[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sadly, it would appear that it is. You have, as others have pointed out, entirely missed / misinterpreted what I have said.

For the avoidance of doubt let me explain.

At no stage whatsoever did I mention or suggest or bring to the debate the issue of fox hunts killing cats, accidental or otherwise.

On the contrary

You posted a link to a family pet being attacked by hunt dogs

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35025576-post342.html

I said that it was:

Originally Posted by Pierre
An unfortunate incident, where an innocent pet was killed by people undertaking a pastime.

I then offered the analogy of other people undertaking a pastime and accidentally killing a pet

Originally Posted by Pierre
I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.

The issue being discussed at this point was about pets being accidentally killed by hunts.

you then countered that statement with

don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort

We were talking about pets not foxs at this point, and you what you posted is clear.

Pierre, with all due respect, you did not mention "accidentally" you posted "I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned".

And immediately before that on the same post. I wrote:

Originally Posted by Pierre
An unfortunate incident, where an innocent pet was killed by people undertaking a pastime.

Do youn think by that I was implying it was deliberately????

It was me who made the distinction between the accidental nature of the analogy you presented and the intentional nature of the premise of a hunt (in killing foxes, not cats I hasten to add)

Eh, it is clear the whole thrust of my point was that the killing of a family pet by a hunt was an accident. Therefore, the unfortunate event of an accident is not reason enough to be calling for the hunts to be banned.

That is all.

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. That is exactly not what I was implying.

Well that's how it read.

My statement "I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort" was in direct reply to your analogy "I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.

Nowhere in your analogy about people being out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike do you make reference to a hunt and, similarily, nowhere in my reply do I make reference to a hunt having the express intention of killing a cat.

Well if you can't join the dots in your head that the point I was making that going on a hunt or going for a leisurely drive are two recreational pastimes.

And if during one recreational pastime using horses a family pet is killed invokes one reaction

and if during another recreational pastime using cars or bike a family pet is killed invokes another kind of reaction.

Let's move along now.

Gladly