one else finished their tea so they don't get pudding 18:55 - Bung everything in dishwasher 19:00 - Flee kitchen as The Archers comes on the radio and Mrs Dang actually listens to it
If Tea started at 18:55 I'd be a fair bit slimmer, see. Or if The Archers started at 18:35. Yes, that would be better. It's the bloody BBC that are making me fat. Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Someone mentioned 'afters' earlier. I call it 'dessert.' Dang calls it 'pudding.' Someone I go on work trips with calls it 'sweet', which really sets my teeth on edge.
Any others?
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: lol, someones never been to lewisham.
i have. it wasn't nice. but then i was only 8 or 9. we went home to woolwich....
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
pudding and only pudding. call it anything else and youre in front of the beak for crimes of pikiness.
[ 17.09.2004, 09:38: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Breakfast is breakfast. Lunch used to be dinner but is now, for me, lunch. Tea is tea. It is the evening meal, it is eaten when you get in from work and all my childhood like it was, on Friday, egg and chips, because despite Vatican Two, proper Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: proper Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays.
tell that to the catholic choir boys...
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
Are we doing list what you eat what you call it when you eat it? Goodie!
Lunch: 12.30 weekdays before I pass out famished at my desk.
Dinner: 6.30 weekdays. Home from work, into kitchen, cook. Eat. Actually, if people come round and spoil my plans :maDd: any time up to about midnight. Still dinner, though.
Weekends are long snack/binge/grazing/recovery sessions and don't really follow any set plan. I don't eat breakfast as for some reason it makes me feel really sick. Sometimes I manage a snack at 11am if I feel giddy with sugar lack. You begin to realise just how much food affects your mood/body in a remarkably short space of time.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Also, DD, is not pudding, is afters because it comes after yer tea. Sensible, see.
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
Pudding! Anything else is wrong.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
pudding =
and therefore WRONG.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Pudding describes a person who has just committed a non-serious act of sillyness o you pudding. It does not describe post-tea sweet as opposed to savoury goodness.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
okay then- pudding south, afters north. both fine. sweet, nowhere. aberration. calls for punishment and cognitive reprogramming.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Why can I not write today?
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
I'm glad that other people consider Kovacs' use of 'supper' to be unusual, and interested to know what he calls dessert?
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
Here is class snobbery/etiquette lesson at it's finest! Read it and sob gently into your organofreetradearomarichroastednegra coffee...
How To Get On In Society
Phone for the fish knives, Norman As cook is a little unnerved; You kiddies have crumpled the serviettes And I must have things daintily served.
Are the requisites all in the toilet? The frills round the cutlets can wait Till the girl has replenished the cruets And switched on the logs in the grate.
It's ever so close in the lounge dear, But the vestibule's comfy for tea And Howard is riding on horseback So do come and take some with me
Now here is a fork for your pastries And do use the couch for your feet; I know that I wanted to ask you- Is trifle sufficient for sweet?
Milk and then just as it comes dear? I'm afraid the preserve's full of stones; Beg pardon, I'm soiling the doileys With afternoon tea-cakes and scones. Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Traceur strode across the room with one eye slightly closed and a smirk stretched across his face. As he stopped just in front of Lady Philomel he pulled his silver plated pipe from his lips and his grin lowered to reveal his bottom row of teeth. Lady Philomel played with her hair which was fixed in a neat, tight bun, except that two strands had fallen loose, unfurling from excessive tampering.
The Lady started first.
'I wonder....if after the main course, you'd like...to m..erm..relocate to my quarters to erm. To....well.....enjoy a spot of P..'
'Pudding?' spat Traceur enthusiastically and with a raw sardonic smile. He darted his toungue swiftly right to left across his lips 'I was really looking forward to the afters!'
With this, he spun on his heel and whisked towards another cluster of guests. Darting one eye backwards, just once, to cause Lady Philomel to blush the colour of whores rouge.
[ 17.09.2004, 10:02: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
NWOD = lol + *Applause*
Posted by squirrelandgman (Member # 201) on :
Breakfast Dinner Tea and pudding.
School dinners, school dinners concrete chips, concrete chips. Soggy semolina, soggy semolina, toilet quick, I feel sick. It's too late. I've done it on my plate.
Not school lunch in the song you notice. Therefore, scienterifficaly I have proved that the mid-afternoon meal is actually dinner.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Gman's right. Were those dames in the hairnets and blue housecoats called lunchladies??
Were they fuck. Dinnerladies - ergo, dinner.
End of.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I can't bloody find it anywhere, but how did that Two Ronnies rude butler sketch go?
"Your sweet, M'lady."
"Your nuts, M'lord."
But loads more like that in a riot of laffs which would satisfy even the most ardent loloholic.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
While gman's evidence is compelling, and indeed dinner ladies served at my school, the meal we received from them was eaten at 'lunchtime'.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
sorry minj. what part of
did you not understan?
the jury and judges have gone home and you're speaking to an empty courthouse.
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: okay then- pudding south, afters north. both fine. sweet, nowhere. aberration. calls for punishment and cognitive reprogramming.
You what????
ME NORTH EAT PUDDING.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Aha, now this is interesting. I've done some research and it seems that Lunch is "a meal eaten at midday". A meal, you see. But Dinner is "the chief meal of the day, eaten in the evening or at midday".
So only Lunch can be eaten at lunchtime, but Dinner simply depends on when you take your main meal of the day. As I'm fairly sure that the majority of modern citizens eat their main meal in the evening, it seems safe to say that Dinner is usually the evening meal and Lunch the midday meal.
Now we come to Tea. "An afternoon refreshment consisting usually of sandwiches and cakes served with tea." Well, for me that would be Elevenses, and it would be with coffee anyway. Ah, here we are, Elevenses - "Tea or coffee taken at midmorning and often accompanied by a snack."
I shall take Dinner this evening then, apparently. Tea is banished from my vocabulary.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by damo:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer:
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Other questions: Is drinking beer with a meal 'common'? What about a pint in an indian?
I dunno about it being 'common' so much as lacking class, but it would depend entirely on the meal, the type of beer, and the vessel utilized, I'd say.
bollocks. beer with food = as good as drinking wine with food.
take your hoitty toitty ways and go on back to saff lahndahn.
I wasn't saying beer with food wasn't as good as wine with food, I like nothing better than a beer and a sarnie in front of the footie. I just think beer goes best with different types of food than wine.
For example:
Pint of beer with meal = Preferable if meal is at a pub or curry house, otherwise lacks class.
Bottle/glass of beer with meal = Preferable dependent on what you're eating e.g. sandwich, burger, mexican, steak, bbq, pizza, blah, but wine acceptable for some of these also (e.g. red wine with pizza or steak).
Anything posher and I'd say wine was the way to go.
Obviously I'd have to kill you if you had red wine with fish.
Mmm, booze and food. Lovely.
[ 17.09.2004, 10:44: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: kovacs' family is the only one I've ever known who use "supper" to mean "evening meal". It doesn't make any sense at all.
Oi! So does mine! Elaborate as to how this makes no sense...
Dictionary.com: sup·per n.
A light evening meal when dinner is taken at midday.
A light meal eaten before going to bed.
A dance or social affair where supper is served.
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Any others?
Petit-fours?
[ 17.09.2004, 10:48: Message edited by: mooch ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by mooch:
quote:Originally posted by Modge: kovacs' family is the only one I've ever known who use "supper" to mean "evening meal". It doesn't make any sense at all.
Oi! So does mine! Elaborate as to how this makes no sense...
I know this one! Because you are K..Kovacs?
[ 17.09.2004, 10:40: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: I know this one! Because you are K..Kovacs?
Thats the first time I've been mixed up with an academic.
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
That's a Star Prize Pipe for NWOD, that is.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer:
Obviously I'd have to kill you if you had red wine with fish.
quote:Originally posted by Modge: kovacs' family is the only one I've ever known who use "supper" to mean "evening meal". It doesn't make any sense at all.
My lot do too actually. If I'm eating earlyish with my daughter, we have tea. If I have people round for an evening meal, it's supper.
I don't know what has happened to dinner. It seems to have disappeared due to lunch, tea and supper. Maybe you only have dinner when you've not had tea, instead of having supper?
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by mooch: A light evening meal when dinner is taken at midday.
If you have your main meal of the day at lunchtime and a light meal in the evening then this definition is fine. It is not right if you call your evening meal which is your main meal of the day and may well consist of three courses, supper.
N.B - it's dead easy to reply when you actually provide the necessary definitions for me, thanks!
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: N.B - it's dead easy to reply when you actually provide the necessary definitions for me, thanks!
Bugger. Well... it still implies an evening meal.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by damo:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer:
Obviously I'd have to kill you if you had red wine with fish.
pgsh, we really have woken up this week havent we. has someone been putting something in the tea? dinner. supper. um. Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
is it the end of summer madness? or just the return of everyone?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I've changed my mind a little. I think "dinner" is, or certainly was, an acceptable (upper-?) middle-class (/upper-class?) synonym for "supper" because you have the concept of dressing for dinner. Also I remember that Alice says of Whiting, "I've often seen them at Dinn-". It obviously comes from "to dine", which confirms its refined status, or at least its refined origins.
The reason I like "supper" as a word is because it's definitely specific to a time of day, like "lunch". "Dinner" seems a little more of a moveable feast perhaps, and yes because of words like "dinnerladies" it doesn't seem to have the same class anymore.
I was brought up saying "pudding": "afters" was common, and "sweet" is, as the poem on the previous page indicated, a Hyacinth Bucket failed attempt to sound refined. "Dessert" might be OK but, like "dinner" I feel it might have been sullied; in this case, by products like Asda Individual Fruit-Type Trifle Dessert.
But I don't usually eat pudding anyway. I also disagree about tea (cup of tea and cake) being "necessary" -- having sugary food at that time of day will give you a quick unsustainable boost but it will also needlessly boost your calories.
I agree about the rules for drink with meals in 21st century England though. I do feel beer in pints or bottles is OK with curry, and beer in bottles with Mexican. Perhaps also with Chinese. Because these are more laid-back, relaxed types of cuisine and restaurant, that seems an acceptable bending of the rule that you should really have wine with dinner.
Anyway everyone going on about "I don't understand! how can tea be a cake and a cup of tea, it's a full meal?? Supper is a snack before bed surely" only has to get their head around the very simple fact that this terminology will depend on your class and location. So yes, my "tea" might clash with what has always sounded natural for you, but to protest about it is as banal and blinkered as a French up in arms about "what is this, break-fast? We call it petit dej I never heard of break-fast."
What I eat depends on what day of the week it is, because, for instance, I have a massive commoner's cooked breakfast on Sunday and so I fast for much of Monday, eating only a yogurt until the evening.
But usually I have cereal and coffee at 9am, baguette or miniature quiche/tart from work with coffee at noon, glass of wine around 6pm and supper at around 8pm followed by coffee.
Finally the rule for drinking is that the sun has to be over the yard-arm, which in my household means around 5pm whatever the season. I think waiting until 10pm is really depriving yourself, but drinking before 5pm seems a bit vulgar. Having said all this, sometimes you want to break these rules because it's fun to walk around with the first of many Stellas at 11am.
[ 17.09.2004, 13:04: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
i think i love you kovacs
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
It's funny how you're the 2nd man (is saltrock a man) to say something of that variety since I started embracing this maiden-aunt persona.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
i've always loved you.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: It's funny how you're the 2nd man (is saltrock a man) to say something of that variety since I started embracing this maiden-aunt persona.
FOR THE LAST BLOODY TIME ON HERE!! I AM NOT A BLOODY MAN!!!! Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
You have a man's name.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Why is Saltrock a man's name?
Proper name: Sarah-Jane. As girly as it gets.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Alright Saltrock?
My crotch is bleeding.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
gosh it feels quite flattering that someone called Sarah-Jane likes me.
Posted by squirrelandgman (Member # 201) on :
Is it tea time?
Advice?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Alright Saltrock?
My crotch is bleeding.
dear god in heaven!! What on earth have you been doing to yourself? I told you not to keep that in your hand at the same time.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
HISTORY:. A modern piercing on the top of the base of the penis shaft.
ADVANTAGES: Sexual enhancement and adornment.
DISADVANTAGES AND CONCERNS: Due to the location of the piercing it is more prone to migration, becoming affected and/or infected. No sexual contact without a latex barrier for 6 months. Interruption of sexual activity.
MAIN HASSLES & HEALING TIME: the piercing must be cleaned twice daily, can not sleep on your stomach, cross contamination prevention and no swimming. Average healing time is 4-6 months.
healing time:4 to 6 months common jewelry: 12g to 10g 7/16 to 1/2
Something has gone wrong between four and six months.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Ouch Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Ouch
No need! The stinging sensation of antisceptic has worn away! Wooyay!
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Yay! Numb genitals!
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
it is at this point that the old man in me says "what the fucking fuck have you gone and done that for? why the fucking fuck would anyone want to stick a fucking lump of metal through their cocking cock? for fucks sake, did one of your pop-stars tell you this on the telly? if i told you one of them had stuck his head in a gas oven.... get your head out of the gas oven and listen to me. get over here. enwood. cnuting fuck. why?why? WHY?"
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It's not through my cock, it's through my crotch. I did it months ago and now it's rejecting, which is expected.
No, no I haven't had my cock pierced for over year. *sniff*
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I imagine the cleaning twice a day is while washing up for a meal? But which one? Dinner? Supper? Does it matter what time of the day?
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
I could tell you damo, I mean, I could pretend to try and understand and post a whole load of bullshit and possibly throw in a sexual innuendo or two along the way, but a) seeing as i'm a woman I don't know much about cock piercings and b) I just got back from the pub where I had an experience that I am as keen to repeat as I am to want to have my imaginary cock pierced, removed and repierced by a blind deaf with no hands and all I want to do is fry an egg and have a glass of red and make a sandwich (you can do red wine and fried egg sandwiches right?) for... er... tea? dinner? supper? post-pub-trauma comfort eating? whatevs. for that. so. er. yes.
[ 17.09.2004, 19:30: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I'd imagine it may be up to at least three times. Especially if you've had pudding.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
lol look at all the posts that appeared. Tis like a Friday from days of yore. Kinda.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
The pub story is making for good post, then editing material.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Also; IT IS NOT A COCK PIERCING!!
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
oh. its still a piercing. in a land where piercings shouldn't be.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
yes sorry mikee, i read that after I had posted, I shall edit after I have swallowed some more sandwich. And no. To the pub story. Tis a tale of such woe that no-one need hear lest it stain their soul forever.
[ 17.09.2004, 19:46: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
right i'm going home from work now. i will no doubt return tomorrow to find all the best bits missing and re-edited to say "." etc. etc.
have a lovely drunken evening.
and remember if you ain't got love what use is money? i tell you, its great, money lets you buy people. yes buy them and stop them from hating you. until the cash runs out. and then you're left. alone. alone. and on you own. no doubt wanting to slit your wrists but without the money to buy a razor or a knife to do the job, so you have to summon up the courage to bite through the veins in your arm.
at which point you realise, bollocks to that. i'm not that much of a munter.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I thought it was you who lived in Crotchville, Texas?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Could someone else read this thread and tell me if it makes them feel seat-shiftingly embarrassed, as it did me. It's a horrible thread in a way... there is a pretence that they're both joking, but you know there is genuine spite and hurt not so far beneath the surface.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
I just went to edit but I can't because then my little rant won't make sense. I can't say my imaginary crotch as have a crotch which is only too real. So, sorry. I am fully understanding (at this current moment of lucidity at least) that it is indeed a crotch not cock piercing. However I would premise this with the fact that I am also likely to forget this fact. thankyou.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
B...but if you edit it, it will look like I have cock-pierce fear! Whereas I am just in standard 'how can I save these babies to avoid taking them out and having them re-pierced'-fear instead.
But O! I have found a nifty site that is telling me all is good. Apparently I just need to be cautious and possibly use smaller surface bars to avoid fa-riction. Hooray! Pleased I am.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Now, look! Now we both say the same thing. This is horrible!
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
This is not true. What is horrible is that thread on handbag that kovacs made me read with my eyes and assimilate with my brain. Kovacs (hello kovacs ) I got to page three but the page numbers kept increasing (from 3 to 6 then who knows) and so I gave up. I did however come away thinking Poor Thorn Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: antisceptic
lol can I borrow some of that?
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
What might be more entertaining than reading handbag threads this weekend: Tonight on the dirty channel, “Pirates Sexuales,” which I imagine is in honor of International Talk Like a Pirate Day.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick:
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: antisceptic
lol can I borrow some of that?
Sure, it brings out bouts of optimistake attitude.
I am on page 10 and I am at that point where you assert whether you are angry, or whether you want to do a cry.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Do you think that Nineseven is being quite a bitch, deliberately bringing up in public that Thorn asked her out twice more and that she said no (disingenuous grin and blush smileys bookending gleeful confessions like "this is kind of embarrassing... how can I explain why I didn't even want to see him for a drink again...") and then going into gross, unnecessary and I would think purposefully cruel detail about his outfit and appearance for an audience of female hyenas? Or did he bait her on some other thread?
ETA: he is really pulling his punches on there. That's what pained me. He is just sucking it up and putting a brave face on it, when I think she's being needlessly needling, and I'm also convinced she isn't nearly as sharp as she thinks. She uses way too many smileys and her style of humour is entirely sub-Blackadder. She is only a giant on Handbag because it's Handbag, whereas Thorn, by contrast, could have a good chance of taking me down textually.
[ 17.09.2004, 19:59: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Oobs. I want to know what happened in the pub. And NWoD. I'm still thinking "Ouch" - especially after your last comment of using a smaller bar.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Maybe this is all a clever ploy, because he is tired of all the handbag biddy attention…
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It all just seems very kind of polite and yet patronising . It certainly lacks any kind of tact. There is a way of speaking in which she is trying to make Thorn look like he's gutted that he didn't make the grade. If he dosn't seem bothered in his responses she then raises the samre points. She's clinging to a few shallow comments regarding Thorn and the parts of him she took an immediate disliking to. Also it's making us discuss it here, which is like we are judging Thorns potential love-life, like the critics of a new film.
Which if this wasn't the TMO night shift, would be wrong.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Hey rooster, how are you? I spoke to you before the pub and now after too! I don't know why that is making me excited but it may be because a) I'm drunk b) you're in america; and c) erm, I'm not sure but I'm right digging my alphabetcised lists right now!
The pirate thing - yes - is it international pirate day today? I never followed barry's link, only skipped over the thread and then tonight there was this guy in the pub that I hadn't seen for quite a few months (this isn't the trauma story btw) and I'm talking to him and his hair has got longer and curly and I'm all like Ooooo, I didn't know you had curly hair! It's like that dude out of the strokes! You know, the cute one who goes out with drew barrymore! Yeah him. and he says how hot it is and take off his sweat shirt thing to reveal... a tshirt with tiny skull heads on it and says "It's my pirate shirt!" and I say "O - its international pirate day today I read it... erm... on the internet!" and he said "That's why I wore it!" and I said "Really?!" and he said no.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Wow Uber, it's all interrelated, eh? The Pirate Day is the 19th, so not quite yet…froopyscot is sick, so I don’t think I will be able to get him to watch that movie with me wearing only an eye patch, even though it is still early here.
[ 17.09.2004, 19:57: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Also it's making us discuss it here, which is like we are judging Thorns potential love-life, like the critics of a new film.
Which if this wasn't the TMO night shift, would be wrong.
Actually I felt a rare TMO-loyalty towards Thorn on reading that thread. It's a public board that many of us frequent, so I'm hardly uncovering something private.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
I don't post or even lurk on Handbag. Maybe I should!
Not sure to feel pity or envy. Whatever, from now on Thorn is my God. Well, not really, but dude Thorn has groupies. Wow! That placemust be like a booty shop for him.
(she's right about the t-shirts though)
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: froopyscot is sick, so I don’t think I will be able to get him to watch that movie with me wearing only an eye patch, even though it is still early here.
How sick is he really though? I think if you tell him you want to watch a naughty film he may make a sudden recovery. Also, eye patches are hott - FACT.
Right, that bitch nine seven, basically she is really playing it and i think its because a lot of ladies on the handbag are intrigued, nay, excited by Thorn and she wants to be the one that he asked out a couple of times and she turned down. She is enjoying the power. I mean, I only got to page 3, but what a cow. I bet I could beat her in a fight. She doesn't deserve to go out with lovely thorn. Lovely lovely thorn. erm. yes. good.
edited for clarity otherwise it looks like I'm asking how sick thorn is really. and I think we all know the answer to that.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:03: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Also it's making us discuss it here, which is like we are judging Thorns potential love-life, like the critics of a new film.
Which if this wasn't the TMO night shift, would be wrong.
Actually I felt a rare TMO-loyalty towards Thorn on reading that thread. It's a public board that many of us frequent, so I'm hardly uncovering something private.
Well thats it isn't it, reading other people ripping into someone we engage with on a regular basis (and more if the shite wasn't out dating hanbaggers instead of coming to rawk gigs with me) makes you feel very defensive. It makes me want to sign up just to shout 'none of you disease ridden fucking harpies are having any of our Thorn!'
I,er.. now that you put it that way though, about the public forum, it dosn't seem so bad. I still have an image of Thorn reading this, frozen, shaking and sweating. Unable to type through morbid fear.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I totally agree. That’s the impression I get from her on that thread, “How hot must I be that I turned down the guy that every lady on here wants!” Edit: This comment was to Uber.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:05: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Yeah, but also, Uber said it right about her playing it like a race. But she's like too scared to follow it through. She should at least have fucked him if she wants to be top dog.
*places napkin on forum floor*
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
Wouldn't it be excellent if this thread was cross referenced to HB and then HB-ers could slag us off for daring to criticise their thread, even though it is unnecessary and not a little mean, and then accuse us of being up ourselves? Again.
Also: whereisraz?
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:18: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Of course she is reeling it and running the show like a ringmistress... because she's the one who set the circus going, with him as the clown.
But I think maybe rather than / as well as her saying "I turned down the guy you all want", there's another aspect in that they kind of fancy Thorn online, but she's offering to give the juice on him in real life... and there's this sadistic anticipation that she's going to let them know what he's really like, that he doesn't live up to the image they all had in mind.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
oh I see... the whole quote.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:28: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
why do you always get all brave and try to stir things up? It never does anyone any good, least of all you.
*sigh*
[ 17.09.2004, 20:19: Message edited by: Modge ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It's very easy for him to give her shit too, I mean she can't have been picture perfect. It's nice to know that he refrained from that behaviour, when it's very easy to slip into. In the vein that we treat each other how we want to be treated and tend to respond in kind when people are unecessarily viscious.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
kovacs is becoming like an evil Peter Ustinov!
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
[ 17.09.2004, 20:30: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
ok maybe you are right
[ 17.09.2004, 20:24: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
Peter Ustinov gave me my degree!
Well, he shook my hand and said "congratulations dear" while I decided whether or not to curtsey.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I like that the thread rolled from rejected piercings to rejected posters.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
In this context it has no relevance.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Well, that's my ghast flabbered. Reading that has got the same kind of sick fascination as slowing down to look at two cars mashed up on the side of the road. You don't want to look in case you see something horrible, but you just can't help it.
She did say on the initial post though that Thorn had give her permission to do an online character assasination, oh sorry! dissection. So maybe he's just after attention?
ETA: Sorry Mikee, how's the crotch feeling now?
[ 17.09.2004, 20:25: Message edited by: saltrock ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
[ 17.09.2004, 20:30: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
leave the "day shift" wondering
[ 17.09.2004, 20:31: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: ETA: Sorry Mikee, how's the crotch feeling now?
Let's carry on while it's all swept up eh?
Bit concerned. Doesn't hurt since I took the surface bars out, boiled them and cleaned the skin up. Trouble is, after the swelling went down, it's exposed the bars a lot and they move, hence the decision to go for a smaller, snugger size. You see, I don't want them to scar, but then, I plan to get that part tattooed anyway.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
...or J. K. Galbraith with an STD.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Ok, I'm having trouble even beginning to imagine this. The only piercing of a man's nether regions I have seen is a marine that I misguidedly went out with who sent me a picture of the extremely large metal ring through the end of his foreskin.
Having no medical qualifications I would recommend the following:-
Leave well alone and let it heal for 43 years before you consider having it tattooed.
My mother would be proud of the sheltered life I have led.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:35: Message edited by: saltrock ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Wouldn't you want to shag a guy with a cock piercing? O - hang on Salty, was your relationship consummated?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
No Uber. It is one of my main regrets in life.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
But is that deadpan or serious? You see, personally, I would like to shag a guy with a cock ring just to see what it felt like, you know? Or am I alone in this? I don't believe I can be. Mind you... no. nvm!
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Actually I'm lying. It's not one of my main regrets. But I do wonder what I missed out on. And now that I am facing spinsterhood for the forseeable future - these things matter Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Since froopy’s too sick to play pirate, I am googling cock piercings while awaiting the arrival of our dinner. Any hints on key words to find this particular type?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
"Cock piercings" should do it.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
That brought a disappointingly small array.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Actually I'm lying. It's not one of my main regrets. But I do wonder what I missed out on. And now that I am facing spinsterhood for the forseeable future - these things matter
I hear you sister! *does head bobbing movement*
(for anyone wanting a more descriptive picture, take my image from earlier on this evening on the Paris thread, swap Guns 'N' Roses for Poison - apt - remove the boots for bare feet and add the tartan blanket of wisdom around my shoulders with ends fastened in my cleavage for security. I am pure class.)
[ 17.09.2004, 20:45: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: The only piercing of a man's nether regions I have seen is a marine that I misguidedly went out with who sent me a picture of the extremely large metal ring through the end of his foreskin.
Oh, thats a Prince Albert. This is a surface piercing on the pubis.
quote:Leave well alone and let it heal for 43 years before you consider having it tattooed.
They'll have to come out for the tattooing, but you know, it seems a shame to give up on them, when they have good innings.
I can only find this image to show the area. It's quite comedy;
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Thank you, knowing that, I have found some similar actual pics, yay.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
fucking 'Mikee-too-slow'
[ 17.09.2004, 20:48: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Actually, it's a crap site. Ignore I said that.
[ 17.09.2004, 20:55: Message edited by: saltrock ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Ha! The apradravya is evil. Eeeeeeeevill! They basically just stick a needle through the top so that it passes between the two sides and out the bottom. This is the daddy of cock jabs! In fact, look at this little beauty of a quote;
Placement of the needle is also critical with this piercing or it could result in severe bleeding. If not treated immediately, it could result in death.
In these tragic times, you have to laugh in the face of cock danger.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
can we stop talking about cocks now please?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It's a possibility, will you tell us about the pub then?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
It begins.
quote:lil sweetgal
18-09-2004 01:52 AM
Add to your buddy list Send private message
OMFG wait 4 it those tossas at T.M.O. or wateva have found this thead they,re lives must be so boring (maybe they should get 1 ) if all they can do is read HB rellies
get ova urselves if ur reading this, PSML i can,t believe wat geeks nerds etc they are on they,re Star trek board
well boys i got a msg 4 u.... if thorn is da best u offer, I wudnt want 2 see the rest ov u T.M.O. boys.... f@uckin tw@ts
GRRRRRRRR!! men
right rant over LOL ---------------------------
luv, lil sweetgal
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
they sold booze. there were cocks in there.
then I left the handbag meat..
[ 17.09.2004, 21:03: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I just got called a 'Tossa'
What does that mean?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick: they sold booze. there were cocks in there.
then I left the handbag meat..
Can it with the cocks!
For someone who is called Lil Sweetgirl she sure has a mouth like a sewer. What a walking contradicktion.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
8 days til Ovulation?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Shit, thats only eight days before it can multiply.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
say something / . . . . . . . poor uber
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Sorry, I was having no life and reading the relationships forum on handbag.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
also not pub trauma but happened in the pub tonight: annoying girl, 24, who works for the media bbc somesuchshite said to me"...You're 30? If I look as good as you when I'm your age I'll be proud to share your nickname!"
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Sorry, I was having no life and reading the relationships forum on handbag.
Look, you're ours now and you'll do our things.
[ 17.09.2004, 21:19: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick: You're 30? If I look as good as you when I'm your age I'll be proud to share your nickname!"
Yes, yes, but did you punch her straight in the face?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
I still want to know what the actual trauma thing in the pub was. You know you're going to tell us anyway, so you might as well get it over with.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: You know you're going to tell us anyway, so you might as well get it over with.
Go on, or we'll lose SJ to that devil pit again.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
That didn't need to be said
[ 17.09.2004, 21:28: Message edited by: saltrock ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
No. I just smiled *smile* and she then said "Heh I bet you were thinking that I was 30 weren't you?" Me: *Smile* Her: "Heh, w-what were you drinking? They call me Foxy because my surname is Cox..." Me: *Smile*
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Wouldn't 'Apple' be a better nickname?
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
No, I think "smug, smarmy cow" would be better personally.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I know my response wasn't cutting but you know, you have to line these things up so someone can say 'surely mummenfruntz fucking fruit-nugget would be apt at the right moment?'
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
SJ, seriously, it was hard enough living it the first time without reliving the experience so soon in my escape place, you know? I have no doubt at all that I will share at some (inappropriate, not doubt) point but I'm not sure if my brainheart can do it right now. Besides, my codeine just hit all that booze
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
If it is, then it was a stupid question.
[ 17.09.2004, 21:36: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick: Besides, my codeine just hit all that booze
Happy dreaming
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
If codeine and booze had a fight who would win?
I'm really not sure about this at all. I sooo knew the answer to the mayonnaise / library fight, but this one... hmmm..
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick: If codeine and booze had a fight who would win?
Fucking booze dude. Codeine's all prim and proper and clinical and shit. Booze would get a dirty left hook in and codeine would be sprawling all over the shop.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: It wasn't like, about the nickname?
The trauma? lol no. I wish.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Well I edited it now, so it looks all nobby Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
[ 18.09.2004, 03:41: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
[ 18.09.2004, 03:42: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
.
[ 17.09.2004, 21:50: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
.
[ 17.09.2004, 21:50: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
XXX
[ 17.09.2004, 21:45: Message edited by: Uber Trick ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
X
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
No, no you're not.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
They should't be mean to Thorn! Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
oh god, its not another episode in the handbag vs tmo non-war is it?
look, i can't be bothered to go and eat some cornbread to shave 30 points off my iq just so that i can tolerate the avatars, the text speak, the lack of "proper" english. and the extreme gayness of that place. however, i do love thron and will offer up my powers of banana clan to help out.
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
quote:Originally posted by damo: oh god, its not another episode in the handbag vs tmo non-war is it?
No, Kovacs is making it all up. God damo, you're so gullible.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
i love you bamba.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
May I suggest a title for this saga,soon to be novel then who knows? Hollywood maybe?
Posted by Bailey (Member # 261) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba:
quote:Originally posted by damo: oh god, its not another episode in the handbag vs tmo non-war is it?
No, Kovacs is making it all up. God damo, you're so gullible.
I didn't make it all up though, obviously.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bailey:
quote:Originally posted by Bamba:
quote:Originally posted by damo: oh god, its not another episode in the handbag vs tmo non-war is it?
No, Kovacs is making it all up. God damo, you're so gullible.
I didn't make it all up though, obviously.
Why is kovacs posting from Bailey's account?
Is this gossip?
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW!!
Posted by Bailey (Member # 261) on :
sexually related
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Sweet.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I am very bad.
Posted by dervish (Member # 727) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am very bad.
What? Bad as in 'out of date yoghurt bad'? Or bad as in 'Micheal Jackson' bad? Or just 'plain crap' bad?
Just so we know.
Posted by dervish (Member # 727) on :
Hi Helen. Sorry I am new here, so I saw this -
"5'10 and a cockless stunna"
- and just had to ask
- are you a very long cattle proD?
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
quote:Originally posted by dervish: Hi Helen. Sorry I am new here, so I saw this -
"5'10 and a cockless stunna"
- and just had to ask
- are you a very long cattle proD?
nope I am 5'10 and a cockless stunna.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by dervish:
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am very bad.
What? Bad as in 'out of date yoghurt bad'? Or bad as in 'Micheal Jackson' bad? Or just 'plain crap' bad?
Just so we know.
What a sad reflection on these times of relativism and amorality that you forgot the fourth and most fundamental meaning of "bad", ie. sinful, wrong.
edit:
quote:handbag: Even TMO couldn't manage much beyond a half-hearted piss-pot defence of Thorn (mainly spurred on by the prurient, half-cocked de-sexed' D.H.Lawrencian 'wonder, kovacks).
I bet this was BEN in disguise. It has the stamp of his cruel intelligence all over it.
[ 19.09.2004, 19:57: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
You just gonna stand by and let people talk about your cock like that!? Shame. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I have only read one D H Lawrence so I don't feel the above applies to me.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I have only read one D H Lawrence so I don't feel the above applies to me.
Dude. Its posts like that that make people say you are a prurient, half-cocked de-sexed' D.H.Lawrencian.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I thought it was an above-average insult by HB standards anyway.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I didn't think the defence was piss-pot. I thought it was 'warming'. Generous, even.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I'm actually quite sorry she relented today. I was gearing up.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
gearing up for what?
Have I missed something?
Is Kovacs aka Thorn?
[ 20.09.2004, 15:04: Message edited by: Helen Back ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
No I was just annoyed by the treatment Thorn was receiving, and was going to contribute to the HB thread in question -- but Nineseven apologised to him on their board so it would be inappropriate now.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: No I was just annoyed by the treatment Thorn was receiving, and was going to contribute to the HB thread in question -- but Nineseven apologised to him on their board so it would be inappropriate now.
Ok.
why are they talking about you on that threader?
Have you got something they all really really want Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
They're not as far as I know. It was just one person.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by dervish:
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am very bad.
What? Bad as in 'out of date yoghurt bad'? Or bad as in 'Micheal Jackson' bad? Or just 'plain crap' bad?
Just so we know.
What a sad reflection on these times of relativism and amorality that you forgot the fourth and most fundamental meaning of "bad", ie. sinful, wrong.
edit:
quote:handbag: Even TMO couldn't manage much beyond a half-hearted piss-pot defence of Thorn (mainly spurred on by the prurient, half-cocked de-sexed' D.H.Lawrencian 'wonder, kovacks).
I bet this was BEN in disguise. It has the stamp of his cruel intelligence all over it.
Teh forger made one crucial mistake. The correct term is Lawrentian. Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am very bad.
Tell us more. We like bad.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I wrote a poem for the Thorn/Nineseven thread but the moment passed.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
Was it a bad poem?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
It was talented but cruel in my opinion.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
This thread is dying a long and agonising death
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: It was talented but cruel in my opinion.
Just post it dude, you know you're dying to.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
quote:Originally posted by mooch: This thread is dying a long and agonising death
lets keep it alive I say alive.
long live the thorn thread.
post it Kovacs... Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Bailey has a copy of it, she can decide if it is sensible to post it. Personally I think it is unwise and unjustifiable.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
1.) To know why a fairly small protest in comparison to say, the anti-war rally, is making Blairs colon itchy.
2.) Bailey to post the poem.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: I want;
1.) To know why a fairly small protest in comparison to say, the anti-war rally, is making Blairs colon itchy.
A similar emotion has been overwhelming me recently. This is a country which, we are regularly told, gives more money to animal charities than any other type of needy character. But as soon as someone tries to pass a law against mercilessly tearing a live fox to pieces we get a load of cunts from the cuds out in force to protest.
Meanwhile, we spend billions of our hard-earned money on sending a load of squaddies to invade a sovereign country and get themselves generally killed on a regular basis while destroying centuries of British history and reputation in the process, and we get...? What do we get? Fucking nothing, that's what.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
War on Iraq; Friends, relatives, Fathers, Mothers, Sons and Daughters sent to fight for a purpose, nobody I have spoken to regarding the initial invasion, seems to want*
*Your post is at risk should you have acidentally scanned SnortText during a brief glimspe at a thread harlequin started* Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
I don't see what connection there is between banning foxhunting and the war in Iraq.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Because there was a protest for both of them, except with very different results?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Can someone do a joke about "Kerry loses to bush" or something, about Kerry Katona (sp) and her losing her house to Bryan McFaddean (sp), you could get "bush" in through a reference to her garden... oh i don't know *sigh* the ingredients are there for someone with energy.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: This is a country which, we are regularly told, gives more money to animal charities than any other type of needy character. But as soon as someone tries to pass a law against mercilessly tearing a live fox to pieces we get a load of cunts from the cuds out in force to protest.
In fairness I think you're conflating two largely distinct groups.
Interesting, though, to contrast the anti-war protests and the pro-hunt protests. Must be kind of galling for the Righteous Million of Feb 03 to reflect that - for all the noise they made - in the end they had a lot less stamina and stomach for a ruck than a bunch of braying toffs protecting their pastime.
Posted by mooch (Member # 730) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: while destroying centuries of British history and reputation in the process
I agree and all but what British history was being destored with Gulf War II?
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
I don't know whether it's destroying history, exactly; more like it's destroying the perceived integrity of the country.
I say this realizing full well that the US has now completely lost its international credibility. What there was of it to lose, of course.
Posted by Gail (Member # 21) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Must be kind of galling for the Righteous Million of Feb 03 to reflect that - for all the noise they made - in the end they had a lot less stamina and stomach for a ruck than a bunch of braying toffs protecting their pastime.
You're hardly comparing like with like though are you? George'n'Tony were going to go ahead with bombing the hell out of Iraq come what may, and the anti-war protestors were never the most cohesive bunch, whereas fox-hunting is a relatively simple issue and still pretty much up for grabs, to the extent that even if it is made illegal some hunts may still go ahead.
It's a lot easier to fight on a relatively small issue with what you believe to be a clear moral case than oppose something that was always morally ambiguous, has now happened and that you had little chance of influencing in the first place.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
the majority of the righteous million were (in the main) experienced enough to realise that violence does your cause no good. ie, if your object is peace, its best to be peaceful- which the february march which ben seems to disdain so much was. the minority of pro-hunters dropping decaying carcusses all over the place reminds us all that what they are fighting for is the right to kill living creatures for no reason. not very clever. Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gail: It's a lot easier to fight on a relatively small issue with what you believe to be a clear moral case than oppose something that was always morally ambiguous, has now happened and that you had little chance of influencing in the first place.
I don't buy this at all. Where exactly did this "morally ambiguous" element creep in? The anti-war marchers carried placards warning of 500,000 children being killed - I don't recall much in the way of nuance in any of the chants.
Similarly, the "it was always going to happen" is pretty feeble. One might argue that, given the strength of backbench feeling, the size of the Labour majority and the lack of sympathy for hunting (to put it mildly) in the nation as a whole a hunt ban "was always going to happen anyway". If you believe a cause is worth fighting for, you continue in the face of daunting odds, don't you?
I think a comparison of the two movements is perfectly reasonable: issues that mobilised hundreds of thousands (most 'first time' protestors) into gigantic setpiece demonstrations, drawing in people from across the country and from a variety of backgrounds. The most striking differences are those of scale and the seriousness of the issue being protested. Both the latter ought to have given the anti-war cause a lot more in the way of stamina and commitment.
[ 29.09.2004, 03:44: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Gail (Member # 21) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Where exactly did this "morally ambiguous" element creep in?
I imagine, Ben, that when you decided that the invasion of Iraq was a something that you supported, you came to this conclusion after some thought. That you realised innocent people would die, but in the end it would be for the greater good.
Do you suppose that anyone who was against the war didn't do that as well, but came to the conclusion that although innocent people were dying, an invasion wasn't going to improve the situation?
It's morally ambiguous because any way you look at it, whatever happened, Iraq was going to be, and remain for a long time to come, a mess. For all the faults in their arguments, the anti-war lobby wasn't just going around saying 'war is bad, mmkay?'.
quote:Similarly, the "it was always going to happen" is pretty feeble. One might argue that, given the strength of backbench feeling, the size of the Labour majority and the lack of sympathy for hunting (to put it mildly) in the nation as a whole a hunt ban "was always going to happen anyway". If you believe a cause is worth fighting for, you continue in the face of daunting odds, don't you?
But fox-hunting hasn't been banned yet, has it? The last attempt at banning was unsuccessful, and this one only appears sure to go through because the Government has fixed things so that the House of Lords cannot defeat the Bill. Even if/when the Bill becomes law, some hunters have declared their intentions to carry on.
The war in Iraq has happened, and as such the situation has changed radically. As a result of the invasion, what was left of Iraq's infrastructure has been largely destroyed and it has no cohesive government or public services.
Even if one was against the war in the first place, it is hard to argue that having gone in, the coalition shouldn't do its best to attempt to put the country back on its feet again, rather than depose Saddam, make sure there really were no WMD, then turn around and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, especially given the example of Afghanistan.
Opposing the occupation of Iraq is thus a completely different issue to opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that much harder given that the troops are already there.
[ 29.09.2004, 19:27: Message edited by: Gail ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gail: Do you suppose that anyone who was against the war didn't do that as well, but came to the conclusion that although innocent people were dying, an invasion wasn't going to improve the situation?
It's morally ambiguous because any way you look at it, whatever happened, Iraq was going to be, and remain for a long time to come, a mess. For all the faults in their arguments, the anti-war lobby wasn't just going around saying 'war is bad, mmkay?'.
Er, yes they were. I lost count of the times I saw placards, effigies or marchers decrying Blair and Bush as mass murdering war criminals with blood on their hands before any military action had even started. The head of self-righteous fury that was generated around the time of the march is undeniable. "500,000 kids will die" was the collective howl - and yet a week later all anyone seemed prepared to do was grumble into their chins.
If there was one thing the march seemed to have in abundance it was a belief in the rightness of their cause. But within a matter of days, mass mobilisation had petered into nothing.
It was as though a big section of the middle class had gone through a raucous session of primal scream therapy. I don't know. Maybe that has some benefits to it.
quote:Originally posted by Gail: But fox-hunting hasn't been banned yet, has it? The last attempt at banning was unsuccessful, and this one only appears sure to go through because the Government has fixed things so that the House of Lords cannot defeat the Bill. Even if/when the Bill becomes law, some hunters have declared their intentions to carry on.
The war in Iraq has happened, and as such the situation has changed radically. As a result of the invasion, what was left of Iraq's infrastructure has been largely destroyed and it has no cohesive government or public services. [...] Opposing the occupation of Iraq is thus a completely different issue to opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that much harder given that the troops are already there.
This is all hindsight - between the big march and beginning of hostilities more than a month passed during which anti-war protest seemed to collapse; even though there were two parliamentary votes that might have provided a focus for demonstrations. I'd argue that no government could have survived concerted and sustained protests by a million voters - let alone the two million the organisers of the march boasted they had on the day.
As things unfolded, we'll never know.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: and yet a week later all anyone seemed prepared to do was grumble into their chins.
This line seemed to summarise the general feeling I was getting from the anti-war protesters. Like lethargic John Lennon fans who can't be arsed to even drop the stylus onto a dusty copy of Imagine. While I feel bad for making the connection between the two different campaigns, I was interested to read what others thought about what seem to be major decisions made on the backs of public opinion. Perhaps war widows should have dug up the corpses of their dead husbands and piled them on the steps of the houses of parliament. Medals, still attached to tuna-like decayed flesh.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: "500,000 kids will die" was the collective howl
Was there a time limit stated? They're getting there, slowly but surely.
Posted by funkypurplepants (Member # 746) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [QUOTE]When it acts to prohibit something you agree should be prohibited, like smoking on public transport, you would see it as right-headed and acting in the majority interest
smoking on public transport has actually never caused a fire. eg: Kings x was the only reported fire on london underground in its entire history, which is why they took the fire extinguishers out as they were only ever used for vandalising purposes.
Posted by funkypurplepants (Member # 746) on :
fuck sorry guys i was catching up on the thread an u lot are probably 12 days ahead of me
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
My bad.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
leave the "day shift" wondering
) if all they can do is read HB rellies
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
