Mike Connor
November 21st, 2005, 08:51 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: >
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> No, she apparently disagrees with current scientific opinion.
>>
>> Since your premises are based on what you believe, and not on proven
>> fact,
>> or on logic in view of the known facts, it is quite impossible for
>> anybody
>> else to either prove or refute them.
>
> She does use logic in view of the known facts. I quoted her in the top
> post of this thread. Maybe you should read it again. Evidence can be
> scientific and trustworthy and something that's worthy of putting to
> use even when it's not 100% proven. I can think of no better example
> than the subject if this thread. Playing it safe is easy and might
> prevent the suffering of suffocation thousands or millions of times per
> day.
>
> You make it sound like there's scientific evidence that refutes her,
> like evidence that fish can't suffer. If so, I'd like to hear it. But I
> guess you're just saying that her evidence that fish feel pain and how
> to relieve it is lacking. I suggest you rethink the purpose for those
> clubs (justices?). If you want to do a little research, you can look at
> some of the studies on fish anesthesia, particularly cold anesthesia. I
> referenced one earlier today. I'll be looking it up myself eventually.
>
As you please. I find it rather amazing that somebody could believe this
stuff anyway, much less post to a fly-fishing group on the subject in the
purported hope of "preventing suffering".
But whatever turns you on.
MC
From: >
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> No, she apparently disagrees with current scientific opinion.
>>
>> Since your premises are based on what you believe, and not on proven
>> fact,
>> or on logic in view of the known facts, it is quite impossible for
>> anybody
>> else to either prove or refute them.
>
> She does use logic in view of the known facts. I quoted her in the top
> post of this thread. Maybe you should read it again. Evidence can be
> scientific and trustworthy and something that's worthy of putting to
> use even when it's not 100% proven. I can think of no better example
> than the subject if this thread. Playing it safe is easy and might
> prevent the suffering of suffocation thousands or millions of times per
> day.
>
> You make it sound like there's scientific evidence that refutes her,
> like evidence that fish can't suffer. If so, I'd like to hear it. But I
> guess you're just saying that her evidence that fish feel pain and how
> to relieve it is lacking. I suggest you rethink the purpose for those
> clubs (justices?). If you want to do a little research, you can look at
> some of the studies on fish anesthesia, particularly cold anesthesia. I
> referenced one earlier today. I'll be looking it up myself eventually.
>
As you please. I find it rather amazing that somebody could believe this
stuff anyway, much less post to a fly-fishing group on the subject in the
purported hope of "preventing suffering".
But whatever turns you on.
MC