louisiana

The people who run Butterfly Nannies are beginning to strike me as individuals with pretty poor judgement.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not as much as I do after reading that blog. > Sheesh. Poor child. Imagine finding loads of pictures of yourself as a baby splattered on the internet for public consumption. Surely the child deserves some privacy?

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana, here's my OP on this thread: > > A quick look at Viva's website shows that they are > against eating meat (including fish) and dairy > products since their production causes > environmental destruction, damages human health > and contributes to global hunger, as well as > inflicting immense suffering on billions of > animals across the world. Since when has shooting and eating squirrels (see thread title and OP's original post) contributed to any of these things? In what way does eating squirrel "damage human health"? How does it "contribute to global hunger"? And on "environmental destruction", are you aware of the volume of damage caused to the trees (including killing quite a few of them) in that self-same environment by the millions of squirrels in this country? Are you aware of the relationship between squirrel densities and habitat damage? She's not coming from a > vegan/vegetarian point of view but Felicity > Lawrence's investigations into the global nature > of industrialised food production - Not on the > Label and Eat Your Heart Out - are quite salutary > when it comes to thinking about what we eat. I've read Lawrence for years, both in the press and her books. I don't see how "the global nature of industrialised food production" (aka the agri-industrial complex) has any connection with shooting and eating squirrels. Squirrels are not part of that chain. And the original post does not mention any aspect of industrialised food production. I would argue that the small-scale and local hunting of squirrels for local consumption potentially provides some benefits, including providing some income (without a middle-man) to marginally-employed people in poorer rural areas, such as Cornwall, and assisting in the survival of small rural shops (a majorly endangered part of the economy) What > I find most interesting about this thread is what > I think of as the tyranny of the meat eater. Tyranny, sharks, massacre... It's easy to bandy emotionally loaded words and sweeping statements. I would probably defend the right of low-income rural people to shoot squirrel (*not* in any way endangered) for their own consumption, or for sale to local shops and restaurants, which is what the title of this thread is all about. So in your books I'm party of the "tyranny of the meat eater". Yet you know nothing about my eating habits. Interesting. I'm > sure it's quite a common social phenomenon that > when an alternative view is expressed then the > majority demonstrate their intolerance of it, > quickly dismiss the point of view and begin to > turn the thread into their own self referential > banter. The majority are not demonstrating any intolerance of anything. A variety of people poked fun at a jumble of unconnected and emotionally manipulative sentences filched from another website. That is all. I can assure you there are vegetarians who also dismiss claptrap.

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM, I doubt it is possible to shift opinion in any > significant way on a forum such as this. The > ability for posters to engage isn't helped by the > pompous attitude towards the OP and the issues > that s/he is trying displayed by some and the > puerile and insensitive postings by others. This > is what I mean by the tyranny of the meat eaters. > Why should you and most of the others posting on > this thread attempt to engage with the issues is > fair handed way when you display such disdain for > the subject and the attempts to raise it as an > issue? Disdain for the subject? Hardly. I've love either you or the OP to make a case. Any case. What is your issue? Squirrels? That's in the subject line [instructing people what to do] but you've barely mentioned them. There's a constant meandering from subject to subject, with no evidence presented, no structured argument, but plenty of accusations and loaded language (starting with the OP and his/her "massacres"). Why not make your case instead of constantly going on about how you can't, how there's no point? Why not just do it?

Indeed blackmamba. I'd say this outfit are in the middle of what is politely referred to as a 'PR disaster'. Max Clifford to the rescue? :-S

And pigeon, gwod. Don't forget woodpigeon.

A graffiti-covered shark? :-S

I can't get over the whole 'chocolate' thing (see the NOTW story). Actually, it's not even choc: it's sweet stuff. Since when was a Bounty 'chocolate'?

Indeed. But: "I HAVE ALSO CONTACTED THE DIRECTOR OF BUTTERFLY NANNIES RE YOUR DISGUSTING MESSAGE ABOUT THEM. I SIMPLY RECOMMENDED THEM YESTERDAY AND NOW MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN BLOCKED! WHY IS THIS?" HANNAH BLADES"

And 'Hannah Blades' in a similar style too? Who claims to not be part of the agency.

And Eva and Nyron are engaged http://www.cash4yourstory.co.uk/my-chocolate-story-news-of-the-world-newspaper-exclusive-february-2009-story914.html

Looks like Eva Verissimo likes using CAPS too ::o http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=15778823583

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Resource. Do you mean person?" > > Resource can be people, cash/funding, space > (factory space, desk space), raw materials, skills > (again, implying people), time, knowledge - any > input to an activity which can be consumed and > therefore needs to be obtained and lined-up. So > in the wider sense when running (say) projects or > planning, a 'person' is one kind of resource and > during conversation about that kind of 'resource' > the term will be used interchangeably with the > normal descriptive word. admittedly, often by > folks half way through their part-time MBA. > I think 'resource' has gone out of style. People are now using 'asset'. So they talk about the assets they are going to deploy in any given project. I think we can blame the military.

Indeed DJKQ. But those with better skills have maybe developed those skills by engaging in debates with those better equipped. It's a skill that is learned. I have to say, my criteria would be modified if I knew the person at the other end were 8 or 10: it's great when kids step into the adult world and get a letter into the newspaper, for example. But these days practically all adults have equal opportunities to develop their thinking skills, and many more go to university (for what that's worth), so I'm afraid I'm less forgiving of woolly or lazy thinking among adults.

Ah, that's a shame. Next time get off at Sydenham and catch the 176 there

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps a kinder approach would be to direct > posters with fewer debating skills to another > section of the forum. Or, perhaps they are > necessary to stimulate a bit of banter. Or, if individuals would like to develop solid arguments that will convince others, perhaps they should learn a little more about the things they wish to discuss, they should assess the evidence and contrasting views etc. You will never swim the Channel if you never leave the paddling pool.

+1 Sean, Marmora Man etc etc. The OP failed to string a reasoned argument together, but jumbled up a bunch of sentences which attempted to push emotional buttons rather than demonstrate facts. The OP then followed up with random unrelated statements (for example on fois gras), rather than addressing any issues raised. If a poster cannot marshal facts for an argument, but merely aims to manipulate, he/she cannot expect any consequent 'argument' to be taken seriously.

Spot on w**f. But I suspect the OP's sentences are completely unconnected to one other. It is less a logical argument, more a series of sentences filched from press releases.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I noticed a recent thread regarding squirrel meat > being sold in ED. > For more info, visit www.viva.org.uk Well I guess a website promoting veganism would be against eating squirrel. Will you also be mounting a spirited defence of the yewman rights of the 'umble cockroach? B)

The week after will be Hatten Ar Din, which hit the interweb back in 2000, a whole ten years ago. (Turkish song, Swedish lyrics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT9ZNJ2YS64

Of course. It needs a suitable multicultural theme tune. Perhaps 'Lane moje'?

Hole in one, BJL. I like your style. :)-D

We need some inane competitions.

Hi James Re the proposed library site next to the station: My query below 17th August (you were going to call the developer that day), a reminder from me on 23rd (see above). Any chance of a response on this one? You did a big sales job on it at the time, but as I mentioned previously St Aidan's Group (now Jersey - they liquidated all their UK companies a while ago) and Ivan Bateman don't seem so good on delivering actual projects of any benefit.... But they are very good at using nice-to-haves (that library, markets, a cinema etc etc) to get planning permission before 'flipping' the property ------ Posted by: James Barber August 17, 10:42AM Hi louisiana, The recession has not been good for that scheme. I'm due to call the developers and will do so today. -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07903 964130 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Chairperson of Dulwich Community Council, Lib Dem Environment & Transport spoksperson [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]