 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / July 2004PETA SEIZES PODIUM AT IAMS-SPONSORED EVENT
PETA SEIZES PODIUM AT IAMS-SPONSORED EVENT http://www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=4510 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group Howling Mad Over Pet-Food Maker's Deadly Tests on Dogs and Cats For Immediate Release: June 8, 2004 Contact: Allison Ezell 757-622-7382 Minneapolis PETA member Allison Ezell, 23, was ejected from an Iams-sponsored reception for students of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine held earlier this evening at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Ezell had commandeered the microphone and announced to everyone in attendance that Iams tortures animals in crude laboratory tests and that as veterinarians, the students should join with PETA in condemning the pet-food company. A recent PETA undercover investigation revealed deplorable conditions at an Iams contract laboratory. At least 27 dogs were killed, while others died of illnesses that went untreated, despite assurances from Iams that no animal in any Iams test would ever be deliberately killed. PETA's investigation also revealed the following: * Dogs and cats indefinitely confined to small cages in dungeon-like rooms * Dogs whose vocal cords had been surgically cut out so that they couldn't bark * Dogs suffering from untreated ear infections, rotten teeth, and injured paws * Workers' reports of a live kitten who was washed down a drain * Terrified, unsocialized animals cowering in their cages * Kennels that were stifling during summer and near freezing in winter * Dogs force-fed vegetable oil through tubes inserted down their throats In June, PETA filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Iams and its parent company, Procter & Gamble, for making allegedly false claims on their Web sites regarding the care provided to the cats and dogs used in the company's research. "Iams has hurt and killed dogs and cats in real-life tests while feeding its customers a PR line about caring for animals," says PETA Senior Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland. "We're calling on the veterinary community and consumers to boycott Iams until these cruel tests are stopped." Anybody ever do any research on PETA? Shockingly, they have: 1) Donated over $25,000 (received from tax free donations) to legal services of a convicted terrorist. The person they donated to had bombed a building with people in it. 2) Publicly denounced animal testing for medical research. Unfortunately, one of the key executives at Peta takes medication (discovered from medical research). 3) Has not put any monies towards spay & neuter programs. >Anybody ever do any research on PETA? Shockingly, they have: >1) Donated over $25,000 (received from tax free donations) to legal services [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >research). >3) Has not put any monies towards spay & neuter programs. You might post references for this information. Those are some pretty serious allegations, and unless you can prove them, you shouldn't post them as factual. Sherry >>Anybody ever do any research on PETA? Shockingly, they have: >>1) Donated over $25,000 (received from tax free donations) to legal services [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Sherry Hello, all. I'm new to the forum and this thread caught my eye. PETA has been an interest of mine for some time now. I'm not trying to stir anything up and I'm against animal cruelty but I also think folks should check out where their donations are going and what the organization they support stands for. -Nicole Here is one website that has some info on them: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 And here is some info from there that backs some of the claims from above: "In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a violent, underground group of fanatics who plant firebombs in restaurants, destroy butcher shops, and torch research labs. The FBI considers ALF among Americas most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson. PETA has even begun to adopt the tactics of an ALF offshoot known as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). This group is notorious for taking protests outside the boardroom and into the living room, attacking their targets at their homes. In 2001, three masked SHAC members brutally bludgeoned a medical researcher outside his home in England. The lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. A few months later, SHAC attacked another research industry employee on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain. The following year, Newkirk was asked her opinion of SHAC in the Boston Herald. Her response? More power to SHAC if they can get someones attention. ------------------ "PETA collected more than $16 million in donations in 2002 alone, but few donors understand exactly where their money is going. During the past ten years, PETA has spent four times as much on criminals and their legal defense than it has on shelters, spay-neuter programs, and other efforts that actually help animals." ------------------ "PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,300 cats and dogs in 1999 alone, preferring to spend its money on cheap publicity stunts and criminal defense, rather than finding the animals suitable homes. " -------------------- "Charity Navigator, the nations largest nonpartisan evaluator of non-profit organizations, gives PETA a rating of one-star (poor). It says PETA fails to meet industry standards and performs well below most charities in its cause. PETAs Foundation to Support Animal Protection -- now doing business as The PETA Foundation -- was one of just 23 organizations nationwide to receive zero stars (exceptionally poor). " ---------------- "PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. When asked if she would oppose an experiment on five thousand rats if it would result in a cure for AIDS, Newkirk responded: Would you be opposed to experiments on your daughter if you knew it would save fifty million people? In addition to opposing any and all medical research that uses animals, PETA also insults medical professionals by arguing, with a straight face, that animal testing is a counterproductive means of finding cures for human diseases." ------------------------ " nsevy@sbcglobal.net writes >"Charity Navigator, the nation’s largest nonpartisan evaluator of >non-profit organizations, gives PETA a rating of one-star (“poor”). It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of just 23 organizations nationwide to receive zero stars >(“exceptionally poor”). " Unfortunately, too few people are aware of PETA's ties to (support of) terrorism. I originally included two links (to legitimate national media reports) detailing PETA's dubious activities. >>>1) Donated over $25,000 (received from tax free donations) to legal services >>>of >>>a convicted terrorist. The person they donated to had bombed a building with >>>people in it. Link? >>>2) Publicly denounced animal testing for medical research. Unfortunately, one >>>of the key executives at Peta takes medication (discovered from medical >>>research). So you're going to slam this person from PETA because they have a medical condition that requires medication? >>>3) Has not put any monies towards spay & neuter programs. Why should they? Spay & Neuter is the responsibility of the pet owner. Other organizations can "help" but ultimately it is the individual owner who bears the responsibility. > >>>1) Donated over $25,000 (received from tax free donations) to legal services > >>>of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So you're going to slam this person from PETA because they have a > medical condition that requires medication? I think the point was it's hypocritical to blast the medical testing but then take advantage of the medicine it produces. Kind of like a "fanatical" vegetarian (you know, the one that gets in your face about how chickens are treated) wearing leather tennis shoes. > >>>3) Has not put any monies towards spay & neuter programs. > >>> > Why should they? Spay & Neuter is the responsibility of the pet > owner. Other organizations can "help" but ultimately it is the > individual owner who bears the responsibility. PETA's financials have been criticized for years (rightly so IMO) It's not that they don't support Spay and Neuter programs..it's that only a very very tiny percentage of their money actually goes directly to the care of animals. Mostly it's operating costs, legal fees and lobbyist. It's sad really because they could do so much more. There is no greater impact on the future welfare of cats and dogs than the spay and neuter programs. Regardless of who's responsibility it is...getting it done will prevent the euthanization of hundreds of thousands of animals. Education, low costs clinics, catch - alter - and release programs.. these are great causes, so why doesn't PETA spend it's money there rather than on legal fees for radical activist? AG >I think the point was it's hypocritical to blast the medical testing but >then take advantage of the medicine it produces. Kind of like a >"fanatical" vegetarian (you know, the one that gets in your face about >how chickens are treated) wearing leather tennis shoes. But if you have medical condition xxxxxxx and have to take medicine yyyyy to save your life you may not have the option of what medicine to choose. Aren't all these tests required by the US government? >PETA's financials have been criticized for years (rightly so IMO) >It's not that they don't support Spay and Neuter programs..it's that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >programs.. these are great causes, so why doesn't PETA spend it's >money there rather than on legal fees for radical activist? One of the problems I have is around here they could give away spaying/neutering services for free and there will still be people who bother to get their cat spayed/neutered. Of course you're also dealing with people who will spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on sneakers for their kids but will they spend a few dollars or take time to get their cat spayed/nuetered? They've had free spay/nueter clincs around here and still people won't be bothered. So if John and Mary Doe won't bother to get their cat spayed/neutered even though it is free how do you propose getting them to do it? > >I think the point was it's hypocritical to blast the medical testing but > >then take advantage of the medicine it produces. Kind of like a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > option of what medicine to choose. Aren't all these > tests required by the US government? Yep, and those drugs wouldn't be available to save a life if it weren't for the tests. I abhor animal testing for cosmetics but life saving drugs...bit different. If you want to be against it...fine..but then you have to suffer the consequences of not having those drugs....which this particular PETA administrator isn't willing to do. > >PETA's financials have been criticized for years (rightly so IMO) > >It's not that they don't support Spay and Neuter programs..it's that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >programs.. these are great causes, so why doesn't PETA spend it's > >money there rather than on legal fees for radical activist? > One of the problems I have is around here they could give away > spaying/neutering services for free and there will still be people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even thousands of dollars on sneakers for their kids but will they > spend a few dollars or take time to get their cat spayed/nuetered? There will always be excuses not to do something. My college educated brother wouldn't alter his male dog ...guy thing. :-) Still....those groups that sponsor free spay and neuter clinics alter thousands of animals that might have gone unaltered otherwise. That makes it a worthwhile program IMO. The question remains that if PETA's main concern is the protection of amimals why do they spend the bulk of their money defending fanatics (whom we call terrorist in other countries). Take a look at their financials. They are a matter of public record. This is true for all charitable organizations. It's always a good idea to look at what percentage of their donations actually go towards the cause they claim to support. > They've had free spay/nueter clincs around here and > still people won't be bothered. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is free how do you propose getting them to > do it? I propose getting as many OTHERS to do it as possible. The program isn't for the select few that won't do it, it's for the hundreds that would do it if it were cheaper or more convienent. How many deaths do you have to prevent before it's worth trying to prevent them at all? AG >Yep, and those drugs wouldn't be available to save a life if >it weren't for the tests. I abhor animal testing for cosmetics >but life saving drugs...bit different. If you want to be against >it...fine..but then you have to suffer the consequences of not >having those drugs....which this particular PETA administrator >isn't willing to do. Except if he refused to take the medication others may take legal action to force him t o take them. Some are in institutions for refusing to take mecication. (It amounts to suicide). >I propose getting as many OTHERS to do it as possible. >The program isn't for the select few that won't do it, it's for >the hundreds that would do it if it were cheaper or more >convienent. How many deaths do you have to prevent before >it's worth trying to prevent them at all? I've come across too many clowns who won't even take the time or effort to spay/neuter even if it is free, conventient, and a really really really good idea. So if you're an organization like PETA how many times do you throw good money after bab and realize these people are never going to spay/ nueter their pets? I've come accross clowns won't get their cats rabies shots even though it is REQUIRED BY LAW. At some point you get exasperated and throw in the towel. After having too many arguements with too many who don't/won't take their cats to a vet for spay/neuter/rabies shots/etc. I can't blame PETA for not doing it either. > After having too many arguements with too > many who don't/won't take their cats to > a vet for spay/neuter/rabies shots/etc. > I can't blame PETA for not doing it either. That's cool.... I can blame them. I may not want to argue or educate but I am not setting myself up as a tax free organization dedicated to the protection of animals. I don't volunteer time at an AIDS hospice either but I certainly question any organization that claims it's dedicated to AIDS patients but gives no money to their care. AG >That's cool.... I can blame them. I may not want to >argue or educate but I am not setting myself up as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it's dedicated to AIDS patients but gives no money to their >care. Let me put it this way: years ago I did volunteer work for some organizations. You can only deal with a lost cause for so long. Then you finally just give up and get on with your life. Fighting for a cause is good, but if the people you're trying to help don't want the help, aren't receptive to the help, or openly ataganostic to the help then why bother trying give them help they don't want. > >That's cool.... I can blame them. I may not want to > >argue or educate but I am not setting myself up as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or openly ataganostic to the help then why bother > trying give them help they don't want. I understand the discouragement but if you get 2 cats out of 10 altered is it still a "lost cause". You cant save them all but if you can save one you have made an impact. Those clinics may not help the openly antagonistic but they do make an impact and that's worth the cost to keep them running. >I understand the discouragement but if you get 2 cats out of >10 altered is it still a "lost cause". You cant save them all but >if you can save one you have made an impact. Those clinics >may not help the openly antagonistic but they do make an impact >and that's worth the cost to keep them running. But if you're trying to get 50 cats neutered and you strike out on 40 of the owners why bother? Especially when those 10 cats would have been neutered anyways because those cats are taken care of by responsible cat owners? When you have very limited resources you don't waste them on lost causes. You use those limited resources where they do the most good. > >>>1) Donated ov > >>>2) Publicly denounced animal testing for medical research. Unfortunately, one > >>>of the key executives at Peta takes medication (discovered from medical > >>>research). > So you're going to slam this person from PETA because they have a > medical condition that requires medication? No. They're slamming him for taking a mdication which came about through experiments on animals. This dude isn't practicing what he preaches. I saw a bumper sticker once that said: "If you don't like logging, wipe your a.s with plastic." Likewise, if you don't like animal experimentation, stop using all meds that came about through such experimentation, even if this means you'd die as a result. >No. They're slamming him for taking a mdication which came about through >experiments on animals. This dude isn't practicing what he preaches. And you know for a fact this person has no alternative? >I saw a bumper sticker once that said: "If you don't like logging, wipe your >a.s with plastic." Likewise, if you don't like animal experimentation, stop >using all meds that came about through such experimentation, even if this >means you'd die as a result. Oh how compassionate of you. Amy Gray JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com writes Jake Blues" 5htp@earthlink.net wrote >I"...if you don't like animal >experimentation, stop >using all meds that came about through such experimentation, even if this >means you'd die as a result." >>Oh how compassionate of you. Hey, "Amy"....you "borrowed" your nickname from the tv character for a reason...perhaps to hope for the wisdom that Judge Amy sometimes appears to have on Judging Amy. It's not working, unfortunately. You have little ability to comprehend anything. First, compassion has little to do with this matter. The person in question is a member of a large-scale organization who has used a not-for-profit status yet donates thousands and thousands of dollars to fund terrorism. They use other people's money to support groups who have been proven to be terrorist groups...they have funded legal defense for a known bomber, etc. The person who is taking medication obtained from animal experimentation is an executive at PETA. PETA members routinely throw paint (at demonstrations) at people who wear fur. Etc. If this executive didn't want to be a hypocrite, then this executive should have either resigned from PETA or refused this medication. >Hey, "Amy"....you "borrowed" your nickname from the tv character for a >reason...perhaps to hope for the wisdom that Judge Amy sometimes appears to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >then this executive should have either resigned from PETA or refused this >medication. And if this person refused the medication would this person be dead? There are certain aflictions where someone has to take xxxxxx medication or they will be dead. And where is your proof about the terrorism charge? JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com writes >"And where is your proof about the terrorism charge? " Since you did NOT enter this group yesterday, but have been in this group for some time, it is YOUR responsibility to absorb the information posted during that time. No person(s) need spend time gathering it up again for you. . During the past week, (and, further back, during the past months) information AND links on PETA's contributions/activities to aid terrorism have been posted. You can avail yourself of that info Research/look up the posts that have appeared in the . I won't spend 1 minute or 10 minutes gathering it for you. >Since you did NOT enter this group yesterday, but have been in this group for >some time, it is YOUR responsibility to absorb the information posted during [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can avail yourself of that info Research/look up the posts that have >appeared in the . I won't spend 1 minute or 10 minutes gathering it for you. I've been following this thread, I saw no such link. I saw the original charge, I saw nothing to back up that claim. -------------------------------------------------- "Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth." ---------------------------------------Barney Frank "Congressmen in Washington voted to ban gay marriage to save the institution of marriage. Then they went home to their mistrisses." ----------------------------------Dennis Miller 106 days until regime change in the United States. Barrnabas Collins BarnabasCollinsonS@hotmail.com writes >I saw the original charge, I saw >nothing to back up that claim. Hmm...You & Amy Gray seem have a couple of things in common....both of you like to use nicknames from tv show characters and both of you have no ability to research. I personally used google and searched for 2 major news stories from national respected publications/programs (as opposed to little webzines and the like). I posted these links and summaries of the articles regarding PETA's links to terrorist activities/groups (support). I am not going to go back and archive old posts because you cant' do any research yourself. Feel free to visit google and research. >I personally used google and searched for 2 major news stories from >national respected publications/programs (as opposed to little webzines and the >like). I posted these links and summaries of the articles regarding PETA's >links to terrorist activities/groups (support). I am not going to go back and >archive old posts because you cant' do any research yourself. Feel free to >visit google and research. Where did you find them? I did a google search and found nothing from a source I felt I could trust. Amy Gray JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com writes>>visit google and research. >Where did you find them? I did a >google search and found nothing from >a source I felt I could trust. Well, since you failed to provide the key words you used to find "a source you could trust", I invite you to provide them. Perhaps, then, I will bring you to the link I found in 2-3 minutes (last night) doing a search from scratch on Google. Doh. >Amy Gray JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com >writes>>visit google and research. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the link I found in 2-3 minutes (last night) doing a search from scratch on >Google. Doh. I have no idea what I searched on. By reliable source I mean something like a reliable TV radio or newspaper site. Not some fly by night clown who sets up a web page with bogus information. Here is a newsflash: you can't always trust everything on the web. > >Amy Gray JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com > >writes>>visit google and research. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Here is a newsflash: you can't always trust everything on the web. You also can't discount everything just because you didn't read it in the NY Times. Here's a newsflash for you...the PETA ELF connection is old news. The legal aid given to "activist" who bombed a pet store... old news. The NY Times, Chicago Trib etc. doesn't keep info like this readily available on line for more than a couple of weeks at best (usually 7 days then it's into an archive where only an on site search will find it..google yahoo types won't) Most of the information your going to find is commentary. It's not illegal for them to pay for lawyers for terrorist, it's not illegal for them to publicly say "so what" in regards to 5,000 people losing their lives on 9-11 because 10,000 animals lose their lives every day. When they elevate Timothy McVey (sp?) to hero status because he orders a vegetarian last meal (forget about why it's his last meal)... linking him to Ghandi....it's not going to show up on the front page of the Washington Post. These are minor news items that you are only going to find in obscure publications. Do you know how your local senator voted on the last bill? Can you do a quick search and find out? NO... but I guarantee if it was of interest to some small cause.. like exposing politicians who vote for boating rights in the Floriday keys...than you will find it on the "Save the Manatee" page. The fact that it isn't reported in a source that you find reliable doesn't mean it isn't true. Obviously these sources have agendas...heck..the Times and the Tribune have an agenda. You seem dead set against believing anything against the group....fine, but do yourself a favor and at least take a look at their financials. Research for yourself (since you aren't going to believe ANYONE else). Know what and whom you are supporting. Then if you still want to stand arm and arm with such a group at least your doing so with an informed mind. Although how anyone can knowingly support a group that is against the use of seeing eye dogs is beyond me. AG "Agua Girl" @spamblock.net writes >You also can't discount everything just because you didn't read it >in the NY Times. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at best (usually 7 days then it's into an archive where only an on >site search will find it..google yahoo types won't) Don't bother to consider The New York Times as the ulitmate source.I presume you missed the scandal caused by cub reporter Jayson Blair who plagiarized dozens of stories from other newspapers. Two editors resigned because of it. The PETA ELF (and ALF) connection began long ago (but it hasn't dissolved). What's your point? The connection still exists and, just because it's old news, doesn't mean that PETA isn't responsible for past actions/involvement supporting terrorism - whatever level of terrorism. You are consistently wrong. Each claim in your post is way off base. In this final claim (above), you write "then it's into an archive where only an on site search will find it..google yahoo types won'(t)" I found it on Google. I use Google almost exclusively. >Don't bother to consider The New York Times as the ulitmate source.I presume >you missed the scandal caused by cub reporter Jayson Blair who plagiarized >dozens of stories from other newspapers. Two editors resigned because of it. Have heard about it. >The PETA ELF (and ALF) connection began long ago (but it hasn't dissolved). >What's your point? The connection still exists and, just because it's old news, >doesn't mean that PETA isn't responsible for past actions/involvement >supporting terrorism - whatever level of terrorism. So if this connection is so sure how come there haven't been any arrests/convictions? >Most of the information your going to find is commentary. Bear in mind you have to take what is on the web with a huge grain of salt. A huge grain. I could put up a web page in two minutes that says the moon is made of green cheese. Just because it is on the web doesn't necessarily make it true. There are websites that are the web equivalant of the tabloids that tout the "president was abducted by aliens." >When they elevate Timothy McVey (sp?) to hero status because he >orders a vegetarian last meal (forget about why it's his last meal)... >linking him to Ghandi....it's not going to show up on the front page >of the Washington Post. We could get into an arguement about the Vegetarian life style but I won't. Suffice to say PETA has their beliefs and they have every right to them. These are minor news items that you are only >going to find in obscure publications. Do you know how your >local senator voted on the last bill? Can you do a quick search and find >out? Actually our local paper prints a grid where they list their votes. >You seem dead set against believing anything against the group....fine, >but do yourself a favor and at least take a look at their financials. I rarely agree with much that PETA says, but they are in the US and have every right to their opinions. That is what we fought wars for. All i'm saying is I want proof from a REPUTABLE organization and so far nobody has provided a REPUTABLE source. When a site starts out slamming the organization in the first paragraph I have to doubt their findings because their bias comes through loud and clear in the first paragraph. So if you're so convinced that PETA has been invovled in this stuff how come they aren't under indictment? I have yet to hear about one coming down. Amy Gray JudgeAmyGray@hotmail.com writes I wrote >Well, since you failed to provide >the key words you used to find "a source you >could trust", I invite you to provide >them. Perhaps, then, I will bring you to >the link I found in 2-3 minutes (last >night) doing a search from scratch on >Google. Doh. >>I have no idea what I searched on. You have no idea of what key words you used in a search you conducted 1-3 days ago? Logic would dictate that you would NOT have used words such as ice cream, armadillo, pizza, Mexico or Mel Gibson. Unless you conducted 450 searches, how could you not recall if you used words such as PETA, terrorism, support of terrorism, activism, etc. Whatever. You state "Here is a newsflash: you can't always trust everything on the web." One can't trust everything one reads newspapers or hears on newsprograms either, btw. The (once respected) newspaper, The New York Times" employed a reporter who plagiarized dozens of stories before being caught. Several reporters (from other major newspapers) eventually were caught doing the same thing. Other stories appearing in still other newspapers were fabrications of events that didn't take place. Government statistics have been less than truthful, and so on. However, in reference to PETA, there has been adaquate documentation from known legitimate sources. >You have no idea of what key words you used in a search you conducted 1-3 days >ago? Logic would dictate that you would NOT have used words such as ice cream, >armadillo, pizza, Mexico or Mel Gibson. Unless you conducted 450 searches, how >could you not recall if you used words such as PETA, terrorism, support of >terrorism, activism, etc. Whatever. As a matter of fact I conducted about 2-3 dozen searches every day on google. I >>I personally used google and searched for 2 major news stories from >>national respected publications/programs (as opposed to little webzines and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Where did you find them? I did a google search and found nothing from >a source I felt I could trust. Try this URL http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 Thanks for the link (re PETA's links to (support of) terrorism....There are many links, but I was looking for only the ones from national or major news sites. >>>I personally used google and searched for 2 major news stories from >>>national respected publications/programs (as opposed to little webzines and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Try this URL >http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 This gets into what I was saying about reliable sources. They say "The key word is radical." A reliable source impartially reporting on an organization would nto phrase it that way. I wouldn't rely on anything a site like this reports. "The key word is radical" tells me this site is less than impartial. >>>>I personally used google and searched for 2 major news stories from >>>>national respected publications/programs (as opposed to little webzines and the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I wouldn't rely on anything a site like this reports. "The key word >is radical" tells me this site is less than impartial. They are! Truth hurts! >Since you did NOT enter this group yesterday, but have been in this group for >some time, it is YOUR responsibility to absorb the information posted during [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can avail yourself of that info Research/look up the posts that have >appeared in the . I won't spend 1 minute or 10 minutes gathering it for you. Let me put it this way: a google search turned up nothing. BTW, you do know usenet newsgroup severs have lots dropped messages, many do not get posted to all servers. Try using various servers and you'll soon discover that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.