The Scum Have Surfaced

[awaaar]

quote:

---

Come on Rich, you're only jealous 'cos I didn't save you a peg!!! By the way - koi carp, even of about 6 inches long can go like steam trains!!

---

LOL What lb breaking strain was the Line Steve?...my old Mums got a monster in her pond, wonder what she'd say if I turned up with a stool and my rod :confused: ;)hmmm I could imagine her saying :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: OFF!

[rich]

quote:

---

Come on Rich, you're only jealous 'cos I didn't save you a peg!!! By the way - koi carp, even of about 6 inches long can go like steam trains!!

---

are you opening a syndicate?

 

rich

[Beebs]

I was using 1.7lb Ultima hook length!! Gotta give them at least a fighting chance haven't you.

 

As for turning up with a stool, I'd tell you to flush it away and not to be so disgusting.

 

Bill - I found it. Eventually. I take it that these Chris and Toad characters are the only 2 that turned up after their nationwide appeal.

Suckers. Their website has never had so many hits as in the last week, but it shows how ignorant and pig-headed they are so as not to admit that maybe their approach was inappropriate.

 

I can imagine these 2 friendless stoners sitting around sharing a joint, plotting world domination and the downfall of all meat-eaters in their student digs that mummy and daddy pay for, before finishing Uni with a 3rd and disappearing up the anus of anonymity, achieving nothing but being a pair of useless, irritating tossers.

 

That's just my opinion of course and not representative of the owners of this site.

 

PS, this is still Steve Sullivan, I've just changed my username.

 

[ 14. August 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

[rich]

quote:

---

I can imagine these 2 friendless stoners sitting around sharing a joint, plotting world domination and the downfall of all meat-eaters in their student digs that mummy and daddy pay for, before finishing Uni with a 3rd and disappearing up the anus of anonymity, achieving nothing but being a pair of useless, irritating tossers.

---

couldnt have put it better myself.

 

cheers,

 

rich

[Beebs]

rich:

are you opening a syndicate?

No plans as yet, but if someone offers me £5000 a season to fish my big pond, they're more than welcome!!! Numbers will be limited to 20. Please don't all turn up on the same day though.

 

I gave my missus a go at catching some of them and she was well chuffed, she now wants to take up fishing so that's another one introduced to angling. !!! Excellent. I'll take her during National Fishing Week.

 

I thought about asking Chris and Toad to come along and use their throwing skills to lob some groundbait in for me. I'm sure their right arms should have adequate muscle power after years of being smelly and single. :cool:

[awaaar]

I think this would go down well on Keep on fighting.

 

 

pity a can't be arsed giving they're website a hit

[rich]

NICE ONE

 

RICH

[Bill Eborn]

They are getting angry and ranting now!

 

Why are you shooting in the wrong direction?

Authored by: Chris on Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 01:42 PM BST

I can imagine how frustrating it must be for you that so many informed bodies support angling, but maybe thats the problem with 'shooting in the wrong direction' or to put it another way - applying a doctrinal and rather formulaic mode of thinking to a complex issue. Move beyond sensationalist rhetoric and the animal rights case against angling falls away very quickly.

 

"Sensationalist rhetoric"??? Fish feel pain. Angling causes them pain. You throw the fish back in the water afterwards? Whoopee. The damage is already done.

 

Mine and most responsible thinking anglers case as I said in an earlier post, is that responsible angling benefits fish, the environments they live in and the other creatures which share that environment with them.

 

And irresponsible angling benefits the environment how? The truth is, if you are an angler, you are hurting fish, and there cannot be a case for that, but there is a big case against it.

 

Angling clubs and other organisations play a central role in managing those environments. The Environment Agency call us there 'eyes and ears at the waterside', perhaps that is one of the reasons the government support us - where in a world of competing resource priorities would they find the £X billion they would need to replace the combination of three to four million sets of informed eyes and ears.

 

And if the government actually used the taxpayers' money to correctly look after the wildlife and aquatic areas, then there wouldn't be chemical spills etc. And, you don't have to be an angler to notice that an area is being affected by a chemical spill. If these children were taught how to respect the countryside, go walking, exploring the countryside, then they could also be taught how to recognise such things happening and do something about it. Having a look while you are walking by the pond is just as useful as you sitting by it all day. When you notice that an area on the other side of the pond is damaged, do you do something about it straight away, and put off your day's angling, or do you sit therem fish, then do something about it?

 

No doubt if you were successful in your objective of educating children against angling you might find sme cause for celebration, but what sort of pyrrhic victory would it be if on your return you looked down from a bridge and saw some water that was neglected, abstracted, abused, overgrown and littered with dead and dying fish?

 

See above. Anyone can notice the state of an aquatic area, if they are taught how to. Were you given training to notcie such things? If not, then what makes you qualified to report damage? Surely anyone could do it???

 

There are some excellent examples of where angling and environmental groups have joined forces to improve aquatic environments. This is generally very unglamorous and hard work. It is doing things like raising money, going on working parties and getting into the water and re-building spawning beds or providing refugees to promote fry retention during our all too frequent floods, researching and providing evidence to planning committees and so on. If you REALLY cared about fish you would be encouraging this and joining in.

 

We encourage ANYTHING that helps the environment AND cares for the wildlife in the countryside. Angling does not. Reporting the occasional damae to a lake cannot make up for the thousands/millions of fish killed each year by anglers.

 

With regard to the terrorism issue, all that person did was to provide a definition of terrorism and point out how your actions fitted it. I fail to see how you can quibble about that.

 

We are NOT terrorists! We did not use fear or intimidation to get the children to stop fishing. We threw stones in teh water to get the fish away from the baited hooks. If anything, we scared the fish more than the children, as evidenced by the story ont eh CA website that stated everyone went on to have a great day...

 

Should we call all anglers murderers then, since you seem to fit that definition???

 

If you do something that a parent might perceive as being threatening to their child - like throwing stones at them for example - they are going to react and they may even do it violently, it is very understandable. To represent that as threatening behaviour and an example of angler's violent natures is - in a word - cheap.

 

Once again, WE DID NOT THROW STONES AT THE CHILDREN!!! We have it all on videotape!!!

 

Also, calling us terrorists is cheap. The Environment Agency and Adur Council saying we threatened them was cheap - they have since retracted that statement as it was unfounded and completely false.

 

I do not believe that the gentleman who threatened us was a parent of the children, so his reason for threatening us is again, unfounded.

[Beebs]

[ 15. August 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

[Beebs]

Bill, with every further reply they come out with, they look like bigger and bigger assholes.

 

To sum up where their priorities lie, here's a Copy & Paste from their front page>

" Story from London Metro

 

SEVEN workers drowned in a pool of blood at a slaughterhouse, it emerged yesterday. Six of the men dived into a vat of livestock blood one after the other to save a colleague who fell in on Tuesday.

 

A manager at the business in the Egyptian city of Jordan said: "The blood was thick and filled with clots, making it difficult to swim. That is why all of them drowned."

 

An investigation has been launched.

 

Keep On Fighting believes that there might be some justice in the world after all!"

 

The last sentence sums up what these scum really are. Animals are worth saving, but human life is nothing.

 

[ 15. August 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Beebs ]