Hare Coursing

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

Own up and admit it, or deny it, but please don't wimp out.

Artful_Badger

Zombienosh wrote: »

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

The entire hunting forum was directed over here sure to battle for Hare coursing and fiddle the poll. Inevitably that led to defending hunting in general and denouncing everything else.

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

I think you will find most people dont go in for it (both are a niche interest), either hunting or hare coursing, a poll on AH is not a true reflection of the general consensus of the Irish public.

Apart from stating the obvious, AH was never going to be a place to gather support for any cause, be it good or bad. After all AH is what it says on the tin.

Zombienosh

fathersymes wrote: »

Own up and admit it, or deny it, but please don't wimp out.

Yeah I better not "wimp out" because then i'd have to go watch defenceless animals get killed to make myself feel like a man.

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote: »

First time not having it all my own way ? I'm not active in poll fiddling so I'm not use to getting it all my own way. And stop lying, you know damn well that the polling is skewed.

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The entire hunting forum was directed over here sure to battle for Hare coursing and fiddle the poll. Inevitably that led to defending hunting in general and denouncing everything else.

It's called a rebuttal.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

On the grounds that a thread in the hunting forum directed people from the hunting forum to come here and vote which meant quite a few more people with an interest in one particular turnout rather than just an opinion. You know, simple logic.

archer22

Its turned into another Healy Rae scenario..with the auld fella text voting like mad from the Dail:D..I mean its so obvious its being skewed you would need to go to specsavers if you couldn't see it.:)

dr.bollocko

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

There was a thread in the shooting forum used to point out the poll in an attempt to manipulate the numbers up.

It's not a private forum so the thread is still there.

Before a link to this poll was posted in the shooting forum the numbers were in support of a ban roughly 65% to 35%.

If a similar thread was to be started on an anti-hunting interest group the numbers would again change.

While a poll on AH means very little, the original trending was distinctly manipulated by posting a link to a now 2 page thread in the hunting forum.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

I retract nothing. There is no conceivable way to think that an organised effort to skew the poll didnt skew the poll.

It's called a rebuttal.

Its called a campaign for votes, which the opposite side of the argument didnt have. Ergo the poll is skewed.

nlgbbbblth

Seachmall wrote: »

I could come home every evening and punch my dog in the face and as enjoyable as that might seem to some it would still be cruel, even though no blood is drawn and the dog wouldn't die.

What if your dog gets his kicks from chasing hares and ripping them to shreds?

Oh wait...

Cass

So what you are saying is because hunters have voted in superior numbers to those opposed it's not fair.

Zombienosh

No what hes saying is this is pointless. This isn't a poll about banning hunting.

yubabill1

archer22 wrote: »

Its turned into another Healy Rae scenario..with the auld fella text voting like mad from the Dail:D..I mean its so obvious its being skewed you would need to go to specsavers if you couldn't see it.:)

Can you skew something that was skewed from the start?

We all know anti-fieldsports interests had been tweeting like mad, the same as they did with Paolo Nutini.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

So what you are saying is because hunters have voted in superior numbers to those opposed it's not fair.

I'm saying that because that happened its not as reflecting of actual public opinion as it would be otherwise.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm saying that because that happened its not as reflecting of actual public opinion as it would be otherwise.

Well, if you ask Paolo Nutini's agent, the whole population of Ireland was refusing to buy any of his material until he disavowed anythig to do with hunting and explain why he attended a hunt ball in Westmeath.

ManMade

Looks like the PETA boys ain't used to not being surrounded by like minded individual.

Cass

Zombienosh wrote: »

No what hes saying is this is pointless. This isn't a poll about banning hunting.

Obviously. The thread is "Hare coursing".

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm saying that because that happened its not as reflecting of actual public opinion as it would be otherwise.

Hunters are members of the public. We have voted, but because it's not in keeping with the outcome that was wanted it's skewed?

yubabill1

What's that? Oh, tumbleweed.

yubabill1

yubabill1 wrote: »

Well, if you ask Paolo Nutini's agent, the whole population of Ireland was refusing to buy any of his material until he disavowed anythig to do with hunting and explain why he attended a hunt ball in Westmeath.

BTW Paolo Nutini duly made a full and frank disavowal of hunting, the Holocaust and anything anybody ever even tweeted the mildest irritation about in the Sunday Independent

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The entire hunting forum was directed over here sure to battle for Hare coursing and fiddle the poll. Inevitably that led to defending hunting in general and denouncing everything else.

If anyone could direct the hunting forum to do anything (and actually have them do it), my life would be infinitely easier

Play To Kill

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm saying that because that happened its not as reflecting of actual public opinion as it would be otherwise.

Maybe the people who support any sort of blood sports should have been excluded from voting so as to give a fair reflection of public opinion? :rolleyes::pac:

Zombienosh

Well the thread on the hunting forum suggesting we go give them hippy folk what for and vote is really childish, as is the negative stereotyping being associated with anyone that goes against hare coursing.

Sparks

dr.bollocko wrote: »

There was a thread in the shooting forum used to point out the poll in an attempt to manipulate the numbers up.

Or to put it another way, someone pointed out that there was a poll here on a hunting topic and calling for votes on it.

The last time I looked at the democratic process, the goal was to raise the turnout figures for such things, not to enforce selection bias.

If all you want is a poll where only one side is allowed vote, then why bother run the poll at all? Just make up the numbers, it'll be as honest and as accurate.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm saying that because that happened its not as reflecting of actual public opinion as it would be otherwise.

Public opinion, which would be measured through... a poll.
And if hunters don't vote, the poll is anti-fieldsports.
But if hunters do vote, the poll is pro-fieldsports.

Hmmm.

I'm curious as to what you think a poll actually is and how it should work...

StinkyMunkey

Cass wrote: »

Obviously. The thread is "Hare coursing".

Hunters are members of the public. We have voted, but because it's not in keeping with the outcome that was wanted it's skewed?

Nice play on words, but for want of a better description, the outcome of the poll was loaded. Not matter how you spin it, the thread in the hunters forum loaded the outcome of the poll. I have to admit its the first time ive seen a rally call put out to another forum (heard of it happening, but not seen it till now), this sort of stuff is what makes AH the most interesting forum on Boards .

*For the record, i dont really put any faith in polls on AH

Artful_Badger

Play To Kill wrote: »

Maybe the people who support any sort of blood sports should have been excluded from voting so as to give a fair reflection of public opinion? :rolleyes::pac:

It was an AH & hunting forum poll. AH being mixed views, hunting forum being primarily against a ban.

As the op in the hunting forum thread went.

As a Hunting group, we want to get behind this and vote against a ban.
Let's turn this poll around!

And get behind it they did. Partially general opinion, partially lobby group = skewed poll. All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

Cass

No idea what you mean.

However i don't understand why hunters, as members of the public, should be excluded or the poll invalidated due to their participation. If it's an honest open poll then everyone should be be allowed to vote, and their vote should be important regardless of the side it falls on.

yubabill1

Zombienosh wrote: »

Well the thread on the hunting forum suggesting we go give them hippy folk what for and vote is really childish, as is the negative stereotyping being associated with anyone that goes against hare coursing.

Of course it would be childish to negatively stereotype John Fitzgerald, a prominent animal rights activist and letters-to-the-editor-writer who was unfortunate enough to be arrested more than ten times in the 80's and 90's for such things as interfering with coursing.

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote: »

All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

Same as throwing the dummy out of the pram , and insulting people because you don;t get it your own way.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Same as throwing the dummy out of the pram , and insulting people because you don;t get it your own way.

Who did I insult ? I'm not the one throwing the dummy out of the pram, polls is a farce, there is no point in continuing to deny it.

fathersymes

Isn't boards a microcosm, there are 2000 odd members live at the moment, an poll happened, those who cared voted and the result is representative of a real world event.

numblebumble

Any posts in the animal rights/welfare section calling for a get out the vote effort?

Cant believe I signed up just to vote :O)

Play To Kill

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It was an AH & hunting forum poll. AH being mixed views, hunting forum being primarily against a ban.

As the op in the hunting forum thread went.



And get behind it they did. Partially general opinion, partially lobby group = skewed poll. All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

So you reckon the only reason they voted is because of the thread in the hunting forum? I doubt that assumption.

Cass

Who did I insult ?

Me.

Called me a liar, and accused me of purposely skewing/orchestrating the skewing of this poll.

When asked to retract it you refused, and reinforced the accusation, and renewed the insult.

I'm not the one throwing the dummy out of the pram,

Really .............

polls is a farce, there is no point in continuing to deny it

Looks like it.

archer22

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It was an AH & hunting forum poll. AH being mixed views, hunting forum being primarily against a ban.

As the op in the hunting forum thread went.



And get behind it they did. Partially general opinion, partially lobby group = skewed poll. All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

Exactly, and now this thread is no longer worth reading..its simply been invaded and sabotaged.

Artful_Badger

Play To Kill wrote: »

So you reckon the only reason they voted is because of the thread in the hunting forum? I doubt that assumption.

I reckon a hell of a lot more voted than would have otherwise.

Anyway I'm gonna take my leave from this thread, I'll leave all you hunting forum folks to celebrate your "victory".

fathersymes

yubabill1 wrote: »

Of course it would be childish to negatively stereotype John Fitzgerald, a prominent animal rights activist and letters-to-the-editor-writer who was unfortunate enough to be arrested more than ten times in the 80's and 90's for such things as interfering with coursing.

AND! John Tierney sentenced to prison for his actions while interfering with a hunt, and Roger Yates one of the leading voices of Veganism in Ireland and a prominent Speciesism apologist who was sentenced to years in prison in the UK for firebombing offences.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The lengths people go to to try and justify unnecessary cruelty to animals for entertainment in unbelievable. Even to the point of thinking they are doing the things a fcukin favour.

Its not the welfare of the animal that's of the utmost importance its the welfare of the sport. The welfare of the animals is a by product of having to fly under the radar of blatant animal abuse.

And the pack you are referring to is called civilised society. Ignorant sports like this and the ignorant people who enjoy them are just slow to catch up with the rest of us who dont go out of our way to torment animals for the sheer hell of it.

Who did you insult?

Well, lookee what we have here

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Me.

Called me a liar, and accused me of purposely skewing/orchestrating the skewing of this poll.

When asked to retract it you refused, and reinforced the accusation, and renewed the insult.

Really .............

Looks like it.

I didnt insult you. I simply said you were lying if you refused to accept the organised effort to skew the poll skewed the poll which is pretty evident it did. But I didnt accuse you of orchestrating it. That would be untrue to say that.

Like I said I'm done here. Goodnight.

yubabill1

AH regulars, looks like you've had a good night's entertainment.

HughF

What will we ban next?????? Fishing??? Ah no the public service....they maul lots of poor innocent people

Play To Kill

HughF wrote: »

What will we ban next?????? Fishing??? Ah no the public service....they maul lots of poor innocent people

Public opinion should be banned. This thread shows how much some people hate public opinion, start a poll and ban it now.

archer22

Goodbye from me as well ...keep going until you get the 99% boys and continue on codding yourselves.

Grizzly 45

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And get behind it they did. Partially general opinion, partially lobby group = skewed poll. All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

You say being a partial lobby group islike somthing bad???:p
And all the anti groups are NOT partial/fulltime well funded lobby groups??:)

Anyways,skewed or not...I have to ask then IF there is an overwhelming support for a ban on fieldsports as has been claimed by the anti groups since...oh...1966 or thereabouts.
Even if we had added every member of the shooting boards to this poll,why were we not overwhelmed by the support of all the Irish general pouplation that supports this ban...By now it should be over 300 for a ban and counting.After all if you claim that 70% of Irish people support a ban that would make it appx ,3to1 ratio of antis posting here on boards at the moment??Think thats right...Was never very good at maths.:o

So where are they??? Or is it maybe just the fact that like all the people that claimed on the last census formin 2010[?] they could speak fluent Irish every day,but you never hear anyone speaking it in public in Ireland..There really isnt THAT much support for your cause out there as you like to think???

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote:

I didnt insult you. I simply said you were lying............

Yes you did. calling me a liar is insulting. Just incase you think that is skewed here is a reminder of the insults that still are posted.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

Cass wrote: »

I know no such thing.

Perhaps for the first time you are not having it all your own way, and it's a shock.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

First time not having it all my own way ? I'm not active in poll fiddling so I'm not use to getting it all my own way. And stop lying, you know damn well that the polling is skewed.

Cass wrote: »

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I retract nothing.

Insulting, accusational, and implying i was central or responsible for orchestrating some sort of made up poll sabotage.

Cass

dr.bollocko wrote: »

There was a thread in the shooting forum used to point out the poll in an attempt to manipulate the numbers up.

So we orchestrated this poll manipulation, and it's a joke because of that, but.....................

If a similar thread was to be started on an anti-hunting interest group the numbers would again change.

....... having it on a private or anti hunting forum/site where the numbers would go your way would be a true reflection of the people's attitudes?

Really? You're standing by this as perfectly sensible logic?

While a poll on AH means very little, the original trending was distinctly manipulated by posting a link to a now 2 page thread in the hunting forum.

Again, and i've yet to get an answer just deflection, are hunters opinions as members of the public not valid? Only those opposed to hunting can/should vote?

If so why have a poll. you might as well just post a thread called " coursing is bad m'kay", and lock the thread. Should go your way then.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

AH being mixed views

If by mixed you mean divided between those who thought coursing was "only a pikey thing" or a "stone age bogger carry on" and those who thought it was "uncivilised" or even just regional (as in "Limerick, need we say more?").

Please don't tell me that here was a model of reasoned debate, not when I can actually read what you wrote.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

If by mixed you mean divided between those who thought coursing was "only a pikey thing" or a "stone age bogger carry on" and those who thought it was "uncivilised" or even just regional (as in "Limerick, need we say more?").

Please don't tell me that here was a model of reasoned debate, not when I can actually read what you wrote.

Just popped back to point you in the right direction. You seemed to be getting lost again. I'm only 1 person with 1 vote, a very small number of voters actually posted in the thread. Most of the posters were actually from the hunting forum (once the thread went up) which also reflects the poll.

I was talking about the voting though. The voting on the AH side was mixed as in public opinion, some for, some against. The voting on the hunting forum wasnt, as they all came in through the thread with the words "As a hunting group lets get behind a no ban vote".

Look at it like this, if you ask 100 people if they like the circus you'll get a good view of the percentage of people that like the circus. But if you ask 100 people and 100 clowns what they think of the circus, you wont get a good view because it will be skewed by the clowns who have an interest in the outcome of the poll.

If you're still having difficulty with it then I'm afraid I cant help ya. And this time I really am gone. Good night and good luck.

yubabill1

Just a note for AH regulars,
we are seeing regular patterns by anti-fieldsports campaigners hijacking forums, journalists, public figures and such: this is a spontaneous reaction by a group of people who are the types you never notice when going about your normal business.

As licensed firearm holders, we have had to pass some of the strictest background checks in the world and be absolutely, unimpeacheably devoid of illegal actions or intent.

PerrinV2

Don't know anything about hare coursing but why don't they use a mechanical hare as opposed to a live hare? if this is track racing that is
(maybe they do,I dunno)