Sex with Animals
pro4a...@aol.com
>Nykyla <nyk...@aol.com> wrote:
> Forgive me, but who the hell is zoobuster? Is it being implied that I am this
> person and just encouraging a debate for the hell of it? A setup? And what the
> heck does "signature style" mean?
Ignore them Nykyla, they think anyone who speaks out against bestiality by
zoophiles is my wife and I posting!
> I'm having great difficulty seeing people defend sex with animals under vague
> ideological platitudes like freedom of expression, etc. There is such a thing
> as objective right and wrong and situational ethic, which laws cannot address.
<...>
=Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
= But if you can try to find a reason beyond 'it's just plain wrong',
=would you care to discuss it? Not everyone supporting zoophilia on this
=newsgroup is 'obviously sick'...and if you look in the earlier "Sex with
=Animals" thread you'll find a lot of factual evidence, rather than
If zoophiles are trying to promote bestiality on this newsgroup as a new
alternate lifestyle everyone should ignore and/or accept because you say so,
forget that idea.
='vague ideological platitudes'. It's not easy to learn something when
=you're fighting your own cultural instincts...but should you feel like
=trying, there's a few people here willing to oblige. Just let us know.
...
So this is now a cultural thing! Anyone who is disgusted at this sexual abuse
of animals, know this- My wife and I run several web sites devoted to
promoting legislation and education against all gratification sexual contacts
with animals. Towards that end, months ago for an air date of Oct 18, we set
up a program whereby we would speak on this issue on the radio. We invited
criminology professor Piers Beirne from the University of Portland Maine to
Be our co-guest on the show.
Professor Beirne authors the journal; "theoretical criminology" and we have a
copy of his article; "bestiality: interspecies sexual assault"
last night we were on the animal rights cable radio network, carried around
the world on other networks- sat. transponders etc., with Professor Beirne
for two hours speaking on the issue of zoophile sexual abuse of animals.
We covered so much ground, definitions, and much more in those two hours.
Originally scheduled for one hour, we are pleased to announce that the show
hosts bumped the second hour guest to continue the show on this important much
hushed up topic of bestiality.
We are also very pleased to make a preliminary announcement that, in working
with, and providing information to a major animal welfare group- they will
announce a legislative campaign against zoophiles/sexual abuse/bestiality in
November.
We will post details on our web sites and mailing lists when the group goes
public.
Already the ASPCA in New York City has been distributing Mr Beirne's article,
as well as the one titled; "Bestiality: The unmentioned abuse" from the
Animals Agenda.
We have these articles available, but feel free to contact the ASPCA and
support their efforts. We rec'd an extra copy of both articles from an
Arizona humane society director who rec'd them from the ASPCA. So the
material *is* making it's way around the channels.
As the Agenda article suggests, these people who seperate themselves into
two groups (zoophiles/bestialists) are just fooling themselves.
For those who missed the article, or forgot what it said, here is a copy of
the article in it's entirety, curtesy of the Animals Agenda magazine. I think
activists should believe what other activists have researched and authored
instead of perverted people with an agenda to gain public acceptance by sugar
coating the rape of animals.
The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc, a
non-profit organization. Offices are
located at:
3201 Elliott Street
Baltimore, MD 21224
Editorial and advertising inquiries go to:
The Animals' Agenda
P.O. Box 25881
Baltimore, MD 21224
Tel: (410)675-4566
Fax: (410)675-0066
Email: 75543...@compuserve.com
Homepage: http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/aa/
Cover has byline including 'Bestiality'. Listed as the second feature in the
contents page: BESTIALITY: THE UNMENTIONED ABUSE In addition to exploiting
animals for food, clothing, entertainment, product testing, and biomedical
research, some people put animals to a use so heinous that its name is seldom
mentioned. That name is bestiality. Author Carol J. Adams explores its
frequency and varieties and its implications for our society.
Four years ago someone broke into the Buttonwood Zoo in New Bedford,
Massachusetts, sexually assaulted a
whitetailed deer, then bludgeoned her unmercifully. The deer, a two-year old
female named Rachel, died two
days later at the Tufts University-New England Veterinary Medical Center in
Grafton. Authorities said she had
been raped and beaten with a blunt object. "This is the saddest story I can
remember," said Dana Souza, New
Bedford's parks superintendent, to the Associated Press. "There's just a
tremendous about of outrage that an
individual could beat and sexually assault an animal."
Bestiality: The Unmentioned Abuse
The term bestiality actually tells us much more about cultural attitudes
toward animals than it does about sex with animals. Concern about bestiality
generally focuses on human beings; thus experts tell us it is usually
harmless while debating its frequency. If we call it forced sex with animals,
we reclaim the animal's perspective as a central concern. It is more
prevalent than we can measure and is not harmless; it is always animal abuse.
The American Heritage Dictionary, to cite just one example, defines
bestiality as "the quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal;
conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality; or sexual relations
between a human being and an animal." Sex with an animal is the last
definition of bestiality, while the first two definitions remind us of our
culture's general low regard for animals.
The multiple meanings for bestiality are part of the problem, implying that
bestiality itself is animal behaviour. It keeps the "beast" in bestiality.
(See sidebar "Acting Like an Animal.") Animals do not have a distinction
between public versus private. Often, people read animals' sexuality as
shamless (and inviting) because animals act sexually in "public." They are
then viewed as accessible because they have acted in a public manner.
Acting like an Animal
For many centuries negative attitudes toward sexuality have been registered
by viewing sex as something that resulted from one's base instincts, that
is, as something that reduced a human being to an animal. During the Middle
Ages-- when capital punishment was prescribed for both the animals and the
human involved in bestiality-- many people thought that the serpent in the
Garden of Eden had introduced Eve to sex.
This belief led to a debate about whether Eve and the serpent had actually
had intercourse, and left the strong impression that sexual intercourse
itself was bestial. Acting sexually was thus considered acting like an
animal.
This attitude is evident today when aggessive sexual behaviour is referred to
as "bringing out the beast in one" or
"wolfish behaviour" or "animal passions." Indeed, it appears that one reason
the missionary position was upheld
as the position for intercourse was because it was accomplished face to face
rather than face to back, as most
animals did it.
C.J.A.
In its narrowest sense, bestiality involves intercourse, either vaginal or
anal, with an animal; but bestiality can also include oral-genital contact of
any kind between humans and animals.
The animals who people have access to are the animals who will be sexually
used: cats, dogs, sheep, cows, hens, rabbits, goats, ducks, horses, bulls,
fishes. Proximity allows for sexual access. This is the primary reason
gorillas, chimpanzees, and others are not prevalent sex objects: they are not
animals to whom humans have regular access.
Many forms of sexual contact between humans and animals are physically
destructive to the animals. Few vaginas, especially those of young animals,
are large enough to accommodate the penis of a male Homo sapiens.
Furthermore, small animals often experience torn rectums and internal
bleeding after being sexually assaulted; chickens and rabbits are often
killed by the act itself. Sadistic sexual behavior against animals also
occurs. Chickens are frequently decapitated because this intensifies the
convulsions of the sphincter, thereby increasing the sexual pleasure of the
man. Even when it does not involve sadism, bestiality is animal abuse because
it is forced sex.
Silence is a major problem. Unlike most forms of sexual contact, in which
either partner can report the experience, only one of the participants in
bestiality can talk; and becuase of the stigma surrounding bestiality, that
party usually remains silent. Since bestiality is most often something that
occurs in private, no one need ever learn about it. So we do not know how
widespread it is.
Several attempts have been made to uncover an accurate rate of human attempts
to have forced sex with animals: by the German psychiatrist Richard von
Krafft-Ebing in the 1880s, in the U.S. bu Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues in
the late 1940s and, more recently, by sociologists at the University of
Chicago in 1994. These studies have variously estimated that the percentage
of males who engage in bestiality is between one and 65 percent. This wide
range probably reflects less about how often bestiality occurs than it does
about how bestiality is defined and measured as well as different levels of
confidence in answers given by respondants when interviewed either in person
or in anonymous questionnaires. In short, we can say almost nothing about the
percentage of the population that engages in bestiality.
There are three kinds of sex that humans impose on animals: opportunistic or
safety-valve sex, fixated sex, and
domineering sex. (See sidebar "Types of Sex with Animals".)
Types of Sex with Animals 1.Opportunistic or Safety-Valve Sex "I need a
sexual release ... they're available ... there are no human partners around
... I'll get it with an animal." 2.Fixated Sex Animals become love objects
and are the exclusive sexual "partners" for a human. 3.Domineering Sex When
batterers, rapists and pornographers force sex between a human and an animal
for purposes of humiliation, sexual exploitation, dominance and control.
C.J.A.
Safety-valve sex is often seen as a casual act of the curious young, as sexual
exploration rather than deviancy.
The notion of bestiality as a safety valve that operates until the (usually
young) men are ready for women leads
one to ask whether the women to whom these young men graduate are not safety
valves, too. Moreover, this
form of bestiality is not a harmless aberration. Animals are harmed in
safety-valve bestiality, and humans learn that
it is okay to treat others as safety valves.
In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the
exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires. Although many medical terms have
been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind
of sex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word borrowed, ironically, from
the animal protection community. The zoophile's worldview is similar to the
rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with
their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual
"partners" as well as themselves. Just as pedophiles differentiate between
those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of
course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual
abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of
these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.
Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the Internet
(alt.sex.bestiality), which provides
chilling examples of the bestialist's world. One person described having sex
with stray dogs and then dropping
them off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of bestiality that
occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A
third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse.
One cannot talk very long about sex with animals without noticing the gender
issues: Men are more likely to do it. Women are more likely to be
depicted--or to be forced into--doing it. This type of bestiality,
domineering sex, has long been used by batterers to degrade their partners.
Battered women's shelters around the country receive reports from women who
were forced to have sex with animals. One woman reported that her husband
would tie her up and force her to have intercourse with their family dog.
Then he would try to have intercourse with the dog while he forced the dog
inside his wife. Forced sex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish
women in Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political
prisoners in Chile.
Bestiality involving women occupies an entire genre in pornography. Bears,
snakes, dogs, and insects--to name just a few species of animals--have been
photographed or videotaped in a variety of sexual and sexualized positions
with women. Sex "clubs" around the globe offer live scenes of sex between
women and animals. Some towns along the U.S./Mexican border feature shows
"starring" women and donkeys. Women of color are often depicted with animals
as a way of enforcing the racist notion that women of color are insatiable.
Through pornography, dogs, snakes, and other animals, help a man picture
himself in the scene. What the pornography consumer claims to be fantasy, we
must regard as documentation of harm: a real woman must have a real snake
inside her for a photograph of a snake inside her to exist, a real woman must
give oral sex to a real bear in order for a photograph of a woman giving oral
sex to a bear to exist.
In addition to being used as a means of degrading women, bestiality figures
in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and of course, attitudes toward
animals. The imputation of bestilaity has been used to protray a specific
group of people as "others," to distance them from those making the charges.
Sometimes miscegenation (the mixing of races) is referred to as bestiality.
One group of American white supremacists believes that Jews are descended
from Cain, himself the offspring of Eve's coupling with the snake, while
Christians are descended from Abel, the child of Eve and Adam. European
colonizers and American slave owners believed that African women enjoyed
sexual intercourse with apes. European women charged with being witches were
accused of sexual congress with animals, and they--and their animal
companions--were killed. During the Middle Ages, Christians viewed
intercourse with Jews as a form of bestiality. Earlier this year, an Israeli
judicial official compared homosexuality to bestiality. This comparison
occurred, most probably, becuase homosexuality and bestiality are listed
together in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. Like masturbation, homosexuality
and bestiality are forms of nonprocreative sex. During a time when
childbearing was central to a people's survival, all forms of nonprocreative
sex would be condemned. Bestiality also violated the order of creation by
mixing categories--human and animal--that were meant to be separate and
distinct.
Recent views of bestiality as fairly benign have replaced these earlier
reactions, but no matter what the prevailing view of bestiality, it does not
consider the animals' perspectives at all. It is always animal abuse.
Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal
relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the
aspects of an animals' well being. Sexual relationships should occur between
peers where consent should be possible. Consent is when one can say no, and
that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality is the model
case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for
consent on the other.
Despite the omnipresence of animals in pornographic pictures and videos, the
animal protection community has
yet to identify bestiality as an animal abuse issue. Bestiality has been
studiously avoided by those who should be
discussing it--animal rights activists, veterinarians, anti-cruelty law
enforcement agents, and feminists. It is time to
put away our circumspection.
Carol J. Adams Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat , is the
co-editor with Josephine Donovan of Beyond Animals Rights: A Feminist Caring
Ethic for the Treatment of Animals (Continuum 1996) and Animals and Women:
Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Duke 1995).
Copyright ©1995 by Carol J. Adams
The Animals' Agenda INVESTIGATIVE Reporting Fund
Reader's contributions to The Animals' Agenda Investigative Reporting Fund
helped to make this exclusive article
possible.
Your Agenda
1.Help educate your veterinarian and local animal care agencies (animal
control, humane society, SPCA,
shelters, etc.) to recognize bestiality by providing them with copies of
this article.
2.Read Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin (Dutton) and The
Pornography of
Representation by Susanne Kappeler (Minnesota).
--
Visit our web site devoted to promoting education
and legislation against zoophilia/bestiality;
htt
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Remus Shepherd
> =Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
> = But if you can try to find a reason beyond 'it's just plain wrong',
> =would you care to discuss it? Not everyone supporting zoophilia on this
> =newsgroup is 'obviously sick'...and if you look in the earlier "Sex with
> =Animals" thread you'll find a lot of factual evidence, rather than
> If zoophiles are trying to promote bestiality on this newsgroup as a new
> alternate lifestyle everyone should ignore and/or accept because you say so,
> forget that idea.
I'm not trying to promote bestiality as any type of alternative lifestyle.
I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who habitually practice
bestiality -- have a psychological condition that is basically harmless.
It is harmless to themselves and harmless to their animals, and no legal
strictures nor medical treatments are indicated nor necessary.
If you do any research, you'll find that the vast majority of the
psychological and legal community agrees: Bestiality is rare, animal abuse
is already properly accounted for by law, and zoophilia in and of itself
is not a serious condition. Criminologists and psychologists are of the
opinion that this just isn't a big deal.
And if anyone -- even you -- wishes to discuss zoophilia, then I'll
gladly hear their opinions. But any irrational opinions such as 'it's
just plain wrong' aren't going to help discussion. If you bring reasoned
opinions to the table, we can have a reasonable talk about the subject.
Come on. I've got reams of research from respected professionals.
Surely you (or anyone?) has one well-thought out, logical reason for
your adverse reactions to bestiality and zoophilia. If so, bring them
out and let's talk. I'm capable of having a reasonable discussion;
I hope you are as well.
... ...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Name withheld by request
> My wife and I run several web sites devoted to
> promoting legislation and education against all gratification sexual contacts
> with animals.
Why do you waste time on persecuting zoophiles which make up such a very
small portion of the small minority of humans who live sexual lifestyles
different from your own?
Let me suggest that you go after a clear majority of rampant sexual
offenders. Those many many so called upright men and women who are living
within the sanctimony of marriage. Those many many men and women who
attend churches with their spouses and children. They may even be
counselors, ministers or even the president of the United States. What do
the majority of these so called upright moral majority breeders do wrong?
They commit adultry. They lie. They steal. They cheat. Many of them lead
secret lives doing the very sexual acts that they persecute others for in
public.
Why I'll bet it even goes on amongst the members of the very church you
attend you self righteous stone thrower you. Maybe even your own wife.
One last thing you AOLer---learn how to use UNSENET before you run your
useless campaigns. It took more time for me to edit out the usless text
you left behind in the preceeding post idiot.
Bareback
pro4a...@aol.com
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> > =Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
> > = But if you can try to find a reason beyond 'it's just plain wrong',
> > =would you care to discuss it? Not everyone supporting zoophilia on this
> > =newsgroup is 'obviously sick'...and if you look in the earlier "Sex with
> > =Animals" thread you'll find a lot of factual evidence, rather than
>
> > If zoophiles are trying to promote bestiality on this newsgroup as a new
> > alternate lifestyle everyone should ignore and/or accept because you say so,
> > forget that idea.
>
> I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who habitually practice
> bestiality -- have a psychological condition
Yes, you *are* promoting it by posting your 'pro zoophile' material here
calling it a harmless act when in fact it is sexual abuse of animals who
cannot comprehend or consent as humans do. Animals do not have 'sex' they
mate, during specific breeding seasons not for recreational purposes.
Now if you want to claim animals solicit sex from humans, I can direct you
all to a web page for Missy the cloned dog who was in the news. Missy is
pictured on a cute photo page, one photo happens to be of Missy humping her
owner's leg. Missy is *spayed*, and over age 11. The female owner says Missy
does this as a dominance thing and when she is excited- it is *not*
soliciting sex!
> If you do any research, you'll find that the vast majority of the
> psychological and legal community agrees: Bestiality is rare
Well, if the 28,000 completed sexuality surveys on survey.net are any clue,
it indicates an interest and participation of about 4%, also, if this is so
rare, then how come a simple search for zoophile picks up hundreds of
zoophile's personal web sites?! We don't include the commercial porn sites in
this either..
Activists have closed 32 of the personal web sites this month so far
alone.
, animal abuse
> is already properly accounted for by law,
No, it is *not* covered by the law against animal abuse, because for a law to
be used to charge you for a crime, it must state what is included. Most
animal abuse laws only specifically include wording on such things as food,
water, shelter, vet care, temperatures etc., Bestiality in the 30 states that
outlaw it is under the sodomy laws, although some states have it as an animal
abuse law. We are working on legislative efforts to change this to adding
gratification sexual contact with animals as a specific offense in existing
animal abuse laws. Fortunately the Humane Society of the US and other groups
are now very interested in this issue.
> is not a serious condition. Criminologists and psychologists are of the
> opinion that this just isn't a big deal.
Those two professions are not concerned with animal related issues, so
naturally to them it is not a big issue! You did fail to mention criminology
professor and author of the journal; "Theoretical criminology" considers
bestiality/zoophilia to be inter-species sexual assault! Furthermore, he
states there are background similarities between zoophiles and pedophiles-
the same thing is backed up by an article in "The Animals Agenda" titled
"Bestiality: The unmentioned abuse"
> And if anyone -- even you -- wishes to discuss zoophilia, then I'll
> gladly hear their opinions. But any irrational opinions such as 'it's
> just plain wrong' aren't going to help discussion.
It's just plain wrong!
> Come on. I've got reams of research from respected professionals.
> Surely you (or anyone?) has one well-thought out, logical reason for
> your adverse reactions to bestiality and zoophilia. If so, bring them
> out and let's talk. I'm capable of having a reasonable discussion;
> I hope you are as well.
Animals don't care about your research papers, especially when they are being
raped.. But thanks for offering to further spread your promotional efforts to
gain public acceptance so zoophiles can have existing laws removed and thus,
be able to have sex with animals with no accountability or laws to stand in
the way.
Why not let this text from a now defunct zoophile web site show where their
thinking is on this?
They are against neuter/spay, and willingly allow mixed breed dogs to beed and
produce unwanted litters so they can have "fun"
Here is where one says zoophiles should be in charge of the laws on this;
=============
Go ahead and make your own picture of how animals are treated in our <BR>
society! But do it! Don’t just watch what they show on television and <BR>
think you will do it some day!<BR>
To me it is clear as sunshine that real zoophiles should be elected <BR>
above all others as the real animal protectionists! I believe they <BR>
should not only be responsible for their own animals but also in charge <BR>
of some minimal laws and their enforcement against animal cruelty (not <BR>
only sexual rape!) because someone has to take responsibility for the <BR>
animals that live under the domination of homo sapiens and it's <BR>
consequences!<BR>
======================= Much like having the fox guard the henhouse, these
people can't even agree on a newsgroup moderator without a major fight and
this one proposes they be in charge of laws! And the strange anti- castration
text: =======================
>The first question:<br>Why the heartless mutilation of the sexual organs of a
stallion is supposed to be good:<p>This assumption origins to great parts in
two main lies, which both stem from (the experience of) those people who
generally had stallions for the last couple of hundred years: The
horse-breeders.<p>Lie number 1:<br>Your horse is happier without its
testicles.<br>(What an outrageous lie!)<p>Now why do people (especially men)
find it so easy, to believe in this lie, considering, that they themselves
would never part of their own?<br>- Because most humans don't like to hear a
horny stallion "scream" for love and sex.<br>But then, it's not very nice to
hear a child scream for its mothers' breast either... - Does this mean we
should all cut our children’s' vocal chords ?<br>Hardly! It means we should
try to remove the cause (hunger, need for sexual satisfaction and
compassion), not the symptom ("screaming" - or whatever other “vices“ might
be displayed...)!<br>Now I don't think cutting vocal chords or testicles off
of an individual does much to still hunger or sexually pleasure an
individual. - Do you?<br>At best, it could only satisfy the lazy egoism of
short-sighted humans.<p>Lie number 2:<br>Since horses generally enjoy life
more, when they can interact socially as much as possible with other beings,
which are as horse-like as possible (horses), it is "cruel" to deny your
stallion this pleasure (as if sex weren't a pleasure to males...). And hence,
since it is not possible, to keep intact male horses together in groups, the
balls need to be cut off, to allow your horse (now "gelding") this
pleasure...<p>Well, where's the lie you might ask...?<br>- It's that intact
male horses can't be kept together in groups.<br>Stallions (of all ages)
which do not breed, can be kept together with other stallions without any
problems, as long as none of them get the idea, that they might actually be
able to get laid with a mare and as long as they don't personally really hate
eachother (yes, it happens, just like among (To these people stallions are
probably ALL criminals, before their vulnerable sexual organs are sliced
bloody open and their testicles squeezed out into the open air, only to be
cut off with a sharp knife or castrating pliers... And probably many animals
remain to be criminals in the eyes of these people, even after having been
punished with the permanent mutilation and destruction of their sexuality...
(maybe that damn penis must go too?...))<p>In other words: Fighting AGAINST
consensual sexuality and FOR animals (or their *rights*) does not mix at all,
because adult animals ARE meant to be sexual beings, with an untouchable
dignity and an own will.<br>(And no amount of castration, sexual destruction,
destruction of the animals’ personality or any other mutilation will change
anything about that.)<p>How can someone who actually cuts the sexual organs
(or has them cut) off of a live animal possibly ever be expected to face them
with sufficient respect and to (at least) acknowledge their true own will,
untouchable dignity and only-to-God-known mission and destiny in
life?<p>Maybe God created humans to serve horses as much as he created horses
to serve humans?<br>Who are you to say no? ?<br>He gave humans two sensitive
and skillful hands which allow us to physically caress and pleasure horses in
many ways.<br>He gave humans great intelligence and imagination, which allow
us to mentally pleasure horses and think of better ways to make horses
happy.<br>If we are indeed in a true partnership with horses, as many famous
horsepeople say, then horses have held up their part of the partnership for
the last couple of thousand years really good, by dieing for us in battle and
providing us with their strength, speed and friendship.<br>It can only be
proof of a good sense for harmony, to think that it's our turn now, to hold
up our part of the deal a little higher, to compensate...<br> <p>Whoever says
anything against, -or even mocks dedicated and well-intended zoosexual acts,
is in my eyes saying something against, -or even mocking my religion, and
God, and therefore asking for the most stupid thing there is: Religious
war.<p>Why can't humans live and let live?<p><br>A good horseman/woman sees
things from the standpoint of the horse:<p>Do we humans, from the standpoint
of the horse, have the "GOD-GIVEN" right to castrate horses, just because
their desire for sexual satisfaction and tenderness might distract some of
the (for human females) all-important romance from the horses’ relationship
to their lazy-handed owners, or just because it might lead us or our children
to "zoosexual" sympathy and actions?<p>Can a horseman/woman be "overly"
humble, to believe, that he/she is not so great before God as to be allowed
to claim this right?<p>Can a man or a woman be overly humble before
God?<p>Hardly... from the standpoint of the horse...<p><p><br>PS:<p>If you
feel this is "propaganda" for (zoo) love (uuh, yea... this might cause entire
governments to crumble...), then tell me, what it is, that many vets,
breeders and other "idiots" are doing, by spreading their ideals of
destroying things which grow naturally in God’s world full of beautiful
wonders... at: einho...@hotmail.com<p><br>Written in May and June, 1998 by
...
> Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > I'm not trying to promote bestiality as any type of alternative lifestyle.
> > I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who habitually practice
> > bestiality -- have a psychological condition
> Yes, you *are* promoting it by posting your 'pro zoophile' material here
> calling it a harmless act when in fact it is sexual abuse of animals who
> cannot comprehend or consent as humans do.
Not everyone would comsider my posts here 'pro zoophile' -- I'm
maintaining that they are psychologically damaged individuals. I have not
talked about consent, and I have been firmly against animal abuse. I don't
think you're actually reading anything anyone else posts.
> > If you do any research, you'll find that the vast majority of the
> > psychological and legal community agrees: Bestiality is rare
> Well, if the 28,000 completed sexuality surveys on survey.net are any clue,
> it indicates an interest and participation of about 4%, also, if this is so
> rare, then how come a simple search for zoophile picks up hundreds of
> zoophile's personal web sites?!
Bestiality is rare when compared to real animal abuse (beatings,
insufficient food and water, unhygienic conditions, etc.). If you truly
cared about animals, you'd spend your efforts combating those tragedies
instead of an activity that is seldom harmful.
> > animal abuse is already properly accounted for by law,
> No, it is *not* covered by the law against animal abuse, because for a law to
> be used to charge you for a crime, it must state what is included. Most
> animal abuse laws only specifically include wording on such things as food,
> water, shelter, vet care, temperatures etc.
That's what I said. If an animal is abused, the owner is already legally
accountable. Bestiality in and of itself does not constitute abuse. Laws
exist to protect the animal from being harmed or cared for badly. (Although
I think those laws should be strengthened.)
> > is not a serious condition. Criminologists and psychologists are of the
> > opinion that this just isn't a big deal.
> Those two professions are not concerned with animal related issues, so
> naturally to them it is not a big issue! You did fail to mention criminology
> professor and author of the journal; "Theoretical criminology" considers
> bestiality/zoophilia to be inter-species sexual assault!
You've found one criminologist with ties to animal activist groups,
and even he says that bestiality should not be rendered illegal. I've
asked you this before -- did you actually *read* that article you keep
quoting?
> Furthermore, he
> states there are background similarities between zoophiles and pedophiles-
I've never denied there are similarities. Both groups have paraphilias;
so do transvestites, fetishists, and voyeurs. There are similarities
between all these groups, just as there are significant differences.
> > And if anyone -- even you -- wishes to discuss zoophilia, then I'll
> > gladly hear their opinions. But any irrational opinions such as 'it's
> > just plain wrong' aren't going to help discussion.
> It's just plain wrong!
Thank you for your attempt at rational discussion. Try to form a
logical argument to support your fanaticism, Mike. If you can't do
any better than this, I don't see how we can have a discussion about
these topics.
Rat & Swan
> Activists have closed 32 of the personal web sites this month so far
> alone.
How? Why? I'm horrified at the idea that someone would
try to censor free expression in this way. Even if one
disapproves of sexual _acts_ with animals, how can an
animal be injured by a screen with words on it? How can
there be any rational discussion or examination of the
issue if all pro-zoophile speech is stifled?
What you are doing undermines the very basis of a free
society. I condemn it in the strongest terms.
Rat
pro4a...@aol.com
lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Activists have closed 32 of the personal web sites this month so far
> > alone.
>
> try to censor free expression in this way.
Of course only a zoophile or a supporter would make a statement this way about
sex with animals in any way, shape or form being a "freedom of speech" issue!
If the page was devoted to promoting pedophilia would you be making the same
statements? So, if not, then why would the fact the victim is an animal make
any difference in a speech freedom issue like this?
Web sites promoting this encourage people to experiment, and they promote
more of the same sickness.
> Even if one
> disapproves of sexual _acts_ with animals, how can an
> animal be injured by a screen with words on it? How can
> there be any rational discussion or examination of the
> issue if all pro-zoophile speech is stifled?
There can be no discussion at all on the topic of sex with animals rational
or otherwise, there simply is *no* justification or excuse or examination any
more than there should be of sexual abuse of 5 year old girls by the next
door neighbor.
> What you are doing undermines the very basis of a free
> society. I condemn it in the strongest terms.
>
Good, tell that to the zoophiles who insist on placing web sites on servers
that such as geocities, tripod, angelfire etc specifically forbid graphic sex
text, illegal activities and especially animal sex! The server *owner* is the
ultimate decider, he/she doesn't want these animal sex sites on there server
you can cry free speech till the cows come home but the page goes bye bye.
You can have free speech, no one is saying anyone can't- just don't put this
trash promoting bestiality on servers that have service terms against this
abuse. They would not allow pedophile sites, nor should they allow zoophile
sites. Mike
Beauwolfe
pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> Of course only a zoophile or a supporter would make a statement this way about
> sex with animals in any way, shape or form being a "freedom of speech" issue!
Wrong answer. I am neither a zoophile nor a supporter, but I DO see prohibiting
the talking of it as a freedom of speech issue. Called censorship.
> There can be no discussion at all on the topic of sex with animals rational
> or otherwise, there simply is *no* justification or excuse or examination any
> more than there should be of sexual abuse of 5 year old girls by the next
> door neighbor.
I've heard the same words used in relation to God, christianity, abortion, guns,
drugs, rock and roll, etc. Any prohibition or censorship on the discussion of
things is repugnent and flies in the face of the Constitutional right to free
speech.
For the record, by your logic, their could also never be a court case brought
against a pedophile who abused that hypathetical 5 year old girl, for by your
rules, the case could not be discussed even in the courtroom.
> You can have free speech, no one is saying anyone can't- just don't put this
> trash promoting bestiality on servers that have service terms against this
> abuse.
That is the only part you've gotten accurate. Contractual agreements are binding.
Rat & Swan
> lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > I'm horrified at the idea that someone would
> > try to censor free expression in this way.
<snip>
> If the page was devoted to promoting pedophilia would you be making the same
> statements?
Yes -- and I have done so. I would also make the same
statements about the loathsome "Rev." Phelps "God Hates
Fags" web page and the anti-choice sites. My stand on
free speech is consistent and absolute. Censorship is
wrong in _any_ situation.
> You can have free speech, no one is saying anyone can't- just don't put this
> trash promoting bestiality on servers that have service terms against this
> abuse. They would not allow pedophile sites, nor should they allow zoophile sites.
So you are saying economics should determine who has effective
free speech -- if you can't find or afford a server who agrees
with your views, your voice must be stilled. It is still
censorship. You are legally correct but morally wrong.
The equal exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
should not depend on how much money or influence we have,
or how conventional our opinions are.
Rat
Rat & Swan
If anyone is trying to set up an organized opposition
to these little fascists, I'd be happy to help. Feel
free to contact me.
Rat
Martin Martens
>
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
[...]
> > If the page was devoted to promoting pedophilia would you be making the same
> > statements?
>
> Yes -- and I have done so. I would also make the same
> statements about the loathsome "Rev." Phelps "God Hates
> Fags" web page and the anti-choice sites. My stand on
> free speech is consistent and absolute. Censorship is
> wrong in _any_ situation.
FIRE! FIRE! <rumble, rumble, rumble> <trample, trample, trample>
Not withstanding the fact that free speech is not an absolute, I don't
think that the Son of Sam should be profiting from his crimes. Or that
we should be allowing sex shows to go on in grade schools as part of the
lunch entertainment.
-Martin
[...]
Tall Thin Jones
First, let's get one message to Zoobluster's handlers: He will
kill you. It just hasn't happened yet. He has killed his lovers
before, and with you he will graduate to humans. Think about it. In a
year or two you will be calling me right.
Audience: Zoobluster's diatribes come not from a genuine zoophile
who cares for his animals, but from an animal abuser who takes animals
as lovers so he can eventually murder them. I'm told he has killed
three dogs. Christian conversion or no, this hardly makes him any kind
of authority on zoophilia.
The article that he keeps distributing appears to be the only one
he has. It's not about zoophilia as much as it is about animal abuse.
It is also poorly constructed, disconnected, and rambling. Read the
article critically, and ask yourself, what does the author actually know
about her subject? She claims that "bestiality", presumably
human-animal sexual contacts, is "always harmful" but, outside of the
obvious problem that some animals are too small, nowhere in the
article does she say why. She also seems to claim that animals that
are large enough physically are harmed, but does not support that claim.
This passage is, the way it is written, an outright lie:
Pr> Many forms of sexual contact between humans and animals are physically
Pr> destructive to the animals. Few vaginas, especially those of young
Pr> animals, are large enough to accommodate the penis of a male Homo
Pr> sapiens. Furthermore, small animals often experience torn rectums and
Pr> internal bleeding after being sexually assaulted; chickens and rabbits
Pr> are often killed by the act itself. Sadistic sexual behavior against
Pr> animals also occurs. Chickens are frequently decapitated because this
Pr> intensifies the convulsions of the sphincter, thereby increasing the
Pr> sexual pleasure of the man. Even when it does not involve sadism,
Pr> bestiality is animal abuse because it is forced sex.
The use of the words "frequently" and "often" is unqualified by any
reference to any observation of the behavior described. I know more
about where she got this, especially because the preceding paragraph was
plagiarized from a popular book on human sexuality. The rabbits with
the torn rectums were the work of one human who I would not call a
zoophile, it might have been "often" in that village and that lifetime,
but I've never heard of anyone else doing it. The decapitation of large
fowl while fucking that fowl was not a zoophile pleasure, it was
something that vacationing businessmen did at brothels in Turkey and
elsewhere.
In actual zoophile practice, the vaginas of the animals are large
enough to admit a much larger penis, introduced much more roughly than a
human can manage. Male dogs have a swelling at the bases of their
penises that makes their breadth comparable to that of ponies and
horses. In fact a large enough male dog has a knot that is fully as
large, engorged, as the shaft of the penis of a draft horse, and that
damned thing does go in to the bitch. There aren't many dogs, down to
the miniature size, that don't have larger penises than the average
human.
Horses and cows are obviously able to take much larger than human
penises. Deer, goats, and sheep have to be able to give birth to babies
who are large enough to walk. That makes a birth canal that is, again,
much larger than a human penis.
Much of the article can be proven to be factually incorrect, where
enough coherency exists to make such evaluation possible.
The author also makes use of a common fallacy. She appears to
embrace the opinions of researchers who agree with her own opinions,
while gracelessly dismissing the opinions of those who say otherwise,
the second group being equally qualified.
It's worse than that, though! She isn't presenting the opposing
opinions of different researchers. Here she projects her own opinion in
a manner that almost makes it appear that noted authorities share that
opinion:
Pr> Several attempts have been made to uncover an accurate rate of human
Pr> attempts to have forced sex with animals: by the German psychiatrist
Pr> Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 1880s, in the U.S. bu Alfred Kinsey and
Pr> his colleagues in the late 1940s and, more recently, by sociologists at
Pr> the University of Chicago in 1994. These studies have variously
The only opinion that she presented as coming from a given
authority was the opinion that somewhere between 1 percent of the
population and 65 percent of the population had tried sexual contact
with a non-human animal.
The funny thing is that this Carol Adams expects to be listened
to. She's not a very good writer. Her essays don't cohere to make any
sensible thesis--they are too long for the little information that is
conveyed.
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
pro4a...@aol.com
lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> > > I'm horrified at the idea that someone would
> > > try to censor free expression in this way.
>
> <snip>
> > statements?
>
> Yes -- and I have done so. I would also make the same
> statements about the loathsome "Rev." Phelps "God Hates
> Fags" web page and the anti-choice sites. My stand on
I had a hunch you would say that, as it figures, those who help zoophiles are
usually of a frame of mind that they have fantasies of trying it themselves.
Once one taboo is crossed and rationalised as say- NAMBLA, it is easy to
cross and justify all the others.
Unfortunately here you overlook that the animals have no say in the matter.
> > You can have free speech, no one is saying anyone can't- just don't put this
> > trash promoting bestiality on servers that have service terms against this
> > abuse. They would not allow pedophile sites, nor should they allow zoophile sites.
>
> So you are saying economics should determine who has effective
> free speech -- if you can't find or afford a server who agrees
> with your views, your voice must be stilled. It is still
I hate to say it, but welcome to the real world, you cannot yell fire in a
theater when none exists. The server owner owns the machines and the
connections, you *rent* the use of them much like you rent an apartment or
house. If the renting agent doesn't approve of something, it is their
*rights* not to be stepped on by others using machines they own and maintain.
Your rights to free speech stop when you promote violent things like sexual
molestation of animals, children etc.
If someone cant afford a server of their own, then they have other means to
express themselves- newsgroups are free, so is email. People don't *need* a
web site to express themselves, people have expressed themselves for
thousands of years with out web sites.
> censorship. You are legally correct but morally wrong.
> The equal exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
> should not depend on how much money or influence we have,
> or how conventional our opinions are.
Hello, reality check, Again, welcome to the real world where many things
should or should not be but are. Children shouldn't die in car accidents for
lack of a car seat, animals shouldn't die in shelters for lack of homes, but
they do. Mike
pro4a...@aol.com
lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
Thank you, we now know you are one of the animal molesters, and/or
desire to help animal rapists further their cause to promote animal sex abuse.
Good luck, you'll need it.
Mike
Rat & Swan
> I had a hunch you would say that, as it figures, those who help zoophiles are
> usually of a frame of mind that they have fantasies of trying it themselves.
Perhaps it is that those who try to help people whose
rights of free speech are being trampled on by two-bit
fascists might also like to exercise free speech themselves.
> Unfortunately here you overlook that the animals have no say in the matter.
It is not the non-human animals who are posting on
websites.
<snip>
> The server owner owns the machines and the
> connections, you *rent* the use of them much like you rent an apartment or
> house. If the renting agent doesn't approve of something, it is their
> *rights* not to be stepped on by others using machines they own and maintain.
Actually, the law has determined you are incorrect on the
rent issue -- the owner must not discriminate in renting
for non-economic reasons, at least here in California.
I assume you think it is morally just to refuse
to rent an apartment to a black person if you are a
racist bigot. Same argument.
> Your rights to free speech stop when you promote violent things like sexual
> molestation of animals, children etc.
No. Our legal system has consistently ruled that
advocacy is legitimate, even if action is not.
Rat
Barry O'Grady
:In article <36375A...@pacbell.net>,
: lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
:> Rat & Swan wrote:
:>
:
:Thank you, we now know you are one of the animal molesters, and/or
:desire to help animal rapists further their cause to promote animal sex abuse.
:Good luck, you'll need it.
:Mike
How do you know he is not one of the good ones wanting to promote the
good side of zoophila?
Rat & Swan
> neither do you pipe-organ ex-buds on the pipeorg-l list. You do seem
> to have a knack for causing people to dislike you, I must admit.
So I've noticed. :-) Don't know why pipeorgans would be
involved, however. The only interest I've ever had in
pipeorgans is listening to them in church. Never posted
on or looked at any pipeorg list.
> Saint breeders club,the folks on rec.pets.dogs.misc, to whom you
> posted 250 or so times a repeated post saying nothing but "f**k you
> f**k you etc
Saint breeders -- hmm...sounds interesting. Does someone
actually breed saints? Has the Roman Catholic church heard
about this? If so, maybe they could start an in-house
breeding program and forget about looking for wild ones
to canonize.:-) Seriously, I know nothing about any
saint breeders club.
I've never posted on rec.pets.dogs.misc, and never used the
"F-word" in a post, as far as I can remember. Swan may
have posted on some dog list at some time, I don't know.
I think you have me confused with somebody else.
Rat
Rat & Swan
>
> Caballito wrote:
> > neither do you pipe-organ ex-buds on the pipeorg-l list. You do seem
> > to have a knack for causing people to dislike you, I must admit.
Swan here. I'm responding on Rat's post because the first one is lost.
First, neither of us have any interest or knowledge of pipeorgans. I
didn't know such a group existed, nor do I care. We have never posted to
that group. *If* such posts occurred, they were the work of someone
else! Or they were forged.
Speaking of forgeries, I know that people can go into DejaNews and add
or delete posts or make up things and claim them the work of others. I
do NOT know how to do this, neither does Rat and it would be a BASIC
violation of the free sppech rights of others to DO so. However I
*have* noted that my posts to one group, several months ago, were forge
cancelled. Anyone who forges another's posts, or cancels others' posts
is a low, sneaky, cowardly piece of Net trash who is too afraid of the
ideas of others to fight fairly! They are *beneath* contempt! If you
have proof that we have forge cancelled OR spammed ANY newsgroup, I
invite you to take it to the net.abuse groups or complain to our server!
Feel free! Every message to the Internet has an identifying number, an
address string that IDENTIFIES its origin, and upstream ISP. That
identification will prove what I already know. We have not done these
things.
> > Saint breeders club,the folks on rec.pets.dogs.misc, to whom you
> > posted 250 or so times a repeated post saying nothing but "f**k you
> > f**k you etc
I gather you mean Saint Bernards? Again, we have never heard of the
group, nor posted to them. I invite you to *find* a message on there
from us and post it here! When did this supposedly occur? The posts Rat
states that I have made are on rec,pets.dogs.behavior and they were
answers to questions about guide dog work. People wanted to know if
guide dogs *understand* traffic laws and if they follow traffic lights.
I explained that the dogs work in segmented actions: curb to curb, goal
to goal and the human partner is responsible for orientation and
decision making. When the thread ended, I left.
Again, feel free to track down any supposed forgings by us! Follow the
address linkages back upstream and you will find that we have done none
of this.
It is easy... VERY easy to accuse a person of something! It's easy to
say that so-and-so had sex with whozits, or that joe blow was abducted
by aliens. All it takes is a few keystrokes. It's also the last refuge
of a person too lazy or too dim to think of any better tactic... or of
someone who HAS no truth to stand on! IF these so-called posts by
either of us exist, PRODUCE them, AND their address train and
identifiers. PROVE your accusations, please. Or sit down!
Swan
Remus Shepherd
> > Caballito wrote:
> > > neither do you pipe-organ ex-buds on the pipeorg-l list. You do seem
> > > to have a knack for causing people to dislike you, I must admit.
> > > posted 250 or so times a repeated post saying nothing but "f**k you
> > > f**k you etc
> I gather you mean Saint Bernards? Again, we have never heard of the
> group, nor posted to them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Rat and Swan...Caballito was addressing pro4animal,
also known as Zoobuster, who he believes was once a zoophile by the name
of Doglover. Doglover worked at restoring (repairing?) pipe organs,
and bred saint bernards, before he vanished...some would say, to return
as Zoobuster. I'm sure Caballito did not intend to accuse you of anything.
Tall Thin Jones
MM> Not withstanding the fact that free speech is not an absolute, I don't
How so?
MM> think that the Son of Sam should be profiting from his crimes. Or that
He should not, perhaps, but it isn't worth abridging his civil
rights.
MM> we should be allowing sex shows to go on in grade schools as part of
MM> the lunch entertainment.
It could be worse.
How many of your rights are you willing to give away to get rid of
something that offends you? As long as you are willing to give away
your human rights for any reason, there is someone (like Leslie or
Zoobluster) who is willing to take them.
It isn't just your right to have sex with whoever wants you that
these people want to take. It isn't just this that you would lose. You
would lose the right to think your own thoughts.
As far as that goes, children are better off viewing the alleged
worst information on the net than having their access controlled.
Controlled access would inevitably control their view of the world, in
favor of the controllers.
Name withheld by request
> Unfortunately here you overlook that the animals have no say in the matter.
As far as sex is concerned? Wrong! Most animals know how to say no to
unwanted sexual advances.
There are many things that non-human animals have no say in. What
specifically comes to my mind is when, how and for what reasons we human
animals decide to put non-human animals to death. I don't think I have to
elaborate on this. You might consider this everytime you eat a hamburger
in a fast food joint.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
> Of course only a zoophile or a supporter would make a statement this way
> about sex with animals in any way, shape or form being a "freedom of
> speech" issue!
It could also be said of you that only a religiously reformed ex-zoophile
would be so agressive in his attacks on zoophiles. Is your soul in
torment over past deeds?
Bareback
Anonymous
> > How? Why? I'm horrified at the idea that someone would
> > try to censor free expression in this way.
>
> Of course only a zoophile or a supporter would make a statement this way about
> sex with animals in any way, shape or form being a "freedom of speech" issue!
Not to mention that you yourself have had sex with your dog. Got the pics to prove
it too.
> If the page was devoted to promoting pedophilia would you be making the same
> statements? So, if not, then why would the fact the victim is an animal make
> any difference in a speech freedom issue like this?
>
> Web sites promoting this encourage people to experiment, and they promote
> more of the same sickness.
A "sickness" you share.
> There can be no discussion at all on the topic of sex with animals rational
> or otherwise, there simply is *no* justification or excuse or examination any
> more than there should be of sexual abuse of 5 year old girls by the next
> door neighbor.
No discussion with irrational fanatics like you.
Sanford G. Fogg
Rat & Swan
<snip>
Rat wrote:
> > No. Our legal system has consistently ruled that
> > advocacy is legitimate, even if action is not.
>
> Advocacy does not include promoting harm to innocent others,
Sure it does. Look up the Skokie case, as an example.
And the anti-choice people argue advocating abortion
rights qualifies. The list of examples is endless.
> But most zoophiles are too cheap to pay for their own web space, so they abuse
> all the free ones, or in one case- they get a friend to foot the bill.
Hmmm...how much does web space cost? Maybe a lot of
people can't _afford_ web space, I don't know. We're
back to the Golden Rule again -- him as gots the gold
makes the rules. Bad for freedom.
Rat
pro4a...@aol.com
lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I had a hunch you would say that, as it figures, those who help zoophiles
are
> > usually of a frame of mind that they have fantasies of trying it themselves.
>
> Perhaps it is that those who try to help people whose
> rights of free speech are being trampled on by two-bit
> fascists might also like to exercise free speech themselves.
>
> > The server owner owns the machines and the
> > connections, you *rent* the use of them much like you rent an apartment or
> > house. If the renting agent doesn't approve of something, it is their
> > *rights* not to be stepped on by others using machines they own and
maintain.
> Actually, the law has determined you are incorrect on the
> rent issue -- the owner must not discriminate in renting
> for non-economic reasons, at least here in California.
Not on the internet bud, maybe on an apartment rental, but if you sign up for
an account and agree to the terms nearly every provider has regarding placing
obscene material for which they could be held liable for etc etc on web sites
on *their* servers, you have no recourse if you blunder ahead putting up
graphic how-to-have-sex-with-dogs FAQ files, and someone notifys the host who
closes the site.
> I assume you think it is morally just to refuse
> to rent an apartment to a black person if you are a
> racist bigot. Same argument.
If I were black, I wouldn't *want* to live in a white owned apartment where
the owner didn't want me there because I was black, I would give my money to
someone who does.
> > Your rights to free speech stop when you promote violent things like sexual
> > molestation of animals, children etc.
>
> No. Our legal system has consistently ruled that
> advocacy is legitimate, even if action is not.
Advocacy does not include promoting harm to innocent others, in this case
animal rape. But in any case, you have no case, because in the end the owners
of the machines on the net have the final say over content. Believe you me,
if we owned an ISP and we found an animal sex page on our server, not only
would your account be immediately deactivated, but all of the files and your
personal information would be forwarded to the FBI and law enforcement.
But most zoophiles are too cheap to pay for their own web space, so they abuse
all the free ones, or in one case- they get a friend to foot the bill.
Mike
pro4a...@aol.com
Name withheld by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Of course only a zoophile or a supporter would make a statement this way
> > about sex with animals in any way, shape or form being a "freedom of
> > speech" issue!
>
> would be so agressive in his attacks on zoophiles. Is your soul in
> torment over past deeds?
>
> Bareback
A lot of things, statements, and claims can be *said* about anyone, but those
who support those who rape animals under the guise of free speech- fool few.
As for the rest of your material, you know son, wouldn't it be wonderful if
an ex zoophile did that?!? I mean, it would indicate a sincere willingness to
change, get out of a perversion that drags people down, abuses animals, and
made changes upon their lives for the better?
Think about this too, it would also lend an extremely good amount of
additional validity to what they say as former participants who have inside
information on what really goes on behind the public relations propaganda
facade!
Now, if you know any zoophiles who want to quit abusing their animals, and
want to change their lives for the better, point them to some resources such
as those we have on our web site. The Goodrich sexuality treatment center is
a good start, as are the mental health resources links.
If just one zoophile decided to turn their life around, perhaps others may
follow! Someone once posted here or on the human sexuality group a while back
about this as a followup to a message similar to yours, the author more or
less said it would provide a very interesting study. The rest of his coments
are basically what we are saying above.
Stop living in the past with your posts, there isn't a person around who
remains the same their entire lives, and if all people do is bang people on
the head for things said and done ten, twenty, thirty, fourty years back in
the past nothing would ever improve!
One can cite these things and apply them to any aspect of humans- marriages,
divorces, insults, arguments and all the rest.
In my book, if someone *was* in ages past a rowdy teen who broke windows,
or an animal abuser, puppy mill owner, laboratory experimentor, and they
changed their lives, improved themselves etc, who cares what they *did*, when
the only things that really matter is what they *do*!
Society is full of ex-(insert lables here) from drug abusers to alcohol
abusers, bank robbers, rapists and you name it- some go on to use their
experiance and knowlege gained to make a positive difference, that is how
many great programs more or less got their start- "Scared straight" using
prison inmates to discourage teen offenders, MADD going out against drunk
driving, and many others too numerous to list. Who better to speak on such
issues than those who were directly involved in one way or another, as a
victim or as a rehabilitated offender!
So if you know any zoophiles who want to become ex-zoophiles, you know where
you should send them for help!
Mike
Remus Shepherd
> Name withheld by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
> As for the rest of your material, you know son, wouldn't it be wonderful if
> an ex zoophile did that?!? I mean, it would indicate a sincere willingness to
> change, get out of a perversion that drags people down, abuses animals, and
> made changes upon their lives for the better?
> Think about this too, it would also lend an extremely good amount of
> additional validity to what they say as former participants who have inside
> information on what really goes on behind the public relations propaganda
> facade!
Yeah, you're right about all of that. Except...it breaks down if a
certain ex-zoophile was an aberration. If that certain man was always an
animal abuser, from setting fire to kittens in his childhood, to killing
his own dogs as an adult. If that certain zoo was always evil and insane,
shunned by other zoos who knew what poison he was...well, then, that
zoo would have a seriously warped view of what the whole thing was about.
And I can see that guilt of what he had done causing him to undergo
a radical conversion. Psychologists would call it overcompensation; a
desire to forget the past, and 'make things right', by imagining the
activities he despised everywhere, and eradicating them at any cost and
with any tactics. Such a person would be just as dangerous as he was
in his youth; only this time, he'd be directing his rage against people.
He'd hurt people not because of anything they'd have done; he'd hurt people
just because they'd remind him of himself...with hurting himself being
his subconscious goal.
And all the time, in his righteous fanaticism, that ex-zoophile would
never consider the truth: That it was never the whole group of zoophiles
who were dangerously psychopathically insane. That all along, it was
always, only, him.
Boy. Now THAT would be a tragedy.
pro4a...@aol.com
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> > As for the rest of your material, you know son, wouldn't it be wonderful if
> > an ex zoophile did that?!? I mean, it would indicate a sincere willingness
to
> > change, get out of a perversion that drags people down, abuses animals, and
> > made changes upon their lives for the better?
>
> > Think about this too, it would also lend an extremely good amount of
> > additional validity to what they say as former participants who have inside
> > information on what really goes on behind the public relations propaganda
> > facade!
>
> Yeah, you're right about all of that. Except...it breaks down if a
> certain ex-zoophile was an aberration. If that certain man was always an
> animal abuser, from setting fire to kittens in his childhood, to killing
> his own dogs as an adult. If that certain zoo was always evil and insane,
> shunned by other zoos who knew what poison he was...well, then, that
> zoo would have a seriously warped view of what the whole thing was about.
Correct, the "if" word applies well, of course the only problem with your
hypothetical statements, is court or newspaper account confirmation of
hear-say type materials from ages past. And even if they existed, would not
be applicable to today 1998 any more than a conviction for "Joes" drunk
driving in 1964 is applicable to Joe as he is today especially if he was not
drinking since then.
We already know that for people to have sex with animals they are already
mentally unstable, have extreme emotional and social problems- otherwise they
would never turn to rape of animals to begin with in adulthood and call it
"love" In scanning many zoophile web sites, we find many offerings of
autobiographical writings which are current and in place today which can be
read. Most all cite some kind of early childhood trauma such as sexual abuse,
neglect etc. So it clearly figures there are major psychological and anti
social problems which each of you have, along with self esteem problems and
probably phobias of interacting with other humans sexually.
All of the activities you mention would of course have been prosecuted and
caught by parents, school officials and others. Few teens or adults could set
fire to cats, kill dogs and do all that without someone noticing and taking
action early on.
> And I can see that guilt of what he had done causing him to undergo
> a radical conversion. Psychologists would call it overcompensation; a
> desire to forget the past, and 'make things right', by imagining the
> activities he despised everywhere, and eradicating them at any cost and
> with any tactics. Such a person would be just as dangerous as he was
> in his youth; only this time, he'd be directing his rage against people.
> He'd hurt people not because of anything they'd have done; he'd hurt people
> just because they'd remind him of himself...with hurting himself being
> his subconscious goal.
Very fascinating, are you a real psychologist or do you just play one on TV?!
This would be conjecture on your part, or on the part of anyone else who does
not live with another person and verify things personally as fact, and sees
what goes on with the person on a daily basis. Anyone can play crack
psychologist on the net, the problem begins when assuming one's actions have
specific motives or causes based on net postings, or what other people say.
Such a person would be unable to function either in real life or on the net.
As for my wife and I, we have a terrific marriage, and no guilt from
anything ever, because there is no reason for either of us to have guilt
over anything, shame that some people are not this way.
There *is* guilt on your part however, because we do remember seeing posts in
the archive with your current email address that spoke of finding a stray
lost or abandoned female dog on a country road and instead of helping her
find her home you raped her with the help of a female travel companion going
by the handle of "patro" or something like that, and then left her by the
side of the road. That would also be failure to help an animal in need.
I would have to search a bit for it, but I remember being appalled and
disgusted and in part it helped the process of our efforts along in the early
stages.
Our motives are to protect animals from your form of "love", which untill
this year had barely even been noticed by anyone, and certainly has been
ignored by animal right's groups as a whole untill now. We saw a need and a
niche that needed to be filled because no one was doing anything about this
in an organized fashion you see.
When it was announced that zoophiles were going on the Jerry Springer talk
show to spread this filth as an alternate lifestyle/sexual orientation that
society should accept like beihg straight, bi or gay. That was when we began
our campaign as a check against zoophile's increased promotion of this
perversion which has now spread itself all over the entire internet in every
forum there is. We also know zoophiles are attempting to remove existing
laws, so they can have sex with animals completely at will with no one
holding them accountable.
Unfortunately for your theory, it wouldn't make any difference because no
matter who brings the *issue* out, 99.9% of society knows this is bestiality,
it is disgusting, animal abuse, and they would never want their children
learing how to try it or getting additional ideas and contacts with adult
animal molesters by reading web sites on the net!
Also, religious fanaticism is a terrible thing as you infer, some people join
religious cults and groups such as the Jim Jones and the Branch Dividian
groups. What you cite would be the most amazing religious conversion that
ever took place in history since many of you appear to be athiests or
agnostic to begin with!
My wife and I however are neither religious fanatics, nor members of these
wierd cults. We are Episcopalians and have been most all our lives, that does
not mean we foist it or our beliefs on everyone else! We don't go around
promoting it nor trying to convert people. But somehow you people got the
idea from our web site that *had* a link we removed.. to two resources for
zoophiles to get help from, one being a sexual disorder treatment center, the
other being a link to the Episcopal church resources web site- that we were
somehow religious fanatics bent on a religious cruisade just because we
protest rape of animals!
We don't care what two *consenting humans* do in private, that is between
them and their God, we don't care about "obscenity" on the net either, so we
are not fighting against internet pornography beyond using it as a hinge to
further our cause. There are already umpteen anti-porn groups as it is
actively working on all of that- too much repetion there and with many animal
right's groups all working on exactly the same things is again too much
repetition.
Mike
Barry O'Grady
:I hate to say it, but welcome to the real world, you cannot yell fire in a
:theater when none exists.
I assure you that you can. I don't recommend you do so but it can be done.
Barry
Name withheld by request
> MM> we should be allowing sex shows to go on in grade schools as part of
> MM> the lunch entertainment.
> It could be worse.
It is. Just ask the man who installs metal detectors in schools.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>> Advocacy does not include promoting harm to innocent others,
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Sure it does. Look up the Skokie case, as an example.
> And the anti-choice people argue advocating abortion
> rights qualifies. The list of examples is endless.
You'll confuse him with "facts". Facts, truths and reallity are things
that hurt his efforts.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> Advocacy does not include promoting harm to innocent others, in this case
> animal rape. But in any case, you have no case, because in the end the owners
> of the machines on the net have the final say over content. Believe you me,
> if we owned an ISP and we found an animal sex page on our server, not only
> would your account be immediately deactivated, but all of the files and your
> personal information would be forwarded to the FBI and law enforcement.
There exists some pics of a man having sex with his St Bernard. Maybe they
should go to the feds. Awwww they probably have them already.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
> As for the rest of your material, you know son,
^^^
YOU are twisting and turning in the breeze. You have called me that under
the guise of many names including one you used on the Forest but I'll bet
you forgot about that one ---Eh?
Bareback
"Suicide is Painless"
Pristan Etallion
-> Yeah, you're right about all of that. Except...it breaks down if a
->certain ex-zoophile was an aberration. If that certain man was always an
->animal abuser, from setting fire to kittens in his childhood, to killing
->his own dogs as an adult. If that certain zoo was always evil and insane,
->shunned by other zoos who knew what poison he was...well, then, that
->zoo would have a seriously warped view of what the whole thing was about.
This is -too- poetic.
PN
--
The poet... may be used as a barometer, but let us not forget that he
is also part of the weather.
(Lionel Trilling)
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> > Name withheld by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
> > As for the rest of your material, you know son, wouldn't it be wonderful if
> > an ex zoophile did that?!? I mean, it would indicate a sincere willingness
to
> > change, get out of a perversion that drags people down, abuses animals, and
> > made changes upon their lives for the better?
>
> a radical conversion. Psychologists would call it overcompensation; a
> desire to forget the past, and 'make things right', by imagining the
> activities he despised everywhere, and eradicating them at any cost and
> with any tactics. Such a person would be just as dangerous as he was
> in his youth; only this time, he'd be directing his rage against people.
> He'd hurt people not because of anything they'd have done; he'd hurt people
> just because they'd remind him of himself...with hurting himself being
> his subconscious goal.
> Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Re: sex with animals
Author: Remus Shepherd
Email:re...@netcom.com
Date:1998/10/30
Forums: talk.politics.animals
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
== pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
==They can claim all they wish, we don't care, but in your case, you are
== *currently* using an email address which is shown in the archives
==currently,
== and previously as being a zoophile's . So your views here are hardly
==without bias, and is like a Fox guarding the hen house.
> I've admitted in previous posts that my views may be biased...that's
>why most of what I have brought to this discussion are hard facts and
>published research by psychologists and criminologists.
> I would say that society's *laws* should ignore any activity that does
>not cause harm -- mental, physical, or emotional -- to any of the
>farmboys do it all the time,
> and give it up when they find human dates.
==Yes, then they grow out of their childish play games, which unfortunately
==some never do, and they grow up to become the adult animal rapists we ==see
today on web sites promoting more of the same. ==These days though, the
"family farm" is rapidly becoming a novelty as ==factory farming and mass
commercial production outstrip and absorb those ==old
four-cows-one-tractor-one-family farms. So these "farmboys" as you ==call
them are rapidly becoming cityboys without animals.
From a previous post:
Author: Remus Shepherd
Email: re...@netcom.com
Date: 1998/10/21
Forums: talk.politics.animals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
> Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
> But if you can try to find a reason beyond 'it's just plain wrong',
> would you care to discuss it? Not everyone supporting zoophilia on this
> newsgroup is 'obviously sick'...and if you look in the earlier "Sex with
> I'm not trying to promote bestiality as any type of alternative >lifestyle.
>I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who habitually practice
>bestiality -- have a psychological condition
> And if anyone -- even you -- wishes to discuss zoophilia, then I'll
> Come on. I've got reams of research from respected professionals.
>Surely you (or anyone?) has one well-thought out, logical reason for
>your adverse reactions to bestiality and zoophilia. If so, bring them
>out and let's talk. I'm capable of having a reasonable discussion;
...
>Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
The first thought on this would be, if people here didn't know you were
one of the zoophiles, is, why would *you* have all these "reams" of supposed
"professional" material collected, devoted to promoting the concept that sex
with animals as something that we all should just accept and let be because
a handful of people say so. Seems to me you have an obsession with
justifying sex with animals while berating and insulting my wife and I for
fighting it!
There have been *no* in-depth professional studies on this issue at all
to be making the claims it is harmless to animals. Sex researchers and
psychologists
are not animal welfarists, they are concerned with human injury.
It seems as though you are the person with the guilt complex since you need
to advertise all this "proof" trying to legitimize that what you do is really
great and that society should openly embrace people who have sex with animals
and just let them "do their thing", or "do" the dog I should say.
Normally I would never bother with such old material as below, because
the net changes so rapidly that material is outdated in a month!
But in this case, you are *still* using the netcom account you were using
below in 1995, so this, and your statements here this month shows that
the below posts are indeed yours. You have not denied you are the same
re...@netcom.com who is associated with the alt.sex.bestilaity FAQ which
bears the same address.
This is a post in which you stated what you did after "visiting" a friends
horses, and how this good natured lost dog you encountered wanted help and
petting, and you raped her. We shortened it and the others below to save
bandwidth, these are in public archives;
====================================================================
Author: Remus Shepherd
Email: re...@netcom.com
Date: 1995/11/08
> >You are the same Remus that posts these FAQS.
> > You are in fact an animal f*cker!
> Yes, I post the FAQs on alt.sex.bestiality. Yes, I have sex with
>animals.
> If you wish to discuss the ethics of bestiality, I encourage you
>to ask questions on alt.sex.bestiality, where this discussion belongs.
>It does *not* belong on rec.pets.dogs.misc, and I am trying to do my
>best to take it out of this group, where the topic obviously offends.
> Followups set to alt.sex.bestiality. Folks, I'm sorry for intruding
>once again.
>...
>Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
======================================================================== Here
is the post you made regarding a 40 or 50 pound stray female dog that I
mentioned in a previous post. I removed or altered the more graphic words due
to the forum here, and shortened the length;
================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bestiality
From: re...@netcom.com (Remus Shepherd)
Subject: Golden night...
Message-ID: <remusDD...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 03:58:57 GMT
Lines: 81
Sender: re...@netcom13.netcom.com
Hi, all. I had a nice experience the other night.
Patroon and I were visiting a friend's horses for the evening. The
horses had been declared off-limits, and all we could do was snuggle and
scritch. It's been a long time since I was near animals...and just
visiting them tames the fur hunger, somewhat. But the mares weren't in
a good mood in general, and we didn't visit with them long. We spent
more time looking up at a wonderfully starry sky, with the milky way
stretching out above the warm, dark country night. I haven't seen that
many stars for a long, long time.
Then we started driving home. And only a block away from our
friend's house, we met a stranger on that dark gravel road.
The dog showed up in the headlights briefly, then went around us.
Patroon and I looked at each other, and she stopped the car. I went out
to meet the animal.
In the red taillights of the car, the dog appeared to have long,
golden fur...and when we brought it next to the open door, we saw that
its fur was indeed a reddish gold. I placed a hand beneath and
determined that our new friend was female. She was wagging her tail and
snuffling us to her hearts content, panting and whuffing in a manner
that suggested she was very pleased to meet us.
Patroon remarked on her fur, and called her Goldie. After some
snuggling and scritching with her, I took a flashlight to her name tag:
her name, by coincidence, was indeed Goldie.
Goldie kept trying to get inside our car, but of course we had no
place to take her. And from the looks of her, she was a country dog,
living in one of the many farmhouses nearby. Patroon poured some water
into my cupped hand, but Goldie wouldn't drink it -- she was more
interested in being petted, and possibly hitching a ride. Which we
couldn't do.
But what I did do, after a little scritching a petting, was pull a
tube of KY jelly from my pocket (yes, I carry KY with me...doesn't
everybody? ;) ) and spread it on my index finger. Unceremoniously, I
found Goldie's vag**a, and started massaging her insides. She sat down
once, ending what I was doing, but I tried again and she allowed it.
"Hmmn", I said then. "I wonder what I should do now?"
"Drop your pants!", said Patroon.
I grinned, and did just that. Kneeling on the gravel road, I pulled
Goldie towards me. Her tail beat against my belly as I moved my p***s
into position against her warm fur. And then I entered her with just
the head of my p***s, as her vag**a had felt tight around my finger and
I didn't wish to harm her.
Goldie was about fourty or fifty pounds -- not extremely small, and
in fact she was about the perfect height for me to kneel behind her. I
rubbed the head of my p***s inside her vestibule, outside the opening to
her vag**a proper, and never tried for deeper penetration. This was a
technique that I've used with smallish dogs in the past. The sensation
is pleasant -- like a warm wet cave sliding around the head of my p***s.
But the most exciting feeling arose when I ran my thumb up the shaft of
my p***s, and felt not the familiar ridge of my head, but instead a wall
of warm fur.
I kneeled there and humped Goldie, a bit nervous about doing a dog on
an open country road, while Patroon petted her neck and told her what a
good girl she was. Soon I forgot my surroundings, and the gravel
grinding into my knees. I came with a moan, thrusting a little deeper
into the dog, and pressing myself against that wonderful fur.
Then there were hugs and more scritches, and more attempts by Goldie
to climb into our car. But eventually we had to climb inside and leave.
"Wow", Patroon said, as we were driving home. "That was like, fate.
She just appeared, just when you were feeling fur hunger, and we even
knew her name! That was meant to be."
"Yeah. Well, I look at it from another perspective, hon", I said,
looking out at the country stars we would be losing when we reached the
city. "If we're evil...why would god bless us with a night like this?"
...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
========================================================
Here we can see why you do animals- failed relationships
with women, posted by the one who
held the trusting dog's head while you raped her;
==================================================================
Subject: Re: Comparisons -- Women and Dogs. (was: sadness is this)
From: Bonnie <bhut...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:38:12 -0600
You chose to make it public.....
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Remus Shepherd wrote:
> stasya (sta...@qnet.com) wrote:
> > Remus wrote:
> > > Bzzzt. Wrong -- thank you for playing. :) I'm up to my ears in
> > >potential (and actual) human female partners. They still don't measure
> > >up to some of the animals I have known. (Sorry, dear ladies, but I've
> > >told you this before. <:) )
>
> > What are you comparing here? The pure sexual pleasure or
> > the emotional bonds? Or what? In my opinion this kind of
> > blanket comparision is unfair to your human partners.
>
> Unfair? Probably, and I've been called on it before.
You admit it's unfair and yet you continue to do it.... later in this post
you talk about trust and love. Does this attitude reflect the "trust and
love" that you give the women in your life? If so, then it's no wonder
you have gotten the reactions (rejections?) that you have.
> Now, the original poster was claiming that we couldn't get women.
> My point was that I (at least), don't always *want* women...but I've
> always wanted dogs. Why is that?
Bullshit. You've always wanted women. You are as much a "p***y" hound as a
"dog" hound. You may not want to admit it but your *actions* speak louder
than any words you could ever say.
If you weren't then you wouldn't be counting up all the "potential"
partners that you are up to your ears in.
> I'm comparing the whole package when I make such statements.
> I've had extremes of emotion and physical pleasure from both dogs
> and women.
Then why don't you say that?
> Only...a dog has never insulted me, thrown a wedding ring in my
> face, or screamed about how much she wanted to watch me die. I've never
> been bitten by a dog. Women have caused some very deep wounds.
*chuckles* This would be the "I can't operate in the social world
therefore I am a zoo" argument. Is that the case Remus? Are you a social
misfit who can only "deal" with a partner who gives everything to you and
demands nothing in return?
Human relationships are going to have times when there is hurt
inflicted... that is human nature.
But humans are not dogs. When you treat them like shit, eventually they
are going to let you know. So if you want a relationship with a human you
best be ready to *deal* with that.
> And so if I make a comparison of both 'packages'...I have to
> give the nod to dogs. That's not to say I don't want a woman in my
> life; far from it. But before I can give a woman my trust and love,
> I need her to earn it and value it and never throw it away just to win
> an argument. I've yet to find a woman that can do that. Dogs have my
> trust and love by default, and I believe that they always will.
Trust and Love is something freely given - it is not something "earned".
You give it because you love someone. If they violate that trust then you
must decide if you want to freely continue to give it. A woman you say
that you love should have your trust and love by default also. Anything
else is a lie.
Value your trust and love? What about the trust and love she has given
you? If a woman has reached the point that she is throwing wedding rings
in your face and insulting you then apparently *you* have broken that
trust and love that *she* gave you. Odd thing that... with humans it's a
two way street.
But with dogs it can be a one way street and they will continue to give
their love and adoration... no matter how neglectful you are of their
needs, wants or desires.
So... if you want to look at the "whole package" you best take a good
hard look at yourself. Because if these things are happening to you from
women there is a reason. And if they continue to happen to you then maybe
you should just stick to dogs and give up the hetero life.
> > Is that what you really meant to say? If it is, then I
> > would suggest you tell any woman you have a longer
> > relationship with that it will never become permanent
> > because she will never be able to satisfy you in any way
> > that a dog couldn't do better at some time
>
> I tell every woman that I'm with that I am not interested in a
> permanent relationship, and that I will always crave animals. Every
> one. Every woman I've ever slept with, every girlfriend I've had, and
> even the person who became my wife. I have yet to find one woman that
> will listen and believe me.
Lie. Your last sentence is a lie.
This thread is about Dogs vs. Women and your attitudes. Not committments vs
Non-committed relationships.
Permanent relationship is a whole other issue than that you will crave
animals. Speaking personally, I may have misunderstood your "wafflings"
about whether you wanted a permanent relationship - for you have been on
both sides of that one - but I *never*, *never*, *NEVER* asked or
expected you to give up your relationship with animals.
You have lumped these two together and I am deeply offended that you
would publically paint me as a person who did not accept your craving for
"fur". As I recall.... there was a story posted here that *shows* my
acceptance of your zoophilia, that *shows* my willingness to accept your
total sexual self.
So don't be painting me with that brush, Remus Shepherd, for that is one
big lie if you try to say I didn't accept your craving for animals.
> And as I've told you in email, I'm sick of being utterly honest
> with people only to be later crucified for being who I am.
You make it sound like you were crucified for being a zoo. Well, that may
have been true from other women but it was not true from me.
I did crucify you for leading me to beleive that I could trust you to not
hurt me.
That was my mistake.
I gave you my trust and love and thought it was safe with you.
Gee... where have I heard that expectation before....???
> > From the impression I have of you by reading your other
> > posts to ASB, I'm assuming that you didn't really mean it to
> > sound that way.
>
> I probably don't mean it as bad as you're reading it...but yes,
> I do mean it somewhat. I prefer animals. That's a simple truth
> that goes beyond just the physical pleasures.
Then get a dog and quit "pretending" with women. You are only causing hurt.
> > <shrug> For myself, I find there are advantages and
> > disadvantages to both types of relationships. And while I
> > would say that things are different and I might enjoy some
> > things more with dogs than I do women, I find there are
> > things about being with women that no animal will ever
> > provide me. For me the relationships are so different that
> > I would never intentionally make the blanket comparision you
> > seem to have made.
>
> I agree with you. Animals have their advantages, and women have
> other advantages. In a perfect life, the two would complement each
> other. I hope to find that perfect life someday.
Don't bet on it if you think that you can treat a woman like a dog and
she will continue to come back for more.
It seems the biggest disadvantage about women that you have enumerated is
that you cannot neglect and ignore them like you can a dog and still
expect them to love and adore you.
Remember, with humans the street runs *both* ways. Not just your way.
> But if I can't...and if I am forced to make a choice between
> them...my choice would be to go to the dogs. :)
Then I suggest you make that choice and quit counting all those prospects
that you are up to your ears in.
And, yes, for those of you wondering, this *does* make me angry.
Patroon
=============================================================
Interesting thing his, he partner in rape who posted above has
an underaged child in the home, and all of these bestiality acts and
associations going on around them as Remus posted here in part.
It shows how some zoophiles willingly endanger children- even their
own by getting involved with these zoophile sex cults;
===========================================================
Author: Remus Shepherd
Email: re...@netcom.com
Date: 1997/02/08
Forums: alt.sex.bestiality
Looks like the flamewar is finally dying down again. Maybe.
Everyone has always suggested to me, for the past two years, to just
ignore Perigon Neptune/Pristan Etallion/whatever. And sometimes, I do.
Late last year, I became so secure that I put him in my killfile, and didn't
deal with his lies and manipulations at all.
That seems to have been a mistake. When I started ignoring him, he
started convincing people that I was avoiding discussion with him. He
started to get people to believe his lies. And so the flamewar re-erupted,
and we're back where we started.
This is not about the Equamour situation -- that would have caused
some firey differences of opinion no matter what the climate of the newsgroup
was. This is about an evil man who has attacked me for two years...and
every time his lies are exposed, he retreats, to wait until he can strike
again.
MAJOR SNIP
So as I declare war, I also offer an end to this conflict.
I don't really care what Perigon has done to me. My reputation is
fine with those who know me, and there's little worth fighting for here.
But he destroyed a woman I care about, with a campaign of terror that
forced her to leave the net, and secretly move to another state. He
threatened to have Patroon's child taken away from her by reporting her
to child welfare services. He outted her by posting her name and
real email address, and suggested ways for others to get information on her.
Patroon was no angel, and she did a lot of stupid and hypocritical things,
but she did not deserve to have her life destroyed. I stood by her through
the terror he put her through, and I know the pain he's caused.
SNIP
...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
=========================
Our apologise for the length of this and content, but we felt it necessary to
include this.
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
You sure can, but not without being arrested and charged, probably sued as
well for your freedom of speech. So in effect, you cannot yell fire in a
theater where there is none. Mike
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > Come on. I've got reams of research from respected professionals.
> >Surely you (or anyone?) has one well-thought out, logical reason for
> >your adverse reactions to bestiality and zoophilia. If so, bring them
> >out and let's talk. I'm capable of having a reasonable discussion;
> The first thought on this would be, if people here didn't know you were
> one of the zoophiles, is, why would *you* have all these "reams" of supposed
> "professional" material collected, devoted to promoting the concept that sex
> with animals as something that we all should just accept and let be because
> a handful of people say so. Seems to me you have an obsession with
> justifying sex with animals while berating and insulting my wife and I for
> fighting it!
Um...Mike? There's really was no reason for you to make such huge posts.
I've admitted all that you accuse me of. I am a zoophile, I was once the
alt.sex.bestiality FAQkeeper, all the posts and events you dredged up really
did happen, and I'm not ashamed of any of it. If you were trying to make a
point, I don't think you succeeded.
If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
But aside from that, I'm just here in an attempt to bring an existing
discussion up to a reasoned, objective level. The only 'insults' I've
leveled at you is that you have not put together any logical reasons for
your hatred of bestiality, that you have no research or evidence to
support your views, and that you are generally a very unstable person.
If you can't handle reasonable, logical discussion, then I'm afraid that's
really *your* problem. And just as you feel it is necessary to show people
that I am a zoophile, I feel it is necessary to show them what kind of
person you are.
In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane. I can't help it if that makes
me better than you.
I didn't come here to justify anything to the denizens of t.p.a. I came
here for one purpose: To counter your illogical fanaticism. Everywhere you
go, Mike, I'll be there...and I'll be wielding objective, dispassionate facts.
I suggest you get used to it. :)
Anonymous
> > Yeah, you're right about all of that. Except...it breaks down if a
> > certain ex-zoophile was an aberration. If that certain man was always an
> > animal abuser, from setting fire to kittens in his childhood, to killing
> > his own dogs as an adult. If that certain zoo was always evil and insane,
> > shunned by other zoos who knew what poison he was...well, then, that
> > zoo would have a seriously warped view of what the whole thing was about.
>
> Correct, the "if" word applies well,of course the only problem with your
> hypothetical statements, is court or newspaper account confirmation of
> hear-say type materials from ages past. And even if they existed, would not
> be applicable to today 1998 any more than a conviction for "Joes" drunk
> driving in 1964 is applicable to Joe as he is today especially if he was not
> drinking since then.
Apples and Oranges, or just shades of straw? Those that hit the newspapers are
typically those guilty of existing laws of animal abuse. They are not zoophiles,
and can't be taken for a representative sample of them. Otherwise, all the rapist
in the papers and news would have to be accordingly representative of the
heterosexuals.
> We already know that for people to have sex with animals they are already
> mentally unstable, have extreme emotional and social problems- otherwise they
> would never turn to rape of animals to begin with in adulthood and call it
> "love"
Don't forget, that this applies to you as well, or did you think you were not
mentally deranged to torture the animals you supposedly loved?
> In scanning many zoophile web sites, we find many offerings of
> autobiographical writings which are current and in place today which can be
> read.
Even yours is quite enlightening. Too bad you don't own that offending site that
your autobiography is posted on, so that you could surreptitiously remove it so
that nobody else could see for themselves of the twisted dementia that you call
love. You are nothing but a revenge machine that won't accept any blame upon
yourself for your own life. You made your choices, and all that pontificating in
the world won't change that fact.
> Most all cite some kind of early childhood trauma such as sexual abuse,
> neglect etc. So it clearly figures there are major psychological and anti
> social problems which each of you have, along with self esteem problems and
> probably phobias of interacting with other humans sexually.
Or just being so warped on a social and mental level, that anyone wouldn't want to
associate with you, even if they had a common link to you, like bestiality.
> All of the activities you mention would of course have been prosecuted and
> caught by parents, school officials and others. Few teens or adults could set
> fire to cats, kill dogs and do all that without someone noticing and taking
> action early on.
You seemed to get away with most of it, and what did it do to you? Everyone can see
your dementia even now. You have become more transparent, the more you struggle to
make things opaque.
> > And I can see that guilt of what he had done causing him to undergo
> > a radical conversion. Psychologists would call it overcompensation; a
> > desire to forget the past, and 'make things right', by imagining the
> > activities he despised everywhere, and eradicating them at any cost and
> > with any tactics. Such a person would be just as dangerous as he was
> > in his youth; only this time, he'd be directing his rage against people.
> > He'd hurt people not because of anything they'd have done; he'd hurt people
> > just because they'd remind him of himself...with hurting himself being
> > his subconscious goal.
>
> Very fascinating, are you a real psychologist or do you just play one on TV?!
> This would be conjecture on your part, or on the part of anyone else who does
> not live with another person and verify things personally as fact, and sees
> what goes on with the person on a daily basis. Anyone can play crack
> psychologist on the net, the problem begins when assuming one's actions have
> specific motives or causes based on net postings, or what other people say.
Yes, but when one admits in his own writings of the retrospective perspectives of
himself to these things, it doesn't take a shrink to notice them. For example, you.
> Such a person would be unable to function either in real life or on the net.
And by a showing of hands, you have yet to succeed. You can't function, and this
whole think is your current revenge scheme, thinking that it will improve your
miserable life. Guess what, you are wrong again, and will suffer the consequences
of your actions. You still will have a miserable life when all is said and done.
> As for my wife and I, we have a terrific marriage, and no guilt from
> anything ever, because there is no reason for either of us to have guilt
> over anything, shame that some people are not this way.
Whom are you calling your wife? is it the guy that lives with you, or your dog? You
have never clarified this point.
> There *is* guilt on your part however, because we do remember seeing posts in
> the archive with your current email address that spoke of finding a stray
> lost or abandoned female dog on a country road and instead of helping her
> find her home you raped her with the help of a female travel companion going
> by the handle of "patro" or something like that, and then left her by the
> side of the road. That would also be failure to help an animal in need.
Are you out to out someone again? What is that little church goers saying? Do unto
others as you would want others to do onto you?
> I would have to search a bit for it, but I remember being appalled and
> disgusted and in part it helped the process of our efforts along in the early
> stages.
Appalled, maybe, only because you weren't invited to be there, or share in the
action. Of course, they didn't want to kill the bitch, so you weren't invited.
> Our motives are to protect animals from your form of "love", which untill
> this year had barely even been noticed by anyone, and certainly has been
> ignored by animal right's groups as a whole untill now. We saw a need and a
> niche that needed to be filled because no one was doing anything about this
> in an organized fashion you see.
But you don't understand our form of "love". Is this jealousy of what you can't
understand, or achieve?
> When it was announced that zoophiles were going on the Jerry Springer talk
> show to spread this filth as an alternate lifestyle/sexual orientation that
> society should accept like beihg straight, bi or gay. That was when we began
> our campaign as a check against zoophile's increased promotion of this
> perversion which has now spread itself all over the entire internet in every
> forum there is.
Also known as being upset that you weren't considered to appear as a zoophile, then
you turned down the opportunity to appear for an opposing view after being
specifically invited. You had plenty of time and opportunity, which is counter to
everything you express that you want to achieve.
> We also know zoophiles are attempting to remove existing
> laws, so they can have sex with animals completely at will with no one
> holding them accountable.
Oh, yes, I spend 200-300 hours a month talking to lawyers, legislature, congress,
and even the governor of several states about their morality laws. I guest speak at
the local university about some of the moral laws that the Reagan administration
instituted and how they can effect people's personal lives and choices. I was also
on 2 radio shows having rational discussions upon the effects of alternative
lifestyles as reflected in integration of modern society.I spend most of these
hours showing how unfounded most prejudices are in society, especially ones of a
moral nature. In my spare time, I have sex with my animals in the front lawn so
people that pass by can see with their own eyes how much "harm" I do to my lovers.
The times I should be asleep, I spend on the internet, on psychology channels,
answering questions for the 4 case studies on my sexuality, and making sure my 73+
web pages about zoophilia are still functioning properly.
<sarcasm off>
Get a clue, your lies are getting weaker. I could care less that you hate other
zoos, and I could care less where you life goals were. Your unfounded spewings are
getting more and more far fetched. Most zoophiles that I know of would be happy to
be left alone, and associate with others that already know their own sexual
proclivities.
> Unfortunately for your theory, it wouldn't make any difference because no
> matter who brings the *issue* out, 99.9% of society knows this is bestiality,
> it is disgusting, animal abuse, and they would never want their children
> learing how to try it or getting additional ideas and contacts with adult
> animal molesters by reading web sites on the net!
But those that are attracted to animals will persevere to find animals and bring
them into their lives regardless of any "education" of bestiality or not. With the
number those that are try animal sex for one reason or another, wouldn't it be
better, if those that are familiar with that intimacies that are most likely not to
harm animals be there to inform those that will try anyway, regardless of law, peer
pressure, morality, or teachings rather then let them experiment causing potential
harm? You picture this as recruitment. It is not.What gain would a zoophile that
has no care for humans, have in "recruiting" another zoophile into the world? None!
> Also, religious fanaticism is a terrible thing as you infer, some people join
> religious cults and groups such as the Jim Jones and the Branch Dividian
> groups. What you cite would be the most amazing religious conversion that
> ever took place in history since many of you appear to be athiests or
> agnostic to begin with!
Yet, you are a prime example that there is an exception to every rule. You may have
claimed to been a zoophile in your autobiography, but all that I have read in the
the descriptions of you actions, were nothing but animal abuse. I can understand
why you hate yourself, and just like the murdering deer rapists or any of the other
violent bestialists, your own murderous rapes are not the pinnacle definition of
zoophilia, but the extreme dominating raping bestialist. You never were a zoophile,
just an animal fucker out for your own gratification. No wonder zoophiles turned
their backs upon you like everyone else you have ever known. Just like you turned
your back upon the animals you proclaimed to have loved.
> My wife and I however are neither religious fanatics, nor members of these
> wierd cults. We are Episcopalians and have been most all our lives, that does not
> mean we foist it or our beliefs on everyone else! We don't go around promoting it
> nor trying to convert people.
So what do you call this incessant nonstop arguing otherwise? I call it fanaticism,
and like all fanatics, you are trying to rally others to your cause. Even if it is
done out of self loathing, rather than in the name of a god.
> But somehow you people got the idea from our web site that *had* a link we
> removed.. to two resources for zoophiles to get help from, one being a sexual
> disorder treatment center, the other being a link to the Episcopal church
> resources web site- that we were somehow religious fanatics bent on a religious
> cruisade just because we protest rape of animals!
More likely, the sites that you were linked to, didn't appreciate your fanaticism
either.
If all you protested was the rape of animals, you would have a majority of
zoophiles on your side. But as you can't understand zoophilia, even though you once
proclaimed the same for yourself, you won't understand this point either.
> We don't care what two *consenting humans* do in private, that is between
> them and their God, we don't care about "obscenity" on the net either, so we
> are not fighting against internet pornography beyond using it as a hinge to
> further our cause.
Nope, you shouldn't as you have produced your own avi with yourself and your dog.
He didn't seem to enjoy it. But that just proves your own desires for control over
another.
> There are already umpteen anti-porn groups as it is
> actively working on all of that- too much repetion there and with many animal
> right's groups all working on exactly the same things is again too much
> repetition.
This has been touched upon by another already. Yep, the world would be much better
if everyone abandoned other cause's for your cause against zoophiles.
I guess horny "farmboys" should go experiment sexually with their preteen cousins
and sisters, and schoolmates, adding more problems to other concerns of society.
Don't forget, that with every action, there is a reaction. To enforce your new
proposed laws, you would require education of the people in mass of the legalities
against bestiality. That would mean that the young people that you don't want to
submit to this would informed about bestiality, that "it is disgusting, animal
abuse, and they would never want their children
learning how to try it or getting additional ideas." After all, ignorance is no
excuse in the eye of the law.
Sanford G. Fogg
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->You sure can, but not without being arrested and charged, probably sued as
->well for your freedom of speech. So in effect, you cannot yell fire in a
->theater where there is none. Mike
I'm glad you recognize that Randy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
regardless of which, you will have no leg to stand on when your chickens
come home to roost.
PN
--
We have been God-like in our planned breeding of our domesticated plants
and animals, but we have been rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding
of ourselves.
(Arnold Toynbee)
Pristan Etallion
>MM> we should be allowing sex shows to go on in grade schools as part of
>MM> the lunch entertainment.
->>
->> It could be worse.
->
->It is. Just ask the man who installs metal detectors in schools.
You have a point there. If they were watching sex shows than perhaps
they would be too preoccupied to shoot each other. It's unlikely
to happen though, too many people would view that as an -unhealthy-
society.
PN
--
I know a lot of people think I'm dumb. Well, at least I ain't no
educated fool.
(Leon Spinks)
Tall Thin Jones
La> Hmmm...how much does web space cost? Maybe a lot of
La> people can't _afford_ web space, I don't know. We're
La> back to the Golden Rule again -- him as gots the gold
La> makes the rules. Bad for freedom.
Note that Zoobluster's definition of "abusing" the free web sites
equates to using them for content he doesn't approve of.
He also says "most zoophiles are too cheap." This is the kind of
thing said by racists.
Tall Thin Jones
> MM> we should be allowing sex shows to go on in grade schools as part of
> MM> the lunch entertainment.
> It could be worse.
NWBR> It is. Just ask the man who installs metal detectors in schools.
Thank you, yes. In the school I went to, the ones who bullied
harmless people, making their lives miserable and physically injuring
them, those bullies were accepted as a part of the teenage society. I
was an outcast for having sex with animals.
It already is worse than having sex shows in grade schools just for
that reason.
Tall Thin Jones
> pro4a...@aol.com wrote:
>> Advocacy does not include promoting harm to innocent others,
NWBR> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Sure it does. Look up the Skokie case, as an example.
> And the anti-choice people argue advocating abortion
> rights qualifies. The list of examples is endless.
NWBR> You'll confuse him with "facts". Facts, truths and reallity are
NWBR> things that hurt his efforts.
You got that right. Also, the requirement that his statements have
internal logic and are not self-contradictory.
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
> > The first thought on this would be, if people here didn't know you were
> > one of the zoophiles, is, why would *you* have all these "reams" of
>supposed
> > "professional" material collected, devoted to promoting the concept that sex
> > with animals as something that we all should just accept and let be because
> > a handful of people say so. Seems to me you have an obsession with
> > justifying sex with animals while berating and insulting my wife and I for
> > fighting it!
> Um...Mike? There's really was no reason for you to make such huge posts.
> I've admitted all that you accuse me of. I am a zoophile, I was once the
> alt.sex.bestiality FAQkeeper, all the posts and events you dredged up really
> did happen, and I'm not ashamed of any of it. If you were trying to make a
> point, I don't think you succeeded.
Actually we did succeed, you just don't realise it yet.
> If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
> I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
In other words you want people here to give you their opinions on how you, a
grown man carrys KY jelly on his person in the hopes of finding an animal for
sex, and then raped a stray or lost female dog by the side of the road that by
your description was probably a Golden Retriever, and weighing 40-50
pounds.
You are indeed ill, and have guilt feelings, otherwise you wouldn't need
reassurances, comfort or approval from complete strangers on a newsgroup!
> The only 'insults' I've
> leveled at you is that you have not put together any logical reasons for
> your hatred of bestiality, that you have no research or evidence to
> support your views, and that you are generally a very unstable person.
> If you can't handle reasonable, logical discussion, then I'm afraid that's
> really *your* problem.
Our goal here is not a discussion with you in your quest to justify sex with
animals, we are here showing the other side as a voice for the animals
involved in your group's sordid sex parties.
> And just as you feel it is necessary to show people
> that I am a zoophile, I feel it is necessary to show them what kind of
> person you are.
Unfortunately, you and your zoopals come out sounding like bitter revenge
seekers attacking my wife and I with accusations because we are actively
campaigning against sex with animals, and have forwarded many megs worth of
files to animal right's groups and activists. But that is okay because it is
you, and the authors of the animal sex sites that currently appear in the
archives that are available for people to see active right now that bad. At
least our statements and pointers to zoophile forums show people what is on
the net right now that they can see and verify as fact for themselves. Your
current email address, archives with it, and your admission you molest
animals shows a lot. So do the other sites such as netbook, calzoo, and the
others.
>
> In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane. I can't help it if that makes
> me better than you.
Sane people dont molest their pets or look for approval on a newsgroup from
strangers.
> I didn't come here to justify anything to the denizens of t.p.a. I came
> here for one purpose: To counter your illogical fanaticism. Everywhere you
> go, Mike, I'll be there...and I'll be wielding objective, dispassionate facts.
> I suggest you get used to it. :)
I see, so standing up for animals and campaigning against sexual molestation
of animals is illogical fanaticism! That of course could only be stated by
one who is blinded by his own perversion to see that 99.9% of the populace
finds what you do to be the most disgusting thing they heard of, and animal
abuse. We suggest you get "used to it" too, because you have a lot of work to
do to catch up to all the forums.
We noticed you are more than a little bit behind us in our efforts! You have
about 5 mailing lists, about 100 animal right's groups, animal shelters and
others to post your pro animal sex statements to!
We noticed we *never* see your face on any of those more private forums, could
it be you know you would be thrown out so fast, and flamed so bad your head
would spin?
People here may not care, but that is because the real die hard core activists
are on the private forums where there is no spam, no 1-900 ads, and flames
and everyone working to help animals.
Newsgroups are hardly a suitable forum, the real discussions and actions take
place off newsgroups.
Come join us!
Name withheld by request
> People here may not care, but that is because the real die hard core activists
> are on the private forums where there is no spam, no 1-900 ads, and flames
> and everyone working to help animals.
AND---Randy---ooops I mean Mike there are no inconvieniences for YOU there
such as people who might know who and what you really are. No one there
who can call you at your lies like there is here.
Bareback
Leslie
<re...@netcom.com> wrote:
>pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
>I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
>But aside from that, I'm just here in an attempt to bring an existing
>discussion up to a reasoned, objective level. The only 'insults' I've
>leveled at you is that you have not put together any logical reasons for
>your hatred of bestiality, that you have no research or evidence to
>support your views, and that you are generally a very unstable person.
>If you can't handle reasonable, logical discussion, then I'm afraid that's
>really *your* problem. And just as you feel it is necessary to show people
>that I am a zoophile, I feel it is necessary to show them what kind of
>person you are.
Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather shocked at
your cavalier attitude toward Goldie. In reading your post on the incident
I gathered that you saw Goldie in your headlights on a dark road. You
stopped, but not to help the dog back to her owners, but to use her and
then abandon her to the road again. If Goldie had a name tag, as you say,
they often have the name and address of the owner printed there too. How
hard would it have been for you to give her a lift back to her home? Don't
you think that you would have helped minimize any likelihood of death by
automobile that night on that road?
IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
dog. You neglected her. You also apparently needed to have her restrained
for your pleasure. And you were a stranger as was your partner. If I
replace Goldie with one of my dogs in this scenario, I'm not sure what
would have made me angrier: the fact that you failed to help her avoid a
probable and certainly painful death on a dark road; or the fact that you
sexually assaulted her.
To me it sounds very much like a person who finds a child walking home
alone from a school. They coax the child into the car, molest or rape them
and then deposit them back on the same road. Not all pedophiles kill their
victims. And I thought you were asserting that zoophiles do not either.
What makes you think that by abandoning Goldie after using her you didn't
contribute to her death in some way (assuming, of course, that there was a
much higher degree of likelihood that she would get hit by a car on a dark
road.)
I think your partner was equally guilty in that she also did nothing to
assist the dog. Use of restraint doesn't indicate a feeling for the animal.
Worse yet is the congratulatory tone of your comments after leaving the dog
on the road. You looked on it as destiny, kismet, a divine intervention???
Nice way to thank your benefactor! NOT!!
IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
illegal. It requires no more conscience than the willful commission of any
other kind of crime which endangers a life.
> In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane. I can't help it if that makes
>me better than you.
That has now been called into question, Remus. What have *you* learned?
> I didn't come here to justify anything to the denizens of t.p.a. I came
>here for one purpose: To counter your illogical fanaticism. Everywhere you
>go, Mike, I'll be there...and I'll be wielding objective, dispassionate facts.
>I suggest you get used to it. :)
>
>... ...
>Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Dispassionate attitudes toward animal welfare issues aren't generally
favored on TPA. We all support the fact that animals have welfare issues.
From whale hunters to vivisectionists to AR fanatics: each has always
seemed interested in avoiding cruelty and neglect. I don't see that you did
this at all with Goldie. Perhaps I missed something crucial in the post
which would indicate a concern for her present and future well being?
--Leslie
Remember the Pierce Collies!!! His time is almost up!!
http://www.collie.net/~dwayne/pierce
Rat & Swan
> Got to love the ACLU sometimes.
*Snort of disbelief* Don't count on it. When I was trying
to get a campaign going against a fundie attempt to close
down the adult bookstores in Albuquerque, the local ACLU
puppied out completely, and refused to help. Claimed it
wasn't a free speech issue. The city drafted a proposed
ordinance which would have applied to R-rated video rentals.
THEN we got a lawyer, paid for by the local video merchants'
association. For the first six months or so, the arguments
in the City Council meetings were me on one side vs 300 foaming
right-wing religious types on the other. My finest hour.
I still have the newspaper clippings....
Like I said -- liberals are only so liberal.
Rat
Rat & Swan
> Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather shocked at
> your cavalier attitude toward Goldie.
I would have to agree with you on this one, Leslie.
IMO, Remus should have tried to return Goldie to her
human companions, or have taken her with him to a
place of safety. He should not have left her alone on
the road.
Rat
Name withheld by request
Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
> dog. You neglected her.
> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
> illegal.
Not all zoosexuals treat animals like the example you are commenting to.
Most own their own animals and treat them with love, care and respect.
Most zoosexuals put no limits on medical expenses when their animal family
members get sick and most zoosexuals mourn bitterly for years at the loss
of past animal family members. Not all zoosexuals post explicit sexual web
pages promoting their lifestyle. Not all zoosexuals seek out animals they
do not own just for their sexual gratification.
Pro4animals uses this approach to further his cause: He cites and gives
any and all the worst negative and abusive bestialist examples he can find
telling people that this is an example of ALL zoosexuals. His agenda has
not the animals welfare in mind but is one strictly of insane revenge plus
some misguided idea that his acts show repentance for his past violent
deeds.
Bareback
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> On the wall of the outhouse on Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:16:36 GMT, Remus Shepherd
> <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
> >I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
> Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather shocked at
> your cavalier attitude toward Goldie. In reading your post on the incident
> I gathered that you saw Goldie in your headlights on a dark road. You
> stopped, but not to help the dog back to her owners, but to use her and
> then abandon her to the road again. If Goldie had a name tag, as you say,
> they often have the name and address of the owner printed there too. How
> hard would it have been for you to give her a lift back to her home? Don't
> you think that you would have helped minimize any likelihood of death by
> automobile that night on that road?
We wondered about this too, as did some of the angry responses we rec'd via
email from activists about this after we posted the Goldie material on 5
mailing lists. Your views mirror many.
> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
> dog. You neglected her. You also apparently needed to have her restrained
> for your pleasure. And you were a stranger as was your partner. If I
> replace Goldie with one of my dogs in this scenario, I'm not sure what
> would have made me angrier: the fact that you failed to help her avoid a
> probable and certainly painful death on a dark road; or the fact that you
> sexually assaulted her.
I believe also, that it is a crime of some kind to take in a lost or abandoned
animal and then abandon the animal again by the side of a dark road when she
could be hit and killed by a car.
Leslie, did you read the article in "The Animals Agenda- Bestiality:The
unmentioned abuse" ?
The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31 November/December
1995
The authors spoke of the zoophile's newsgroup, and some example posts there-
one was of someone doing exactly this, picking up animals for sex, but this
one then dumped them at an animal shelter. Here is some of the text:
"...Concern about bestiality generally focuses
on human beings; thus experts tell us it is usually harmless while debating
its frequency. If we call it forced *ex with animals, we reclaim the animal's
perspective as a central concern. It is more prevalent than we can measure
and is not harmless; it is always animal abuse.
The animals who people have access to are the animals who will be ***ually
used: cats, dogs, sheep, cows, hens, rabbits, goats, ducks, horses, bulls,
fishes. Proximity allows for ***ual access. This is the primary reason
gorillas, chimpanzees, and others are not prevalent *ex objects: they are
not animals to whom humans have regular access. Many forms of ***ual contact
between humans and animals are physically destructive to the animals. Few
**ginas, especially those of young animals, are large enough to accommodate
the *enis of a male Homo sapiens. Furthermore, small animals often experience
torn rectums and internal bleeding after being ***ually assaulted; chickens
and rabbits are often killed by the act itself. Sadistic ***ual behavior
against animals also occurs. Chickens are frequently decapitated because
this intensifies the convulsions of the sphincter, thereby increasing the
***ual pleasure of the man. Even when it does not involve sadism, bestiality
is animal abuse because it is forced *ex.
Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the
Internet (alt.*ex.bestiality), which provides chilling examples of the
bestialist's world. One person described having *ex with stray dogs and
then dropping them off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of
bestiality that occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A third described
having *ex with his half-Percheron horse. </P>
<P>One cannot talk very long about *ex with animals without noticing the
gender issues: Men are more likely to do it. Women are more likely to be
depicted--or to be forced into--doing it. This type of bestiality, domineering
*ex, has long been used by batterers to degrade their partners. Battered
women's shelters around the country receive reports from women who were
forced to have *ex with animals. One woman reported that her husband would
tie her up and force her to have *****course with their family dog. Then
he would try to have *****course with the dog while he forced the dog inside
his wife. Forced *ex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish women
in Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political prisoners
in Chile. Bestiality involving women occupies an entire genre in pornography.
In the second kind of bestiality, fixated *ex, an animal becomes
the exclusive focus of a human's ***ual desires. Although many medical
terms have been applied to a fixation on *ex with animals, those who engage
in this kind of *ex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word
borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community. The zoophile's
worldview is similar to the rapist's and child ***ual abuser's. They all
view the *ex they have with their victims as consensual, and they believe
it benefits their ***ual "partners" as well as themselves. </P>
Just as pedophiles differentiate
between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing
themselves,
of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal ***ual
abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of
these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.
==========================
> To me it sounds very much like a person who finds a child walking home
> alone from a school. They coax the child into the car, molest or rape them
> and then deposit them back on the same road. Not all pedophiles kill their
> victims. And I thought you were asserting that zoophiles do not either.
Of course, any group who is trying to get something they want that is
illegal- legalized are going to sugar coat everything, doesn't matter if it
is drugs, Marijuana, pedophilia or zoophilia/bestiality. The public will only
hear from the groups that want these things- the self promoting sugar coated
side. This group has virtually nothing to support their claims, and even if a
casual examination of a few of their animals showed nothing- pain such as
from a rape situation does not usually show anything to the naked eye hours
later.
I know we have a story regarding a male Rottweiler dog owned by a zoophile
who attacked a person outside the home, during a supposed burglary of the
house. Regardless of that attack, the animal control seized the dog and then
after evaluation by a professional dog trainer- the court and the
professional dog trainer judged the dog was so craxzed that they ordered him
destroyed immediately. That is a matter of public records and we could find
the text from the zoophile's web site in our archives.
We also know of an Ohio University web site, another zoophile (Chris Steiner)
with a purebred American Eskimo dog, male, I should say *late* dog because
due to his irresponsibility the dog was allowed to roam into someone's
property and they shot the dog. We have been attempting to locate the breeder
of this dog, Beauregard kennels by putting out advertisements. The web site
is located at: http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/~csteiner/thoughts.html
http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/~csteiner/zoo.html
And has been reported to the University President and staff members.
> What makes you think that by abandoning Goldie after using her you didn't
> contribute to her death in some way (assuming, of course, that there was a
> much higher degree of likelihood that she would get hit by a car on a dark
> road.)
Perhaps she was killed, and she was a child's pet, no one will ever know now I
suppose.
> I think your partner was equally guilty in that she also did nothing to
> assist the dog. Use of restraint doesn't indicate a feeling for the animal.
> Worse yet is the congratulatory tone of your comments after leaving the dog
> on the road. You looked on it as destiny, kismet, a divine intervention???
> Nice way to thank your benefactor! NOT!!
> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
> illegal. It requires no more conscience than the willful commission of any
> other kind of crime which endangers a life.
Leslie, it is illegal in 30 states' sodomy laws, but we are trying to get it
included in the existing animal abuse laws in all 50 states.
> > In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane. I can't help it if that makes
> >me better than you.
>
> That has now been called into question, Remus. What have *you* learned?
>
> > I didn't come here to justify anything to the denizens of t.p.a. I came
> Dispassionate attitudes toward animal welfare issues aren't generally
> favored on TPA. We all support the fact that animals have welfare issues.
> From whale hunters to vivisectionists to AR fanatics: each has always
> Remember the Pierce Collies!!! His time is almost up!!
> http://www.collie.net/~dwayne/pierce
Visit one of our web sites for more information and press releases regarding
sexual abuse of animals;
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html
Your host, Mike
Remus Shepherd
> <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
> >I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
>
> Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather shocked at
> your cavalier attitude toward Goldie. In reading your post on the incident
> I gathered that you saw Goldie in your headlights on a dark road. You
> stopped, but not to help the dog back to her owners, but to use her and
> then abandon her to the road again. If Goldie had a name tag, as you say,
> they often have the name and address of the owner printed there too. How
> hard would it have been for you to give her a lift back to her home? Don't
> you think that you would have helped minimize any likelihood of death by
> automobile that night on that road?
Thanks for calling me on this, Leslie...I really do want people's
opinions on this incident, as it has been brought up as proof of various
things before. Maybe it is proof of something...let's talk about it.
First let's frame the setting a little more clearly. The story was
posted to a sex group, and I glossed over a lot of non-sexual things that
the audience (I thought) didn't want to see.
This happened on a gravel road at about 2AM, while visiting some
friends in the country. Goldie had a simple name tag with no address on
it. We sat and wondered what to do with her for a good ten minutes,
trying to figure out if it would be best to take her someplace. But there
were at least four farmhouses in easy walking distance, and virtually
no traffic on this gravel country road. We thought it was likely that she
was a farm dog who had wandered just a little, and that it would be a
really bad idea to take her away if she did come from nearby. Besides,
we had no place to take her...and knocking on farmers' doors at 2AM to
report a dog that they probably knew was running loose didn't sound like
a good idea.
The next day I asked the friend who I was visiting about Goldie; it
turns out that he knew her, and that she came from a farm whose lights
were visible from the road where we were. And yes, she got home safely.
So I think we made the right decision about not taking her with us.
> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
> dog. You neglected her. You also apparently needed to have her restrained
> for your pleasure.
I 'restrained' her with a single hand on her haunch; my friend was
scratching her neck in a non-restaining way. Any movement on her part
and she would have simply walked free. Am I claiming that she *wanted*
this kind of affection? No. All I claim is that she tolerated it, and
that she suffered no harm.
Does that make me selfish? Hell yes. What I did was equivalent to
'Fencehopping' -- an activity where a person trespasses onto another
person's property to find willing or tolerant animals. I know the
compulsion to fencehop -- Yes, I've done it before -- but fencehopping
is a criminal activity that should be avoided. I didn't tresspass
anywhere, nor did I break any other laws, but that doesn't make what I
did with Goldie ethical. Now that I have dogs of my own, I haven't
felt the compulsion to use other people's animals.
> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
> illegal. It requires no more conscience than the willful commission of any
> other kind of crime which endangers a life.
>
> > In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane.
> That has now been called into question, Remus. What have *you* learned?
What have I learned on this newsgroup? I'm learning a lot about animal
rights and the people who fight for them, and how they view people like me.
What have I learned in my life, about how to practice bestiality in an
ethical manner? An enormous amount...and I'm still learning.
So did I neglect her? Yes...but I don't know what else I could have done.
Advice here would be helpful. Was it wrong to have sex with her? Yes,
because it was someone else's animal. I am not proud of my actions, that
night with Goldie. But neither do I think that my actions deserved, or
should deserve, legal repercussions.
Your opinions?
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
> > I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
> You are indeed ill, and have guilt feelings, otherwise you wouldn't need
> reassurances, comfort or approval from complete strangers on a newsgroup!
If, as you say, 99.9% of people feel bestiality is inherently disgusting,
how am I looking for reassurances by asking the opinion of total strangers?
Least of all, animal right advocates. No, I'm looking to learn, Mike.
> I see, so standing up for animals and campaigning against sexual molestation
> of animals is illogical fanaticism! That of course could only be stated by
> one who is blinded by his own perversion to see that 99.9% of the populace
> finds what you do to be the most disgusting thing they heard of, and animal
> abuse.
By your admission, you spend 10 hours a day at this activity, and you have
no logical reasoning, professional research, or factual data to support your
views. That's the best definition of illogical fanaticism I've ever seen.
Until you can frame a reasoned argument, I'll keep calling it that. Please,
*please*, make me change my mind. I want you to.
> We noticed you are more than a little bit behind us in our efforts! You have
> about 5 mailing lists, about 100 animal right's groups, animal shelters and
> others to post your pro animal sex statements to!
> We noticed we *never* see your face on any of those more private forums, could
> it be you know you would be thrown out so fast, and flamed so bad your head
> would spin?
<...>
> Come join us!
Actually, I've read some of your posts on the AR-VIEWS mailing list.
Have you read the charter for that list, Mike? It explicitly states
that t.p.a is the place for non-animal-rights people to express their
views and hold discussions. It seems that on t.p.a you're proposing that
I break the charter of AR-VIEWS...although on AR-VIEWS, you're asking
people to post to t.p.a.
> I notice for all his "bravery", on a newsgroup that is about half
> animal users now, that he is afraid of expressing himself *here* in
> this forum!
> You will note he *admits* on a public newsgroup that he raped this
> dog!
> You will also note the justification of animal sexual abuse by
> continuing to challenge us to explain *why* bestiality is wrong!
> Anyone is welcome to post to TPA on this.
I'll stick to t.p.a, thanks...it seems like the appropriate place.
And I'll meet you in the legislature, where it really counts, assuming
you get that far.
Leslie
<re...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
>> <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> > If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with Goldie,
>> >I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
>>
>> Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather shocked at
>> your cavalier attitude toward Goldie. In reading your post on the incident
>> I gathered that you saw Goldie in your headlights on a dark road. You
>> stopped, but not to help the dog back to her owners, but to use her and
>> then abandon her to the road again. If Goldie had a name tag, as you say,
>> they often have the name and address of the owner printed there too. How
>> hard would it have been for you to give her a lift back to her home? Don't
>> you think that you would have helped minimize any likelihood of death by
>> automobile that night on that road?
>
> Thanks for calling me on this, Leslie...I really do want people's
>opinions on this incident, as it has been brought up as proof of various
>things before. Maybe it is proof of something...let's talk about it.
Fair enough...
> First let's frame the setting a little more clearly. The story was
>posted to a sex group, and I glossed over a lot of non-sexual things that
>the audience (I thought) didn't want to see.
I understood that pro4 had hijacked the post out of another newsgroup. I
don't hold with that sort of thing. And I tried really hard to keep it on
an animal welfare basis, overlooking the more flowery descriptions :-)
> This happened on a gravel road at about 2AM, while visiting some
>friends in the country. Goldie had a simple name tag with no address on
>it. We sat and wondered what to do with her for a good ten minutes,
>trying to figure out if it would be best to take her someplace. But there
>were at least four farmhouses in easy walking distance, and virtually
>no traffic on this gravel country road. We thought it was likely that she
>was a farm dog who had wandered just a little, and that it would be a
>really bad idea to take her away if she did come from nearby. Besides,
>we had no place to take her...and knocking on farmers' doors at 2AM to
>report a dog that they probably knew was running loose didn't sound like
>a good idea.
At first blush, maybe this would have made sense *if* you hadn't had your
pleasure with her and then left her. That's very confusing to some animals:
attention and then abandonment, I mean. Besides, in your next paragraph you
show that you would have solved Goldie's ownership problem with that same
phone call. To me, that means that you might have considered that she
needed a safe place for the night. Wouldn't you agree that no dark road is
safe for loose dogs at night?
> The next day I asked the friend who I was visiting about Goldie; it
>turns out that he knew her, and that she came from a farm whose lights
>were visible from the road where we were. And yes, she got home safely.
>So I think we made the right decision about not taking her with us.
I disagree. You would have given her shelter and safety by keeping her
overnight and then returning her, based upon the info. offered by your
friend, to her home. Didn't it bother you that she was running loose on a
road and actually came into your headlights? It doesn't sound like her
owners are all that responsible either. But they cared enough to give her a
name tag. Also, if there was a rabies tag or other collar tag, it would
have been fairly simple to track her through the tag number and the issue
location. But your friend would have solved the problem in any case.
>> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
>> dog. You neglected her. You also apparently needed to have her restrained
>> for your pleasure.
>
> I 'restrained' her with a single hand on her haunch; my friend was
>scratching her neck in a non-restaining way. Any movement on her part
>and she would have simply walked free. Am I claiming that she *wanted*
>this kind of affection? No. All I claim is that she tolerated it, and
>that she suffered no harm.
If she didn't "want" that kind of attention, then why do it? Perhaps her
tolerance was due to a learned submission? But the harm was very real. It
wasn't in your act of self-gratification. It was in the act of abandonment.
It should not have been left to sheer luck that she survived the road that
night. You had a duty to her, if you cared about her welfare. You did not
help her. You helped yourself.
> Does that make me selfish? Hell yes. What I did was equivalent to
>'Fencehopping' -- an activity where a person trespasses onto another
>person's property to find willing or tolerant animals. I know the
>compulsion to fencehop -- Yes, I've done it before -- but fencehopping
>is a criminal activity that should be avoided.
Hmmm..... new term. Never heard of this before; except as something done by
other 4 legged animals to get to something in season.
> I didn't tresspass
>anywhere, nor did I break any other laws, but that doesn't make what I
>did with Goldie ethical. Now that I have dogs of my own, I haven't
>felt the compulsion to use other people's animals.
Actually you did trespass upon Goldie's owners. She is legally the property
of the family who owns her. By using her without their permission you had
temporarily stolen their property. It's kind of a gray area but if you had
not stopped there would have been no crime. If you had stopped and taken
her to safety it is unlikely that the owners would see this as anything
more than a good samaritan gesture. It would not be theft because you had
no intention to deprive Goldie from them. But using her was theft of her in
a way. It was intentional and compounded by the abandonment. Is this making
sense to you? Really hard to put into proper context.
>> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
>> illegal. It requires no more conscience than the willful commission of any
>> other kind of crime which endangers a life.
>>
>> > In short, Mike, I am a zoo but I am sane.
>> That has now been called into question, Remus. What have *you* learned?
>
> What have I learned on this newsgroup? I'm learning a lot about animal
>rights and the people who fight for them, and how they view people like me.
>What have I learned in my life, about how to practice bestiality in an
>ethical manner? An enormous amount...and I'm still learning.
>
> So did I neglect her? Yes...but I don't know what else I could have done.
See above. A nice, warm blanket. A bowl of water. And a phone call in the
morning to find her family would have insured her safety to a greater
degree and been some sort of acknowledgement that she was worth more to you
than just a quick hump.
>Advice here would be helpful. Was it wrong to have sex with her? Yes,
>because it was someone else's animal. I am not proud of my actions, that
>night with Goldie. But neither do I think that my actions deserved, or
>should deserve, legal repercussions.
>
> Your opinions?
My only further opinion is basically influenced by the selfishness of the
act: you defined her as "disposable". That is not a concern for welfare. If
you disposed of some other piece of property *you* owned, that would be
littering. If you dis[pose of a piece of property that you do *not* own,
that is dealing in stolen goods. A crime, yes? Intent is everything in the
commission of a crime. You had no intention of safeguarding Goldie. You
were negligent.
Maybe this is a better analogy: Some kid goes for a joyride in your new
Porsche, which you really care about. There is a small dent in the fender
and the tank is empty *and* they have abandoned it in a neighborhood that
would likely have problems with vandalism (potential for further, more
permanent damage). Were you harmed? Did the joyriders commit a crime? Does
it make you angry that someone used and abandoned your property that way?
>... ...
>Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
- Leslie
"If I am not who you say I am; then you are not who you think you are."
->James Baldwin
Leslie
by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
>
>> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
>> dog. You neglected her.
>
>> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
>> illegal.
>
>Not all zoosexuals treat animals like the example you are commenting to.
>Most own their own animals and treat them with love, care and respect.
>Most zoosexuals put no limits on medical expenses when their animal family
>members get sick and most zoosexuals mourn bitterly for years at the loss
>of past animal family members. Not all zoosexuals post explicit sexual web
>pages promoting their lifestyle. Not all zoosexuals seek out animals they
>do not own just for their sexual gratification.
Yes, I understand that this may be true. But Remus acknowledged the
incident and asked for comments from an animal welfare POV. That is how I
tried to answer him. Successfully, I hope.
>Pro4animals uses this approach to further his cause: He cites and gives
>any and all the worst negative and abusive bestialist examples he can find
>telling people that this is an example of ALL zoosexuals. His agenda has
>not the animals welfare in mind but is one strictly of insane revenge plus
>some misguided idea that his acts show repentance for his past violent
>deeds.
>
>Bareback
I also understand that you may have some background knowledge of the
original poster that I do not. And that there are some very strong issues
there between you. I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion. That is how I had
been considering the exchanges, up until the point that Remus requested
comments on his actions. I may be a lot of things in the opinion of others
here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own. In
Remus' account, welfare was not paramount.
There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
the "cause".
--Leslie
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31 November/December
> 1995
> If we call it forced *ex with animals,
This is the most laugable thing I have seen you post. All the SEX words
are censored. Randy---er Mike did you censor them or did the authors? I
never knew that in 1995 there were still Victorians out and about.
> The animals who people have access to are the animals who will be ***ually
> used: cats, dogs, sheep, cows, hens, rabbits, goats, ducks, horses, bulls,
> fishes.
Even funnier---Seinfeld should have used this in his show. "Hey---did you
see that sexy fish? Boy I'd like to have a roll in the pond with that
fish".
Randy---er Mike keep it up yer doin great. So entertaining.
> of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal ***ual
> abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of
> these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.
And we all know where you fit in here dont we Randy--er Mike.
> That is a matter of public records and we could find
> the text from the zoophile's web site in our archives.
Someone should re-post the one about the man and his St Bernard. You know
the guy who murdered one or two of his dogs?
Bareback
Name withheld by request
Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
> I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
> newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion.
Nor do I but in some cases it is warrented but IMO not in this case. In
this particular case Remus recieved much chastisement and flames from many
in the zoo community when he posted the article anew on ASB. Much mileage
was gotten from it and as far as I could see it was over and done with.
Wounds were licked and it was put to rest.
Pro4 druged it up to shove it in Remus's face and most importantly to use
in his hate campaign against all zoosexuals. Pro4's tactics are
traditional. For example if someone is hate campaigning against all Negros
they are going to exhibit the worst examples of black criminals and
thugs they can find and hope that the people they try to decieve never see
the good upstanding members of the African American peoples that make up
their majority.
> I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
And most zoosexuals, that is all those zoosexuals who love and care about
animals have the same concerns.
> There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
> an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
> for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
> I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
> the "cause".
He is attempting deceive you and many others with a false agenda.
Bareback
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Maybe this is a better analogy: Some kid goes for a joyride in your new
> Porsche, which you really care about. There is a small dent in the fender
> and the tank is empty *and* they have abandoned it in a neighborhood that
> would likely have problems with vandalism (potential for further, more
> permanent damage). Were you harmed? Did the joyriders commit a crime? Does
> it make you angry that someone used and abandoned your property that way?
This analogy is shocking to _me_. A car is an unfeeling,
unaware piece of machinery. If it is damaged, it suffers
no harm. There can be no comparison between a car and a
living animal. The damage of Remus's abandonment was done
to Goldie, not to her "owners" (disgusting term).
A more accurate analogy would be finding a small child alone
on the road and refusing to take the child to safety. Even
if the child knew his way home, he could still be hurt out
on the road alone at night.
Rat
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
> > Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > > If the people here on t.p.a want to talk about my encounter with
Goldie,
> > > I'll welcome the discussion...I'm actually curious to hear their opinion.
> > You are indeed ill, and have guilt feelings, otherwise you wouldn't need
> > reassurances, comfort or approval from complete strangers on a newsgroup!
>
> If, as you say, 99.9% of people feel bestiality is inherently disgusting,
> how am I looking for reassurances by asking the opinion of total strangers?
> Least of all, animal right advocates. No, I'm looking to learn, Mike.
Looking to learn!?
> > I see, so standing up for animals and campaigning against sexual molestation
> > of animals is illogical fanaticism! That of course could only be stated by
> > one who is blinded by his own perversion to see that 99.9% of the populace
> > finds what you do to be the most disgusting thing they heard of, and animal
> > abuse.
>
> By your admission, you spend 10 hours a day at this activity, and you have
> no logical reasoning, professional research, or factual data to support your
> views. That's the best definition of illogical fanaticism I've ever seen.
> Until you can frame a reasoned argument, I'll keep calling it that. Please,
> *please*, make me change my mind. I want you to.
No, my wife and I spend 200-300 hours per month, and that much in dollars on
this issue, and as I posted elsewhere- any initial start of an activist
issue, business, community issue, fund raiser etc requires an enormous outlay
of time initially to get things started and rolling. That is completely and
entirely normal, just ask any business owner, animal group founder or fund
raising committee how much time they spent the first year getting their
things started. They will all say something like 16 hour days 7 days a week.
Once we have the ball rolling, and the legislative actions started, then we
can cut back the amount of time we spend as others begin to take over that
aspect.
> > We noticed you are more than a little bit behind us in our efforts! You have
> > about 5 mailing lists, about 100 animal right's groups, animal shelters and
> > others to post your pro animal sex statements to!
> > We noticed we *never* see your face on any of those more private forums,
could
> > it be you know you would be thrown out so fast, and flamed so bad your head
> > would spin?
> <...>
> > Come join us!
>
> Actually, I've read some of your posts on the AR-VIEWS mailing list.
> Have you read the charter for that list, Mike? It explicitly states
> that t.p.a is the place for non-animal-rights people to express their
> views and hold discussions. It seems that on t.p.a you're proposing that
> I break the charter of AR-VIEWS...although on AR-VIEWS, you're asking
> people to post to t.p.a.
The ar-views charter is not the talk.politics.animals charter, they are two
entities, with TPA at one time being the animal right's forum. You are making
excuses because you know your perversion would never be accepted there and is
largely ignored here.
> > I notice for all his "bravery", on a newsgroup that is about half
> > animal users now, that he is afraid of expressing himself *here* in
> > this forum!
> > You will note he *admits* on a public newsgroup that he raped this
> > dog!
> > You will also note the justification of animal sexual abuse by
> > continuing to challenge us to explain *why* bestiality is wrong!
> > Anyone is welcome to post to TPA on this.
>
> I'll stick to t.p.a, thanks...it seems like the appropriate place.
> And I'll meet you in the legislature, where it really counts, assuming
> you get that far.
We bet you will stay here, "here" is safe for animal molesters. As far as the
legislature, we keep our word, you will note we posted early last summer
about the radio show and kept our word- it was indeed real as we posted, and
yet it wasn't untill now that we hear about zoophile's latest efforts to get
on the animal rights radio show to promote bestiality on a show hosted by
someone who finds what you do very disgusting and has seen all the zoophile
web sites such as calzoo, zootopia and all the rest and is sickened by it.
You had the chance to phone into the show and express yourself, if you didn't
believe Professor Beirne and I were going on the radio that was your problem,
and we are currently searching out similar forums elsewhere to contact. We
also stated we have contacts with animal groups who are going to announce
their new legislative campaigns, notice there is an animal protection group
already in Switzerland campaigning against sex with animals, and as we said,
we are forwarding many files to these groups. There is much more to come,
just as we posted.
We were also invited to write a short article for a magazine, this will be
done as well, just as we said.
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html
Your host, Mike Rolland
Now, here is a news story from Sweden, notice the charge, and notice they
consider sex with cows to be animal abuse;
===================================================================
9/98
STOCKHOLM A 50-year-old man from western Sweden has been charged with
cruelty to animals after having sex with two cows, Swedish news agency
TT said Friday.
The man from Alingsas near Gothenburg, who has admitted the crimes,
became excited after watching a pornographic film and set off for a
nearby farm armed with a vibrator and other sex aids, as well as a
camera, to abuse the cows.
A few weeks later he returned for a second visit, TT said, quoting the
local Alingsas Tidningen newspaper.
But when he tried to get his films of the cows developed, the local
photo company alerted the police, who arrested the man and seized his
sex aids.
The county vet has examined the photographs of the cows and determined
the animals suffered both physical and psychological damage, TT said.
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
> > newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion.
>
> Nor do I but in some cases it is warrented but IMO not in this case. In
> this particular case Remus recieved much chastisement and flames from many
> in the zoo community when he posted the article anew on ASB. Much mileage
> was gotten from it and as far as I could see it was over and done with.
> Wounds were licked and it was put to rest.
He was flamed because it *has* been used by many and makes all of you
look the way you do as sex with animals is not consensual sex between two
consenting adults. It is an abuse situation.
> Pro4 druged it up to shove it in Remus's face and most importantly to use
> in his hate campaign against all zoosexuals. Pro4's tactics are
> traditional. For example if someone is hate campaigning against all Negros
> they are going to exhibit the worst examples of black criminals and
> thugs they can find and hope that the people they try to decieve never see
> the good upstanding members of the African American peoples that make up
> their majority.
Oh please, you are comparing campaigns against the rape of animals with
KKK campaigns against being black now!
We posted the material that Remus admitted he wrote, how is that "drugging" up
the text?
> > I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
> And most zoosexuals, that is all those zoosexuals who love and care about
> animals have the same concerns.
Your concern is only a claim, as you cannot prove it here, it is more a
concern of being allowed to continue molesting animals unfettered by laws or
anyone else. Even if one took great care of the animal involved, that would
not make any justification difference. Pedophiles also take great care of the
children they molest, often showering them with candy, gifts and bribes. MAny
are family members so obviously they would take good physical care of their
victims so they wouldn't be caught. Or it could be a guilt thing.
None of that makes up for or erases the fact that a female dog is designed to
mate but twice a year during her cycles in which the internal structures
involved, and the vulva all greatly expand due to hormones. Out of cycles
these structures shrink back down. A man is too large physically for a female
dog, when she is force raped (call it what you wish it is the same as forced
sex with children and the retarded who cannot consent) this results in
tearing however minor, and pain. This might be compared slightly to, in a
man's case- your doctor doing a digital examination, or receiving an
intensive enema which can be very uncomfortable and cause some pain. Now
project this upon a dog who is subjected to this on a daily or even more
frequent basis andwhile there may be no outward signs someone can see, there
are internal signs, vaginal infections, urinary tract infections etc.
Also, since zoophiles prefer intact animals, unspayed females are at a much
greater risk of contracting life threatening pyometra (uterine infections)
breast cancers, and many other health problems. Zoophiles encourage their
mixed breed dogs to breed for fun, while taking photos of them for some of
the "erotica" we see on their web sites. So while animal shelters nationwide
are over flowing with unwanted animals, these people are purposefully
breeding them for sex reasons and erotica.
We have seen photos of what appeared to be a Yellow Lab mix being covered
by a Male Rottweiler on a zoophile web site placed there as erotica. We feel
this is a horrid situation where more litters are born while 5,000,000 dogs a
year die in shelters because there are no homes for them.
> > There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
> > an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
> > for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
> > I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
> > the "cause".
Where does medical research come into this discussion?
> He is attempting deceive you and many others with a false agenda.
> Bareback
And you of course as an admitted zoophile are naturally giving everyone the
complete facts! We know some zoophile web sites mention they want to see
current laws removed, and this to become legal. So obviously zoophiles are
going to paint a very sugar coated rosey picture so they can push towards
this end.
We on the other hand on our web sites have mainly pointed to zoophile web
sites and forums and let people go look for themselves to see the perversion.
Your web sites are your own downfall as more people see personal ads
soliciting sex with animals on the calZOO California *ZOOPHILE* org. group
that all the other zoophile web sites link to.
We also have distributed all the links on Ians zoopage, all the handy
links to the zoophile world in one file.
That was how we found the University students web site showing his American
Eskimo dog, and admitting he had a sexual relation with this dog Beauregard's
Snowbear.
The dog is dead now though as the site says, allowed to roam loose into his
neighbor's property the dog was shot to death.
Must be all that "good care" was just too much.
Many thanks to Ians zoolinks for all the help, we found it most convienient as
is the zooring that links one site to others, so you find one and follow the
chain to all the others linked to it.
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html
Your host, Mike Rolland
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> On the wall of the outhouse on Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:49:31 GMT, Name withheld
> >> dog. You neglected her.
> >
> >> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
> >> illegal.
> >
>
> >any and all the worst negative and abusive bestialist examples he can find
> >telling people that this is an example of ALL zoosexuals. His agenda has
> >not the animals welfare in mind but is one strictly of insane revenge plus
> >some misguided idea that his acts show repentance for his past violent
> >deeds.
Bareback: the more you rant and rave about my wife and I the more your group
comes out sounding like nuts. You have been claiming all sorts of things,
including some kind of supposed "revenge" thing. None of them have any basis
in fact. You have even earlier, been attempting to claim we are religious
fanatics bent on a moral cruisade, now you claim it is a revenge cruisade.
Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds", nor
are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
The fact is, we began this as a check against the continued growth of this
sickening abuse after it was announced they were going to spread this
material nationwide on the Springer show. We decided that since no one else
was fighting against this, and it was being swept under the rug as a topic
too disgusting for most anyone, that we would tackle this issue.
As is the case with every new enterprise, cause, business or community
project, we have to devote considerable time to this to get it started and
build up an organised opposition towards promoting legislation in all 50
states making sexual contact with animals an animal abuse issue added to
existing animal abuse laws. Towards that end we post material on 14 web
sites, mailing lists and other forums. We show where the zoophile forums are,
what is there, explain the contents and provide information and other
contacts.
In order to demonstrait the numbers and show there is a growing problem, we
obtained and used logs, names, web site URLS were logged, source files
archived and any other information supporting this was obtained and
distributed.
Professor Beirne and I were on the radio speaking on this as well.
> I also understand that you may have some background knowledge of the
> original poster that I do not. And that there are some very strong issues
> there between you.
> I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
> newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion. That is how I had
> been considering the exchanges, up until the point that Remus requested
> comments on his actions.
Well, the man comes in here as a spokeperson for the community, and offering
his side, so knowing readers here may not have been aware of him being an
admitted zoophile we decided to use that post to show that on the one hand he
is talking about how much love and care etc is involved, and on the other
hand he wrote of molesting a 40-50 pound stray, lost or abandoned female dog
by the road side and then leaving her there! He even admitted writing it and
then asked for comments!
>I may be a lot of things in the opinion of others
> here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
> Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
> humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
> lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own. In
> Remus' account, welfare was not paramount.
>
> There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
> an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
> for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
> I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
> the "cause".
Leslie, in no post have we said a word about medical research. We are animal
welfare activists who believe unnecessary vivisection is not right- that would
be repetitive tests on animals showing that yes, chlorox is indeed poisonous
as is tobacco!
*Some* medical research does benefit animals as well as humans and will
continue regardless, but we protest the vivisection and unnecessary
procedures that all can be done with computer models and dead animals.
The animal right's groups are the groups best equipped to promote legislation
against bestiality/zoophilia, what other groups are there that would have the
resources, members and all the rest who would deal with an animal related
matter like this? The Govt. departments, APHIS, Dept of agriculture etc
surely won't.
> --Leslie
> Remember the Pierce Collies!!! His time is almost up!!
> http://www.collie.net/~dwayne/pierce
Mike
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> sex with animals is not consensual sex between two
> consenting adults. It is an abuse situation.
Your opinion only and as you well know by experience---not true.
> Oh please, you are comparing campaigns against the rape of animals with
> KKK campaigns against being black now!
No I am comparing YOU and your typical operations to those such as the KKK
ect. You are probably the only one here who would comment to my reply like
you did. Reasonable readers knew that my comment was strictly an
illustrative example.
> We posted the material that Remus admitted he wrote,
No argument here. Did you pull up the article from your own archives that
you may have saved? The ones from when you used to read ASB under a
different name wearing a different coat?
> Your concern is only a claim, as you cannot prove it here,
Exactly. This is only a discussion forum and thats a serious problem for
you SON.
> None of that makes up for or erases the fact that a female dog is designed to
> mate but twice a year during her cycles in which the internal structures
> involved, and the vulva all greatly expand due to hormones.
Your vast experience with bitches comes in handy does it not? Knowing that
you have a hot hair trigger temper I hope your days of violence and murder
are over.
> A man is too large physically for a female dog,
How about performing fallatio on a large dog---say a St. Bernard?
> So while animal shelters nationwide are over flowing with unwanted
> animals, these people are purposefully breeding them for sex reasons
> and erotica.
Please NG readers----is anyone really swallowing this? Is this guy really
wholesouled in a quest advocating animal welfare? If so---why did he post
on alt.personals.gay??? C'mon Randy --er Mike give us a little more
substance to work with here.
BTW anyone want a puppy?----Just foolin ya ;)
> Where does medical research come into this discussion?
Randy---Leslie was calling you to task as to your motivations. You have to
realize that when you post your agenda on various newsgroups that people
are not going to take it just at face value. After all---you have to let
them examine to see if there really is some substance under that stuffed
shirt. You know that you are going to come up against people that are
discerining and smarter than you from time to time.
> And you of course as an admitted zoophile are naturally giving everyone the
> complete facts!
Who is admiting to being a zoophile? Maybe I is and maybe I aint. I might
have said that I have sex with animals but then again I could also say
that I climbed Mt. Everest. From reading your posts years back before and
after your conversion I should think you know well that nothing posted on
usenet or chat channels can really be believed as being fact.
> We know some zoophile web sites mention they want to see
> current laws removed, and this to become legal. So obviously zoophiles are
> going to paint a very sugar coated rosey picture so they can push towards
> this end.
Yes. Aint the "freedom of speech" thing a bitch? Don't you wish that
wasn't an obstical in your way?
Bareback
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Bareback: the more you rant and rave about my wife and I the more your group
> comes out sounding like nuts. You have been claiming all sorts of things,
"Son" (a little sarcastic tit for tat) you betray yourself by constantly
posting huge testimonials to your quest. Your appearence on
alt.personals.gay betrays you. Other posters to this group have posted
much evidence that you are not what you try to appear to be. There were
some of the regulars to this list that caught on to you well before I and
others stepped in to call you at your dirty work. You can't blame us for
tossing some stumbling blocks in your way. Your enemies are facts, reason
and "freedom of speech" and you can't remove those obsticals.
Like you yourself said---"Nothing can be proved" on a discussion group
such as this but consistant words speak much.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> You have been claiming all sorts of things,
> including some kind of supposed "revenge" thing.
> None of them have any basis
> in fact. You have even earlier, been attempting to claim we are religious
> fanatics bent on a moral cruisade, now you claim it is a revenge cruisade.
As you yourself pointed out I can allege anything I desire here. Falshoods
and reallities are only discerned by the third party readers perception of
the quality of the opposing posts. I'll tell you what.
I'll stop alleging that you are a former beastiallist who was kicked off a
zoo chat room because you hurt and killed dogs if you stop alleging that
all zoosexuals molest animals. I'll stop alleging that your real name is
Randy and that you really do not have animal welfare at heart if you stop
alleging that all zoosexuals are rapists.
What do you think? Deal?
Bareback
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->But in this case, you are *still* using the netcom account you were using
->below in 1995,
Nothing like -you-, eh Randy? Let's name just a -few- of the ones
you have used:
randy...@aol.com
dogl...@aol.com
doglo...@aol.com
an30...@anon.penet.fi
dogl...@gears.efn.org
dogl...@teleport.com
dog...@teleport.com
wo...@teleport.com
bho...@teleport.com
abr...@c2.org
good...@cyberpass.net
nob...@replay.com
bgtvfrc...@hotmail.com
zoob...@hotmail.com
zoob...@aol.com
anim...@aol.com
sayn...@my-dejanews.com
sayn...@aol.com
lliil...@aol.com
slink...@aol.com
knot...@aol.com
anim...@aol.com
pro4a...@aol.com
Whew! No wonder you use the same password at all your accounts and
Cab was able to read and archive -all- your email at -all- your accounts
for 4-5 months this year before he decided to change all your passwords
for you.
Heheheheh.
Sayonara Randy!
PN
--
Life protracted is protracted woe.
(Samuel Johnson)
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->Here is the post you made regarding a 40 or 50 pound stray female dog that
->================================================================
->Newsgroups: alt.sex.bestiality
->From: re...@netcom.com (Remus Shepherd)
->Subject: Golden night...
->Message-ID: <remusDD...@netcom.com>
->Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
->X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
->Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 03:58:57 GMT
->Lines: 81
->Sender: re...@netcom13.netcom.com
->
-> Hi, all. I had a nice experience the other night.
Gee Randy, you didn't find that by doing a DN author profile on Remus,
the post you are quoting cannot be found there on alt.sex.bestiality.
->Here we can see why you do animals- failed relationships
->with women, posted by the one who
->held the trusting dog's head while you raped her;
->==================================================================
->
->
->Subject: Re: Comparisons -- Women and Dogs. (was: sadness is this)
->From: Bonnie <bhut...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
->Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:38:12 -0600
->
->You chose to make it public.....
Gee Randy, you can't find that one by doing a Deja News profile
on Remus either. In fact the place it can be found there
is as an anonymous posting from nob...@replay.com in the newsgroup
alt.talk.bestiality in January -1998-!
Some of your own writings perhaps? No wonder you know where to
find this stuff!
PN
--
We are all exceptional cases... Each man insists on being innocent, even
if it means accusing the whole human race, and heaven.
(Albert Camus)
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->In other words you want people here to give you their opinions on how you, a
->grown man carrys KY jelly on his person in the hopes of finding an animal for
->sex, and then raped a stray or lost female dog by the side of the road that
Gee, this sounds -just- like something I remember reading before!
Remus, lets see aren't you the guy who carries ky jelly in his pocket in
case he runs across a stray bitch on the street as was posted here before?
Never mind, we know, it was a rhetorical question.
Gee, who wrote that?
Well surprise, surprise, surprise. It was Randy!
No wonder he knows where to find all these articles!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wo...@teleport.com
Subject: Re: (fwd) Saint Bernards/final comments (fwd)
Date: 28 Dec 1995 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4bt52h$l...@maureen.teleport.com>
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.misc
re...@netcom.com (Remus Shepherd) wrote:
>>(none) (abr...@infinity.c2.org) wrote:
>>> It might interest those of you who are bigots, to know that Hani
>>> Miletski, a psychology student is doing preliminary work right now
>>> towards a study to be done next year to try and determine if the sexual
>>> attraction to animals is genetic based like homosexuality, or what have you
>>> She feels it DOES have some genetic basis in fact, backed up by the fact
>>> that many such people always started their attraction in prepuberty or
>>> in puberty. Just like many gay people know they were gay or had gay
>>> tendencies then.
>> A-HEM.
>> There *is* a researcher doing clinical work on zoophilia. She does *not*
>>have any 'feeling' about the origins or basis of zoophilia -- she does not
>>have any pre-concieved conclusions. The research, IMHO as a subject, is
>>being handled with objectivity and professionalism.
>> Please do not involve innocent people in your arguments.
>>...
>>Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
-----
Remus, lets see aren't you the guy who carries ky jelly in his pocket in
case he runs across a stray bitch on the street as was posted here before?
Never mind, we know, it was a rhetorical question.
As for hani, her two or three hour long speech on the forest which was
transcribed, indicated a professionalism and middle of the road
viewpoint, but as I recall the subject of whether this was genetic or had
some genetic basis in fact was brought up, and as I recall she said it
may very well be the case, that she plans to explore all avenues to try
and see if this IS genetic or simply a lifestyle choice. I believe that
is what was posted in so many words.
The point of the post was to show there is a professional who is
researching this and may very well find a genetic basis in fact like the
suspected "gay" gene.
Now, unless you wish to really open the topic of zoophilia up again on rec
pets when I wanted to and planned to let the topic drop now, and when
*your* community is getting so close to another ssz newsgroup vote, I
suggest you might not really want to get into topic this here with me.
Dont you have enough trouble with Perigon Neptune as it is?
Now you can go back to alt sex bestiality with the rest of them, I have quit
your little "community" and wish nothing further to do with it, so dont
bother mailing me I wont respond.
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And look! Here is where he has left all his old friends after they
left him! Just like the story told!
Hehehehehhe.
PN
--
Beware the fury of a patient man.
(John Dryden)
Remus Shepherd
> At first blush, maybe this would have made sense *if* you hadn't had your
> pleasure with her and then left her. That's very confusing to some animals:
> attention and then abandonment, I mean. Besides, in your next paragraph you
> show that you would have solved Goldie's ownership problem with that same
> phone call. To me, that means that you might have considered that she
> needed a safe place for the night. Wouldn't you agree that no dark road is
> safe for loose dogs at night?
I agree. Note that there was no phone call; we drove past the house the
next day, and saw her in the yard. But you make an excellent point; even
if Goldie was not my responsibility before I met her, I should have made her
my responsibility afterwards.
> >So I think we made the right decision about not taking her with us.
> I disagree. You would have given her shelter and safety by keeping her
> overnight and then returning her, based upon the info. offered by your
> friend, to her home. Didn't it bother you that she was running loose on a
> road and actually came into your headlights?
It bothered us, yes...we spent some time talking about it. We couldn't
have taken her with us -- where we were staying, pets were not allowed.
We could have backtracked, though, and imposed upon the person we were
visiting to keep her until the morning. But if he knew her as an animal
that commonly ran loose, I don't think he'd appreciate being asked to
care for her.
> > I 'restrained' her with a single hand on her haunch; my friend was
> >scratching her neck in a non-restaining way. Any movement on her part
> >and she would have simply walked free. Am I claiming that she *wanted*
> >this kind of affection? No. All I claim is that she tolerated it, and
> >that she suffered no harm.
> If she didn't "want" that kind of attention, then why do it? Perhaps her
> tolerance was due to a learned submission? But the harm was very real. It
> wasn't in your act of self-gratification. It was in the act of abandonment.
Why do it? Compulsion. <:)
Learned submission is a quality of most domestic animals, although it
only goes so far. I can have sex with my dog, I can shrug her into a coat,
and I can pick burrs out of just about any part of her fur. But if I try
to clip her toenails, she flatly and violently refuses. :) Although
I have not yet brought up any such arguments, I believe that animals can and
do consent to certain activities. I trust that there is a limit beyond
which they will ignore any learned submission behaviour.
And thank you, Leslie, for recognizing that no harm was done by
the act of bestiality itself. :)
Remus Shepherd
> heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> > I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
> > newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion. That is how I had
> > been considering the exchanges, up until the point that Remus requested
> > comments on his actions.
I opened myself up to comments for two reasons. One, I know that I didn't
treat Goldie perfectly...I've had this discussion before. I really do
appreciate hearing tips from animal welfare experts on what I *should* have
done.
Two, it happened, and I am responsible for it. In four years on the
internet, I have had the same email address; every bestiality-related
post I have made in those four years has been directly attributable to
re...@netcom.com. I have no respect for those who deny responsibility
for their words or deeds: I choose to be responsible for mine.
> Well, the man comes in here as a spokeperson for the community,
Whoops! Time for a disclaimer! :)
I am a spokesman for nobody but myself. There is no group of people
who would have me for a spokesman. Opinions expressed by me are the
sole responsibility of me, myself, and I, and should not be construed
as necessarily reflecting the views of any person who might look, act,
or sound like me. All warranties are limited. Your mileage may vary
wildly. 5 cent deposits valid only in states beginning with a 'H'.
I hope that's clearer. :)
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > You have been claiming all sorts of things,
> > including some kind of supposed "revenge" thing.
> > None of them have any basis
> > in fact. You have even earlier, been attempting to claim we are religious
> > fanatics bent on a moral cruisade, now you claim it is a revenge cruisade.
>
> As you yourself pointed out I can allege anything I desire here. Falshoods
> and reallities are only discerned by the third party readers perception of
> the quality of the opposing posts. I'll tell you what.
That is correct, one can claim anything, however the only thing that
*matters* in the end we seek- the legislative end, is the voters and the
humane groups and animal shelters who affect animal abuse laws and
legislation. Regardless of what we post, or you post, the humane groups
already started their actions of viewing zoophile web sites and know this is
abuse without us telling them it is abuse.
> I'll stop alleging that you are a former beastiallist who was kicked off a
> zoo chat room because you hurt and killed dogs if you stop alleging that
> all zoosexuals molest animals. I'll stop alleging that your real name is
> Randy and that you really do not have animal welfare at heart if you stop
> alleging that all zoosexuals are rapists.
> What do you think? Deal?
> Bareback
You know, you sure do worry a lot about what we post don't you, that means we
are having an effect, or else we wouldn't see all of what we have, including
the email bombs and threats! Feel free to "allege" what ever you wish, we
really don't care who believes it.
There is no such word as "zoosexual"... You can claim whatever you wish, but
our web sites speak for themselves and for us. So, sorry to disapoint you,
but no deal! because we know we are right, and we have the verifiable proof
on all of the zoophile web sites.
We don't deal with people who rape animals who can't consent any more than we
would approve of child molestation and change or course because a couple of
pee-on pedophiles trying to oppose us are desperately trying anything and
everything to continue their goals to remove laws and spread their perversion
in every forum to recruit new people.
We see the personal ads on calzoo, a ZOOPHILE site, the
"bestiality videos" on zoophile Actaeon's web site, and the links to porn and
sex sites on other zoophile sites.
You may fool some here, we are not fooled, neither will voters if an animal
abuse law comes up for review and "sexual contact" is proposed be added
to it- citing all the material on the net and the news stories of the Herbeck,
Alonzo case etc.
Your efforts against us are so transparant, and only hurt your side who
now looks even worse than before.
Mike
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> You know, you sure do worry a lot about what we post don't you, that means we
> are having an effect, or else we wouldn't see all of what we have, including
> the email bombs and threats! Feel free to "allege" what ever you wish, we
> really don't care who believes it.
What?? Readers please tell me Who is ranting here? Why do you repeatedly
post replies with long long ranting? Threats? I have given no
threats.
> Your efforts against us are so transparant, and only hurt your side who
> now looks even worse than before.
What side?? All I am doing is pointing out that you are making statements
here with no validity. All I am doing is kicking your soapbox. You don't
really think that you can make claims and accusations without some
opposition do you? And you thought you could just do a cakewalk here;)
Bareback
Leslie
<lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Leslie wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Maybe this is a better analogy: Some kid goes for a joyride in your new
>> Porsche, which you really care about. There is a small dent in the fender
>> and the tank is empty *and* they have abandoned it in a neighborhood that
>> would likely have problems with vandalism (potential for further, more
>> permanent damage). Were you harmed? Did the joyriders commit a crime? Does
>> it make you angry that someone used and abandoned your property that way?
>
> This analogy is shocking to _me_. A car is an unfeeling,
> unaware piece of machinery. If it is damaged, it suffers
> no harm. There can be no comparison between a car and a
> living animal. The damage of Remus's abandonment was done
> to Goldie, not to her "owners" (disgusting term).
With all due respect, Rat, I was trying to objectify the scenario. I'm so
often accused of drawing "erroneous" conclusions (according to the
zoophiles] if I compare using children. I actually did think of this but
discarded it in favor of the less inflammatory car analogy.
However, I have to differ with you technically here. Technically Goldie is
"property". That is what the law says. So the use of a car was entirely
appropriate. Apples to apples. Do I think that a car's welfare must be
protected and preserved? NO! A car is not a dog. Yet the two are considered
material possessions under the law. And Remus asked if what he did should
be considered a crime. By law, under these circumstances, and strictly
speaking, the answer would have to be *yes*.
> A more accurate analogy would be finding a small child alone
> on the road and refusing to take the child to safety. Even
> if the child knew his way home, he could still be hurt out
> on the road alone at night.
>
> Rat
>
More accurate for you. But unacceptable coming from me. I felt that the
issue shouldn't be twisted off into another flame war by those who love to
troll for me.
Leslie
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <36420479...@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
>> On the wall of the outhouse on Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:49:31 GMT, Name withheld
>> by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> >Pro4animals uses this approach to further his cause: He cites and gives
>> >any and all the worst negative and abusive bestialist examples he can find
>> >telling people that this is an example of ALL zoosexuals. His agenda has
>> >not the animals welfare in mind but is one strictly of insane revenge plus
>> >some misguided idea that his acts show repentance for his past violent
>> >deeds.
>
>Bareback: the more you rant and rave about my wife and I the more your group
>comes out sounding like nuts. You have been claiming all sorts of things,
>including some kind of supposed "revenge" thing. None of them have any basis
>in fact. You have even earlier, been attempting to claim we are religious
>fanatics bent on a moral cruisade, now you claim it is a revenge cruisade.
>
>Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds", nor
>are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
>some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
Without wanting to get stuck in the middle of this one, and only as an
observation, I must say pro4, that I have never seen you make a declarative
denial of the accusation of being a former zoophile. You also avoid
replying to accusations of having brutalized and/or killed animals
yourself. And finally, these people seem to have identified you as a poster
under another name on a couple of different forums. Again, no response from
you.
Now, I don't think that every ridiculous accusation needs a vehement reply;
but I have observed that there is a consistency and pattern to your
avoidance. Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go back to
their own newsgroup? Of course!! I've already said why and kill-filed a few
trolls who won't let up. The exchange with Remus was different in that it
wasn't a discussion of bestiality; it was a discussion of welfare for
animals and ethical obligations surrounding a specific situation.
>The fact is, we began this as a check against the continued growth of this
[snip]
>
>> I also understand that you may have some background knowledge of the
>> original poster that I do not. And that there are some very strong issues
>> there between you.
>
>
>> I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
>> newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion. That is how I had
>> been considering the exchanges, up until the point that Remus requested
>> comments on his actions.
>
>Well, the man comes in here as a spokeperson for the community, and offering
>his side, so knowing readers here may not have been aware of him being an
>admitted zoophile we decided to use that post to show that on the one hand he
>is talking about how much love and care etc is involved, and on the other
>hand he wrote of molesting a 40-50 pound stray, lost or abandoned female dog
>by the road side and then leaving her there! He even admitted writing it and
>then asked for comments!
Actually, I already *knew* Remus was a zoophile before he ever made the
admission. It was contained in a couple of his original comments about
paraphilia. Not explicit acknowledgement; just extremely subtle hints. So
his open admission shortly thereafter wasn't very surprising. However, as
he seemed somewhat more detached than the others, I chose to open a dialog
with him regarding points of view: AR vs AW. In his defense, Remus never
claimed to be a spokesperson for the zoophile community. I also never
considered him to be so.
As for the incident with Goldie, I think that I have already made my point
regarding my consideration of the situation. Do you see approval anywhere
in the posts from me? He asked for comments and that is what he received.
>>I may be a lot of things in the opinion of others
>> here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
>> Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
>> humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
>> lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own. In
>> Remus' account, welfare was not paramount.
See??
>> There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
>> an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
>> for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
>> I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
>> the "cause".
>
>Leslie, in no post have we said a word about medical research. We are animal
>welfare activists who believe unnecessary vivisection is not right- that would
>be repetitive tests on animals showing that yes, chlorox is indeed poisonous
>as is tobacco!
Actually, what other use is there for vivisection? It is used for research,
no? Medical research usually, no? I find it very dangerous that outside
lay-organizations feel that they should be able to make the judgement calls
for the researchers on *what* kinds of research they will be allowed to
undertake. There are a great number of checks and balances in place already
to govern the use of animals in research. And the claims of repetitive
surgeries as being unnecessary to the study, whatever it may be, are coming
straight from the AR organizations who live to demonize and terrorize the
medical and lay community into submission. This is reprehensible and
harmful to any creature that may benefit from a particular study: animal or
human animal.
>*Some* medical research does benefit animals as well as humans and will
>continue regardless, but we protest the vivisection and unnecessary
>procedures that all can be done with computer models and dead animals.
You are not qualified to judge these things. neither are the propaganda
mongers of the AR movement.
>The animal right's groups are the groups best equipped to promote legislation
>against bestiality/zoophilia, what other groups are there that would have the
>resources, members and all the rest who would deal with an animal related
>matter like this? The Govt. departments, APHIS, Dept of agriculture etc
>surely won't.
How about the major dog, cat, horse, cow, sheep fanciers organizations??
And within each of those general headings are the sub-headings for breeds
and breed clubs. Think I'm wrong? Look at the traffic on rec.
pets.dogs.breeds sometime. Look at all the new discussion groups, IRC
channels and mailing lists for these animals; even compartmentalized by
breeds. I mean, they outnumber the AR groups approximately 20:1.
I have a web site, too. But is sure the hell isn't for animal rights!! It's
for welfare and public education. We even say so on the site. And Dwayne
and I have consistently turned down those who would like to borrow or link
to the site for animal rights purposes. We want people to understand that
*we* humans have a responsibility when these things happen. And the
responsibility extends into active support for the animal welfare laws
currently in place, or, if necessary, enhancement of the existing laws and
consequences through legislation and advocacy.
IMO, you haven't looked for the other, very available resources. You have
linked to the most radical. And every time the AR loons go to try shoving
new anti-ownership laws onto the rest of us, the ground swells with a very
loud reply from the hundreds of thousands of welfarists who recognize the
insanity of the AR propaganda; not to mention the foolhardiness of letting
a small bunch of fanatics dictate the rules about animals. Ask yourself
this: how sane is it to poison dogs in crates at dog shows with antifreeze
in the name of the rights of the dogs??
Disassociate or distance yourself from the AR organizations and you will
find a greater support for your cause. Guaranteed.
Leslie
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <91019817...@iris.nyx.net>,
> Name withheld by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>>
>> Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I do not condone the hijackings of posts from other
>> > newsgroups just to tar another in a malicious fashion.
>>
>> Nor do I but in some cases it is warrented but IMO not in this case. In
>> this particular case Remus recieved much chastisement and flames from many
>> in the zoo community when he posted the article anew on ASB. Much mileage
>> was gotten from it and as far as I could see it was over and done with.
>> Wounds were licked and it was put to rest.
>
>He was flamed because it *has* been used by many and makes all of you
>look the way you do as sex with animals is not consensual sex between two
>consenting adults. It is an abuse situation.
Look. It doesn't matter because Remus *asked* for animal welfarist POVs. We
have already settled it as abusive.
[snip]
>Also, since zoophiles prefer intact animals, unspayed females are at a much
>greater risk of contracting life threatening pyometra (uterine infections)
>breast cancers, and many other health problems. Zoophiles encourage their
>mixed breed dogs to breed for fun, while taking photos of them for some of
>the "erotica" we see on their web sites. So while animal shelters nationwide
>are over flowing with unwanted animals, these people are purposefully
>breeding them for sex reasons and erotica.
Good!!! Right here is where you make your case for animal welfare, pro4!!!
Very compelling argument. I doubt that zoophiles keep every puppy of every
litter. A back yard breeder (BYB) is a danger to the unwanted pet
population, whether they be zoophiles or not.
>We have seen photos of what appeared to be a Yellow Lab mix being covered
>by a Male Rottweiler on a zoophile web site placed there as erotica. We feel
>this is a horrid situation where more litters are born while 5,000,000 dogs a
>year die in shelters because there are no homes for them.
Exactly. So work with rescue groups, shelters, SPCA's. They are the ones
actively involved in managing the problems of pet overpopulation, not the
AR loons. Just ask PETA how much they have contributed to *any* animal
shelter in *any* year! Hint: ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!!!!
>> > There is one very big reason that I will not get on pro4's bandwagon. he is
>> > an animal rights activist in that he does not seem to understand the need
>> > for animals in medical research. And he is courting AR groups for support.
>> > I think that this is dangerous to both humans and animals, no matter what
>> > the "cause".
>
>Where does medical research come into this discussion?
Above. You commented on vivisection which is part of animal research.
Name withheld by request
Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
> Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go back to
> their own newsgroup? Of course!!
"Beasty Boys" I like that :) I know some Beasty Girls as well. We will go
back to wherever we belong as soon as we no longer need to be here. Pro4
is our reason. If I annoy, I apologize but at this time annoy I must.
BTW in your using simple logic and reason with pro4 like you do you are
speeding up his departure. He has already said that "No one here cares
anyway".
Bareback
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> On the wall of the outhouse on Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:19:09 GMT,
> pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <36420479...@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> > heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> >> On the wall of the outhouse on Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:49:31 GMT, Name withheld
> >> by request <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Leslie <heir...@fone.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> >Bareback: the more you rant and rave about my wife and I the more your group
> >comes out sounding like nuts. You have been claiming all sorts of things,
> >including some kind of supposed "revenge" thing. None of them have any basis
> >in fact. You have even earlier, been attempting to claim we are religious
> >fanatics bent on a moral cruisade, now you claim it is a revenge cruisade.
> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
nor
> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
> Without wanting to get stuck in the middle of this one, and only as an
> observation, I must say pro4, that I have never seen you make a declarative
> denial of the accusation of being a former zoophile. You also avoid
> replying to accusations of having brutalized and/or killed animals
> yourself. And finally, these people seem to have identified you as a poster
> under another name on a couple of different forums. Again, no response from
> you.
Leslie: You say we never responded, yet you included part of what we said
previously above:
> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
nor
> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
The term "supposed past deeds" is meant to cover pretty much everything
without drawing it into an essay. We don't care what they claim, post, or
attribute to either my wife or I, they cannot prove what they claim. You will
note that our AOL is under my wife's maiden name, Also, AOL does not release
any information about account holders to anyone without a court order. So you
have zoophiles claiming at last summer that we were Mark and Judy Schrad and
they posted a phone number and address. Then one addressed us as "Margaret".
Since AOL does not release any information on account holders, and we have
never posted anything that would be supporting their claims. All of which is
nothing more than hear-say and an obvious attempt to obtain revenge for
closing their web sites and promoting legislation.
We have received last summer, not only email bombs but threats, death threats
and more from them, so this new angle is what we would have expected.
> Now, I don't think that every ridiculous accusation needs a vehement reply;
> but I have observed that there is a consistency and pattern to your
> avoidance. Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go back to
> their own newsgroup? Of course!! I've already said why and kill-filed a few
> trolls who won't let up.
That is correct, why would we bother responding to trolls hiding behind "Name
withheld by request," ANON@.. when responding to it one way or the other does
little more than feed them so they have an excuse to post more pro-animal sex
material?
>The exchange with Remus was different in that it
> wasn't a discussion of bestiality; it was a discussion of welfare for
> animals and ethical obligations surrounding a specific situation.
I am afraid you are not seeing the larger picture, they want laws removed and
public acceptance, part of the way they do this is by engaging people such as
yourself into lengthy dialogs to slowly turn you around by posting essays and
forcing you to justify any and all reasons you may have to object to sex with
animals. Once they engage you in that dialog and you can't come up with
"proof" as to why they shouldn't do this, or how it is abuse, then they have
you hooked. No matter what you say against sex with animals they will claim
it is not enough. There are many other postings from Remus citing childhood
animal abuse, but since we don't live in the past as they do we won't use
them as they are several years old citing events decades ago. He has not at
any time suggested he is willing to seek professional help and get out of
bestiality activities. Remus on the other hand is doing what these people
have been doing for some time now, frequenting animal forums and slowly
spreading "the word" and trying to gain acceptance towards their larger goal-
legality everywhere.
One web site even suggested that zoophiles should be in charge of animal laws!
> Actually, I already *knew* Remus was a zoophile before he ever made the
> admission. It was contained in a couple of his original comments about
> paraphilia. Not explicit acknowledgement; just extremely subtle hints.
You may have had some clues he was, but you didn't know about the Goldie
incident or the other incidents, and likely most here didn't know either.
>So
> his open admission shortly thereafter wasn't very surprising.
He had *no* choice, because anyone can look in the dejanews archives for his
current email address and see where and what he posts.
> However, as
> he seemed somewhat more detached than the others, I chose to open a dialog
> with him regarding points of view: AR vs AW. In his defense, Remus never
> claimed to be a spokesperson for the zoophile community. I also never
> considered him to be so
Detached? I think if you read his posts in the dejanews archives both current
and "old" you would see why. Well he was associated with the
alt.sex.bestiality FAQ as one who was inviolved with it's maint.
> As for the incident with Goldie, I think that I have already made my point
> regarding my consideration of the situation. Do you see approval anywhere
> in the posts from me? He asked for comments and that is what he received.
Well I dont have it handy to quote from, but he was following your post up
with a comment of something like: "Thank you Leslie for seeing the
bestiality as not being abuse"
because your post focused only on the abandonment of the dog he took that as
approval for his molestation of her. The thing is, we have seen these people
post followups to each other's posts pretending to be non zoophiles approving
what they do. The question we have is, are you approving of sex with animals
or not? Never mind with calling bestialit, zoophilia or apple pie, it is all
defined in the dictionary as bestiality: sex with animals. If you approve of
this, then we have nothing further to say to you on this issue but if you
don't approve then great. Most *don't approve*
> >>I may be a lot of things in the opinion of others
> >> here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
> >> Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
> >> humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
> >> lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own. In
> >> Remus' account, welfare was not paramount.
Then your concern should include not approving of sex with animals in any
fashion including ignoring it.
> Actually, what other use is there for vivisection? It is used for research,
> no? Medical research usually, no? I find it very dangerous that outside
> lay-organizations feel that they should be able to make the judgement calls
Vivisection as we see it is saving corporations money in lawsuits by claiming
animal trials found their products safe. They then use animals for the LD50
test and repetitive useless procedures such as force feeding floor wax to
animals to show it is toxic when ingested. We assume any product used for
cleaning floors and stripping paint is probably not a good thing to ingest,
and without tests on animals to "prove it"
We do not get involved in these issues, and untill something better for
medical research comes along animal research will remain, although I am not
sure how applicable research on animals is towards human ailments.
> >*Some* medical research does benefit animals as well as humans and will
> >continue regardless, but we protest the vivisection and unnecessary
> >procedures that all can be done with computer models and dead animals.
>
> You are not qualified to judge these things. neither are the propaganda
> mongers of the AR movement.
That is right, we are *not* qualified and that is one reason we don't get
involved in those issues, we leave that up to the big guns, legislators and
the medical community to battle out. But by vivisection, we are citing the
completely useless procedures as well as some of the training aids used by
vets to learn how to set broken legs and the like by breaking the legs of a
live dog and doing repetitive invasive surgery procedures on them. That of
course is a sticky issue due to the lack of better alternatives, so these
things will continue untill something better comes along.
> >The animal right's groups are the groups best equipped to promote legislation
> >against bestiality/zoophilia, what other groups are there that would have the
> >resources, members and all the rest who would deal with an animal related
> >matter like this? The Govt. departments, APHIS, Dept of agriculture etc
> >surely won't.
>
> How about the major dog, cat, horse, cow, sheep fanciers organizations??
> And within each of those general headings are the sub-headings for breeds
> and breed clubs. Think I'm wrong? Look at the traffic on rec.
> pets.dogs.breeds sometime. Look at all the new discussion groups, IRC
> channels and mailing lists for these animals; even compartmentalized by
> breeds. I mean, they outnumber the AR groups approximately 20:1.
Leslie, you have to understand this bestiality issue is so disgusting to the
majority of people they prefer to ignore it or sweep it under the rug, you
mention bestiality in those forums and see the angry complaints about there
being "children" reading these forums!!
We have been in touch with the ASPCA in NYC since last June, who furnished us
indirectly through an Arizona shelter director with the criminology professor
Piers Beirne article on interspecies sexual assault, and the Animals Agenda
article; Bestiality: the unmentioned abuse.
Funds are always a problem, as are priorities with most of these groups.
We certainly do contact animal shelters and groups besides the AR groups, but
few are as big or global as HSUS, ASPCA, PAWS etc. who have the resources to
include this in mass mailings to members, and generally promote serious
legislation.
We are aware that local animal shelters have considerable control over their
state animal abuse laws, we are trying to contact them as well through the
"grape vine" so that when an animal abuse law comes up for review, or
legislation is proposed to be added to it- they will hopefully include sexual
contact in the proposal.
> I have a web site, too. But is sure the hell isn't for animal rights!! It's
> for welfare and public education. We even say so on the site. And Dwayne
> and I have consistently turned down those who would like to borrow or link
> to the site for animal rights purposes. We want people to understand that
> *we* humans have a responsibility when these things happen. And the
> responsibility extends into active support for the animal welfare laws
> currently in place, or, if necessary, enhancement of the existing laws and
> consequences through legislation and advocacy.
We have 14 web sites, none are "animal rights" they are all mirrors of the
same anti bestiality/zoophilia web site;
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html
> IMO, you haven't looked for the other, very available resources. You have
> linked to the most radical. And every time the AR loons go to try shoving
> new anti-ownership laws onto the rest of us, the ground swells with a very
> loud reply from the hundreds of thousands of welfarists who recognize the
> insanity of the AR propaganda; not to mention the foolhardiness of letting
> a small bunch of fanatics dictate the rules about animals. Ask yourself
> this: how sane is it to poison dogs in crates at dog shows with antifreeze
> in the name of the rights of the dogs??
Leslie, we have spent 200-300 hours per month on this issue since last March,
both on and off the net, we have faxed state Senators such as Lieberman and
many others, attempted to track down former Reagan Secretary Bill Bennett who
was also against the Jerry Springer bestiality show. We also involved the
Rev. Fledger who was protesting the show, and faxed him and his group
numerous documents and web site URLS to use in their efforts. Piers Beirne
and I went on the radio for two hours about this issue.
And we spend considerable time posting in many forums including forums only
available on AOL. We can only do so much, but we have word that this month
there will be an announcement about a legislative effort against sex with
animals will be forth coming.
> Disassociate or distance yourself from the AR organizations and you will
> find a greater support for your cause. Guaranteed.
>
> --Leslie
> Remember the Pierce Collies!!! His time is almost up!!
> http://www.collie.net/~dwayne/pierce
Our only association with these groups is making them aware of the forums and
documents, and using their forums to educate as many as we can.
We cannot of course condone the terrorist activities as we read about and you
cited.
By the way, we did know about the Pierce collie case and have seen your web
site, a most disgusting situation with friends of his blinded to the
reality in his kennels.
I may add your url to our expanding links section.
Mike
Name withheld by request
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> they cannot prove what they claim.
Nor can you prove what you claim. The evidence that you are not who you
claim to be has been posted to this NG by others than myself. People who
read this NG and do not know any of us have already seen holes and
descrepancies in your own posts.
> We have received last summer, not only email bombs but threats, death threats
> and more from them, so this new angle is what we would have expected.
I can assure you that none of this came from me nor any of my friends. On
the otherhand I have noticed a bit of threatening posture on your part.
Your reply to my post in alt.personals.gay was a prime example. That is
why I reposted it with your reply here. You accused me of soliciting for
some kind of sex. Explain to all of us where you got that out of my post.
You yourself are well aware that when you post controversial opinions on
USENET you are apt to attract the attention of a variety of different
people some of which might be violent. As far as any newsgroups are
concerned any anon lurker can post whether he/she belongs there or not.
> so they have an excuse to post more pro-animal sex material?
Again. You are so obsessed with sex. Can anyone point me to where I am
promoting sex with animals here. You repeat this so many times that I
think you are doing a Freudian slip because you must be so interested in
sex with animals.
> part of the way they do this is by engaging people such as
> yourself into lengthy dialogs
And you are a past master at this. You put real meaning to the word
"lengthy".
> There are many other postings from Remus citing childhood
> animal abuse, but since we don't live in the past as they do we won't use
> them as they are several years old citing events decades ago.
Yes before Deja news even. Tell us again---Where did you dig up the repost
on Remus's "Goldie" story?? You know the more you post here the bigger
your holes are getting.
> spreading "the word"
Absolutely ludicerous! The net is overwelmed with sexually explicit pages
just there for any child to see with just a few clicks. Something I don't
approve of BTW.
> One web site even suggested that zoophiles should be in charge of animal laws!
I know that if I were in charge of animal laws one of the things you would
notice is a whole lot less meat availlable in the grocery store. I'm not
against meat eaters as persay. I am against factory raising of any animals
for food.
> You may have had some clues he was, but you didn't know about the Goldie
> incident or the other incidents, and likely most here didn't know either.
But you did because you were there when the article was new. Lets see
now---wasn't one of those nicks "doglver"? Maybe someone who remebers
better than I or that has the archives could help here.
> The thing is, we have seen these people post followups to each other's
> posts pretending to be non zoophiles approving what they do.
YOU could teach a college course on this type of ploy.
> That is right, we are *not* qualified and that is one reason we don't get
> involved in those issues,
You are more than qualified to discuss bestiallity.
> we have spent 200-300 hours per month on this issue
Where have I seen this before? Isn't that ranting?
> Our only association with these groups is making them aware of the forums and
> documents, and using their forums to educate as many as we can.
But unfortunately as far as USENET is concerned you can't get away with
monopolizing. Don't you just hate that "freedon of speech" thing---there I
go now--Now he's got me to ranting.
> I may add your url to our expanding links section.
I hope you get permission.
Bareback
Pristan Etallion
->here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
->Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
->humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
->lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you are reading this Beau, this was the kind of thinking I had been
talking about a few weeks ago.
->lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As to her diatribe about rights... As far as I know, there are laws on
the books in all fifty states proscribing -abuse of animals-.
Sounds like they have some rights to me.
They have the right not to be abused.
It's a good thing -humans- don't have that right or Leslie would
be out of business here! ;)
PN
--
Nothing is more dreadful than ignorance in action.
(Goethe)
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->>Nor do I but in some cases it is warrented but IMO not in this case. In
->>this particular case Remus recieved much chastisement and flames from many
->>in the zoo community when he posted the article anew on ASB. Much mileage
->>was gotten from it and as far as I could see it was over and done with.
->>Wounds were licked and it was put to rest.
->
->He was flamed because it *has* been used by many and makes all of you
-> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->look the way you do as sex with animals is not consensual sex between two
->consenting adults. It is an abuse situation.
Oh really? By -how many- and where, -RANDY-!
Show everyone all the details from Deja News that you found of it being
used. Show us how many times. Show us the workings of your 'brain'.
Your -memory- just showed you to be a Deja News liar!
Newbie my ass. You remember what Deja News does not.
PN
--
Memory is the thing you forget with.
(Alexander Chase)
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
->nor are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge
->for some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
In his own demented way, this is all true.
1. Randy doesn't have a wife.
2. He has no repentance for his deeds.
3. He is just a fanatic -period-.
4. The reason is not undefined, but has been defined that Randy is an
animal abuser who killed his own dogs, is a self-admitted bipolar
timebomb, and who was shunned by all in the zoophile community
when they learned this.
->Professor Beirne and I were on the radio speaking on this as well.
And -your voice- was recognized. Your 'wife' was conspicously absent.
PN
--
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishment - there are consequences.
(Robert Ingersoll)
Leslie
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
>> Without wanting to get stuck in the middle of this one, and only as an
>> observation, I must say pro4, that I have never seen you make a declarative
>> denial of the accusation of being a former zoophile. You also avoid
>> replying to accusations of having brutalized and/or killed animals
>> yourself. And finally, these people seem to have identified you as a poster
>> under another name on a couple of different forums. Again, no response from
>> you.
>
>Leslie: You say we never responded, yet you included part of what we said
>previously above:
>
>> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
>nor
>> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
>> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
Okay......
>The term "supposed past deeds" is meant to cover pretty much everything
>without drawing it into an essay. We don't care what they claim, post, or
>attribute to either my wife or I, they cannot prove what they claim.
Well, why not come right out and say that you and your wife are not now nor
ever have been any of these persons the zoophiles claim; AND that you and
your wife have not now nor ever have been zoophiles or participants in any
inter-species sexual acts with animals. That is what most of us are waiting
for. You may not need to state a denial for the sake of the zoophiles but a
clear denial would help to remove any doubt we non-zoophiles (and the
support you are courting) may have.
> You will
>note that our AOL is under my wife's maiden name, Also, AOL does not release
>any information about account holders to anyone without a court order. So you
>have zoophiles claiming at last summer that we were Mark and Judy Schrad and
>they posted a phone number and address. Then one addressed us as "Margaret".
>Since AOL does not release any information on account holders, and we have
>never posted anything that would be supporting their claims. All of which is
>nothing more than hear-say and an obvious attempt to obtain revenge for
>closing their web sites and promoting legislation.
What does AOL's non-release of information policy have to do with any of
this? It may work against you in a way, since AOL is notorious for
permitting trolls to function under many aliases. The zoophiles are getting
their revenge by your convoluted non-denial denials. Speak plainly and
erase all doubt.
>We have received last summer, not only email bombs but threats, death threats
>and more from them, so this new angle is what we would have expected.
Okay, but what did you do about their retaliations? Reported them,
hopefully.
>> Now, I don't think that every ridiculous accusation needs a vehement reply;
>> but I have observed that there is a consistency and pattern to your
>> avoidance. Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go back to
>> their own newsgroup? Of course!! I've already said why and kill-filed a few
>> trolls who won't let up.
>
>That is correct, why would we bother responding to trolls hiding behind "Name
>withheld by request," ANON@.. when responding to it one way or the other does
>little more than feed them so they have an excuse to post more pro-animal sex
>material?
Fine. So your real name is Mike Rolland. And your wife's name is...? Is
that correct so far?
>>The exchange with Remus was different in that it
>> wasn't a discussion of bestiality; it was a discussion of welfare for
>> animals and ethical obligations surrounding a specific situation.
>
>I am afraid you are not seeing the larger picture, they want laws removed and
>public acceptance, part of the way they do this is by engaging people such as
>yourself into lengthy dialogs to slowly turn you around by posting essays and
>forcing you to justify any and all reasons you may have to object to sex with
>animals. Once they engage you in that dialog and you can't come up with
>"proof" as to why they shouldn't do this, or how it is abuse, then they have
>you hooked. No matter what you say against sex with animals they will claim
>it is not enough.
Of course. That has been made fairly clear by all of their postings, to me
and to others. Quite simply, what a zoophile considers to be 'enough' is
irrelevant. If I feel that it is abusive and cruel to animals, besides
being socially and sexually deviant, then they have no real chance at
changing a very deep conviction to me. And, since it seems to be that way
for much of society, then they remain clearly and forever in the minority
because a zoophiles claim that societies beliefs are "not enough" is simply
not enough. It has no support in fact. Only in anecdotal claims which have
never been researched.
>There are many other postings from Remus citing childhood
>animal abuse, but since we don't live in the past as they do we won't use
>them as they are several years old citing events decades ago. He has not at
>any time suggested he is willing to seek professional help and get out of
>bestiality activities. Remus on the other hand is doing what these people
>have been doing for some time now, frequenting animal forums and slowly
>spreading "the word" and trying to gain acceptance towards their larger goal-
>legality everywhere.
I think that you are panicking unnecessarily. How many of us here who have
responded have ever said that it should be legalized? I can only think of
one: Rat. In the context of freedom of expression only, I believe.
Regardless, the number of those TPA regulars deleting or ignoring the
threads entirely is a stunning silent majority. They find it too disgusting
to debate. And pointless, too.
>One web site even suggested that zoophiles should be in charge of animal laws!
Only one? Out of how many thousands of others? Obviously not a popular
notion, eh?
>> Actually, I already *knew* Remus was a zoophile before he ever made the
>> admission. It was contained in a couple of his original comments about
>> paraphilia. Not explicit acknowledgement; just extremely subtle hints.
>
>You may have had some clues he was, but you didn't know about the Goldie
>incident or the other incidents, and likely most here didn't know either.
True. But then he has admitted the incident. You, OTOH, have not admitted
or denied the accusations of being a former, quite brutal, zoophile. Sauce
for the goose.....
>>So
>> his open admission shortly thereafter wasn't very surprising.
>
>He had *no* choice, because anyone can look in the dejanews archives for his
>current email address and see where and what he posts.
But *you* hijacked it into TPA. The zoophiles have retaliated by hijacking
posts alleged to be yours. Again, sauce for the goose.....
>
>> However, as
>> he seemed somewhat more detached than the others, I chose to open a dialog
>> with him regarding points of view: AR vs AW. In his defense, Remus never
>> claimed to be a spokesperson for the zoophile community. I also never
>> considered him to be so
>
>Detached? I think if you read his posts in the dejanews archives both current
>and "old" you would see why. Well he was associated with the
>alt.sex.bestiality FAQ as one who was inviolved with it's maint.
Why would I scour the archives in order to ask a question about
political/phiosophical points of view on AR/AW from an avowed zoophile? I
already know what he is!
>> As for the incident with Goldie, I think that I have already made my point
>> regarding my consideration of the situation. Do you see approval anywhere
>> in the posts from me? He asked for comments and that is what he received.
>
>Well I dont have it handy to quote from, but he was following your post up
>with a comment of something like: "Thank you Leslie for seeing the
>bestiality as not being abuse"
>
>because your post focused only on the abandonment of the dog he took that as
>approval for his molestation of her.
No. You have leaped to a very erroneous conclusion. He said:
And thank you, Leslie, for recognizing that no harm was done by
the act of bestiality itself. :)
My interpretation was that the discussion did not veer off into the "act".
It stayed with the harm done by selfishness and negligence. He acknowledged
his culpability in both respects. Getting off into the tangent of whether
or not Goldie had been actually physically harmed by the act would have
required the ability of either of us to prove or disprove the allegation.
> The thing is, we have seen these people
>post followups to each other's posts pretending to be non zoophiles approving
>what they do. The question we have is, are you approving of sex with animals
>or not?
Whoa!!! Are you now accusing me of being a zoophile???? That should wrench
a hearty guffaw out of everyone on ABS! And here!! Since you are so adept
at scouring DejaNews, why don't you look *me* up?? The worst you'll ever
see is a vile flame posted on alt.flame as part of a major flame war with
some trolls. But, I will do what you will not: I state now and
categorically, that I have not now, nor ever have been a zoophile,
bestialist, or participated in inter-species sexual acts with animals at
any time in my entire life. Furthermore, I do not now nor ever will approve
of bestiality. It gets a big 11 on my 10 point ick-o-meter!
> Never mind with calling bestialit, zoophilia or apple pie, it is all
>defined in the dictionary as bestiality: sex with animals. If you approve of
>this, then we have nothing further to say to you on this issue but if you
>don't approve then great. Most *don't approve*
>
See above.
>> >>I may be a lot of things in the opinion of others
>> >> here but I have always been consistent in my concern for animal welfare.
>> >> Not an animal rightist but someone who believes that the obligation of
>> >> humans is to have care and concern for the general health and well being of
>> >> lesser species, as they do not have any enforceable rights of their own. In
>> >> Remus' account, welfare was not paramount.
>
>Then your concern should include not approving of sex with animals in any
>fashion including ignoring it.
Huh? Isn't ignoring bestiality counterproductive to what you want to
accomplish??
>> Actually, what other use is there for vivisection? It is used for research,
>> no? Medical research usually, no? I find it very dangerous that outside
>> lay-organizations feel that they should be able to make the judgement calls
>
>Vivisection as we see it is saving corporations money in lawsuits by claiming
>animal trials found their products safe. They then use animals for the LD50
>test and repetitive useless procedures such as force feeding floor wax to
>animals to show it is toxic when ingested. We assume any product used for
>cleaning floors and stripping paint is probably not a good thing to ingest,
>and without tests on animals to "prove it"
PETA propaganda. Prove it. Citations of companies currently doing this to
animals please.
>We do not get involved in these issues, and untill something better for
>medical research comes along animal research will remain, although I am not
>sure how applicable research on animals is towards human ailments.
Then leave it off your agenda.
>> >*Some* medical research does benefit animals as well as humans and will
>> >continue regardless, but we protest the vivisection and unnecessary
>> >procedures that all can be done with computer models and dead animals.
>>
>> You are not qualified to judge these things. neither are the propaganda
>> mongers of the AR movement.
>
>That is right, we are *not* qualified and that is one reason we don't get
>involved in those issues, we leave that up to the big guns, legislators and
>the medical community to battle out. But by vivisection, we are citing the
>completely useless procedures as well as some of the training aids used by
>vets to learn how to set broken legs and the like by breaking the legs of a
>live dog and doing repetitive invasive surgery procedures on them. That of
>course is a sticky issue due to the lack of better alternatives, so these
>things will continue untill something better comes along.
See above...
>
>> >The animal right's groups are the groups best equipped to promote legislation
>> >against bestiality/zoophilia, what other groups are there that would have the
>> >resources, members and all the rest who would deal with an animal related
>> >matter like this? The Govt. departments, APHIS, Dept of agriculture etc
>> >surely won't.
>>
>> How about the major dog, cat, horse, cow, sheep fanciers organizations??
>> And within each of those general headings are the sub-headings for breeds
>> and breed clubs. Think I'm wrong? Look at the traffic on rec.
>> pets.dogs.breeds sometime. Look at all the new discussion groups, IRC
>> channels and mailing lists for these animals; even compartmentalized by
>> breeds. I mean, they outnumber the AR groups approximately 20:1.
>
>Leslie, you have to understand this bestiality issue is so disgusting to the
>majority of people they prefer to ignore it or sweep it under the rug, you
>mention bestiality in those forums and see the angry complaints about there
>being "children" reading these forums!!
So what? We have children on this one, too. Unmoderated newsgroups are
facts of internet life. If bestiality is an issue that needs support to
criminalize then it must be publicized, with examples. The same way we get
responses about any animal abuse case. Perseverance, my friend....
>We have been in touch with the ASPCA in NYC since last June, who furnished us
>indirectly through an Arizona shelter director with the criminology professor
>Piers Beirne article on interspecies sexual assault, and the Animals Agenda
>article; Bestiality: the unmentioned abuse.
>Funds are always a problem, as are priorities with most of these groups.
>We certainly do contact animal shelters and groups besides the AR groups, but
>few are as big or global as HSUS, ASPCA, PAWS etc. who have the resources to
>include this in mass mailings to members, and generally promote serious
>legislation.
Animal rights groups promoting " serious" legislation??? You don't think
the AKC, CKC, AQHA (and the other zillion horse breed clubs, cattle clubs,
cat clubs, etc.) are global enough?? Or don't have enough money?? Hint: as
long as you are affiliated with the AR loons, you won't see a penny from
this vastly larger majority of animal groups. Period.
>We are aware that local animal shelters have considerable control over their
>state animal abuse laws, we are trying to contact them as well through the
>"grape vine" so that when an animal abuse law comes up for review, or
>legislation is proposed to be added to it- they will hopefully include sexual
>contact in the proposal.
Fine. But mention PETA/PAWS or the others and kiss your ass goodbye.
There is a great deal of animosity between the factions, as if you couldn't
see some of it on TPA.
>> I have a web site, too. But is sure the hell isn't for animal rights!! It's
>> for welfare and public education. We even say so on the site. And Dwayne
>> and I have consistently turned down those who would like to borrow or link
>> to the site for animal rights purposes. We want people to understand that
>> *we* humans have a responsibility when these things happen. And the
>> responsibility extends into active support for the animal welfare laws
>> currently in place, or, if necessary, enhancement of the existing laws and
>> consequences through legislation and advocacy.
>
[snip of repetitious accounts of activities. No offense but I've read them
a million times already!]
>
>> Disassociate or distance yourself from the AR organizations and you will
>> find a greater support for your cause. Guaranteed.
>>
>> --Leslie
>> Remember the Pierce Collies!!! His time is almost up!!
>> http://www.collie.net/~dwayne/pierce
>
>Our only association with these groups is making them aware of the forums and
>documents, and using their forums to educate as many as we can.
>We cannot of course condone the terrorist activities as we read about and you
>cited.
>By the way, we did know about the Pierce collie case and have seen your web
>site, a most disgusting situation with friends of his blinded to the
>reality in his kennels.
>I may add your url to our expanding links section.
>Mike
NOT if you are linked to PETA/PAWS/FFA! It's copyrighted for a good reason.
I'm a Collie breeder. Dan Pierce was one of 'my own' and I worked to bring
the shitheel down in two countries. It didn't take a pot load of money from
AR organizations to do it either. It only took the publicizing of an
outrageously hideous crime. The first animal crime put on the 'net. Now
look how many other animal crime sites there are. And laws have been
strengthened with it. So you are doing the same thing we did, except that
you are relying on AR groups for "support". They'll screw you every time.
And they are the same people who are terrorists and animal killers; all in
the name of their idea of "rights". C'mon...does this make sense, really???
Remus Shepherd
> >Once they engage you in that dialog and you can't come up with
> >"proof" as to why they shouldn't do this, or how it is abuse, then they have
> >you hooked. No matter what you say against sex with animals they will claim
> >it is not enough.
> Of course. That has been made fairly clear by all of their postings, to me
> and to others. Quite simply, what a zoophile considers to be 'enough' is
> irrelevant. If I feel that it is abusive and cruel to animals, besides
> being socially and sexually deviant, then they have no real chance at
> changing a very deep conviction to me. And, since it seems to be that way
> for much of society, then they remain clearly and forever in the minority
> because a zoophiles claim that societies beliefs are "not enough" is simply
> not enough. It has no support in fact. Only in anecdotal claims which have
> never been researched.
Well, Leslie, I hope I've shown that I'm a little different from the
others. :) Zoophilia *is* socially and sexually deviant...but professional
research shows that it is no worse than other harmless sexual deviancies.
I don't want you to accept it as a 'good' thing...only as an act that need
not be criminalized.
But you're right; there is no research examining how zoophilia affects
the welfare of animals. So I don't hold out much hope of convincing you
of anything. Whatever I can prove to you about the sanity of zoophiles,
the animals' welfare is your primary concern. Which is as it should be. :)
The Hani Miletski survey contained some questions about animal welfare.
I hope that's published soon. I think both sides of this issue agree that
this subject needs to be researched objectively, and soon. I wonder how
we can go about initiating that kind of research.
> >because your post focused only on the abandonment of the dog he took that as
> >approval for his molestation of her.
> No. You have leaped to a very erroneous conclusion. He said:
> And thank you, Leslie, for recognizing that no harm was done by
> the act of bestiality itself. :)
> My interpretation was that the discussion did not veer off into the "act".
> It stayed with the harm done by selfishness and negligence. He acknowledged
> his culpability in both respects. Getting off into the tangent of whether
> or not Goldie had been actually physically harmed by the act would have
> required the ability of either of us to prove or disprove the allegation.
<nod> My memoirs of Goldie are a particularly bad platform to discuss
whether or not bestiality actually harms the animals involved. I, the
perpetrator, am also the only witness. Even if I relate all the facts
about how she acted and how I treated her, simply accusing me of lying
throws the whole thing in doubt. No, we need an objective study to argue
over. So nobody (sane) wants to swerve the discussion in Mike's direction.
> >Leslie, you have to understand this bestiality issue is so disgusting to the
> >majority of people they prefer to ignore it or sweep it under the rug, you
> >mention bestiality in those forums and see the angry complaints about there
> >being "children" reading these forums!!
> So what? We have children on this one, too. Unmoderated newsgroups are
> facts of internet life. If bestiality is an issue that needs support to
> criminalize then it must be publicized, with examples. The same way we get
> responses about any animal abuse case. Perseverance, my friend....
And I might point out that if Mike cared at all for children reading
these forums, he wouldn't be posting sexually-explicit material. As far
as I can see, he's the only one doing that here. Changing the 'e's to
'*'s doesn't help. :)
Name withheld by request
> Whew! No wonder you use the same password at all your accounts and
> Cab was able to read and archive -all- your email at -all- your accounts
> for 4-5 months this year before he decided to change all your passwords
> for you.
> Heheheheh.
> Sayonara Randy!
Beautifully said and done! Thank you PN!
Bareback
Tall Thin Jones
NWBR> One last thing you AOLer---learn how to use UNSENET before you run
NWBR> your useless campaigns. It took more time for me to edit out the usless
NWBR> text you left behind in the preceeding post idiot.
The man can't even use a word processor well. For all the time he
allegedly spends on this, he can't format his text, and he doesn't
proofread.
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
Tall Thin Jones
> Our goal here is not a discussion with you in your quest to justify
> sex with animals, we are here showing the other side as a voice for the
> animals involved in your group's sordid sex parties.
You're not very good at it.
> And just as you feel it is necessary to show people
> that I am a zoophile, I feel it is necessary to show them what kind of
> person you are.
It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
> Unfortunately, you and your zoopals come out sounding like bitter
> revenge seekers attacking my wife and I with accusations because we are
> actively campaigning against sex with animals, and have forwarded many
> megs worth of files to animal right's groups and activists.
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, you have taken "credit" for shutting down the
alt.talk.bestiality group, haven't you? That means that you are
responsible for the situation in which we can't say "let's take this
discussion to the alt.talk.bestiality" group. The people of
talk.politics.animals see this on your screen in part because you
removed the forum that was made for this kind of discussion.
Tall Thin Jones
>> IMO, what you did was so purely selfish that it *was* indeed harmful to the
>> dog. You neglected her.
>
>> IMO, you may have just made the argument as to why bestiality should be
>> illegal.
Leslie and Bareback: It was such a small offense that it is not
worthy of such mention. If this is the worst thing that can be found in
the history of human-animal sexual contacts we don't have a problem.
Since we are using Remus's testimony as evidence of this very
slightly abusive situation, we should use it as evidence against the
charge of abuse too. From what I read the dog seemed perfectly happy
and was only dissappointed in that she didn't get to spend the night
with Remus and Patroon. The humans intended no harm against the dog and
made her situation no worse than it was before.
When Remus did not disturb the status quo, and in fact it is very
likely that he added to the dog's pleasure in life, "abuse" must
necessarily take on a special meaning for the term to have any validity,
and a rather powerful magnifying glass must be used even then. Leslie
and Zoobluster don't have any problem using that special meaning or that
magnifying glass, which makes them both nitpickers and difficult to
understand.
It also makes them hypocrites, because their glaring factual errors
they treat as inconsequential while "our" most picayune pecadillos are
exploded to a Gargantuan scale. (look it up)
Tall Thin Jones
> You sure can, but not without being arrested and charged, probably
> sued as well for your freedom of speech. So in effect, you cannot yell
> fire in a theater where there is none. Mike
And what does that have to do with this thread?
It was a bonehead who said this in the first place, in support of a
conviction for violating the Sedition acts. The writings that might
have been prosecuted under said acts might legitimately be compared to
shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there actually is a fire and you
have no better choice.
I believe that you have taken credit before for shutting people up
who oppose you. This is the worst kind of violation of human rights and
you do not have a good enough reason to do it. Do you see anyone trying
to make you shut up? Hell no, I think everyone on this thread is
encouraging you to speak. Speak your alleged mind, I'm listening. Just
TRY to be coherent, would you?
Tall Thin Jones
Remus said:
> And I can see that guilt of what he had done causing him to undergo
> a radical conversion. Psychologists would call it overcompensation; a
> desire to forget the past, and 'make things right', by imagining the
> activities he despised everywhere, and eradicating them at any cost and
> with any tactics. Such a person would be just as dangerous as he was
> in his youth; only this time, he'd be directing his rage against people.
> He'd hurt people not because of anything they'd have done; he'd hurt people
> just because they'd remind him of himself...with hurting himself being
> his subconscious goal.
I think that Remus has nailed down Zoobluster's character pretty
well. Add in Zoobluster's comments that factory farming will eliminate
the family farm and the opportunities for sexual congress with farm
animals, and there is a picture that is worth another article.
Zoobluster said:
> I've admitted in previous posts that my views may be biased...that's
>why most of what I have brought to this discussion are hard facts and
>published research by psychologists and criminologists.
Your facts and research are biased. You don't use all of the
material even of the researchers who have the strongest biases against
human-animal sexuality.
> I'm not trying to promote bestiality as any type of alternative
>lifestyle. I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who
>habitually practice bestiality -- have a psychological condition
To reply to something Remus said on October 21, I have a certain
disagreement with the psychologization of zoophilia.
Zoobluster:
Pr> There have been *no* in-depth professional studies on this issue at
Pr> all to be making the claims it is harmless to animals. Sex researchers
Pr> and psychologists
Pr> are not animal welfarists, they are concerned with human injury.
Then you have no in-depth professional studies to be making the
claim that "it" is harmful to animals. You just put on that you do.
Zoobluster:
Pr> It seems as though you are the person with the guilt complex since you
Pr> need to advertise all this "proof" trying to legitimize that what you
Pr> do is really great and that society should openly embrace people who
Pr> have sex with animals and just let them "do their thing", or "do" the
Pr> dog I should say.
Or perhaps it is the simple truth.
Oh, yes, the Goldie incident that you mentioned. Zoobluster, it
seems that the dog liked what was going on enough to try to go with
Patroon and Remus. The only "restraint" was to restrain the dog from
climbing into the car. No abuse was added to her life, and some
pleasure was added. You and Leslie have been trying to project
something onto the situation, based on the fact that sex took place.
Remus should not have accepted this.
Also, her being 40-50 pounds merely means that the capacity of the
dog's vagina was limited to about four times the width and about one and
a half times the length of a human penis. Can't you even get that
straight? Small dogs have huge penises with an even larger swelling at
the base, which Leslie well knows.
Pristan Etallion
Randy's mind wrote:
->You will note that our AOL is under my wife's maiden name, Also, AOL does
And that is pro or is it animal? Bernard perhaps? Oh no wait, that was
your -late- wife.
->not release any information about account holders to anyone without a court
->order.
How about the information Cab got by monitoring all your accounts for
4-5 months because you use the same password everywhere? The fact is
that he did this, showed proof of it, and you admitted it happened.
What's funny is that 'Mike' hasn't taken him to court over this
even though he knows the identity of the culprit. Of course 'Mike'
couldn't sign off on court papers as pro4animal, right -Randy-.
->So you have zoophiles claiming at last summer that we were Mark and Judy
->Schrad and they posted a phone number and address.
You admit that you are a zoophile then, since you did this yourself
through your hotmail account in order to lay a false trail, and shaft
one of your enemies in the process.
I notice that noone is calling you anything but Randy now that you
let your true voice out on the radio.
->Then one addressed us as "Margaret".
TTJ did that for a while. You still haven't figured it out yet have
you? It was an allusion to a skit by Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong.
From _Still Smoking_ I believe. The one where the husband has his
wife Margaret watching a porn flick that included a dog. "Yo, Rinnie".
->Since AOL does not release any information on account holders, and we have
->never posted anything that would be supporting their claims.
All your information got released when you used such slip-shod
security, and most everything you spew supports the factual claims.
PN
--
We live and learn but not the wiser grow.
(John Pomfret)
pro4a...@my-dejanews.com
heir...@fone.net (Leslie) wrote:
> On the wall of the outhouse on Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:47:28 GMT,
> pro4a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Without wanting to get stuck in the middle of this one, and only as an
> >Leslie: You say we never responded, yet you included part of what we said
> >previously above:
> >
> >> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
> >nor
> >> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge
for
> >> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
> Okay......
>
> >The term "supposed past deeds" is meant to cover pretty much everything
> >without drawing it into an essay. We don't care what they claim, post, or
> >attribute to either my wife or I, they cannot prove what they claim.
> Well, why not come right out and say that you and your wife are not now nor
> ever have been any of these persons the zoophiles claim; AND that you and
> your wife have not now nor ever have been zoophiles or participants in any
> inter-species sexual acts with animals. That is what most of us are waiting
> for. You may not need to state a denial for the sake of the zoophiles but a
> clear denial would help to remove any doubt we non-zoophiles (and the
> support you are courting) may have.
Okya, let us waste a few more seconds on this then- neither myself nor my
wife are currently, or have ever been zoophiles having sex with animals. We
hope that clarifies things better for you, even though it is just a waste of
our time to respond to that sort of drivel. We are not courting support for
ourselves, we are simply providing the information and resources, and
promoting legislation. Most people already know sex with animals is sick,
wrong and abusive, they only need to know how it is growing and what to do
about it.
> > You will
> >note that our AOL is under my wife's maiden name, Also, AOL does not release
> >any information about account holders to anyone without a court order. So you
> >have zoophiles claiming at last summer that we were Mark and Judy Schrad and
> >they posted a phone number and address. Then one addressed us as "Margaret".
> >Since AOL does not release any information on account holders, and we have
> >never posted anything that would be supporting their claims. All of which is
> >nothing more than hear-say and an obvious attempt to obtain revenge for
> >closing their web sites and promoting legislation.
>
> What does AOL's non-release of information policy have to do with any of
> this? It may work against you in a way, since AOL is notorious for
> permitting trolls to function under many aliases. The zoophiles are getting
> their revenge by your convoluted non-denial denials. Speak plainly and
> erase all doubt.
It has a lot to do with it since zoophiles have claiemd they know who we are,
or I should say they claim we are someone else, and claim they know more.
Since we have never posted "more" in any forum, it would be impossible for
anyone outside of AOL employees or a court of law to obtain information about
any AOL account holder.
> >We have received last summer, not only email bombs but threats, death threats
> >and more from them, so this new angle is what we would have expected.
>
> Okay, but what did you do about their retaliations? Reported them,
> hopefully.
Yes we have, in fact we discovered one was the postmaster of the ISP from
where the mail bombs came- that was discovered by the very odd response from
postmaster to a straightforward complaint about a user of theirs mass mailing
us. The "F*** off and die" message followed by 30 megs of junk from the same
ISP left no doubt postmaster was the same zoophile who had a web site we
closed on AOL which featured a female dalmatian being raped on the main
page!
> >> Now, I don't think that every ridiculous accusation needs a vehement reply;
> >> but I have observed that there is a consistency and pattern to your
> >> avoidance. Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go back to
> >> their own newsgroup? Of course!! I've already said why and kill-filed a few
> >> trolls who won't let up.
> >
> >That is correct, why would we bother responding to trolls hiding behind "Name
> >withheld by request," ANON@.. when responding to it one way or the other does
> >little more than feed them so they have an excuse to post more pro-animal sex
> >material?
>
> Fine. So your real name is Mike Rolland. And your wife's name is...? Is
> that correct so far?
That is correct, and as we post else where, her name is Pat.
We cited that one because the author specifically stated those words, but they
*all* want more or less the same things.
> >> his open admission shortly thereafter wasn't very surprising.
> >He had *no* choice, because anyone can look in the dejanews archives for his
> >current email address and see where and what he posts.
>
> But *you* hijacked it into TPA. The zoophiles have retaliated by hijacking
> posts alleged to be yours. Again, sauce for the goose.....
Hey, they can say anything they like, it follows their efforts all along
against us because of our efforts promoting legislation. But the difference
is proof for
> >> As for the incident with Goldie, I think that I have already made my point
> >> regarding my consideration of the situation. Do you see approval anywhere
> >> in the posts from me? He asked for comments and that is what he received.
> >
> >Well I dont have it handy to quote from, but he was following your post up
> >with a comment of something like: "Thank you Leslie for seeing the
> >bestiality as not being abuse"
> >
> >because your post focused only on the abandonment of the dog he took that as
> >approval for his molestation of her.
>
> No. You have leaped to a very erroneous conclusion. He said:
> And thank you, Leslie, for recognizing that no harm was done by
> the act of bestiality itself. :)
No, remus jumped to that conclusion as an approval for the molestation because
you said little about it.
> My interpretation was that the discussion did not veer off into the "act".
> It stayed with the harm done by selfishness and negligence. He acknowledged
> his culpability in both respects. Getting off into the tangent of whether
> or not Goldie had been actually physically harmed by the act would have
> required the ability of either of us to prove or disprove the allegation.
Do you have any doubt that a 40 or 50 pound dog is injured in some way by
having a full grown human male penetrait her out of season? Or perhaps
developing pyometra or vaginal infection as a result of the foreign bacteria
and material inserted there?
> > The thing is, we have seen these people
> >post followups to each other's posts pretending to be non zoophiles approving
> >what they do. The question we have is, are you approving of sex with animals
> >or not?
>
> Whoa!!! Are you now accusing me of being a zoophile????
No, but we have seen more than a few examples.
> Huh? Isn't ignoring bestiality counterproductive to what you want to
> accomplish??
Ignoring bestiality once presented, is a mild form of approval, not
unlike for an extreme example, a mother choosing to ignore the molestation of
her daughter by her husband is a form of approval/denial.
> PETA propaganda. Prove it. Citations of companies currently doing this
> to animals please.
You mean the LD-50 and the draize tests? We don't follow these issues.
> >We do not get involved in these issues, and untill something better for
> >medical research comes along animal research will remain, although I am not
> >sure how applicable research on animals is towards human ailments.
>
> Then leave it off your agenda.
It's not on our agenda, it was mentioned only in passing.
> >Leslie, you have to understand this bestiality issue is so disgusting to the
> >majority of people they prefer to ignore it or sweep it under the rug, you
> >mention bestiality in those forums and see the angry complaints about there
> >being "children" reading these forums!!
>
> So what? We have children on this one, too. Unmoderated newsgroups are
> facts of internet life. If bestiality is an issue that needs support to
> criminalize then it must be publicized, with examples. The same way we get
> responses about any animal abuse case. Perseverance, my friend....
You bet, and we have posted in many many forums, it is not so much that we
need to publish this further at this point, our web sites are being
consistantly hit by an average of 400 a day. We are currently spending time
transferring files and archived materials to many groups to use.
> Animal rights groups promoting " serious" legislation??? You don't think
> the AKC, CKC, AQHA (and the other zillion horse breed clubs, cattle clubs,
> cat clubs, etc.) are global enough?? Or don't have enough money?? Hint: as
> long as you are affiliated with the AR loons, you won't see a penny from
> this vastly larger majority of animal groups. Period.
We have mailed the AKC previously about this and rec'd a form email directing
us to their web site for more information on AKC The problem with horse clubs
and the like is few believe their barns and stables are being visited at
night by people who molest mares. There was a court case in Enumclaw WA about
a zoophile who fence hopped into his neighbors facilities and was arrested.
We have a number of court cases listed on our web sites involving sexual
abuse of horses.
> I'm a Collie breeder. Dan Pierce was one of 'my own' and I worked to bring
Leslie, it is beginning to feel we must justify everything we do or say and
going around in circles. We both want the same thing- protection of animals
and the laws to do it with. Without reading further on this group, because by
now the thread has gotten so large even we can't follow what we have read and
what is new, nor bother trying.
There are about 7 people reading these messages- you, us and about four
zoophiles. At this point we are wasting valuable time in this forum on a very
limited audience. We are going to move onto other forums where we can find
more audiences.
Here is a posting regarding a zoophile "zoo-con" these events go on around
the country, and were advertised in zoophile forums and newsgroups
in 1995 and onward. Lately these events have become more underground.
You will notice it mentions sharing of animals by upwards of
21 people. While the author included a phone number, we will delete it here
because it likely is no longer the same owner.
Now the zoophiles can go and discredit the text below all they wish, that is
fine and to be expected, but the groups we mailed it to won't be so quick to
dismiss the implications of anonymous group sex with multiple animals, not to
mention the possibility of HIV being transferred this way as well.
If this is the kind of animal abuse anyone here approves of, by all means
go support zoophiles, we must move onward to more forums to reach more people.
If you or any other interested animal activists wish to contact us directly,
do so- anim...@aol.com and a web address is
http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html Your host, Mike
============================== Archived 1995 posting: ======================
Subject: ZooCon 95, the FAQ! Author: maverick@ SNIPPED Edu (Hard Rider)
Hear ye! Hear ye! ZooCon 95 is right on track with up to 21 people
coming. There are some things I'd like to clear up now, to avoid any
misunderstandings later.
When I first decided to do this, I was not going to require the use of
comdoms for anyone who was recently tested. On good advice from a
friend, I have decided to require condoms. I'm really sorry to have
to do this, as one of the things that make animals so good is not having
to use a condom. But with heavy sharing going on, the usual safety
factor is defeated. I want this to be a safe affair, and I hope you
understand.
As you probably all know by now, in addition to the horses, there will
be llamas available for all to enjoy. And someone who may be coming,
may be bringing a sheep (ewe) and a dog (bitch). I don't have a
stallion, but we'll be having one or more day trips to a nearby zoophile
who has a mini stallion, mini mare, and male dogs. I know the owner won't
require condom use, so it's up to you if you want to protect yourself.
I am not "out" and I cannot afford to be outed. While the nearest
neighbors are a couple hundred yards away, there can be no nudity or
fooling around in daylight. I have a trysting barn for use day or night,
and the pony and llamas can be brought into the house. You can also do
things under cover of darkness, but cars do occasionally go by here, and
you must be prepared to duck into the shadows.
Do not take pictures or videos of anyone without their permission.
Do try to use handles instead of real names.
You may smoke and do some light drinking, but I want no drunks here. I
cannot guarantee room in the fridge for alcoholic beverages. Indeed,
there probably will not be any spare room for booze.
Illegal drugs are an absolute no-no! If I see anyone with drugs, that
person will be kicked out, and will be lucky if I don't call the cops.
For those whose pleasure it is, you have my sympathy. I believe drugs
should be legalized, but until they are, I cannot take the chance of
giving the authorities any reason to bust us. Also be forewarned -
there are Border Patrol checkpoints on the major highways around here.
In addition to looking for illegal aliens, they are looking for drugs.
And they often have drug-sniffing dogs. They don't search vehicles
unless you act suspicious or a dog alerts.
Many of us have some personal differences with some other zoos. Leave
those differences at home! While I will not say who may be here, I will
not have petty arguments ruining what should be a fun week. You can bite
your tongue for that long.
While many of you may bring videos, I must "officially" advise against it.
Just remember that it's technically illegal to transport pornography.
Do not copy anyone's videos without their permission.
With the exception of those who I personally know to be zoophiles,
everyone should expect to be "tested" (for security reasons). You will
*not* be expected to perform in front of a crowd. I promise the test
will be pleasurable! This also means that wannabe's will not leave as
wannabe's. :)
Please do not make a scene in town. As I said, I cannot afford to be
outed.
I am somewhat short of sheets, blankets, and pillows, although I'm trying
to correct that shortage. If you're driving, and would like to stay in
the house, please bring your own bedding.
I have three twin beds, a hide-a-bed that sleeps two (barely), two
additional twin mattresses and a full-size mattress that can be used on
the floor, two sofas, and some foam pads. IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY IN THE
HOUSE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Even if you already mentioned it before.
Also please mention how important it is for you to stay here, and what
days you expect to be here. While some people may stay for the entire
time (April 22-30), some may only wish to stay for a few days.
Volunteers to help with meal preparation and cleanup are appreciated!
In case we manage to wear out the critters, we may need other things
to do. I'm open to suggestions! I would like to have a zoo song-writing
jam session.
I'll see if I can arrange for souvenier t-shirts. No promises yet.
I can probably pick up and drop off anyone at the airport. Those who
are driving or renting a car will obviously need directions. I'll send
out directions sometime early in April.
If you have any questions, either ask by email, or call me at
505-xxx-xxxx.
What you do here
What you see here
When you leave here
Let it stay here
-Ken Carver (Wrangler)
Remus Shepherd
> Zoobluster said:
> > I've admitted in previous posts that my views may be biased...that's
> >why most of what I have brought to this discussion are hard facts and
> >published research by psychologists and criminologists.
> Your facts and research are biased. You don't use all of the
> material even of the researchers who have the strongest biases against
> human-animal sexuality.
>
> > I'm not trying to promote bestiality as any type of alternative
> >lifestyle. I am saying that persons with zoophilia -- people who
> >habitually practice bestiality -- have a psychological condition
> To reply to something Remus said on October 21, I have a certain
> disagreement with the psychologization of zoophilia.
Watch your attributions, Tall Thin. I wrote the above paragraphs. :)
> Also, her being 40-50 pounds merely means that the capacity of the
> dog's vagina was limited to about four times the width and about one and
> a half times the length of a human penis. Can't you even get that
> straight? Small dogs have huge penises with an even larger swelling at
> the base, which Leslie well knows.
And if you read the story, deep penetration was never attempted. I
do not hurt my lovers.
... ...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
( If there's anyone who is offended by explicit talk, and who is still
reading these threads, I apologize. :) )
Luptupt
>do so- anim...@aol.com and a web address is
>http://members.aol.com/animalsav/index.html Your host, Mike
>============================== Archived 1995 posting: ======================
>Subject: ZooCon 95, the FAQ! Author: maverick@ SNIPPED Edu (Hard Rider)
I agree with Leslie. You must be making this up as you go along. I searched
Dejanews and couldn't find this post.
Tall Thin Jones
> If we call it forced *ex with animals,
BB> This is the most laugable thing I have seen you post. All the SEX
BB> words are censored. Randy---er Mike did you censor them or did the
BB> authors? I never knew that in 1995 there were still Victorians out and
BB> about.
"Mike" did. The first time he posted it those words were not
censored.
BB> Randy---er Mike keep it up yer doin great. So entertaining.
Plus, he makes us look good.
BB> Someone should re-post the one about the man and his St Bernard. You
BB> know the guy who murdered one or two of his dogs?
Yeah, who was that?
Tall Thin Jones
La> A more accurate analogy would be finding a small child alone
La> on the road and refusing to take the child to safety. Even
La> if the child knew his way home, he could still be hurt out
La> on the road alone at night.
Not really, Labrat. A small child is not a dog. Dogs are animals
that are fitted to survive reasonably well in an environment that does
not include cars coming down the road. They are unlikely to die of
exposure. It is also, although I do not completely agree with this,
socially acceptable to leave dogs alone who wander at night. With a
child, of course, an immediate call to the local police is in order.
Some dogs stay out of the way of cars at night and some don't. If
we could count on dogs to stay out of the way of cars, they could be
compared to midnight joggers. Some are stupid this way. I readily
admit they should be kept from wandering on the roads because dogs are
killed regularly because they don't stay out of the way of cars.
However, Remus did nothing to change the dog's likelihood of being
hit by a car. Without the sex in the context no one would have a reason
to make a negative comment about his actions. Abuse has to be projected
onto the scenario, and it takes a certain amount of motivation to do
this, which would be absent without the sex. Some people mistake their
own projections for the reality.
Tall Thin Jones
La> Leslie wrote:
> Actually Remus, from an animal welfare point of view I am rather
> shocked at your cavalier attitude toward Goldie.
La> I would have to agree with you on this one, Leslie.
La> IMO, Remus should have tried to return Goldie to her
La> human companions, or have taken her with him to a
La> place of safety. He should not have left her alone on
La> the road.
So, Remus has committed the sin of being no worse than most people
who might have driven down that road and seen that dog out loose. Most
people driving down a road at 2 AM will not pick up a stray dog or go
around knocking on doors to try to find her home. The usual assumption
is that the dog lives in the neighborhood and is usually allowed to run
free.
I don't even remember what people abused him for on ASB for this
incident. It probably doesn't matter. This was such a small thing as
to be very nearly completely inconsequential. It's nitpicking. It's
less abusive than throwing a nerf ball the dog's direction with no
intention of hitting the dog with it.
Tall Thin Jones
< snip >
Pr> The first thought on this would be, if people here didn't know you
Pr> were one of the zoophiles, is, why would *you* have all these "reams"
Pr> of supposed "professional" material collected, devoted to promoting the
Pr> concept that sex with animals as something that we all should just
Pr> accept and let be because a handful of people say so.
Every time someone opposes you, you accuse them of being a zoophile
with or without evidence. Shouldn't this tactic, the use of false
accusation that "you must be one" have gone out by the time literacy
became widespread? Shouldn't you have abandoned it by the time you were
four years old?
This alone tells me that you are not someone who enlightens others,
but just another bully. This along with your shutting down talkers and
newsgroups.
Pr> Seems to me you
Pr> have an obsession with justifying sex with animals while berating and
Pr> insulting my wife and I for fighting it!
I wonder why...
Pr> There have been *no* in-depth professional studies on this issue at
Pr> all to be making the claims it is harmless to animals. Sex researchers
Pr> and psychologists
Pr> are not animal welfarists, they are concerned with human injury.
Again, without those "in-depth professional studies" you have no
basis for your claims. The Carol Adams article was unsupported and the
Piers Beirne article repeated her material. You don't have to look very
far to find out where their claims of injuries came from, and that they
have little or no applicability to zoophiles today.
Also, as I understand it, Remus hasn't been pretending with women
but has been up-front with them.
Tall Thin Jones
Pr> We noticed you are more than a little bit behind us in our efforts!
Pr> You have about 5 mailing lists, about 100 animal right's groups, animal
Pr> shelters and others to post your pro animal sex statements to!
For a time, this was because the zoophiles on the net were
practicing the common courtesy that you seem to lack.
Pr> We noticed we *never* see your face on any of those more private
Pr> forums, could it be you know you would be thrown out so fast, and
Pr> flamed so bad your head would spin?
And this means what? It certainly doesn't mean that the
controllers of these forums possess the intellectual honesty (or
intellect, period) to research a matter they desire to promote.
Pr> People here may not care, but that is because the real die hard core
Pr> activists are on the private forums where there is no spam, no 1-900
Pr> ads, and flames and everyone working to help animals.
Pr> Newsgroups are hardly a suitable forum, the real discussions and
Pr> actions take place off newsgroups.
Pr> Come join us!
Remember this everyone. "Mike Rolland" has invited zoophiles to
join the private forums for animal activists. I think we should do this
and debate the matter there.
Tall Thin Jones
> Pro4 druged it up to shove it in Remus's face and most importantly to use
> in his hate campaign against all zoosexuals. Pro4's tactics are
> traditional. For example if someone is hate campaigning against all Negros
> they are going to exhibit the worst examples of black criminals and
> thugs they can find and hope that the people they try to decieve never see
> the good upstanding members of the African American peoples that make up
> their majority.
Pr> Oh please, you are comparing campaigns against the rape of animals
Pr> with KKK campaigns against being black now!
He is correct to do so. This is exactly how the KKK operated.
This is how you operate.
Pr> Your concern is only a claim, as you cannot prove it here, it is more
Pr> a concern of being allowed to continue molesting animals unfettered by
Pr> laws or anyone else. Even if one took great care of the animal
Pr> involved, that would not make any justification difference. Pedophiles
Pr> also take great care of the children they molest, often showering them
Pr> with candy, gifts and bribes. MAny are family members so obviously they
Pr> would take good physical care of their victims so they wouldn't be
Pr> caught. Or it could be a guilt thing.
In either the case of zoophilia or the case of pedophilia,
Zoobluster, you lack the evidence to back this statement up. The only
reason you claim that a zoophile does not genuinely care for the
physical well-being of his lovers is because you want to smear the
reputation of the zoophile.
The next paragraph of badly formatted sentences is just babble and
unworthy of reply. When will you achieve coherency?
Tall Thin Jones
> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
nor
> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get
> >revenge for
> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
Your methods expose you as some kind of fanatic.
> Without wanting to get stuck in the middle of this one, and only as an
> observation, I must say pro4, that I have never seen you make a declarative
> denial of the accusation of being a former zoophile. You also avoid
> replying to accusations of having brutalized and/or killed animals
> yourself. And finally, these people seem to have identified you as a poster
> under another name on a couple of different forums. Again, no response from
> you.
Pr> Leslie: You say we never responded, yet you included part of what we
Pr> said previously above:
> >Neither I nor my wife have any "repentance" for any supposed "past deeds",
nor
> >are we religious fanatics, moral cruisaders or attempting to get revenge for
> >some as yet undefined "reason" you attribute all of this to.
Pr> The term "supposed past deeds" is meant to cover pretty much
Pr> everything without drawing it into an essay. We don't care what they
Pr> claim, post, or attribute to either my wife or I, they cannot prove
Pr> what they claim.
You still fail to deny the claims, Randy. Latent honesty? You've
even confirmed your identity at least once. Some day I might tell you
how. You've also confirmed that you are a real zoophile. It's in the
way you say it.
The facts as I see them are that you actually have had sex with
animals. You also have actually killed some of your lovers in fits of
rage. Your name really is Randy Pepe. You did suffer a religious
conversion, a fate I would not wish even on an irritant like you, even
now. Because of this conversion you have turned on the people who were
trying to give you emotional support.
There is also the fact that you can almost never seem to clearly
format text without help. Your logic and reasoning are always skewed
about the same way, a way that you haven't changed since your
conversion.
Firm speculation has it that you don't have a wife at all. Also,
that you had your friend from Canada call in and pretend to be Piers
Beirne, which is why he wasn't at the radio show.
I don't think any zoophiles besides yourself claimed you were Mark
and Judy Schrad.
Pr> We have received last summer, not only email bombs but threats, death
Pr> threats and more from them, so this new angle is what we would have
Pr> expected.
I think you made up the death threats to gain sympathy.
> Now, I don't think that every ridiculous accusation needs a vehement
> reply; but I have observed that there is a consistency and pattern to
> your avoidance. Would I personally prefer that the "Beasty Boys" go
> back to their own newsgroup? Of course!! I've already said why and
> kill-filed a few trolls who won't let up.
Leslie needs to know that she is speaking to the party that took
credit for shutting down the usual bestiality newsgroup, making it
necessary to choose another forum to speak against the bigotry.
Pr> I am afraid you are not seeing the larger picture, they want laws
Pr> removed and public acceptance, part of the way they do this is by
Pr> engaging people such as yourself into lengthy dialogs to slowly turn
Pr> you around by posting essays and forcing you to justify any and all
Pr> reasons you may have to object to sex with animals.
There is something wrong with this? By the way, this is the most
intelligent thing I've ever seen you say under any name and in any
forum. It's not quite intelligent enough, but it is an improvement.
Pr> Once they engage
Pr> you in that dialog and you can't come up with "proof" as to why they
Pr> shouldn't do this, or how it is abuse, then they have you hooked. No
Exactly. I see that your own expectation is that anyone who
debates the subject will be unable to prove that sex with animals is
inherently abusive.
Pr> matter what you say against sex with animals they will claim it is not
Pr> enough.
Not precisely. What is said against sex with animals must be
accurate, provable, and relevant. That human penetration of large
birds and rabbits is injurious to them is accurate and provable but is
not relevant to the situation of penetration of dogs, horses, and other
animals that have the physical capacity. That some people bludgeon
animals to death is not relevant to the much more common situation in
which the contact is loving and gentle. That there are a few nutcases
who tie dogs down and rape them is not relevant to the common situation
in which the animals appear to be quite willing.
The very fact that you bring up the violent cases and generalize
from those cases shows the weakness of your case. You very literally
are not describing the same phenomenon. But, on some level you are
aware that there is a difference, or you would spend some intellectual
effort on adequately proving that there is something wrong with sex
between a human and an animal, when there is no indication that the
animal opposes or dislikes the act, and when there is no physical injury
to the animal. You would do this rather than use the cheap and easily
disprovable method of stating that these things are one and the same.
Your usual cop-out is to say that you don't have to, or to dissolve
into incoherency. Which leads me to ask you this: Do you, Randy Pepe,
really want to live in a world where you operate by finding out who is
stupid enough to fall for your worst ideas, where you help persuade
people to do violence to each other over inconsequential matters?
There are many other postings from Remus citing childhood
Pr> animal abuse, but since we don't live in the past as they do we won't
Pr> use them as they are several years old citing events decades ago. He
Pr> has not at any time suggested he is willing to seek professional help
Pr> and get out of bestiality activities. Remus on the other hand is doing
Pr> what these people have been doing for some time now, frequenting animal
Pr> forums and slowly spreading "the word" and trying to gain acceptance
Pr> towards their larger goal- legality everywhere.
Pr> One web site even suggested that zoophiles should be in charge of
Pr> animal laws!
> Actually, I already *knew* Remus was a zoophile before he ever made the
> admission. It was contained in a couple of his original comments about
> paraphilia. Not explicit acknowledgement; just extremely subtle hints.
Pr> You may have had some clues he was, but you didn't know about the
Pr> Goldie incident or the other incidents, and likely most here didn't
Pr> know either.
>So
> his open admission shortly thereafter wasn't very surprising.
Pr> He had *no* choice, because anyone can look in the dejanews archives
Pr> for his current email address and see where and what he posts.
The "Goldie" post does not exist in the dejanews archives.
Tall Thin Jones
make:
-=> Quoting Pro4a...@aol.com to Leslie <=-
>The exchange with Remus was different in that it
> wasn't a discussion of bestiality; it was a discussion of welfare for
> animals and ethical obligations surrounding a specific situation.
Pr> I am afraid you are not seeing the larger picture, they want laws
Pr> removed and public acceptance, part of the way they do this is by
Pr> engaging people such as yourself into lengthy dialogs to slowly turn
Pr> you around by posting essays and forcing you to justify any and all
Pr> reasons you may have to object to sex with animals. Once they engage
Pr> you in that dialog and you can't come up with "proof" as to why they
Pr> shouldn't do this, or how it is abuse, then they have you hooked. No
I was impressed that Randy came up with such an intelligent
observation.
However, this is part of the correct way to evaluate any law,
existing or proposed. The reasons to have a law must be evaluated and
must be strong enough to withstand intense scrutiny.
Societies and individuals who promote totalitarianism discourage
the rational evaluation of laws, largely because so many of the laws
they want will limit many legitimate freedoms and create licenses to
steal from people. They instead play on people's fears.
Tall Thin Jones
> Okya, let us waste a few more seconds on this then- neither myself nor
> my wife are currently, or have ever been zoophiles having sex with
> animals.
Your denial would gain some slight credibility if you simply denied
ever having had sex with animals.
Do you deny having claimed to have had sex with animals? I see you
aren't denying that you are or used to be Randy Pepe.
> We hope that clarifies things better for you, even though it
> is just a waste of our time to respond to that sort of drivel. We are
> not courting support for ourselves, we are simply providing the
> information and resources, and promoting legislation. Most people
You are providing the information rather badly.
> already know sex with animals is sick, wrong and abusive, they only
> need to know how it is growing and what to do about it.
How do they know it is abusive, and how do YOU know what to do
about it?
> It has a lot to do with it since zoophiles have claiemd they know who
> we are, or I should say they claim we are someone else, and claim they
> know more. Since we have never posted "more" in any forum, it would be
> impossible for anyone outside of AOL employees or a court of law to
> obtain information about any AOL account holder.
Or, someone who hacked your account as they claimed.
> Of course. That has been made fairly clear by all of their postings, to me
> and to others. Quite simply, what a zoophile considers to be 'enough' is
> irrelevant. If I feel that it is abusive and cruel to animals, besides
> being socially and sexually deviant, then they have no real chance at
> changing a very deep conviction to me.
This may explain something. You used to have sex with animals, you
killed the animals you had sex with, abusively and cruelly, so while you
were having sex with animals you felt it was abusive and cruel and you
acted out your feelings.
> And, since it seems to be that way for much of society, then they
> remain clearly and forever in the minority because a zoophiles claim
> that societies beliefs are "not enough" is simply not enough. It has
> no support in fact. Only in anecdotal claims which have never been
> researched.
Society's alleged beliefs are what have no support in fact.
>
> >There are many other postings from Remus citing childhood
> >animal abuse, but since we don't live in the past
Another clue from pro4animal that he is Randy. He wouldn't be
talking about "living in the past" without having a past, and the only
past we have been bringing up is Randy's. And, you already have been
bringing up Remus's past.
> Do you have any doubt that a 40 or 50 pound dog is injured in some way
> by having a full grown human male penetrait her out of season? Or
I have seen you present no evidence of this, Mr. "Rolland."
> perhaps developing pyometra or vaginal infection as a result of the
> foreign bacteria and material inserted there?
She can get the same thing from her own tongue, that of another
dog, or from another dog if she is in heat. Infections transmitted
during sexual activity are not unique to interspecies contact, either.