Jump to content


Photo

What A Barbaric Sport...


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 AjW

AjW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:39 AM

Lovely thread,

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick :D
  • 0

#22 Taslim

Taslim

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:HEREFORD

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:13 PM

Lovely thread,

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick :D


Or eaten them.....just to make sure they didn't spread of course!

taslim.
  • 0

Before I shunt you into a siding I would like to go over a few points.


#23 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:14 PM

Whilst I know that Carl is more than capable of sticking up for himself I support his stance here. You clearly wanted to stir things up because of the last sentence in your first post. I challenge you to ignore the rest of your OP and explain what you mean by it...


I'll expand a little further back to the last two sentences as I think it might provide a broader answer.

I meant that I have what could be perceived by some as a bigoted, stereo typical opinion of "antis", whether justifiably so or not and I acknowledged back in post 12 that this was not always the case... I was happy to confirm that my non-stereo typical anti existed and that it was a case as originally stated in post 5 that I had never personally met one of them by the waterside.

I'm happy with that, if this is perceived to be bigoted then I will be none the worse for wear and just as happy with it.

The last sentence itself was introduced to encourage a lively (not an abusive or foul languaged) discussion, it's as simple as that.

Lovely thread,

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick :D


Lol... no, they were very definitely our own native species and not the Signal.
  • 0

#24 carlt

carlt

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,321 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:00 PM

The last sentence itself was introduced to encourage a lively (not an abusive or foul languaged) discussion, it's as simple as that.

And if you hadn't used abusive language, in your original post, it would have stayed that way, it's as simple as that.

You insulted people.
I criticised something somebody said using a word that you find unacceptable but I found appropriate.

There is a distinction that makes what you said personal abuse and what I said an impersonal criticism.

If aimed at me, I would not take "you're talking bollocks" personally as it is an attack on something I said, not the person I am.

Dismissing a whole group as " dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots..." is, however a insult that has no bearing in fact. Just an ill-informed personal snipe.

I have removed the word that has upset you so much (bless) and replaced it with "rubbish" as that is just as appropriate.

Now if you'd like to defend your original post, instead of throwing a hissy fit at one word, then I am happy to join in.

Edited by carlt, 28 February 2012 - 04:01 PM.

  • 2

#25 Sir Nibble

Sir Nibble

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:13 PM

Just as an aside, if someone concientously opposed to bloodsports gets a job, does that mean that all of a sudden they like fishing? How about if starting from a position of no particular opinion, one becomes persuaded that fishing is cruel, is it then compulsory to get a rivet put in your nose?
Mr anonymous, you have by airing this ludicrous predjudice, whether ironically or not, completely devalued anything you have to say on the subject; forever.
  • 0
www.hell.co.uw

#26 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:24 PM

And if you hadn't used abusive language, in your original post, it would have stayed that way, it's as simple as that.

You insulted people.
I criticised something somebody said using a word that you find unacceptable but I found appropriate.

There is a distinction that makes what you said personal abuse and what I said an impersonal criticism.

If aimed at me, I would not take "you're talking bollocks" personally as it is an attack on something I said, not the person I am.

Dismissing a whole group as " dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots..." is, however a insult that has no bearing in fact. Just an ill-informed personal snipe.

I have removed the word that has upset you so much (bless) and replaced it with "rubbish" as that is just as appropriate.

Now if you'd like to defend your original post, instead of throwing a hissy fit at one word, then I am happy to join in.


I thought you were stepping out... didn't last long did it!

No I completely disagree, In my mind I insulted a group of unidentifiable people of whom none have stepped forward to complain as belonging to such a group, if they do I will duly apolgise and feel happier for knowing that I may have been wrong.

You used what I and I am sure others would consider offensive terminology against an individual forum user which you have now removed and you appear to me to want to re-discuss the whole thing again whilst discarding your earlier comments?

What is this... a kind of "can I have a second chance?" re-edit?

My original post has been defended in my reply to wanted, earlier on you were stating that you had made the mistake of feeding the troll and now you're back again?

I'm quite happy with the way things sit.
  • 0

#27 carlt

carlt

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,321 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

What is this... a kind of "can I have a second chance?" re-edit?

No I was offering an "agree to differ" route back to amicably discussing your original point, rather than the abusive content of your op, but as you say...

I'm quite happy with the way things sit.

I guess you'll just continue with your pathetic trolling. :banghead:

Edited by carlt, 28 February 2012 - 04:30 PM.

  • 0

#28 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

No I was offering an "agree to differ" route back to discussing your original point, rather than the abusive content of your op, but as you say...

I guess you'll just continue with your pathetic trolling. :banghead:


Lol... nothing ever changes does it?
  • 0

#29 carlt

carlt

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,321 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:31 PM

Lol... nothing ever changes does it?

Evidently not, in your case.
  • 0

#30 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:33 PM

Evidently not, in your case.


Zzzzzzzzz... Zzzzzzzzz...
  • 0

#31 Guest_wanted_*

Guest_wanted_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:41 PM

I thought you were stepping out... didn't last long did it!

No I completely disagree, In my mind I insulted a group of unidentifiable people of whom none have stepped forward to complain as belonging to such a group, if they do I will duly apolgise and feel happier for knowing that I may have been wrong.

You used what I and I am sure others would consider offensive terminology against an individual forum user which you have now removed and you appear to me to want to re-discuss the whole thing again whilst discarding your earlier comments?

What is this... a kind of "can I have a second chance?" re-edit?

My original post has been defended in my reply to wanted, earlier on you were stating that you had made the mistake of feeding the troll and now you're back again?

I'm quite happy with the way things sit.


The thing is see, I am insulted by your last sentance in the OP. I have no problem with nose rings however don't have one. I have no problem with the unemployed however have never been. I have a major issue with all blood sports but don't fit into your ridiculous stereotype.

As far as using this nonsence to stir lively debate, I think you know how people would react and I am starting to think that it was your intention to troll.

I'll try and leave this here because I don't want to get drawn in.
  • 2

#32 mark99

mark99

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,949 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carshalton Beeches, Surrey
  • Boat Name:Pathfinder 2

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:57 AM

Interesting comments re litter.

There is no one interest group that's dirtier than others - it seems to me that there is a constant % of the population that drops/leaves litter and the more footfall, the bigger the collection of litter. Anglers (I am a keen angler) are just as messy and dirty as everyone else.

I back onto a golf course...... I would have though golfers would enjoy their sport in a pritsine environment and indeed virtually every hole has a nice big litter bin and I see the golf management empying them most days - but if you go round the perimeter - it's full of litter stuffed into bushes. Defies logic - there are bins provided!

When I walk the dogs round, I take a carrier bag and clear up bits of the golfers course - but it keeps coming back - the favourite places are the copse or tunnels connecting one hole to another.

I used to have philosophy of "don't get annoyed by a piece of litter - think of how many pieces of litter have NOT been dropped by loads of people walking past the same place"..... but it's getting harder to think like that. I feel like an idiot sometimes clearing up other peoples shite.

Mark
  • 0

I wish only for whirred peas.


#33 jelunga

jelunga

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,983 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newark
  • Boat Name:Lily Maud

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:16 AM

Or eaten them.....just to make sure they didn't spread of course!

taslim.

Taste great saute~d in a little gærlic butter
  • 0
Oh to be at sea (edit to read Canal)
Lock Keepers rule. K. O?

#34 Athy

Athy

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upwell, Norfolk
  • Boat Name:Trojan

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:26 AM

I have only just read this thread for the first time. reading the initial psst, I was surprised that the crawfish (crayfish? are they the same species?) were carefully moved. I assumed that the anglers would catch them and take them home for the pot. Is it illegal to catch them?
I also noted the comment that people took up fishing to relieve the boredom of being unemployed. Should this not have been the other way round?
  • 0
One step beyond

#35 mark99

mark99

    Long Standing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,949 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carshalton Beeches, Surrey
  • Boat Name:Pathfinder 2

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:17 PM

I have only just read this thread for the first time. reading the initial psst, I was surprised that the crawfish (crayfish? are they the same species?) were carefully moved. I assumed that the anglers would catch them and take them home for the pot. Is it illegal to catch them?



Mark


I also noted the comment that people took up fishing to relieve the boredom of being unemployed. Should this not have been the other way round?


as in become unemployed to stop being bored by angling? :)

Native or white crayfish are a protected and endangered species. IIRC illegal to remove.

Amercian signal crayfish are regarded as a nuisance and they are slowly wiping out our native crayfish with their own diseases (crayfish plague). Illegal to put back.

Boaters are ideally placed to help reduce the signal crayfish population and get free food. Stab a small tin of cheap catfood place in a net and lower over the side. 1/2 hour later if there are signals about you will have loads of em. They are massive compared to the little white 'uns.

Mark

Edited by mark99, 16 April 2012 - 05:21 PM.

  • 0

I wish only for whirred peas.


#36 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:02 PM

Well no reply so I guess I should settle for the peaceful way ahead and live and let live for another day... wouldn't want to get accused of trolling now.

Edited by The Anonymous Bard, 19 April 2012 - 05:24 PM.

  • 0

#37 The Anonymous Bard

The Anonymous Bard

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottinghamshire

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:58 PM

See above.

Edited by The Anonymous Bard, 19 April 2012 - 05:24 PM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users