While I agree in principle with this battle I don't understand why it is directed to the reseller and not to the publisher of these cockfighting magazines. Does the US law allow the publication but not the sale? It seems a bit strange.

Surely they could have come up with some name that had COCK or BEARPIT as the acronym? They can do that for all the exciting acts...

I'm sick of movements like this. I'm really fed up of organisations forcing people to live based on *their* view of life. Religion, health organisations and animal groups fall into this grouping. Look at PETA (an org that actually kills a lot of animals) - do as we say and live as we want you to live or we'll firebomb you, and we'll get a load of dumb-ass students to fire bomb you too.

There was a programme aired on C4 a while back about global warming. I think it was called 'The great global warming scam' or something like that. It was a great documentary where a lot of top scientists were expressing concern that their viewpoints - that global warming has nothing to do with CO2 emissions - are being ignored by governments. In some cases these scientists have been refused funding and have been threatened by these 'Green', flowerpower nutjobs.

If I have a cock, and I wish to watch it strike against another mans cock until bloodshed then I agree that's a bit wrong. For the record I also don't fancy fox hunting much - a pack of dogs savages a fox (nip to any town centre on a sat night and you can see this for real).

I want to know why all these debates are closed? Why is the (UK) government forcing *their* opinions onto us. They are out of touch within their little job-security, rape-the-tax-payer bubble. Why is the government forcing all these new CO2 taxes/schemes upon us when the global warming link to CO2 *has not been proven*. In fact the opposite has been proven.

People should be free and organisations should stop 'demanding' that people live under their control. Fair enough, if you have a problem with a lifestyle then say so, but it's wrong to forcibly revoke someones cock. If they want to buy a magazine about cocks then they'll find a way to do so.

Personally I prefer fanny.

Since its airing, it has been widely reported that the "The great global warming swindle" was itself a swindle and a fraud. Here's what Carl Wunsch, one of the "top scientists" shown in the film has to say about the way they tricked him into being involved:

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm

Mark, to save face in future, please check your facts before repeating hear-say.

The publishers are co-defendants in the lawsuit. US law prohibits any use of the mails for "commercial speech" that furthers animal fighting. Instead of abiding by this law, Amazon has asked a US court to weaken US animal protection laws. It would rather have animal fighting activities be legal for everyone than comply with the law, just so it can continue to profit. That makes me sick.

Is this the same HSUS that's aligned with PETA in ending the ownership of animals? I get them confused with another organization at times and can't remember which is which.

This is one scientist - debunk all the others and you have a point.

I read the thing on the 'Swindle' and, for me at least, it indicates a degree of duplicity from the makers of the film which borders on the fraudulent.

Master Baker seems to require proof beyond any element of doubt before he would accept that the film is little more than propaganda.

Surely, just this evidence of 'one scientist' undermines the credibility of the film as a whole?

Master Baker, Mark,

see realclimate.org or deltoid on scienceblogs, or NewScientist 19-May-2007 (No 2604) for referenced, science based rebuttals to the TV swindlers.