A Good start to the Weekend
 

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:09:04 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


BT Yahoo!Mail





Friday July 9, 03:26 PM
Briton gored in groin by Pamplona bull

PAMPLONA, Spain (Reuters) - Four people, including a Briton and an American,
have been gored by bulls on the streets of Pamplona during the third day of
the northern Spanish city's world famous fiesta.
"Hospitals attended nine people after the third bull run, four of them with
injuries caused by bulls' horns," the regional Navarra government said on
its website.


Those gored were identified as a 22-year-old American man from Louisiana
with a knee wound, a British man from Oxford of the same age with a slight
groin wound and two Spaniards with thigh and arm injuries.
Friday's run was the most crowded yet. It took almost five minutes for six
bulls and their accompanying steers to complete the 825 metres (900 yards)
of fenced-off, cobbled streets that lead to the bull ring, where they will
fight in the evening.
"This was the run with the most injuries so far. The other two were pretty
clean," a Red Cross official said. "The weekend runs are likely to be more
complicated because there will be more runners."
Friday's bulls quickly became separated and on several occasions a bull
stopped and tried to turn back or lunged sideways at people around it.
The centuries-old Pamplona fiesta in honour of St. Fermin draws thousands of
fans from around the world for a week of frenzied late night drinking and
early morning running with the bulls. Fifteen people have been killed since
1910.

Serves the pervers right.

Agreed. If the odds were not stacked impossibly against the bull we
would see many deaths of these pervert fruitcakes. The same mentality
the hunters have, yellow and nuts. Coincidence?

"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are probably
about %0.5 of the population?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?

"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this
non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?



Well, I can certainly appreciate that your ad hominen attack and lack of any
facts in your response speaks for itself.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this
non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?



Well, I can certainly appreciate that your ad hominen attack and lack of any
facts in your response speaks for itself.

Life is too short. You have a point or not?

"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this
non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are
probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?



Well, I can certainly appreciate that your ad hominen attack and lack of
any
facts in your response speaks for itself.

Life is too short. You have a point or not?


Sure, what proportion of the UK population do you think 'gives a shit' about
fox hunting, and what are your sources for that. I think a fair definition
of 'gives a shit' would be, attends anti-hunt protest, tries actively to
disrupt hunts, or even just wrote a letter to their MP.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:03:52 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


Sure, what proportion of the UK population do you think 'gives a shit'
about
fox hunting, and what are your sources for that. I think a fair
definition
of 'gives a shit' would be, attends anti-hunt protest, tries actively to
disrupt hunts, or even just wrote a letter to their MP.

Voted for a political party that indicated that it would ban fox
hunting?

Which political party would that have been? New Labour, for example, did not
indicate it would ban fox hunting, it said in its manifesto it would allow
parliament to decide. Hence a voter, if wishing to vote only for a candidate
likely to vote for a ban would have had to investigate the candidate's
personal (not party) opinions on the matter.

Personally, I doubt very much whether a significant number of people who
vote at general elections look beyond the party 'tag' when deciding who to
favour with their vote, so I'd imagine the majority were unaware of their
candidates' views on hunting with dogs. Strange that, seeing as how the
issue was seemingly of sufficient importance to justify the use of the
parliament act to force the measure through.

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
.. .

"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what
they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted
to this
non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are
probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?



Well, I can certainly appreciate that your ad hominen attack and
lack of
any
facts in your response speaks for itself.

Life is too short. You have a point or not?


Sure, what proportion of the UK population do you think 'gives a
shit' about
fox hunting, and what are your sources for that. I think a fair
definition
of 'gives a shit' would be, attends anti-hunt protest, tries
actively to
disrupt hunts, or even just wrote a letter to their MP.

Or just votes for a parliamentary candidate with an acceptable opinion
on the matter?

Franz

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:03:52 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:40:03 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Haggus the orriblulus" wrote in message
...


I feel sorry for both sides who feel passionately about what they are
doing.
But I resent the complete waste of Parliamentary time devoted to this
non
important problem.

Actually the vast majority of us think it a grave problem.


Where 'us' is defined as those who give a shit about it, and are
probably
about %0.5 of the population?

Cant count either, not much going for you is there?



Well, I can certainly appreciate that your ad hominen attack and lack of
any
facts in your response speaks for itself.

Life is too short. You have a point or not?


Sure, what proportion of the UK population do you think 'gives a shit' about
fox hunting,

Say 90%

and what are your sources for that.

Call it intuition.

I think a fair definition
of 'gives a shit' would be, attends anti-hunt protest, tries actively to
disrupt hunts, or even just wrote a letter to their MP.

Then you are dafter than you sound.

Why can't the pro hunt lot just admit that they get pleasure from
killing animals?Then psychiatric help could be administered.They
are in denial.

----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v2.0 Beta 6
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------

"Dorian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:03:52 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
snip


Sure, what proportion of the UK population do you think 'gives a shit'
about
fox hunting,

Say 90%

and what are your sources for that.

Call it intuition.


If thats how you operate, intuition would tell you that the earth is flat
and the sun goes around it so I presume you must believe that as well.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address