Thread Locked

[Louisa]

I'm confused where exactly does foxy say no debate?

I think some of you are imagining it.

Louisa.

[red devil]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any

> > debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox

> > hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> Again *Bob* you are wrong . WRONG.

>

> I did not say I only wanted supporting views.. I

> wasn't looking for ANY views. I said no debate.

>

> Again.. It was just a link to a petition for

> people who wanted to sign it.

>

> I could not of made it easier to understand.

>

> The thread was in the LOUNGE. Where all the 'Bad'

> guys are sent. It should not of been closed.

>

> It was closed because of some ones personal

> political view.

>

> Like anyone who respects and supports Animal

> Liberty /rights has to be some kind of Radical

> 'Lefty' Anarchist.

>

> DulwichFox

Here you go Lou...

[keekybreeks]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a wonderful irony.. Two people bemoaning the

> strangulation of debate and free speech - stemming

> from a thread where the OP dictated the terms of

> what was and wasn't allowed.

Im bemoaning nothing, I take my gitmo lounge jumpsuit deportation on the chin and handle it like a man*

* i.e. reregistering under another name

[keekybreeks]

oh hang on, Im not one of the pair being cast as bemoaners here am i ?

[maxxi]

I understand the reason but think the locking action was wrong.

Nobody who starts a thread has the right to dictate the terms of others posting on it so I had assumed anyone who had an opinion would ignore DF's bleating about "no debate" and go ahead and debate it anyway. Isn't that what usually happens?

In any case problem is easily solved by DF, or anyone else who wants it, starting a thread debating the whole tedious business (I say tedious because much as I suspect I should care I really don't).

Or we could start an EDF martyrs thread as there seems to be a growing band...

[*Bob*]

keekybreeks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> oh hang on, Im not one of the pair being cast as

> bemoaners here am i ?

Lord no, you are one of the last remaining true rays of sunlight.

[*Bob*]

Anyway, let's see if it's possible to discuss the potential lifting of the foxhunting ban 'without discussing foxhunting', just for the hell of it.

I was always under the impression that there was a sort of unwritten parliamentary rule that successive opposing governments wouldn't act regressively (with regards to legislation introduced by the previous government) - on the grounds that if they did, it would start to resemble a feuding couple the morning after a flaming row - with one wanting the radio on in the morning and the other not. More so than usual, I mean.

The fact that this is even being considered only underlines what it's all really about: one in the eye for the townies to avenge one in the eye for the toffs, like a victorious football team waving their silly oversized cup around to moos of delight from crowds of cock-a-hoop morons.

[Jeremy]

Was also wondering a similar thing bob... governments just spending time and money undoing things the previous government acheived. Seems wasteful, pointless, and petty. Just accept that society has moved on.

[DulwichFox]

What I actually said in the original post...

This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting but a chance to express any apposing views and sign the petition.

That is very different from what some people are saying.

The subject has been discussed at length before (like Pizza) and we do not NEED another debate.

It was a Public Information thread pointing to a petition in view of the new government's intention

to repeal the Fox Hunting Ban.

DulwichFox

[*Bob*]

This is not a thread to discuss fox hunting but a chance to express an opposing view *by* signing the petition.

There - that's better. One small word can make such a difference.

[DulwichFox]

*Pedant*

[Otta]

I have heard it suggested that the whole fox hunting thing is a bit of a ruse to distract people from all the other stuff the government are up to.

And judging by social media it's working today extent.

[DulwichFox]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have heard it suggested that the whole fox

> hunting thing is a bit of a ruse to distract

> people from all the other stuff the government are

> up to.

>

> And judging by social media it's working today

> extent.

We have just suffered 5 years of Cameron and know where his priorities lay.

The Fox Hunting thing is a little bonus for his mates in the House of Lords..

.. and the Country Alliance..

Whoops.. You tricked me there.. almost got me debating the issue..

Foxy

[*Bob*]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Pedant*

Well you did say "I could not of made it easier to understand".

Whereas in fact - by simultaneously declaring it "not a thread to discuss fox hunting" but also with "a chance to express apposing views" - you actually made it completely impossible to understand.

On the pedant front, you'll note I haven't picked up on spelling and grammar - but when the overall meaning lost through poor wording, I think it's a fair cop. Even your clique were confused.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> This

In that case, I take it back then Foxy. It seems you *do* make the rules around here.

Poor judgement, DC. Really poor.

[Jah Lush]

DF wrote - "This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting but a chance to express any apposing views and sign the petition."

I've yet to see a more bizarre contradiction in terms. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[red devil]

Agree Jah, how about...

"This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting per se, but a chance to express any apposing views to the lifting of the ban by signing the petition."

[DulwichFox]

Goodness sake..

R.D. Lush. Loz.

How dull your lives must be if all you have to talk about is Foxy's spelling grammar thread wording.

I will be going on holiday soon and I won't be coming on here.

Will you all still be talking about it when I get back in 8 weeks time.?

It's laughable.

Get out and about. Go for a beer. Chill. Go on holiday.

I my self spend far to much time here. but I do get out walking most days and I'm out and about every night.

Foxy.

[Louisa]

I got the impression the thread was for anyone who agreed that fox hunting was bad and could talk about it being bad and sign the petition if you wanted.

Louisa.

[steveo]

I got up a bit late this morning, what's this all about?

[DulwichFox]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I got the impression the thread was for anyone who

> agreed that fox hunting was bad and could talk

> about it being bad and sign the petition if you

> wanted.

>

> Louisa.

Yes Lou. That's about it. I just did not want to discuss it again.

Was expecting people so say 'Thanks for the link - Signed :) '

Strange thing was that no one came back in support of hunting.

Their concern was more of a technical error in the wording, grammar and spelling of my thread.

Quite often people go on about negativity without making any positive comments of there own.

Just lose the will to live sometimes :)

Foxy

[edcam]

Is this about the new Waitrose?

[DulwichFox]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this about the new Waitrose?

Yes..

[Otta]

Wait a minute, you're going on holiday for 8 weeks?!?!

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Turkey is nice this time of year I hear..

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wait a minute, you're going on holiday for 8

> weeks?!?!