Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / December 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

PETA - People Exhibiting Terrible Attributes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Judy Pertle - 23 Nov 2003 08:30 GMT
PETA – People Exhibiting Terrible Attributes
Written by Paul Walfield
Imagine how great life would be if you could spend all of your time,
money and energy pursuing what you loved to do. Think of all the
things you could do. Then think about wasting it all away. On top of
that, say you were entrusted with other people’s money to pursue what
you thought was important, but was just plain wasteful, wouldn’t that
be a shame?

Well, if you are an animal rights activist working for PETA, you can
betray a trust, pursue dim, and utterly worthless pursuits, get
publicity for your cause and probably get even more donations from
even simpler minds.

PETA is an animal activist organization that survives by receiving
donations from people who like animals. The people at PETA claim to
like animals and appear to hate humans. The same humans that give them
money to pursue their quest to free the world from human domination
and install a more natural order of things. Humans being the most
unnatural of all things on the planet.

One of the ways PETA spends your donated money is by paying off city
officials of offensively named towns to change their names to more
vegan friendly names. The Associated Press reported on April 23, 2003,
that PETA sent a letter to the town of Hamburg, New York offering the
city $15,000.00 worth of meatless hamburgers for their schools if the
town changed its name to “Veggieburg.”

At first glance, we might dismiss this act as not being a real effort,
but according to PETA spokesperson, Joe Haptas, “''Our offer is
serious as a heart attack.”

Let’s see, PETA is the same organization that equated the millions of
innocents who were slaughtered in concentration camps during World War
II, with chickens on farms. They are also the same people who wrote a
respectful letter to Yassir Arafat to be more careful in his use of
suicide bombers so as to just target men, women and children and not
donkeys. It is true. Ingrid Newkirk, one of the heads of PETA
complained to the PLO that their suicide bombers had been careless in
their aiming to murder people in Israel on January 26th this year, and
had accidentally killed a donkey. She wants them to be more careful
and only kill people from now on.

PETA also complained to the American military. In March of this year
PETA demanded that the American military stop using animals in Iraq.
“Our troops deserve the best defense possible, but PETA opposes the
use of dolphins, sea lions, or any other marine mammals.” It seems the
military believes that using dolphins and sea lions is the best way to
ensure the safety of our troops and uses them. PETA doesn’t think so.
Of course PETA has no alternative to the use of sea mammals but they
just know it’s not the best idea, and our willing to sacrifice our
troops and humanitarian aid till we come up with something better, if
ever.

PETA views human needs as unnatural but the needs of a chicken are not
only natural, but paramount. KFC is now in the sights of the ever
vigilant animal activists. PETA believes that KFC is cruel because it
just gives enough space to the birds and feeds them too much causing
the poultry to grow too fast. KFC must be stopped.

Then there are the people of North Carolina who have been told by PETA
“He Died For Your Sins. Go Vegetarian.” PETA has a 36 foot wide
billboard on interstate 40 that shows a pig next to the 12 foot tall
letters. PETA sure knows how to endear itself to the folks in the
Bible Belt. As Reverend Mike Parnell of the Burgaw Baptist Church,
located along Interstate 40 north of Wilmington said, “I wish it had
come at some other time, other than Easter.”

Then there is the civic minded side of PETA and their demand that meat
and fish be taxed. PETA is demanding that the state government in Ohio
place an 8 cent per pound tax on meat and fish, “It's something PETA
has been pushing for awhile, said Nathan Runkle in the April 17th
edition of central Ohio’s Times Recorder, adding, "Now there are taxes
on cigarettes and alcohol, so we feel this should be the next step.”

To show that they are willing to jump on any bandwagon, PETA is
reported in Salon.com to have offered $10,000.00 to Al Jazeera, the
Arab network to air a 30 second commercial showing “cows hanging
upside down in a slaughterhouse after their throats had been slit,
goats being killed and a chicken thrown violently at a box.” PETA
offered the money to Al Jazeera because of its willingness to show
bloodied humans during their coverage of the war in Iraq. PETA will
never be accused of missing an opportunity.

And not to ever be thought of as leaving any stone unturned, there are
PETA’s allegations, in their ads targeting south and central Asians in
the US, explaining that eating meat, well, “gets you down.” The ad,
which was reported on April 11, 2003, in the Indian Express in an
article entitled, “PETA is aiming below the belt,” quotes Alka
Chandna, campaign manager with PETA’s international grassroots
campaigns department as saying, “I’m afraid, it’s very true… Here, in
the US, most people know that heart disease and stroke are the result
of constriction of blood...too much cholesterol in one’s diet has the
potential of clogging the blood vessels - arteries to the heart,
arteries to the brain, arteries to organs, and arteries to the
genitalia.”

Next time you get the urge to donate your money, time or energy to a
worthy cause, a cause that wants to defend the rights of animals to be
treated ethically, try the ASPCA. They at least so far, don’t think
humans need to be treated unethically, to get their message across.

Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of
California with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and
post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He
resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and
is now a California attorney. Paul can be contacted at
Pifflove - 23 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
> PETA views human needs as unnatural but the needs of a chicken are not
> only natural, but paramount. KFC is now in the sights of the ever
> vigilant animal activists. PETA believes that KFC is cruel because it
> just gives enough space to the birds and feeds them too much causing
> the poultry to grow too fast. KFC must be stopped.

Actually, what KFC is doing is boiling and scalding the chickens alive
so as to remove their feathers with ease. What a pointless venture for
PETA.
Podkayne Fries - 23 Nov 2003 21:54 GMT
>Actually, what KFC is doing is boiling and scalding the chickens alive
>so as to remove their feathers with ease. What a pointless venture for
>PETA.

Cite?  I've butchered many a chicken in my time, and I'd really like
to know *how* someone boils the nasty buggers while they're still
alive and flapping.

--
Regards, Podkayne Fries

Cats ... the other white meat.
Pifflove - 24 Nov 2003 04:49 GMT
> >Actually, what KFC is doing is boiling and scalding the chickens alive
> >so as to remove their feathers with ease. What a pointless venture for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to know *how* someone boils the nasty buggers while they're still
> alive and flapping.

www.kfccruelty.com

To be fair, I only skimmed. So I don't know whether or not they
mentionned what they do to the chickens before they boil them alive.

P:)
Sherry - 24 Nov 2003 05:11 GMT
>www.kfccruelty.com
>
>To be fair, I only skimmed. So I don't know whether or not they
>mentionned what they do to the chickens before they boil them alive.
>
>P:)

It was an interesting website, and I don't doubt a great deal of the
allegations are true. But 2-month old chickens? Have you ever seen an
eight-week-old chicken? That's hard to believe, unless they have some serious
steroids or chemicals they pump into them to cause fast growth.
I never buy KFC anyway; I think it's disgustingly greasy. But Tyson and other
commercial chicken farms are just as bad as KFC.

Sherry
Paul M. Cook?? - 24 Nov 2003 10:35 GMT
> >www.kfccruelty.com
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I never buy KFC anyway; I think it's disgustingly greasy. But Tyson and other
> commercial chicken farms are just as bad as KFC.

The average chicken in a market was 6 weeks old.  They do use a lot of
growth hormones.  Even worse is the pork industry.

Paul
-L. - 24 Nov 2003 19:45 GMT
> >www.kfccruelty.com
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Sherry

Chickens bred for mass-production are fed hormones and are a
fast-growing breed, to begin with.  Two months is accurate, as usual
slaughter schedule is 8-10 weeks.

-L.
Sparrow 13 - 24 Nov 2003 16:24 GMT
Pifflove wrote...

Podkayne Fries wrote ...

> > >Actually, what KFC is doing is boiling and scalding the chickens alive
> > >so as to remove their feathers with ease. What a pointless venture for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> www.kfccruelty.com

 Real proof, rather than PETA propaganda?  PETA is about as credible a
source as Jack Chick or the Weekly World News.

viva la vida con drogas
Sparrow 13
The Extremely DeLux One
Beer Nuts - 24 Nov 2003 17:07 GMT
I guess you've never been to a poultry market to buy fresh chickens.
They string up the chickens' feet and dunk them in huge vats of hot
water...alive...head first.  I guess most Americans are used to their
beef, pork, and chicken in friendly looking patties.  BTW, I think
PETA should stay away from extremist points of view (renaming signs)
and focus instead on animal cruelty.  I got a bunch of "MEAT'S NO
TREAT FOR THOSE YOU EAT" stickers from PETA with chickens on them.
What a waste of funding.  Damn if I'll give up steak and fried
chicken.  If God didn't want humans to eat cows, pigs, and chickens,
He wouldn't have made them so tasty.  :oP



> >Actually, what KFC is doing is boiling and scalding the chickens alive
> >so as to remove their feathers with ease. What a pointless venture for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to know *how* someone boils the nasty buggers while they're still
> alive and flapping.
Cat Protector - 25 Nov 2003 00:47 GMT
Well I respect PETA's right to protest but I think they need to be aware
that not everyone is a vegetarian. I too agree that the focus needs to be
animal cruelty for them. An animal needing a good and loving home should
also be their focus as well. I also think they need to focus on protesting
declawing cats and also (Clay Aiken ad aside) spaying and neutering. As
radical as they are I am surprised they are not rallying to make the animal
cruelty laws more severe to those who abuse a cat, dog or other animal.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

> I guess you've never been to a poultry market to buy fresh chickens.
> They string up the chickens' feet and dunk them in huge vats of hot
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> > to know *how* someone boils the nasty buggers while they're still
> > alive and flapping.
Cheryl - 25 Nov 2003 00:52 GMT
An animal needing a good and
> loving home should also be their focus as well.

I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
Doubt they would do an adoptathon.
Cat Protector - 25 Nov 2003 01:44 GMT
Well, I think the term pet needs to be re-defined now considering there are
people out there like myself who don't see their cats as pets but as members
of the family.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com


> I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
> Doubt they would do an adoptathon.
Carleen - 25 Nov 2003 02:00 GMT
> Well, I think the term pet needs to be re-defined now considering there are
> people out there like myself who don't see their cats as pets but as members
> of the family.

The more enlightened among us call them "companion animals". I just call
them my babies (my dogs, that is - sorry this was cross-posted).

Carleen ;-)
Cat Protector - 25 Nov 2003 02:36 GMT
I call my cats my kids.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

> > Well, I think the term pet needs to be re-defined now considering there
> are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Carleen ;-)
Karen M. - 25 Nov 2003 04:05 GMT
> An animal needing a good and
>
>>loving home should also be their focus as well.
>
> I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
> Doubt they would do an adoptathon.

I think it was Ingrid Newkirk, President, who made a remark like that a
long time ago. I think her intent was to eliminate the property-like
status of animals and make them "free" entities. I doubt they would ever
actually advocate that stance, as a vast majority of their members have
pets. What drives me crazy is their advocating vegan diets for cats and
dogs. I have a love-hate relationship with PETA, because they've done
some awesome things but sometimes the things they campaign for are so
asinine in the big pictures of animal welfare and rights that it
astounds me.
MacCandace - 26 Nov 2003 02:06 GMT
<< I think it was Ingrid Newkirk, President, who made a remark like that a
long time ago. >>

Yes, and Ingrid Newkirk has companion animals.  PETA also has a rescue facility
where they keep animals they have rescued from bad conditions and give them a
permanent home there.  I agree, not all PETA does is wonderful but some of it
is pretty cool.

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human."  (Loren Eisely)
Karen M. - 26 Nov 2003 19:04 GMT
> << I think it was Ingrid Newkirk, President, who made a remark like that a
> long time ago. >>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> permanent home there.  I agree, not all PETA does is wonderful but some of it
> is pretty cool.

Exactamundo. I'm not a PETA member, but I follow what they do. They've
brought attention to some very good causes and created change. There's
probably not a group in the world that I would agree with 100% of the
time. :)

> Candace
> (take the litter out before replying by e-mail)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
> than human."  (Loren Eisely)
frlpwr - 26 Nov 2003 19:51 GMT
(snip)

> There's probably not a group in the world that I would agree with 100% > of the time. :)

Yes, PETA's position on feral cats, as described in their factsheet, is
entirely unfounded, unacceptable and contrary to their stated beliefs.
Sharon Talbert - 26 Nov 2003 21:11 GMT
> Yes, PETA's position on feral cats, as described in their factsheet, is
> entirely unfounded, unacceptable and contrary to their stated beliefs.

I have to agree with this statement, being privy to some of their antics
regarding feral cats, even managed colonies.  They not only advocate the
killing of ferals to "prevent suffering," they practice what they preach.

I thank gawd PETA decided against moving to Seattle, where ferals are
being sterilized at no charge by a local nonprofit.  The guy who founded
the nonprofit?  He accepted a position with PETA (sigh).  I attended his
farewell party and reminded him to preach there what he had been
practicing here in Seattle.  I can only hope change will come from
within...

No friend of PETA...

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus (feral) Cats
Seattle
www.campuscats.org
Karen M. - 26 Nov 2003 22:08 GMT
> (snip)
>  
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yes, PETA's position on feral cats, as described in their factsheet, is
> entirely unfounded, unacceptable and contrary to their stated beliefs.

Yes, another stance of theirs that makes me want to beat my head against
the wall! :)
MacCandace - 27 Nov 2003 02:36 GMT
<< > Yes, PETA's position on feral cats, as described in their factsheet, is
> entirely unfounded, unacceptable and contrary to their stated beliefs.

Yes, another stance of theirs that makes me want to beat my head against
the wall! :) >>

I guess I didn't know this.  Yikes, it's hard to believe.  I don't get it.
Well, so, okay, maybe they're not as wonderful as I thought.  Is this still
currently advocated?

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human."  (Loren Eisely)
-L. - 26 Nov 2003 08:12 GMT
> > An animal needing a good and
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> pets. What drives me crazy is their advocating vegan diets for cats and
> dogs.

I agree.  IMO, that's just assinine.

>I have a love-hate relationship with PETA, because they've done
> some awesome things but sometimes the things they campaign for are so
> asinine in the big pictures of animal welfare and rights that it
> astounds me.

Some of their actions are stupid.  But they get press, which is why
they do it.  What they fail to realize is that negative press isn't
good.

-L.
Karen M. - 26 Nov 2003 20:12 GMT
> > > An animal needing a good and
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> -L.

Well, yes and no. Sure keeps them on everyone's minds, right? ;)

:) K
MacCandace - 26 Nov 2003 02:03 GMT
<< I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
Doubt they would do an adoptathon. >>

That's not correct.  Most PETA members and PETA administration have pets, they
just call them "companion animals" instead.  They just don't feel "ownership"
of an animal is right.  I'm sure someone can cite some article where they state
animals should not be owned but, regardless, they do support having companion
animals as well as, obvioulsy, spaying and neutering them.  They also support
shelters.  However, education is their focus not operating shelters.

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human."  (Loren Eisely)
Cat Protector - 26 Nov 2003 03:46 GMT
It doesn't matter really. My cats too me are family so around here they are
not known as companion animals.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"MacCandace" <maccandace@aol.comlitter> wrote in message
news:20031125210357.12410.00000675@mb-

> That's not correct.  Most PETA members and PETA administration have pets, they
> just call them "companion animals" instead.  They just don't feel "ownership"
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
> than human."  (Loren Eisely)
frlpwr - 26 Nov 2003 18:53 GMT
> << I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
> Doubt they would do an adoptathon. >>
>
> That's not correct.  Most PETA members and PETA administration have
> pets, they just call them "companion animals" instead.

That's right.  PETA opposes domestication of animals on philosophical
grounds.  Domestication means domination and there will never be an
equal partnership between humans and domestic animals.  Therefore, they
are against the breeding of domestic animals.  However, they believe
that all _existing_ domestic animals deserve the very best care humans
can provide.

(snip)
-L. - 26 Nov 2003 08:10 GMT
> An animal needing a good and
> > loving home should also be their focus as well.
>
> I believe PETAs stance is that animals shouldn't be pets. Period.
> Doubt they would do an adoptathon.

That's actually incorrect.  PeTA runs a last-chance shelter system
where they pick up animals from death row and foster them until they
can be placed, IIRC, in the Boston area - I confirmed this by
telephone with people in their home office, back in about 2000.  Their
website includes passages encouraging adoption from shelters (I can
cite them if you would like).  Ingrid Newkirk, herself,  has companion
canines- three, I believe.  I have personally met her - she is
actually quite a lovely person.  I recommend her book "You Can Save
The Animals: 251 Ways to Stop Animal Cruelty".

Anybody who thinks PeTA is just a bunch of freaks and nutcases really
should read the book "Monkey Business" by Kathy Snow Guillermo - it is
the true story about the animal abuse case involving primates at the
Institute for Behavioral Research in Silver Springs, MD - which
prompted the founding of PeTA.

Here's a link at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882605047/qid=1069833531/sr=1-1/r
ef=sr_1_1/103-2391357-9843040?v=glance&s=books#product-details


It is this book which initially spawned my interest in primate welfare
and primate rights, which is now my full-time (albeit unpaid) job.

The outcome of this case, alone, justifies any tactics PeTA takes in
bringing the animal rights/welfare movement to the forefront of the
media (not to mention all of the other cases of animal abuse they have
spear-headed, and won convictions for.)

-L.
GAUBSTER2 - 26 Nov 2003 16:03 GMT
>The outcome of this case, alone, justifies any tactics PeTA takes in
>bringing the animal rights/welfare movement to the forefront of the
>media (not to mention all of the other cases of animal abuse they have
>spear-headed, and won convictions for.)

NO, it does not.  ANY tactics that peta takes?  Even violent or destructive
ones?  I think not!
frlpwr - 26 Nov 2003 18:53 GMT
> >The outcome of this case, alone, justifies any tactics PeTA takes in
> >bringing the animal rights/welfare movement to the forefront of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> NO, it does not.  ANY tactics that peta takes?  Even violent or
> destructive ones?  I think not!

Please cite ONE case of violence or destruction that has been credited
to PETA.
GAUBSTER2 - 26 Nov 2003 20:44 GMT
>From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net

>> >The outcome of this case, alone, justifies any tactics PeTA takes in
>> >bringing the animal rights/welfare movement to the forefront of the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Please cite ONE case of violence or destruction that has been credited
>to PETA.

I didn't say they have been credited w/ violence or destruction, but I am
disagreeing that ANY means justify the ends--just as my post stated.  I'm not
going to take the time doing google searches right now based on your
defensiveness..but I will say off the top of my head it seems that peta
fanatics broke into research labs sometime back and released a bunch of
research animals into the wild where they were promptly eaten or maimed by
wildlife (while also trashing the place).  The research that was being done
into human medicine was set back a bit from what I understand.  I want to say
that it took place in Southern CA, but I don't remember for sure.  The
allegations that peta are funding or have otherwise close ties to environmental
terrorists (like ELF) is also quite troubling to me.
Cheryl - 27 Nov 2003 00:30 GMT
I'm not going to take the time doing google searches
> right now based on your defensiveness..but I will say off the top
> of my head it seems that peta fanatics broke into research labs
> sometime back and released a bunch of research animals into the
> wild where they were promptly eaten or maimed by wildlife (while
> also trashing the place)

Lazy f.ck  This is your answer to anyone asking for any sort of cite
from you in your history in this cat group. No research.  Can't be
bothered.  Off the top of your head. Heh. Credibility gauby.
Credibility.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 07:06 GMT
>From: "Cheryl" jlhshadow@devnull.hotmail.com

>Lazy f.ck  This is your answer to anyone asking for any sort of cite
>from you in your history in this cat group. No research.  Can't be
>bothered.  Off the top of your head. Heh. Credibility gauby.
>Credibility.

Back off, Cheryl.  You weren't asking the questions and the OP was implying
that I said something that I didn't say.  It's still a wonder to me that you
can't clean up your potty mouth.  Shows a lack of self-control on your part.
If I don't choose to spend a lot of time traisping around on the internet for
something that doesn't really interest me enough to spend the time--so what?
It's not really that important to me.  However, it seems to me that what is
important to you is cursing others whom you don't agree with.  And during the
start of the holiday season, too!  ;)  Do you need a hug, or what?
Cheryl - 28 Nov 2003 21:32 GMT
> Back off, Cheryl.

Nope.  :)
MacCandace - 27 Nov 2003 02:28 GMT
<< but I will say off the top of my head it seems that peta
fanatics broke into research labs sometime back and released a bunch of
research animals into the wild where they were promptly eaten or maimed by
wildlife (while also trashing the place) >>

Blah, blah, yeah, whatever.  That wasn't PETA, it was ALF (Animal Liberation
Front) whose ties to PETA are nebulous.

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human."  (Loren Eisely)
-L. - 27 Nov 2003 07:35 GMT
> >From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
>  
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I didn't say they have been credited w/ violence or destruction, but I am
> disagreeing that ANY means justify the ends--just as my post stated.

You asserted that their "volent and destructive" tactics aren't
justified by the outcomes of the cases they have one.

I'm not
> going to take the time doing google searches right now based on your
> defensiveness..but I will say off the top of my head it seems that peta
> fanatics broke into research labs sometime back and released a bunch of
> research animals into the wild where they were promptly eaten or maimed by
> wildlife (while also trashing the place).

You're an idiot.  PeTA has never claimed responsibility for any direct
action. The ALF, OTOH, has.  Have you even read the story behind the
Silver Springs monkey case?

> The research that was being done
> into human medicine was set back a bit from what I understand.  I want to say
> that it took place in Southern CA, but I don't remember for sure.  

Well, because you're ignorant and uninformed.  Don't spout off at the
mouth unless you have your facts straight.

>The
> allegations that peta are funding or have otherwise close ties to >environmental
> terrorists (like ELF) is also quite troubling to me.

Bwahhahahahaha!  PeTA has never claimed ties to the ELF.  You're
nothing but an ignorant fool.

-L.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 18:30 GMT
>From: k3_e81@yahoo.com  (-L.)

>> I didn't say they have been credited w/ violence or destruction, but I am
>> disagreeing that ANY means justify the ends--just as my post stated.
>
>You asserted that their "volent and destructive" tactics aren't
>justified by the outcomes of the cases they have one.

That's right.  Violence in never justified in their case.  I'm glad you were
able to sum up my point w/o being a jerk.  Too bad you couldn't control
yourself later on....

>You're an idiot.  

>> The research that was being done
>> into human medicine was set back a bit from what I understand.  I want to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Well, because you're ignorant and uninformed.  Don't spout off at the
>mouth unless you have your facts straight.

Like I said, I was going off of memory.  Don't succumb to your knee-jerk
emotions, it shows how immature YOU are.

>>The
>> allegations that peta are funding or have otherwise close ties to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Bwahhahahahaha!  PeTA has never claimed ties to the ELF.  You're
>nothing but an ignorant fool.

The wacko fringe elements of groups like peta are all the same, really.  I
don't expect you to admit that however, since it would make you look bad.
Since you don't know me, you can judge me?  You really need to grow up.  Are
you nine years old, or what?
frlpwr - 27 Nov 2003 19:57 GMT
> >From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I didn't say they have been credited w/ violence or destruction,

Diagram the sentences.  Peta takes any tactics, even violent or
destructive ones.

If you're going to make such public accusations, you need to offer
evidence.  Otherwise, your statements are the uninformed ramblings of a
bobbleheaded reactionary.  Or maybe this is another of your "evolution
predictions"?  Haw.

> but I am disagreeing that ANY means justify the ends

Don't you mean "the end justifies the means"?  Crikey!

> --just as my post stated.  I'm not
> going to take the time doing google searches right now based on your
> defensiveness..

I'm asking you to provide evidence to support your implications.  I'm
truth-seeking, not defensive.

> but I will say off the top of my head it seems that peta
> fanatics broke into research labs sometime back
> and released a bunch  of research animals into the wild where they
> were promptly eaten or maimed by wildlife (while also trashing the > place).

How can you possibly know the ultimate disposition of the rodents
released?  One thing is for sure, 100% of them would have died as tools
in the monoclonal antibody production protocol.  Better they die in the
talons of a hawk then die with a tumor equaling 70% of their body
weight.

>  The research that was being done
> into human medicine was set back a bit from what I understand.

Do you honestly think medical progress rests with one primary
investigator's experiment?

> I want to say that it took place in Southern CA, but I don't remember > for sure.  

You might as well say it, everything else you've written is wrong, too.

> The allegations that peta are funding or have otherwise close ties to > environmental terrorists (like ELF) is also quite troubling to me.

Really?  I take great comfort in knowing there are activists willing to
risk their freedom to plant thorns in the sides of those that rape and
plunder.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 23:28 GMT
>From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net

>> >Please cite ONE case of violence or destruction that has been
>> >credited to PETA.
>>
>> I didn't say they have been credited w/ violence or destruction,

>If you're going to make such public accusations, you need to offer
>evidence.  Otherwise, your statements are the uninformed ramblings of a
>bobbleheaded reactionary.

Oh please.  Again, you're twisting things around.  You originally asked me to
"cite ONE case......"  I NEVER made such an allegation to begin with and here
you are challenging me?  You are being awfully paranoid if you want to
challenge me on something that I never said!

>I'm asking you to provide evidence to support your implications.  I'm
>truth-seeking, not defensive.

You are being defensive.  Why are you directing your question at me?  I never
made the point to begin with.

>> but I will say off the top of my head it seems that peta
>> fanatics broke into research labs sometime back
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>How can you possibly know the ultimate disposition of the rodents
>released?

Gee, because that's NATURE??  You really need to come back to reality!

>>  The research that was being done
>> into human medicine was set back a bit from what I understand.
>
>Do you honestly think medical progress rests with one primary
>investigator's experiment?

That particular research suffered a setback, yes.  

>> The allegations that peta are funding or have otherwise close ties to >
>environmental terrorists (like ELF) is also quite troubling to me.
>
>Really?  I take great comfort in knowing there are activists willing to
>risk their freedom to plant thorns in the sides of those that rape and
>plunder.

Your radical views and willingness to support terrorists is troubling to any
fair-minded individual.  Cukoo!
Luvskats00 - 27 Nov 2003 00:51 GMT
fripwr@flash.net asks

>Please cite ONE case of violence >or destruction that has been >credited to
PETA.

Here are two!
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/nymagreview/features/peta.html
Highlight: In April 2000, Freda Fox, a PETA member, delivered a package of
maggot-infested animal innards to (Editor, Anna) Wintour’s office. She later
called PETA, identifying herself and explaining, "Anna stole this animal’s
skin and his life, she might as well have his guts,"... PETA proudly reports
the terrorizing activities of its members in press releases on its Web site.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
COM20011112b.htm
Highlight:: In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support
Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded guilty to
firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.
Karen M. - 27 Nov 2003 04:25 GMT
> fripwr@flash.net asks
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded guilty to
> firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.

Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!
Cheryl - 27 Nov 2003 04:10 GMT
>> fripwr@flash.net asks
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> Here are two!

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/nymagreview/features/peta.html
>> Highlight: In April 2000, Freda Fox, a PETA member, delivered a
>> package of maggot-infested animal innards to (Editor, Anna)
>> Wintour's office. She later called PETA, identifying herself and
>> explaining, "Anna stole this animal's skin and his life, she might
>> as well have his guts,"... PETA proudly reports the terrorizing
>> activities of its members in press releases on its Web site.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200
111/
>> COM20011112b.htm
>> Highlight:: In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!

She's a writer, not a reader. <snicker
Karen M. - 27 Nov 2003 04:30 GMT
>>>fripwr@flash.net asks
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> She's a writer, not a reader. <snicker>

<cackle cackle> good one, Mizz Cheryl! :)
Diane L. Schirf - 27 Nov 2003 04:21 GMT
> > firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.
>
> Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!

Surprisingly, a number of people do consider firebombing a tad violent.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Signature

http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

Luvskats00 - 27 Nov 2003 07:54 GMT
Diane L. Schirt
donotspamme@thisaddress.com posts
> a number of people do consider >firebombing a tad violent.
>I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
 

Oh..don't worry about the trolls...they will argue against any logical
position, especially if they can prove themselves to be morons.  While PETA has
done some wonderful things to enlighten the public about many horrific issues,
they have been involved in many questionable activites.  Funding an arsonist,
for example, is a terrorist activity.
Karen M. - 27 Nov 2003 19:24 GMT
>>>firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.
>>
>>Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!
>
> Surprisingly, a number of people do consider firebombing a tad violent.
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Nice snipping job. PETA didn't do the firebombing. They defended someone
*accused* of it. Which is their right, innocent until proven guilty and
all that nonsense...
frlpwr - 27 Nov 2003 19:57 GMT
> > > firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State > > > University.
> >
> > Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!
>
> Surprisingly, a number of people do consider firebombing a tad > violent.

Can a building suffer from violence?
Wendy - 28 Nov 2003 15:24 GMT
Diane L. Schirf wrote:

> In article <vsau54k2gdsuc0@corp.supernews.com>,
>  "Karen M." <mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Surprisingly, a number of people do consider firebombing a tad > violent.

Can a building suffer from violence?

Who knows how many spiders and other critters could be killed if a building
is firebombed.
Diane L. Schirf - 28 Nov 2003 16:17 GMT
> > Surprisingly, a number of people do consider firebombing a tad > violent.
>
> Can a building suffer from violence?

You might want to ask some old WWII survivors about this kind of thing.

Signature

http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 07:10 GMT
>From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com

>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
>> COM20011112b.htm
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!

You don't think firebombing is violent?  What are you, a terrorist?
Luvskats00 - 27 Nov 2003 07:49 GMT
"Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com
belches, farts and writes:

> fripwr@flash.net asks
>Please cite ONE case of violence >or destruction that has been >credited to
PETA.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
>> COM20011112b.htm
>> Highlight:: In 1994, PETA >>donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support
>> Committee. Coronado is an >>animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded
guilty to
>> firebombing a medical research >>facility at Michigan State University.

mskitty stupidly posts
>>>Those are violent? Give a freakin' break!

You're an idiotic wonder/moron and bankrupt of any common decency if you
dismiss PETA's funding of a known arsonist and condone it.

Here's another link for you so you can go back underground to your tunnel:
http://www.newsherald.com/archive/features/pe041998.htm
Highlight: ...."there have been many other riveting goings-on, like the
midnight raid a couple of years back, where 14 PETA folks (and talk-show host
Ricki Lake, of all people) broke into the New York offices of Calvin Klein and
wrought $3,500 in damage, after which they were promptly arrested and carted
off to jail."

Do a google search yourself and knock yourself out.
Karen M. - 27 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
> "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com
> belches, farts and writes:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Do a google search yourself and knock yourself out.

You're very mature. Once again, not violent. That was the whole point.
-L. - 27 Nov 2003 07:54 GMT
> fripwr@flash.net asks
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Highlight: In April 2000, Freda Fox, a PETA member, delivered a package of
> maggot-infested animal innards to (Editor, Anna) Wintour’s office.

Anna Wintour is editor of Vogue.  Vogue is notorious for promoting the
fur industry.

> She later
> called PETA, identifying herself and explaining, "Anna stole this animal’s
> skin and his life, she might as well have his guts,"...

You purposely forgot this part of the quote - how disingenuous of
you!:

"Very often, people feel so strongly that they take action on their
own," said Joey Penello, a correspondent at PETA. He said that often
no one is caught or charged by the police, but that the media hear
that the activists are PETA members and assumes that PETA is
responsible."

So you see, it was an independent action, NOT one organized by PeTA.

This commentary was by the author of the article:

>"PETA proudly reports
> the terrorizing activities of its members in press releases on its Web site."

BTW, what was done by Freda is peaceful demonstration, as protected by
law.

> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
> COM20011112b.htm
> Highlight:: In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support
> Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist

That's inflammatory wording, at best.

> who in 1995 pleaded guilty >to
> firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.

Ron Coronado plead guilty to arson.  He burned all of the records
pertaining to fur research on Minks at MSU - an action that was
carefully planned out and implemented, in which no animals or humans
were harmed.  PeTA paid part of his legal fees, as they do for many
animal rights activists.  Financially supporting those who are charged
with direct action does not equate DOING the acts.  You can hardly
call paying legal fees "violence and destruction".

BTW, condemnation of acts of "volence and destruction" is pretty
funny, coming from a guy who thinks it is ok to declaw a cat...

-L.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 18:35 GMT
>From: k3_e81@yahoo.com  (-L.)

>> >Please cite ONE case of violence >or destruction that has been >credited
>to
>> PETA.
>>  
>> Here are two!

>http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/nymagreview/features/peta.html
>> Highlight: In April 2000, Freda Fox, a PETA member, delivered a package of
>> maggot-infested animal innards to (Editor, Anna) Wintour’s office.
>
>Anna Wintour is editor of Vogue.  Vogue is notorious for promoting the
>fur industry.

So what?

>So you see, it was an independent action, NOT one organized by PeTA.

It doesn't really matter to the general public.  peta should kick out those
pathetic losers if they really don't condone those types of illegal crimes.

>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
>> COM20011112b.htm
>> Highlight:: In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support
>> Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist
>
>That's inflammatory wording, at best.

I don't think so.  Terrorism is terrorism.  (regardless of whether its for the
animal, the environment, or the Palestinans)

>Ron Coronado plead guilty to arson.  He burned all of the records
>pertaining to fur research on Minks at MSU - an action that was
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>with direct action does not equate DOING the acts.  You can hardly
>call paying legal fees "violence and destruction".

It's called aiding and abetting a known terrorist.  You sure have a warped
sense of reality.  peta is just as guilty as this guy is if they pay for his
defense--that means they defend his actions and therefore SUPPORT what he did.
Luvskats00 - 27 Nov 2003 19:01 GMT
gaubster2@aol.com
writes

>t doesn't really matter to the >general public.  peta should kick >out those
pathetic losers if they >really don't condone those types of >illegal crimes.

But PETA is indirectly responsible. They acknowledge any criminal/violent acts
made by members and post them in their newsletters that are then distributed to
the membership at large.  There is never any attempt to post or promote a
distance between these particular members. By not issuing a disclaimer against
these members - but, promoting such acts, instead, gives the remaining members
the clear message that PETA is OK with such activities and to continue with
them.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 23:22 GMT
>>t doesn't really matter to the >general public.  peta should kick >out those
>pathetic losers if they >really don't condone those types of >illegal crimes.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>the clear message that PETA is OK with such activities and to continue with
>them.

Agreed.
frlpwr - 27 Nov 2003 18:22 GMT
> fripwr@flash.net asks
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Wintour’s office. She later called PETA, identifying herself and
> explaining, "Anna stole this animal’s skin and his life, she might > as well have his guts,"...

In your warped mind, does this fall into the "violence" or "destruction"
category?  

> PETA proudly reports the terrorizing activities of its members in > press releases on its Web site.

If ALF chose to use the San Francisco Chronicle as the agent for their
press releases, would you say the Chronicle was "proud" of terrorism?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200111/
> COM20011112b.htm
> Highlight:: In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado
> Support Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 > pleaded guilty to firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan > State University.

So is it fair to say that you oppose the constitutional guarantee of a
fair trial and competent counsel?
Luvskats00 - 27 Nov 2003 20:29 GMT
frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
farted, scratched, flushed and writes

luvskats00@aol.com wrote
>...Freda Fox, a PETA member, >delivered a
> package of maggot-infested >animal innards to (Editor, Anna)
> Wintour's office....

frlpw
>>If ALF chose to use the San >>Francisco Chronicle as the agent for their
>>press releases, would you say the Chronicle was "proud" of ..terrorism?

The mention of the incident (above) was in response to a request asking for an
example of a violent or criminal activity.  There was no stipulation as to what
degree of violence or criminal activity was to be posted.  For the record,  my
offering this act does satisfy the request made. Also, The S.F. Chronicle is
NOT affiliated in any way with A.L.F. or any such group. Yet, it was used to
"promote", "record" "note" the said activities of this radical group. Yes,
A.L.F. was proud of the activites.  PETA published the activities of one or
more members (who may or may not have been in touch with PETA official prior to
said activity) in their own publication. They do so as a routine part of their
agenda.    

luvskats
>Highlight...PETA donated >$42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee.
Coronado is >an animal rights terrorist who in 1995
>pleaded guilty to firebombing a >medical research facility at >Michigan State
University.

frlpw
>>So is it fair to say that you oppose the constitutional guarantee of a
>>fair trial and competent counsel?
 
Only a very twisted mind like yours would even make the leap to this ridiculous
connection. The press reported that after Coronado's  arrest (he firebombed a
lab at Michegan State University), PETA donated $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado
Support Fund. PETA would not have been able to set up a  Rodney Coronado
Defense Fund, because he pled guilty well in advance of the trial and has
always taken credit for the crimes he has committed. According to the
government's sentencing memorandum, Coronado was in contact with PETA before
and after the MSU firebombing. In January-February, 2003, he spoke to crowds at
American University crowd in Washington DC and  Cal State Fresno, California.
The topic..how to make a bomb. He was/is a member of the Animal Liberation
Front. Ironically, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder, claims "We are a non-violent
guerilla organisation, dedicated to the liberation of animals from all forms of
cruelty and persecution at the hands of mankind.”  For a non-violent
"organisaton" (sic), they promote and chronicle firebombings and other acts of
terrorism all the time!

Getting back to PETA's involvement...They funded the defense with an obscene
amount of money - $45,200.  This money could have been spent helping
animals..not a crazed person who bombs buildings and goes around the country
urging others to do the same thing!

Here's the link to the entire article:
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/ca_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm
frlpwr - 01 Dec 2003 00:00 GMT
> frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
> farted, scratched, flushed and writes
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> The mention of the incident (above) was in response to a request
> asking for an example of a violent or criminal activity.  There was no > stipulation as to what degree of violence or criminal activity was to > be posted.

Presumably, the action offered contains some violence or
destructiveness.  If not, why post it?

So, please explain how receiving mouse entrails, especially if you
happen to be someone who mutilates and kills mice for a living, is
violent or destructive.

I once received a box of grapefruit in the mail.  They were lost enroute
and when they arrived many of them were rotten and stinky.  Was I a
victim of violence without knowing it?

> For the record,  my offering this act does satisfy the request made.

Then why waste your time posting it?

> Also, The S.F. Chronicle is NOT affiliated in any way with A.L.F. or > any such group.

If you asked the board of directors of PETA if they are affiliated with
the ALF, betcha they'd say, "No!".

> Yet, it was used to "promote", "record" "note" the said activities of > this radical group.

And your point is...?  The Chronicle is an agent of the ALF?

> Yes, A.L.F. was proud of the activites.

Fair assumption.

> PETA published the activities of one or more members (who may or may
> not have been in touch with PETA official prior to
> said activity) in their own publication. They do so as a routine part > of their agenda.

Do you think PETA should bury all press releases from the ALF?

(snip)

> >>So is it fair to say that you oppose the constitutional guarantee of > >>a fair trial and competent counsel?
>
> Only a very twisted mind like yours would even make the leap to this
> ridiculous connection. The press reported that after Coronado's  
> arrest (he firebombed a lab at Michegan State University), PETA
> donated $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Fund.

Don't forget the additional loan to Coronado's father to secure Rod's
release on bail.

> PETA would not have been able to set up a  Rodney Coronado
> Defense Fund, because he pled guilty well in advance of the trial and > has always taken credit for the crimes he has committed.

You don't think Coronado had legal counsel advising him of the best
course of action?

> According to the government's sentencing memorandum, Coronado was in
> contact with PETA before and after the MSU firebombing.

Unless Coronado and PETA were the subjects of illegal wiretaps, there is
no way of knowing the content of these conversations.  In fact, no
charges were filed against PETA for conspiracy to commit arson or aiding
and abetting.

Like all successful guerilla movements, direct actions succeed best when
undertaken by one individual or small cells.

> In January-February, 2003, he spoke to crowds at
> American University crowd in Washington DC and  Cal State Fresno,
> California.
> The topic..how to make a bomb.

Yes, direct action activists accept property damage and economic
sabotege as legitimate forms of protest.  So do I.

> He was/is a member of the Animal Liberation
> Front. Ironically, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder, claims "We are a
> non-violent guerilla organisation, dedicated to the liberation of
> animals from all forms of cruelty and persecution at the hands of
> mankind.

Why is this "ironic"?

> For a non-violent "organisaton" (sic), they promote and chronicle
> firebombings and other acts of terrorism all the time!

Inanimate objects don't suffer and cannot be, imo, the victims of
violence.

> Getting back to PETA's involvement...They funded the defense with an
> obscene amount of money - $45,200.  

What world do you live in?  $45,000 hardly qualifies as an "obscene
amout of money", especially when you are dealing with legal expenses.

For obscene, let's try the $3.2 billion tax dollars the NIH spends on
research, (not to mention the NSF, PHS, DoD and a plethora of private
foundations receiving federal grants), much of it dedicated to
experimentation using involuntary, unwilling animals as subjects.  
Consider, as well, after American tax-payers contribute to the research
and development of drugs and treatments, we turn around and pay the
highest prices for drugs and treatments in the world.  I call that
double-billing, but this is another subject entirely.

> This money could have been spent helping animals

Do you criticize the AMA for not setting up free vaccination clinics for
children?

Why should PETA help animals in your community?  Organize locally to
help animals, that's what everyone else does.

..not a crazed person who bombs buildings and goes around the country
> urging others to do the same thing!

I woulnd't mind knowing how to build an incendiary device.  Do you know
the whereabouts of Coronado's next lecture?

> Here's the link to the entire article:
> http://www.naiaonline.org/body/ca_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm

Oh, this is rich.  Why aren't you complaining about the NAIA's failure
to set up any programs that "help animals"?  Is it because the way they
"help animals" is to condone, promote and defend their exploitation?
Diane L. Schirf - 01 Dec 2003 01:54 GMT
> So, please explain how receiving mouse entrails, especially if you
> happen to be someone who mutilates and kills mice for a living, is
> violent or destructive.

This is considered harassment at a minimum and is intended to intimidate
and inflict psychological terror. It's also criminal. I hope you don't
condone such a criminal act.

Signature

http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

Luvskats00 - 01 Dec 2003 04:24 GMT
frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
asks

>please explain how receiving >mouse entrails, especially if you
>happen to be someone who >mutilates and kills mice for a living, >is violent
or destructive

If you equate, intentionally sending/mailing mouse entrails or any non-live
animal/mammal or throwing/splashing blood on someone as equal or paralell in
motive/intent as sending someone flowers, candy or other gift items, no amount
of response or information is going to matter. You're beyond the reach...you're
insane.  

fripwr@flash.net also posts
>I once received a box of grapefruit in the mail.  They were lost enroute
>and when they arrived many of them were rotten and stinky.  Was I a
>victim of violence without knowing it?

Was that a rhetorical question? Obviously, misrouted/delayed shipments of
grapefruit have no link to the above listed items. You must have a poor social
life and find humor in posting the most ridiculous nonsense (comparisons) that
you create.  There is help for that, but you have to ask for it.

luvskats00 posts
>....The S.F. Chronicle is NOT affiliated in any way with A.L.F. or > >any such
group.

fripwr@flash.net responds with
>If you asked the board of directors of PETA if they are affiliated with
>the ALF, betcha they'd say, "No!".

1) "...betcha they'd say, NO!". Now you're putting words in people's mouth?
Desperate attempt to win a losing-idiotic argument...I actually detailed the
link for you. What I can not do is presume you have any level of intelligence
to absorb information or deduce anything from information provided to you. You
have to work that out for yourself.  Btw, the link included the listing of how
PETA did become affiliated with ALF/ELF. You'll have to reread the info in the
original post (under the heading of this post/thread). It's stupid to cut &
paste if you didn't get it initially.

fripwr@flash.net asks
>I woulnd't mind knowing how to >build an incendiary device.  Do >you know
>the whereabouts of Coronado's next lecture?

I don't communicate with terrorists. Since you are exhibiting behavior that is
questionably (a terrorist mentality) I no longer will respond to your posts.
Diane L. Schirf - 01 Dec 2003 12:33 GMT
> >please explain how receiving >mouse entrails, especially if you
> >happen to be someone who >mutilates and kills mice for a living, >is violent
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> reach...you're
> insane.  

Exactly. Fortunately, the police can tell the difference between the two.

Signature

http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

GAUBSTER2 - 01 Dec 2003 15:26 GMT
>From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net

YOU'RE A TERRORIST.  I suggest you turn yourself in to the nearest law
enforcement officials and keep the rest of us save from your violent
tendencies.

>Like all successful guerilla movements, direct actions succeed best when
>undertaken by one individual or small cells.

>> In January-February, 2003, he spoke to crowds at
>> American University crowd in Washington DC and  Cal State Fresno,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Yes, direct action activists accept property damage and economic
>sabotege as legitimate forms of protest.  So do I.

>> He was/is a member of the Animal Liberation
>> Front. Ironically, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder, claims "We are a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Why is this "ironic"?

Because he lied.  Preaching how to make a bomb is not "non-violent".

>> For a non-violent "organisaton" (sic), they promote and chronicle
>> firebombings and other acts of terrorism all the time!
>
>Inanimate objects don't suffer and cannot be, imo, the victims of
>violence.

People who own those objects suffering property damage are victims of violence.
You are sick.

>For obscene, let's try the $3.2 billion tax dollars the NIH spends on
>research, (not to mention the NSF, PHS, DoD and a plethora of private
>foundations receiving federal grants), much of it dedicated to
>experimentation using involuntary, unwilling animals as subjects.  

FYI, the NIH does a lot of good in this world.  But you don't think so.  Sick.

>..not a crazed person who bombs buildings and goes around the country
>> urging others to do the same thing!
>
>I woulnd't mind knowing how to build an incendiary device.  Do you know
>the whereabouts of Coronado's next lecture?

Please tell us where you live so that we can have you arrested!
-L. - 01 Dec 2003 07:51 GMT
> frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net
> farted, scratched, flushed and writes
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> said activity) in their own publication. They do so as a routine part of their
> agenda.    

For the record, PeTA is not the mouthpiece of the ALF and never has
been.  The mouthpiece for the ALF is the Animal Liberation Press
office.

> luvskats
> >Highlight...PETA donated >$42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> The topic..how to make a bomb. He was/is a member of the Animal Liberation
> Front.

I don't think Ron Coronado ever admitted to being a member of the ALF.
The whole point of ALF mebership, from what I understand, is
anonymity.

> Ironically, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder,

Again, I don't believe you will ever see Ronnie Lee claim to be a
"founder" of the ALF.

> claims "We are a non-violent
> guerilla organisation, dedicated to the liberation of animals from all forms >of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Getting back to PETA's involvement...They funded the defense with an obscene
> amount of money - $45,200.

Actually the figure is cloer to $70,000 - which honestly isn't a lot
of money for legal fees in a case of this sort.

> This money could have been spent helping
> animals..not a crazed person who bombs buildings and goes around the country
> urging others to do the same thing!
>
> Here's the link to the entire article:
> http://www.naiaonline.org/body/ca_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm

Um, yeah.  From an organization that supports the use of animals in
entertainment, animal "ownership", hunting, and animal research.
Figures.   They are nothing more than a front for the conservative
agenda of animal usership.

-L.
Cheryl - 27 Nov 2003 00:33 GMT
>> An animal needing a good and
>>> loving home should also be their focus as well.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> can be placed, IIRC, in the Boston area - I confirmed this by
> telephone with people in their home office, back in about 2000.

I stand corrected, and I am happy to be.  :)

> Anybody who thinks PeTA is just a bunch of freaks and nutcases
> really
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Institute for Behavioral Research in Silver Springs, MD - which
> prompted the founding of PeTA.

I read the excerpt and that is great what they did.  Heck, I live
right here where it happened and I can't even remember that being in
the media at the time; only what they do now.  Color me changed and
impressed.  :)
Yngver - 27 Nov 2003 02:56 GMT
>>> An animal needing a good and
>>>> loving home should also be their focus as well.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>I stand corrected, and I am happy to be.  :)

I believe that PeTA's attitude is that in an ideal world, animals would not be
kept in captivity, but they recognize we are a long way from an ideal world. I
mean, in an ideal world my cats could romp through fields of daisies all day in
complete safety, but in my current situation it isn't safe.
-L. - 27 Nov 2003 07:57 GMT
> >> An animal needing a good and
> >>> loving home should also be their focus as well.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> the media at the time; only what they do now.  Color me changed and
> impressed.  :)

That's the thing - the media isn't interested in reporting the good
they do - only their silly or outlandish publicity stunts.  When I
lived in NC they uncovered terrible abuse at a hog farm - the men
involved were tried and convicted.  IIRC, it was only reported once in
the local papers, and never even made front page news.  Let's face it
- the media doesn't care about animal welfare or animal rights.  It's
sad, because they could do so much good for animals.

-L.
Kaiju - 27 Nov 2003 08:35 GMT
> > >> An animal needing a good and
> > >>> loving home should also be their focus as well.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> That's the thing - the media isn't interested in reporting the good
> they do - only their silly or outlandish publicity stunts.

Then maybe they shouldn't indulge in silly or outlandish publicity
stunts.  Big, anvil-sized clue there, dudes.

Now, where PETA really sticks in my craw is its position on domestic
animals...i.e., household pets.  Has PETA changed it's belief that
household pets such as dogs and cats be put to death because they are
slaves to humans?  Or somesuch rubbish?  I suppose the good folks of
PETA don't understand that 10,000 years or more of domestication means
dogs believe their humans are part of their pack, and don't want to be
"freed"?  And for all of the housecats' professed independence, they
really don't care to leave their pampered existence behind.  I don't
think any of them want to be dead any more than their human pals want
them dead.  

Hell, in the U.S., pets are treated better than children.  Studies
indicate that U.S. adults spend far more quality time with their dogs
and cats than they do with their own children.  Of course, PETA doesn't
care a whole lot about humans, anyway, so big deal.

Kaiju <whose dog and cat are part of her family and would seriously harm
any PETA critter who would attempt to harm her babies...>

Signature

    No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
    were such a thing physically possible,
    than that one should be turned loose in society
    and remain absolutely unnoticed.

    -- William James

frlpwr - 27 Nov 2003 19:57 GMT
(snip)

> Now, where PETA really sticks in my craw is its position on domestic
> animals...i.e., household pets.  Has PETA changed it's belief that
> household pets such as dogs and cats be put to death because they are
> slaves to humans?  

Where do you scrape up this sh.t?  PETA believes all existing companion
animals should be cared for in the best possible manner.  They are,
however, opposed to the continued breeding of all domestic species.

Are you an animal breeder?

(snip)

> Hell, in the U.S., pets are treated better than children.

Utter bullshit.  Where in the US can parents have their children
euthanized because they want to move to an apartment that doesn't allow
children?  

For all our professed "love" of our companion animals, they live and die
according to human whim.  We decide: What they eat. When they eat. Where
they eat. Where and, sometimes, when they urinate and defecate. Where
and when they sleep.  When and where they exercise.  When, where and if
they interact with their peers. If and with whom they reproduce. Very
often, when and why they die.  

We excerise absolute control over them for their entire lives.  

> Studies indicate that U.S. adults spend far more quality time with
> their dogs and cats than they do with their own children.

Citation, please.

> Of course, PETA doesn't
> care a whole lot about humans, anyway, so big deal.

Caring about humans need not be antithical to caring about animals.  

> Kaiju whose dog and cat are part of her family and would seriously
> harm any PETA critter who would attempt to harm her babies...>

Do you think the PETA police are going to roundup people's pets?
>  
>      No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>      -- William James

You won't have to worry about this.  With the kind of hysterical beliefs
you testify to above, you're not likely to go unnoticed.
GAUBSTER2 - 27 Nov 2003 23:29 GMT
>Exhibiting Terrible Attributes
>From: frlpwr frlpwr@flash.net

Don't you have a turkey to save?  ;)
MacCandace - 28 Nov 2003 04:42 GMT
<< Now, where PETA really sticks in my craw is its position on domestic
animals...i.e., household pets.  Has PETA changed it's belief that
household pets such as dogs and cats be put to death because they are
slaves to humans? >>

I guess if you had read the rest of the thread before -posting, you would know
what PETA's true beliefs are on pets or companion animals.

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human."  (Loren Eisely)
William December Starr - 27 Nov 2003 11:22 GMT
>>  Anybody who thinks PeTA is just a bunch of freaks and nutcases
>> really should read the book "Monkey Business" by Kathy Snow
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> in the media at the time; only what they do now.  Color me changed
> and impressed.  :)

Hey, this is Usenet -- you're not allowed to be reasonable here!

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com
Luvskats00 - 25 Nov 2003 08:56 GMT
catprotector@cox.net writes

>I respect PETA's right to protest >but I think they need to be aware
>that not everyone is a vegetarian.

That is NOT acceptable to PETA. There is a difference between being a vegan and
a vegetarian. I think they promote a vegan lifestyle. If I recall, the vegan
has more limited menu than the vegetarian..vegans shun the use of animal
related products (leather, wool, certain milks..etc).
Cat Protector - 25 Nov 2003 16:58 GMT
Well they have a right to be pro-vegan just as I have the right to eat meat.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com


> That is NOT acceptable to PETA. There is a difference between being a vegan and
> a vegetarian. I think they promote a vegan lifestyle. If I recall, the vegan
> has more limited menu than the vegetarian..vegans shun the use of animal
> related products (leather, wool, certain milks..etc).
frlpwr - 25 Nov 2003 18:32 GMT
> Well they have a right to be pro-vegan just as I have the right to eat > meat.

It's not a matter of your "right to eat meat".  It is a matter of moral
inconsistency on your part.  You have admirable concern for the
well-being of cats, yet, through your purchases of animal products, you
happily contribute to the suffering and death of animals that are every
bit as intelligent, noble and deserving of protection as cats.  

At the very least, people who are concerned with animal welfare, should
take care to purchase the flesh of animals that were farmed as humanely
as possible, that is pasture-raised, farm-slaughtered animals.
Cat Protector - 25 Nov 2003 20:39 GMT
I have to wonder if PETA feels all animals should be vegans? Whenever I get
a vegetarian who asks why I eat meat, I say simply put that I enjoy it. If
they persist I say that my cats eat meat and thus I eat meat because I'd
hate to see them dine alone.

Signature

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

> >
> > Well they have a right to be pro-vegan just as I have the right to eat > meat.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> take care to purchase the flesh of animals that were farmed as humanely
> as possible, that is pasture-raised, farm-slaughtered animals.
frlpwr - 26 Nov 2003 18:53 GMT
> I have to wonder if PETA feels all animals should be vegans?

Other animals do not have the ability to weigh their effect on prey nor
the ability to seek other sources of food.  Only humans have the luxury
to choose to be kind.  Why not exercise this choice?

> Whenever I get a vegetarian who asks why I eat meat, I say simply put > that I enjoy it.

Somewhere there is a human who strangles cats because she enjoys it.
Why is her enjoyment any less justifiable than yours?

> If they persist I say that my cats eat meat

Cats are obligate carnivores, humans are not.

> and thus I eat meat because I'd hate to see them dine alone.

How amusing and utterly devoid of moral content.

> --
> Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> > take care to