Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.

[argyll]

Two or three great postings there chaps, but I fear any ground we've made is now going to be lost in a tit for tat insult swapping duel. What's the point of that??

 

absolutely none at all and I didnt start it, didnt really respond as harshly as I could.

But I might if I have to

 

Damn! the 'a' should have been a capital A. How did I miss that?

 

[ 25. March 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

 

But its a pointless argument where you've already made up your mind and theres no changing it. I seem to recall from the Tony Martin thread, that both you and Alan were the only ones that thought the BBC were in their right to pay Brendan Fearon £4,500 for the grubby side of his story. Seems you both got that one wrong too      

Gerry, I have only been aware of one campaign that the CA have fought - and they lost that one. That is hardly a ringing endorsement is it? Certainly, it's no better than the organisations you chose to mention.

 

As for the BBC and Brendon Fearon, I thought I made it clear that I felt the scrote didn't deserve to be paid, but made the point that it is common practice in journalism to buy stories, and as an organisation with a news gathering and delivering remit, it was legitimate - even if it did stick in my craw. That doesn't mean I got it wrong. Just that my viewpoint was unpopular with people that hadn't thought it through.

 

I guess it was convenient for you to ignore the thrust of my argument over that.

[argyll]

Broken heart??

 

Close....my dad had a stroke on tuesday.

Bet you wish you'd never said that. Its Ok, its only me you're talking to

Now I really must be off.

 

[ 25. March 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[slodger]

Hey I'm sorry to hear that mate. Me and my big gob!

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

..nad if they did, you'de ignore it. '

 

Quite ignoring your obvious illiteracy, you're totally unqualified to make an assumption like that. You don't know me from Adam - it makes your argument hard to sell to anyone other than a half-wit. Did you buy your own argument?

 

Oh dear, 'obvious illiteracy' That's not much of an argument Alan, be suitably embarrassed for saying it. Surely you can do better than that...or maybe not.

Argyll - I was always taught that a shoddily presented piece of work is judged harshly. In this case I think I judged you fairly.

 

Had you thought the point through, you wouldn't have made the assumption to which I took offence.

One of us should be embarrassed - and it sure as hell isn't me.

[kleinboet]

Sorry - can I just pick up on a point made by Argyll that the CA are unsuitable because of the "obvious lack of accrued benefit to anglers"

 

Can I ask the same about FACT??

[GlennB]

Alan - this ain't a GCSE English exam room, and in any event a couple of typos in a quickly typed post does not constitute "obvious illiteracy". In fact argyll's post was very well written, in my opinion.

 

Better keep a close eye on your spelling and syntax from now on ....

[argyll]

kleinboet... i didnt say it, someone else did.

 

Alan Stubbs.....'I was always taught that a shoddily presented piece of work'

 

A spelling mistake made in a hurry doesnt warrant the 'shoddy piece of work' tag that you imply. A remark such as yours would suggest that only those contributors that match your grasp of the english language qualify for a comment on this forum. In reality it just makes you look like an arrogant twit.

 

 

Chris...no problems.

 

 

This thread is beginning to sound like 'What have the Romans done for us ?'

 

'So what have the CA done'

 

Well they made sure they had a high enough profile that the angling/hunting/shooting fraternity knew who they were and then put out enough information about themselves in the press and on their website to show the public at large who they are and what they stand for.

 

'Yes but what have the CA really done'

 

Well the CA made a fight of it over the foxhunting issue and would seem to be making it clear that they'll fight tooth and nail over anything that they think their membership have a concern about.

 

'Yes but the CA are really only 'using' anglers'

 

Well their leading spokesman Charlie Jardine is known as an angler and angling writer. Not a shooter or a foxhunter. I would also add that he is an astute chap who I think would have realised by now if anglers were merely being 'used' presumable by some higher power than Charlie Jardine.

 

'Yes but what have they really done for angling'

 

Well they have funded and supported fishing initiatives in both England and Scotland some with the late lamented NAA, as other contributors to this thread will testify.

 

 

I've steered clear of 'opinions' and stuck to the facts as they are.

 

 

Now what has FACT done for us

 

....eeerrrrr

 

[ 25. March 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Alan Stubbs]

kleinboet:

Sorry - can I just pick up on a point made by Argyll that the CA are unsuitable because of the "obvious lack of accrued benefit to anglers"

 

Can I ask the same about FACT??

Kleinboet - give them a chance, please. That's a lot more than many seem prepared to do. A good many people on this site seem intent on committing infanticide - why? Schadenfreude? I suspect it is the willing of failure on specific groups and people as a way of settling old scores

 

Your earlier points about the BDAA being overlooked in the scheme of things is very well made, but I genuinely feel that FACT will act for anglers first and foremost. And that is something that other groups with broader agenda have shown a distinct lack of inclination to do.

 

There have been many posts on this thread about what FACT cannot or will not achieve - but none of the proponents of other bodies have said what, specifically they have done or will do in the future, for angling - and until they do, and give unequivocal commitments to angling, I can't bring myself to support them.

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

kleinboet... i didnt say it, someone else did.

 

Alan Stubbs.....'I was always taught that a shoddily presented piece of work'

 

A spelling mistake made in a hurry doesnt warrant the 'shoddy piece of work' tag that you imply. A remark such as yours would suggest that only those contributors that match your grasp of the english language qualify for a comment on this forum. In reality it just makes you look like an arrogant twit.

A spelling mistake made in a hurry? hmmmm.....sounds like a shoddy piece of work to me. It could lead me to believe that your opinion forming processes are similarly hurried and flawed - which was the point I was trying to make - and yet again you either cannot or will not grasp, because it doesn't suit you to do so.

Like your opinion making I assume?

 

As for arrogant twits - read some of your own back postings and look in a mirror. Get my drift?

probably not - it requires a brain, and I suspect yours probably only gets pressurised when you sit down.

 

[ 25. March 2005, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Alan Stubbs ]