Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

Boxing Day Meet.

Featured Posts

Be wary of the personal insults as one day Athy may be in vino veritas, it being a Saturday afternoon and no rugby on BBC Grandstand

:P

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Be wary of the personal insults as one day Athy may be in vino veritas, it being a Saturday afternoon and no rugby on BBC Grandstand

:P

Och no, I don't drink during the day except for my birthday and Christmas day - and today is neither!

Rugby? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Athy said:

Och no, I don't drink during the day except for my birthday and Christmas day - and today is neither!

Rugby? 

I can;t see you being a follower of footie, and anyway, its on pay to view these day, AFAIK.

I had to give up alcohol after 5.00 pm, and then since the New Year, I've had to stop altogether, its a bummer, can I say that word?

We were never taught important words like that in the latin class,  I'm thinking of doing a bit of translation [not Homer] this year. its all on line, and the great thing is one can put in emphases wherever and whenever one chooses.

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I can;t see you being a follower of footie, and anyway, its on pay to view these day, AFAIK.

I had to give up alcohol after 5,00 pm, and since the New Year, I've had to stop altogether, its a bummer, can I say that word?

On the contrary, I am about to listen to Brighton v. Liverpool on the radio. Isn't Pay To View only on Sky? We haven't got council house T.V. here.

The soccer season is useful for passing the time in between cricket seasons. A bit of rugby union adds some interest, though I think that if I live to be 170 I'll never fully understand the offside rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

On the contrary, I am about to listen to Brighton v. Liverpool on the radio. Isn't Pay To View only on Sky? We haven't got council house T.V. here.

The soccer season is useful for passing the time in between cricket seasons. A bit of rugby union adds some interest, though I think that if I live to be 170 I'll never fully understand the offside rules.

That is the whole point, no one can be sure if the Ref is right or if he is wrong.

I went to a football match once, we were in the stands, I missed the goal as there were people in front who were adults.

Rugby is much more fun, though they don't seem to wear the skimpy shorts or roll in the mud any more.

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadyG said:

If you bothered to read my posts rather than  trying to pick a fight with me, you would see where I am coming from.

So like every good interrogator you only ask questions to which you know the answer :)

bye

essentially hunt followers are not essential, I am sure there are books where can learn about it, I just  think you don't want to know, Maybe you just want to fight with someone, but not with me, I am running out of patience, enjoy your day.

I trust you are a vegan, and no animals are killed for your eating pleasure, and of course you don't have pets of any shape or form, and all your sports are non combative, and involve only adults as kiddies are so impressionable, no cosmetics tested on animals, no products by Nestle and so on, you don't buy clothes where the ethos is questionable, you can't drive a car because that means you are asset stripping the planet, good luck with minimalism.

why ask for the meaning of a word if it is obvious.

 

I have read your posts, which is why I was questioning you.

I did not ask for a definition of "hunter", you chose to answer my question in that manner. I clarified my intention in the last post.

If you find offence in my pointing out your dishonest behaviour in misquoting/editing from a dictionary, then I suggest you look to yourself, instead of your rather strange outburst above.

 

Edited by eid
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Athy said:

That's quite right. There are quite a few Latin expressions which are often used in English, you know - in fact you could say that there is (or are) a modicum of them. In fact I noticed one being used in a T.V. advert only half an hour ago: de facto. Their use is generally accepted to be correct English.

As i'm sure you are aware, it was not the use of latin but the correct application of it within grammar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BWM said:

As i'm sure you are aware, it was not the use of Latin but the correct application of it within grammar.  

No, I was not aware of that, but thank you. I do try to get it right but it's pleasing to have confirmation.

Edited by Athy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LadyG said:

Snip

 

I trust you are a vegan, and no animals are killed for your eating pleasure, and of course you don't have pets of any shape or form, and all your sports are non combative, and involve only adults as kiddies are so impressionable, no cosmetics tested on animals, no products by Nestle and so on, you don't buy clothes where the ethos is questionable, you can't drive a car because that means you are asset stripping the planet, good luck with minimalism.

 

I would hazard a guess most of us are not trying to enter into a wide philosophical debate in this thread but wanting to get some answer (still lacking)  as to what could possibly defend the practice of setting a pack of dogs on a single closely related animal (vulpis) when the end result is suffering to a dumb creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mark99 said:

 

I would hazard a guess most of us are not trying to enter into a wide philosophical debate in this thread but wanting to get some answer (still lacking)  as to what could possibly defend the practice of setting a pack of dogs on a single closely related animal (vulpis) when the end result is suffering to a dumb creature.

Isn't that why people keep cats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mark99 said:

Go on.

 

I took Sue to mean that (some)  people keep cats to catch mice, which may involve some unpleasantness for the mice.  Personally, I don't get on with cats, and use mousetraps.

 

Edited to say that, with regard to foxes, the phrase  'dumb animal' is inappropriate, if the screaming vixens round here are anything to go by.

Edited by Mac of Cygnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

 

I took Sue to mean that (some)  people keep cats to catch mice, which may involve some unpleasantness for the mice.  Personally, I don't get on with cats, and use mousetraps.

 

Edited to say that, with regard to foxes, the phrase  'dumb animal' is inappropriate, if the screaming vixens round here are anything to go by.

People keep herds of cats and ride  around  in social groups terrorising mice, sticking bloody mouse tails in the faces of the youth?

Edited by mark99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mark99 said:

People keep herds of cats and ride  around  in social groups terrorising mice, sticking bloody mouse tails in the faces of the youth?

 

Well the mice are terrorised, probably, so it must be the keeping of lots of dogs and riding socially that you object to?  I am given to understand that the last item on your list no longer occurs, although I must admit to occasionally surprising Mrs Mac with a dead mouse or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

 

 I must admit to occasionally surprising Mrs Mac with a dead mouse or two.

Good Grief, how very atavistic of you Mr Mac.

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The domestic dog is an ancient descendant of the wolf, rather than the fox, not that it matters too much in this debate. Wolves often hunt in packs, but the fox is a solitary hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mark99 said:

 

I would hazard a guess most of us are not trying to enter into a wide philosophical debate in this thread but wanting to get some answer (still lacking)  as to what could possibly defend the practice of setting a pack of dogs on a single closely related animal (vulpis) when the end result is suffering to a dumb creature.

Sadly, the only return on these vital questions have been whataboutery, deflection, personal attack, crazed gibberish and the inane use of emoji. This is probably an answer in itself when all is said and done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BWM said:

Sadly, the only return on these vital questions have been whataboutery, deflection, personal attack, crazed gibberish and the inane use of emoji. This is probably an answer in itself when all is said and done. 

I have just read most of the thread again, and the tactics which you enumerate have indeed been used, by supporters of both sides of the argument. Fortunately we have had at least a modicum of non-personal attacking, non-gibbering contributions too. The only use of an emoticon which may have been considered inane, as far as I could ascertain, was as part of a joke made by one member.

 

I like your word "whataboutery", which I have not met before. What does it mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Athy said:

 

 

I like your word "whataboutery", which I have not met before. What does it mean?

It is the "two wrongs make a right" argument. 

 

"Chasing an animal to exhaustion then allowing dogs to tear it apart whilst it is still alive is wrong." 

 

"Well what about Halal then?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mark99 said:

 

I would hazard a guess most of us are not trying to enter into a wide philosophical debate in this thread but wanting to get some answer (still lacking)  as to what could possibly defend the practice of setting a pack of dogs on a single closely related animal (vulpis) when the end result is suffering to a dumb creature.

Oscar Wilde might be your ally.............. or not ...............

5 hours ago, LadyG said:

The domestic dog is an ancient descendant of the wolf, rather than the fox, not that it matters too much in this debate. Wolves often hunt in packs, but the fox is a solitary hunter.

repeat after me.......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

I have just read most of the thread again, and the tactics which you enumerate have indeed been used, by supporters of both sides of the argument. Fortunately we have had at least a modicum of non-personal attacking, non-gibbering contributions too. The only use of an emoticon which may have been considered inane, as far as I could ascertain, was as part of a joke made by one member.

 

I like your word "whataboutery", which I have not met before. What does it mean?

Of course there are problems on both sides of this, or any debate, and i have not championed those against hunting as whiter than white. I have just highlighted the very obvious failings of one side of the argument, which have been highlighted throughout by many members. I don't look for your, or anybody else's approval for my opinion on the smug, unnecessary use of strategically placed emoji. Carl has explained the term i used perfectly, a commonly used reference if not one contained in Collins. 

I'm unsure why you are driven to query many of my posts, but assume it is an effort to deflect attention away from a rambling ex mod?

Edited by BWM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BWM said:

Of course there are problems on both sides of this, or any debate, and i have not championed those against hunting as whiter than white. I have just highlighted the very obvious failings of one side of the argument, which have been highlighted throughout by many members. I don't look for your, or anybody else's approval for my opinion on the smug, unnecessary use of strategically placed emoji. Carl has explained the term i used perfectly, a commonly used reference if not one contained in Collins. 

I'm unsure why you are driven to query many of my posts, but assume it is an effort to deflect attention away from a rambling ex mod?

Not "commonly used" in my experience, but I am pleased to have added it to my vocabulary, thank you (and Carl).

I "query" many people's posts. It's a good way of finding out what the mean. Lots of us do it.

I also, as many of us do, express opinions, such as the one on what I still think of as emoticons (when did they become "emojis"?). This is not always done with the purpose of conveying approval or lack thereof.

As for "rambling ex-mod", no, I haven't noticed one of those recently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.