The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

TRG-22 wrote:

Dark Skies wrote:Really? I stopped at George Monbiot.

Minds are like parachutes.

They work better when they are open.

The man is an absolute tool and has stolen enough of my reading time in the past for me to know he has nothing of value. I skip everything with his name under it.
And, frankly, having read your own posts since you've drifted here, I've been doing the same whenever I see TRG-22.
I believe you're a troll. I can forgive trolls if they're entertaining. But you're not. Good day to you.

For those of you on Facebook check out the Nidderdale Moorland Group for some hands on statistics and facts.

Facts on facebook?????

Pete

dredging? all forms of river control, dredging,hard banking,locks and bridges have an effect on water flow, in extreme conditions such as Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago the failure of the artificial constructs increased the impact of flooding at the point of failure! however if the levees hadn't been there the areas would have been unihabitable, so you pays yer money and takes yer chances.
closer to home the Somerset floods were in part blamed on the failure to dredge the channels for "enviromental reasons" I would point out that the name of a lot of those channels end in "drain" that is most likely not an accident

I've been doing the same whenever I see TRG-22

+1

TRG-22 have you made any attempt to take up shooting have you contacted any shooting clubs or are you just a troll.

davidh195 wrote:

I've been doing the same whenever I see TRG-22

+1

and another 1

LL

Well - all I can say to those accusing me of being a troll is that I actually find it a bit hurtful.

I personally have high standards of honesty, decency and truthfulness. I don't do hidden agendas. I don't do ulterior motives. If I write "A=B" it's because I genuinely believe that A=B, not because I'm covertly trying to say "X=Y". And I don't do trolling, which is another form of dishonesty.

To be accused of deliberately trying to cause dissent etc for my own amusement by people who have no evidence whatsoever to support it is not very nice.

All I have done here and in the other related thread is, without rancour or insults or swearing, to put the view that being insulting and sweary towards people with whom you disagree is never, ever going to improve matters, and that all the parties in a discussion should accept evidence and facts.

Why some people have to react so aggressively to those ideas beats me.

At the top of this site's home page it says:

Supporting all legal firearm owners, collectors, enthusiasts, shooters and competitors by promoting and encouraging legitimate gun ownership and use in the UK through unity, advocacy and discussion.

Saying to someone "You're a nutjob, shut the f*** up" is neither advocacy nor discussion. It really isn't. And it's not obviously likely to do any good to the standing of the shooting community.

I guess if some of you want to continue to attack me, hoping to drive me away from here by sheer force of nastiness, and make a total mockery of the idea that this is a welcoming environment, there's not much I can do, but you may feel safe that I probably won't go crying to the mods over it.

Or you could show everyone how truly supportive and keen on unity you are.

So have you inquired about joining a shooting Club. Im keen to show everyone how truly supportive and keen I am to support any one who is actually involved in shooting sports and does not just spout off about it on a forum.

Alpha1 wrote:So have you inquired about joining a shooting Club.

Yes.

Im keen to show everyone how truly supportive and keen I am to support any one who is actually involved in shooting sports and does not just spout off about it on a forum.

Are you keen to show the relevance of your first question to the validity of me being accused of trying to sow discord and create conflict for my own amusement just because I posted links to a couple of articles written by George Monbiot which I genuinely thought had merit? Or the relevance of it to the merits of the articles themselves?

As far as I'm concerned this is done. If anyone has evidence that I'm trolling, bring it on, and we can examine it. If anyone can mount a reasoned, intelligent argument in favour of the proposition that I'm trolling, bring it on and we can test it. But in the absence of those I am not going to be a party to perpetuating this pointless manufactured disagreement. If anyone wants to keep on accusing me of it with zero evidence and no credible reasoning then it is not I who is trying to create conflict here and I'm not going to join in their games.