Angie Stephenson, Project & Accounts Manager Animal Liberation NSW
Derek
anything that you consider private. When I emailed her with
my concerns about Rupert McCallum's endorsement of
animal farming and asked if she could direct me to a link
that lists the voting members of the committee in NSW so
that I can rest assured knowing I won't be promoting
donations to an animal welfare charity, she told me that
that information is confidential. However, it's become
apparent that while some things are confidential, private
emails sent to her are not. Rupert has kindly revealed that
Angie showed him our private emails by writing,
[start - me to Rupert]
>The animal welfare frauds like you and Pearson are a
>growing cancer impeding the abolition movement by trying
> to make a moral wrong seem 'better,' and the real
> abolitionists have no option but to leave.
[Rupert]
"Good. So you'd better stop donating money to us and
encouraging others to donate. In your email to Angie you
tried to give the impression that this was what you had been
doing; this was very likely a lie."
Rupert 13 Sept 2008 http://tinyurl.com/3mkk5r
Animal Liberation NSW is a welfare organisation, not the
animal rights charity they claim to be on their web site striving
for the abolition of farmed animals, and if you email Angie with
your concerns about anything she will reveal your email to the
members of that welfare charity. She has no moral integrity.
Rupert
> If you're planning to email Angie Stephenson do not include
> anything that you consider private. When I emailed her with
> my concerns about Rupert McCallum's endorsement of
> animal farming and asked if she could direct me to a link
> that lists the voting members of the committee in NSW so
> that I can rest assured knowing I won't be promoting
> donations to an animal welfare charity, she told me that
> that information is confidential. However, it's become
> apparent that while some things are confidential, private
> emails sent to her are not. Rupert has kindly revealed that
> Angie showed him our private emails by writing,
>
> [start - me to Rupert]
> >The animal welfare frauds like you and Pearson are a
> >growing cancer impeding the abolition movement by trying
> > to make a moral wrong seem 'better,' and the real
> > abolitionists have no option but to leave.
> [Rupert]
> "Good. So you'd better stop donating money to us and
> encouraging others to donate. In your email to Angie you
> tried to give the impression that this was what you had been
> doing; this was very likely a lie."
>
> Animal Liberation NSW is a welfare organisation, not the
> animal rights charity they claim to be on their web site striving
> for the abolition of farmed animals, and if you email Angie with
> your concerns about anything she will reveal your email to the
> members of that welfare charity. She has no moral integrity.
I don't see how you could have expected that email to remain private,
Derek. You were trying to undermine my reputation and standing in that
organisation. Of course I have a right to know what you accused me of
and to reply. She may have forwarded me the email, or she may merely
have summarised its contents; you don't know. Of course she had a
perfect right to do either.
Derek
>On Sep 15, 3:11 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you're planning to email Angie Stephenson do not include
>> anything that you consider private. When I emailed her with
>> my concerns about Rupert McCallum's endorsement of
>> animal farming and asked if she could direct me to a link
>> that lists the voting members of the committee in NSW so
>> that I can rest assured knowing I won't be promoting
>> donations to an animal welfare charity, she told me that
>> that information is confidential. However, it's become
>> apparent that while some things are confidential, private
>> emails sent to her are not. Rupert has kindly revealed that
>> Angie showed him our private emails by writing,
>>
>> [start - me to Rupert]
>> >The animal welfare frauds like you and Pearson are a
>> >growing cancer impeding the abolition movement by trying
>> > to make a moral wrong seem 'better,' and the real
>> > abolitionists have no option but to leave.
>> [Rupert]
>> "Good. So you'd better stop donating money to us and
>> encouraging others to donate. In your email to Angie you
>> tried to give the impression that this was what you had been
>> doing; this was very likely a lie."
>>
>> Animal Liberation NSW is a welfare organisation, not the
>> animal rights charity they claim to be on their web site striving
>> for the abolition of farmed animals, and if you email Angie with
>> your concerns about anything she will reveal your email to the
>> members of that welfare charity. She has no moral integrity.
>
>I don't see how you could have expected that email to remain private,
>Derek.
I had every reason to believe that my private emails would
remain private. However, it's now been shown that she's as
corrupt as the organisation she works for.
>You were trying to undermine my reputation and standing in that
>organisation.
I was correctly drawing her attention to your change in position
from an animal rights advocate to an animal welfare advocate.
Animal Liberation NSW claims to be an animal rights charity,
and when you claimed that you, now an animal welfarist since
rejecting animal rights, had been invited to be a voting member
of the committee in that organisation, I had every right to voice
my concerns.
>Of course I have a right to know what you accused me of
>and to reply. She may have forwarded me the email, or she may merely
>have summarised its contents; you don't know. Of course she had a
>perfect right to do either.
No, she does not have the right to reveal a person's private
emails, whether in part or in full. She is an unethical fraud,
just like the rest of you in ALNSW who fool the genuine
animal rights advocates into parting with their donated cash.
Derek
>Rupert wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 3:11 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're planning to email Angie Stephenson do not include
>>> anything that you consider private. When I emailed her with
>>> my concerns about Rupert McCallum's endorsement of
>>> animal farming and asked if she could direct me to a link
>>> that lists the voting members of the committee in NSW so
>>> that I can rest assured knowing I won't be promoting
>>> donations to an animal welfare charity, she told me that
>>> that information is confidential. However, it's become
>>> apparent that while some things are confidential, private
>>> emails sent to her are not. Rupert has kindly revealed that
>>> Angie showed him our private emails by writing,
>>>
>>> [start - me to Rupert]
>>> >The animal welfare frauds like you and Pearson are a
>>> >growing cancer impeding the abolition movement by trying
>>> > to make a moral wrong seem 'better,' and the real
>>> > abolitionists have no option but to leave.
>>> [Rupert]
>>> "Good. So you'd better stop donating money to us and
>>> encouraging others to donate. In your email to Angie you
>>> tried to give the impression that this was what you had been
>>> doing; this was very likely a lie."
>>>
>>> Animal Liberation NSW is a welfare organisation, not the
>>> animal rights charity they claim to be on their web site striving
>>> for the abolition of farmed animals, and if you email Angie with
>>> your concerns about anything she will reveal your email to the
>>> members of that welfare charity. She has no moral integrity.
>>
>> I don't see how you could have expected that email to remain private,
>> Derek.
>
>account.
>
>> You were trying to undermine my reputation and standing in that
>> organisation.
>
>
>> Of course I have a right to know what you accused me of
>> and to reply.
>
>you have done. But you had absolutely no right to see the e-mail
>itself. That corrupt cunt of a director should have done no more than
>inform you of the general nature of Derek's complaint about you.
>
>What's laughable is her attempt to invoke privacy concerning the names
>of the voting members of that gang of punks. Why the fuck would the
>names be "private"? Any reputable charitable organization would not
>hesitate to identify their voting board members.
>
>> She may have forwarded me the email, or she may merely
>> have summarised its contents; you don't know.
>
>
>> Of course she had a perfect right to do either.
>
>
>You really don't know fuck-all about ethics.
Wupert, Angie and ALNSW are a despicable band of corrupt
thieves.
pearl
> I had every reason to believe that my private emails would
> remain private. However, it's now been shown that she's as
> corrupt as the organisation she works for.
> No, she does not have the right to reveal a person's private
> emails, whether in part or in full. She is an unethical fraud,
Pot - Kettle.