Reality Check for ARA's
Berosini
This will be a bit of a departure from the usual array
of facts, reports and features in AWARE's
newsletter....this is a "what if." That is...what if
the animal rights agenda succeeds. Animals are given
rights according to the constitutional amendment
because not enough people spoke up against it. Has
anyone thought about the chaos in store? Have you?
Many vegan or vegetarian activists self-righteously
talk of freeing the animals...oblivious to the fact
that their own food supply will be the first hit. The
fertile fields of lettuce, corn, wheat, beans and
other crops will be absolutely relished by sheep and
goats. After all they have a right ot be there...they
can't be fenced in and also can't be fenced OUT
(freedome remember?). Dangerous dogs will take down
the slower lambs and kids immediately...littering the
hillsides and roadsides with dead animals. Those
animals protected from the claws of cougars and
bobcats will not be left to die. The coyotes --
already moving in residential and urban areas...will
tear apart calves, sheep, goats and rabbits in front
of the eyes of toddlers. Cattle and horses will be hit
in the roadways...after so many years of domestication
most would never think that a vehicle would HIT them.
The large sow pigs would tear apart the first child
that grabs a baby pig ("Babe") to pet. Former pet
birds would starve or freeze to death, particularly
those in the northern regions. All the people who
complain at the THOUGHT of goats nibbling their
carefully trimmed yards will shriek in horror when
they find everything from six feet down will be
stripped...if not by goats then by sheep, horses,
cattle, llamas, etc. -- or torn up by pigs, which
because of earlier legislation now have large tusks
that weren't clipped as needle teeth when they were
babies. Rats, mice and insects...previously killed to
control disease...also have rights so you can't kill
them anymore either. All you can do is watch them
invade. Perhaps by then enough people will have snakes
and cats so when they're turned loose they will keep
the rodent population in check. Certainly your
children won't be safe on the street...forget about
gangs!! If not brought down by dogs, run over by
cattle or horses, nibbled on by sheep or goats, tossed
about by pigs or killed by predators who invade where
the prey goes they will be killed from diseases that
used to be cured with animal products and research.
The animals will merrily graze their way across yards
and hillsides owned by animal rights neighbors whom a
few years earlier were panicked because a few animals
were 'ruining' their grass or bushes or gardens.
Domestic geese and ducks will gleefully sit on front
porches that will quickly become covered with feces.
Poultry will be torn to shreds by dogs. Zoo exhibits
once protected and fed regularly will also be
freed...zebras, elephants, tigers, tropical birds and
animals subjected to cold weather in many parts of the
country when they've not adapted to the climate.
Hippos will love investigating swimming pools, rhinos
will charge through crowds of animal advocates
celebrating their success in freeing animals from
confinement. Alligators and crocodiles will enjoy the
additional food sources - anything from young animals
to children to goats, sheep, pigs and small animals
will be devoured. It will reduce wildfires though
because all those animals grazing things down will
eliminate vegetation and there's nothing to burn. On
the other hand you could walk out to your San Jose
California driveway to find the remains of a goat
killed by a lion or torn to shreds but still barely
alive by dog packs. Or perhaps a crippled sheep,
wounded horse or enraged cow in your north Texas yard.
Of course it will also be illegal to spay and neuter.
They think the animal population is bad now?!! The
animals have RIGHTS and can't be FORCED to undergo
anything they don't choose to. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CHOOSE IF THEY WANT THE SURGERY THE SAME AS A WOMAN.
How many dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, cattle etc. call
the local vet clinic now to schedule their own
appointment? YOu and I can't do that for them anymore.
We can't help the injured animals -- we can't assist
the mom-to-be in labor because they'll have the right
to "be free from harm caused by other beings in
unnatural pursuit of nonessential ends" and have an
"equal opportunity to manage their lives according to
their predetermined place in the Natural Order of
Life." No more humane societies, no more impounds
(they can't be confined).
Many of these groups rally to save the mustangs but
who FEEDS the mustangs? It's not enough to spare them
from slaughter....it's not humane to smugly sit in a
heated home writing letters of protest while the
mustangs starve to death because there isn't enough
feed to last all of them through the winter. The old
mare, the born-too-late colt, the colt with the
injured hip from a fall, the stallion injured in a
fight with a younger opponent will be the first to do
without...starvation comes slowly, painfully, surely.
These creatures and others are out of sight of the
extremists during that time, just as surely as the
Pescadero California goats starving in the summertime
out of sight of people advocating harsh punishment of
their owners (who offered to supply hay and were
turned down). These animals are out of sight of the
public eye. These are the ones that the public needs
most to see. Their life choices are being made by
people who have never seen them in the middle of
winter, who have never watched an animals starved to
death (in the wild or by inhumane treatment). It's up
to AWARE to show them. To do that we desperately need
donations.
There are other species who have their 'mustangs' --
the Santa Cruz and Hog Island sheep; the Obassaw
Island pigs; Cracker cattle and San Clemente
goats...all feral populations but not conjuring up the
romantic image of the mustangs, shown in the summer
with slick coats, plenty of grass in the background,
loping "happily" along in the open area. Is this not a
species-based view of rescue? Why are the mustangs
more important than the Cracker cow?
What fate awaits the freed animals? Thos in the
northern part of North America will do well in the
summer. Winters will take the lives of the youngest,
the oldest, the ill, the injured. Those not adapted to
cold weather will suffer the most. The people who
maintained pure breeding will see Afghans and Great
Danes crossing with poodles and spaniels. Alpine goats
crossing with pygmy goats; Shetland sheep with
Suffolks. How many die in labor trying to bring forth
resulting too-large babies? How many babies die from
lack of nutrition, disease, genetic problems or
stress?
Yes animal rights is a tough battle -- but who wins? A
minority of self righteous people. The breeders,
owners, raisers, caretakers might lose their income,
their pets, their companions, their food source, their
ability to get out into the world (the guide and
service dogs for the disabled must be loosed too). The
real losers will be the animals. Many will pay with
their lives, not quickly to be killed and processed
for meat but slowly, with lots of time to wonder why
they were abandoned and why no one cares enough to
feed them. They'll no longer have anyone to teach them
"proper" (according to people's standards!) behavior.
By whose law is punishment handed out? After all the
sheep picking your garden clean is adhering to a
sheep's law -- eat what is available before it's gone.
The dogs who breed on your front porch are adhering to
the dog's law of breeding when she's in heat. The cow
or pig who attacks someone is adherin gto the law of
protecting their babies. Who translates so all these
animals who do survive get to vote? They must be
allowed to serve on juries, given employment, job
training and other benefits. Are they often not
employed now? As it is now they have room, board,
health insurance (vet care when needed), job
training/employment. There will be no welfare for
government assistance so surely they must do
something? The dairy goat or cow can't do anything but
raise babies and milk -- the draft horse or service
dogs already receive job training and lifelong
employment, often with retirement benefits better than
most PEOPLE get. How do they pay taxes? Draft horses
that are ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY in tilling the
fields without complaint...guard dogs are happy to
work. What if the animals don't WANT to be free?
The animal rights agenda HAS ALREADY attacked the fur
industry - HAS ALREADY in some areas eliminated the
legal breeding of pets - HAS ALREADYU been working on
the hunting/fishing rights even with common species
(such as the cougar in California where even one
attacking livestock can't be shot or run off). They've
ALREADY impacted using animals for entertainment and
sports - racing, rodeo and other events where animals
HAVE jobs and good care. They've succeeded in some
areas in banning animal agriculture. How long will
animal owners close their eyes to the truth? How much
to you really care about having your animals? What
will you do to protect them? GET ACTIVE!!!!!
DC
The ARseholes never think of the ultimate outcome of their misguided
"idealism".
For them, animal issues are a hobby, a weekend activity, and a passing
fancy. While its all a game for them, they never think of the real
ramifications of their "ideals"....and, as frightening as it is, these
people take themselves seriously, and will do the bidding of deranged AR
cult leaders like Newkirk, Singer, Hindi, and Fox..
Much of the current AR propaganda speaks of man "leaving the earth", and
"voluntary extinction of mankind" - if these clowns wish to "depart", I
say, fine. May the "gods" grant them the strength to offer-up themselves
as the first "voluteers".
But some of us want to continue on with life on this planet. What kind
of deranged thinking drives them to want to die themselves, and leave
the rest of us to struggle in a bizarre "Island of Doctor Moreau" kind
of battle with the animale those suicidal misfits wish to liberate ?
What has happened to these people, what has filled them with such
self-loathing, such a drive for self-destruction, and such a hatred and
contempt for their fellow humans ?
Its impossible to reason with minds as sick as these, yet we can't just
ignore them. It is vital that we pay close attention to AR cults, and
not allow them to influence the creation of laws that spell doom for
humanity.
Never forget that the nut carrying the sign about "save the veal calves"
is also carrying a wish for YOUR demise in his
troubled mind.
DC
stepha...@my-deja.com
(ARA). Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
life? I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
when it comes to animals. "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
judge someone like that? why should any animal have to die a cruel and
painful death? would you like to die that same exact way? Their are
some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
pet. THey should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
free to roam? Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
the population. We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
group of people. You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
I have every talked with. Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
and come to somekind of understanding. All this bad mouthing is making
the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
In article <12639-38...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DC
Like so many others, you are misunderstanding what "animal rights"
groups are all about...and this is confusion is exactly what the cults
like PETA and HSUS want.
There is nothing wrong with "taking care" of animals, but that is the
agenda of animal WELFARE groups, not animal RIGHTS groups - there is a
world of difference.
The 'net is full of pages in which the AR groups agendas are laid out,
but apparently you have not attempted to find these pages if you had,
you would know that some AR groups don't "want to let domestic dogs and
cats run free", at least one group, PETA, wants domestic dogs and cats
EXTINCT - they don't want to "free" them, they don't want to feed them -
the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk clearly states that domestic dogs and
cats should be EXTERMINATED --is that what YOU call "helping" them,
Stephanie ?
All their talk of "fighting for the animals" is a smokescreen - of
course people are going to want to help little puppies and kittens, and
they send in their money -BUT does PETA operate any shelters ? NO. Does
PETA spend ten cents per year to buy protected habitat for wild animals
? NO.
What PETA and similar cults do is pour money into their own accounts,
pay enormous salaries to their "executives", and spend some to raise
more funds thru mail outs, and nutty campaigns like the "got beer"
fiasco.
I see you have not bothered to look into the meaning of "voluntary
extinction of mankind" ......what it means is mass-suicide. These cults,
just like Heavens Gate, and the Peoples Temple feel that man has no
place on earth, and that all people should be dead...YOU need to study
and understand what animal RIGHTS groups have a socialistic / political
agenda. They are not about "caring for animals", they are about
CONTROLLING people. Right now these groups say you CANNOT educate
yourself by visiting zoos, you CANNOT have pets, even goldfish, you
CANNOT use any medication that was developed with animal testing, You
CANNOT eat what you want, you CANNOT go fishing...
An awful lot of rules for people, but none for animals. By AR doctrine
you cannot keep any animal in any kind of restraint, meaning, yes, they
all run free. This is not a secret, the goals of the AR movement are
well-known.
How did YOU, Stephanie, miss this ? By blindly believing that all these
cults want to do is "help animals". This is not about me being full of
hate , this is about understanding what you are supporting. This is
about being aware of what is really going on.
I believe what you are really interested in is animal WELFARE, this is a
different subject all together....I am in full support of groups who
actually operate shelters, and actually buy and maintain protected
habitat for wild animals.....but Animal RIGHTS cults do neither.
Please take the time to learn the difference - too often people take the
bait that groups like PETA dangle--but if you really look into their
agenda, you will not want anything to do with them. And ask yourself "if
the Humane Society of The United States cares about animals, why do they
not operate a SINGLE animal shelter (NOT ONE , Stephanie) ?" (there are
local humane groups that run shelters, but they are not connected to
HSUS) No. this cult is strictly involved in politics and lobbying for
laws that will restrict YOUR freedom of choice....and they do not feed a
single little puppy or kitten.....
You have much to learn, Stephanie.
DC
Swamp
Hi Stephanie, welcome.
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bdk86$72j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think you spend way too much time worrying about a group of people
> (ARA).
Speaking for myself, the only ARA's I worry about are the ones that vote.
There is also a mild concern over the fringe terrorists.
> Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
> life? I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
> when it comes to animals.
The "wrong" occurs as soon as they attempt to further restrict my
already-restricted-enough freedom, thank you very much.
> "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
> judge someone like that?
Just judging the judges. Fair enough?
> why should any animal have to die a cruel and
> painful death?
Because there is also mercy and pleasure in life.
> would you like to die that same exact way?
I would prefer not to die in *any* fashion, just yet.
> Their are some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
> pet. They should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
> me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
> free to roam? Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
> chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
> the population.
So instead now we "exploit" the wild species even further?
It is impossible to end suffering, unless you seek to end pleasure as well.
> We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
> been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
I doubt if many here promote such activity. This is what is often called
a strawman argument.
> don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
> That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
> group of people. You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
> I have every talked with. Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
> and come to somekind of understanding. All this bad mouthing is making
> the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
Some people react rather defensively when they think their lifestyle is in
jeopardy. Some people even see it as a part of a larger conspiracy to end
personal freedoms. Wars have been fought over such.
There are enough of us willing to speak plainly, if you look.
But you must realize that the soldiers come in many forms.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
Rat & Swan
look at this wild-eyed, hysterical rant,
laugh heartily, and move on to a
rational post elsewhere. I suggest
this ding-bat take a look at the concept
of rights as it applies to those currently
regarded as rights-holders -- humans --
and see if he can determine why his
imaginary scenario is an obvious crock.
If not, it's not ARAs who need a reality
check.
<snip >
Rat
stepha...@my-deja.com
don't see how they are doing harm? I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
help animals rather then hurt them. If the internet is full of pages
then you wouldn't mind directing me in the right place so I can read
about it. You keep saying they say this and they believe in that and
do this. Well if they do prove it? I would love to read about it and
contact them. Just because PETA or HSUS doesn't operate a shelter
doesn't mean they are not helping animals. Actually PETA encourages
you to adopt a pet from a shelter
(http://www.helppuppies.com/pmill.html) but so does the HSUS. I have
been to most of the sites and I am shocked every. The things they
uncover is unbelievable and horrifying. I was just reading about
slaughtering of cats and dogs to make fur coats(this is a HSUS
campaign). Now do you think they are just making this up or trying to
inform the public and put a stop to it? I mean that really doesn't make
much sense how an organization helping animals are going to control
your life? I believe they are trying to stop these horrible things from
happening so they are informing the public. The public can do alot of
damage to a company since we are the consumer. Neither one of us is
their accountants you cannot prove where the money goes. I'm sure the
employees make lots of money. More then most of us do in a year. I am
most concerned about animal welfare but I feel the issues these
organizations deal with are for the welfare of the animals. That is
why they want us to write to Proctor and Gamble and stop them from
testing on animals. I really don't think it helps to insult anyone who
believes differently. By the way these groups are not controlling me
at all. In fact I have a dog and 2 cats all from a shelter. They all
live a very happy life. I have been freed since I brought them home
from the pound. I have to use medications that are tested on animals
when I am sick or I will suffer. I would also expect others to use
products tested on animals to save their life. A rat and a baby are not
the same thing at all. I would with out a thought save a baby then a
rat. I don't think they should do cruel tests over and over again and
some companies waste tax payers money doing just this. I don't use
cosmetics/household products that are tested on animals because so many
companies already DO NOT test on animals. They will only control you if
you allow them to control your life. I am curious what campaigns
bother you the most? You mentioned the got beer? and I agree with that
one since alcohol leads to alcoholism, diseases and death . What other
campaigns bother you enough that you hate this organization?
Is it mostly the hunting, vegetarianism lifestyle or fishing. I can
tell you that no time in the near future will anyone be forced to stop
hunting, fishing or eating meat. They do not pose a threat to your
lifestyle. They do uncover cruel things that farm animals go through
which is hard to ignore. I would sort of agree about zoos. The zoo by
my house is wonderful and the best I have ever seen (San Diego Zoo and
Wildlife Park, CA). I also visited one zoo in London that was not very
nice. Penguins lives in a pool like envirment, monkeys in small cages,
African Elephants/rhinos also in a small encloser. I would much rather
see them in the wild then in a zoo but man has also destroyed that.
Circuses, bull fighting, dog fighting, greyhound racing are unnecessary
and cruel to the animals. For the short time I have been on this earth
I have seen alot of things that could be chanced. If there is an
alternative to something we should try it(most people would agree with
this). Until I see concrete evidence(quotes, articles) that these
groups want just money and power, I will support them. Doesn't mean I
agree with everything they say and I will argue with any of them if I
feel them are in the wrong. You should also beable to read someone
elses viewpoint without name calling and profanity. I'm still young
and I know I have lots to learn. Thanks for the response. Stephanie
In article <12768-38...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Pete Terrier
> I think you spend way too much time worrying about a group of people
>(ARA).
Do you not worry about groups of people who lobby to change laws that
affect your current legal rights? Do you worry about people who, if
they had their way, would tell you what you could eat, wear as
clothing, where you could/could not live, and many other things that
would definately have an negative impact on your current lifestyle and
on the lifestyles of those you care about?
> Whats wrong with wanting to help animals and give them a better
>life?
Absolutely nothing. I am a strong supporter of improvement of
conditions for animals (both domestic and non). I am also a strong
supporter of improvement of conditions for humans. Sometimes the two
conflict, when they do, my own species gets more of my concern
usually, it depends on the individual situation.
> I see nothing wrong in having compassion. ARA have big hearts
>when it comes to animals. "Minds as sick as these?" who are you to
>judge someone like that?
How else can you qualify those who advocate "liberating" human-raised
animals to their deaths? Or someone who equates the value of a rat's
life with the value of your child's life?
Do you think that anything _but_ a sick mind would advocate car bombs
and shooting people in the streets?
(see final statement at bottom of post)
> why should any animal have to die a cruel and
>painful death?
Is death from disease, starvation, or being eaten alive "cruel and
painful"? I think your answer may be below, when you mention the way
of "Nature", so it is clear that you don't really plan on eliminating
either cruelty or suffering, except for in _some_ cases.
And what about when human interactions affect the above types of
death? How about deaths involved when humans modify the habitat
formally/currently used by animals to build human housing and grow
human food?
How do you plan on eliminating these?
> would you like to die that same exact way? Their are
>some people out in the world that catch wild animals and make them a
>pet.
Where I live, it is illegal to make pets of animals taken from the
wild; of course the laws that apply to me are not global, perhaps for
good reason in some cases. My sister works with a wildlife
rehabilitator, someone who works with injured or orphaned animals.
Should those animals simply be left to die? If that is the AR
position, then I think there is a distinct LACK of wanting to help
them or improve conditions for them.
Using your comparison above (asking if a human would like to die that
way, etc), would you rather just be left to die if you fell and broke
your leg? If the answer is no, how would you justify the animals used
and the animal death that would be involved in diagnosing and
repairing your broken leg? Is that "helping" or "improving" any
conditions for those animals?
> THey should be free and not stuck in a cage. Can you please direct
>me to the place where ARA's say they want domesticated cats and dogs
>free to roam?
Take a look at the Animal Liberation Front webpages.
Their ideal (from their statements and thier actions) is that an
animal is better off dying "free" than living in captivity.
From PeTA's statements:
"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the
fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and
following their natural instincts."
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from
them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding
of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ...
they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come
home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1,1990.
> Their point is NOT to produce anymore cows, pigs, goats,
>chicken and that will end suffering because we will not be adding to
>the population.
No, their point is the extermination of those species as well as those
who are considered "pets".
Also from PeTA:
"It is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby
perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first
step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has
been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of
animals as 'pets.'" -New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should
Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of
animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be
ending the concept of pet ownership."
-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of
Animals," Spring 1997
> We cannot expect animals to run free when they have
>been raised by a human. Why steal wild animals and make them your pet?
At some point in time _all_ animals were wild.
Why have a "pet" at all? It's an exploitation for human enjoyment.
Something that many ARA's and AR groups appear to promote as a no-no
(see above).
>don't you think they are better off being wild regardless if they die.
>That is part of nature. I really don't get your own hatred towards a
>group of people.
I don't "hate" anyone... well, not that I can think of. I do,
however, DISLIKE EXTREMELY the fact that AR groups lie in an attempt
to gain support. If animals should have "rights", why do ARs and AR
groups feel the need to lie to attempt to gain support?
Perhaps it isn't exactly a hatred of a group of people, but a hatred
of ideas (or ideals) that they are promoting.
> You are looking much angrier and hateful then any ARA
>I have every talked with.
They were probably being polite.
Some are not so polite.
> Instead why don't you reason with the ARA's
>and come to somekind of understanding.
Can you reason with the closed mind that sticks the fingers in the
ears and hums in order not to hear reason?
> All this bad mouthing is making
>the non-ARA's look bad. Stephanie
Bad-mouthing is just that... talk. Sometimes frustration shows, and
sometimes there is a bit of hard cold truth that shines even through
the frustration.
I don't hear of cases of where non-ARA's are throwing paint on ARAs,
gluing the locks or firebombing their businesses, etc. I haven't heard
of non-ARA's sending ARA's razor blades and death threats through the
mail. I also don't see cases where non-ARA's are trying to take away
the livelyhoods of ARAs by legislation that is commonly based on
emotion instead of logic. I also do not see how wildlife will benefit
by legislation created by human emotion rather than scientific
theory/facts.
One thing I do see is where ARA's appear to have no problem in
exploiting and supporting the exploitation of animals when it benefits
them personally.
Final thought, Stephanie... is this the kind of hatred you are talking
about?
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I
can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under
cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on
their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop
vivisectors."
-Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader
Pete
====--------====
I don't usually pass along sad news like this, but sometimes we need
to pause and remember what life is about:
There was a great loss recently in the entertainment world. Larry
LaPrise, the Detroit native who wrote the song "Hokey Pokey," died
last week at 83. It was especially difficult for the family to keep
him in the casket. They'd put his left leg in and.... well ... you
know the rest ...
====-------====
Lisa
wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
DC <pier6s...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12768-38...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Jon Inge Bragstad
wrote:
>Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement that PETA
>wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
>that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
-"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
Ingrid Newkirk
Founder, PETA
-"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
Ingrid Newkirk
Founder, PETA
Harpers
-"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
scheme."
PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
------------- Jon Inge Bragstad --------------
-------- Visit Jonis Huntingpages. -----------
-- http://home.sol.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm --
------- Member of the Hunting Trail. ---------
G Boggs
= Maybe I don't know that much about animal rights activists but I also
=don't see how they are doing harm?
Oh, i suppose the firebombings are all just good, clean fun.
=I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
=help animals rather then hurt them. [...]
Aside from your beliefs, what, exactly have they done?
Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
Aspin Hill.
_______________
G Boggs
The plural of anecdote is not data. (R. Brinner)
farr...@yahoo.com
siv...@online.no (Jon Inge Bragstad) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:48:04 -0500, "Lisa" <bls...@provide.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement
that PETA
> >wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly
stated
> >that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
>
> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
>
> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
> Harpers
>
> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
> scheme."
> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
My first reaction is that none of these
quotes supports *extermination* which I
took to denote an active campaign to seek
out and kill all domestic animals. Ms.
Newkirk obviously does not support such
a position. She favors a phaseout of
domestic animals by an end to breeding them.
.
However I checked my nearby dictionary
and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
rid of by destroying completely." So I
suppose that there are those who would
say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
of the word "exterminate" is misleading
here and maybe inaccurate.
.
And of course all of us here want to strive
for accuracy, right?
.
- Bob
.
stepha...@my-deja.com
know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
In article <38db77ad....@news.privatei.com>,
gbo...@privatei.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:39:31 GMT, stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> = Maybe I don't know that much about animal rights activists but I
also
> =don't see how they are doing harm?
>
> Oh, i suppose the firebombings are all just good, clean fun.
>
> =I truly believe that PETA and HSUS
> =help animals rather then hurt them. [...]
>
> Aside from your beliefs, what, exactly have they done?
>
> Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
> Aspin Hill.
>
> _______________
>
> G Boggs
>
> The plural of anecdote is not data. (R. Brinner)
>
stepha...@my-deja.com
OPINION doesn't mean this will ever happen. We should all spay and
neuter our pets. Pet owners should not be allowed to breed and add
more unwanted pets to the population. If breeding accures it should be
controlled so no puppies or kittens will be homeless or unwanted. To me
that would be a perfect world. Reality check? this is not a perfect
world. Nor will it ever be a perfect world. In a perfect world pigs
might fly too. she says "eventually companion animals will be phase
out". the word EVENTUALLY doesn't mean tomorrow or necessarily anytime
soon. This one day might be in a three hundred years. We will all be
dead and gone by then and so will Ingrid Newkirk. They pose no threat
to anyone. What rights are they taking away from you? Not one of these
groups will ever impact a whole nation to stop eating meat or wearing
what they want. Everyone will eat,wear, and do whatever they want
regardless of what PETA or any other organization says. Get over it!
PETA/ARA are not the problem here. Stephanie
In article <38db6449...@news1.online.no>,
siv...@online.no (Jon Inge Bragstad) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:48:04 -0500, "Lisa" <bls...@provide.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement
that PETA
> >wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly
stated
> >that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
>
> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
>
> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
> Ingrid Newkirk
> Founder, PETA
> Harpers
> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
> scheme."
> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
>
> > ------------- Jon Inge Bragstad --------------
> -------- Visit Jonis Huntingpages. -----------
> -- http://home.sol.no/~sbragsta/hunters.htm --
> ------- Member of the Hunting Trail. ---------
>
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> -"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
>> animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They
>> would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in
>> the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
>> Ingrid Newkirk
>> Founder, PETA
>>
>> -"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would
>> return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
>> Ingrid Newkirk
>> Founder, PETA
>> Harpers
>>
>> -"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of
>> human interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological
>> scheme."
>> PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals
>.
>My first reaction is that none of these
>quotes supports *extermination* which I
>took to denote an active campaign to seek
>out and kill all domestic animals. Ms.
>Newkirk obviously does not support such
>a position. She favors a phaseout of
>domestic animals by an end to breeding them.
And that's not an extermination ? How exterminated can one be ?
>However I checked my nearby dictionary
>and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
>rid of by destroying completely." So I
>suppose that there are those who would
>say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
>amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
>of the word "exterminate" is misleading
>here and maybe inaccurate.
Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
>And of course all of us here want to strive
>for accuracy, right?
Suuuure...
When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
Swamp
The Aspen Hill thing has been debated fairly well here, in the past.
If you know how, do a Deja search for the threads.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bgekl$b69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do me a favor and show me the proof. DO NOT just say thing and assume I
> know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
> > Actually, peta has killed a number of inconvenient animals. Check
> > Aspin Hill.
farr...@yahoo.com
Personally I don't think that that's what
extermination suggests to people. I may
be wrong, but that's the way I honestly
see it.
.
.
> >However I checked my nearby dictionary
> >and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
> >rid of by destroying completely." So I
> >suppose that there are those who would
> >say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
> >amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
> >of the word "exterminate" is misleading
> >here and maybe inaccurate.
>
> Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
> companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
> It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
I'm talking about the use of the term
"exterminate" and the quotes you provided
in support of a claim about it.
Those quotes do not use the word "exterminate,"
which I think is generally taken by most
people to mean something different from
what your quoted people intended.
.
.
> >And of course all of us here want to strive
> >for accuracy, right?
>
> Suuuure...
Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
to you? Does the commonly heard phrase
"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
the vermin over maybe several hundred
years? No it doesn't typically mean
that. Rather it refers to an active
campaign to go out and do some killing
and eliminate the target animals quickly.
.
.
> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
context, or at the least, a euphemism to
soften the impact of what is actually being
done intentionally to the animals. If
I'm correct about the nuances of the word
"exterminate," then use of it as above
would be actually changing what was meant
by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
not softened - the claims in question.
.
Swamp
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bgftn$cp6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
G Boggs
=Do me a favor and show me the proof. DO NOT just say thing and assume I
=know what you are talking about. Thanks! Stephanie
=
=[...]
Proof of what?
G Boggs
=who died and made Ingrid Newkirk god?[...]
You know, I couldn't agree more. But I'm most curious why she cares
what I eat or wear.
Jonathan Ball
>
> [...]
> .
> > >However I checked my nearby dictionary
> > >and it defines "exterminate" as "To get
> > >rid of by destroying completely." So I
> > >suppose that there are those who would
> > >say that "phasing out by an end to breeding"
> > >amounts to "exterminating", but IMO use
> > >of the word "exterminate" is misleading
> > >here and maybe inaccurate.
> >
> > Cut the crap, and stop twisting the words, please. Phasing out
> > companion animals means that they'll be extinct. No more, no less.
> > It's not something I'll waste time arguing about...
> .
> I'm talking about the use of the term
> "exterminate" and the quotes you provided
> in support of a claim about it.
> Those quotes do not use the word "exterminate,"
> which I think is generally taken by most
> people to mean something different from
> what your quoted people intended.
You're hoist by your own petard, Bob. You're quibbling over the use of
a word, when that word clearly covers the elimination of a species by
whatever means: killing them off, or preventing them from breeding.
"Work", on the other hand, can't possibly cover a book review.
> .
> .
> > >And of course all of us here want to strive
> > >for accuracy, right?
> >
> > Suuuure...
> .
> Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
> to you? Does the commonly heard phrase
> "exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
> the vermin over maybe several hundred
> years? No it doesn't typically mean
> that. Rather it refers to an active
> campaign to go out and do some killing
> and eliminate the target animals quickly.
Various jurisdictions in California attempted to exterminate the
Mediterranean fruit fly during the '80s and '90s by introducing huge
numbers of sterile flies in the areas of infestation. They also
augmented those efforts by widespread helicopter spraying of pesticides,
killing the target animals. The goal was the same in both efforts.
Pete Terrier
wrote:
>Ok, reference check here. Please give references to your statement that PETA
>wants domestic dogs and cats extinct and that Ingrid Newkirk clearly stated
>that domestic dogs and cats should be exterminated.
Here is one example of where PeTA obviously doesn't have a problem
with "exterminating" cats. The fact that these cats are feral, rather
than living in someone's home is irrelevant, they are still cats, and
according to PeTA's stated policies _should_ have the same treatment
as other animals. It is but one example of their hypocrisy.
From their [PeTA's] webpage at
http://www.peta-online.org/cmp/crcafs10.html
"Between 11 million and 19 million feral cats live in the United
States. Each of these cats is at risk of being killed by a car,
tortured by a sadist, or dying of starvation or disease. Despite
their seemingly overwhelming numbers, it is possible to help these
cats by humanely trapping them.
Once caught, the cats should be transferred to a humane animal
shelter or to a veterinarian to be spayed or neutered, treated for
worm and flea infestation, and then adopted. Because of a shortage of
homes, the difficulty of resocialization, and the perils of our
concrete jungle, it may be necessary to euthanize most unwanted cats
who are trapped. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your
local shelter uses a painless method, take the cats there."
Note the last two sentances and realize that most shelters (in the US,
at least) do not even bother to put feral cats up for adoption, they
are euthanized as unadoptable.
There is a poster on this group who tends to champion feral cats,
perhaps she can explain more fully what happens to feral cats, what
their reaction to being trapped (and confinement) is, and what the
position and action that PeTA, and PeTA's president (Ingrid Newkirk)
takes on feral cats.
Some of this was discussed on this newsgroup (and others) in the past
as well, and actions do tend to speak even louder than words... One
notable post (in case you don't have the time to do a search on
Dejanews) is at
http://x45.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=315781127&CONTEXT=953961639.410779652&hitnum=1
The website listed in the post above no longer exists, nor have I been
able to find a new website address for The Eternal Pet or it's editor,
Robert Day. The reaction (and an explaination of sorts) generated by
the article (and the post) can be found elsewhere on the net though...
at
http://cats.about.com/pets/cats/library/weekly/aa010798.htm?once=true&
[...]
Pete
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> >And of course all of us here want to strive
>> >for accuracy, right?
>>
>> Suuuure...
>.
>Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
>to you?
It means that a species (or breed?) disappears from this planet
forever.
> Does the commonly heard phrase
>"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
>the vermin over maybe several hundred
>years? No it doesn't typically mean
>that. Rather it refers to an active
>campaign to go out and do some killing
>and eliminate the target animals quickly.
Ok. Scientists say that icebears are becoming sterile due to buildup
of chemicals in their fat tissue. If that continues, and icebears
stops breeding, you claim that they will not be extinct ?
Oh, no I forgot - they're phased out... Biiiig difference...
>> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say that
>> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to look
>> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
>.
>Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
>context, or at the least, a euphemism to
>soften the impact of what is actually being
>done intentionally to the animals. If
>I'm correct about the nuances of the word
>"exterminate," then use of it as above
>would be actually changing what was meant
>by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
>not softened - the claims in question.
Excuse me ?
"Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
"exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
Please show me the logic...
Rat & Swan
> who died and made Ingrid Newkirk god? I mean just because she says her
> OPINION doesn't mean this will ever happen. We should all spay and
> neuter our pets. Pet owners should not be allowed to breed and add
> more unwanted pets to the population. If breeding accures it should be
> controlled so no puppies or kittens will be homeless or unwanted. To me
> that would be a perfect world. Reality check? this is not a perfect
> world. Nor will it ever be a perfect world. In a perfect world pigs
> might fly too. she says "eventually companion animals will be phase
> out". the word EVENTUALLY doesn't mean tomorrow or necessarily anytime
> soon. This one day might be in a three hundred years. We will all be
> dead and gone by then and so will Ingrid Newkirk. They pose no threat
> to anyone. What rights are they taking away from you? Not one of these
> groups will ever impact a whole nation to stop eating meat or wearing
> what they want. Everyone will eat,wear, and do whatever they want
> regardless of what PETA or any other organization says. Get over it!
> PETA/ARA are not the problem here. Stephanie
Yes, true. Wild-eyed hysterics like DC and
Berosini (who makes his living using
Orangutans in silly stage shows and has been
accused of abusing them)confuse the ultimate
goals of AR with immediate goals, and invent
claims about totalitarian methods no one in
the AR movement has suggested. PETA and HSUS
have never suggested just releasing domestic animals.
Both groups talk about our obligations to make
their lives better here and now. What AR is about
is gradually convincing people to become vegetarians,
gradually phasing out the death-camps and slaughter
houses and factory-farms for "Meat" animals and
companion animals, and working toward an eventual
goal of assuring each individual subject-of-a-life
animal is given equal consideration with humans
as a fellow being worthy of moral standing. That
does not mean humans cannot defend themselves, their
crops, their children, or their homes -- any more
than giving humans rights means we can't defend
ourselves against humans who are directly trying to
hurt us.
Read in the works of the AR theorists, and you will
see what these absurd alarmists are saying is pure
nonsense and propaganda.
Rat
farr...@yahoo.com
>
> <snip>
> >> >And of course all of us here want to strive
> >> >for accuracy, right?
> >>
> >> Suuuure...
> >.
> >Good. Now what does "exterminate" suggest
> >to you?
>
> It means that a species (or breed?) disappears from this planet
> forever.
Are you confusing "exterminate" with "extinct?"
A species or breed can become extinct in several
ways, but an extermination requires direct active
action, as far as I can tell.
.
.
> > Does the commonly heard phrase
> >"exterminate the vermin" mean phase out
> >the vermin over maybe several hundred
> >years? No it doesn't typically mean
> >that. Rather it refers to an active
> >campaign to go out and do some killing
> >and eliminate the target animals quickly.
>
> Ok. Scientists say that icebears are becoming sterile due to buildup
> of chemicals in their fat tissue. If that continues, and icebears
> stops breeding, you claim that they will not be extinct ?
No I haven't said anything about "extinct."
I've been talking about the word "exterminate"
and what I think that it generally means to
people.
.
.
> Oh, no I forgot - they're phased out... Biiiig difference...
>
> >> When we hunters say that we harvest animals, we really don't say
that
> >> we're killing anything are we ? Because "harvest" (if you care to
look
> >> it up - I don't) doesn't directly mean "to kill" now does it ?
> >.
> >Then "harvest" would be inaccurate in that
> >context, or at the least, a euphemism to
> >soften the impact of what is actually being
> >done intentionally to the animals. If
> >I'm correct about the nuances of the word
> >"exterminate," then use of it as above
> >would be actually changing what was meant
> >by those quoted, in a way that hardened -
> >not softened - the claims in question.
>
> Excuse me ?
> "Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
> "exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
Your second line should read like this:
"phase out" changes to "exterminate" = hardened.
.
.
> Please show me the logic...
Some people use "harvest" rather than "kill"
to soften the impact. Some people here used
"exterminate" instead of "phase out" to
harshen the impact.
DC
Its been demonstrated that Newkirk wants domestic dogs and cats "gone".
Period. Thats the point.'
You can't explain reality away, so you, as usual, resort to word games
and semantics. What a load of crap ! If these animals are
"exterminated", "phased-out",
"extinguished", "rubbed-out", "wiped out", "erased", or "destroyed",
the point is they are gone. That is the point I, and others, were
making.
Stephanie is unaware of PETA / Newkirks
position on dogs and cats, a few people ACCURATELY explain it to her. No
amount of whining about semantics changes the fact that PETA / Newkirk
want these animals to become extinct. They don't want to save them, they
don't want to care for them --they WANT THEM EXTINCT.
Why are you in denial about this ? You cannot 'whitewash" PETAs position
about the semantics.. To do so just makes you look deluded and
dishonest.
(Now watch Bob start whining that he is not "lame", but actually has two
good legs....anything to misdirect the point, eh, Bob? )
DC
Jon Inge Bragstad
<snip>
>> Excuse me ?
>> "Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
>> "exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
>.
>Your second line should read like this:
>"phase out" changes to "exterminate" = hardened.
Nope...
>> Please show me the logic...
>.
>Some people use "harvest" rather than "kill"
>to soften the impact. Some people here used
>"exterminate" instead of "phase out" to
>harshen the impact.
Nope, hunters use "harvest" instead of kill.
PeTA uses "phase out" instead of "exterminate".
Same thing.
Lisa
For you to believe that just proves how extreme your paranoia is concerning
PETA. I am still waiting for some references to this statement of
extinction. Your buddy Jon tried helping you but all's he did was prove that
Ingrid Newkirk wishes that companion animals could be returned to the wild
where they originally came from. Anyone with half a brain, and I'm pretty
sure Ingrid Newkirk has at least half of hers, would know that that could
never happen. That is why in one of her statments, she said, "In a perfect
world..." Get it? There is no way we could undomesticate dogs in this day
and age, and I'm sure PETA is well aware of that..
The statement, "...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we
would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance,"
does not mean extinction. Please read beyond the phase out part and if you
have any reading comprehension skills you would understand that it doesn't
mean extinction.
DC <pier6s...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22426-38...@storefull-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
stepha...@my-deja.com
Tags them by cutting part of the ear and then rerelease them. We then
have many volunteers who feed them on a daily basis. All of the asdult
cats were once owned by someone who decided they didn't want them
anymore. Its our responsiblity to take care of them. They can be
adopted out and socialized but must be done when they are a kitten.
Most organizations around here do not euthanize feral but release them
back as I said above. Stephanie
In article <38dc57ed...@news.newsguy.com>,
Jon Inge Bragstad
wrote:
>Why would any animal rights/welfare group want an animal to become extinct?
>For you to believe that just proves how extreme your paranoia is concerning
>PETA. I am still waiting for some references to this statement of
>extinction. Your buddy Jon tried helping you but all's he did was prove that
>Ingrid Newkirk wishes that companion animals could be returned to the wild
>where they originally came from. Anyone with half a brain, and I'm pretty
>sure Ingrid Newkirk has at least half of hers, would know that that could
>never happen. That is why in one of her statments, she said, "In a perfect
>world..." Get it? There is no way we could undomesticate dogs in this day
>and age, and I'm sure PETA is well aware of that..
>
>The statement, "...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we
>would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance,"
>does not mean extinction. Please read beyond the phase out part and if you
>have any reading comprehension skills you would understand that it doesn't
>mean extinction.
So you mean that all domestic animals would survive in the wild, and
_that_ would be a perfect situation ?
noe...@noemail.com
>The statement, "...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we
>would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance,"
>does not mean extinction. Please read beyond the phase out part and if you
>have any reading comprehension skills you would understand that it doesn't
>mean extinction.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic
cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more
neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
--John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing
Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
1982), p. 15.
What meaning does the term "cease to exist" have for you?
MLM
That's good work, to a certain extent.
You say you are not an ARA but do you believe that animals have
rights?
[...]
stepha...@my-deja.com
Newkirk says you attack. I couldn't care less about the people behind
PETA but I care about the issues and the animals. If I can stop people
from being cruel to animals I will. You wrote:
"PETA / Newkirk
> want these animals to become extinct. They don't want to save them,
they
> don't want to care for them --they WANT THEM EXTINCT."
They have saved animals and they have helped animals. It's time you
started behaving like an adult and not a child. STop with the name
calling and stick with FACTS, not your OPINIONS. Stephanie
In article <22426-38...@storefull-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
pier6s...@webtv.net (DC) wrote:
> Come on Bob... How lame can you get ?
>
> Its been demonstrated that Newkirk wants domestic dogs and
cats "gone".
> Period. Thats the point.'
>
> You can't explain reality away, so you, as usual, resort to word games
> and semantics. What a load of crap ! If these animals are
> "exterminated", "phased-out",
> "extinguished", "rubbed-out", "wiped out", "erased", or "destroyed",
> the point is they are gone. That is the point I, and others, were
> making.
>
> Stephanie is unaware of PETA / Newkirks
> position on dogs and cats, a few people ACCURATELY explain it to her.
No
> amount of whining about semantics changes the fact that PETA / Newkirk
> want these animals to become extinct. They don't want to save them,
they
> don't want to care for them --they WANT THEM EXTINCT.
>
> Why are you in denial about this ? You cannot 'whitewash" PETAs
position
> about the semantics.. To do so just makes you look deluded and
> dishonest.
>
> (Now watch Bob start whining that he is not "lame", but actually has
two
> good legs....anything to misdirect the point, eh, Bob? )
>
> DC
>
>
DC
Why don't YOU show "proof" of PETA ever helping an animal to live ?
Start by explaining how the Aspin Hill debacle helped any of those
animals. Explain how releasing a horse onto a highway in Detroit helped
it ? (It was killed when hit by a truck...but sufferred for 5 hours
before it died there).
I can respect that you are working at a shelter....but that is animal
WELFARE. not animal RIGHTS. PETA is not involved in animal welfare in
any way, shape, or form. YOu personally do more for animals in a single
day at your shelter than PETA has EVER done. That is a fact.
By the way, you cannot discuss PETA, without considering Newkirk in the
equation. She controls and dictates PETAs every move and activity. For
all intents and purposes, PETA and Newkirk
are ONE entity. They cannot be discussed, viewed, or considered
seperately.
Before you demand any more "proof: of anything, supply "proof" of one
thing PETA has done in the way of animal care that did not result in
death of the animals in question.....just one example, Stephanie.
DC
Kev
the wild, to run free and hunt and kill, to be hunted and killed by
other animals? Also, did I read right when I saw that there should, in
a perfect world, be no contact between animals (other than humans) and
humans?
Whoa! If this is to take place be prepared for some rude packs of dogs
all over the place. Make sure you keep your children, those of eating
size that is, inside when you're not there to fend off the dogs. This
would be most important in the rural areas. Also, if animals are to
have freedom from contact with human effect then will we be free of
animal effects? Things like the barking dogs at night. The goose crap on
the golf courses and parks. The dead and dying farm animals that have
been freed from their cruel fates of pastures and fences (Do you
remember what the last dead, decaying cow corps you came across smelled
like?).
Just some thoughts......
Kev
frlpwr
>
> I was just reading about slaughtering of cats and dogs to make fur > coats
Crikey. Don't encourage the PSYCHO, Stephanie. He already shoots cats
without the lure of the few bucks that can be had for their pelts.
(snip)
frlpwr
>
> stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > The shelter I am a volunteer at traps and spays/neuters feral cats.
>
> That's good work, to a certain extent.
At what point does it stop being "good work", Martin?
> You say you are not an ARA but do you believe that animals have
> rights?
The large colonies that result when feral cats are not forcibly
spayed/neutered are not tolerated in most locations. It comes down to
sterilization or death. The sexual drive is strong, but not as powerful
as the will to live. Many wild animals are never given the opportunity
to breed, but their lives still have purpose.
frlpwr
> have many volunteers who feed them on a daily basis. All of the asdult
> cats were once owned by someone who decided they didn't want them
> anymore. Its our responsiblity to take care of them. They can be
> adopted out and socialized but must be done when they are a kitten.
> Most organizations around here do not euthanize feral but release them
> back as I said above. Stephanie
>
have adopted this approach to feral cat management, not only because it
is more humane, but because the traditional methods of lethal control
had poor long term success. A bonus to this policy is the influx of
volunteers that are eager to work with shelters that are doing something
besides the assembly line killing of animals that still occurrs in
traditional shelters. The more volunteers there are to rehabilitate
shelter animals, the more animals become adoptable and rate of killing
continues to drop. Thanks.
Unfortunately, it is tempting for cat rescue people to be satisfied with
making local advances in the way feral cats are treated by Animal
Control agencies. I would like to see this idea spread to agencies that
deal with other species of feral animals, like swine and equids.
(snip)
> > Here is one example of where PeTA obviously doesn't have a problem
> > with "exterminating" cats.
Like most anti-AR posters, Pete seems to think that the actions of PeTA
represent the philosophy of all ARAs.
The saga of PeTA and feral cats is a long, convoluted tale that has as
much to do with the personal animosity that grew between Newkirk and
colony caregivers in Norfolk, VA. There was a point at which PeTA
volunteers, under the direction of Newkirk, trapped some members of
local colony and euthanized them. Newkirk claimed that they were
suffering from the final stages of FeLV, colony caregivers said this was
not so. Bottom line is that the colony still exists, though reduced in
size, and Newkirk has had nothing more to do with it.
I stopped sending contributions to PeTA because I felt that the Feral
Cat Factsheet published shortly after the Norfolk incident exhibited
fundamental contradictions in PeTA's professed belief that domestication
is a chain around the necks of animals and that domestic animals have a
right to "undo" domestication, if they are able. I believe that feral
animals should be assisted in this task, not hampered by forcible
socialization or extermination, and that, for their own protection,
their reproductive rate needs to be controlled. I do not believe that
any animal should be killed because humans have made an anachronism of
them.
My disagreement with PeTA policy on feral cats does not, however, mean
that I reject everything that the organization does. I think that their
proven ability to force animal issues into national consciousness is
invaluable and their strident position on some issues shifts the center,
where compormises are invariably reached, closer to the goal of a more
equitable treatment for animals in our society.
Anti-AR posters like to pretend that ARAs are automatons controlled by a
core of PeTa commanders. They don't want to think that anyone can
arrive at the doorstep of an AR philosophy through an examination of
conscience. They need to believe that everyone who is willing to accept
that other animals have lives equal in importance to our own our stupid,
emotionally needy misfits. It's the only way that they can excuse their
own cruelty and indifference.
> > "Between 11 million and 19 million feral cats live in the United
> > States. Each of these cats is at risk of being killed by a car,
> > tortured by a sadist, or dying of starvation or disease. Despite
> > their seemingly overwhelming numbers, it is possible to help these
> > cats by humanely trapping them.
> > Once caught, the cats should be transferred to a humane animal
> > shelter or to a veterinarian to be spayed or neutered, treated for
> > worm and flea infestation, and then adopted. Because of a shortage
> > of homes, the difficulty of resocialization, and the perils of our
> > concrete jungle, it may be necessary to euthanize most unwanted cats
> > who are trapped. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if
> > your local shelter uses a painless method, take the cats there."
Whoops, they forgot to mention the option of responsible caregiving. Of
course, that requires a lot more time and money than a quick trip to the
vet for a lethal injection. Grrrr.
> > Note the last two sentances and realize that most shelters (in the
> > US, at least) do not even bother to put feral cats up for adoption, > > they are euthanized as unadoptable.
> >
Absolutely. Cat rescue groups must pressure their local shelters to
agree to release feral cats and kittens to them where, after being
spayed/neutered, individual animals can be assessed to determine if they
are candidates for socialization or if they must be relocated to a
managed colony.
> > There is a poster on this group who tends to champion feral cats,
> > perhaps she can explain more fully what happens to feral cats,
Almost certain death unless they are lucky enough to wind up in a
shelter like the one where Stephanie volunteers. Yeah, Stephanie!
>what their reaction to being trapped (and confinement) is,
Their reactions are the same as any wild animal, I imagine. Adult
ferals either struggle fiercely or they become completely withdrawn. If
they are kept confined too long, they often stop eating or sleeping and,
literally, fade away.
I would be interested in reading Pete's opinion of the proper treatment
of feral cats, if he disagrees with PeTA policy or if he is merely using
this subject as another way to bash PeTA.
MLM
>
> MLM wrote:
> >
> > stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The shelter I am a volunteer at traps and spays/neuters feral cats.
> >
>
> At what point does it stop being "good work", Martin?
When they release the animals.
[...]
MLM
[...]
> Well what do you expect us to do?
Euthanize them.
> Once they are spayed and neutered
> it's better to get them back where they belong because they don't make
> good house cats.
Maintaining feral cat colonies encourages people to dump
unwanted cats.
> Regardless of what PETA thinks feral cats are not
> adoptable and are wild unsocialized cats. I fostered a feral cat before
> that was sick and they don't want humans near them. It's very sad how
> people can just dump cats or dogs off and expect them to fend for
> themselves.
Yes, it is and your actions encourage people to do it. They see
the cat colony and that gives them the belief that their animal
could survive on its own.
> I live in a huge city so there isn't much for all those
> cats to eat but dig in the trash. Each volunteer is assigned a colony
> and we go and leave cat food/water out everyday. We also give them
> shots to prevent diseases from spreading and making the colonies sick.
> Its not really work at all but something we are obligated to do for the
> love of animals. Stephanie
Baloney. You do it to make you feel good about yourself. It's
not about helping the animals.
stepha...@my-deja.com
Well what do you expect us to do? Once they are spayed and neutered
it's better to get them back where they belong because they don't make
good house cats. Regardless of what PETA thinks feral cats are not
adoptable and are wild unsocialized cats. I fostered a feral cat before
that was sick and they don't want humans near them. It's very sad how
people can just dump cats or dogs off and expect them to fend for
themselves. I live in a huge city so there isn't much for all those
cats to eat but dig in the trash. Each volunteer is assigned a colony
and we go and leave cat food/water out everyday. We also give them
shots to prevent diseases from spreading and making the colonies sick.
Its not really work at all but something we are obligated to do for the
love of animals. Stephanie
> [...]
Lisa
Jon Inge Bragstad <siv...@online.no> wrote in message
news:38de504...@news1.online.no...
extinct?
> >For you to believe that just proves how extreme your paranoia is
concerning
> >PETA. I am still waiting for some references to this statement of
> >extinction. Your buddy Jon tried helping you but all's he did was prove
that
> >Ingrid Newkirk wishes that companion animals could be returned to the
wild
> >where they originally came from. Anyone with half a brain, and I'm pretty
> >sure Ingrid Newkirk has at least half of hers, would know that that could
> >never happen. That is why in one of her statments, she said, "In a
perfect
> >world..." Get it? There is no way we could undomesticate dogs in this
day
> >and age, and I'm sure PETA is well aware of that..
> >
we
> >would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance,"
> >does not mean extinction. Please read beyond the phase out part and if
you
> >have any reading comprehension skills you would understand that it
doesn't
> >mean extinction.
>
Lisa
publication, and if so, would you happen to know how I could get a hold of
it?
<noe...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:38de4ea8...@news.newsguy.com...> [...]
> >The statement, "...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and
we
> >would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance,"
> >does not mean extinction. Please read beyond the phase out part and if
you
> >have any reading comprehension skills you would understand that it
doesn't
> >mean extinction.
>
G Boggs
wrote:
=[...] What AR is about
= is gradually convincing people to become vegetarians,
= gradually phasing out the death-camps and slaughter
= houses and factory-farms for "Meat" animals and
= companion animals, and working toward an eventual
= goal of assuring each individual subject-of-a-life
= animal is given equal consideration with humans
= as a fellow being worthy of moral standing. [...]
What's "gradual" about arson or bombings? You keep telling us how nice
the members of the ar community are, but the actions of the adherents
illustrate the agenda. Maybe _you_ are willing to rely on persuasion,
but you can hardly characterize "ar" as having that strategy.
For example, if there were a small group of terrorist hunters that
bombed HSUS facilities, I would be greatly dismayed if the Boone and
Crockett Club supported such action and paid their lawyers. And, ,
given that sort of legitimization, I would not claim that hunters were
simply trying to be persuasive. Nor would you listen if I did.
______________________________
G Boggs
The most important things in life usually happen
in your absence.
S. Rushdie
G Boggs
[...]
=
=Crikey. Don't encourage the PSYCHO, Stephanie. He already shoots cats
=without the lure of the few bucks that can be had for their pelts.
=
=(snip)
To quote a famous usenet legal eagle, I'm sure "you have already
compiled a body of evidence to support your allegations."
Care to share it?
Rat & Swan
>
> Did I hear someone say that PETA wants to put the domestic dog out in
> the wild, to run free and hunt and kill, to be hunted and killed by
> other animals?
No. No AR person or organization, AFAIK,
has ever suggested simply releasing
existing companion animals anywhere.
> Also, did I read right when I saw that there should, in
> a perfect world, be no contact between animals (other than humans) and
> humans?
There is considerable disagreement among
AR people as to what kind and amount of
interaction between humans and non-human
animals would adequately respect the rights
of non-human animals. IMO, most ARAs have had
despairing moments when they can see nothing
beyond the overwhelming harm humans do to
other beings, and feel any contact must be
hurtful. But also, most, if not all, AR people
have deep and satisfying relationships with
non-human animals, and hope that we can create a
human society where such relationships would not
be lost. Seeing clearly how we can create such
radical change in human society is hard when we
have few good examples of non-exploitative
human/animal relationships. We have to work it out
slowly and carefully, even while we see how many
animals suffer as a result of our caution.
Rat
stepha...@my-deja.com
asked you (which you obviously cannot answer) you try and turn things
around. How clever! Stop dancing around the questions or go find a
forum where everyone will automatically agree with you and they assume
anything bad said about PETA is always correct. Your just pissed they
make millions and spend it on things you don't agree with. Like
someone said PETA/newkirk doesn't make up the whole AR movement. They
educate people on many many issues. Now people buy less fur jackets,
use cruelty free products(more companies do not test on animals then
ever before), less people go to a circus (closing down many),
vegetarianism, making people aware of puppymills. Education is #1. By
PETA educating the public they are helping animals. Supply and demand
theory. Less fur coats sold, less animals killed, less animal testing,
less animals killed, less puppymills, less animals produced. If we
don't buy it they wont supply it. Thats the bottom line. They help so
many animals I can't even begin to imagine what it would have been like
without organizations to push it to the limit. A few animals in the
process will die but thousands and thousands of animals will live.
Stephanie
In article <14266-38...@storefull-225.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
stepha...@my-deja.com
> Baloney. You do it to make you feel good about yourself. It's
> not about helping the animals.
WHAT? DOn't ever tell me it's not about helping the animals! I don't
think you have ever helped anyone in life but yourself. I spend hours
of my time helping for the animals because they have nobody else. If I
wanted to do something for myself I would spend it at the beach or
somewhere else.
You need to find a better hobby then coming on here and telling people
how they feel. If you had an ounce of compassion in your body you
would know we do it for the animals. I take huge offense to a statement
like that since you don't even know me. That statement all made me
realize how all of you non-ara minds work. How heartless and angry you
really truly are. It's not encouraging anyone to dump there animals
because people will dump anyway. Alot of them get euthanized and don't
survive. Instead of sitting on here do something for a change and help
someone else besides yourself all the time. Stephanie
MLM
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
and learn how to post responses to posts.
stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Baloney. You do it to make you feel good about yourself. It's
> > not about helping the animals.
>
> WHAT? DOn't ever tell me it's not about helping the animals!
Too late, I just did.
Tell me how you know you are helping animals. Did you establish
any baseline measurements before you began your intervention?
How are you measuring "help"? What goals have you set and how
are you determining whether your actions are improving the lives
of the animals?
Judging by your reaction, I'd say that my assertion is right on
the mark. Your self-esteem appears to be quite wrapped up in the
belief that you are "helping" animals. IOW, you are doing it for
yourself.
> I don't think you have ever helped anyone in life but yourself.
Think what you wish but: a) you would be wrong; b) that isn't
evidence that you are doing anything to help animals.
> I spend hours of my time helping for the animals
> because they have nobody else.
Who asked you? Did the animals? They requested that you capture
them and violently remove their reproductive organs?
> If I wanted to do something for myself I would spend
> it at the beach or somewhere else.
I think you need to take a basic psych course.
> You need to find a better hobby then coming on here
> and telling people how they feel.
Nah, this is just fine. But I didn't tell you how you feel.
> If you had an ounce of compassion in your body you
> would know we do it for the animals.
Oh, I get it, you are one of the anointed.
> I take huge offense to a statement
> like that since you don't even know me.
I'd posit that you take offense to the statement because it is
incongruent with your self-image. IOW, you are doing it to feel
good about yourself.
> That statement all made me realize how all of you non-ara
> minds work. How heartless and angry you really truly are.
Your conclusion is inaccurate and your generalization is
invalid.
> It's not encouraging anyone to dump there animals
> because people will dump anyway.
Really? How do you know this?
> Alot of them get euthanized and don't survive.
So you aren't helping them?
> Instead of sitting on here do something for a change and help
> someone else besides yourself all the time.
I help people all of the time. But that isn't really relevant
nor does it show that you are actually helping any animals.
farr...@yahoo.com
>
> <snip>
> >> Excuse me ?
> >> "Kill" changes to "harvest" = softened
> >> "exterminate" changes to "phase out" = hardened
> >.
> >Your second line should read like this:
> >"phase out" changes to "exterminate" = hardened.
>
> Nope...
>
> >> Please show me the logic...
> >.
> >Some people use "harvest" rather than "kill"
> >to soften the impact. Some people here used
> >"exterminate" instead of "phase out" to
> >harshen the impact.
>
> Nope, hunters use "harvest" instead of kill.
> PeTA uses "phase out" instead of "exterminate".
>
> Same thing.
We'll have to disagree on this then. IMO
"exterminate" conjures up an impression
that is different from "phasing out,"
just as "kill" and "harvest" have differing
connotations.
.
farr...@yahoo.com
pier6s...@webtv.net (DC) wrote:
> Come on Bob... How lame can you get ?
>
> Its been demonstrated that Newkirk wants domestic dogs and
cats "gone".
> Period. Thats the point.'
I haven't disputed that her position is that
these animals should be phased out. I have
disputed the use of "exterminate" as an accurate
description of the process by which they would
be phased out.
.
.
> You can't explain reality away, so you, as usual, resort to word games
> and semantics. What a load of crap ! If these animals are
> "exterminated", "phased-out",
> "extinguished", "rubbed-out", "wiped out", "erased", or "destroyed",
> the point is they are gone. That is the point I, and others, were
> making.
>
> Stephanie is unaware of PETA / Newkirks
> position on dogs and cats, a few people ACCURATELY explain it to her.
No
> amount of whining about semantics changes the fact that PETA / Newkirk
they
> don't want to care for them --they WANT THEM EXTINCT.
You weren't doing too badly until the last
sentence here. Newkirk and PETA people
in general do save animals and do care for them.
Many of these people have taken in numerous
cats and dogs. If extermination were their
overall policy, they would simply have these
animals killed immediately.
.
Newkirk herself used to work for the Washington
Humane Society and saw firsthand an immense
amount of suffering inflicted on domestic
animals in the streets of our nation's capital.
I think this has colored her position on this.
She lost confidence in the willingness and
ability of humans to properly care for these
animals.
.
In the long term, Newkirk and some AR people
favor an end to these domestic animals. I don't
dispute that, but I'll point out that a lot of
AR people differ with this.
.
.
[...]
.
- Bob
Woody Williams
> > Nope, hunters use "harvest" instead of kill.
> > PeTA uses "phase out" instead of "exterminate".
> >
> > Same thing.
SOME hunters use "harvest" instead of "kill". Most of the hutners that I
hunt with dont use "harvest". My personal opinion on the usage of "harvest"
by the game departments and later picked up by hunters, was a stab at being
politically correct. Farmers "harvest", hunters (if good and lucky) "kill".
Heck, some people even went so far as to call "trophy hunting" a PC
"selective harvesting". Ain't that a load?
PeTa double tongue speaks all the time, so no telling what they mean. Heck,
they don''t even know what they mean.
Woody Williams (hunting them and "killing" them once in awhile in Indiana)
Dale Anderson
"Woody Williams" <cwi...@evansville.net> wrote in message
news:0WTD4.7874$Og6.1...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
>
> SOME hunters use "harvest" instead of "kill". Most of the hutners that I
> hunt with dont use "harvest". My personal opinion on the usage of
"harvest"
> by the game departments and later picked up by hunters, was a stab at
being
> politically correct. Farmers "harvest", hunters (if good and lucky)
"kill".
I can back Woody up on this one. Hunters aren't the least bit squeamish
about calling the spade for what it is.
--
Dale Anderson
FSI, State of Wisconsin
Medford, WI
dand...@mail.tds.net
Pete Terrier
[snipped]
(btw, thank you for the explainations, frlpwr; negativity ignored)
>I would be interested in reading Pete's opinion of the proper treatment
>of feral cats, if he disagrees with PeTA policy or if he is merely using
>this subject as another way to bash PeTA.
>
My personal opinion about feral cats?
Controlled colonies in a monitored area large enough to hold them.
Mandatory spay/nueter and care for life except for in cases where the
cat is sick/injured to the point of suffering, or is infectious. When
an animal is physically suffering or has the chance of infecting
others, I agree with euthanization.
I also agree with mandatory spay/nueter of shelter animals, prior to
adoption.
The subject IS a way to bash PeTA, I guess, and my intention was to
point out just one of their hypocrisies. Once, I sent small
contributions of support a couple to non-profit organizations that
SAID that they supported animals. When I found out that I had been
lied to, and that the fact was that they were not helping any animals
at all, I was not exactly happy. Now the part of my income that goes
for animal welfare donations, and some of my time as well (once I got
more involved) goes to local agencies where I can see what effect my
donations have.
One of those local agencies now has a 5 acre, enclosed, protected
sanctuary for feral cats. My family not only donated the fencing that
surrounds it, we helped to erect it and have promised to keep it
mantained for as long as it is needed. Currently it holds a population
of 72 cats and one burro.
noe...@noemail.com
wrote:
>Who is John Bryant and why do we care what he says? Is this a PETA
>publication, and if so,
As shown by the attrib., it was from an publication
written for PeTA in 1982.
> would you happen to know how I could get a hold of
>it?
Perhaps by contacting PeTA.
"Fettered Kingdoms", John Bryant, Fox Press Publishers,
Winchester [1990] appears to be on the "recommended
reading list".
http://www.imsc.ernet.in:80/~tabish/animals/ARfaq/ARinfo.html
[...]
>> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic
>> cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more
>> neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
>> --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing
>> Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
>> 1982), p. 15.
>>
>> What meaning does the term "cease to exist" have for you?
You didn't bother to answer this.
Lisa
And yes, you did tell her how she felt: "You do it to make you FEEL GOOD
about yourself."
Congratulations, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard from a
troll. Sure, I volunteer at my local shelter to feel good about myself.
Whatever you wanna think. If I ever felt good about myself at the shelter it
was because there are so many ignorant and cruel people in this world and we
see it everyday. It sure does make me feel good to know I am not one of
these people.Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
can just disposeof an animal when they become inconvienent in unimaginable
ways.
MLM <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote in message
news:38E04803...@brew-master.com...
DC
Can you provide the name of ONE circus that PETA has shut down in the US
?
There are nearly 200 circuses operating in the US today, inckuding many
that have come into being in the last 5 years. Can you name one that
PETA has been able to stop from operating ?
Thank you
DC
Swamp
The population was so well managed where I hunt them, that the term was fairly apropos.
Most of the deer are being fed by farmers anyway (albeit unwillingly). There has been a turn
lately though. With urban sprawl and more land closed to hunting, the "managed" part of the
hunt is diminishing.
Y'know, when I pass an alfalfa field full of deer munching away, I think of all that meat on the hoof.
Not about killing them.
Lately, I'm seeing this with geese too. Sure is a lot of tasty protein out there. Illuminates the
other aspect of my "blood-thirsty" nature.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
"Dale Anderson" <dand...@mail.tds.net> wrote in message news:FrUD4.234$Rc1....@ratbert.tds.net...
MLM
>
> Violently removed their reproductive organs? Going a little overboard there.
No, not really. I'd expect that the feral cats are quite
stressed by the experience.
> And yes, you did tell her how she felt: "You do it to make you FEEL GOOD
> about yourself."
Try rereading that. I don't know if she does feel good about
herself. For all I know, her actions aren't particularly
successful and she feels compelled to continually repeat them.
My comment is about "why" not "how".
> Congratulations, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard from a
> troll.
The use of "troll" to describe someone with whom you do not
agree is improper.
> Sure, I volunteer at my local shelter to feel good about myself.
Great! There's nothing wrong with that.
> Whatever you wanna think. If I ever felt good about myself at the shelter it
> was because there are so many ignorant and cruel people in this world and we
> see it everyday. It sure does make me feel good to know I am not one of
> these people. Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in unimaginable
> ways.
I think you are generalizing far beyond what is necessary.
[...]
Lisa
troll. I called you a troll because of your obvious attempt to try and
belittle Stephanie and others who work for shelters and the like by saying
that it wasn't about the animals, that we do it to make ourselves feel good.
Go ahead and expain that away however you want. Sure, we help the animals to
feel good about ourselves but it doesn't really work so we keep going back
for more expecting a different result and yet we still feel bad about
ourselves. Whatever.news:38E0CE82...@brew-master.com...
Lisa
discussed at the time. Cease to exist means exactly as it sounds, as bad as
that may be. I think John is saying that the household cat is a pathetic
version of it's relatives, and in his opinion, should be unable to reproduce
so as to end this pathetic version. But I still don't understand why we care
what John Bryant thinks. He is obviously an extremist in this AR movement if
he believes that. I'd like to read it in it's entirity however just to make
sure this quote wasn't taken out of context. This book, along with many
others, is located on an Indian physicist named Tabish's recommended reading
list. His website covers many AR/AW issues and is actually pretty good.
<noe...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:38e04e89...@news.newsguy.com...
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
> unimaginable ways.
>
Well said. I think that this accurately describes the feelings of most
people who work in animal rescue and have to face the cruelty and
indifference with which most animals are treated. It makes me ashamed
of us as a species.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> My personal opinion about feral cats?
> Controlled colonies in a monitored area large enough to hold them.
> Mandatory spay/nueter and care for life except for in cases where the
> cat is sick/injured to the point of suffering, or is infectious. When
> an animal is physically suffering or has the chance of infecting
> others, I agree with euthanization.
This describes feral cat management practices to a "T". I'm sure that
we will disagree on many issues regarding AR, but you have renewed my
faith that not every male poster in tpa is a rabid cat-killer. (Michael
C. excepted, of course.)
> I also agree with mandatory spay/nueter of shelter animals, prior to
> adoption.
>
This is a law in California and also applies to all animals placed by
rescue organizations. Unfortunately, pet stores, the outlet for many
puppy and kitten mill "products", are exempted.
> The subject IS a way to bash PeTA, I guess, and my intention was to
> point out just one of their hypocrisies.
I doubt if you could find one organization or one individual, for that
matter, with an unassailable reputation. Life is complex; there are
stumbling blocks everywhere and too many things are out of our control.
> Once, I sent small
> contributions of support a couple to non-profit organizations that
> SAID that they supported animals. When I found out that I had been
> lied to, and that the fact was that they were not helping any animals
> at all, I was not exactly happy.
Many people complain about this. I figure there are all sorts of ways
to "help animals". Sure, animal welfare is crucial if existing animals
are to be provided with any relief, but this is like putting a bandaid
on a gaping wound. For every lucky animal that is "saved", thousands
aren't. Unless there are fundamental changes in the way we view other
species, no amount of "help" will be enough. Organizations like PETA
and HSUS attack this existing view, not always effectively and not
always with purity of heart, but they get people to think.
The philosophy propounded by national AR groups is, of necessity, more
rigid than the philosophy which governs people's lives. No matter what
ARAs might think about the evils of domestication, for instance, I bet
there are not more than a handful of them that do not have an animal,
probably a rescue case, living with them. Ferchrissakes, Ingrid
Newkirk wrote a book about "l00 Ways to Entertain Your Cat" or something
like that. Does that sound like someone who wants to "exterminate pets"
or "release them into the wild"? Not to me.
> Now the part of my income that goes for animal welfare donations, and > some of my time as well (once I got more involved) goes to local
> agencies where I can see what effect my donations have.
Me, too, though I still contribute to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. I
would like to think that an appeal to the better nature of humans can
win a few victories for animals, but I'm afraid that, for now, the
judicial system is a better bet.
> One of those local agencies now has a 5 acre, enclosed, protected
> sanctuary for feral cats. My family not only donated the fencing that
> surrounds it, we helped to erect it and have promised to keep it
> mantained for as long as it is needed. Currently it holds a population
> of 72 cats and one burro.
Sounds like heaven. ;^)
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> > It's not encouraging anyone to dump there animals
> > because people will dump anyway.
>
> Really? How do you know this?
As if your usual swipes of "can't read, can't write" aren't pathetic
enough, now you want Stephanie to prove a negative? I don't think so,
you intellectual imposter.
You are the one that claimed that the existence of feral cat colonies
encourages people to dump their discarded animals, it is up to you to
provide evidence that this is true.
Anyone that knows anything about the territorial nature of feral cats,
would know that strange cats are not welcomed into a colony,
particularly those without breeding opportunities. Whatever newcomers
do show up, whether they are nomads or abandoned pets, won't stay long,
they will be given no quarter by the resident cats.
I know of no managed feral cat colony that has increased in size. Every
management practice is geared for reduction. Colonies shrink through
attrition, socialization of select candidates and sterilization.
All newcomers are immediately trapped and altered. A tame, abandoned
pet is easily recognizable and they are removed from the colony and
placed in foster homes or made available for adoption. Cats reared in
human households rarely survive the rigors of a feral life.
Before you start spouting off about the dynamics of feral cat colonies,
I strongly suggest you expand your experience beyond killing a few feral
cats.
> > Alot of them get euthanized and don't survive.
>
> So you aren't helping them?
Why are you taunting this woman? You of all people should know that
cat-killers outnumber cat rescuers. She is doing what she can and my
guess is that she has helped more cats than you have killed. So we are
ahead on that score, aren't we?
> > Instead of sitting on here do something for a change and help
> > someone else besides yourself all the time.
>
> I help people all of the time.
I just bet you do. What about animals, Morty? What do you do for
animals, specifically, what do you do about the millions of animals that
are killed in public shelters? Let me guess. Nothing, except add to
the number whenever you can.
> But that isn't really relevant
Why not? If you can question Stephanie about the extent and the quality
of her assistance to animals, why can't she ask you about the extent and
quality of yours?
> nor does it show that you are actually helping any animals.
If saving an animal's life is not "helping", what is?
frlpwr
>
> Lisa wrote:
> >
> > Violently removed their reproductive organs? Going a little > > overboard there.
>
> No, not really. I'd expect that the feral cats are quite
> stressed by the experience.
>
male cat is back in the colony in 24 hours, a female in 72 hours. They
go on with their lives. When some asshole decides that feral cats are
"nuisances", cats die.
> > And yes, you did tell her how she felt: "You do it to make you FEEL > > GOOD about yourself."
>
> Try rereading that. I don't know if she does feel good about
> herself. For all I know, her actions aren't particularly
> successful and she feels compelled to continually repeat them.
Brilliant. OF COURSE, actions are "continually repeat(ed)". There are
millions of feral cats living among us and, like all of us, they
generally prefer to eat and drink on regular basis.
>
> My comment is about "why" not "how".
>
Why what? Why she should feel good about helping unowned cats survive?
Do you enjoy life, Martin? Do you think that cats don't?
> > Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> > can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
> > unimaginable ways.
>
> I think you are generalizing far beyond what is necessary.
>
Why don't you drag your sorry ass to your local public shelter and spend
a few days logging in the impounds and surrenders? Public shelters are
not in the business of euthanizing people's pets that are sick or
injured; private vets do that. Shelters are for discarded animals and
animals are discarded because they have an accident on the rug, because
a baby is on the way, because they have never been properly trained or
because the last kid is going off to college.
You are in no position to speak with any authority about animal rescue
work or the conditions in public shelters. For crying out loud, you
didn't even bother to ask your Animal Control officer what was going to
happen to the feral cats you surrendered to him.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> Y'know, when I pass an alfalfa field full of deer munching away, I > think of all that meat on the hoof.
> Not about killing them.
This doesn't make any sense. A living animal does not become "meat"
until it is dead. This is like looking at a human and thinking, "Ummm,
transplant organs."
>
> Lately, I'm seeing this with geese too. Sure is a lot of tasty protein > out there. Illuminates the other aspect of my "blood-thirsty" nature.
>
What you are describing is the complete subjectification of other
creatures. What a stiffling way to look out at the world, but it segues
nicely with your "my front door" circle of concern.
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Lisa wrote:
.> >
.> (snip)
.>
.> > Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
.> > can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
.> > unimaginable ways.
.> >
.> Well said. I think that this accurately describes the feelings of
most
.> people who work in animal rescue and have to face the cruelty and
.> indifference with which most animals are treated. It makes me
ashamed
.> of us as a species.
Ah, but we aren't allowed to express this perfectly reasonable
shame and disgust, lest we be labelled "Anti-Human". Apparently in
the Anti mind, one is either For or 'Agin humanity - no gray areas
allowed. It's the expanded version of "America - love it or leave it."
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
MLM
>
> MLM wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > > It's not encouraging anyone to dump there animals
> > > because people will dump anyway.
> >
> > Really? How do you know this?
>
> As if your usual swipes of "can't read, can't write" aren't pathetic
> enough, now you want Stephanie to prove a negative? I don't think so,
> you intellectual imposter.
>
> You are the one that claimed that the existence of feral cat colonies
> encourages people to dump their discarded animals, it is up to you to
> provide evidence that this is true.
I don't need to, you just did it. Your statements below show
that it happens.
> Anyone that knows anything about the territorial nature of feral cats,
> would know that strange cats are not welcomed into a colony,
> particularly those without breeding opportunities. Whatever newcomers
> do show up, whether they are nomads or abandoned pets, won't stay long,
> they will be given no quarter by the resident cats.
>
> I know of no managed feral cat colony that has increased in size. Every
> management practice is geared for reduction. Colonies shrink through
> attrition, socialization of select candidates and sterilization.
So why do you have so many colonies to maintain?
Are your management skills so poor that they are not shrinking?
Wouldn't the number eventually get to zero if you are doing your
"job" correctly?
> All newcomers are immediately trapped and altered. A tame, abandoned
> pet is easily recognizable and they are removed from the colony and
> placed in foster homes or made available for adoption. Cats reared in
> human households rarely survive the rigors of a feral life.
>
> Before you start spouting off about the dynamics of feral cat colonies,
> I strongly suggest you expand your experience beyond killing a few feral
> cats.
So explain to me, if feral cat colonies do not encourage people
to dump animals, then where do these "newcomers" and "tame,
abandoned pets" come from?
Aliens?
> > > Alot of them get euthanized and don't survive.
> >
> > So you aren't helping them?
>
> Why are you taunting this woman? You of all people should know that
> cat-killers outnumber cat rescuers. She is doing what she can and my
> guess is that she has helped more cats than you have killed. So we are
> ahead on that score, aren't we?
Since I haven't killed any cats, then as long as she's helped
one, then she's ahead. But is assuming she is actually "helping"
them.
[...]
MLM
>
> Mary Huber wrote:
[...]
> .> Well said. I think that this accurately describes the feelings of most
> .> people who work in animal rescue and have to face the cruelty and
> .> indifference with which most animals are treated. It makes me ashamed
> .> of us as a species.
>
> Ah, but we aren't allowed to express this perfectly reasonable
> shame and disgust, lest we be labelled "Anti-Human". Apparently in
> the Anti mind, one is either For or 'Agin humanity - no gray areas
> allowed. It's the expanded version of "America - love it or leave it."
What Cerkowski fails to comprehend or appreciate is that Lisa
and Mary's disgust at humans is exactly the same black/white 'no
gray areas allowed' behavior that he pretends to denounce.
Lisa
things.news:38E114C0...@brew-master.com...
MLM
>
> MLM wrote:
> >
[...]
> > > Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> > > can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
> > > unimaginable ways.
> >
> > I think you are generalizing far beyond what is necessary.
> >
>
> Why don't you drag your sorry ass to your local public shelter and spend
> a few days logging in the impounds and surrenders? Public shelters are
> not in the business of euthanizing people's pets that are sick or
> injured; private vets do that. Shelters are for discarded animals and
> animals are discarded because they have an accident on the rug, because
> a baby is on the way, because they have never been properly trained or
> because the last kid is going off to college.
I am aware of that. What's your point?
Whatever it might be, your diatribe has nothing to do with
Lisa's overgeneralization.
> You are in no position to speak with any authority about animal rescue
> work or the conditions in public shelters.
Says you? TS. I've done animal rescue work. I don't just bother
with feral pests.
> For crying out loud, you
> didn't even bother to ask your Animal Control officer what was going to
> happen to the feral cats you surrendered to him.
Why should I ask? I assumed they would euthanize them. That is
their job.
MLM
>
> you are telling me how I feel
No. You are confusing "why" with "how".
> and the motives behind what I do.
Yes and you keep providing support for the hypothesis.
> You don't know me and you cannot possibly come to that conclusion.
I don't need to and I have.
> re-read your own words and then look up the words in a dictionary.
Why?
> Violently remove their reproductive organs?
That's an accurate description.
> Oh now I get how your mind works.
I doubt it.
> You are one of those anti- spay and neuter people.
No, all of my pets are spayed/neutered.
> You are very ignorant
Hardly. You keep performing on cue.
> and exactly the type of person who needs to visit a local
> shelter.
I've visited them. So?
> Of course you would rather euthanize all those beautiful
> creatures then spay or neuter.
Feral animals? Yes.
> You can sit on a pc and critisize
> everyone else about how they don't help.
I don't sit on my PC and I'm not criticizing everyone else. I'm
asking you how you know you are "helping". I have not seen you
produce any evidence whatsoever. You just spew out various ad
hominems as if that somehow makes you correct.
> BIG TROLL!
See?
> Volunteering at a shelter is helping animals a great deal,
> spaying and neutering, fostering, feeding, general taking care.
I wasn't talking about volunteering at a shelter. I was talking
about your catch/mutilate/release practice of handling feral
cats.
> We can't save them all and I am only one person.
Save? Save them from what? Why do you insist on projecting your
values and beliefs onto these animals?
> It takes a nation of people to make a difference in
> the lives of animals.
It takes a village... Yadda, yadda, yadda. I hope you don't
live in NY.
> I do make a difference in a small number of
> animals lives but it is all I can do.
How do you "help" feral cats? That is the question.
> Yes a large number of animals
> have to be euthanized because they are sick and dieing.
> That is how it is helping them.
Maybe, maybe not. You have yet to operationalize "helping" in a
consistent manner. Tell me how you know you are helping animals.
Did you establish any baseline measurements before you began
your intervention? How are you measuring "help"? What goals have
you set and how are you determining whether your actions are
improving the lives of the animals?
Mary, why don't you jump in here and answer for yourself? How do
we know if you are "helping" the feral vermin in your colonies?
> You said "I help all of the time".
Yes I do and in quite a number of ways.
> How many animals
> have you helped and what do you do "all of the time"?
The response was to your claim that I don't help "anyone", not
"animals".
> Anyway its very
> sad how you have to attack people to make yourself feel better.
[For Jonathan Ball - this is a good example of projection...]
I keep forgetting, you are one of the anointed. Now, tell me,
how does this ad hominem make your statements correct?
> And don't tell me how to post. Learn to figure it out!
It was a polite note. If you are going to post on a usenet
newsgroup, you are expected to properly follow quote and snip
guidelines. If you want to be taken seriously and not mistaken
for an eight year old girl, then learn the rules.
It is not me who will suffer the consequences of not following
proper netiquette. Considered yourself warned.
[...]
MLM
>MLM
[...]
> Where did I say that cats were "dumped".
"abandoned pets"
[snip spin]
> > So explain to me, if feral cat colonies do not encourage people
> > to dump animals, then where do these "newcomers" and "tame,
> > abandoned pets" come from?
[snip more spin ...]
Whatever. You are the one who wrote "A tame, abandoned pet is
easily recognizable" in a response that supposedly was to show
that feral cat colonies do not encourage people to abandon their
cat.
Now where did those tame abandoned pet cats come from?
> > Aliens?
>
> Something like that.
Oh, right.
> People who do not form emotional bonds with the
> animals that they live with and abandon them or surrender them or have
> them euthanized without a second thought may as well be as aliens, as
> far as I am concerned, because I don't recognize anything in them that
> is familiar to me.
Ok, so it's aliens that are encouraged to dump their cats, not
people. I get it.
MLM
>
> MLM wrote:
> > > >
> > > Mary Huber wrote:
> >
> Mary's in the hospital with a broken knee. Shall I tell her that you
> send her your best wishes?
Sure. Whatever delusion you wish to foist off on us today.
> (snip)
>
> > What Cerkowski fails to comprehend or appreciate is that Lisa
> > and Mary's disgust at humans is exactly the same black/white 'no
> > gray areas allowed' behavior that he pretends to denounce.
>
> Lisa said she was "embarrassed". I said I was "ashamed".
Then complain to Cerkowski about it, he's the one who translated
it into "disgust".
It is still the same behavior Cerkowski was pretending to
denounce.
[...]
Barton Marney
frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:38E103...@flash.net...
> Swamp wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Y'know, when I pass an alfalfa field full of deer munching away, I >
think of all that meat on the hoof.
> > Not about killing them.
>
> This doesn't make any sense. A living animal does not become "meat"
> until it is dead. This is like looking at a human and thinking,
"Ummm,
> transplant organs."
No feral, I've got to agree with Swamp. The objective is having meat on
the table in front of you to eat. Thinking of the objective does not
necessarily involve thinking of all the steps involved. I can see a
pretty woman and think, "Damn, I'd like to be in bed with her" but I
won't be thinking of all the different steps involved in actually
getting her there.
Sort of puts a damper on your belief that killing is the main objective,
doesn't it.
stepha...@my-deja.com
don't know me and you cannot possibly come to that conclusion.
works. You are one of those anti- spay and neuter people. You are very
ignorant and exactly the type of person who needs to visit a local
shelter. Of course you would rather euthanize all those beautiful
creatures then spay or neuter. You can sit on a pc and critisize
everyone else about how they don't help. BIG TROLL! Volunteering at a
shelter is helping animals a great deal, spaying and neutering,
am only one person. It takes a nation of people to make a difference in
the lives of animals. I do make a difference in a small number of
animals lives but it is all I can do. Yes a large number of animals
have to be euthanized because they are sick and dieing. That is how it
have you helped and what do you do "all of the time"? Anyway its very
sad how you have to attack people to make yourself feel better. And
don't tell me how to post. Learn to figure it out! Stephanie
In article <38E04803...@brew-master.com>,
MLM <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote:
> Go read
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
> and learn how to post responses to posts.
>
> stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Baloney. You do it to make you feel good about yourself. It's
> > > not about helping the animals.
> >
> > WHAT? DOn't ever tell me it's not about helping the animals!
>
> Too late, I just did.
>
> Tell me how you know you are helping animals. Did you establish
> any baseline measurements before you began your intervention?
> How are you measuring "help"? What goals have you set and how
> are you determining whether your actions are improving the lives
> of the animals?
>
> > It's not encouraging anyone to dump there animals
> > because people will dump anyway.
>
> Really? How do you know this?
>
> > Alot of them get euthanized and don't survive.
>
> So you aren't helping them?
No some are dieing and its more humane to euthanize then let them
starve. we help the ones that are healthy and can survive.
>
> > Instead of sitting on here do something for a change and help
> > someone else besides yourself all the time.
>
> I help people all of the time. But that isn't really relevant
> nor does it show that you are actually helping any animals.
>
stepha...@my-deja.com
you will find out less people attend each year. Prove to me more people
attend. My neighbor used to be a clown for Ringling Brothers but now
works on a cruise ship because less and less shows and work. Thats my
proof that these animal rights groups are getting the message
across.Its not a matter of closing them down its the supply and demand
theory again. Lets see your proof? Oh wait you dont have any or I
should research myself. LAzy! STephanie
In article <21099-38...@storefull-228.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
frlpwr
> > >
> > Mary Huber wrote:
>
Mary's in the hospital with a broken knee. Shall I tell her that you
send her your best wishes?
> What Cerkowski fails to comprehend or appreciate is that Lisa
> and Mary's disgust at humans is exactly the same black/white 'no
> gray areas allowed' behavior that he pretends to denounce.
Lisa said she was "embarrassed". I said I was "ashamed". Considering
your manner of addressing new posters, I would say that you are the one
who exhibits "disgust" for other humans, not us.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> >
> > You are the one that claimed that the existence of feral cat
> > colonies encourages people to dump their discarded animals, it is up > > to you to provide evidence that this is true.
>
> I don't need to, you just did it. Your statements below show
> that it happens.
> >
> > Anyone that knows anything about the territorial nature of feral
> > cats, would know that strange cats are not welcomed into a colony,
> > particularly those without breeding opportunities. Whatever
> > newcomers do show up, whether they are nomads or abandoned pets,
> > won't stay long, they will be given no quarter by the resident cats.
> >
cats. The ususal way that cats get "abandoned" is when their owners
kick them out or move away. They can stay where they are and starve or
they can search for another steady food supply which often times means
the nearest managed colony. How do you get "dumped" from this?
> > I know of no managed feral cat colony that has increased in size.
> > Every management practice is geared for reduction. Colonies shrink > > through attrition, socialization of select candidates and > > sterilization.
>
> So why do you have so many colonies to maintain?
>
Because, if you bothered to notice, feral cats are all over the place.
Like I've said before, I feed one large colony with three distinct
kinship groups, the rest of the cats are in small groups of from 2 to 8
cats along a route that takes me all over SF and northern San Mateo
county. These are all cats that I've accidentally spotted over the
years, (I've developed a real "hunter's eye" for the movement of small
animals in the dark.) Some are feral cats whose original caregivers
could no longer make the trip or simply lost interest in the cats.
> Are your management skills so poor that they are not shrinking?
No, all the cats are altered, the stray pets have long ago been rehomed.
Every once in awhile, one of the adult ferals will miraculously decide
that they want to be touched and held, so I still remove a few from time
to time. (Most of these never get farther than my house since it
usually turns out that they don't want to be touched or held by anyone
but me. Needless to say, this makes it impossible to get them adopted.)
The groups are stable and reduction now will only come through
attrition. I dread it. Some of the cats in the large colony are over
15 years, very old for a feral cat, and I know they won't make it
through too many more rainstorms. Crikey, I'm crying big crocodile
tears just thinking about it, they're so fine, proud and brave, and in
front of a cat-killer, no less. I think I better wait for a more
compassionate audience before I go into the joys and sorrows of feral
cat management.
> Wouldn't the number eventually get to zero if you are doing your
> "job" correctly?
>
Did you just figure that out? The thing is that there are a lot of
unassisted feral cats out there that manage to live long enough to
breed. There are even feral cat feeders who refuse or don't want to
bother to get the cats fixed. The world is not going to run out of
feral cats and I'm not going to stop finding them and taking care of
them. It's more than a "job", it is a vocation.
>
(snip)
> So explain to me, if feral cat colonies do not encourage people
> to dump animals, then where do these "newcomers" and "tame,
> abandoned pets" come from?
>
People that want to throw away their cats don't have to take the time
and trouble to put the cat in the car and drive it somewhere to dump it.
All they have to do is throw the cat outside and stop feeding it. First
the cat will beg food off the neighbors. If that doesn't work, it will
keep looking until it finds a food source, the fringes of a managed
colony, a litter-filled parking lot, an overflowing restaurant dumpster.
Some feral cats follow the garbage pick-up schedule, hitting successive
neighborhoods on the nights that people put out the trash. Most become
undernourished, grow too weak to scavenge successfully and, eventually,
starve. The ones that don't are the seeds of feral cat colonies.
> Aliens?
Something like that. People who do not form emotional bonds with the
animals that they live with and abandon them or surrender them or have
them euthanized without a second thought may as well be as aliens, as
far as I am concerned, because I don't recognize anything in them that
is familiar to me.
>
(snip)
stepha...@my-deja.com
means of controlling the pet population. Spaying and neutering works
for me. Feral cats are happy living outside and away from people.
When I first started rescueing animals I always did it for the animal.
They deserved better then what life threw at them. An owner who just
didn't care anymore or just didn't want the responsibilities of owning
a pet. I guess the reasons doesn't matter once you find them in the
pound on death row. I wish I could save them all. The ones that are
saved go on living but millions will die in the process. We should all
learn from the jerks that come on here and just laugh to ourselves.
Laugh at how rediculous and ignorant they really do sound.
I shouldn't be offended because these people are nothing. They simply
get pleasure out of making other peoples life miserable. Thank you to
all the jerks on this newsgroup. You have showed me how these
organizations are really out to help and how you are out to hurt.
Lisa and Feral Power keep up the good work. Lets keep on doing it for
the animals. They need us more then ever now. Stephanie
In article <38E0F6...@flash.net>,
frl...@flash.net wrote:
> MLM wrote:
> >
> > Lisa wrote:
> > >
> > > Violently removed their reproductive organs? Going a little > >
overboard there.
> >
> > No, not really. I'd expect that the feral cats are quite
> > stressed by the experience.
> >
> They are, but then, would you rather be castrated or killed? A
neutered
> male cat is back in the colony in 24 hours, a female in 72 hours. They
> go on with their lives. When some asshole decides that feral cats are
> "nuisances", cats die.
>
> > > And yes, you did tell her how she felt: "You do it to make you
FEEL > > GOOD about yourself."
> >
> > Try rereading that. I don't know if she does feel good about
> > herself. For all I know, her actions aren't particularly
> > successful and she feels compelled to continually repeat them.
>
> Brilliant. OF COURSE, actions are "continually repeat(ed)". There are
> millions of feral cats living among us and, like all of us, they
> generally prefer to eat and drink on regular basis.
> >
> > My comment is about "why" not "how".
> >
> Why what? Why she should feel good about helping unowned cats survive?
> Do you enjoy life, Martin? Do you think that cats don't?
>
> > > Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> > > can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
> > > unimaginable ways.
> >
> > I think you are generalizing far beyond what is necessary.
> >
> Why don't you drag your sorry ass to your local public shelter and
spend
> a few days logging in the impounds and surrenders? Public shelters are
> not in the business of euthanizing people's pets that are sick or
> injured; private vets do that. Shelters are for discarded animals and
> animals are discarded because they have an accident on the rug,
because
> a baby is on the way, because they have never been properly trained or
> because the last kid is going off to college.
>
> You are in no position to speak with any authority about animal rescue
> work or the conditions in public shelters. For crying out loud, you
> didn't even bother to ask your Animal Control officer what was going
to
> happen to the feral cats you surrendered to him.
>
>
Lisa
against the wall than try to have a reasonable conversation with certain
people on this NG. With ignorance and apathy on the rise, they really do
need us more than ever.
<stepha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bs040$mos$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
frlpwr
>
> Mary Huber wrote:
> >
> > MLM wrote:
> > >
> > > Lisa wrote:
>
> > > > Most of the time I feel embarrassed for humans, the way they
> > > > can just dispose of an animal when they become inconvienent in
> > > > unimaginable ways.
> > >
> > > I think you are generalizing far beyond what is necessary.
> > >
> >
> > Why don't you drag your sorry ass to your local public shelter and
> > spend a few days logging in the impounds and surrenders? Public
> > shelters are not in the business of euthanizing people's pets that
> > are sick or injured; private vets do that. Shelters are for
> > discarded animals and animals are discarded because they have an
> > accident on the rug, because a baby is on the way, because they have > > never been properly trained or because the last kid is going off to > > college.
>
>
> Whatever it might be, your diatribe has nothing to do with
> Lisa's overgeneralization.
>
construed as an "overgeneralization" and that is the word "unimaginable"
The only reason that you might find it perfectly imaginable for people
to dispose of animals when they become inconvenient is because that's
what you do. This, of course, is entirely subjective. Other people
find your actions and the actions of all people who readily dispose of
animals for vacuous reasons or no reason at all completely unimaginable.
>
> > You are in no position to speak with any authority about animal
> > rescue work or the conditions in public shelters.
>
> Says you? TS. I've done animal rescue work. I don't just bother
> with feral pests.
>
Are you sure you don't mean animal _research_ work?
Breed rescue, no doubt. Much profit in that, is there?
>
> > For crying out loud, you
> > didn't even bother to ask your Animal Control officer what was going > > to happen to the feral cats you surrendered to him.
>
> Why should I ask? I assumed they would euthanize them. That is
> their job.
That's right and that's why you called them. They acted as your agents,
together you killed the cats.
Swamp
"frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote in message news:38E103...@flash.net...
> Swamp wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Y'know, when I pass an alfalfa field full of deer munching away, I > think of all that meat on the hoof.
> > Not about killing them.
>
> This doesn't make any sense. A living animal does not become "meat"
> until it is dead.
Yeah, yeah, and after its food it becomes shit, then dirt.
And seeds become plants, are "harvested", become food, become shit, become dirt.
Whenever you pass a garden, do you think about food or do you lapse into some
sort of philisophical assesment of exactly how this all becomes nutrition?
> This is like looking at a human and thinking, "Ummm,
> transplant organs."
bizarre analogy.
> > Lately, I'm seeing this with geese too. Sure is a lot of tasty protein > out there. Illuminates the other aspect of my
"blood-thirsty" nature.
> >
> What you are describing is the complete subjectification of other
> creatures.
We are all subjects in nature.
> What a stiffling way to look out at the world, but it segues
> nicely with your "my front door" circle of concern.
I prefer to see things the way they are.
Life is interesting enough on its own merit.
--
ĄĄSwampĄĄ
Swamp
"frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote in message news:38E155...@flash.net...
> MLM wrote:
> > > >
> > > Mary Huber wrote:
> >
Swamp
Don'tcha just love spring break?
--
ゥSwampゥ
MLM
>
> Martin,
>
> Don'tcha just love spring break?
It does seem to bring them out of their, um, shelters.
stepha...@my-deja.com
thing about homonym junk. Lets get original for a change ok?
You say an ignorant statement like we " Violently remove their
reproductive organs?" and then tell me your own pets are spayed and
neutered? Then you must have violently removed their reproductive
organs and mutilated them as well.
> > We can't save them all and I am only one person.
>
> Save? Save them from what? Why do you insist on projecting your
> values and beliefs onto these animals?
Let me state this in simple english so you can understand. Animal
dumped at pound, animal doesn't get adopted, animal euthanized. Any
questions?
All we are doing is rescuing/"saving" dogs and cats that would have
been euthanized if at the pound. Saving from being euthanized, sparing
their lives, allowing them to live in a new home, letting them breath.
explain this statement you wrote: "Why do you insist on projecting your
values and beliefs onto these animals?"
"How do you "help" feral cats? That is the question."
I explained this before but I guess since your OPINIONS don't consider
it "helping" then we are not. Most people think we are helping and of
course we are. Feeding, spaying and neutering, keeping them healthy is
helping the cats #1 and then society. We also vaccinate to minimize
diseases that could spread to peoples house cats. I don't expect
someone to comprehend how much s/n helps when they think its
mutilation. I can also add that we give out free spay/neuter
certificates to anyone who wants them. This greatly reduced the number
of kittens born each year. That also helped less kittens to find homes
for and less owners dumping off kittens that could become feral.
Now since you said "I help all of the time".
Who do you help?
how do you know you are helping and making a difference in lives?
Boy if you help "all of the time" your list will be long. Look forwad
to seeing that.
The last thing that you said it too funny and pathetic,
> It was a polite note. If you are going to post on a usenet
> newsgroup, you are expected to properly follow quote and snip
> guidelines. If you want to be taken seriously and not mistaken
> for an eight year old girl, then learn the rules.
>
> It is not me who will suffer the consequences of not following
> proper netiquette. Considered yourself warned.
>
You mean I wont be taken seriously in front of a bunch of strangers?
I'm crushed! These useless conversations are going to make me suffer
diar consequaences on the internet. What am I going to do? Ive been
warned by a total loser. I am so embarrassed for you for thinking I
care. "learn the rules" he says. I'm sure you read those rules and
follow them exactly. I make my own rules so get over it and stop
sounding like Martha Stuarts slave boy-"i'm so prim and proper!"
~Stephanie~
In article <38E17F3F...@brew-master.com>,
MLM <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote:
> stepha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > you are telling me how I feel
>
> No. You are confusing "why" with "how".
>
> > and the motives behind what I do.
>
> Yes and you keep providing support for the hypothesis.
>
> > You don't know me and you cannot possibly come to that conclusion.
>
> I don't need to and I have.
>
> > re-read your own words and then look up the words in a dictionary.
>
> Why?
>
> > Violently remove their reproductive organs?
>
> That's an accurate description.
>
> > Oh now I get how your mind works.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> > You are one of those anti- spay and neuter people.
>
> No, all of my pets are spayed/neutered.
>
> > You are very ignorant
>
> Hardly. You keep performing on cue.
>
> > and exactly the type of person who needs to visit a local
> > shelter.
>
> I've visited them. So?
>
> > Of course you would rather euthanize all those beautiful
> > creatures then spay or neuter.
>
> Feral animals? Yes.
>
> > You can sit on a pc and critisize
> > everyone else about how they don't help.
>
> I don't sit on my PC and I'm not criticizing everyone else. I'm
> asking you how you know you are "helping". I have not seen you
> produce any evidence whatsoever. You just spew out various ad
> hominems as if that somehow makes you correct.
>
> > BIG TROLL!
>
> See?
>
> > Volunteering at a shelter is helping animals a great deal,
> > spaying and neutering, fostering, feeding, general taking care.
>
> I wasn't talking about volunteering at a shelter. I was talking
> about your catch/mutilate/release practice of handling feral
> cats.
>
> > We can't save them all and I am only one person.
>
> Save? Save them from what? Why do you insist on projecting your
> values and beliefs onto these animals?
>
> > It takes a nation of people to make a difference in
> > the lives of animals.
>
> It takes a village... Yadda, yadda, yadda. I hope you don't
> live in NY.
>
> > I do make a difference in a small number of
> > animals lives but it is all I can do.
>
> How do you "help" feral cats? That is the question.
>
> > Yes a large number of animals
> > have to be euthanized because they are sick and dieing.
> > That is how it is helping them.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. You have yet to operationalize "helping" in a
> consistent manner. Tell me how you know you are helping animals.
> Did you establish any baseline measurements before you began
> your intervention? How are you measuring "help"? What goals have
> you set and how are you determining whether your actions are
> improving the lives of the animals?
>
> Mary, why don't you jump in here and answer for yourself? How do
> we know if you are "helping" the feral vermin in your colonies?
>
> > You said "I help all of the time".
>
> Yes I do and in quite a number of ways.
>
> > How many animals
> > have you helped and what do you do "all of the time"?
>
> The response was to your claim that I don't help "anyone", not
> "animals".
>
> > Anyway its very
> > sad how you have to attack people to make yourself feel better.
>
> [For Jonathan Ball - this is a good example of projection...]
>
> I keep forgetting, you are one of the anointed. Now, tell me,
> how does this ad hominem make your statements correct?
>
> > And don't tell me how to post. Learn to figure it out!
>
> It was a polite note. If you are going to post on a usenet
> newsgroup, you are expected to properly follow quote and snip
> guidelines. If you want to be taken seriously and not mistaken
> for an eight year old girl, then learn the rules.
>
> It is not me who will suffer the consequences of not following
> proper netiquette. Considered yourself warned.
>
> [...]
>
DC
another question or two ?
To me "feral" indicates an animal that has completely returned to the
wild state, and can care for itself --- by feeding these cats, aren't
you keeping them dependant, and connected to human care ?
I know the "somebody has to feed them" reply is coming....but if you
PETA nuts and similar "saviors' are serious about all this "feral-ness",
wouldn't it be better NOT to intervine ? Let nature decide which
individuals survive. THAT would be a true
"return to the wild". Feeding them is just keeping them as "free-ranging
pets"...just as needy as the "house cat". isn't it ?
While the idea of sterilizing and releasing these "feral cats" sounds
like a solution - I think you'd pretty much have to trap ALL of them at
once....every fertile cat out there can produce / father 20 to 100 more
per year. I just don't see how this program can work.
The only "honest and ethical" solution for you folks is to stop feeding
the "feral" populations. I mean.if you are REALLY honest about your
intentions and beliefs.
DC
MLM
>
> I distinctly remember other anti-ARA & AW people say the exact same
> thing about homonym junk. Lets get original for a change ok?
> You say an ignorant statement like we " Violently remove their
> reproductive organs?" and then tell me your own pets are spayed and
> neutered?
It was a hyperbolic but accurate statement, not an ignorant one.
> Then you must have violently removed their reproductive
> organs and mutilated them as well.
I paid a veterinarian to do it.
> > > We can't save them all and I am only one person.
> >
> > Save? Save them from what? Why do you insist on projecting your
> > values and beliefs onto these animals?
>
> Let me state this in simple english so you can understand. Animal
> dumped at pound, animal doesn't get adopted, animal euthanized. Any
> questions?
I understand your position. I'm pointing out that you are too
simplistic and don't appear to appreciate any nuances of the
issue.
> All we are doing is rescuing/"saving" dogs and cats that would have
> been euthanized if at the pound. Saving from being euthanized, sparing
> their lives, allowing them to live in a new home, letting them breath.
This is a value statement. Did they ask to be "saved"?
> explain this statement you wrote: "Why do you insist on projecting your
> values and beliefs onto these animals?"
See above.
> "How do you "help" feral cats? That is the question."
>
> I explained this before but I guess since your OPINIONS don't consider
> it "helping" then we are not.
All you've done is make assertions and followed them up with ad
hominem responses. I've seen no actual data to suggest that you
are actually helping them.
> Most people think we are helping and of course we are.
50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong...
> Feeding, spaying and neutering, keeping them healthy is
> helping the cats #1 and then society.
Feral cats. Who asked you to intervene? Are you aware of the
impact cats have on other animals?
> We also vaccinate to minimize
> diseases that could spread to peoples house cats.
You might want to talk to FeralPower about this. She's claimed
that vaccinations are for the benefit of the individual cat, not
for the benefit of other animals.
> I don't expect someone to comprehend how much s/n helps
> when they think its mutilation.
I think spay/neuter is a good idea but it is still mutilation.
What do you think of human female circumcision?
> I can also add that we give out free spay/neuter
> certificates to anyone who wants them. This greatly reduced the number
> of kittens born each year. That also helped less kittens to find homes
> for and less owners dumping off kittens that could become feral.
Ok, that's helping animals as a group but not individual
animals. Counting something that doesn't exist is pretty weird
accounting.
> Now since you said "I help all of the time".
> Who do you help?
> how do you know you are helping and making a difference in lives?
> Boy if you help "all of the time" your list will be long. Look forwad
> to seeing that.
How do I know? They tell me. (I teach at a major university, for
starters. (Hi Mikey!!)) I've created a fundraising campaign for
a certain group of illnesses. That campaign has raised more than
$5 million dollars, is raising more than $1 million a year and
the amount has consistently grown by 50% a year. I was paid $0
for the campaign. That's just a start. The difference between my
accomplishments is that I can measure it. I know the results
before and after the intervention. I don't just "believe" I'm
helping, I know.
> The last thing that you said it too funny and pathetic,
If you only knew. If you stick around long enough, you'll find
out who is funny and who is pathetic.
> > It was a polite note. If you are going to post on a usenet
> > newsgroup, you are expected to properly follow quote and snip
> > guidelines. If you want to be taken seriously and not mistaken
> > for an eight year old girl, then learn the rules.
> >
> > It is not me who will suffer the consequences of not following
> > proper netiquette. Considered yourself warned.
> >
>
> You mean I wont be taken seriously in front of a bunch of strangers?
No, I mean that what you write could easily be taken out of
context and used against you. But if you don't mind someone
using your own words to make you look like a fool, that's your
problem.
[...]
stepha...@my-deja.com
in the big city. What do they catch to eat? These feral cats dig in
trash cans, spread diseases to healthy cats and reproduce like crazy.
If anything if we DO NOT feed and care for them they will pose more of
a threat to society. We have alot(i mean alot) of volunteers trapping
and helping out. Our colonies are getting smaller and less diseases are
appearing. I think what we are doing is helping. How do you know what
is working and what isn't? If you are not helping with the problem then
you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Why do you
always bring PETA into every conversation? Why do you assume because we
care for animals that we automatically support PETA? their are some
people I volunteer with that have never heard of PETA before.
In article <15485-38...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
MLM
[...]
> Our colonies are getting smaller and less diseases are
> appearing.
That's a demonstrable and supportable claim to show that you are
helping.
[...]
James Hepler
Swamp wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> Don'tcha just love spring break?
These kids just have too much time on their hands. Their basketball
teams must no longer be in the big dance!
Go Heels!
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
For your listening pleasure, Chapel Hill Music Online!
http://www.unc.edu/~hepler/CHMI.html
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to
prayer." -mark twain.
frlpwr
>
> frlpwr wrote:
> >MLM
> [...]
>
> > Where did I say that cats were "dumped".
>
>
> [snip spin]
>
> > > So explain to me, if feral cat colonies do not encourage people
> > > to dump animals, then where do these "newcomers" and "tame,
> > > abandoned pets" come from?
>
>
When all you can say is that whatever contradicts your preconceived
notions of feral cat colony dynamics is "spin", there is not much point
in proceeding with the discussion.
If you will not accept my experienced observations about how cat
abandonment fosters the development of _new_ feral cat colonies, you
will have to find alternative anecdotal evidence, since I'm pretty sure
that no scientific studies have been done on this specific issue, that
refutes mine.
I will say this, people have dumped cats at my home, but that is
because, after a decade of cat rescue, lots of people with cat
"problems" know where I live and word gets around. They are certain
that I will not kill a stray cat that wanders onto my property, that I
will take it to the vet if it is sick or injured and that I will find it
a new home or let it live here with me.
(snip)
>
> Ok, so it's aliens that are encouraged to dump their cats, not
> people. I get it.
One more question, since I feed cats in the middle of the night when
about the only people on the streets are me and the cops, what makes you
think that the average person knows where managed colonies are located?
Feral cats are experts at making themselves invisible when humans are
around. Cats that I have been feeding for years still won't venture out
to eat until I have driven away. I have to circle back around to catch
a glimpse of them before my headlights scare them off.
You don't know anything about feral cats or feral cat colonies, Martin,
so stop pretending that you do.
frlpwr
>
> Ow. Hope that's not from an osteo problem.
>
hole on the other side. It was her first day at a new job; she was
there for a grand total of 15 minutes. Oh yeah, and she was carrying an
18' ladder. She has spent more time on disability than anyone I know,
than any ten people that I know.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> >
> > This doesn't make any sense. A living animal does not become "meat"
> > until it is dead.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and after its food it becomes shit, then dirt.
> And seeds become plants, are "harvested", become food, become shit, > become dirt.
Relevancy? You didn't say that when you see animals in the field you
think about how good it would feel to take a shit. This is an even more
bizarre way of looking at the world. You get weirder with every post...
> Whenever you pass a garden, do you think about food or do you lapse
> into some sort of philisophical assesment of exactly how this all > becomes nutrition?
>
Actually, since I do a lot of gardening, myself, I concentrate on the
process of seed becoming plant becoming food becoming compost becoming
plant. Of course, I also appreciate the confluence of all the plants at
that moment in space and time. Doesn't everybody?
> > This is like looking at a human and thinking, "Ummm,
> > transplant organs."
>
> bizarre analogy.
>
Then the bizarre is one thing, at least, that we have in common.
>
> > What you are describing is the complete subjectification of other
> > creatures.
>
> We are all subjects in nature.
>
Ummm, profound. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that we are all
"subjects-of-a-life", _our own_ life and no one else's?
> > What a stiffling way to look out at the world, but it segues
> > nicely with your "my front door" circle of concern.
>
> I prefer to see things the way they are.
Me, too, which is why I have to question why you think you have the
right to usurp the purpose of other creatures. Unless, of course, you
believe that everything that is exists for you. This is, as I said, a
"stiffling" view and it is folly, as well.
> Life is interesting enough on its own merit.
>
I couldn't agree more. Life is interesting for deer, too, I reckon.
frlpwr
>
> frlpwr wrote:
> >
> > MLM wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Mary Huber wrote:
> > >
> > Mary's in the hospital with a broken knee. Shall I tell her that
> > you send her your best wishes?
>
>
about her?
> > > What Cerkowski fails to comprehend or appreciate is that Lisa
> > > and Mary's disgust at humans is exactly the same black/white 'no
> > > gray areas allowed' behavior that he pretends to denounce.
> >
> > Lisa said she was "embarrassed". I said I was "ashamed".
>
> Then complain to Cerkowski about it, he's the one who translated
> it into "disgust".
>
Then, perhaps, Michael was venting the feelings that he experienced
while doing animal rescue work. There is certainly plenty of room for
disgust, if that is what was elicited.
> It is still the same behavior Cerkowski was pretending to
> denounce.
I suppose. For the record, would you like to state your opinion of the
disposal of companion animals for superficial reasons?
1) Promote impulsive disposal.
2) Approve of arbitrary disposal as "appropriate".
3) Disapprove of euthanasia of healthy pets.
4) Haven't though about it.
5) Don't care.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> I can see a pretty woman and think, "Damn, I'd like to be in bed with > her" but I won't be thinking of all the different steps involved in
> actually getting her there.
>
If you want my advice, put this thought out of your mind altogether.
Either that or you could start saying novenas to St. Jude, Saint of Lost
Causes.
> Sort of puts a damper on your belief that killing is the main
> objective, doesn't it.
>
Well, if you guys want to sit around and daydream about stags galloping
onto your plate, fine. But it is rather childish to ignore the process
that gets them from the field to your gut, isn't it?
(snip)
> > >
>
MLM
[...]
> I will say this, people have dumped cats at my home, but that is
> because, after a decade of cat rescue, lots of people with cat
> "problems" know where I live and word gets around.
IOW, maintaining feral cat colonies encourages people to dump
cats. Do you always provide supporting data for a point you are
trying to contradict?
[...]
Swamp
"frlpwr" <frl...@flash.net> wrote in message news:38E26A...@flash.net...
> Swamp wrote:
> > Yeah, yeah, and after its food it becomes shit, then dirt.
> > And seeds become plants, are "harvested", become food, become shit, > become dirt.
>
> Relevancy?
You wanted to know how I skipped the killing step of the process.
I'm trying to show how its pretty normal to focus on the
more enjoyable aspect of the procedure.
> You didn't say that when you see animals in the field you
> think about how good it would feel to take a shit.
Well, I suppose if the dump from eating deer was significantly
more enjoyable than others, that could happen.
Usually though, its a "no comment" kind of thing.
> This is an even more
> bizarre way of looking at the world. You get weirder with every post...
You find life cycle bizarre?
-snip-
> Actually, since I do a lot of gardening, myself, I concentrate on the
> process of seed becoming plant becoming food becoming compost becoming
> plant. Of course, I also appreciate the confluence of all the plants at
> that moment in space and time. Doesn't everybody?
I usually zone-out into a kind of meditative state when gardening.
Nothing on the brain but the task at hand. Very therapeutic.
-snip-
> > We are all subjects in nature.
> >
> Ummm, profound. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that we are all
> "subjects-of-a-life", _our own_ life and no one else's?
not according to nature.
-snip-
> > I prefer to see things the way they are.
>
> Me, too, which is why I have to question why you think you have the
> right to usurp the purpose of other creatures. Unless, of course, you
> believe that everything that is exists for you.
More like everything exists for everything else.
I'm just along for the ride.
> This is, as I said, a
> "stiffling" view and it is folly, as well.
Folly? Its been working pretty good so far.
(last hundred millenia or so)
>
> > Life is interesting enough on its own merit.
> >
> I couldn't agree more. Life is interesting for deer, too, I reckon.
Why's that? Unless they're being chased, they generally appear
pretty bored to me. Perhaps I'm actually improving the value of
their life (albeit momentarily)?
--
ゥSwampゥ
Barton Marney
> Barton Marney wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > I can see a pretty woman and think, "Damn, I'd like to be in bed
with > her" but I won't be thinking of all the different steps involved
in
> > actually getting her there.
> >
> If you want my advice, put this thought out of your mind altogether.
> Either that or you could start saying novenas to St. Jude, Saint of
Lost
> Causes.
Joke's on you feral. Of the times I'm able to get away from being a
parent and indulge, I'm the one that gets picked up about half the time.
That's even with increasing my standards over the years. It helps to
still be looking 30 something when you're on the wrong side of 40.
>
> > Sort of puts a damper on your belief that killing is the main
> > objective, doesn't it.
> >
> Well, if you guys want to sit around and daydream about stags
galloping
> onto your plate, fine. But it is rather childish to ignore the
process
> that gets them from the field to your gut, isn't it?
We don't ignore it, we just don't think about the process right then and
there. When you buy some beans you don't think about the planting,
weeding, picking, snapping, preservation, and storage do you?
>
> (snip)
> > > >
> >
>
>