Free Otis Ferry

  • Thread starter Thread starter dave dent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But the photographer is stumbling over beer cans again. Some people just wont listen.

and some people do not realise that the point of Art is to make you look at things in different way. You have to have an open mind to think into why those angles are chosen.
Generally its for compositional and dynamism purposes...energy, movement etc also.
There is a difference betwen art and documentary photography.
 
:rolleyes:

ITS GENERALLY WISE TO CHECK BEFORE RIDCULING SOMEONE...ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WHOSE DEGREE HONOURS YEAR THESIS WAS ART AND CULTURE IN NAZI GERMANY. CHECK FOR YOURSELF

SUPER ARTICLE BY A FINNISH ACADEMIC

www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494

'he [HIMMLER] also used the concept "animal rights" for the first time in its modern sense in an SS family publication in 1934. '

THE NAZIS INVENTED ANIMAL RIGHTS, BANNED FOXHUNTNG ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY ETC.
HERE IS GOERING;
200px-Hermann_Goering_2.jpg


in banning vivisection too of course, the Nazis also paved the way for human experimentation instead. Labour haven't gone that far I grant you but many labour mps want it banned; and worth remembering that one of Labour's biggest finacial backers when they came to power was PAL...linked to the animal rights orgnisation IFAW...banned incidentally, from he word conservation union. Tony Banks the labour mp's sister ran the thing.

from wikipedia

On coming to power in January 1933, the Nazis passed the most comprehensive set of animal protection laws in Europe.[56] Kathleen Kete of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut writes that it was the first known attempt by a government to break the species barrier, the traditional binary of humans and animals.

On November 24, 1933, the Tierschutzgesetz, or animal protection law, was introduced, with Adolf Hitler announcing an end to animal cruelty: "Im neuen Reich darf es keine Tierquälerei mehr geben." ("In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed.") It was followed on July 3, 1934 by the Reichsjagdsgesetz, prohibiting hunting; on July 1, 1935, by the Naturschutzgesetz, a comprehensive piece of environmental legislation; on November 13, 1937, by a law regulating animal transport by car; and on September 8, 1938, by a similar one dealing with animals on trains.[57] The least painful way to shoe a horse was prescribed, as was the correct way to cook a lobster to prevent them from being boiled alive.[58] Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly, with Hitler allowing himself the occasional dish of meat. Himmler also mandated vegetarianism for senior SS officers.[59]

Shortly before the Tierschutzgesetz was introduced, vivisection was first banned, then restricted. Animal research was viewed as part of "Jewish science," and "internationalist" medicine, indicating a mechanistic mind that saw nature as something to be dominated, rather than respected. Hermann Göring first announced a ban on August 16, 1933, following Hitler's wishes, but Hitler's personal physician, Dr. Morrel, reportedly persuaded him that this was not in the interests of German research,[60] and in particular defence research. The ban was therefore revised three weeks later, on September 5, 1933, when eight conditions were announced under which animal tests could be conducted, with a view to reducing pain and unnecessary experiments.[61] Primates, horses, dogs, and cats were given special protection, and licences to conduct vivisection were to be given to institutions, not to individuals.[62] The removal of the ban was justified with the announcement: "It is a law of every community that, when necessary, single individuals are sacrificed in the interests of the entire body."[63]

Medical experiments were later conducted on Jews and Romani children in camps, particularly in Auschwitz by Dr. Josef Mengele, and on others regarded as inferior, including prisoners-of-war. Because the human subjects were often in such poor health, researchers feared that the results of the experiments were unreliable, and so human experiments would be repeated on animals. Dr Hans Nachtheim, for example, induced epilepsy on human adults and children without their consent by injecting them with cardiazol, then repeated the experiments on rabbits to check the results.[64]


Significance of the German position
The Nazis' position was the first attempt by a government to reject the concept of speciesism, at that point still unnamed, but it produced the worst of all possible outcomes. Rather than elevating the status of non-humans, the Nazis traduced the status of human beings they regarded as enemies.
END


of course one could argue that while Labour have banned fur farmng, cherie blair wears real fur....like the nazis, hypocrites to boot.




also worth remembering that labour have thought about eugenics too;
current.com/items/89152708/eugenics_of_tony_blair_bbc_news.htm







Amy's looking particularly well in this shot..


Excuse my ignorance who's Amy
 
Last edited:

AGAIN READ BEFORE TAKING THE MICKEY; DON'T JUST BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SPOON FED
www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2

virtually the whole momentum of evidence against smoking re lung cancer has been from the 'research' of dr richard doll of oxford university. He studied under the SS at frankfurt university.
Unable to provide Hitler with the evidence he sought to condemn smoking, the use of so called statistical evidence BY SCIENTISTS was intoduced. THIS IS not EVIDENCE AND WOULD BE THROWN OUT OF A COURT OF LAW AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL. The other thing the worlds scientsts and doctors rushed to support was the idea of racial inferiority by skull meausrements....again the same nature of vidence and of course rubbish. scientists can be prostutes and work for whoever funds them.
SO WHO FUNDED DOLL.......

wikipedia

After his death, controversy arose over some of his work because his papers, held at the Wellcome Foundation Library, showed that for many years he had received consultancy payments from chemical companies whose products he was to defend in court. These include US$1,500 per day consultancy fee from Monsanto for a relationship which began in 1976 and continued until 2002. He also received fees from the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemicals, and ICI. Some donations, including a £50,000 gift from asbestos company Turner and Newall, were given in public ceremony to Green College Oxford where his wife was Warden, but most fees and payments remained undisclosed to the public, Oxford University and colleagues until his death. His defenders point out that his connections to industry were widely known by those in the field, that he did his work before formal disclosure of commercial interests became commonplace and that on occasion, he came to conclusions that were unpalatable to the companies who consulted him. His own view, as reported by Richard Peto, was that it was necessary to co-operate with companies for access to data which could prove their products to be dangerous

END

ASBESTOS HUH.


SO DID ANYONE EVER CHALLENGE DOLL.
WELL YES ACTUALLY
DR KITTY LITTLE. READ THIS FOR THE SHOCK OF YOUR LIFE
www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

DR LITTLE
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

SO anyway what about hard evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. well actually only 6 per cent of smokers ever get lung cancer, mostly 65 plus. 2 per cent of non smokers get it. But other risk factors are never taken into account into those stats...eg diet, urban v rural pollution exposure genetic dsposition and other disease and pollutant risk etc. See the only WAY YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE A HYPOTHESIS IN GENUINE SCIENTIFIC TERMS IS TO TEST AND REPEAT.
so it's animals I am afraid. HOW MANY SMOKING BEAGLES EVER GOT LUNG CANCER. NONE .
www.lcolby.com/b-chap9.htm

in addition, HPV virus is being now found in 50 per cent of lung cancer victims. Because it is not understood how it gets there, this information is being surpressed. Adeno viruses are also being implicated. Stomach and cerical cancers have now been removed from the AMA list as caused by smoking...they cannot be....they are bacterial or viral in entireity; Lung cancer will follow eventually; remember where you heard it.

I am not saying smokings good for you.....well...it does prevent alzheimer's and parkinsons and reduce the incidence of childhood asthma; and medical science is now proclaiming nicotine the wonder drug.

www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/nicotine


WADE THROUGH THESE STUDIES LINKED HERE
www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm
www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm
www.forces.org/evidence/evid/heart.htm
www.forces.org/evidence/evid/asthma.htm

CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE HAD A SMOKING BAN IN PLACE FOR LONGEST BTW HAVE THE LARGEST SUDDEN INCREASE IN CHILDHOOD ASTHMA IN THE WORLD.

and this is the most outrageous propaganda ever; amazingly people swallow it
www.smokershistory.com/piglung.html
 
Last edited:
Oh, stop shouting would you Dave?

Tell me, is it possible for you or your friend to make any posts without resorting to shameless spamming of your own websites???

Some of us are very much pro-hunting but it still doesn't mean we have to agree with what you're saying, I'm afraid.

As for the picture you put up, it just looks like three drunks at a fancy dress party.

ITS POSE FOR A SERIES OF VAMPIRE PAINTINGS; but if you prefer you can be arrested for posession of a photo of some people at a fancy dress party if there is blood or violence implied as part of the image. that should terrify everyone but it seems not. It means magazine imagery like bizarre, gothic and s and m culture will be criminalised. Every model and photographer and artist is up in arms about it but i guess its not important to some.

spamming.....no I HAVE NO SHAME LINKING IMAGERY I regard as of interest in a horse racing forum.
 
The biggest myth of all. It is astounding that anyone could seriously believe that the future of a growing and successful sport is dependent on the killing of animals for fun.

A horse can only learn to jump and a jockey can only learn how to ride if a fox is torn to shreds?

I cant be bothered with this debate. Been gone over enough times but this simpleton thinking is an insult to those of of us dont doff their cap at the local gentry, dont have strange looking closely related kids and can read without moving the lips

The biggest myth of all. It is astounding that anyone could seriously believe that the future of a growing and successful sport is dependent on the killing of animals for fun.

A horse can only learn to jump and a jockey can only learn how to ride if a fox is torn to shreds?

I cant be bothered with this debate. Been gone over enough times but this simpleton thinking is an insult to those of of us dont doff their cap at the local gentry, dont have strange looking closely related kids and can read without moving the lips

that is just pure class prejudice and certainly has no place in wales. we don't evn know what toffs are at the banwen miners or tredegar farmers. The basis of all national hunt racing is point to pointing oganised by hunts. End of argument; get something for that chip on your shoulder. What you see a docking caps as normal countryside politeness as you old see if you ever went to see horses work in say Lambourn. If there's a lord around he will generally tip his cap to everyone too.

in a true hunt the horse are fuelled with adrenalin; that is because what is about to happen is unpredictable and the horses ...and riders...like it. It is part of hound-horse and man relationship for thousand of years and that is what its all about. Born to HUNT. Remember that next tIMe yoU Have a lamb dinner which you havent provided yourself and maybe six of his mates got it in one night from one fox and nothing even eaten.

'RIppEd tO sHrEds' is emotive. The fox is actully killed by a bite to the neck of the alpha hound and dead in three seconds maximum; that is in the small percentage of times it gets caught.
Of course we have a precedent what happened when Hitler banned the hunt in the former czechoslovakia. The only country in the world just about where the fox became extinct as a direct result OF 'HUMANE' ALTERNATIVES AT FOX CONTROL.

NO OTHER METHOD OF FOX CONTROL IS DISCRIMINATORY EITHER...THE OLD SICK AND MANGEY MALE FOXES ARE THE ONES GENERALLY WHO CAuSE PROBLEMS FOR THE LIVESTOCK AND THEY STINK THE MOST SO THE HOUNDS GET THEM.
EAGLES GUNS AND SNARES AREN'T AS DISCRIMATORY, THE FOX TAKES LONGER TO DIE, CAN GET BADLY INJURED AND ESCAPE TO DIE PAINFULLY, AND POISON..WELL....SORT YOUR HOUSE OUT BECAUSE WHAT GOES ON IN CITIES GAINST A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT SOCIAL WILD ANIMAL WITH THE SAME SENSE OF PAIN AS A FOX IS KILLED IN THE MILLIONS DAILY AND A BURST STOMACH TAKES THREE DAYS TO KILL. THE RAT. we use terriers and ferrets its swifter and doesnt kill owls and cats who eat the poisoned rats.

sorry about the caps sometimes...I have a caps lock problem.
 
Last edited:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

SORRY I HAVE A SMILIE LOCK PROBLEM
 
Dave,

You've already been pm'd by another mod.

Your problem is not caps; leave them and self-promotion out.
 
He seems to be enjoying himself.:blink: It's just a shame I can't quite work out what he is talking about.

These rambling messages I really have no time for...
 
Has his "mate":D Richard Dunwoody gone up Everest or somewhere to escape him?
 
I won't edit it for now as I think it's better to leave the post visible for people to see the person you are.
 
Come on now - jokes over. Which one of your tricksters is Dave Dent?

Whoever he is, he clearly enjoys a puff and likes to hunt...

As for the much vaunted Kitty Little who conducted the research, it appears she was a bit of an "eccentric" - also a racist who denied the holocaust ever happened.

But other than that I'm sure she was quite sane, and her research should be believed as the gospel truth.

Given that your degree thesis was in the Arts, perhaps you should stick to that and leave those of us with PhD's in Chemical Engineering to stick to the science side of things?

Plantpot.
 
Whoever he is, he clearly enjoys a puff and likes to hunt...

As for the much vaunted Kitty Little who conducted the research, it appears she was a bit of an "eccentric" - also a racist who denied the holocaust ever happened.

But other than that I'm sure she was quite sane, and her research should be believed as the gospel truth.

Given that your degree thesis was in the Arts, perhaps you should stick to that and leave those of us with PhD's in Chemical Engineering to stick to the science side of things?

Plantpot.

Not one piece of evidence or attempt to challenge the arguments except for the attack on dr little...yes a renowned eccentric academic...thouh at last not edcated by the SS as dr doll was or in recipt of large paymnts from asbets companies; and notably no attempt at demonstrating her agument that diesel causes lung cancer is flawed.

I have attempted to answer everyone's comments; though if anythng needed moderating its personal ridicule and insult unsubstantiated by any reasoned argument.
 
Last edited:
Dave,

You've already been pm'd by another mod.

Your problem is not caps; leave them and self-promotion out.

I have been sworn at, I ave been name called, I have NOT been pm'd by a mod.
I have delivered hstorcal and scientfic evidence from a variety of academics that has nobody has been able to challenge except with personal abuse.

Anyone who knows me knows I am enthused by the spectacle of jumps racing and that is why I have given my work largely over to painting the subject. If you see art couched in business terms that is rather sad. If I wanted to promote myself I would hardly present contentious argument . It is the job of an artist always to challenge untruths injustice narrow mindedness and prejdiced moral opression; I am driven by both a passion to defend hard fought for liberties and traditions, horses, and female elegance and glamour. There is more...so much more...to horse racing than gambling and jockey bashing....and that is generally why I put up the images to try to inspire others.
 
Last edited:
Not one piece of evidence or attempt to challenge the arguments except for the attack on dr little...yes a renowned eccentric academic...thouh at last not edcated by the SS as dr doll was or in recipt of large paymnts from asbets companies; and notably no attempt at demonstrating her agument that diesel causes lung cancer is flawed.

On all points discussed in this thread, you've cherry picked the evidence (in contrast to the vast majority of research available in each topic) to agree with the opinions you already hold (or are inclinded to believe), and then are surprised when people don't agree with you?

If you honestly think your arguments are "reasoned", what is the point in engaging in further debate? I've better things to do than piss into the wind trying to convince you of something which your own prejudices have already persuaded you isn't true.
 
Actually, I have just realised that Dave Dent is a nom-de-plume for Arthur Dent.

Dave has actually returned to this world from 2 million years in the future having escaped earth when it was destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass. He is now marooned with an entire useless third of the Golgafrincham population (consisting of hairdressers, account executives, film makers, security guards, telephone sanitisers, and devotees of internet fora).
 
The fox is actully killed by a bite to the neck of the alpha hound and dead in three seconds maximum

Hungry lions do the same when they eat humans. Quick snap of the neck by all accounts and then they at least make good use of the meat by eating every last bit. So in fairness, it is ecologically sound. Not wasteful and no doubt helps the rain forest or whatever

A clean and entertaining sport which would rid the countryside of pests. Good for the economy too, given that there would be a welcome cull of oversubsidised whinging farmers
 
Hungry lions do the same when they eat humans. Quick snap of the neck by all accounts and then they at least make good use of the meat by eating every last bit. So in fairness, it is ecologically sound. Not wasteful and no doubt helps the rain forest or whatever

A clean and entertaining sport which would rid the countryside of pests. Good for the economy too, given that there would be a welcome cull of oversubsidised whinging farmers

It's laughable to hear such prejudice against farmers; and really not worth even adressing in a racing forum when the majority of people in racing are countryside based and many from farming backgrounds.
 
Some would say that's taking a rather old fashioned view of the Irish on the forum Dave :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top