Daily Mail inaccuracies

[Fiagai]

Herne - I will repeat that there is no reason to be devisive. Maybe we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour. Facts can be proved or disproved as needs be but It is preferable to respect a persons opinions whilst holding your own. I did not say your approach is wrong, just that I observed in your last post that you had got to the point where you stated there it was futile to repeat arguements where the end result was always the same.

Far from it. What you mistake for exasperation is, in fact, glee. (Note to self: Make more use of emoticons&#8230 Being able to point out to these people where they are wrong, with proof, is what it is all about!

No the post definitly came across as "exasperation". Maybe BF can lead the way in the use of emoticons...

As is discussed in the “Miles Cooper” thread, the way to overcome these people is to consistently confront them with the lack of consistency in their own arguments, not in the brilliance of our own. The reason why so many high-ranking members of the anti-fraternity fall by the wayside is because their positions force them to look deeper than the propaganda and they see the underlying faults and weaknesses in their own case.We don’t persuade them by force that we are right, we help them come to realise for themselves that they are wrong.

This argument is fine as long as the posters purpose is putting together consistant arguements as opposed to posting repeated contradictory statements. As brillant as your own arguements may be, it as you previously stated "no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened."

I can quite understand why, if your attempts to argue the case achieve the results that you describe, you become frustrated and want to concede that you are unable to achieve anything positive. Personally, however, I find that my efforts usually do eventually achieve the results that I am aiming for, so I find the experience to be quite rewarding and even enjoyable.

Again as s you said "no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." It is not fustration here - its is the realisation that the posting of what could be termed "white noise" has other purposes than rational arguement

Or I could save myself the trouble and just read the post elsewhere on here where you have already pointed out the reference. Oh, I already did…
My point about your rabbit references was merely that the constant repetition thereof was getting a bit stale – but, more to the point, it interferes with the flow of the thread to the third party reader, who, I am sure you would concur, we would want to come away with the impression that the anti side lost the argument, rather than that the pro side was rather rude and boring.

Well done then for spoting that, so you will see that this term has become well used and not used just by myself. Moreover a little bit of humour always helps for those that can appreciate it.

I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?

This is standard usage when quoting large sections of text.

Indeed not. I’m having fun. I am, I might observe, the one responding to your interjections, not the other way around…

So you do understand humour - good.

Golly! A fact! I was not aware that you were an official OffTroll Inspector. And there was I naively thinking that we could all make up our own minds about such things. Tut.

So wherin lies the problem then? Please do feel free to make up your own mind but do not deny others the same.

..Incidentally, when thinking about the conventions of trollish behaviour on the internet, you might want to give some consideration to Godwin’s Law

Unfortuantely like bacteria we will always have trolls ... at least National Socilaism as an idealogy is dead.

ciao

 

[Herne]

just that I observed in your last post that you had got to the point where you stated there it was futile to repeat arguements where the end result was always the same.

No, You are the one who appears to have decide that it is futile, not me.

Pointing out to the opponent – again and again if necessary – how many times they have made errors without acknowledging them is part of the process of making them – eventually – realise how poor their arguments are.

It’s a process that is not aided by other people taking the conversation off on tangents.

This argument is fine as long as the posters purpose is putting together consistant arguements as opposed to posting repeated contradictory statements.

That is the nature of the beast – it’s something we have to deal with.

Look at it this way – you shouldn’t expect them to be able to argue clearly, concisely and logically like we can, because they do not benefit from the advantage that we do of being right.

It is illogical to expect them to be logical when they are trying to defend the illogical.

Moreover a little bit of humour always helps for those that can appreciate it.

Quite agree. But the relevant word is “little”. Crack a funny, smile at it and move on. Don’t beat us all around the head with it forever.

The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc.

I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?

This is standard usage when quoting large sections of text.

I’m sorry, but this is drivel. You cannot excuse selective editing by claiming that you are following some nebulous “standard procedure”. No editing protocol gives you carte blanche to cut out anything that doesn’t suit your purpose.

 

[Giles]

This is a forum about hunting which is a controversial subject so it is inevitable that people will seek to depict those that differ from them as trolls. I don't find such an approach especially constructive.

 

[Fiagai]

No, You are the one who appears to have decide that it is futile, not me.

This WAS your statement from the post -
"no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." This is the impression taken from what uou said.

Pointing out to the opponent – again and again if necessary – how many times they have made errors without acknowledging them is part of the process of making them – eventually – realise how poor their arguments are. It’s a process that is not aided by other people taking the conversation off on tangents.

Never said otherwise.

That is the nature of the beast – it’s something we have to deal with.
Look at it this way – you shouldn’t expect them to be able to argue clearly, concisely and logically like we can, because they do not benefit from the advantage that we do of being right.
It is illogical to expect them to be logical when they are trying to defend the illogical.

Fine

Quite agree. But the relevant word is “little”. Crack a funny, smile at it and move on. Don’t beat us all around the head with it forever.

That was the idea before you made it a repeating issue..

I’m sorry, but this is drivel. You cannot excuse selective editing by claiming that you are following some nebulous “standard procedure”. No editing protocol gives you carte blanche to cut out anything that doesn’t suit your purpose.

You have used this process yourself - check your own posts. Look it up - it is standard practice. I posted the parts that I commented on. Those that were not commented on, I left out. End of story. Dont make a big issue of it.

 

[Herne]

This WAS your statement from the post -
"no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." This is the impression taken from what uou said.

An impression that you seem to be determined to cling on to, no matter how many times I explain to you that it is incorrect.

Just because I had the temerity to disagree with you on how best to deal with anti-hunt posters in another thread, you leap in here determined to try to get retaliation in the mistaken belief that I was contradicting myself.

I have explained to you three times now what I was doing and why you have misinterpreted what I wrote, but still you seem determined to tell me that you know better than I do what I meant. Indeed, your constant contradiction of my explanations could be construed as tantamount to accusing me of lying about it.

What extraordinary behaviour…

However, I do not consider the attempt to get you to understand your error to be futile, nor am I exasperated, so I shall carry on reiterating the point until I can find a phraseology that gets through the comprehension barrier.

You have used this process yourself - check your own posts. Look it up - it is standard practice. I posted the parts that I commented on. Those that were not commented on, I left out. End of story. Dont make a big issue of it.

And I merely pointed out the fact that you had to edit the message very selectively to try to make it fit your little point better. Exposing selective editing when it occurs is also "standard practice" - I am surprised that you seem to feel that you are entitled to some sort of immunity.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Herne - I will repeat that there is no reason to be devisive. Maybe we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour.

Fiagai - I would suggest you follow your own advice!

 

[Fiagai]

An impression that you seem to be determined to cling on to, no matter how many times I explain to you that it is incorrect.
Just because I had the temerity to disagree with you on how best to deal with anti-hunt posters in another thread, you leap in here determined to try to get retaliation in the mistaken belief that I was contradicting myself.

Dear Herne I already stated that we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour. You have ignored this fact and so obviously do not share this sentiment on respecting opinion. That is a sad thing indeed. My thanks to JG for allowing me to reiterate this point.

I have explained to you three times now what I was doing and why you have misinterpreted what I wrote, but still you seem determined to tell me that you know better than I do what I meant. Indeed, your constant contradiction of my explanations could be construed as tantamount to accusing me of lying about it. What extraordinary behaviour…
However, I do not consider the attempt to get you to understand your error to be futile, nor am I exasperated, so I shall carry on reiterating the point until I can find a phraseology that gets through the comprehension barrier.

You are of course free to argue whatever you wish - but I choose to restate my understanding and the impression of your post. Denying this to make some vague point does not serve to further the discussion.

And I merely pointed out the fact that you had to edit the message very selectively to try to make it fit your little point better. Exposing selective editing when it occurs is also "standard practice" - I am surprised that you seem to feel that you are entitled to some sort of immunity.

By standard practice I have meant that it is used professionally. I have already explained that I excluded those parts I did not comment on. Ignoring this and taking the stance that you are always right does not give you the moral high ground.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?

 

[Binkle&Flip]

127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?

Morning rosiefronfelen. Can I just correct you as we are all pro hunting on this thread, all pro pest control myself included. The only reason you or anybody else suggest I am not is due to our support for different methods of culling. It is dishonest of you to suggest I am in some way anti hunting.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

did i NAME you, dont get above yourself, and i do believe i wrote hunting proper which you dont believe in, so dont say i am dishonest.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

did i NAME you, dont get above yourself, and i do believe i wrote hunting proper which you dont believe in, so dont say i am dishonest.

Then you did attempt to NAME/separate me by using the strange term 'proper hunting', so I am not getting above myself obviously.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Then you did attempt to NAME/separate me by using the strange term 'proper hunting', so I am not getting above myself obviously.

my dear girl, there is nothing obvious with you-hunting proper is nothing strange to hunters, it refers to hunting before the ban when foxes could be culled in the proper manner, so with that i wish to have no more correspondence from you and wish to be left alone, if you do the reply will not be forthcoming.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Sorry, I now understand that you meant what is now known as illegal hunting.

 

[Fiagai]

127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?

Ahhhh - proper hunting. When hunting made sense!
Rf - I'm afraid there will always be those who will never know what this is because they have never experienced proper hunting first hand. I pity them tbh.

 

[Herne]

Ignoring this and taking the stance that you are always right does not give you the moral high ground.

The irony of this coming from some one who has now tried on four occasions to claim that he knows better than I what I meant when I wrote something despite having it explained to him at length does not escape me…

By standard practice I have meant that it is used professionally. I have already explained that I excluded those parts I did not comment on.

If you were a hound, you would be what is referred to a “babbler”. To be blunt, you are simply talking nonsense.

If you knew anything about editing, which is looking less and less likely, you would be aware that content is only half of the equation. The other half is context – and both can be adversely affected by careless (or mischievous) editing.

If you were arguing about a point of fact, then simply editing the content to show the relevant section(s) (as you describe) would probably be appropriate.

However, you are not. You are arguing about the meaning and intent behind a whole message, by referring to, and inferring from, certain parts of that message. In such a case context is equally as important as content.

How do the words quoted relate to the words not quoted; how were they spaced; what proportion of the whole did they form? All of these are relevant in deciphering intent.

If you are going to try to claim that context has no relevance to editing protocols, then frankly you are just being silly.


So let us review your contribution here so far:

• First you hijack this thread in order to continue an argument going on in another thread (when you could perfectly easily have cut and pasted the relevant message into that thread, where it would have been more relevant);
  
• then you refuse on four occasions to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation from the author of a message of what he was trying to express when he wrote a message – claiming that you know better. What are you claiming to be? Psychic?
  
• then you make ridiculously grandiose statements about something that you actually seem to know little about. I mean, trying to compare doing a little bit of cutting and pasting on a chat board with the rigorous editing protocols required in the fields of Research or Professional Editing? Honestly…! Currently your editorial expertise is looking about on a par with Binkle & Flip’s culling expertise.

In fact, all in all, you seem to be behaving very much like the “Troll” that you constantly make so much fuss about. There’s a certain amount of irony in there, too…


It does make me wonder, however, what with the delusions of grandeur (“The poster has been labelled a troll by myself”); the constant invitations for people to “look things up on Google” (“Are you so stupid you don’t even know that – well, it’s too trivial for me to bother to explain...” – thus avoiding the embarrassment of actually having to try to explain…); the repetitions of little jokes ad tedium; the obsession with defining people as “trolls” etc, etc, etc – just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

 

[Fiagai]

Herne. You have used insult, misdirection and crass bluntness to try and win what you see obviously as an argument and not a discussion. I already explained where and why I replied to you, accept it or dont it makes no matter. If you know nothing about quoting and the use of punctuation in quoting relevant content then please dont lecture me about this, this methodology is used widely.

If readers are not to infer a meaning from what is written, then what is the point of writting anything, if we first must apply to the writer always for confirmation?

You have repeatedly had goes at me for using the term "troll" in relation to one poster while throwing it around yourself. Yes I have used the term troll and I believe rightly so considering what was posted. If you wish to run a campaign of talking nicely to these individual in some hope of bringing them to understanding, thats fine but dont bash others into beliving that this is the only way.

Please note the use of such terms as "silly" "babbler" "Psyshic" "delusions of grandeur" "how old are you" etc makes a mockery of any serious reply.

I have set out my impressions honestly and at lenght previously and if you cant accept that then I will disist in any further discussion with you as you refuse to accept any discourse on these misappropriated points.

Goodnight.

_____________________________________________________________

The irony of this coming from some one who has now tried on four occasions to claim that he knows better than I what I meant when I wrote something despite having it explained to him at length does not escape me…
If you were a hound, you would be what is referred to a “babbler”. To be blunt, you are simply talking nonsense.
If you knew anything about editing, which is looking less and less likely, you would be aware that content is only half of the equation. The other half is context – and both can be adversely affected by careless (or mischievous) editing.
If you were arguing about a point of fact, then simply editing the content to show the relevant section(s) (as you describe) would probably be appropriate.
However, you are not. You are arguing about the meaning and intent behind a whole message, by referring to, and inferring from, certain parts of that message. In such a case context is equally as important as content.
How do the words quoted relate to the words not quoted; how were they spaced; what proportion of the whole did they form? All of these are relevant in deciphering intent.
If you are going to try to claim that context has no relevance to editing protocols, then frankly you are just being silly
So let us review your contribution here so far:

• First you hijack this thread in order to continue an argument going on in another thread (when you could perfectly easily have cut and pasted the relevant message into that thread, where it would have been more relevant);
• then you refuse on four occasions to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation from the author of a message of what he was trying to express when he wrote a message – claiming that you know better. What are you claiming to be? Psychic?
  
• then you make ridiculously grandiose statements about something that you actually seem to know little about. I mean, trying to compare doing a little bit of cutting and pasting on a chat board with the rigorous editing protocols required in the fields of Research or Professional Editing? Honestly…! Currently your editorial expertise is looking about on a par with Binkle & Flip’s culling expertise.

In fact, all in all, you seem to be behaving very much like the “Troll” that you constantly make so much fuss about. There’s a certain amount of irony in there, too…
It does make me wonder, however, what with the delusions of grandeur (“The poster has been labelled a troll by myself”); the constant invitations for people to “look things up on Google” (“Are you so stupid you don’t even know that – well, it’s too trivial for me to bother to explain...” – thus avoiding the embarrassment of actually having to try to explain…); the repetitions of little jokes ad tedium; the obsession with defining people as “trolls” etc, etc, etc – just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

 

[Fiagai]

I hope TFC wont mind me referencing their post from another thread in relation in how to use abbreviated Quoting....

Binkle&Flip

Please note that when quoting someone one can delete parts of a long post to the specific bits one wishes to reply to,

E.g. The field are not "customers" because Hunts are not "businesses"..... Buying a day's hunting is not the same thing as buying a cinema ticket...... members of the field are not paying a full, commerical price that entitles them to "customer service" - they are enjoying the privilege of being able to do something because a lot of other people have put in the work to enable them to take advantage of it.


My response to Herne would be to agree and comment that Hunts are clubs not businesses.

Had I copied in the entire preceeding post then it would have taken up unnecessary space especialy for a one line response and would have confused exactly which part of the post i was responding to - the technique is particuarly useful when replying to questions...

Thanks

 

[Herne]

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Ok, reductio ad absurdam…

Herne. You …win … I … know nothing about quoting and the use of punctuation in quoting relevant content … You have repeatedly had goes at me for using the term "troll" … and I believe rightly so considering what was posted.

As you see, dear heart, context is all.

Good morning.

 

[EAST KENT]

And all because the delicious Daily Mail was a tad inaccurate!!!

 

[Fiagai]

Lol EK - inaccuracies are dangerous things!
I think somebody obviously missed this.....

I hope TFC wont mind me referencing their post from another thread in relation in how to use abbreviated Quoting....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiny Fluffy Coblet
Binkle&Flip

Please note that when quoting someone one can delete parts of a long post to the specific bits one wishes to reply to,

E.g. The field are not "customers" because Hunts are not "businesses"..... Buying a day's hunting is not the same thing as buying a cinema ticket...... members of the field are not paying a full, commerical price that entitles them to "customer service" - they are enjoying the privilege of being able to do something because a lot of other people have put in the work to enable them to take advantage of it.


My response to Herne would be to agree and comment that Hunts are clubs not businesses.

Had I copied in the entire preceeding post then it would have taken up unnecessary space especialy for a one line response and would have confused exactly which part of the post i was responding to - the technique is particuarly useful when replying to questions...

Thanks

crbb anymore.....

 

[Herne]

Lol EK - inaccuracies are dangerous things!
I think somebody obviously missed this.....

Didn't miss it. It just didn't add anything new to the conversation. You have already said all of that umpteen times, and I haven't disputed any of it.

Our disagreement has been about how abbreviated quoting can be mis-used as well as used - and my example above demosntrates that little point quite conclusively.

crbb anymore.....

What a surprise. How convenient for you...

 

[Fiagai]

*yawns*........

 

[Herne]

So, now that the irrelevancy has been put to bed, Binkle & Flip: back atcha...

Originally Posted by Binkle&Flip
I really have tried to support it oakash. I have good friends who support it and know my stance. We have worked together, hunted together and talked often about it (without all of the internet bile). I simply cannot accept that killing with a pack of hounds is humane.

I find that statement very hard to beleive.

If you had really "tried" to understand the pro-hunting argument, if you had really talked it over rationally with pro-hunting friends, then you would be able to have a sensible discussion about the relative adverse welfare implications of snaring versus hunting with me rather than ducking the issue.

The question is not whether hunting with hounds in isolation is humane.

If you accept the need to control foxes, as you say you do, the question is which methods of fox control are better to use under which circumstances - and in order to make that call, you need to understand the pros and cons of both - which is something that you have not demonstrated that you do.

 

[Fiagai]

Herne quoting Herne quoting BIF - how apt ....

Anyone seen heard from Raynard recently? - theres a number waiting for some answers you know.

.....Just took a peek to see how things are going in here. Still don't really have the time right now to chat with you folks, but rest assured, you will all be answered in good time.

still waiting....

 

[VoR]

As far as Raynard is concerned don't really care whether he appears again or not given that, unlike some, he will not even accept that his anti-hunt friends ever cause a modicum of the problems that he then provides links to.
It's all a bit media-like, edit a bit of video, an interview or newspaper text and hey presto, you 'facts' are supported by 'hard-evidence'...........never mind about the truth!
Lots are guilty of this and until we accept our faults as well as our strengths we will forever go round in circles.

 

[Fiagai]

As far as Raynard is concerned don't really care whether he appears again or not given that, unlike some, he will not even accept that his anti-hunt friends ever cause a modicum of the problems that he then provides links to...

Still Raynards (sic) original post requires at least some explanation as to why
(s)he persumed to make these comments here just because the Daily mail were no longer accepting comments?

Originally Posted by Raynard
This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought I’d respond to it here.

It would appear Raynard and others have gone to ground or perhaps just resting up before another little foray...

 

[Aesculus]

It would appear Raynard and others have gone to ground or perhaps just resting up before another little foray...

Or is that with the arrests in Glos over the weekend reported here http://bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-498_More-Hunting-Act-Cases-Dropped that Raynard is preoccupied?