# Horses?



## nilling (13 Mar 2009)

Where I work there are a couple of stables nearby. It is not unusual to see a horse-rider or pony and trap on the roads during the morning or evening rush-hour. I am amazed at the patience and consideration shown by car drivers to these vulnerable road-users. There is no blasts of the horn, cutting in, nor obscene hand gestures!

So here's a thought - go horsey!

Wear a riding helmet, jodhpurs and knee-length boots. Use a crop to indicate and shout "tally-ho!" alot - just a thought


----------



## Cking (13 Mar 2009)

I think that the difference is that a cyclist on the bonet dents the car. A horse on the bonet is a different matter!


Rgds Cking


----------



## thomas (13 Mar 2009)

Speak to Horse riders...People do honk them!


----------



## gavintc (13 Mar 2009)

I think it is the fear factor with horses. Drivers perceive them a potential threat and will give them a wide berth. Cyclists on the other hand. Although, I know I complain about drivers, but in the main the vast majority of the drivers I encounter are understanding and give me room.


----------



## mr Mag00 (13 Mar 2009)

perhaps we should ride along shitting in the road too?


----------



## Bollo (13 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> Where I work there are a couple of stables nearby. It is not unusual to see a horse-rider or pony and trap on the roads during the morning or evening rush-hour. I am amazed at the patience and consideration shown by car drivers to these vulnerable road-users. There is no blasts of the horn, cutting in, nor obscene hand gestures!
> 
> So here's a thought - go horsey!
> 
> Wear a riding helmet, jodhpurs and knee-length boots. Use a crop to indicate and shout "tally-ho!" alot - just a thought


As well as the size, its the unpredictability and general skittishness of horses that worries your driver (and your cyclist for that matter). Perhaps if we went around with crazy eyes, waving our arms and legs around at the slightest noise and foaming from the mouth then we'd get a little more consideration - seems to work for mr_hippo (cheap shot I know, but I couldn't resist).


----------



## snakehips (13 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> As well as the size, its the unpredictability and general skittishness of horses that worries your driver (and your cyclist for that matter). Perhaps if we went around with crazy eyes, waving our arms and legs around at the slightest noise and foaming from the mouth then we'd get a little more consideration - seems to work for mr_hippo (cheap shot I know, but I couldn't resist).



Yep , it's fear , or lack of it , of the consequences that determines motorists' attitudes to other road users.


----------



## 02GF74 (13 Mar 2009)

car drivers will slow down if a dog jumps in front of them but are quite happy to shove a cyclist into the curb with their wing mirrors or pull out . b**stards!!


ok, so it is just a minority but you never forget the tw*t that runs you over but you will all thos that don't, give you loads of room or slow down to let you pull out.

still b***stards.


----------



## Chrisz (13 Mar 2009)

mr Mag00 said:


> perhaps we should ride along shitting in the road too?



I tried that once - it wasn't very effective 







_(just to explain/clarify - I had been experimenting with bicarbonate of soda as a lactic acid buffer for 10 mile time trials - as well as bad wind it also gave me the screaming sh1ts. The only conclusion to my experiments was that diahorreah is faster than the speed of sound - before I could shout out I'd sh1t myself!!!)_


----------



## Arch (13 Mar 2009)

I think there's a whole raft of reasons why drivers 'respect' horses - I say 'respect' because I reckon half the time it's self preservation rather than any respect for anyone else...

I wonder if part of it is location. Out on country roads, where you are more likely to encounter horses, maybe there's less 'gotta get on!' stress than in town. Also, horses are hugely more visible (I mean, like, loomingly big), and so are seen and NOTICED earlier giving the driver time to react properly, and get into the right frame of mind. I also wonder to what extent there's a tiny residual class issue - He is a horse rider, so I look up to him, but he is a cyclist so I look down on him.... Owning a horse is perceived by many as an elite thing, owning a bike just means you can't afford a car, innit?

I have cycled in riding kit, and it didn't make much difference, until I held my crop in my right hand sticking out. That worked nicely. I never had the chance to use it, but I suspect it would leave a very satisfying dent and certainly make a nice noise.


----------



## Bollo (13 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> .....
> I wonder if part of it is location. Out on country roads, where you are more likely to encounter horses, maybe there's less 'gotta get on!' stress than in town.



Tru-dat. Most of my riding takes place on single-lane country roads and generally there's more give and take than in town, with many more drivers willing to show a bit of consideration. I think some of it is just the nature of the roads - you can't expect to make unimpeded progress and fudge everyone else. I do notice that when I'm on slightly wider lanes that allow two cars to pass each other, the level of consideration tends to drop rapidly.



Arch said:


> Also, horses are hugely more visible (I mean, like, loomingly big), and so are seen and NOTICED earlier giving the driver time to react properly, and get into the right frame of mind. I also wonder to what extent there's a tiny residual class issue - He is a horse rider, so I look up to him, but he is a cyclist so I look down on him.... Owning a horse is perceived by many as an elite thing, owning a bike just means you can't afford a car, innit?


IMHO only one way - I don't think it plays a role with the horse riders, but cycling is still viewed by some as a poor person's transport. 



Arch said:


> I have cycled in riding kit, and it didn't make much difference, until I held my crop in my right hand sticking out. That worked nicely. I never had the chance to use it, but I suspect it would leave a very satisfying dent and certainly make a nice noise.



We demand pictures!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> Wear a riding helmet, jodhpurs and knee-length boots. Use a crop to indicate and shout "tally-ho!" alot - just a thought




Hey - that's my standard bike commuting gear!

Also the mention of obscene hand gestures reminds me no-one was 
better at them than a certain horseman himself - Mr Harvey Smith, remember him?


----------



## nilling (13 Mar 2009)

Exactly...


----------



## tyred (13 Mar 2009)

Horses need to be approached with caution. Their actions, if they are scared cannot be predicted. Also, a car hitting a horse can kill the car driver at worst, or at least do serious damage, knocking a cyclist off is a minor inconvenience so I suppose self preservation is the reason.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> Exactly...



That's the chap - those two fingers cost him two grand in 1971.

The 'Heathcliffe on Horseback' claimed it was a Churchill style V for victory - yeah right!


----------



## Arch (13 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> We demand pictures!



ooh, I'm not sure I have any.... Tell you what, if I remember this weekend, I'll set one up. Although I've not worn the jodhpurs for a while now, they may be a bit tight....


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> ooh, I'm not sure I have any.... Tell you what, if I remember this weekend, I'll set one up. Although I've not worn the jodhpurs for a while now, they may be a bit tight....



Have they shrunk in the wash?!!!


----------



## Arch (13 Mar 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Have they shrunk in the wash?!!!



No, but I may well have expanded!


----------



## jimboalee (13 Mar 2009)

Chrisz said:


> I tried that once - it wasn't very effective



It might have been YOU on that photo 

In order of priority from high to low - " ", Pedestrians, Equestrians, everyone else.

Therefore, the motorists are obeying the rules of the road.


----------



## bonj2 (13 Mar 2009)

I always give horses a wide berth and show them due consideration but imho they shouldn't be on the road, they are too unpredictable and temperamental to be trusted on the road. I once had to turn back after going down a quiet road in lincoln because there was a horse having a strop in the middle of the road about 100 yds ahead, with its rider struggling to control it and it rearing its front legs up. That's not something that's suitable for being on the public highway i'm afraid.


----------



## tyred (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I always give horses a wide berth and show them due consideration but imho they shouldn't be on the road, they are too unpredictable and temperamental to be trusted on the road. I once had to turn back after going down a quiet road in lincoln because there was a horse having a strop in the middle of the road about 100 yds ahead, with its rider struggling to control it and it rearing its front legs up. That's not something that's suitable for being on the public highway i'm afraid.



There were horses on the public road before there were bikes, cars, lorries or anything else. Most of the road network was built with them in mind. Therefore, I think they have a right to be there. Even if they do annoy me!


----------



## theclaud (13 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> I have cycled in riding kit, and it didn't make much difference, until I held my crop in my right hand sticking out. That worked nicely. I never had the chance to use it, but I suspect it would leave a very satisfying dent and certainly make a nice noise.



Interesting. The walk to my allotment takes me along a mile or so of the kind of road on which almost everyone drives like a bastard, missing my elbow by 3 inches at 60mph and suchlike (the limits are 30 and 20). I find this doesn't happen when I carry a large pair of shears, tip pointing into the road. Miraculously they give me much more room, and even slow down if there is oncoming traffic. I'm thinking of strapping shears to my bike in a similar position...


----------



## bonj2 (13 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> There were horses on the public road before there were bikes, cars, lorries or anything else. *Most of the road network was built with them in mind*. Therefore, I think they have a right to be there. Even if they do annoy me!



no it wasnt'. Most of the road network is tarmac, and that is not ideal for horses hooves. Neither was it paid for by horse riders.
If horse riders had a say in what the road network was built out of (just say, if they'd contributed to it, which they haven't) then they wouldn't choose tarmac.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> no it wasnt'. Most of the road network is tarmac, and that is not ideal for horses hooves. *Neither was it paid for by horse riders.*
> If horse riders had a say in what the road network was built out of (just say, *if they'd contributed to it, which they haven't*) then they wouldn't choose tarmac.


Doesn't that kind of assume that horse riders don't pay any taxes?


----------



## Arch (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> no it wasnt'. Most of the road network is tarmac, and that is not ideal for horses hooves. Neither was it paid for by horse riders.
> If horse riders had a say in what the road network was built out of (just say, if they'd contributed to it, which they haven't) then they wouldn't choose tarmac.



Yes they have contributed to it, in their taxes, along with everyone else.

And yes, most of the road network was built for horses, or pedestrians. it may have since been resurfaced, but it was there long before tarmac was invented and laid over the top.


----------



## Arch (13 Mar 2009)

theclaud said:


> Interesting. The walk to my allotment takes me along a mile or so of the kind of road on which almost everyone drives like a bastard, missing my elbow by 3 inches at 60mph and suchlike (the limits are 30 and 20). I find this doesn't happen when I carry a large pair of shears, tip pointing into the road. Miraculously they give me much more room, and even slow down if there is oncoming traffic. I'm thinking of strapping shears to my bike in a similar position...



Even better, strap a fork or rake across your rack...


----------



## tyred (13 Mar 2009)

What I mean is that if you ignore modern motorways and the like, the vast majority of roads were built and laid out at time when horses and pedestrians were the only traffic. They may have been resurfaced with tarmac, but that's neither here nor there.

Stage coach operators in most cases had to pay money to the local turn pike trusts who maintained the roads in the old days, so yes, they did pay for it. And car drives don't pay for the road nowadays anyway.


----------



## theclaud (13 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> Even better, strap a fork *or rake* across your rack...



It's only motorists I'm after - I wasn't planning to take out all pedestrian life forms with them.


----------



## trsleigh (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I always give horses a wide berth and show them due consideration but imho they shouldn't be on the road, they are too unpredictable and temperamental to be trusted on the road. I once had to turn back after going down a quiet road in lincoln because there was a horse having a strop in the middle of the road about 100 yds ahead, with its rider struggling to control it and it rearing its front legs up. That's not something that's suitable for being on the public highway i'm afraid.



Hear, hear 
I always give pushbikes a wide berth and show them due consideration but imho they shouldn't be on the road, they are too unpredictable and temperamental to be trusted on the road. I once had to turn back after going down a quiet road in lincoln because there was a bicyclist having a strop in the middle of the road about 100 yds ahead, with its rider struggling to control it and it weaving all over the place. That's not something that's suitable for being on the public highway i'm afraid.
Regards
Daily Mail reader.


----------



## jimboalee (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> no it wasnt'. Most of the road network is tarmac, and that is not ideal for horses hooves. Neither was it paid for by horse riders.
> If horse riders had a say in what the road network was built out of (just say, if they'd contributed to it, which they haven't) then they wouldn't choose tarmac.



What have the Romans ever done for us?


----------



## jimboalee (13 Mar 2009)

What did 'Arvey Smiff ever do for us?


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (13 Mar 2009)

jimboalee said:


> What have the Romans ever done for us?


You'll be defending Reg's right to have a baby next ..


----------



## HJ (13 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> no it wasnt'. Most of the road network is tarmac, and that is not ideal for horses hooves. Neither was it paid for by horse riders.
> If horse riders had a say in what the road network was built out of (just say, if they'd contributed to it, which they haven't) then they wouldn't choose tarmac.



Oh yes? Who else should be there because they "didn't pay for it" then?? I have heard a similar argument else where and it is complete boll*X...


----------



## c2c (13 Mar 2009)

mr Mag00 said:


> perhaps we should ride along shitting in the road too?



this might surprise you mag00 but its actually quite difficult to do....


----------



## buggi (13 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> Where I work there are a couple of stables nearby. It is not unusual to see a horse-rider or pony and trap on the roads during the morning or evening rush-hour. I am amazed at the patience and consideration shown by car drivers to these vulnerable road-users. There is no blasts of the horn, cutting in, nor obscene hand gestures!
> 
> So here's a thought - go horsey!
> 
> Wear a riding helmet, jodhpurs and knee-length boots. Use a crop to indicate and shout "tally-ho!" alot - just a thought




LOL  

Today, i was riding down a single lane 50mph carriageway and a driving instructor allowed his pupil to overtake me when there was oncoming traffic  and then 20 yards up the road they overtook a bucket (yes, a bucket!) and gave it as much room as they could. 

maybe we should all dress as buckets???


----------



## Night Train (13 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> ooh, I'm not sure I have any.... Tell you what, if I remember this weekend, I'll set one up. Although I've not worn the jodhpurs for a while now, they may be a bit tight....


Ooh Arch! Do you ride? Hmmm, interesting!


----------



## bonj2 (13 Mar 2009)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> Doesn't that kind of assume that horse riders don't pay any taxes?





Arch said:


> Yes they have contributed to it, in their taxes, along with everyone else.
> 
> And yes, most of the road network was built for horses, or pedestrians. it may have since been resurfaced, but it was there long before tarmac was invented and laid over the top.



the fact is horses don't pay road tax.
I have been known to shout "pay some road tax!" at horses when i rode past on my bike


----------



## Bollo (13 Mar 2009)

I'm just throwing this one out there but, just possibly.........


Do you think bonj might be on a bit of a wind up? No?


----------



## Origamist (13 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> I'm just throwing this one out there but, just possibly.........
> 
> 
> Do you think bonj might be on a bit of a wind up? No?



Bonj has been on a wind up for years...and to think, many moons ago, you compared me to him...


----------



## Bollo (13 Mar 2009)

Origamist said:


> Bonj has been on a wind up for years...and to think, many moons ago, you compared me to him...



What can I say? I was young and foolish. I do however still hold you both in the highest regard.


----------



## bonj2 (14 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> What I mean is that if you ignore modern motorways and the like, the vast majority of roads were built and laid out at time when horses and pedestrians were the only traffic. They may have been resurfaced with tarmac, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> Stage coach operators in most cases had to pay money to the local turn pike trusts who maintained the roads in the old days, so yes, they did pay for it. And car drives don't pay for the road nowadays anyway.



The road as we know it today IS the tarmac. There may have been a dirt track running along the same _route_ in olden times, but that tarmac was paid for out of road tax. Which was paid by motor vehicle owners.
You can say what you like about "central pots" and what not but the fact remains that road tax needs to be charged because of the cost of tarmac, and it is related to emissions which is something that is easy to measure while also being roughly proportional to the damage done to the road.


----------



## mickle (14 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> The road as we know it today IS the tarmac. There may have been a dirt track running along the same _route_ in olden times, but that tarmac was paid for out of road tax. Which was paid by motor vehicle owners.
> You can say what you like about "central pots" and what not but the fact remains that road tax needs to be charged because of the cost of tarmac, and it is related to emissions which is something that is easy to measure while also being roughly proportional to the damage done to the road.



The roads were tarmaced for bicycles and tricycles I think you'll find. If you look it up.


----------



## Cubist (14 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> the fact is horses don't pay road tax.
> I have been known to shout "pay some road tax!" at horses when i rode past on my bike



Do you reserve this behaviour for the ones that are being ridden, or any horses you might happen across?


----------



## DJ (14 Mar 2009)

Just responding to the OP, I new a guy who hit a cow in his Mini Cooper, ahem, yes you guessed it the cow got up and sauntered off, the car however, well he may as well have driven it off a cliff. Oh and I don't think the cow had payed any road tax either.


----------



## peanut (14 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> I think there's a whole raft of reasons why drivers 'respect' horses - I say 'respect' because I reckon half the time it's self preservation rather than any respect for anyone else...



I think it may be partly due to the general attitude of horse riders who are in the main respectful of other road users and the road traffic law.
You don't ever see horse riders going through red lights or along pavements do you.
If cyclists acted more responsibly I'm sure we would be offered a little more consideration


.....nahhhh drivers just hate cyclists full stop


----------



## purplepolly (14 Mar 2009)

peanut said:


> You don't ever see horse riders going through red lights or along pavements do you.



the err evidence on the local pavements would suggest otherwise, and they can't have just shovelled it there off the road because it's also often deposited on a local footbridge running alongside a road and separated by a high fence.


----------



## bonj2 (14 Mar 2009)

mickle said:


> The roads were tarmaced for bicycles and tricycles I think you'll find. If you look it up.



very rare was a road tarmacced before cars were invented.
Before cars were invented, the main road user was the horse so they wouldn't have tarmacced a road if the main user of the road didn't want it doing.


----------



## bonj2 (14 Mar 2009)

Cubist said:


> Do you reserve this behaviour for the ones that are being ridden, or any horses you might happen across?



well if they're on the road and HAVEN'T got a rider on them they want shooting. (Which imho, they do anyway, but still...)


----------



## HJ (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> The road as we know it today IS the tarmac. There may have been a dirt track running along the same _route_ in olden times, but that tarmac was paid for out of road tax. Which was paid by motor vehicle owners.
> You can say what you like about "central pots" and what not but the fact remains that road tax needs to be charged because of the cost of tarmac, and it is related to emissions which is something that is easy to measure while also being roughly proportional to the damage done to the road.



What is this "road tax" which you keep going on about? The last hypothecated road taxation in Britain was abolished by Winston Churchill, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1936. VED has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the road system...


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Before cars were invented, the main road user was the horse so they wouldn't have tarmacced a road if the main user of the road didn't want it doing.



But with horses unable to talk no one actually knew of their opinion until humans started scaring them with their nasty cars and the like!

Cars are sh*te, bikes are great and horses are brilliant!!


----------



## HJ (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> very rare was a road tarmacced before cars were invented.
> Before cars were invented, the main road user was the horse so they wouldn't have tarmacced a road if the main user of the road didn't want it doing.



John Loudon McAdam, who invented the the McAdam system of road building to which you refer, died in 1836, thirty one years before Karl Benz invented the car. There is much that is flawed in your logic...


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Mar 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> There is much that is flawed in your logic...



To consider it logic is pretty flawed in it's self...............


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> What is this "road tax" which you keep going on about? The last hypothecated road taxation in Britain was abolished by Winston Churchill, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1936. VED has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the road system...



The annual license fee that vehicle owners pay in order to obtain a tax disc. i.e., a _tax_, that is imposed for using the _road_. Not really hard to understand, is it?


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> But with horses unable to talk no one actually knew of their opinion until humans started scaring them with their nasty cars and the like!
> 
> Cars are sh*te, bikes are great and horses are brilliant!!



Horses aren't good on tarmac. Ask any horse user.
That's why they can only walk on tarmac but they can gallop on soft ground.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> John Loudon McAdam, who invented the the McAdam system of road building to which you refer, died in 1836, thirty one years before Karl Benz invented the car. There is much that is flawed in your logic...


And?
a) What's 'mcadam system of road building' (to which I havent' referred, incidentally) got to do with it, 

:?: Even if most roads were tarmacced before the invention of cars, which they weren't, then what difference would that make to who pays for most of the tarmac that gets laid down on roads today? i.e. payers of road tax.


----------



## KyleB (15 Mar 2009)

We got some abuse from a horse woman today, was just cycling past her fair slow, in the middle of the road, and she went mental at us- f-ing and such like. The horse didn't even seem to be bothered, it was the woman going mental-- which probably would have scared the horse even more than two cyclists going past it....

Are horses scared of people on bikes?


----------



## KyleB (15 Mar 2009)

and to add something to your argument, most cyclists have cars and already pay road tax. 

I don't pay road tax and thus I don't pollute the environment as much as car users do.


----------



## very-near (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Horses aren't good on tarmac. Ask any horse user.
> That's why they can only walk on tarmac but they can gallop on soft ground.



If the horses are being ridden on the road, the farrier uses 'road nails' which stand proud of the shoe and give more grip on the road. Alternatively, they can use Road studs. 



> Road Studs are generally used on hard surfaces, such as roads or very hard ground. They are usually 4 or 6-sided, small and flat in size and blunt. Road Studs can be used on front or back shoes and can be postioned on the inside or the outside of the shoe. Whenever possible, we reccommend using road studs on the inside of the shoe because your horse is less likely to injure himself if he catches the stud on his other leg. This type of stud can be used most of the time, unless the ground is very muddy or slippery. We recommend that beginner users first start out with Road Studs because your horse may move differently. Also young horses and horses who have never been ridden with studs should be started with Road Studs so they can get used to the difference in traction.
> http://www.studsandstuff.com/typesofstuds.html



If the horse is unshod, then the hoof does actually offer a lot of grip on tarmac.

Horses can canter or gallop on any surface, but are not encouraged to do so on a tarmac surface as it is hard on the joints and will bruise the feet if done for extended periods.


----------



## very-near (15 Mar 2009)

KyleB said:


> We got some abuse from a horse woman today, was just cycling past her fair slow, in the middle of the road, and she went mental at us- f-ing and such like. The horse didn't even seem to be bothered, it was the woman going mental-- which probably would have scared the horse even more than two cyclists going past it....
> 
> Are horses scared of people on bikes?



They can be extremely so if they don't hear you coming. Best to call out and slow down a bit if you are approaching from behind to let the horse know you are there.


----------



## HJ (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> The annual license fee that vehicle owners pay in order to obtain a tax disc. i.e., a _tax_, that is imposed for using the _road_. Not really hard to understand, is it?



It is not a tax which is hypothecated to roads (you might want to look up the word hypothecated in a dictionary). There is a zero rate band which applies to owners of vehicle which emitting less than 135g CO2 per km, this is the band which horse and cyclist fit into...


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> If the horses are being ridden on the road, the farrier uses 'road nails' which stand proud of the shoe and give more grip on the road. Alternatively, they can use Road studs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


exactly, it's not to do with grip it's to do with the fact it's bad for the horses legs.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> *It is not a tax which is hypothecated to roads* (you might want to look up the word hypothecated in a dictionary). There is a zero rate band which applies to owners of vehicle which emitting less than 135g CO2 per km, this is the band which horse and cyclist fit into...



maybe not directly, but effectively it is.


----------



## PBancroft (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> maybe not directly, but effectively it is.



Citation needed.


----------



## PBancroft (16 Mar 2009)

KyleB said:


> and to add something to your argument, most cyclists have cars and already pay road tax.
> 
> I don't pay road tax and thus I don't pollute the environment as much as car users do.



And roads (except motorways) are funded by the Highways department of your local council anyway, through council tax. For example, Warwick DC.


----------



## Lurker (16 Mar 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> It is not a tax which is hypothecated to roads (you might want to look up the word hypothecated in a dictionary). There is a zero rate band which applies to owners of vehicle which emitting less than 135g CO2 per km, this is the band which horse and cyclist fit into...



Your hypothecation point's correct. 

But, no, the 'zero rate' band - band A - is for vehicles emitting 100g carbon dioxide or less per km. 

For current VED bands see: 
www.bytestart.co.uk/content/taxlegal/9_15/vehicle-excise-duty-rates-2008-9.shtml

New, more finely graded, VED rates come into effect on 1 April (the zero rate remains for emissions up to 100g carbion dioxide per km ) and can be seen at:
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/content/taxlegal/9_15/ved-rates-2009-2011.shtml


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

> Your point is correct. However,
> 
> There's also talk of a new band which takes into account methane emissions for animals using the road.
> 
> ...



that would only be an issue if you commute on a cow.
which some people might


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

> The clue is in the name - tar_mac_ - you plum.



some 18th century fella might have invented it but it wont' have been like we know it today, it will have just been comacted mud in those days, therefore will hve been good for horses and won't have been very expensive thus no need for road tax, it will have just been made my mudpackers.


----------



## tyred (16 Mar 2009)

The other issue being that most horse owners own a large 4x4 to pull the horse box and they do pay "road" tax on that. SO they have paid for the road.

Besides, just as a motorist has to pay taxes on petrol/diesel, a horse needs feeding which also has VAT on it


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

yeah but it wasn't called tarmac back then was it - it was called the 'mcadam system of road building' apparently. Not my words.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> The other issue being that most horse owners own a large 4x4 to pull the horse box and they do pay "road" tax on that. SO they have paid for the road.
> 
> Besides, just as a motorist has to pay taxes on petrol/diesel, a horse needs feeding which also has VAT on it



a horse needs feeding on hay which has to be transported hundreds of miles for purely political reasons balanced precariously on a dangerous lorry which it might fall off at any moment.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

> By golly, I do believe you're right!-
> 
> http://www.strum.co.uk/palimps/macadam.htm
> 
> ...



exactly, I'm always right:


> "it wasn't until the twentieth century, and the coming of the automobile, that "black top" became common."


----------



## very-near (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> a horse needs feeding on hay which has to be transported hundreds of miles for purely political reasons balanced precariously on a dangerous lorry which it might fall off at any moment.



Bagged Horse feed and bagged haylage is transported hundreds of miles on artics as both haylage and the feeds are made under very strict conditions both out in the fields and in the factories. Bailed hay is rarely moved more than 20 or 30 miles as nearly all farms make their own as it is only grass at the end of the day. Sometimes at the end of the winter you might see a lorry on the motorway who has bought surplus hay, but this is usually for cattle. Horse owners are mostly individuals and can manage with about 40-50 bales of hay per animal for the entire winter if they are being kept on limited grazing, and will only buy half a dozen bales if they get their estimation wrong.


----------



## tyred (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> a horse needs feeding on hay which has to be transported hundreds of miles for purely political reasons balanced precariously on a dangerous lorry which it might fall off at any moment.



I grew up on a farm. I know what hay is. There is almost certainly fertilizers spread on the land. The government get VAT from that. The machinery used to make the hay had to be bought and have tax paid on the purchase price. If it is transported by road, the lorry transporting it will have paid road tax as well as the fuel duty. Virtually everyone pays tax in some shape or form and therefore virtually everyone has contributed to the upkeep of the roads.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> I grew up on a farm. I know what hay is. There is almost certainly fertilizers spread on the land. The government get VAT from that. The machinery used to make the hay had to be bought and have tax paid on the purchase price. If it is transported by road, the lorry transporting it will have paid road tax as well as the fuel duty. Virtually everyone pays tax in some shape or form and therefore virtually everyone has contributed to the upkeep of the roads.



why can't they just make the hay on the same farm that the horse lives and save all that bother? Or better still, why can't the horse just eat grass and apples?
and they don't NEED fertiliser, horses survived perfectly well for hundreds of years before it was invented.


----------



## very-near (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> why can't they just make the hay on the same farm that the horse lives and save all that bother? Or better still, why can't the horse just eat grass and apples?
> and they don't NEED fertiliser, horses survived perfectly well for hundreds of years before it was invented.



The grass grows far faster than can be grazed in that size of field in the summer and is either turned by the farmer into silage for his cattle or hay which he sells to us or at the market usually around may or june, and then in september for the winter.

The rule of thumb is one horse in one acre of grazing. I keep 2 in a 5 acre field, and they have mostly grazed it down over the winter. I think if push came to shove, then we could have had another animal in the 5 acres, but the grass and ground under it would have been fairly buggered by the end of the winter, and the horses would drop their condition (starve) between Christmas and March/April. Hay is the best of the grass at the peak of its growing cycle with all of the goodness this brings, and that is why it is cut at specific times and kept when either the grass in the field has been grazed down, or the animals have to be brought off to avoid turning them to quagmires.

As for fertilizer, the farmer was harrowing our field this evening to get rid of the dung. He will do this a few times a year and this helps aerate the soil and saves us having to poo pick a very large area.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> The grass grows far faster than can be grazed in that size of field in the summer and is either turned by the farmer into silage for his cattle or hay which he sells to us or at the market usually around may or june, and then in september for the winter.
> 
> The rule of thumb is one horse in one acre of grazing. I keep 2 in a 5 acre field, and they have mostly grazed it down over the winter. I think if push came to shove, then we could have had another animal in the 5 acres, but the grass and ground under it would have been fairly buggered by the end of the winter, and the horses would drop their condition (starve) between Christmas and March/April. Hay is the best of the grass at the peak of its growing cycle with all of the goodness this brings, and that is why it is cut at specific times and kept when either the grass in the field has been grazed down, or the animals have to be brought off to avoid turning them to quagmires.
> 
> As for fertilizer, the farmer was harrowing our field this evening to get rid of the dung. He will do this a few times a year and this helps aerate the soil and saves us having to poo pick a very large area.



Great. Very nice. The fact remains, though, horses are all *twats*.


----------



## Bollo (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Great. Very nice. The fact remains, though, horses are all *twats*.



New Forest ponies aren't _twats, _they're as cool as f***.


----------



## very-near (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Great. Very nice. The fact remains, though, horses are all *twats*.



You need to quantify this one Bonj. Some can be real idiots, some can be really quit intelligent (relatively speaking). A bit like people really.

If you train the animals to compete in the way we have done, you can see that some have the intelligence to figure out some fairly tricky stuff and show that they enjoy doing it, and some are without hope.


----------



## Ronaldo (17 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> I've joined this thread late, but all the horses in the stables where I get my allotment pooh have all had funny hair cuts. Why, they look silly?



Horses are given funny haircuts (clipped) in the late autumn so that they can be rugged (wear a blanket) through the winter. The rug in to keep them warm if they are stabled and warm and clean if they are turned out (put in field) as they roll in any mud available.

Horses need to be clipped if they are ridden through the winter because if they retained their own winter coat they would perspire (sweat) too much.

In conclusion, it should be said that not all horse riders are toffs. Almost all are "normal people" who fork out a fortune in order to pursue their chosen hobby. It is quite possible to be a life long cyclist and also enjoy horses.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Mar 2009)

peanut said:


> I think it may be partly due to the general attitude of horse riders who are in the main respectful of other road users and the road traffic law.
> You don't ever see horse riders going through red lights or along pavements do you.
> If cyclists acted more responsibly I'm sure we would be offered a little more consideration
> 
> ...



Oh no?

There's a narrow single lane bridge near me which is controled by signals. I cycle across on green but always stop on red.
Two equestrians, one Sunday morning just rode through the red and forced the oncoming car to stop on a green . They took so long about crossing the bridge, the signals changed round a full cycle before the car could cross. This made me irate 

To my surprise, the car driver would down her window and shouted "Hello Jill", at the elder Horserider.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

Ronaldo said:


> Horses are given funny haircuts (clipped) in the late autumn so that they can be rugged (wear a blanket) through the winter. The rug in to keep them warm if they are stabled and warm and clean if they are turned out (put in field) as they roll in any mud available.
> 
> Horses need to be clipped if they are ridden through the winter because if they retained their own winter coat they would perspire (sweat) too much.
> 
> In conclusion, it should be said that not all horse riders are toffs. Almost all are "normal people" who fork out a fortune in order to pursue their chosen hobby. It is quite possible to be a life long cyclist and also enjoy horses.



+1


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> New Forest ponies aren't _twats, _they're as cool as f***.



yeah they aren't horses they're ponies.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

> Bonj v Linf.
> 
> <sits back to enjoy the show>



He can be bloody stubborn, but he does have some capacity for reason MrP.


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yeah they aren't horses they're ponies.


This UML Class diagram says otherwise......


----------



## nilling (17 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> This UML Class diagram says otherwise......



As I cried with laughter at this does it make me a geek?


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> As I cried with laughter at this does it make me a geek?



Yes


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2009)

nilling said:


> As I cried with laughter at this does it make me a geek?


It's been a quiet day at Bollocorp. And +1 yes.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> This UML Class diagram says otherwise......



uml's just yet another one of those things in this world that's _completely pointless_...


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

I don't have a problem with horses, I just don't think they should be allowed to be ridden on roads.





































Or bridleways.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I don't have a problem with horses, I just don't think they should be allowed to be ridden on roads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do you also object to cattle being driven to the milking parlour or any animals being moved down the road or is it just the act of exercising horses in a public place which you object to ?


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

> He's teasing you linf.
> 
> Your response should be something equally as ludicrous.



Whilst I respect his right to dislike them, I'm trying to establish why such a strong dislike has manifested itself.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Do you also object to cattle being driven to the milking parlour or any animals being moved down the road or is it just the act of exercising horses in a public place which you object to ?



i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster! 
If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!
There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
Why can't they milk them where they are?


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Whilst I respect his right to dislike them, I'm trying to establish why such a strong dislike has manifested itself.



They're dangerous, and arrogant. No mountain bikers like horses, becuase horses think they own the countryside, simply because they have largely had the run of it for years, but now they don't. They can't blame people for realising what shoots horses actually are and forming alternative hobbies. An example of why they are dangerous twats: The only safe place to be relative to a horse is _away_ from it. In front of it - it can bite. Behind it - it can kick you. To death, if it so desires. At the side of it, it can buck its arse and knock you over, probably also to death. On it - and it can throw you off. They're temperamental, wild animals and to expect them to have road sense is to me ludicrous.


----------



## tyred (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster!
> *If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!*
> There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
> Why can't they milk them where they are?



And what happens if there is a road between the two fields? It is necessary to cross it.


----------



## tyred (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> They're temperamental, wild animals and to expect them to have road sense is to me ludicrous.



You can say that about the majority of drivers never mind horses


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> And what happens if there is a road between the two fields? It is necessary to cross it.



Well why is it necessary for them to get from that field to the field across the road? They need to think outside the box. That's the problem with farmers, they don't think. Then again, they're not paid to. They're paid to pretend to do work , but in fact achieve precisely bugger all - to transport a load of livestock from one field to another and then back again completely pointlessly is one of the ways of looking busy i suppose, which I presume is why they do it.
Doesn't mean we have to like it though!


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster!
> If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!
> There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
> Why can't they milk them where they are?



Steady on Bonj, this is Linf you are talking to.

A herd of 20 cows can graze a 6 acre field down in a week. If they were kept in there any longer, they would starve or have to be given Silage or Hay.

The farmers rotate their grazing from field to field, but there is no guarantee that the farmer owns interconnected fields.

In the winter, most cows will be brought off the fields and kept on the farmyard to protect the fields when they soften up in the wet weather.


----------



## tyred (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Well why is it necessary for them to get from that field to the field across the road? They need to think outside the box. That's the problem with farmers, they don't think. Then again, they're not paid to. They're paid to pretend to do work , but in fact achieve precisely bugger all - to transport a load of livestock from one field to another and then back again completely pointlessly is one of the ways of looking busy i suppose, which I presume is why they do it.
> Doesn't mean we have to like it though!



When the cows have eaten all the grass in one field, it is necessary to move them to another field with fresh grass. Otherwise they starve and you wouldn't be able to have roast beef for your sunday dinner as there would be no beef as all the cattle have starved to death


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> *They're dangerous, and arrogant. No mountain bikers like horses, becuase horses think they own the countryside, simply because they have largely had the run of it for years*, but now they don't. They can't blame people for realising what shoots horses actually are and forming alternative hobbies. An example of why they are dangerous twats: The only safe place to be relative to a horse is _away_ from it. In front of it - it can bite. Behind it - it can kick you. To death, if it so desires. At the side of it, it can buck its arse and knock you over, probably also to death. On it - and it can throw you off. They're temperamental, wild animals and to expect them to have road sense is to me ludicrous.



Are you referring to the horse or the rider ?


----------



## Arch (17 Mar 2009)

I'm just waiting for bonj to explain the difference between a horse and pony... (Without looking it up, of course....)


----------



## Cubist (17 Mar 2009)

been off the forum for a while and just read through this. Thanks guys, pure comedy. Keep it up! Bonj, you rival Meldrew for sheer apparent irational ire and rantingThanks, cheered me right up.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> And what happens if there is a road between the two fields? It is necessary to cross it.



Well, IDIOT! Why is it even _ever necessary_ to go from field A to field B, irregardless of whether field A is on the opposite side of a road from field B


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Steady on Bonj, this is Linf you are talking to.
> 
> A herd of 20 cows can graze a 6 acre field down in a week. If they were kept in there any longer, they would starve or have to be given Silage or Hay.
> 
> ...



Why can't they have 20 cows per 6 x _n_ acres, where _n_ is the number of weeks it takes for the grass to grow back. And make those _n_ 6 acre fields adjacent to each other - so say if there is only 12 acres bordered by road, and it takes a week for the grass to grow back, then they can only have 20 cows in that space of land, and they have to move from one half (6 acres) to the other half separated by a fence, on a weekly basis. Those 20 cows can never leave that 12 acres, they just move from one half of it to the other. THEY CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF COWS! 
If that leaves a surplus of cows in the whole country, then they will have to be EITHER culled, OR shipped off to france (probably the best solution), OR alternatively just set free in some woods in scotland maybe to become wild, like they probably once were anyway.

The only time they should be transported by road is when it's time for them to be shot, when a lorry should park up in the field and they should be herded in, and taken to the NEAREST abbatoir, not one that is the other end of the country but that is politically convenient because the farmer has a good relationship with the owner.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> The farmers rotate their grazing from field to field, but *there is no guarantee that the farmer owns interconnected fields.*



It DOESN'T MATTER!! THat's purely political convenience. Political convenience doesn't go hand in hand with an efficient farming system. If farmers can't cooperate with each other then the government should bang their bloody heads together. Like i've said before, they should be nationalised - which they effectively are anyway seeing as they are mainly paid out of subsidies to pretend to farm rather than actually produce a decent amount of food.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> When the cows have eaten all the grass in one field, it is necessary to move them to another field with fresh grass. Otherwise they starve and you wouldn't be able to have roast beef for your sunday dinner as there would be no beef as all the cattle have starved to death



Well, you would actually - because most of our beef is shipped in from new zealand or france, but hey.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Why can't they have 20 cows per 6 x _n_ acres, where _n_ is the number of weeks it takes for the grass to grow back. And make those _n_ 6 acre fields adjacent to each other - so say if there is only 12 acres bordered by road, and it takes a week for the grass to grow back, then they can only have 20 cows in that space of land, and they have to move from one half (6 acres) to the other half separated by a fence, on a weekly basis. Those 20 cows can never leave that 12 acres, they just move from one half of it to the other. THEY CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF COWS!




Have you never traveled on London Underground during rush hour?
T'is a bad analogy, but I felt I had to say it.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> I'm just waiting for bonj to explain the difference between a horse and pony... (Without looking it up, of course....)



they are derived from the same base species in the same way that elephants are derived from the same base species as mammmoths.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

User3143 said:


> How would you transport the cows up into Scotland though? Say the farm was near Grantham, how would you transport the cows and what road would you use?



cows off a farm near grantham would ideally be slaughtered in a grantham abbatoir and fed to people in grantham, leaving both lanes of the A1 clear for people with a _real_ need to use it.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Have you never traveled on London Underground during rush hour?
> T'is a bad analogy, but I felt I had to say it.



who said they have to have cows in the middle of london?
OR are you talking about slaughtering cows by running them over with underground trains? 
don't really understand your point


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Mar 2009)

It was a point about overcrowding, I think.
Turning the Undergroud into an abattoir is interesting tho.
You could pick up some mince, I'm presuming that's the only setting Underground trains have, on your way home.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

User3143 said:


>



you probably shouldn't be contributing to a discussion on the best way to manage livestock for the ideal agriculturally efficient nation, because your only interest seems to be a selfish one of requiring anything to be transported as far as possible using lorries. If you could transport something all the way up to scotland and then the same thing back down again as long as you get paid you'd probably do it. In fact you probably do. You're the reason congestion's so bad!


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> It was a point about overcrowding, I think.



Come to think of it, cows don't really need exercise. If you could have a whole massive field completely FULL of cows, i.e. tessellating, they wouldn't be able to get any exercise and therefore the meat would probably be tenderer. Not sure how they'd sleep though  edit: ah, i know you could simply have a (re-)movable fence to give them a few feet extra each at night, then stand them all up again and compress them in in the morning.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> It was a point about overcrowding, I think.
> Turning the Undergroud into an abattoir is interesting tho.
> You could pick up some mince, I'm presuming that's the only setting Underground trains have, on your way home.



But it would be pointlessly inefficient, think of the effort compared to doing it with normal trains.
The most efficient way of slaughtering cows, far more efficient even than an abbatoir, would be to just go into the field with an uzi or other machine gun and just open fire. I don't really know why they don't...I presume it's for political reasons, something about keeping abbatoirs in business.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Come to think of it, cows don't really need exercise. If you could have a whole massive field completely FULL of cows, i.e. tessellating, they wouldn't be able to get any exercise and therefore the meat would probably be tenderer. Not sure how they'd sleep though  edit: ah, i know you could simply have a (re-)movable fence to give them a few feet extra each at night, then stand them all up again and compress them in in the morning.


How are you going to feed the cows one cow in from the edge of this massive clump of cows?

You _really_ haven't thought this through, have you?


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

User3143 said:


> You would have to work out some way of collecting all the bullets stuck in the cow wouldn't you?
> 
> Depends on what type of caliber though 7.62mm instead .22 maybe even use a five-o as demonstrated by Rambo. So the rounds go straight through. After all you don't want to be sued because someone sitting down to their Sunday roast has cracked a tooth on a bullet.


BUT, if you use a high velocity armour piercing round and you've got your cows neatly tessellated, then you could potentially off several cows with a single round, which ends up smacking safely into a pile of haybales on the other side of the field. Of course, you'll need to get the haybales there in a big lorry, but hey, that's easy enough to achieve.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> How are you going to feed the cows one cow in from the edge of this massive clump of cows?
> 
> You _really_ haven't thought this through, have you?



They'll still be able to bend their heads down and eat the grass that they're standing on.
I have thought it through. It relies on movable fences, but they shouldn't be that hard.
So, where were we - yes, after a day you'd be left with a regular array of patches of depleted grass, and lush grass in between. You'd then simply move all the fences so the bits of grass the cows heads were above was an uneaten patch.
They'd be more compressed in sideways than lengthways. They wouldn't be able to move forward or backwards, but only mainly due to friction with the cow either side, but they'd be able to move their head up and down as their head isn't the widest part of their body.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> BUT, if you use a high velocity armour piercing round and you've got your cows neatly tessellated, then you could potentially off several cows with a single round, which ends up smacking safely into a pile of haybales on the other side of the field. Of course, you'll need to get the haybales there in a big lorry, but hey, that's easy enough to achieve.



No, you wouldn't need that. If you had a long enough line of cows it would be bound to stop in one of them, you'd just need to work out which one it had stopped in, by which was the next one still alive.
IN fact, my you've just highlighted another advantage of my tessellatory cows idea - they would be MUCH easier to slaughter. You could simply fire through their lined up heads - who eats _head_ for god's sake? You could even use a massive long guillotine to decpitate the whole of the front row at once.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:



> They'll still be able to bend their heads down and eat the grass that they're standing on.


These are cows, not giraffes. They are going to able to eat the grass directly behind the hooves of the cow in front. One wink of that cow's sphincter and dinner is _gone_.



> I have thought it through. It relies on movable fences, but they shouldn't be that hard.
> So, where were we - yes, after a day you'd be left with a regular array of patches of depleted grass, and lush grass in between. You'd then simply move all the fences so the bits of grass the cows heads were above was an uneaten patch.
> They'd be more compressed in sideways than lengthways. They wouldn't be able to move forward or backwards, but only mainly due to friction with the cow either side, but they'd be able to move their head up and down as their head isn't the widest part of their body.


O-kaaaayyyyyy....
So, each cow basically gets about 2' square of land to graze per day. Assuming it's not covered in poo pizza, that's going to give each cow less that half a pound of grass per day. Of course, as your cows starve you'll be able to fit more cows into the field. This increases your cow/wealth significantly.

Bonj, you are Bernie Madoff AAICMFP.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> These are cows, not giraffes. They are going to able to eat the grass directly behind the hooves of the cow in front. One wink of that cow's sphincter and dinner is _gone_.
> 
> 
> O-kaaaayyyyyy....
> ...



NO!  they would be head-to-head, and arse-to-arse!
have them all facing the same way and you're screwed, schoolboy error.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> These are cows, not giraffes. They are going to able to eat the grass directly behind the hooves of the cow in front. One wink of that cow's sphincter and dinner is _gone_.
> 
> 
> O-kaaaayyyyyy....
> ...



it could be every few hours, the fences could shift automatically on a timer.


----------



## Abitrary (17 Mar 2009)

Most cows are corn fed these days anyhow so none of this makes any difference.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> No, you wouldn't need that. If you had a long enough line of cows it would be bound to stop in one of them, you'd just need to work out which one it had stopped in, by which was the next one still alive.
> IN fact, my you've just highlighted another advantage of my tessellatory cows idea - they would be MUCH easier to slaughter. You could simply fire through their lined up heads - who eats _head_ for god's sake? You could even use a massive long guillotine to decpitate the whole of the front row at once.


Actually, to tessellate cows you'll need to arrange them with their heads side by side but with their bodies alternating left and right. Thusly... 

MOOOO>
______<OOOOM
MOOOO>
Etc

Except that, as you have most perspicaciously noted, the head is the narrowest part of a cow, hence they would tessellate quite neatly with the added advantage that their heads are lined up ready for the high-velocity AP bullet.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> They'll still be able to bend their heads down and eat the grass that they're standing on.
> I have thought it through. It relies on movable fences, but they shouldn't be that hard.
> So, where were we - yes, after a day you'd be left with a regular array of patches of depleted grass, and lush grass in between. You'd then simply move all the fences so the bits of grass the cows heads were above was an uneaten patch.
> They'd be more compressed in sideways than lengthways. They wouldn't be able to move forward or backwards, but only mainly due to friction with the cow either side, but they'd be able to move their head up and down as their head isn't the widest part of their body.



I see a problem with the Uzi idea Bonj. Each cow weighs about 120 stone and can easily out run a man on foot so can probably do about 20mph. 
Now there is about 30 cows on the yard where I keep my horses. They are very nervous creatures, and you really have to be careful not to move too quickly near their pen as they will bolt if you scare them.

You would only have to get one shoot off with your Uzi and you then have about 20 tonnes of very scared bovines leaning on the flimsy barbed wire fence at the far end of the field.

I can't see the idea flying bud


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> it could be every few hours, the fences could shift automatically on a timer.


But this results in....a line of cows. Moving slowly down an empty field behind a motorised fence.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> I see a problem with the Uzi idea Bonj. Each cow weighs about 120 stone and can easily out run a man on foot so can probably do about 20mph.
> Now there is about 30 cows on the yard where I keep my horses. They are very nervous creatures, and you really have to be careful not to move too quickly near their pen as they will bolt if you scare them.
> 
> You would only have to get one shoot off with your Uzi and you then have about 20 tonnes of very scared bovines leaning on the flimsy barbed wire fence at the far end of the field.
> ...


Ah, but cows will come over and lick you if you lay down in the field. This works. I have tried it.

All you have to do is have your Uzi 9mm concealed in the long grass. You could probably take out several in one go.


----------



## Crackle (17 Mar 2009)

Use the fence as a garrot. I mean they'd be use to it moving so they wouldn't notice it quietly garrotting the cows around them. Saves on bullets, which would probably have to come by lorry, too.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> I see a problem with the Uzi idea Bonj. Each cow weighs about 120 stone


doesn't matter



very-near said:


> and can easily out run a man on foot so can probably do about 20mph.


bollocks can it



very-near said:


> Now there is about 30 cows on the yard where I keep my horses. They are very nervous creatures, and you really have to be careful not to move too quickly near their pen as they will bolt if you scare them.


being scared is going to be the least of their worries



very-near said:


> You would only have to get one shoot off with your Uzi and you then have about 20 tonnes of very scared bovines leaning on the flimsy barbed wire fence at the far end of the field.


but the point of a machine gun is that the second shot is about 0.00001 of a second after the first. Stand in the middle rotating and spraying and you'll have them all off in no time. Tessellate them all and they'll have nowhere to run anyway...


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Crackle said:


> Use the fence as a garrot. I mean they'd be use to it moving so they wouldn't notice it quietly garrotting the cows around them. Saves on bullets, which would probably have to come by lorry, too.



nah, bullets are small they could be delivered in a van, or even a car. Or even, cycle! In fact, it could be a public duty that cyclists could perform and get paid for. Cyclists riding through countryside could get loaned a free gun at one end of a lane, and hand it in at some point further down the lane, and any cows they see in the field next to the road as they're cycling along, they can just pop them off. Would double up as a way of dealing with stray sheep in the middle of the road as well.


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

Just have a very high voltage going through the fence. So when you shoot some, and the rest run to the fence, they hit and fence and are killed by the voltage, or stunned ready to be lined up and shot.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Crackle said:


> Use the fence as a garrot. I mean they'd be use to it moving so they wouldn't notice it quietly garrotting the cows around them. Saves on bullets, which would probably have to come by lorry, too.



Yes, that would be fine for the first row. But the second row would have their arses facing it, not their heads. IF you can think of way of turning them round, I think that's how the plan needs to develop,.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> bollocks can it


Yes it can. 

I reckon a scared Friesian could easily manage 20mph in short bursts.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> But this results in....a line of cows. Moving slowly down an empty field behind a motorised fence.



no, the whole field of cows would have to move.

FENCE A
_______
F |CCCCC|
E |CCCCC|
N |CCCCC|
C |CCCCC|
E |CCCCC|
_______
FENCE B


now, Fence A moves south, and Fence B moves south with it. Therefore all the cows have to move?


----------



## Crackle (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Yes, that would be fine for the first row. But the second row would have their arses facing it, not their heads. IF you can think of way of turning them round, I think that's how the plan needs to develop,.



Yeh but the garrot would be at head height not arse height. Anyway you just use one of those tethered balloons with a speaker on to make a loud moo. They all look up and along comes the garrot - simples.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Yes it can.
> 
> I reckon a scared Friesian could easily manage 20mph in short bursts.



well, that's a special sort of cow. anyhow it doesn't really matter.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Just have a very high voltage going through the fence. So when you shoot some, and the rest run to the fence, they hit and fence and are killed by the voltage, or stunned ready to be lined up and shot.



yep - excellent idea. Going by that, you woudln't even need to actually shoot ANY, just stand in the middle of the field shooting into the air to scare them and they would all radiate, crashing into the fence and getting killed at precisely the same time.
This would also solve the bullet problem.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> no, the whole field of cows would have to move.
> 
> FENCE A
> _______
> ...


Please, no rising Antipodean intonations on this thread or I'll have you flogged. 

Look, fool, your plan means that only the cows in Row E get a meal. The other cows end up with cow poo and trampled mud. Plus, they all get covered in wee from the cow in front.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> well, that's a special sort of cow. anyhow it doesn't really matter.


Bullocks it is! It's yer bog-standard black and white cow. The kind called Daisy.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Crackle said:


> Yeh but the garrot would be at head height not arse height. Anyway you just use one of those tethered balloons with a speaker on to make a loud moo. They all look up and along comes the garrot - simples.



Oh, you mean a garrot _above_ all the cows?
Good idea, but (a) getting the balloon to fly at the correct height would be tricky, and ( wouldn't the garrot knock the balloon out of flight, (c) what if one of the cows managed to actually eat the balloon or the speaker - it might not be quick enough to fly away.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yep - excellent idea. Going by that, you woudln't even need to actually shoot ANY, just stand in the middle of the field shooting into the air to scare them and they would all radiate, crashing into the fence and getting killed at precisely the same time.
> This would also solve the bullet problem.


Look, you're assuming that the cows will scatter and radiate in a regular formation. This is real life, not a Busby Berkeley dance routine, 'k? In Real Life(tm) what will happen is that you stand in the middle firing into the air. _Some_ cows will make it to the fence, but the momentum of 120 stone of frightened pot-roast will smash through the fence, thus unleashing the slower cows into the surrounding countryside.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

I'm going to sneak into your bedroom and hide a cow in your wardrobe.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Please, no rising Antipodean intonations on this thread or I'll have you flogged.
> 
> Look, fool, your plan means that only the cows in Row E get a meal. The other cows end up with cow poo and trampled mud. Plus, they all get covered in wee from the cow in front.



NO. Look. Think of it geometrically. Let's measure the height up the field in cow lengths, for simplicity, so the table of arse position and head position is as thus:
row, head position, arse position
A, 0.0, 1.0
B, 2.0, 1.0
C, 2.0, 3.0
D, 4.0, 3.0
E, 4.0, 5.0

after the first cycle, there's going to be shoot at positions 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0 cow lengths.
But then the fences move by 0.2 cow lengths north, so, say, the positions are now thus:
row , head position, arse position,
A, 0.2 , 1.2
B, 2.2 , 1.2
C, 2.2 , 3.2
D, 4.2 , 3.2
E, 4.2 , 5.2

so no cow's head is at a position which has been shat on?


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Look, you're assuming that the cows will scatter and radiate in a regular formation. This is real life, not a Busby Berkeley dance routine, 'k? In Real Life(tm) what will happen is that you stand in the middle firing into the air. _Some_ cows will make it to the fence, but the momentum of 120 stone of frightened pot-roast will smash through the fence, thus unleashing the slower cows into the surrounding countryside.



but it will be electrocuted, so it won't make it THAT far past the fence, on account of the fact that it'll have recently become dead.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> but it will be electrocuted, so it won't make it THAT far past the fence, on account of the fact that it'll have recently become dead.


But it _will_ take the fence down. If sheep can lay down on cattle grids while their friends cross, I don't see why one brave cow can't take one for the team and breach that goddamn fence.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> NO. Look. Think of it geometrically. Let's measure the height up the field in cow lengths, for simplicity, so the table of arse position and head position is as thus:
> row, head position, arse position
> A, 0.0, 1.0
> B, 2.0,  1.0
> ...


No, because the movement of the cows' hooves (note correct use of apostrophe-? will spread the poo and stir it into a horrid poo porridge which will cover the ground behind the front row.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Mar 2009)

Is that a faint 'mooooo' I hear coming from the corner of your room?


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yep - excellent idea. Going by that, you woudln't even need to actually shoot ANY, just stand in the middle of the field shooting into the air to scare them and they would all radiate, crashing into the fence and getting killed at precisely the same time.
> This would also solve the bullet problem.



Just scare them enough so they run to the fence and touch it. Then no need for any shooting. So no need for bullets to be transported around the country when theres really no need.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> but it will be electrocuted, so it won't make it THAT far past the fence, on account of the fact that it'll have recently become dead.



I use electric fencing from time to time. Now when an animal gets a zap, it jumps back. If the cows are touching each other then they all get a zap as the power runs though their hooves to ground especially if it is covered in a wet sloppy dollop - and then proceed to plough through any fence arrangement in place whether electrified or not.

These are big powerful animals and you won't stop a stampede of them in a confined space once they get rolling.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Chuffy said:


> But it _will_ take the fence down. If sheep can lay down on cattle grids while their friends cross, I don't see why one brave cow can't take one for the team and breach that goddamn fence.



fine - you've answered your own question!  have an electric cattle grid!


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> I use electric fencing from time to time. Now when an animal gets a zap, it jumps back. If the cows are touching each other then they all get a zap as the power runs though their hooves to ground especially if it is covered in a wet sloppy dollop - and then proceed to plough through any fence arrangement in place whether electrified or not.
> 
> These are big powerful animals and you won't stop a stampede of them in a confined space once they get rolling.



yeah but your typical electric fence is,what, 20-odd volts? I'm talking a few KILO volts. Enough to fry 'em stone dead.


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yeah but your typical electric fence is,what, 20-odd volts? I'm talking a few KILO volts. Enough to fry 'em stone dead.



Exacty. More power the better. Have a cow roasting just as its dead. Think how nice the meat could be!


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Just scare them enough so they run to the fence and touch it. Then no need for any shooting. So no need for bullets to be transported around the country when theres really no need.




That's all very well, but you can't apply an element of fear so precisely that you can cause them to run an exact number of metres. Having worked out the correlation between amount of fear and distance run.
Furthermore, the cows might be at different positions within the field, so you would need to ensure that you not only scared them the right amount but that each one received the correct amount of fear corresponding to its distance from the fence. If that also then means that you have to fire the gun from any position other than the centre of the field, you need to take into account all sorts of other factors, such as what angle the cow will run at, any extra amount of fear the other cows will receive, and the equations just become stupidly complicated. Far easier to have a mechanism that works and kills any number of cows that run into it regardless of what velocity the cows run into it at and also isn't sacrificial.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Exacty. More power the better. Have a cow roasting just as its dead. Think how nice the meat could be!



it wouldn't cook it. Its thick leather skin would absorb most of the electric shock, that and its head


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yeah but your typical electric fence is,what, 20-odd volts? I'm talking a few KILO volts. Enough to fry 'em stone dead.



The average zap from a fence control unit is about 20,000 volts. the amperage is low though as the fence would melt in use and you would never get an animal in the field if it saw one of its buddies getting fried by it.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> The average zap from a fence control unit is about 20,000 volts. the amperage is low though as the fence would melt in use


electric cattle grid, as Chuffy helpfully suggested. The thickness of the bars would also enable a much higher current to be transmitted.



very-near said:


> and you would never get an animal in the field if it saw one of its buddies getting fried by it.



it would if the alternative was being shot. Plus, they would all hit it at more or less the same time.


----------



## Cubist (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yep - excellent idea. Going by that, you woudln't even need to actually shoot ANY, just stand in the middle of the field shooting into the air to scare them and they would all radiate, crashing into the fence and getting killed at precisely the same time.
> This would also solve the bullet problem.



I hate to disappoint you, but cows aren't all that frightened by the sound of firearms. My friend Tony was trying to shoot something fluffy, when Daisy here came to have a little look at his Accuracy International .(and trust me, it's f*cking noisy....):












You may have to stick with the guillotene


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> The average zap from a fence control unit is about 20,000 volts. the amperage is low though as the fence would melt in use and you would never get an animal in the field if it saw one of its buddies getting fried by it.



So basicly, have the fence with enough power to kill a cow. Then make one get zapped. When that one is zapped, all the other cows will be scared and run around, touch a fence(because they are pretty stupid) and die. This will make a chain reaction of cows being killed, and just means that you need to only scare one, then just let the cows sort themself out with the killing. 
The electric fences you use probably those thin ones. What this fence needs is a good quality wire that can take a high voltage and ampage, that just kills the cows instantly.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> electric cattle grid, as Chuffy helpfully suggested. The thickness of the bars would also enable a much higher current to be transmitted.
> 
> 
> 
> it would if the alternative was being shot. Plus, they would all hit it at more or less the same time.



It isn't really how the animals die which determines whether they are being humanely treated, but they way they are kept whilst alive.

You failed the test Bonj.


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

Cubist said:


> I hate to disappoint you, but cows aren't all that frightened by the sound of firearms. My friend Tony was trying to shoot something fluffy, when Daisy here came to have a little look at his Accuracy International .(and trust me, it's f*cking noisy....):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That cow would of shoot itself it your mate had shot one of its buddies. Wouldnt of gone near him then.


----------



## very-near (17 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> So basicly, have the fence with enough power to kill a cow. Then make one get zapped. When that one is zapped, all the other cows will be scared and run around, touch a fence(because they are pretty stupid) and die. This will make a chain reaction of cows being killed, and just means that you need to only scare one, then just let the cows sort themself out with the killing.
> The electric fences you use probably those thin ones. What this fence needs is a good quality wire that can take a high voltage and ampage, that just kills the cows instantly.



Have you any idea how long it takes to kill a man by electrocution, and by comparison how long it would take to kill by electrocution something weighing 10 times as much ?


----------



## Cubist (17 Mar 2009)

It also kind of knacks the scaring to a specific degree theory, as Daisy was fearless compared with Gladys who came over with her to have a look, but bolted when Tony cocked the rifle. Unless of course she had been in war zone in a previous life, and knew what was coming......


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Have you any idea how long it takes to kill a man by electrocution, and by comparison how long it would take to kill by electrocution something weighing 10 times as much ?



If the power is high enough, then a few seconds. Or more, but when it touches the fence, if the power is high enough the animal would be stunned and be stuck to the fence untill it dropped dead.
Cows are probably so dumb that they would just keep going back and touching the fence until they dropped dead if they didnt drop dead instantly.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> So basicly, have the fence with enough power to kill a cow. Then make one get zapped. When that one is zapped, all the other cows will be scared and run around, touch a fence(because they are pretty stupid) and die. This will make a chain reaction of cows being killed, and just means that you need to only scare one, then just let the cows sort themself out with the killing.
> The electric fences you use probably those thin ones. What this fence needs is a good quality wire that can take a high voltage and ampage, that just kills the cows instantly.



yep, that'd probably work.


very-near said:


> It isn't really how the animals die which determines whether they are being humanely treated, but they way they are kept whilst alive.
> 
> You failed the test Bonj.



well they will be being humanely treated.
Better than them being compacted in with other cows than stuffed in a lorry and carted round the country on roads. Besides, if they've never known anything different they're not going to mind.
If that's still cruel then you could genetically modify them not to have central nervous systems so they are effectively a plant, as KFC have already done with chickens. Which are so conjoined there is a large area of the battery farm of them that looks like individual ones but is actually the same chicken, and it goes without saying they have no feathers.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Have you any idea how long it takes to kill a man by electrocution, and by comparison how long it would take to kill by electrocution something weighing 10 times as much ?



With your puny electric fence that you run off a landrover battery, probably quite a while, but I'm talking about electricity of about the power of the national grid here. In fact that's another good idea- all you'd need to do for the electric fence is to just have low pylons, and the electricity lines would BE the fences.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Cubist said:


>



He's got what looks like a perfectly good gun there, instead of trying half-heartedly to push the bloody cow away why didn't he just shoot it?
Point blank range aswell, he wouldn't even need the sight. (Unless he's a _really_ crap shot)


----------



## Joe24 (17 Mar 2009)

And instead of shooting little rabbits, shot a few cows. Works out much better. He could get alot more meat from one bullit if he shot a cow, compared to if he shot a rabbit.
And he would of probably done the farmer a job, and saved the cow being carried in a lorry along roads to be slaughted.
Why waste time aiming at little fluffy things you can get half a meal from, when you can shoot a big stupid cow and get lots of meals.


----------



## Cubist (18 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> And instead of shooting little rabbits, shot a few cows. Works out much better. He could get alot more meat from one bullit if he shot a cow, compared to if he shot a rabbit.
> And he would of probably done the farmer a job, and saved the cow being carried in a lorry along roads to be slaughted.
> Why waste time aiming at little fluffy things you can get half a meal from, when you can shoot a big stupid cow and get lots of meals.



You don't understand. This was the bovine Charles Bronson and Bruce Willis love-child. It was nails. I'm not sure it would have fallen over if he shot it, and you don't want to disappear under acres of turgid udder if you only winged it and made it cross.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> And instead of shooting little rabbits, shot a few cows. Works out much better. He could get alot more meat from one bullit if he shot a cow, compared to if he shot a rabbit.
> And he would of probably done the farmer a job, and saved the cow being carried in a lorry along roads to be slaughted.
> Why waste time aiming at little fluffy things you can get half a meal from, when you can shoot a big stupid cow and get lots of meals.





Cubist said:


> You don't understand. This was the bovine Charles Bronson and Bruce Willis love-child. It was nails. I'm not sure it would have fallen over if he shot it, and you don't want to disappear under acres of turgid udder if you only winged it and made it cross.


You could carry a nice gun, with sights - like the above fella's got, and a rocket launcher.
So the bullet didn't get in any meat, you would probably have to get a head shot. If you didn't manage to get a headshot and hit it in the body instead, you'd know because it probably wouldn't kill it - so you'd have to use the rocket launcher in order to then blast it into the middle of next week if that was the case, in order to be humane and put it out of its suffering from the wound.
The more cows that have to be rocketed, the more it would cost you for your go on the cow range.
In fact thinking about it there would probably be enough people taking up the hobby of shooting cows to not need any other method, and what with the incentive, enough people getting good enough at it to get a probably above 90% yield.


----------



## tyred (18 Mar 2009)

And how did we get from talking about horses on the road to talking about gross cruelty to bovines


----------



## Joe24 (18 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> And how did we get from talking about horses on the road to talking about gross cruelty to bovines



Have a quick read


----------



## Arch (18 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> they are derived from the same base species in the same way that elephants are derived from the same base species as mammmoths.



No, not really.

Here's a clue They _are_ the same species. So what defines a pony, and what defines a horse?

(I'm fed up of electrocuting cows, so I want a laugh seeing how you answer this one...)


----------



## tyred (18 Mar 2009)

I think I know the difference but I'll await the definitive answer from our expert on country life.


----------



## Joe24 (18 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> No, not really.
> 
> Here's a clue They _are_ the same species. So what defines a pony, and what defines a horse?
> 
> (I'm fed up of electrocuting cows, so I want a laugh seeing how you answer this one...)



Well thats easy, a Pony is a fake horse
Actually, a pony and a horse are the same thing, you just dont see it. Like a cob is known as a bun in other areas


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> No, not really.
> 
> Here's a clue They _are_ the same species. So what defines a pony, and what defines a horse?
> 
> (I'm fed up of electrocuting cows, so I want a laugh seeing how you answer this one...)


a pony is a small horse.


----------



## Abitrary (19 Mar 2009)

What's this thread about bonj? I can see the words but I can't see the beauty.

Prime number of bullett points, if you will please.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

Abitrary said:


> What's this thread about bonj? I can see the words but I can't see the beauty.
> 
> Prime number of bullett points, if you will please.



* pointlessness of horses
* dangerousness of horses
* pointlessness of transporting cows by road
* cows in general
* methods of compacting a field full of cows/cow tessellation
* methods of assassinating cows
* cows
* electrocution of cows
* decapitation of cows
* rate of consumption of grass in fields by cows
* different words for bread
* shooting cows as a hobby
* difference between horses and ponies


----------



## Abitrary (19 Mar 2009)

cheers, I think the easiest way for a layman to kill a horse or a cow is to simply buy a nailgun and shoot it through the forehead.

Now I think of it, I'm surprised you don't see more of it. Chavs are willing to push cows over when they're sleeping, or set horses and sheep on fire, but a nail gun is surely the most potent and abhorrent way to commit acts of violence on animals for fun?


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

Abitrary said:


> cheers, I think the easiest way for a layman to kill a horse or a cow is to simply buy a nailgun and shoot it through the forehead.
> 
> Now I think of it, I'm surprised you don't see more of it. Chavs are willing to push cows over when they're sleeping, or set horses and sheep on fire, but a nail gun is surely the most potent and abhorrent way to commit acts of violence on animals for fun?



machine gun probably more fun, but less accessible.
My suggestion of picking them off with a gun with sights, using a rocket launcher for humanity in case it hits it in the body, would be a lot more realistic as a hobby. People'd pay to do it AND you'd get cows killed which you want to do anyway.


----------



## Ronaldo (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> a pony is a small horse.



Almost there.

Ponies are ridden by children and tend to be less than 14.2 hands.


----------



## byegad (19 Mar 2009)

Ronaldo said:


> Almost there.
> 
> Ponies are ridden by children and tend to be less than 14.2 hands.



Hands! I thought they had hooves! And does the .2 mean the 'orse is giving us the finger?


----------



## tyred (19 Mar 2009)

It's something I always wondered about why equestrian folk had to come up with a unique measurement for measuring the height of a horse. Why not use feet like everyone else?


----------



## jimboalee (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> They're dangerous, and arrogant. No mountain bikers like horses, becuase horses think they own the countryside, simply because they have largely had the run of it for years, but now they don't. They can't blame people for realising what shoots horses actually are and forming alternative hobbies. An example of why they are dangerous twats: The only safe place to be relative to a horse is _away_ from it. In front of it - it can bite. Behind it - it can kick you. To death, if it so desires. At the side of it, it can buck its arse and knock you over, probably also to death. On it - and it can throw you off. They're temperamental, wild animals and to expect them to have road sense is to me ludicrous.





jimboalee said:


> In order of priority from high to low - " ", Pedestrians, Equestrians, everyone else.
> 
> Therefore, the motorists are obeying the rules of the road.




To be honest, a Horserider, or Equestrian DOES own the road. Many Equestrians you see around DO own the countryside.

The missing entity in my priority list is "Her Majesty, the Queen".


----------



## very-near (19 Mar 2009)

Ronaldo said:


> Almost there.
> 
> Ponies are ridden by children and tend to be less than 14.2 hands.



Almost there

Ponies are ridden by both children and adults and can be anything up to 15:2HH on a life height certificate 

Native breeds like New forest, Welsh mountain, Fell, Exmoor etc usually define what people consider a 'pony' to be in the UK


----------



## very-near (19 Mar 2009)

byegad said:


> Hands! I thought they had hooves! And does the .2 mean the 'orse is giving us the finger?



A 'Hand' is 4" and measured to the top of the 'withers', or the part of the spine which joins the horses neck.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Native breeds like New forest, Welsh mountain, Fell, Exmoor etc usually define what people consider a 'pony' to be in the UK



they're like breeds of dogs but the vast majority of horses, ponies and donkeys are in fact mongrels.


----------



## Arch (19 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> It's something I always wondered about why equestrian folk had to come up with a unique measurement for measuring the height of a horse. Why not use feet like everyone else?



Well, if you want to measure a horse, it's more convenient to do so with your hand, than to try and use your foot - you'd have to lie down next to the horse and 'walk' up it...


----------



## Arch (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> they're like breeds of dogs but the vast majority of horses, ponies and donkeys are in fact mongrels.



How come you're such an expert suddenly?


----------



## very-near (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> they're like breeds of dogs but the vast majority of horses, ponies and donkeys are in fact mongrels.



And this is the best way to be. We have both a Thoroughbred horse (15:3HH) and a crossbred pony (13:2HH).

The pony (initially very cheap ex gypsie horse) has far more brains, and is far lower maintainance than the thoroughbred, and is actually worth about 10 times as much as the horse is given it has proven itself in competition to a far greater degree than the horse could, and because it has the brains, can work out what to do with its legs when it comes to a jump, meaning it's appeal goes right across the abilities of novice to expert rider, as well as being very well balanced and smooth to ride.

The Thoroughbred (like a racehorse) was initially very very expensive and bred for showjumping (not to us, is very highly strung, needs a very good rider, as it hasn't really got the brains to figure its legs out, and also has a conformation (gait) which will have you on the floor if you aren't gripping on very tightly in either canter or gallop, as well has having crap feet (like all thoroughbreds) and unable to go barefoot bumping maintainance costs right up - as well as the special dietary requirements all thoroughbreds have, as well as needing to be brought in when it turns cold.

The Thoroughbred is like a ferrari in a straight line, but lets face it, most competition is won on the corners. 

Give me the hardy pony any day. Thoroughbred horses are bloody hard work and very expensive by comparison.


----------



## tyred (19 Mar 2009)

The same is true in cattle and presumably in all animals. The cross breds are always a far tougher animal than pedigrees. It's called hybrid vigour.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> And this is the best way to be. We have both a Thoroughbred horse (15:3HH) and a crossbred pony (13:2HH).
> 
> The pony (initially very cheap ex gypsie horse) has far more brains, and is far lower maintainance than the thoroughbred, and is actually worth about 10 times as much as the horse is given it has proven itself in competition to a far greater degree than the horse could, and because it has the brains, can work out what to do with its legs when it comes to a jump, meaning it's appeal goes right across the abilities of novice to expert rider, as well as being very well balanced and smooth to ride.
> 
> ...



Horses that are dangerous should be culled. i.e., all horses.


----------



## very-near (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Horses that are dangerous should be culled. i.e., all horses.



This should apply to people as well.



































Oh hang on, it does - but not in the UK


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> The same is true in cattle and presumably in all animals. The cross breds are always a far tougher animal than pedigrees. It's called hybrid vigour.



Thoroughbreds are therefore evolutationarily artificial, and should be allowed to become extinct.


----------



## very-near (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Thoroughbreds are therefore evolutationarily artificial, and should be allowed to become extinct.



Read this Bonj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse

All Thoroughbreds are descended from Arabs. They have been around for nearly 5,000 years


----------



## c2c (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Well, IDIOT! Why is it even _ever necessary_ to go from field A to field B, *irregardless* of whether field A is on the opposite side of a road from field B



great new word, a mutant, hybrid word....... marvelous.


----------



## tdr1nka (19 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> But it would be pointlessly inefficient, think of the effort compared to doing it with normal trains.
> The most efficient way of slaughtering cows, far more efficient even than an abbatoir, would be to just go into the field with an uzi or other machine gun and just open fire. I don't really know why they don't...I presume it's for political reasons, something about keeping abbatoirs in business.



The reason they don't use Uzi's is because of the current EU agricultural legislation and trade embargo on Israeli firearms.


----------



## 4F (19 Mar 2009)

Can anyone give me a brief resume on this thread to save me looking through the 22 pages so far ? I tried to jump in at page 11 and saw some mention of cows

Thanks


----------



## tyred (19 Mar 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Can anyone give me a brief resume on this thread to save me looking through the 22 pages so far ? I tried to jump in at page 11 and saw some mention of cows
> 
> Thanks



In a nutshell, Bonj seems to want to ban horses and cattle from the road, ban the transportation of hay by road and ban farming in general.


----------



## Arch (19 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> The same is true in cattle and presumably in all animals. The cross breds are always a far tougher animal than pedigrees. It's called hybrid vigour.



Presumably it's down to the limited gene pool in animals whose breeding has been restricted to a small group.


----------



## 4F (19 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> In a nutshell, Bonj seems to want to ban horses and cattle from the road, ban the transportation of hay by road and ban farming in general.



Aaah I see, another Townie. Thanks


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> In a nutshell, Bonj seems to want to ban horses and cattle from the road, ban the transportation of hay by road and ban farming in general.



yep, pretty much. I don't see how that would have too much of a detrimental effect on society or the country as a whole at all.
A few "farmers" (i put it in quotes because in britain they don't actually farm, so much as get paid subsidies to do bugger all) would be out of work, but they could be offered jobs in the new industries and leisure facilities that would spring up on the land currently taken up by farms.


----------



## Kovu (19 Mar 2009)

Nought wrong with horses.


----------



## Joe24 (19 Mar 2009)

Kovu said:


> Nought wrong with horses.



Yes there is


----------



## 4F (19 Mar 2009)

Kovu said:


> Nought wrong with horses.



I like mine medium rare


----------



## Kovu (19 Mar 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I like mine medium rare



It is tasty.


----------



## 4F (19 Mar 2009)

And the steaks are bigger.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Mar 2009)

Horse would be very tough meat, 'cos horses do a lot of exercise. It would probably take the average adult about 30 mins to eat a 1/2lb steak of horse, whereas they could neck the same of cow in probably less than 15 mins. They eat it in north korea apparently don't they - the commies trying to keep them in check by having them eating dinner for longer?


----------



## Abitrary (20 Mar 2009)

Well said bonj. But just looking back at your last replies:
The ones that divide us from men to sinners. Garrulous priests, and loose nuns... boom


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Horse would be very tough meat, 'cos horses do a lot of exercise. It would probably take the average adult about 30 mins to eat a 1/2lb steak of horse, whereas they could neck the same of cow in probably less than 15 mins. They eat it in north korea apparently don't they - the commies trying to keep them in check by having them eating dinner for longer?



Well the horse I had in France was very tasty and not at all tough. 

You have not taken into account that cows also do a lot of exercise such as walking down the road from one field to the other twice a day to be milked.


----------



## Arch (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Horse would be very tough meat, 'cos horses do a lot of exercise. It would probably take the average adult about 30 mins to eat a 1/2lb steak of horse, whereas they could neck the same of cow in probably less than 15 mins. They eat it in north korea apparently don't they - the commies trying to keep them in check by having them eating dinner for longer?



A classic example of bonj mistaking 'imaginative opinion' for 'fact'...

Horse meat isn't any more tough than beef, I gather, and it's also better for you - less saturated fat.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> A classic example of bonj mistaking 'imaginative opinion' for 'fact'...
> 
> Horse meat isn't any more tough than beef, I gather, and it's also better for you - less saturated fat.



The reason rump steak is tender is because a cow doesn't use its arse, muscles, which the meat is from.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> A classic example of bonj mistaking 'imaginative opinion' for 'fact'...
> 
> Horse meat isn't any more tough than beef, I gather, and it's also better for you - less saturated fat.



"you gather"
so you haven't ever actually had horse, then?


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> "you gather"
> so you haven't ever actually had horse, then?



I have eaten it, and not it isn't.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> I have eaten it, and not it isn't.



it isn't what, tender? No i didn't think it would be.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> it isn't what, tender? No i didn't think it would be.



It isn't tough if cooked properly. Like any piece of meat really.


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> It isn't tough if cooked properly. Like any piece of meat really.



+ 1 lovely piece of steak although kept jumping over the potatoes.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> It isn't tough if cooked properly. Like any piece of meat really.



yes, but it's tough if cooked anything but in a stew.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yes, but it's tough if cooked anything but in a stew.



You can tenderise any steak by using Sous-Vide bonj

Read this


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yes, but it's tough if cooked anything but in a stew.



Have you actually tried it Bonj ? I have and you are talking a load of pony.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Have you actually tried it Bonj ? I have and you are talking a load of pony.



if it was nice it would be a lot more popular, trust me.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> if it was nice it would be a lot more popular, trust me.



It is on the continent.


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Mar 2009)

Horse steak is perfectly tender and very nice.
I've had it a few times. Donkey is all right too.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (20 Mar 2009)

I had a horse steak in Belgium the other week. Very nice it was too: lean and tender. Scrummy it was.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> It is on the continent.



no but it would be in britain.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> Horse steak is perfectly tender and very nice.
> I've had it a few times. Donkey is all right too.



You've probably formed that opinion based on what you were expecting it to be like, but in reality when compared to an animal that is meant to be eaten, like a cow, it isn't half as tender.


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> You've probably formed that opinion based on what you were expecting it to be like, but in reality when compared to an animal that is meant to be eaten, like a cow, it isn't half as tender.



No. I've formed that opinion based on having eaten it.B)


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> No. I've formed that opinion based on having eaten it.B)



I think if it were nice, then tesco's would be selling it. In the same way that if recumbents were any good, they'd be more mainstream.


----------



## amnesia (20 Mar 2009)

If anyone eats my horse I won't be very happy...

Meet Alfie - a 17hh thoroughbred cross polish.







(That's my wife riding him, not me)

I have also had horse steak in France and it was lovely.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I think if it were nice, then tesco's would be selling it. In the same way that if recumbents were any good, they'd be more mainstream.



They do B)


----------



## tyred (20 Mar 2009)

Interesting question though. Why don't we eat horses and yet the French do?


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (20 Mar 2009)

It was more or less that question* I was asked while in a customer's office in Belgium, which I completely failed to answer. And which, via a roundabout route, led me to eat horse steak that evening ..

Could it be because we see them more as pets?

* I was asked, "how come you won't eat horse in the UK, but you'll eat rabbit or lamb?"


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

amnesia said:


> If anyone eats my horse I won't be very happy...
> 
> Meet Alfie - a 17hh thoroughbred cross polish.
> 
> ...



Don't see bit-less bridles used very often in the UK


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> if it was nice it would be a lot more popular, trust me.



It is nice, the reason we don't sell it over here is that people see horses more as pets and could you imagine the uproar by the yoghurt knitters if one of the supermarkets was to sell it.

The French and Continentals seem to have a more liberal approach and if it tastes nice will eat it.


----------



## Arch (20 Mar 2009)

The general taboo against eating horse in Europe comes from a Papal Ban (issued by Pope Gregory III), 1300 years ago:

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/horsemyth.shtml 

Eating horse was associated with pagan rituals and so banned (and I suspect it also protected a resource more likely to be owned by the nobility than the peasantry, in the age when oxen did all the farm work). Why we've kept it, and other countries haven't. I don't know. I wonder if it's down to continental Europe having been through more wars and associated famine - taboo goes out of the window quicker when you're starving.

I've never knowingly had horse, but I'd like to if I ever get the chance.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> The general taboo against eating horse in Europe comes from a Papal Ban (issued by Pope Gregory III), 1300 years ago:
> 
> http://www.silk-road.com/artl/horsemyth.shtml
> 
> ...




I didnt know they had Paypal back then B)


----------



## Arch (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> I didnt know they had Paypal back then B)



Badum-tish...


----------



## Joe24 (20 Mar 2009)

Squirrel is ment to be nice. Apparently its often served down in London as Tree Bird, or something like that.
I think you are lieing about eating horse anyway. I think you have all had cow, and were lied to. Which is why you think it tastes nice.
Or, you had horse that was bred to be eaten, like those baby cows that are put into small pens so they dont move around much. Ready to be eaten and be all tender and soft.
So basicly, you eating horse, ment they got money for treating a horse bad by keeping it in a pen so small, it couldnt even stand up, and will just roll to another section to poo and pee. Or not move at all, and just be in a mess of its own crap and pee.
Shame on all of you
Edit: If you want to actually eat horse, then use one of the methods thats been talked about before in this thread and kill your own. Much better. Just go and find a horse that you dont like and shoot it, electricute it with a big power probe disguised as a mint, or just shoot it with a gun with a sight or a rocket launcher.


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

> The horse looks happy, but your wife doesn't.
> 
> What did you do to her?



Judging from the horse's ears, his missus just gave him an earful for getting the camera out and taking her pic when she didn't want it, and the horse is trying to figure out if that sharp tone in her voice was directed at it


----------



## very-near (20 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Squirrel is ment to be nice. Apparently its often served down in London as Tree Bird, or something like that.
> I think you are lieing about eating horse anyway. I think you have all had cow, and were lied to. Which is why you think it tastes nice.
> Or, you had horse that was bred to be eaten, like those baby cows that are put into small pens so they dont move around much. Ready to be eaten and be all tender and soft.
> So basicly, you eating horse, ment they got money for treating a horse bad by keeping it in a pen so small, it couldnt even stand up, and will just roll to another section to poo and pee. Or not move at all, and just be in a mess of its own crap and pee.
> ...



Bonj does this with levity. You need to lighten up a bit Joe.


----------



## Joe24 (20 Mar 2009)

very-near said:


> Bonj does this with levity. You need to lighten up a bit Joe.



Oh dear Have i been mistaken.
If you didnt know, i love meat and would actually eat horse
Im trying to find a way of getting rabbit in the house and cooking it so my mum doesnt know, if she finds out she will kill me


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I think if it were nice, then tesco's would be selling it. In the same way that if recumbents were any good, they'd be more mainstream.



There's lots of things that are nice that you can't easily buy in Tescos...


----------



## Joe24 (20 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> There's lots of things that are nice that you can't easily buy in Tescos...



You cant buy Pussy in Tesco yet. But you can in my local news agents.
As in this Pussy


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Mar 2009)

Where is Waffles when you need her?


----------



## Cubist (20 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Oh dear Have i been mistaken.
> If you didnt know, i love meat and would actually eat horse
> Im trying to find a way of getting rabbit in the house and cooking it so my mum doesnt know, if she finds out she will kill me



Joe

I know several people who like rabbit, but their wives don't (I call it the Beatrix Potter syndrome, unable to distinguish between serious agricultural pests and whimsical lickle bunnies in waistcoats and spotted hankies).

I often have a surplus of rabbits, so tend to mince the meat, mix it with some bacon fat and packet seekh kebab mix. This is much easier to smuggle into house/onto barbecue. 

I've eaten horse, and found it disappointing. I think it was too lean, and masquerading as steak in an Italian university canteen. Venison is the way forward. I'm off to look for Bambi's mum in the morning.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Squirrel is ment to be nice. Apparently its often served down in London as Tree Bird, or something like that.
> I think you are lieing about eating horse anyway. I think you have all had cow, and were lied to. Which is why you think it tastes nice.


yep, probably -that'll be it. People get a feeling they're being novel and daring for ordering horse, and then they're pleasantly surprised when it's anything other than absolutely foul and they're able to get through it - so all the restaurant needs to do is make sure it's not absolutely horrible, which is a good way of palming off less-than-brilliant beef on people.

In fact, The Doctor, they probably got away with serving you dog.


Joe24 said:


> Edit: If you want to actually eat horse, then use one of the methods thats been talked about before in this thread and kill your own. Much better. Just *go and find a horse that you dont like* and shoot it, electricute it with a big power probe disguised as a mint, or just shoot it with a gun with a sight or a rocket launcher.



So, _any_ horse then?


----------



## bonj2 (20 Mar 2009)

now guinea pig that would probably be quite nice, if you could get enough meat on one - 'cos they do bugger all all day. Probably quite fatty , though, and you wouldn't get very big steaks from each one. If you could GM them to be bigger then they'd be fine.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (20 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> now guinea pig that would probably be quite nice, if you could get enough meat on one - 'cos they do bugger all all day. Probably quite fatty , though,



A bit like you Bonj without the posts!


----------



## Eat MY Dust (20 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> , i love meat and would actually eat horse



Bet you couldn't eat a whole one though!

I had rabbit once. It was the only time that I got the leg that I asked for..........my uncle told me it was chicken, I should have known something was up.........stringy!!!


----------



## Arch (21 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> now guinea pig that would probably be quite nice, if you could get enough meat on one - 'cos they do bugger all all day. Probably quite fatty , though, and you wouldn't get very big steaks from each one. If you could GM them to be bigger then they'd be fine.



No need. You just eat capybara

I think Joe is trying to be bonj, and failing. At least bonj can normally spell, even if he's talking gibberish.

I know someone who's had guinea pig and said it wasn't nice, but we suspect he was served a duff one. No reason why they shouldn't taste like rabbit, I'd have thought. A bit more on the bony side though.


----------



## Joe24 (21 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> No need. You just eat capybara
> 
> I think Joe is trying to be bonj, and failing. At least bonj can normally spell, even if he's talking gibberish.
> 
> I know someone who's had guinea pig and said it wasn't nice, but we suspect he was served a duff one. No reason why they shouldn't taste like rabbit, I'd have thought. A bit more on the bony side though.



Im actually just enjoying talking a load of rubbish, and putting down what comes into my head. Which is probably why my posts make no sence, because as i post, something new comes into my head and i put that down. And the amazing thing, is Linf thought i was actually being seriouse, and i think you think im just acting like this. Arch, you justgave me an erection. Infact, you have given me 9 since i read your post, and ive been replying to this
I think elephant would be nice to eat. A nice baby elephant, adult ones are too big ofcourse. Too much meat.
Just think of the size of the plate you would have if you asked for a leg


----------



## amnesia (21 Mar 2009)

> That horse has an air of smugness about his eye. He must have just done a particularly foul-smelling fart.



He does them all the time


----------



## TheDoctor (22 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> yep, probably -that'll be it. People get a feeling they're being novel and daring for ordering horse, and then they're pleasantly surprised when it's anything other than absolutely foul and they're able to get through it - so all the restaurant needs to do is make sure it's not absolutely horrible, which is a good way of palming off less-than-brilliant beef on people.
> 
> In fact, The Doctor, they probably got away with serving you dog.



Actually, one of the local Indian places (many years ago) was allegedly prosecuted for having half a Labrador in the freezer...

And I once managed to convince someone that the big cylinder of meat (or whatever it actually is) you get in Donor Kebab places was an elephants leg.


----------



## Cubist (22 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> Actually, one of the local Indian places (many years ago) was allegedly prosecuted for having half a Labrador in the freezer...
> 
> And I once managed to convince someone that the big cylinder of meat (or whatever it actually is) you get in Donor Kebab places was an elephants leg.



1st one typical bigotted apochryphal bullshit.

2nd one hopelessly inaccurate. Everyone knows they're made of goats' eyelids and ringpieces.


----------



## TheDoctor (22 Mar 2009)

Cubist said:


> 1st one typical *bigotted *apochryphal bullshit.
> 
> 2nd one hopelessly inaccurate. Everyone knows they're made of goats' eyelids and ringpieces.




Hey!
I'm no bigot - I spent a few weeks knocking around India and thouroughly enjoyed it.

I bet the second one's true though!


----------



## bonj2 (22 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> Actually, one of the local Indian places (many years ago) was allegedly prosecuted for having half a Labrador in the freezer...
> 
> And I once managed to convince someone that the big cylinder of meat (or whatever it actually is) you get in Donor Kebab places was an elephants leg.



course it's an elephants leg, what else could it be?!


----------



## very-near (22 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> Actually, one of the local Indian places (many years ago) was allegedly prosecuted for having half a Labrador in the freezer...
> 
> *And I once managed to convince someone that the big cylinder of meat (or whatever it actually is) you get in Donor Kebab places was an elephants leg.*



I used to tell my kids this when they were younger


----------



## Cubist (22 Mar 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> Hey!
> I'm no bigot - I spent a few weeks knocking around India and thouroughly enjoyed it.
> 
> I bet the second one's true though!



No, I wasn't calling *you* a bigot, but the people who start off and perpetuate the rumours that half-a-labrador/dead-cat/rat/semen was found in the freezer/wok-rack/deepfat fryer/balti sauceat their local takeaway. They are particular favourites of the "give me fish and chips anyday, never know what these foreign buggers are selling you" brigade.


----------



## TheDoctor (22 Mar 2009)

Ah, OK Cubist, with you. No worries


----------



## tyred (23 Mar 2009)

Did I miss much over the weekend?


----------



## Arch (23 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> Did I miss much over the weekend?



I don't know, I'm still gargling the mind bleach after Joe's last post...


----------



## Joe24 (23 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> Did I miss much over the weekend?



Do you know whats better then asking? Actually reading


----------



## tyred (23 Mar 2009)

I hadn't time this morning and only wanted the abridged version. Maybe read later.


----------



## 4F (23 Mar 2009)

tyred said:


> I hadn't time this morning and only wanted the abridged version. Maybe read later.



Nothing new


----------



## Joe24 (23 Mar 2009)

It really hurts me, when you spend so long with a post, and other people spend so long posting, and someone just wants the 'abridged version'


----------



## Arch (23 Mar 2009)

Joe24 said:


> It really hurts me, when you spend so long with a post, and other people spend so long posting, and someone just wants the 'abridged version'



But sometimes you want to just cut out the crap bits. It's not a comment on an individual post, just someone in a hurry...


----------



## Chuffy (23 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> But sometimes you want to just cut out the crap bits. It's not a comment on an individual post, just someone in a hurry...


That won't leave much in some cases....


----------



## Cubist (23 Mar 2009)

Doctor given your sig; does a Llama's Llama taste like Llama?


----------



## TheDoctor (23 Mar 2009)

No. It's made of lemon juice, I think.


This is going to look most odd when I get a new sig line!


----------



## Joe24 (23 Mar 2009)

Arch said:


> But sometimes you want to just cut out the crap bits. It's not a comment on an individual post, just someone in a hurry...



That makes me want to cry more


----------

