DMCA

Slightly off the point but some years ago I had a car to sell. It was due for MOT so I had it done (almost nothing wrong) and advertised it. Some woman came with a couple of other people who examined the car fairly cursorily, had me drive it up the road and back and then she said she would have it. She paid and went off with the car. A week later I get a call to say the car is a deathtrap, she had it looked at by some 'mobile garage' for some unknown reason, who in the process of examining made the engine fall out and told her it was unroadworthy! She wanted her money back. I contacted the guy who did the MOT and the mechanic who actually did the work. Both said the car was/had been fine. In the end the MOT man (years and years in the business) went out to the woman's place to see the car as he couldn't believe he'd missed whatever was wrong with it. Never heard any more about it and never got to the bottom of it! However, she was a woman and they were a 'mobile garage'...

Shakespeare would have been proud...

Smaller than you might think.... http://anglersnet.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=6;t=004067

quote: Er - DMCA, don't know if you noticed but you are equating people with foxes and other wild animals. Sort of a non-sequitur isn't it? Goes way beyond "extending an attitude" anyway.[/QB]Longwinded reply time: No equation between people and animals intended nor (it seems to me) implied. The point was to show the extrapolation in extreme form of a particular attitude. The attitude is the same whether it relates to people or animals. I see know reason to defend someone's right to carry out acts of unacceptable cruelty to human OR animal. In this case the question then is whether you think hunting is unacceptably cruel: if you think that cruelty is always unacceptable and you consider hunting cruel then the implication is clear; if you think hunting is cruel and cruel in an unjustifiable way, then don't sit on the fence about it (this is the crux of the matter); if you think hunting is cruel but in some way acceptably so (because we are only dealing with animals after all, perhaps) then defend the rights of hunters. If you don't consider it is cruel at all then defend the rights of hunters too of course. To make the point clearer with regard to animals alone, I personally don't wish to defend someone's right, say, to kick, starve, cook or otherwise torture a dog to death. That goes beyond the pale, I think. Likewise, for some people, including, it would appear, some people posting on here, hunting is beyond the pale. If you do feel that way then defending someone's right to do it seems inconsistent. There's a world of difference between defending someone's right, for example, to free speech and defending their right to act in any way they choose. Hope that's a bit clearer at least.. btw Chesters...are you implying that there should be no laws since people will do 'unlawful' things anyway? Couldn't quite follow what you meant. Could be worth a go though cos there are a few people I wouldn't mind bumping off with impunity.

Is there something wrong with your plumbing then?

I don't understand this attitude. It's possible to extend it until you legitimise anything: stoning for adultery (Iran, parts of Nigeria), female circumcision (various), torture generally. 'Well, I think it's evil but people should be allowed to do it if they like'. If you think hunting's cruel AND you find its particular type of cruelty unacceptable then take a stand: don't defend someone's right to do it. It's not really about opinion in that case: it's about what you think is right and wrong. I'm not suggesting you stamp on someone's rights just because you don't like something, but there are times when it goes beyond likes and dislikes (if not for you, then at least clearly for some others on the site).

Not only that. I'm drinking Danish beer at the same time. No flys on me when in comes to the information super highway!

It would be worth going here just to read the notices...kids especially welcome it seems. http://www.tourismus-tirol.com/scharnitz/r...hof/indexe.html

I don't think we would have had much of the force left over here in Cambridge but I was definitely very puzzled by a cupboard that rattled quite noisily and inexplicably (it seemed) for several seconds sometime between 12 and 1 (roughly). I guess that explains it then...it was certainly rather weird at the time... Last time I can remember one in this country I was in a an office seated round a large table and everyone sat at the table looked at each other with the same thing clearly going through their head: 'Hey...I wonder who's shaking the table..let's see who looks guilty...hmmm everyone's pretending to be surprised...must be one of them...hang on, maybe they thinks it's me...well, it's not me mate so look at someone else...' etc

Can we be sure that this is Christmas 2002 that Sainsbury's is celebrating?

Someone has to bring a bill to ban premature yuletide. Now there's something worth marching for! I'm surprised the Church doesn't make more fuss about this..

...a penetration tester... Hey, I like the sound of that. experience is all in that game, expecially in the contract market I bet it is! you'd be in at the bottom. Uhoh...on second thoughts...

Blimey! It's by Jeanette Winterson! Wasn't expecting that.

quote: Originally posted by StuMac: [QB]However, local matchmen don't like the pike that are appearing in numbers so are organising pike culling events. At the last one a fish of 25 and 28 lb were killed. [QB] That's an absolute disgrace, indicative of selfishness both with regard to other anglers and to the environment/river in general, and probably also of plain ignorance (when it comes to predator/prey balance). :mad:

Spasor...er..is there something funny about your keyboard that makes the exclamation marks come out as question marks? Spent time in Australia, perhaps? No offence now...asking this doesn't mean I want to see babies on pitchforks!