Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / December 2003
PETA - People Exhibiting Terrible Attributes
|
|
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 peoples money to pursue what you thought was important, but was just plain wasteful, wouldnt 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.
Lets 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 doesnt think so. Of course PETA has no alternative to the use of sea mammals but they just know its 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 Ohios 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 PETAs 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 PETAs international grassroots campaigns department as saying, Im afraid, its 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 ones 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, dont 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] > Wintourâs office. She later called PETA, identifying herself and > explaining, "Anna stole this animalâs 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 |
|