What's more important?

[IC1967]

It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.

Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?

Not for the first time you've completely lost me. There are a lot more than 7 threads on the forum. There are a lot more than 3 contributors. You need to try again but this time try and make your post more coherent.

[IC1967]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?

[BobG]

Lol! Look!! Our Resident Idiot just can't help himself can he?? He's made two replies already. It's just not normal. You'll end up upsetting Orlando Wilts! Mick must be in reight frenzy thrapping himself off to all that   Lol. Keep it up Mick. It's probably best you waste your spunk in as many places as possible. Helps ensure there'll be less progeny carrying on a line that natural selection is inevitably going to weed out.

BobG

[IC1967]

Lol! Look!! Our Resident Idiot just can't help himself can he?? He's made two replies already. It's just not normal. You'll end up upsetting Orlando Wilts! Mick must be in reight frenzy thrapping himself off to all that   Lol. Keep it up Mick. It's probably best you waste your spunk in as many places as possible. Helps ensure there'll be less progeny carrying on a line that natural selection is inevitably going to weed out.

BobG

Hahahha! You're hilarious. What's normal is answering  a question. Wilts asks a question. It gets an answer. I even answer the occasional silly ones like the ones being pedantic over your statement that the TTIP is being introduced by the evil Tories. Total b*llocks.

You'd do better answering the questions I've put to Wilts. It's partly your fault that he's been made to look so foolish. Once again you attack the man instead of answering the questions. I've been through the forum and can advise you that your current response rate to questions is running at around 6.453%. Pathetic. Mine is still 100%.

No wonder you are now known as daft Bob. Hahahahahaha!

IC1967

[wilts rover]

It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.

Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?

Not for the first time you've completely lost me. There are a lot more than 7 threads on the forum. There are a lot more than 3 contributors. You need to try again but this time try and make your post more coherent.

Do you not bother to read wot u ave ritten or are you just not capable of checking facts?

In post No 70 on this thread you wrote:

Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back.

In the seven responses between that and the quote at the top of this post - which ones are laughing at me?

[wilts rover]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?

No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?

[BobG]

It's ok Wilts. It's obvious. Our Resident Idiot can't read. It's the only solution. even if he could, he clearly (!) cannot comprehend what is vbeing said to him. The bloke's an utter w**ker.

Who's good on computers? I'd like to know his IP address.

BobG

[IC1967]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?

No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?

You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?

Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.

Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.

Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.

[wilts rover]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?

No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?

You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?

Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.

Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.

Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.

You have not answered my question. You can write about TTIP as much as you wish, all you are doing is avoiding my question - where in Bob's statement are those words?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Our own version of Godwin's Law.

As the length of a thread increases, the probability of it descending into a morass of Mick's egotistical neediness tends towards 1.

[IC1967]

Our own version of Godwin's Law.

As the length of a thread increases, the probability of it descending into a morass of Mick's egotistical neediness tends towards 1.

You're just annoyed that as the main champion of this hard left forum I have managed to convince so many people of the paucity of your thinking. May I refer you to the Voting Intention thread where the right wing view is more than holding its own with the left wing view.

This wouldn't have happened if I hadn't totally demolished you and all your leftie mates in every debate I've ever had with them.

The voice of reason is cutting through. Get over it.

[IC1967]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?

No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?

You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?

Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.

Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.

Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.

You have not answered my question. You can write about TTIP as much as you wish, all you are doing is avoiding my question - where in Bob's statement are those words?

Ffs! Why won't you let it lie? Why are you so determined to make yourself look foolish all the time? Why are you such a pedant? I interpreted what he said and proved categorically that what he said was untrue. You, being the pedant you are can't see the wood for the trees. Try looking at the big picture for a change instead of arguing the toss over 'been' or being.

Like I said I've answered this question comprehensively before. You haven't answered any of my questions. I've answered all of yours. What do you think that says about you? Right just to prove it here's what I actually said when you first asked the question on the Green Party thread.

Haha! You lefties do make me laugh. Talk about clutching at straws. Pedantry is being taken to a new level. BobG said it is being introduced by the Tories. 'Is' is the present tense. Now to any right minded person that means it's introduction has already started. He didn't say it will be introduced in the future. 'Will' is the future tense. He said it is being introduced. If he meant to say the introduction would be in the future he would have said will be introduced not is being introduced. Got it? Get it? Good.

Now I don't want to sink to your level of pedantry so I'm even prepared to let the word being be substituted for been. Let's be generous and let's say that BobG meant to say the Tories will introduce the TTIP in the future. How does he know this? He doesn't. The TTIP hasn't yet been agreed. There isn't yet a TTIP to introduce. There may never be a TTIP to introduce.

So whichever way you look at it he has made a fatuous, seriously misleading statement. Anyone that took him at his word would think that the Tories were the only ones pushing the TTIP and it is being introduced. The Tories may well not even be in power when the TTIP is agreed if it ever is. So how the hell does he know they will be introducing it?

As the voice of reason, I felt it was my duty to point out this serious slander on the Tories.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto for a change. I don't know how many more times I have to expose leftie drivel before you start apologising.

I've even highlighted a bit in bold that shows I totally dealt with your question even though you were asking me a stupid question in the first place. I've never said he said has been introduced. He said is being introduced. He never said 'is being introduced in the future'. He said 'is being introduced'. Any right minded person would take that to mean that it is currently happening.

Even if he had said 'is being introduced in the future' he would have been talking complete b*llocks. For one last time please answer the question. How can it be that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't been and may never be agreed?

Answer the question for a change and you may re-establish some of your trashed reputation. Get on with it man.

[BobG]

Ha ha ha!!! You done it AGAIN Mick!!

You just can't resist it can you? Wasn't one climax enough for you? Again?

BobG

[IC1967]

Ha ha ha!!! You done it AGAIN Mick!!

You just can't resist it can you? Wasn't one climax enough for you? Again?

BobG

Hahahahaha! What's that. Oh, I know. Answered a question yet again. 100% record intact (unlike you whose response rate is pitiful).

Come on daft Bob. Help your mate out. he needs all the help he can get.

IC1967

[wilts rover]

Once again you refuse to answer my question and instead answer an entirely different one. Just to give you a clue, the question has nothing to do with TTIP - nor is it pedantic. It is in fact related to your truth, accuracy and honesty.

You wonder why I keep asking. I will tell you. I want to show you up for what you are. What your 'answers' prove is that you are unable to give an honest answer to a direct question. You pretend to be one thing but faced with real facts are obfuscating, deceptive and dishonest. All of these characteristics you have more than proven in your answers.

Go on, have another go, there is only one answer, tell the truth, give an honest answer, it will make you feel better (but it will mean you will need to apologise to Bob):

Where in Bob G's statement does he say TTIP has been introduced?

By the way it is 'being introduced'. It is being discussed at a high government level, and it wouldn't be if the government were not thinking of introducing it. It may never actually be introduced, but that is a separate discussion entirely.

You have not answered my question from post 96. Funny that.

[IC1967]

Once again you refuse to answer my question and instead answer an entirely different one. Just to give you a clue, the question has nothing to do with TTIP - nor is it pedantic. It is in fact related to your truth, accuracy and honesty.

You wonder why I keep asking. I will tell you. I want to show you up for what you are. What your 'answers' prove is that you are unable to give an honest answer to a direct question. You pretend to be one thing but faced with real facts are obfuscating, deceptive and dishonest. All of these characteristics you have more than proven in your answers.

Go on, have another go, there is only one answer, tell the truth, give an honest answer, it will make you feel better (but it will mean you will need to apologise to Bob):

Where in Bob G's statement does he say TTIP has been introduced?

By the way it is 'being introduced'. It is being discussed at a high government level, and it wouldn't be if the government were not thinking of introducing it. It may never actually be introduced, but that is a separate discussion entirely.

You have not answered my question from post 96. Funny that.

I give up. You are unbelievable. The rest of the forum can make their minds up about the wrongs and rights of the issue.

Now, where are the answers to my questions? Get on with it man.

[wilts rover]

You are refusing to answer both my questions then Mick?

[IC1967]

You are refusing to answer both my questions then Mick?

 

[BobG]

QED m'lud

You're screwed Mick.

BobG

[IC1967]

QED m'lud

You're screwed Mick.

BobG

Just when I thought you'd stopped with homo erotic nonsense.

Just answer the questions.   

IC1967

[wilts rover]

QED m'lud

You're screwed Mick.

BobG

Just answer the questions.   

IC1967

Why, you wont answer mine?

[Orlandokarla]

I won't quote the post I'm responding to; this post is quite long enough. Refer to your last response to me if needed.

No contradiction whatsoever. With over 2700 posts, that's a lot to go through.

The hunted animal enjoys it not one little bit, I'd imagine. That said, I'm SURE they hate getting eaten alive by other predators, starving to death, or dying slowly of disease FAR more.

For the fifth(?) and final time, I don't follow any recognised or organised religion, not that it's even remotely relevant, nor have I ever claimed that any deity has given man permission to do as he wishes. Having made myself abundantly clear on the subject so many times that even somebody with remedial comprehension skills would understand, I will be ignoring any and all further irrelevant comments regarding religious beliefs.
To clarify for the benefit of the educationally challenged, non predatory animals are prey due to evolution, not the will of a deity. I won't be repeating that 5 more times so it sinks in, so pay attention.

Mick, there IS no explanation to your contradictory stance on PETA, beyond "Yes it's contradictory, and on this subject, I'm a hypocrite."
Not only did you state and AGREE with each of those principles, YOU QUOTED THEM TO ME! You only backtracked on those stated principles and tried to quantify them, when I just pointed out that those principles are incompatible and contradictory with your love of the races. It's simple and blatant hypocrisy, that is clear to everybody but you.

If riding a horse during its rehabilitation, and occasionally for fun is wrong (YOUR STATED BELIEF, backed up with links to PETA), then what is the exploitation of horses in the racing industry? Acceptable, as per your recently stated opinion. A text book example of contradiction/hypocrisy.
I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." This is as clear an example as that one. Hypocrite - a vegan professing that the use of animals for work or entertainment is wrong, who actively participates and makes a living from the horse racing industry.

If you simply didn't agree with everything PETA say, fine no problem. I mean, how could you; you'd have to have a few screws loose. However, you agreed with them on these two main points specifically, until I applied them to you.

You previously claimed that keeping pets was wrong, but because they are already here, domesticated, and need homes, taking one in and keeping them is a good thing, as backed up by PETA. My horses are no different. Almost every horse that I have ever rescued would have ended up as dog food, or would have starved to death or died from disease, had I not intervened. I don't buy, breed, or sell them. In fact, I have never received a penny for a single one of them when people have adopted them, and I often even end up giving them food and tack.

So individuals who rescue and/or adopt horses at their own expense are animal abusers, but PETA, an international corporation that collects millions of pounds every year in donations, who rescue animals for adoption and DESTROY them if they don't manage to get them adopted in a timely fashion, are morally superior? Give me a break! PETA fanatics have no issue with having pets, and most of them don't pass them on so they can rescue more, once fluffy has become a part of the family. I've adopted injured or old horses that I knew nobody would ever adopt, and they've died happy, well fed, and with dignity. You can shove your moral high ground up your a***.

Again, to be clear, we are not disagreeing whether or not you agree 100% with everything PETA believes, we are arguing over 2 of their main philosophies that you wholeheartedly supported (and vehemently defended), right up until I pointed out how incompatible they are with your hobby/livelihood.

So, keeping pets is wrong, which usually involves an animal becoming an adopted member of the family, receiving love, attention, food, and any necessary medical treatment, but the horse racing industry, which uses horses purely as a tool for entertainment, work, etc is fine? The same industry where all but the very best (and luckiest) end up in meat auctions after a few years? But hey, they receive good nutrition and medical care for a few years, (whilst being exploited, tortured, and abused - your words), so it's fine what happens to them? They had a good run while it lasted? Are you aware that horses can live into their 30's? For what proportion of their lives are racehorses "treated better than humans"? You say they're treated better than humans, but since when were children bred to be Olympic athletes, treated as slaves, forced to run against their wills, and all but the best of them sent for slaughter when they either don't make the grade, or age or injuries render them incapable of competing at the highest level anymore?

You're a zealot, whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Admit it, get over it. A lot of vegetarians eat bacon from time to time. It doesn't make you a bad person, but when you set yourself up as a paragon of morality and virtue, and challenge people to prove you contradictory, it does make you look like a prat... Especially when you won't admit what is obvious to everyone.

You still haven't answered the question I asked regarding your other usernames. We all know you are IC1967, but we all know you have (or have had) other usernames in the past. What are those other usernames? As we both know, you can't/won't answer that truthfully, so your mythical 100% record, were it still intact, has gone.

Another - How can rescuing a horse and riding it to train it for adoption, be bad, but the horse racing industry that breeds animals, trains and exploits them for monetary gain, pumps them full of drugs, and ultimately discards them, usually condemning them to death, be morally superior? It simply can't.

Abject apologies, or keep digging; either way is just as amusing.

I await your attempts at baiting and misdirection; since to do otherwise would simply be admitting you're wrong.

The offer to lock my rifle away in return for your word that you'll give up on the gambling and the racing still stands, btw. After being endangered and protected for 30 years, bears are back on the menu later this year.
Just sayin'. 

[IC1967]

QED m'lud

You're screwed Mick.

BobG

Just answer the questions.   

IC1967

Why, you wont answer mine?

    

[BobG]

Yup. Pavlov's dog. Unquestionably.

BobG

[IC1967]

I won't quote the post I'm responding to; this post is quite long enough. Refer to your last response to me if needed.

No contradiction whatsoever. With over 2700 posts, that's a lot to go through.

The hunted animal enjoys it not one little bit, I'd imagine. That said, I'm SURE they hate getting eaten alive by other predators, starving to death, or dying slowly of disease FAR more.

For the fifth(?) and final time, I don't follow any recognised or organised religion, not that it's even remotely relevant, nor have I ever claimed that any deity has given man permission to do as he wishes. Having made myself abundantly clear on the subject so many times that even somebody with remedial comprehension skills would understand, I will be ignoring any and all further irrelevant comments regarding religious beliefs.
To clarify for the benefit of the educationally challenged, non predatory animals are prey due to evolution, not the will of a deity. I won't be repeating that 5 more times so it sinks in, so pay attention.

Mick, there IS no explanation to your contradictory stance on PETA, beyond "Yes it's contradictory, and on this subject, I'm a hypocrite."
Not only did you state and AGREE with each of those principles, YOU QUOTED THEM TO ME! You only backtracked on those stated principles and tried to quantify them, when I just pointed out that those principles are incompatible and contradictory with your love of the races. It's simple and blatant hypocrisy, that is clear to everybody but you.

If riding a horse during its rehabilitation, and occasionally for fun is wrong (YOUR STATED BELIEF, backed up with links to PETA), then what is the exploitation of horses in the racing industry? Acceptable, as per your recently stated opinion. A text book example of contradiction/hypocrisy.
I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." This is as clear an example as that one. Hypocrite - a vegan professing that the use of animals for work or entertainment is wrong, who actively participates and makes a living from the horse racing industry.

If you simply didn't agree with everything PETA say, fine no problem. I mean, how could you; you'd have to have a few screws loose. However, you agreed with them on these two main points specifically, until I applied them to you.

You previously claimed that keeping pets was wrong, but because they are already here, domesticated, and need homes, taking one in and keeping them is a good thing, as backed up by PETA. My horses are no different. Almost every horse that I have ever rescued would have ended up as dog food, or would have starved to death or died from disease, had I not intervened. I don't buy, breed, or sell them. In fact, I have never received a penny for a single one of them when people have adopted them, and I often even end up giving them food and tack.

So individuals who rescue and/or adopt horses at their own expense are animal abusers, but PETA, an international corporation that collects millions of pounds every year in donations, who rescue animals for adoption and DESTROY them if they don't manage to get them adopted in a timely fashion, are morally superior? Give me a break! PETA fanatics have no issue with having pets, and most of them don't pass them on so they can rescue more, once fluffy has become a part of the family. I've adopted injured or old horses that I knew nobody would ever adopt, and they've died happy, well fed, and with dignity. You can shove your moral high ground up your a***.

Again, to be clear, we are not disagreeing whether or not you agree 100% with everything PETA believes, we are arguing over 2 of their main philosophies that you wholeheartedly supported (and vehemently defended), right up until I pointed out how incompatible they are with your hobby/livelihood.

So, keeping pets is wrong, which usually involves an animal becoming an adopted member of the family, receiving love, attention, food, and any necessary medical treatment, but the horse racing industry, which uses horses purely as a tool for entertainment, work, etc is fine? The same industry where all but the very best (and luckiest) end up in meat auctions after a few years? But hey, they receive good nutrition and medical care for a few years, (whilst being exploited, tortured, and abused - your words), so it's fine what happens to them? They had a good run while it lasted? Are you aware that horses can live into their 30's? For what proportion of their lives are racehorses "treated better than humans"? You say they're treated better than humans, but since when were children bred to be Olympic athletes, treated as slaves, forced to run against their wills, and all but the best of them sent for slaughter when they either don't make the grade, or age or injuries render them incapable of competing at the highest level anymore?

You're a zealot, whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Admit it, get over it. A lot of vegetarians eat bacon from time to time. It doesn't make you a bad person, but when you set yourself up as a paragon of morality and virtue, and challenge people to prove you contradictory, it does make you look like a prat... Especially when you won't admit what is obvious to everyone.

You still haven't answered the question I asked regarding your other usernames. We all know you are IC1967, but we all know you have (or have had) other usernames in the past. What are those other usernames? As we both know, you can't/won't answer that truthfully, so your mythical 100% record, were it still intact, has gone.

Another - How can rescuing a horse and riding it to train it for adoption, be bad, but the horse racing industry that breeds animals, trains and exploits them for monetary gain, pumps them full of drugs, and ultimately discards them, usually condemning them to death, be morally superior? It simply can't.

Abject apologies, or keep digging; either way is just as amusing.

I await your attempts at baiting and misdirection; since to do otherwise would simply be admitting you're wrong.

The offer to lock my rifle away in return for your word that you'll give up on the gambling and the racing still stands, btw. After being endangered and protected for 30 years, bears are back on the menu later this year.
Just sayin'. 

The fact that you think hunting is acceptable and actually enjoy it marks you out as a despicable human being. You are a barbarian. FACT.

Horse racing isn't perfect but the vast majority of horses in the industry are treated better than many humans. FACT.

You brought God into it and used it as an excuse to have dominion over animals. This shows a complete lack of intelligence. FACT.

Attacking people who don't eat animals is pathetic. At least they are making an effort to reduce the amount of cruelty in the world suffered by animals. They should be commended. FACT.

I'd keep it quiet that you enjoy hunting if I were you. You won't find much support around here for that horrific activity. FACT.

[Hounslowrover]

Where does he attack people who don't eat animals as pathetic? I can't find it in his last article.  He does use the vegetarian and leather shoes analogy as use of the word hypocrite, but as he said, it was a simple way of explaining the word to children, then expanded it to vegans and the horse racing industry.  Please enlighten me, or are you reading a different article?

[IC1967]

Where does he attack people who don't eat animals as pathetic? I can't find it in his last article.  He does use the vegetarian and leather shoes analogy as use of the word hypocrite, but as he said, it was a simple way of explaining the word to children, then expanded it to vegans and the horse racing industry.  Please enlighten me, or are you reading a different article?

No wonder children leaving school don't have a basic grasp of English if you used to be a headteacher. Can't you understand simple sentences? I'm glad you weren't my English teacher. I said 'Attacking people who don't eat animals is pathetic'. He never used the word 'pathetic.' I did. He did attack people who don't eat meat. I think that's pathetic.

Got it, get it, good.

At least it seems you agree with my other points.

[Hounslowrover]

Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article?  You give it as a FACT statements in your response,

[IC1967]

Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article?  You give it as a FACT statements in your response,

He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."

There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.

Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article?  You give it as a FACT statements in your response,

He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."

There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.

Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?

And you are making the general assumption that all vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals.