Question:

Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs.

[..] So you have learned how to use the ad hominem fallacy, why don’t you use your advanced intellect to learn how to present your beliefs without engaging in fallacies?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs. [..] So you have learned how to use the ad hominem fallacy, why don’t you use your advanced intellect to learn how to present your beliefs without engaging in fallacies? Hah?? I would question that too. Why haven’t you condemned the hateful language and corrected some of michael’s misconceptions? One would think you want to maintain a certain facade of respectability and credibility for the home side, but no… nary a whimper.

I have. Did you read the contempt he showed to our corporal? Such disrespect was bound to effect some reaction from a stalwart follower.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs. [..] So you have learned how to use the ad hominem fallacy, why don’t you use your advanced intellect to learn how to present your beliefs without engaging in fallacies? Hah??

I would question that too. Why haven’t you condemned the hateful language and corrected some of michael’s misconceptions? One would think you want to maintain a certain facade of respectability and credibility for the home side, but no… nary a whimper.

Response:

Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs. [..] So you have learned how to use the ad hominem fallacy, why don’t you use your advanced intellect to learn how to present your beliefs without engaging in fallacies?

Hah??

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible. The goal, as I will demonstrate is to obscure the truth about what AR really is. As if you’d know Dutch!

I know that the "common" traits of ARAs that antis point out here every day are not the ones listed by Cerkowski. Where is claiming reduction without measurement for example?

Response:

  Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, Some ethical vegetarians? I doubt there’s one EV that does not hold any misconceptions about farmers, hunters, researchers, and their other ‘enemies’.

I walked out of a city zoo once, and into some kind of annual fair that being held nearby. I just lucked into it. At the fair was a PETA booth, and I struck up a conversation with the woman behind the table. Like a boob, I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo..aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here. I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism. — | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded | | gold, it would be a merrier world. — J.R.R. Tolkien       |

Response:

Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs.  No one in real life will have anything to do with them.  They are filled with hate, and seek prey to express their vituperative venom through their fangs from overfilled sacs.  They are bitter malcontents with no sex life.

You posted the same pathetic personals ad to nearly a dozen usenet groups, no fewer than 13 times since Christmas day (!) 1998.     Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit     View: Complete Thread (27 articles) | Original Format     Greetings:       I am a(n): atheist, vegetarian, nonsmoker, never married,     occasional drinker, entrepreneur-wannabe living in Miami.       My interests include: nature, wildlife, photography, science,     physics, birding, camping, biking, canoeing, picnics, parks, hiking,     law, psychology, chess, table tennis, tennis, sailing, weightlifting,     the stock market, trading future’s contracts, cosmology,  friendly     debate, desktop publishing, puzzles, challenges, inventing, cats,     dogs, alligators, gourmet vegetarian cooking, gourmet anything,     music, Vita-Mix, hanging-out at Border’s Book Store, animal & people     rescue, repair and home improvement, and good natured     sarcasm.        I am: kindhearted, good-natured, tolerant, liberal, gentle,     imaginative, nonjudgmental, open-minded, accepting, patient,     easygoing, playful and friendly.        I seek an easygoing add  female for friendship and/or business     partnership.  I have the capital, I need is a firstmate.  I have an     average case of add. You ran almost verbatim the same "ad" in talk.philosophy.humanism (09/2000), alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian (02/2001), soc.penpals (10/1998), relcom.penpals (09/1998), alt.furry.lifestyle (09/2000; you thought it was a group for people who have sex with little furry animals!), and alt.politics.greens, alt.politics.democrats and alt.food.vegan (06/24/2001), alt.support.loneliness (12/1998), alt.support.attn-deficit (12/1998), and alt.atheism (12/1998).  You used a few goofy pseudonyms:  ArcticBonfire, "M Wolok", "WildfireHi".  But they all are you. And you think you’re in a position to make fun of anyone else’s sex life? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – They are here merely to release their sexual frustration through verbal aggression. The following animals listed below are abusive sadists whose sole interest in discussing animals rights is the surrogate sexual gratification they get from being able to fuck with others.  They merely seek an opportunity to flame and find an outlet for their frustrated lives and repressed anger.   "Dutch" Jonathan Ball rick etter John Mercer "Richard Bishop" Whoever Kevin Brandon You don’t have to read many of their posts to figure this out.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. I agree, people involved in AR are not (all) saints. they are just like other people. some of them are impolite, aggressive… the truth is, we all need to work on our own selves too. anyway, I admire anyone who’s is compassionate to all living beings (not JUST humans), trying to make a change… Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo… that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…) This sounds like Nitwit Harrison… just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close. Where do I buy a ticket for that one?     My girlfriend works there, I get in free. I have to work as bouncer sometimes, but it’s a great deal.

A bouncer my eye! I bet they just send you over to the trouble area to befriend the louts knowing they’ll piss off from bordom. " Hey you lot! I’m Kev, have you seen how my new calculator works? It’s got 10 memories, a built Be a pal, and send me some discount tix.  I promise I won’t gawk at your girlfriend.

Where’s the good sense in giving Kevin a job in a place full of half dressed women when he’s only got one good eye to appreciate them with?

Response:

The following individuals believe only humans have rights.  Some of them don’t even believe in human rights.  They are not really here to discuss ethics. They themselves admittedly don’t even subscribe to the Golden Rule.  They are followers of Nietzche, Ayn Rand, Social Darwinism and the law of the jungle.  They are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs.  No one in real life will have anything to do with them.  They are filled with hate.  They seek prey to express venom through their fangs from their overloaded venom sacs.  They are bitter malcontents with no sex life.  They are here merely to obtain sexual gratification by fucking with your mind.  That is how they get their rocks off.  If you are a masochist and like getting fucked, knock yourself out. Their one main point is that mice and such are killed in the harvesting of grains.  This is a bogus argument for a variety of reasons.  The "perfect" or "ideal" should not be the enemy of the "better." There is less than one mouse killed for every 10,000 pounds of grain collected.  And it takes much more high quality grain to produce 100 calories of meat than it takes to produce 100 calories from grain.   So when you eat meat you cause more "collatorial damage" than when you eat grains.  Even free range cows are fed high quality grain during certain periods of time during their life.  These lowlifes, like the Taliban, are just interested in feeding you lies. Regardless of what those here say, by being a vegetarian you make a statement that you care about animal suffering.  If the majority of Americans were vegetarians, farmers would have to find more humane ways to harvest grains.  You vote with your wallet.  If enough Americans demonstrated that they were concerned about animal suffering, many farmers would find it profitable to cater to their needs by finding more humane ways to harvest grains.   Kosher foods have a K on them or a "U" inside a circle to tell religious Jews they are kosher.  Many companies that used to put animal shortening and animal fat in their food, replaced these ingredients with vegetable oil to make their foods acceptable to a larger market.  Once vegetarians reach a critical number, they will have clout to effect the market place.  There will be incentive for food producers to cater to their needs and harvest grain in a more humane manner.   The following animals listed below are abusive sadists whose sole interest in discussing animal rights is the surrogate sexual gratification they get from being able to fuck with prey.  They merely seek an opportunity to flame, to engage in verbal abuse and vituperative invective. "Dutch" Jonathan Ball rick etter John Mercer "Richard Bishop" Whoever Kevin Brandon Here is their viewpoint in their own words: ". . . I don’t believe animals have rights. . . ." Only AR hypocrites appear to believe that.  Yet they themselves violate those  supposed rights for nothing more than their selfishness and convenience, telling me they don’t truly believe in animal rights afterall.  Their beliefs are only in hate, demonization, and lys.

Most meat eaters rationalize eating meat because of the pleasure they get from eating meat.  Not true with the meat eaters who post to this newsgroup. Their moral system is not the moral system we subscribe to.  They don’t care about animal suffering in the first place.  Hence, all their arguments here have no meaning.  They wouldn’t be vegetarians even if being a vegetarian eliminated all animal suffering. Once you learn where they are coming from, you realize that you have no common basis to discuss right and wrong with them.  They don’t subscribe to an objective moral system, rather their "moral" system is based on anthropocenticy, ethnocentricity, and egocentricity.  If you would probe their beliefs further, you would discover they are also racist, sexist, Rush Limbough, conserva-self, ultra-right wingers.  All they care about is themselves.  They don’t give a damn about the poor, social justice, blacks, or anyone not of their tribe.  And mostly they don’t care about anyone but themselves.   You will discover that not one of them is a Democrat.  The dispute here has nothing to do about vegetarianism or animal rights.  The real underlying issue here is the virtue of selfishness and greed.  The anthrax spew they aerosolize is merely a cover for their real agenda.  My advice to you is don’t inhale their lies and clever, but bogus arguments.  The only difference between them and Jehova’s Witnesses is the subject matter.  Do you know what happens when you play with rabid animals?  Be forewarned!

Response:

Those listed below are obnoxious boors with odorous beliefs.  No one in real life will have anything to do with them.  They are filled with hate, and seek prey to express their vituperative venom through their fangs from overfilled sacs.  They are bitter malcontents with no sex life.  They are here merely to release their sexual frustration through verbal aggression. The following animals listed below are abusive sadists whose sole interest in discussing animals rights is the surrogate sexual gratification they get from being able to fuck with others.  They merely seek an opportunity to flame and find an outlet for their frustrated lives and repressed anger.   "Dutch" Jonathan Ball rick etter John Mercer "Richard Bishop" Whoever Kevin Brandon You don’t have to read many of their posts to figure this out.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. I agree, people involved in AR are not (all) saints. they are just like other people. some of them are impolite, aggressive… the truth is, we all need to work on our own selves too. anyway, I admire anyone who’s is compassionate to all living beings (not JUST humans), trying to make a change… Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo… that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…) This sounds like Nitwit Harrison… just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close. Where do I buy a ticket for that one?     My girlfriend works there, I get in free. I have to work as bouncer sometimes, but it’s a great deal.

Be a pal, and send me some discount tix.  I promise I won’t gawk at your girlfriend.

Response:

No, sorry – as far as viewing zoos go, (hopefully) they are a dying breed (pardon the pun), why watch an animal in an alien environment acting unnaturally when there are so many wonderful wildlife programmes on TV these days.

Yeah,  chasing animals across the plain in a landrover,or digging into burrows, etc. to install cameras, to make a TV programme is so much better. Michael Saunby

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. I agree, people involved in AR are not (all) saints. they are just like other people. some of them are impolite, aggressive… the truth is, we all need to work on our own selves too. anyway, I admire anyone who’s is compassionate to all living beings (not JUST humans), trying to make a change… Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo… that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…) This sounds like Nitwit Harrison… just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close. Where do I buy a ticket for that one?

    My girlfriend works there, I get in free. I have to work as bouncer sometimes, but it’s a great deal.    Kevin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here. do we need to accept cruelty? I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings. I love animals. I hate going to zoo, it makes me cry to see them so depressed. no surrounding can make the prison like home. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism. if not enjoying suffering of others (even if they look gorgeous wile) and opposing to cruelty is extremism, then I am an extremist. mia

Response:

snips… just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close. Where do I buy a ticket for that one?

When you find the sign-up list, let us know!! Sounds kinda like a little jealousy on someones part here, eh? snips…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, Some ethical vegetarians? I doubt there’s one EV that does not hold any misconceptions about farmers, hunters, researchers, and their other ‘enemies’. I walked out of a city zoo once, and into some kind of annual fair that being held nearby. I just lucked into it. At the fair was a PETA booth, and I struck up a conversation with the woman behind the table. Like a boob, I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo..aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here. I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism.

And I take it you realise that some zoos breed animals for financial gain and sell them on to laboratories? Or some of the conditions animals are being kept in, I saw a horrific case in Perth, Australia, where an elephant was chained up in the baking sun and kept trying to get some shade but couldn’t. No, sorry – as far as viewing zoos go, (hopefully) they are a dying breed (pardon the pun), why watch an animal in an alien environment acting unnaturally when there are so many wonderful wildlife programmes on TV these days.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names. I agree, people involved in AR are not (all) saints. they are just like other people. some of them are impolite, aggressive… the truth is, we all need to work on our own selves too. anyway, I admire anyone who’s is compassionate to all living beings (not JUST humans), trying to make a change… Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo… that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…)

This sounds like Nitwit Harrison… just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close.

Where do I buy a ticket for that one? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here. do we need to accept cruelty? I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings. I love animals. I hate going to zoo, it makes me cry to see them so depressed. no surrounding can make the prison like home. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism. if not enjoying suffering of others (even if they look gorgeous wile) and opposing to cruelty is extremism, then I am an extremist. mia

Response:

[..] Like a boob, I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names.

[..] And you immediately broke down in tears and repented of your evil ways. Jeeeez. These extremist idiots need to learn a thing or two about presentation. No-one ever swallows an idea with hostility sauce. Just ask rick etter. I hope you treated her temper tantrum with the contempt it deserved. — Rocketboy (rocketboy74_at_home_dot_com) PGP key at http://members.home.net/rocketboy74/pkey.txt

Response:

Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild. that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in.

Zoos were originally started to make money by showing people something unusual, like a circus does, for example. The people who started most of the zoological societies have been dead for quite awhile. Times have changed. Most of the animals in modern zoos come from other zoos (via captive breeding programs) or from orphaned/abandoned/injured/sick animals in the wild that would either die or be consumed without human intervention. It seems to me that the animal kingdom is better served by stepping in and rescuing a rare animal, rather than (for example) letting a pack of wild dogs tear it to pieces for lunch. In many cases, the zoological societies place these animals on exhibit, and eventually return them to the wild, if the species is conducive to that strategy. Not all are. Other animals exist today only because of zoos. You would never see one again without the captive breeding programs, as human encroachment has destroyed every wild example of the animal outside of the zoos. The modern zoological societies do a lot of work tracking endangered species, monitoring encroachment on habitat and maintaining genetic diversity both within the zoo system and in the wild, with the hope of strengthening the remaining wild lineage, or, in some cases, restoring a near-extinct species to the wild. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo… that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…) just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close.

None of the modern zoological societies participate in these activities. I’ve seen plenty of beautiful females in cages at the zoo–and most of them were wearing fur coats! Oh, the shame of it aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here. do we need to accept cruelty?

Many zoos have environments where the animals happily eat, sleep, reproduce, etc. In all honesty, they don’t do as well as they would in the wild. Of course, they would die in the wild, or die if people stop going to the zoos. At least if people go to zoos, the facilties can be improved and research can be funded. I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings. I love animals. I hate going to zoo, it makes me cry to see them so depressed. no surrounding can make the prison like home.

Very few are taken from the wild. If PETA succeeds in driving people away from zoos, you will certainly end the animal’s depression–with death. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism. if not enjoying suffering of others (even if they look gorgeous wile) and opposing to cruelty is extremism, then I am an extremist.

One problem with extremism is that it can unintended, negative consequences that run completely contrary to the activist’s original wishes. For example, if PETA started a national campaign to close zoological societies, or paint the act of visiting a zoo as a negative experience, most of their funding for restoring species, maintaining genetic diversity, or monitoring human encroachment would end. The result would be the loss, over time, of many of the world’s rarest and most interesting flora and fauna. I don’t think that is a PETA core value.

Response:

——-      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS                         INTRODUCTION:    Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research,

——- Some ethical vegetarians? I doubt there’s one EV that does not hold any misconceptions about farmers, hunters, researchers, and their other ‘enemies’. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.

Which, in the case of Mr. Cerkowski, means that they aren’t treated fairly at all.

Response:

   Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.

The goal, as I will demonstrate is to obscure the truth about what AR really is.                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:    Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few charismatic leaders and/or texts.

They are mindless followers of a small set of rules which you have already done us the honor of listing above.. "..people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research" They are generally oblivious to the real goals and organizations behind AR. They believe that AR dogma is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea, it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different answers.

I haven’t noticed that in these discussions. Antis fight amongst themselves,like human beings. ARAs march lockstep on every front, like drones.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.

A few fuzzy minded academics argue irrelevancies over cafe latte, very impressive.             ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:    It is tempting to believe that people who think differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by their beliefs and actions.

Yes it certainly is, I’m glad you can see that also.  The philosophy of animal rights is based on rational consideration of the world as humans perceive it, just like many other schools of thought.

But the practice doesn’t follow the philosophy. The philosophy is window dressing for the AR victims "..people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research"  While there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of time considering and reconsidering our positions and the reasons that underlie them.

That’s because you constantly need to invent new ways to obscure the truth and restate your rhetoric in the face of crushing logic against you. .  While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.

Worrying that your house of cards is about to come tumbling down, but it never will, because the human talent for self-delusion knows no bounds. From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions may be different from the mainstream, but our basic perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the same.

You use no logical processes, only slogans, lies, and rules.                     THE ARA AS LUDDITE:

[..] I have never once heard that one.                THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:    Another common myth about animal rights activists (that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality.

That one is true. Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology. For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel, mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.

You need to examine your fantasies because they don’t represent anti-AR thinking. <

< liberal snippage as I’m geting bored      ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:                 THE ARA AS TERRORIST:                  ARAs AS ELITISTS:                       CONCLUSION:

You have failed to list or attempt to refute a single one of the actual complaints about ARAs, that they are hypocritcal weak-minded, socially retarded frauds who peddle a cheap substitute for religion on unsuspecting young minds.

Response:

I mentioned that I had just come from the zoo…holy shit, I thought she was going to attack me. She raised her voice, twisted her face, yelled that I was "helping the zoo torture animals", then started calling me names.

I agree, people involved in AR are not (all) saints. they are just like other people. some of them are impolite, aggressive… the truth is, we all need to work on our own selves too. anyway, I admire anyone who’s is compassionate to all living beings (not JUST humans), trying to make a change… Some zoos do a lot of research that ultimately helps animals in the wild…many of the animals are bred in captivity…they can’t be returned to the wild.

that is not the reason why zoos exist. all that could be done without keeping them all in. Many people would never see these amazing creatures up close without the zoo…

that is selfish. do animals really have to be imprisoned (most of them kidnapped from their families, from their natural habitats, large number of them die in transport…) just that we could be able to see how they look (but not move too much)? going in that direction… one day we could put pretty girls (naked?) in cages so everyone can see them up close. aometimes you have to accept the world the way it is and struggle to move forward from here.

do we need to accept cruelty? I’m still a member of the zoological society, and enjoy going to the zoo. I’ve always thought of it as a enjoyable activity, and the money helps naturalists do their studies and provides the animals we have now with quality surroundings.

I love animals. I hate going to zoo, it makes me cry to see them so depressed. no surrounding can make the prison like home. PETA? No thanks. I think a concerted effort to improve things over time, rationally, is a better approach than extremism.

if not enjoying suffering of others (even if they look gorgeous wile) and opposing to cruelty is extremism, then I am an extremist. mia

Response:

   Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible. The goal, as I will demonstrate is to obscure the truth about what AR really is.

As if you’d know Dutch!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book. That it is causal in gloal warming, is the issue under question. Numerous emminent scientist have stated that global warming may by just a natural cyclic phenomenon and there’s plenty evidence to back this up – raised beaches and Roman vineyards as far north as Edinburgh, in Scotland. Ya, but many have stated that it’s *not* just a natural phenomena.

Which means it is unproven either way.. And the issue I was dealign with was not methane’s blamability,

That was the point the original poster was making when he said "and lets not forget…about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax)". It is quite clear from parsing that sentence using simple grammar rules, that the ‘unsupported hoax’ he’s referring to is the culpability of cows in global warming, and that was the point on which you told him it was not a hoax and he should read a chemistry book.  but the hypocrisy of the original poster, in making claims which are either completely arbitrary, or open to debate (global warming falls into the latter category) while he accused veg*ns and animal libbers of doing the same thing.

I’m sorry, I don’t see any ‘claims’ of his above. All he has done is comment on what he says are (some rather silly) AR claims. His only ‘claim’ is that cows causing global warming is an unsupported hoax – hardly a claim, more a statement of fact. Where’s the hypocrisy?

Response:

The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well.

Not at all.  Merely the result of reading and conversing. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book.

I suggest you read a lot of books, including chemistry. And let’s not forget history.  Bison farts are heavy on it too, as are human farts. The bison were once as numorous as the cows are today.  The human farts are another issue.  You wanna cull that herd? BTW, Methane, as a greenhouse gas would be insignificant on planet earth at 1000 times it’s current level. And it breaks down rather quickly as well.   And if you have even the tiniest shred of evidence that the globe is warming, you can make history by being the first to present it. Also, are you familiar with how some rural people make methane fuel? No, of corse not.. see below.  The point is that leaves end up making methane whether it after cattle digestion or while rotting in the field. milk is harmful" nonsense, or the "meat rots in the intestines" baloney!  And let’s not ignore the habitual claims that beef cattle is grown exclusively on corn which is denied to starving people, or the contridictory and equally silly claim that the grasslands they feed on could be used to raise corn to feed starving people. How is that a contradiction? I think you’d better get your logic functions checked… Sounds to me like a wonderfully complimentary pair of statements.

Only because you haven’t a clue about farms or ranches. Most of the land cows graze on are not suitable for crops.  Even if they were, farmers are being paid NOT to plant.  There is no food shortage. There is a freedom shortage.  People are starving in the world due to politics, not cows eating up all the food. If the AR kooks want to be taken seriously, they need to make a few changes: 1) Stop the cowardly acts of picking on little old ladies wearing Little old ladies = fashion industry, I take it? You should be careful not to make any unsupported claims (significant glare).

And you don’t consider leather jackets fashionable?  OK, but those wearing them do.  Why not pick on them?  Better yet, why not pick on the tofu producers since the machinery used to produce it kills so many insects and rodents? furs.  Show a little guts. Go into biker bars and throw paint on some leather jackets. Okay. If you go find some drunken, militant Shaolin monks, and hurl paint at their tofu.

Why would I be interested in that?  I don’t care if they eat dirt or each other. I don’t care what they wear either. 2) Try some truth.  That, of course, requires that you can find any which supports your cause. 3)  Disassociate yourselves from the habitual liars who make up 99% of the AR organizations’ members. 99%??? And I’m sure you have the survey results to back that up? Because I just *know* that you wouldn’t make an unsubstantiated claim like that… (significant glare)

It was rounded off… Brother Ellis has more regard for truth and a far better grasp of reality than the AR kooks!   See www.besna.org William R. James Picking holes in arguments seems to be the only practical thing maths and

philosophy majors can look forward to these days Still, it’s good to find a way to occupy myself. I suggest you find another hobby.  You aren’t very good at that one. William R. James

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book. That it is causal in gloal warming… Ya, but many have stated that it’s *not* just a natural phenomena. Which means it is unproven either way.. Indeed it does. So why on earth does the original poster think it’s a useful argument?

He’s not presenting it as an argument, useful or otherwise. He’s commenting on it being used as an argument. That was the point the original poster was making when he said "and lets not forget…about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax)". It is quite clear from parsing that sentence using simple grammar rules, that the ‘unsupported hoax’ he’s referring to is the culpability of cows in global warming, and that was the point on which you told him it was not a hoax and he should read a chemistry book. Quite correct. But using simple logic rules, we have cows = methane (a greenhouse gas). If the original poster argues against any part of this,   the whole thing falls through.

Nope. Your logic fails you. Methane to global warming is the link your looking for, and you’ve already conceded above that causes of global warming are at best unproven and may, in fact, be an entirely natural phenomenon. Therefore your logic is based on a false premis and unproven causal link. I’m sorry, I don’t see any ‘claims’ of his above. All he has done is comment on what he says are (some rather silly) AR claims. His only ‘claim’ is that cows causing global warming is an unsupported hoax – hardly a claim, more a statement of fact. Where’s the hypocrisy? Well, the bit about the cow fart-global warming connection being  a hoax is a claim.

It is a statement of skepticism. And if you look above, you will see why. And if you look far enough back in the thread, you’ll see something about 99% of animal rights people being irrational pseudo-scientists, or words to that effect. I’m wondering where that statistic came from.

They are nothing more than the usual hyperbole that takes place in Usenet debates. I’m somewhat surprised you’re making an issue of this at all and asking for citations for what is clearly nothing more than debating rhetoric. It does suggest that your own case is rather weak if this is the sort of thing you choose to focus on. Apparently, we A.R. folk don’t try to back up any of our views with evidence. But in fact, I do try. I try hard. And I think I do quite well, as far as is possible. So the hypocrisy, dear readers, is in the original poster’s demands for A.R. folk to have validated claims, while he offers no support for his own.

But he didn’t make any claims, he simply comments on an AR *claim* of cows to global warming and dismisses it as a hoax. This, you try to shoehorn into a ‘claim’ that requires evidence. He is displaying skepticism regarding the AR claim, which is a perfectly valid position to take. He has no need to provide evidence to support that position, the onus is on those making the original claim to provide proof positive of the causal link. Yours is a demand for ‘proof negative’ and that is a logical fallacy. There is no hypocrisy.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book. That it is causal in gloal warming… Ya, but many have stated that it’s *not* just a natural phenomena. Which means it is unproven either way..

Indeed it does. So why on earth does the original poster think it’s a useful argument? That was the point the original poster was making when he said "and lets not forget…about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax)". It is quite clear from parsing that sentence using simple grammar rules, that the ‘unsupported hoax’ he’s referring to is the culpability of cows in global warming, and that was the point on which you told him it was not a hoax and he should read a chemistry book.

Quite correct. But using simple logic rules, we have cows = methane (a greenhouse gas). If the original poster argues against any part of this,   the whole thing falls through.  but the hypocrisy of the original poster, in making claims which are either completely arbitrary, or open to debate (global warming falls into the latter category) while he accused veg*ns and animal libbers of doing the same thing. I’m sorry, I don’t see any ‘claims’ of his above. All he has done is comment on what he says are (some rather silly) AR claims. His only ‘claim’ is that cows causing global warming is an unsupported hoax – hardly a claim, more a statement of fact. Where’s the hypocrisy?

Well, the bit about the cow fart-global warming connection being  a hoax is a claim. And if you look far enough back in the thread, you’ll see something about 99% of animal rights people being irrational pseudo-scientists, or words to that effect. I’m wondering where that statistic came from. Apparently, we A.R. folk don’t try to back up any of our views with evidence. But in fact, I do try. I try hard. And I think I do quite well, as far as is possible. So the hypocrisy, dear readers, is in the original poster’s demands for A.R. folk to have validated claims, while he offers no support for his own.

Response:

Brother Ellis has more regard for truth and a far better grasp of reality than the AR kooks! See www.besna.org William R. James You’re a fucking troll. A very bad fucking troll. Wanker.

Bills are unwelcome things I get in the mail, moron.  I’m a regiular in this group and have been for years.  BTW, since you are obviously incapable oif figuring out which is "this group" it’s alt.activism. I don’t post to "your group" other than replies from "your group" which were crossposted to a group I read.  So go learn what a troll is before making a fool of yourself even more. William R. James

Response:

The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.  

That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows

Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book. milk is harmful" nonsense, or the "meat rots in the intestines" baloney!  And let’s not ignore the habitual claims that beef cattle is grown exclusively on corn which is denied to starving people, or the contridictory and equally silly claim that the grasslands they feed on could be used to raise corn to feed starving people.

How is that a contradiction? I think you’d better get your logic functions checked… Sounds to me like a wonderfully complimentary pair of statements. If the AR kooks want to be taken seriously, they need to make a few changes: 1) Stop the cowardly acts of picking on little old ladies wearing

Little old ladies = fashion industry, I take it? You should be careful not to make any unsupported claims (significant glare). furs.  Show a little guts. Go into biker bars and throw paint on some leather jackets.

Okay. If you go find some drunken, militant Shaolin monks, and hurl paint at their tofu. 2) Try some truth.  That, of course, requires that you can find any which supports your cause. 3)  Disassociate yourselves from the habitual liars who make up 99% of the AR organizations’ members.

99%??? And I’m sure you have the survey results to back that up? Because I just *know* that you wouldn’t make an unsubstantiated claim like that… (significant glare) Brother Ellis has more regard for truth and a far better grasp of reality than the AR kooks!   See www.besna.org William R. James

Picking holes in arguments seems to be the only practical thing maths and philosophy majors can look forward to these days Still, it’s good to find a way to occupy myself.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book.

That it is causal in gloal warming, is the issue under question. Numerous emminent scientist have stated that global warming may by just a natural cyclic phenomenon and there’s plenty evidence to back this up – raised beaches and Roman vineyards as far north as Edinburgh, in Scotland.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.   That sounds suspiciously conclusion-jumping, but oh well. These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows Cow farts are heavy on methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It’s not a hoax, go read a chemistry book. That it is causal in gloal warming, is the issue under question. Numerous emminent scientist have stated that global warming may by just a natural cyclic phenomenon and there’s plenty evidence to back this up – raised beaches and Roman vineyards as far north as Edinburgh, in Scotland.

Ya, but many have stated that it’s *not* just a natural phenomena. And the issue I was dealign with was not methane’s blamability, but the hypocrisy of the original poster, in making claims which are either completely arbitrary, or open to debate (global warming falls into the latter category) while he accused veg*ns and animal libbers of doing the same thing.

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky. His, as well as mine, were plain ASCII text attached files.  There is no "risk".  You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Can’t blame him for his hesitance Jonathan – he’s probably heard about you. Chumpcompany.

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky. Ronny

   Plain text attachments are safe. Your newsreader should be able to identify the file type before you open them. (…) —                 http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

Response:

               THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:     Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.    

The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.  These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows milk is harmful" nonsense, or the "meat rots in the intestines" baloney!  And let’s not ignore the habitual claims that beef cattle is grown exclusively on corn which is denied to starving people, or the contridictory and equally silly claim that the grasslands they feed on could be used to raise corn to feed starving people. If the AR kooks want to be taken seriously, they need to make a few changes: 1) Stop the cowardly acts of picking on little old ladies wearing furs.  Show a little guts. Go into biker bars and throw paint on some leather jackets. 2) Try some truth.  That, of course, requires that you can find any which supports your cause. 3)  Disassociate yourselves from the habitual liars who make up 99% of the AR organizations’ members. Brother Ellis has more regard for truth and a far better grasp of reality than the AR kooks!   See www.besna.org William R. James

Response:

FYI: I’m not posting and then attaching the same file to my posts. Any post with duplication is probably a quoted one.

Your newsreader may be doing that. William R. James

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:     Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.     The relevant point is that the AR kooks never question the claims of their self appointed "experts".  I have seen far too many posts ranting on and on about silly nonsense in absolute opposition to reality.  These ridiculous claims range from humans having no canine teeth to ancient jews (Jesus, for example) eating no meat.  And let’s not forget the silly pseudoenviroonmental nonecense about cow farts causing global warming (which is another unsupported hoax), the "cows milk is harmful" nonsense, or the "meat rots in the intestines" baloney!  And let’s not ignore the habitual claims that beef cattle is grown exclusively on corn which is denied to starving people, or the contridictory and equally silly claim that the grasslands they feed on could be used to raise corn to feed starving people. Typical blind, bigot nonsense.

That’s your argument???  You wont even bother attempting to refute anything?  Rather predictable..  :) If the AR kooks want to be taken seriously, they need to make a few changes: Everyone needs changes to improve themselves. You are quite a bit behind the rest of us in your required changes.

Insults as a substitute for argument, huh?  And you really thing it’s valid!  ROTFLMAO. In fact I imagine you are living proof of the results of a meat diet. 1) Stop the cowardly acts of picking on little old ladies wearing furs.  Show a little guts. Go into biker bars and throw paint on some leather jackets. What a nonsense.

Coward?  Are little old ladies just easier targets? 2) Try some truth.  That, of course, requires that you can find any which supports your cause. One does not need proof to have respect for life, especially their own life. Clearly, you need to prove why being an asshole is preferable!! so far you have failed miserably.

I respect live.  That’s why I consume food. 3)  Disassociate yourselves from the habitual liars who make up 99% of the AR organizations’ members. Totally baseless, unfounded nonsense.

Yes, your reply is Totally baseless, unfounded nonsense. William R. James

Response:

Brother Ellis has more regard for truth and a far better grasp of reality than the AR kooks! See www.besna.org William R. James

You’re a fucking troll. A very bad fucking troll. Wanker.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Absolute crap, you demented psycho. There are a few demons on this site Mr. Ball and you are one of the most prominent. You have the nerve to send a posting with an attachment. I operate behind a firewall, but I am not that brave! Camcompany The Animals friend. It’s just a text file saying the exact same nonsense as the post. The attachment is harmless even if also meaningless and redundant. William R. James  By "nonsense" and "meaningless", I would hope you are talking about Slick Cerkowski’s original "Common Misconceptions" pack of unsubstantiated assertions, and not Jonathan Ball’s fefutation.

Of course. Otherwise, please point out the meaningless nonsense in Jonathan’s post.   Kevin

I can find none.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. William R. James

Response:

Absolute crap, you demented psycho. There are a few demons on this site Mr. Ball and you are one of the most prominent. You have the nerve to send a posting with an attachment. I operate behind a firewall, but I am not that brave! Camcompany The Animals friend.

It’s just a text file saying the exact same nonsense as the post. The attachment is harmless even if also meaningless and redundant. William R. James

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky. Ronny   Plain text attachments are safe. Your newsreader should be able to identify the file type before you open them. (…)

Some newsreaders do not bother displaying text files as types.  Agent, for example, shows that an attachment is there, and allowes lauching, but it doesn’t show in the window at all.  To some that looks rather suspicous. But it’s 100% risk free.   What’s the point, though???  If it’s the same as the text why post it twice? William R. James

Response:

FYI: I’m not posting and then attaching the same file to my posts. Any post with duplication is probably a quoted one. —                 http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Absolute crap, you demented psycho. There are a few demons on this site Mr. Ball and you are one of the most prominent. You have the nerve to send a posting with an attachment. I operate behind a firewall, but I am not that brave! Camcompany The Animals friend. It’s just a text file saying the exact same nonsense as the post. The attachment is harmless even if also meaningless and redundant. William R. James

  By "nonsense" and "meaningless", I would hope you are talking about Slick Cerkowski’s original "Common Misconceptions" pack of unsubstantiated assertions, and not Jonathan Ball’s fefutation. Otherwise, please point out the meaningless nonsense in Jonathan’s post.    Kevin

Response:

—- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cerkowski developed the silly "Common Misconceptions" screed as a cynical, dishonest counterpoint to his "Hard Truths" essay. The two documents couldn’t be more dissimilar in intent. "Hard Truths" is somewhat useful, not least because, although it predates the "Common Misconceptions" screed, it also directly refutes it.  It performs this refutation by cautioning "ARAs" against *continuing* to exhibit many of the behaviors and delusions that Cerkowski here claims are "misconceptions". That would demand the question:  how can they be misconceptions if Cerkowski sees fit to caution "ARAs" against continuing to exhibit them? The dishonesty of "Common Misconceptions" is manifold, beginning but certainly not ending with Cerkowski’s cynical casting of it as a counterpoint to "Hard Truths".  "Hard Truths" is aimed at "ARAs" because Cerkowski knows that they have a bloated, overstated sense of their virtue, based on simplistic, unwarranted assumptions. He knows this because he himself once held the same assumptions. As dishonest and sleazy as he reveals himself to be in these newsgroups, it is to his no small credit that he implicitly acknowledges having held earlier false beliefs. But if "Hard Truths" is based on a real, because personal, assessment of false beliefs held by his Side, "Common Misconceptions" is anything but.  In a nutshell, "Hard Truths" is about false beliefs "ARAs" hold or have held *about themselves*.  This is what makes it valuable. "Common Misconceptions", by contrast, is not at all about so-called "antis’" views of themselves; it is, rather about another set of false beliefs…held by "ARAs", again!  If anything, it is about "ARA" fears of how they present themselves to the rest of the world. The fears are well founded.      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS We will show that many of these are not misconceptions at all. Of those that remain, we will see that most are not at all "common", not that Cerkowski has shown. Cerkowski’s rant will be seen to be an inaccurate, mean spirited ad hominem, as well as a little squad of strawmen.                         INTRODUCTION:    Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible. In fact, most of the misconceptions held by "ARAs" are about a much broader group than that specified by Cerkowski:  they are held about virtually anyone who is not an "ARA" or overt "AR" sympathizer.  To narrow it just a little, they are held about people who comprise the overwhelming majority of the population of the developed world:  omnivorous human beings.  "ARAs" may focus their hottest anger against those who work hands-on with animals, but they consider all human use of animals to be immoral, and they hold the end consumer just as blameworthy as the hands-on producer. That is not a misconception; it is an accurate observation of the world view of "ARAs".                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:    Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea, it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different answers. Not all cults are as all-encompassing as Jim Jones’s People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate.  And no serious commentator in the anti-"AR" camp has ever suggested that "AR" resembles a cult in that way.  This is an obvious strawman argument by Cerkowski. That said, there is more than enough factual basis for the observation that "AR" is a kind of cult.  There is a remarkable uniformity of thought among "ARAs".  In fact, there *are* just a few sacred texts that are cited, and the authors of them – Regan, Singer, Francione, Rollin, Sapontzis – are regularly spoken of by "ARAs" as not just philosophers, but as founders of a *movement*. Cerkowski’s observation that there are "no" charismatic leaders who command "obedience" is fatuous, a strawman, and not even completely true.  Most public interest organizations and charities have at least occasional turnover of their top officials.  The officer positions at PeTA and HSUS are virtually lifetime sinecures.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.             ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:    It is tempting to believe that people who think differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by their beliefs and actions. Tempting to whom?  Cerkowski wants the reader to think that it is the opponents of "AR" who are so tempted, and that they succumb to the temptation. But once again, he has crafted a little strawman.  You’ll look long and hard to find anyone saying that all "ARAs" are irrational, and you’ll come up empty-handed.  The charge is leveled against some individual "ARA" posters in these newsgroups, and it is always based on specific things that "ARAs" have written that their opponents judge, rightly or not, to be evidence of irrational thinking.  One need only look at the postings by "Lotus" and Derek Nash, but particularly "Lotus", to find evidence of crushing irrationality. The philosophy of animal rights is based on rational consideration of the world as humans perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans Hmmm…does Cerkowski perhaps mean slogans such as "meat is murder"? and who never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of time considering and reconsidering our positions and the reasons that underlie them. Cerkowski, ensconced in a small town outside Albany, the capital of New York State, and itself not exactly a large city (slightly over 100,000 population, according to the city’s official web site, http://www.albanyny.org/alb-info.htm), wants us to believe he knows the degree of thoughtful dedication of his fellow cultists.  This from a man who once refused to deal with a substantial criticism of something he had written because he couldn’t "get to" a library to find any literature on the topic. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just, Just read any post in any of these newsgroups by Derek Nash, posting under the name "firstoftwins". many others lie awake, thinking and worrying. From Peter Singer and Tom Regan The two most revered authors of "AR" sacred texts. Particularly in the case of Regan, not a week will go by without some dedicated "AR" cultist, most often "Rat" (Karen Winter), slavishly making some reference to him.  He is widely viewed by "ARAs" as Moses delivering the tablets; or Saint Tom, if you prefer a New Testament simile. to anonymous student activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions may be different from the mainstream, but our basic perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the same.                     THE ARA AS LUDDITE:    The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be symptomatic of a general "science phobia". Again, Cerkowski has never presented any evidence of this supposed portrayal of "ARAs" as being possessed of a science "phobia".  In fact, what they regularly exhibit, and deservedly are criticized for, is science *ignorance*, to the point of willful dishonesty about scientific conclusions.  One only has to note the nearly continual stream of misstatements by "ARAs" concerning prehistoric human diet, in which they routinely cast aside the consensus conclusion of archeologists and anthropologists that man’s evolutionary ancestors were all omnivores, and that deliberate hunting of animals for meat precedes the appearance of modern man by millions of years. Even worse is the willful lying about specific medical advances brought about by the use of animals in medical research and testing.  Add to that the ubiquitous "AR" Lie of Omission regarding adverse drug reactions, and we are left with a picture not of "ARAs" holding a science "phobia", but rather of their engaging in a willful and politically motivated corruption of science. This, along with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler, more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that the animal rights movement rejects science and technology, and if allowed to implement its

… read more »

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky.

His, as well as mine, were plain ASCII text attached files.  There is no "risk".  You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky. Ronny

Ronny, you are 100% safe with Michaels attachments. Beware: Jonathan Ball also has a posting with an attachment. It may be ok- but dare you? camcompany The Animals Friend – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —                 http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html — —-      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS                         INTRODUCTION:    Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:    Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea, it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different answers.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.             ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:    It is tempting to believe that people who think differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights is based on rational consideration of the world as humans perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of time considering and reconsidering our positions and the reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying. From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions may be different from the mainstream, but our basic perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the same.                     THE ARA AS LUDDITE:    The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler, more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that the animal rights movement rejects science and technology, and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case. While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t. It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support the exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional manner. There is no direct link between the two philosophies, any more than there is a direct link between political Conservatism and anti-government militias.                THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:    Another common myth about animal rights activists (that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality. Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology. For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel, mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.    Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have formal training in fields like biology and wildlife rehabilitation, and some of us are even former hunters. The ‘city dweller’ tag is a double-edged weapon, as many hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a hunter who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a repository of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who drives to wild areas to hike and camp deserves the same consideration.      ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:    Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings, both to raise funds and to get their message out to the largest possible number of people. Antis often look at the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim that organizations like PETA and HSUS are ‘in it for the money’. This view ignores the fact that most of the gross income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk mailings, and that the actual funds raised are fairly modest. A few million dollars may seem like a lot, but it is a pittance when compared with the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars available to groups that are funded by industries that use animals or manufacture the tools and weapons used in animal research and hunting. Salaries in AR organizations are typically quite modest, and most activists are either completely unpaid, or make poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a wealthy movement.    A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal rights spend only a small portion of their available funds to help animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic is effective – until one realizes that if money is spent on ‘band-aid’ approaches that don’t attempt to change the status quo, then the status quo will continue, and more animals will suffer in the long run. Animal welfare groups do a good job of trying to help animals that are currently suffering. The mission of animal rights groups is to change society’s attitudes about using animals, in the hope that future suffering will be greatly reduced. The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR groups and activists each benefit from the presence of the other, despite our disagreements.                 THE ARA AS TERRORIST:    Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction of property, and sometimes threats of violence against people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to a general perception of the animal rights activist as someone who practices, or at least supports, violence. In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more menacing than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket line holding a placard. Many animal rights activists are also *human* rights activists who abhor violence against any conscious being. The typical ARA is more likely to financially support human charities than the ALF. Even the Animal Liberation Front, while using extreme and controversial tactics, has expressed a commitment to avoid direct harm to human beings. ARAs as a group do not hate children, or people in general, and do not wish to grant animals more (or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply believe that animals have the right to be considered as more than a means to human ends.                  ARAs AS ELITISTS:    Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for humanity’s economic well-being, and no willingness to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship for their cause. There are also regular accusations of intellectual elitism and disconnection from everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with matters of human rights and economic justice in addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are much more likely to be found in college towns and low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well for the vast majority of those who work at it professionally, and people who are activists in addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not the exception.                       CONCLUSION:    One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists, in the long term they would do well to learn

… read more »

Response:

Please don’t post attachments. Very risky. Ronny —

—                 http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

—- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS                         INTRODUCTION:    Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:    Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea, it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different answers.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.             ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:    It is tempting to believe that people who think differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights is based on rational consideration of the world as humans perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of time considering and reconsidering our positions and the reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying. From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions may be different from the mainstream, but our basic perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the same.                     THE ARA AS LUDDITE:    The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler, more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that the animal rights movement rejects science and technology, and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case. While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t. It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support the exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional manner. There is no direct link between the two philosophies, any more than there is a direct link between political Conservatism and anti-government militias.                THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:    Another common myth about animal rights activists (that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality. Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology. For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel, mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.    Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have formal training in fields like biology and wildlife rehabilitation, and some of us are even former hunters. The ‘city dweller’ tag is a double-edged weapon, as many hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a hunter who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a repository of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who drives to wild areas to hike and camp deserves the same consideration.      ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:    Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings, both to raise funds and to get their message out to the largest possible number of people. Antis often look at the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim that organizations like PETA and HSUS are ‘in it for the money’. This view ignores the fact that most of the gross income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk mailings, and that the actual funds raised are fairly modest. A few million dollars may seem like a lot, but it is a pittance when compared with the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars available to groups that are funded by industries that use animals or manufacture the tools and weapons used in animal research and hunting. Salaries in AR organizations are typically quite modest, and most activists are either completely unpaid, or make poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a wealthy movement.    A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal rights spend only a small portion of their available funds to help animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic is effective – until one realizes that if money is spent on ‘band-aid’ approaches that don’t attempt to change the status quo, then the status quo will continue, and more animals will suffer in the long run. Animal welfare groups do a good job of trying to help animals that are currently suffering. The mission of animal rights groups is to change society’s attitudes about using animals, in the hope that future suffering will be greatly reduced. The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR groups and activists each benefit from the presence of the other, despite our disagreements.                 THE ARA AS TERRORIST:    Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction of property, and sometimes threats of violence against people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to a general perception of the animal rights activist as someone who practices, or at least supports, violence. In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more menacing than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket line holding a placard. Many animal rights activists are also *human* rights activists who abhor violence against any conscious being. The typical ARA is more likely to financially support human charities than the ALF. Even the Animal Liberation Front, while using extreme and controversial tactics, has expressed a commitment to avoid direct harm to human beings. ARAs as a group do not hate children, or people in general, and do not wish to grant animals more (or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply believe that animals have the right to be considered as more than a means to human ends.                  ARAs AS ELITISTS:    Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for humanity’s economic well-being, and no willingness to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship for their cause. There are also regular accusations of intellectual elitism and disconnection from everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with matters of human rights and economic justice in addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are much more likely to be found in college towns and low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well for the vast majority of those who work at it professionally, and people who are activists in addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not the exception.                       CONCLUSION:    One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists, in the long term they would do well to learn more about how we really are, as opposed to how we are sometimes portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in more genuine dialog, and less demonization. Copyright 1999 by Michael Cerkowski Reproduce freely, but do not modify.

Response:

[ reply to cerkowski crapola.txt 21K ]

Cerkowski developed the silly "Common Misconceptions" screed as a cynical, dishonest counterpoint to his "Hard Truths" essay.   The two documents couldn’t be more dissimilar in intent. "Hard Truths" is somewhat useful, not least because, although it predates the "Common Misconceptions" screed, it also directly refutes it.  It performs this refutation by cautioning "ARAs" against *continuing* to exhibit many of the behaviors and delusions that Cerkowski here claims are "misconceptions".   That would demand the question:  how can they be misconceptions if Cerkowski sees fit to caution "ARAs" against continuing to exhibit them? The dishonesty of "Common Misconceptions" is manifold, beginning but certainly not ending with Cerkowski’s cynical casting of it as a counterpoint to "Hard Truths".  "Hard Truths" is aimed at "ARAs" because Cerkowski knows that they have a bloated, overstated sense of their virtue, based on simplistic, unwarranted assumptions.   He knows this because he himself once held the same assumptions.   As dishonest and sleazy as he reveals himself to be in these newsgroups, it is to his no small credit that he implicitly acknowledges having held earlier false beliefs. But if "Hard Truths" is based on a real, because personal, assessment of false beliefs held by his Side, "Common Misconceptions" is anything but.  In a nutshell, "Hard Truths" is about false beliefs "ARAs" hold or have held *about themselves*.  This is what makes it valuable.   "Common Misconceptions", by contrast, is not at all about so-called "antis’" views of themselves; it is, rather about another set of false beliefs…held by "ARAs", again!  If anything, it is about "ARA" fears of how they present themselves to the rest of the world.   The fears are well founded.      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS  

We will show that many of these are not misconceptions at all.   Of those that remain, we will see that most are not at all "common", not that Cerkowski has shown. Cerkowski’s rant will be seen to be an inaccurate, mean spirited ad hominem, as well as a little squad of strawmen.                         INTRODUCTION:      Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.  

In fact, most of the misconceptions held by "ARAs" are about a much broader group than that specified by Cerkowski:  they are held about virtually anyone who is not an "ARA" or overt "AR" sympathizer.  To narrow it just a little, they are held about people who comprise the overwhelming majority of the population of the developed world:  omnivorous human beings.  "ARAs" may focus their hottest anger against those who work hands-on with animals, but they consider all human use of animals to be immoral, and they hold the end consumer just as blameworthy as the hands-on producer. That is not a misconception; it is an accurate observation of the world view of "ARAs".                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:      Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.    

Not all cults are as all-encompassing as Jim Jones’s People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate.  And no serious commentator in the anti-"AR" camp has ever suggested that "AR" resembles a cult in that way.  This is an obvious strawman argument by Cerkowski. That said, there is more than enough factual basis for the observation that "AR" is a kind of cult.  There is a remarkable uniformity of thought among "ARAs".  In fact, there *are* just a few sacred texts that are cited, and the authors of them – Regan, Singer, Francione, Rollin, Sapontzis – are regularly spoken of by "ARAs" as not just philosophers, but as founders of a *movement*. Cerkowski’s observation that there are "no" charismatic leaders who command "obedience" is fatuous, a strawman, and not even completely true.  Most public interest organizations and charities have at least occasional turnover of their top officials.  The officer positions at PeTA and HSUS are virtually lifetime sinecures.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory   and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be   found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement   has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer   to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.               ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:      It is tempting to believe that people who think   differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma   without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by   their beliefs and actions.

Tempting to whom?  Cerkowski wants the reader to think that it is the opponents of "AR" who are so tempted, and that they succumb to the temptation. But once again, he has crafted a little strawman.  You’ll look long and hard to find anyone saying that all "ARAs" are irrational, and you’ll come up empty-handed.  The charge is leveled against some individual "ARA" posters in these newsgroups, and it is always based on specific things that "ARAs" have written that their opponents judge, rightly or not, to be evidence of irrational thinking.  One need only look at the postings by "Lotus" and Derek Nash, but particularly "Lotus", to find evidence of crushing irrationality. The philosophy of animal rights   is based on rational consideration of the world as humans   perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While   there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans

Hmmm…does Cerkowski perhaps mean slogans such as "meat is murder"? and who   never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of   time considering and reconsidering our positions and the   reasons that underlie them.

Cerkowski, ensconced in a small town outside Albany, the capital of New York State, and itself not exactly a large city (slightly over 100,000 population, according to the city’s official web site, http://www.albanyny.org/alb-info.htm), wants us to believe he knows the degree of thoughtful dedication of his fellow cultists.  This from a man who once refused to deal with a substantial criticism of something he had written because he couldn’t "get to" a library to find any literature on the topic. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just,

Just read any post in any of these newsgroups by Derek Nash, posting under the name "firstoftwins". many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.   From Peter Singer and Tom Regan

The two most revered authors of "AR" sacred texts. Particularly in the case of Regan, not a week will go by without some dedicated "AR" cultist, most often "Rat" (Karen Winter), slavishly making some reference to him.  He is widely viewed by "ARAs" as Moses delivering the tablets; or Saint Tom, if you prefer a New Testament simile. to anonymous student   activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational   undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions   may be different from the mainstream, but our basic   perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the   same.                       THE ARA AS LUDDITE:      The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in   medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be   symptomatic of a general "science phobia".

Again, Cerkowski has never presented any evidence of this supposed portrayal of "ARAs" as being possessed of a science "phobia".  In fact, what they regularly exhibit, and deservedly are criticized for, is science *ignorance*, to the point of willful dishonesty about scientific conclusions.  One only has to note the nearly continual stream of misstatements by "ARAs" concerning prehistoric human diet, in which they routinely cast aside the consensus conclusion of archeologists and anthropologists that man’s evolutionary ancestors were all omnivores, and that deliberate hunting of animals for meat precedes the appearance of modern man by millions of years. Even worse is the willful lying about specific medical advances brought about by the use of animals in medical research and testing.  Add to that the ubiquitous "AR" Lie of Omission regarding adverse drug reactions, and we are left with a picture not of "ARAs" holding a science "phobia", but rather of their engaging in a willful and politically motivated corruption of science. This, along   with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,   more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that   the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,   and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the   world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.  

This *is* the case, just not for the strawman reason Cerkowski posits. While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t.  

If you haven’t detected Cerkowski’s pattern by now, you have serious reading comprehension … read more »

Response:

This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.

It may be intended to do so but it completely fails to do so. It’s merely Cerkowski’s monthly strawman whack attack.   –

Response:

Truth in Advertising. — Ward M. Clark Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum www.frombearcreek.com www.pathwai.org

Response:

Truth in Advertising. — Ward M. Clark Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum www.frombearcreek.com www.pathwai.org

Better his burps than your farts Ward.  The information that scares the hell out of Squirmy, Soapy, and cbbrowne:  http://www.detaxcanada.org  See The Freddy Movie starring Freddy’s Head!  http://members.home.net/mike.kemp/Fred_Boom_2.avi

Response:

My, aren’t you the clever one.  You can’t defend Slick Cerkowski’s pile of strawmen with any more wit than that? — Ward M. Clark Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum www.frombearcreek.com www.pathwai.org

Response:

When are you going to get off your high horse and start debating the issues here. Your avoidance mocks us all.

Response:

When are you going to get off your high horse and start debating the issues here. Your avoidance mocks us all.

This is really ironic – now Slick’s being berated for letting down The Side. — Ward M. Clark Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum www.frombearcreek.com www.pathwai.org

Response:

When are you going to get off your high horse and start debating the issues here. Your avoidance mocks us all. This is really ironic – now Slick’s being berated for letting down The Side.

  Thus supporting the old saying: "What goes around, comes around".     Kevin

Response:

Cerkowski developed the screed contained herein as a cynical, dishonest counterpoint to his "Hard Truths" essay.  The two documents couldn’t be more dissimilar in intent. "Hard Truths" is somewhat useful, not least because, although it predates the "Common Misconceptions" screed, it also directly refutes it.  It performs this refutation by cautioning "ARAs" against *continuing* to exhibit many of the behaviors and delusions that Cerkowski here claims are "misconceptions".   That would demand the question:  how can they be misconceptions if Cerkowski sees fit to caution "ARAs" against continuing to exhibit them? The dishonesty of "Common Misconceptions" is manifold, beginning but certainly not ending with Cerkowski’s cynical casting of it as a counterpoint to "Hard Truths".  "Hard Truths" is aimed at "ARAs" because Cerkowski knows that they have a bloated, overstated sense of their virtue, based on simplistic, unwarranted assumptions.   He knows this because he himself once held the same assumptions.   As dishonest and sleazy as he reveals himself to be in these newsgroups, it is to his no small credit that he implicitly acknowledges having held earlier false beliefs. But if "Hard Truths" is based on a real, because personal, assessment of false beliefs held by his Side, "Common Misconceptions" is anything but.  In a nutshell, "Hard Truths" is about false beliefs "ARAs" hold or have held *about themselves*.  This is what makes it valuable.   "Common Misconceptions", by contrast, is not at all about so-called "antis’" views of themselves; it is, rather about another set of false beliefs…held by "ARAs", again!  If anything, it is about "ARA" fears of how they present themselves to the rest of the world.   The fears are well founded.      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS  

We will show that many of these are not misconceptions at all.   Of those that remain, we will see that most are not at all "common", not that Cerkowski has shown. Cerkowski’s rant will be seen to be an inaccurate, mean spirited ad hominem, as well as a little squad of strawmen.                         INTRODUCTION:      Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.  

In fact, most of the misconceptions held by "ARAs" are about a much broader group than that specified by Cerkowski:  they are held about virtually anyone who is not an "ARA" or overt "AR" sympathizer.  To narrow it just a little, they are held about people who comprise the overwhelming majority of the population of the developed world:  omnivorous human beings.  "ARAs" may focus their hottest anger against those who work hands-on with animals, but they consider all human use of animals to be immoral, and they hold the end consumer just as blameworthy as the hands-on producer. That is not a misconception; it is an accurate observation of the world view of "ARAs".                 THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:      Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.    

Not all cults are as all-encompassing as Jim Jones’s People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate.  And no serious commentator in the anti-"AR" camp has ever suggested that "AR" resembles a cult in that way.  This is an obvious strawman argument by Cerkowski. That said, there is more than enough factual basis for the observation that "AR" is a sort of cult.  There is a remarkable uniformity of thought among "ARAs".  In fact, there *are* just a few sacred texts that are cited, and the authors of them – Regan, Singer, Francione, Rollin, Sapontzis – are regularly spoken of by "ARAs" as not just philosophers, but as founders of a *movement*. Cerkowski’s observation that there are "no" charismatic leaders who command "obedience" is fatuous, a strawman, and not even completely true.  Most public interest organizations and charities have at least occasional turnover of their top officials.  The officer positions at PeTA and HSUS are virtually lifetime sinecures.    The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory   and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be   found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement   has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer   to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.               ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:      It is tempting to believe that people who think   differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma   without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by   their beliefs and actions.

Tempting to whom?  Cerkowski wants the reader to think that it is the opponents of "AR" who are so tempted, and that they succumb to the temptation. But once again, he has crafted a little strawman.  You’ll look long and hard to find anyone saying that all "ARAs" are irrational, and you’ll come up empty-handed.  The charge is leveled against some individual "ARA" posters in these newsgroups, and it is always based on specific things that "ARAs" have written that their opponents judge, rightly or not, to be evidence of irrational thinking.  One need only look at the postings by "Lotus" and Derek Nash, but particularly "Lotus", to find evidence of crushing irrationality. The philosophy of animal rights   is based on rational consideration of the world as humans   perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While   there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans

Hmmm…does Cerkowski perhaps mean slogans such as "meat is murder"? and who   never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of   time considering and reconsidering our positions and the   reasons that underlie them.

Cerkowski, ensconced in a small town outside Albany, the capital of New York State, and itself not exactly a large city (slightly over 100,000 population, according to the city’s official web site, http://www.albanyny.org/alb-info.htm), wants us to believe he knows the degree of thoughtful dedication of his fellow cultists.  This from a man who once refused to deal with a substantial criticism of something he had written because he couldn’t "get to" a library to find any literature on the topic. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just,

Just read any post in any of these newsgroups by Derek Nash, posting under the name "firstoftwins". many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.   From Peter Singer and Tom Regan

The two most revered authors of "AR" sacred texts. Particularly in the case of Regan, not a week will go by without some dedicated "AR" cultist, most often "Rat" (Karen Winter), slavishly making some reference to him.  He is widely viewed by "ARAs" as Moses delivering the tablets; or Saint Tom, if you prefer a New Testament simile. to anonymous student   activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational   undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions   may be different from the mainstream, but our basic   perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the   same.                       THE ARA AS LUDDITE:      The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in   medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be   symptomatic of a general "science phobia".

Again, Cerkowski has never presented any evidence of this supposed portrayal of "ARAs" as being possessed of a science "phobia".  In fact, what they regularly exhibit, and deservedly are criticized for, is science *ignorance*, to the point of willful dishonesty about scientific conclusions.  One only has to note the nearly continual stream of misstatements by "ARAs" concerning prehistoric human diet, in which they routinely cast aside the consensus conclusion of archeologists and anthropologists that man’s evolutionary ancestors were all omnivores, and that deliberate hunting of animals for meat precedes the appearance of modern man by millions of years. Even worse is the willful lying about specific medical advances brought about by the use of animals in medical research and testing.  Add to that the ubiquitous "AR" Lie of Omission regarding adverse drug reactions, and we are left with a picture not of "ARAs" holding a science "phobia", but rather of their engaging in a willful and politically motivated corruption of science. This, along   with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,   more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that   the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,   and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the   world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.  

This *is* the case, just not for the strawman reason Cerkowski posits. While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t.  

If you haven’t detected Cerkowski’s pattern by now, you have serious reading comprehension problems.  He

… read more »

Response:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~embra/armyths.html PeTA has an annual budget of $11.5 million PeTA does not operate a single animal shelter PeTA has only three voting members on their board PeTA feels it is ethically wrong to ride a horse PeTA’s latest campaign is to eliminate fishing PeTA is a public mouthpiece for the Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist organization PeTA’s co-founder says, "Arson, property destruction, and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animals’s cause PeTA gave less than $5,000 to animals shelters and spay and neuter programs in 1995 PeTA believes public humiliation of individuals in necessary to force change PeTA justifies the killing of animals under its control PeTA "takes the animal’s side in every case" PeTA wants to stop us from wearing wool, silk, and leather clothes PeTA is intolerant of those who would exercise their right to disagree, critics are threatened and harassed PeTA says that a child’s life has the same value as a rat’s PeTA would deny routine childhood vaccinations PeTA is working to outlaw rodeos, zoos, and circuses PeTA misrepresents photos and misquotes studies to denigrate medical research "Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986) "In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988) "One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990) "Eventually companion animals will be phased out…." (Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right" (symposium), Harper’s, August 1988) "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15) "The cat, like the dog, must disappear….. We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering,, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic_(Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15) Protect your privacy! – Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net

Response:

  Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations.

What about us ethical carnivores? William R. James

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? No. I believe I do. No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you? I have! Of course I condemn the use of violence and intimidation – It’s about time!

Any reasonably objective person would have concluded that I had done that long ago. that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited. It’s anything but.

I would beg to differ. You seem to be insisting upon a particular form of words that will meet your approval, however. You’re the one insisting that Jonathan’s claim was false, remember?

Yes. And it was. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what about my posting of 14-04-01? Closer, but no cigar. —- —snip— You are lumping all AR supporters together in referring to "you people". I deplore each and every one of the actions mentioned – as do most AR supporters. They are carried out by a small extreme element within the AR movement – an element which I wish would just crawl back under the rock from whence they came. And you have still not addressed the central point: you are asserting the truth of a conspiracy theory whilst having no evidence that it is true. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly credible approach. —- How does that fall short of condemnation? Because semantically, it does. No it doesn’t. Deplore means "to find exceedingly bad" or to be "scandalized by". Neither of which are synonymous with "condemn."

To find something to be "exceedingly bad" within the context of it’s also being "morally unacceptable" certainly is. I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation. That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation.

Not to any objective observer, I would suggest. Would you interpret that statement of his to imply tacit support for Islamic Jihad or Hamas? It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons. No, because I have already stated that they are "morally unacceptable", There’s a huge gulf between "unacceptable" and "wrong."

If an action is "morally unacceptable", it is rejected on moral grounds. If an action is rejected on moral groups it is by definition judged to be morally wrong. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – quite apart from their prgamatic value or lack thereof. So was it evil for the Minnesota ALF to take lab animals from their controlled environments and dump them in fields to be eaten, to starve, or to freeze to death? I don’t know of the specific instance. If you could post a fuller account than I would be happy to respond. What about when they ruined the cultures of cancer patients’ cells? Again, I don’t know the details. Post the details and I will respond.. Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders? Give me more info and I can respond. My prima facie response is that both were indeed immoral. But I need the details before I can make a considered judgement. http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-070739.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990408-125701.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990409-160003.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-164912.html

Going by the references here, I would certainly object to the ALF’s actions on a number of moral grounds: 1. The suffering caused to the animals as a result of their escape/abandonment; 2.  The wantan vandalism and descruction of property; 3. The effect of the above action upon staff etc who would certainly have feared for their safety; 4. The fact that it was undetaken by an organisation known for its use of violence and intimidation. So: the incident you refer to would certainly not be the kind of nonviolent civil disobedience that i could support. I would certainly describe such an action as being morally wrong. Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment?

When have I made any pronouncements about cell culture? Doesn’t Regan, too?

Why don’t you ask him?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? No. I believe I do. No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you? I have! Of course I condemn the use of violence and intimidation –

It’s about time! that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited.

It’s anything but. You seem to be insisting upon a particular form of words that will meet your approval, however.

You’re the one insisting that Jonathan’s claim was false, remember? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what about my posting of 14-04-01? Closer, but no cigar. —- —snip— You are lumping all AR supporters together in referring to "you people". I deplore each and every one of the actions mentioned – as do most AR supporters. They are carried out by a small extreme element within the AR movement – an element which I wish would just crawl back under the rock from whence they came. And you have still not addressed the central point: you are asserting the truth of a conspiracy theory whilst having no evidence that it is true. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly credible approach. —- How does that fall short of condemnation? Because semantically, it does. No it doesn’t. Deplore means "to find exceedingly bad" or to be "scandalized by".

Neither of which are synonymous with "condemn." I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation.

That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation. It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons. No, because I have already stated that they are "morally unacceptable",

There’s a huge gulf between "unacceptable" and "wrong." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – quite apart from their prgamatic value or lack thereof. So was it evil for the Minnesota ALF to take lab animals from their controlled environments and dump them in fields to be eaten, to starve, or to freeze to death? I don’t know of the specific instance. If you could post a fuller account than I would be happy to respond. What about when they ruined the cultures of cancer patients’ cells? Again, I don’t know the details. Post the details and I will respond.. Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders? Give me more info and I can respond. My prima facie response is that both were indeed immoral. But I need the details before I can make a considered judgement.

http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-070739.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990408-125701.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990409-160003.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-164912.html Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment? Doesn’t Regan, too?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Any reasonably objective person would have concluded that I had done that long ago. You are not the one to whom the world comes for a definition of "objective". Neither are you, my friend! That’s a bad _tu quoque_.  I haven’t been making arrogant claims about what "any reasonably objective" person would or wouldn’t conclude.

You are (laughably)  putting yourself forward as "a reasonably objective person" and offering your judgement as such. You have done.

As you have! You clearly are anything but.  You’re blatantly partisan. Oh – but you aren’t? No.  I’m not advancing an agenda.  I’m resisting yours.

And doing so in a very partisan way! . (…) I have made my disgust at acts of violence and intimidation quite clear. You simply cannot seem to accept that emprical fact. Because it isn’t one.

So you are now claiming that I have not made my disgust clear? Well, I stated that I did not support such acts under any circumstanmces whatever. I have called such actions "morally unacceptable". I have "deplored" them. I have stated that I wish that the ALF would crawl under a rock.I have referred to my "moral outrage. What more do you want?!!! [...] You’re still trying to argue that "not white" equals black. Huh? You seem to be under the impression that expressing yourself in negative terms somehow carries less weight than expressing yourself in positive terms. That wouldn’t be an incorrect conclusion about my impression. Or, try this:  you’re right. Which one is clearer?

Both make perfect sense to me. Neither is more forceful than the other. That is simply incorrect. You’re wrong. I’ve known people who, when asked how a meal was, replied "Not bad".  It   often is clear from the context that they mean, "It was very good". But it doesn’t necessarily mean that – inflection is key – and in a written context, you’d really have no way of knowing.

You would have a way of knowing if you read carefully, jonathan. It is called "context". The word "immoral" is a negative term; but I would suggest that it has rather more force than the word "wrong", which is a positive term. You are setting up a false dichotomy. No, you are.  "Immoral" is *synonymous* with "wrong", provided the context of morality is made clear (a wrong answer on a mathematics exam is not immoral).  The prefix "im-" means "not", but it’s ridiculously clear that calling something "not moral" is not the equivalent of calling it "wrong", or "immoral".

In which case it must also be clear that to call something "unacceptable" is not simply the equivilent of calling something "not acceptable". If there is a difference between this and the "not moral/immoral" example, I would be interested to hear your articulation of it. (…) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation. That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation. Not to any objective observer, I would suggest. Yes, to at least two. Neither John Mercer nor yourself are in any way objective. That’s funny, coming from an avowed partisan of an extremist movement.

So you say. I might say that you were an avowed partisan of an extremist counter-movement. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Would you interpret that statement of his to imply tacit support for Islamic Jihad or Hamas? Of course not. But you interpreted my statement that I in no way supported the ALF actions as somehow implying that I *did* support them. How so? Why a double standard? There is none.  I never suggested that you supported the ALF *actions*.

".  Saying you "do not support" the acts of violence committed by ALF and others is explicitly intended to allow you to *avoid* condemning them.  You don’t want to condemn them, because you support them; you merely want semantically to twist and say you don’t support certain acts of theirs.

" You quite clearly state above that I support acts of violence  committed by the ALF (to which the "them" refers) and only object semantically to "certain acts". .   But it’s clear that you support the ALF goals,

Actually, I don’t buy into the "ALF programme". and your mealymouthed way of backing into a false condemnation

That is a new one. A "false condemnation"? Your sophistry knows no bounds!  of the actions is explicitly designed not to get you in hot water with other "AR" partisans.

I would imagine that I am in hot water with the advocates of violence already. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Nor is it an unambiguous condemnation. [...] If one finds something MORALLY unacceptable, one thereby rejects it on MORAL grounds. If one rejects something on MORAL grounds, one quite clearly believes that it is MORALLY wrong. No, it might simply occupy some middle ground.  Your language suggests that you were trying to provide for such a middle ground.

What middle ground? If something is morally objectionable, it is quite clearly held to be morally wrong. (…) Half a dozen or more posts into this, you *still* have not said, "ALF acts of violence are evil." Well, previously your complaint was that I hadn’t used the word "condemn". In the post above, I do.

As I had in a previous post, incidently.  Now you complain that I do not use the word "evil". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why on earth should I be obliged to use certain words because *you* want me to?! If I say "evil", will you then instist on "wicked"? And then "depraved"?We could go on forever. Instead, you keep trying to insist that what you actually said *could* be interpreted that way, No; I am saying that what I actually said *would* be interpreted that way by any open-minded person. A very bad "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

My guess is that is the game you are playing.( "I don’t recognize that as a condemnation…") (…) Say it, Paul.  Say, "ALF acts of violence – all of them – are evil." Why should I use particular form of words? Earlier "condemn" was the magic word; now it is "evil". Why the switch?

You haven’t answered that question. Once I have used the word "condemn" you then move on to insist on a different formulation. Why? Take your pick.  Just make a positive statement of condemnation.  Here are some of my suggestions, but it really would be better if you were to phrase it in your own words. "The violent acts committed by the ALF are: a) absolutely wrong b) loathsome in every way c) deeply evil" Be direct, for a change.

I do wish you would pay attention, Sir. Another extract from my posting of 9 Aug: — "Me: They may do evil things (and I believe that they do), but we cannot predict their future moral devlopment. JBYou refuse to condemn them, even tentatively. Me:I condemn their actions." How is that not "direct" or "forceful"? [...]

. I would certainly describe such an action as being morally wrong. You "would" describe it as wrong?  Then, why don’t you?  Go ahead and do it. I just did. No, you said you "would" do it.  There’s still ambiguity.  Now there’s also dishonesty.

On the contrary. Your sophistry and semantic tap-dancing will impress no-one reading this thread, I am afraid. You are, alas,  playing games, and do not seem interested in genuine dialogue or discussion. This must, in fact,  be the most surreal conversation I have

ever had on Usenet; I have never seen anyone argue that black is white so persistently before. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment? When have I made any pronouncements about cell culture? Doesn’t Regan, too? Why don’t you ask him? I did.  I posted the results.  He whiffed. Your boy whiffed, Paul.  Doesn’t that bother you?

He directed you to a recently published work of his (as, indeed, you asked him to within your e-mail). I have no idea whether or not the issue you refer to is dealt with therein – but it would be better to check it out before you start bleating about his digestive system, don’t you think? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Any reasonably objective person would have concluded that I had done that long ago. You are not the one to whom the world comes for a definition of "objective". Neither are you, my friend!

That’s a bad _tu quoque_.  I haven’t been making arrogant claims about what "any reasonably objective" person would or wouldn’t conclude.  You have done. You clearly are anything but.  You’re blatantly partisan. Oh – but you aren’t?

No.  I’m not advancing an agenda.  I’m resisting yours. I’m a more than reasonably objective person, I *don’t* think so. Your posts thus far would suggest exactly the opposite, I am afraid. and I conclude both from your original batch of mush, and from all your mealymouthed defense of it since, that you are decidely not condemning "AR"-motivated acts of violence. You are just plain wrong there. Any open-minded acquaintance with the relevent citations would demonstrate as much.

That’s your self serving interpretation.  The world doesn’t come to you for a definition of "objective" *nor* of "open-minded".   You’re trying to foster the appearance of it.  You’ve failed. I am not fostering anything.

That’s what I just said:  you’ve failed.  But you have been *attempting*   to foster an appearance. I have made my disgust at acts of violence and intimidation quite clear. You simply cannot seem to accept that emprical fact.

Because it isn’t one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited. It’s anything but. I would beg to differ. There’s nothing with which you can reasonably differ.  It’s someone else’s perception, not yours. I am suggesting that John is simply wrong in his interpretation of what I have said. That is all.

What John said is that your ex post claims of meaning were not "crystal clear" from your original postings, as you alleged they were. [...] You’re the one insisting that Jonathan’s claim was false, remember? Yes. And it was. No.  It was not. Yes, it was!

No, it wasn’t. [...] To find something to be "exceedingly bad" within the context of it’s also being "morally unacceptable" certainly is. No, it isn’t. Sure it is.

No, it isn’t "sure" at all.  You really ought to read an entire comment and respond to all of it, rather than piecemeal. You’re still trying to argue that "not white" equals black. Huh? You seem to be under the impression that expressing yourself in negative terms somehow carries less weight than expressing yourself in positive terms.

That wouldn’t be an incorrect conclusion about my impression. Or, try this:  you’re right. Which one is clearer? That is simply incorrect.

You’re wrong. I’ve known people who, when asked how a meal was, replied "Not bad".  It   often is clear from the context that they mean, "It was very good". But it doesn’t necessarily mean that – inflection is key – and in a written context, you’d really have no way of knowing. The word "immoral" is a negative term; but I would suggest that it has rather more force than the word "wrong", which is a positive term. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

No, you are.  "Immoral" is *synonymous* with "wrong", provided the context of morality is made clear (a wrong answer on a mathematics exam is not immoral).  The prefix "im-" means "not", but it’s ridiculously clear that calling something "not moral" is not the equivalent of calling it "wrong", or "immoral". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation. That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation. Not to any objective observer, I would suggest. Yes, to at least two. Neither John Mercer nor yourself are in any way objective.

That’s funny, coming from an avowed partisan of an extremist movement. Would you interpret that statement of his to imply tacit support for Islamic Jihad or Hamas? Of course not. But you interpreted my statement that I in no way supported the ALF actions as somehow implying that I *did* support them. How so? Why a double standard?

There is none.  I never suggested that you supported the ALF *actions*.   But it’s clear that you support the ALF goals, and your mealymouthed way of backing into a false condemnation of the actions is explicitly designed not to get you in hot water with other "AR" partisans. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Nor is it an unambiguous condemnation. [...] There’s a huge gulf between "unacceptable" and "wrong." If an action is "morally unacceptable", it is rejected on moral grounds. If an action is rejected on moral groups it is by definition judged to be morally wrong. Not so. Quite so. The logic is impeccable.

No, it’s slovenly in the extreme. If one finds something MORALLY unacceptable, one thereby rejects it on MORAL grounds. If one rejects something on MORAL grounds, one quite clearly believes that it is MORALLY wrong.

No, it might simply occupy some middle ground.  Your language suggests that you were trying to provide for such a middle ground. "Not white" does not mean black, and vice versa. So saying that "x is immoral" carries less weight than saying "x is wrong?"

No.  See above about synonyms. This is getting comical. It certainly is. You seem, I regret to say, unwilling to accept facts that are plain to see

No, they’re not facts at all.  They’re self serving, ex post interpretations.  They have a sneaky, desperate quality to them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - presumably because they conflict with your stereotypes. Half a dozen or more posts into this, you *still* have not said, "ALF acts of violence are evil." Well, previously your complaint was that I hadn’t used the word "condemn". In the post above, I do. Now you complain that I do not use the word "evil". Why on earth should I be obliged to use certain words because *you* want me to?! If I say "evil", will you then instist on "wicked"? And then "depraved"?We could go on forever. Instead, you keep trying to insist that what you actually said *could* be interpreted that way, No; I am saying that what I actually said *would* be interpreted that way by any open-minded person.

A very bad "no true Scotsman" fallacy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – even that it ought to be interpreted that way…but *you* won’t explicitly say it. Let us review the facts: I have said that I do not support the use of violence under any circumstances – no exceptions or qualifications. I have said that I deplore acts of violence. I have said that I wish that the ALF would crawl back under a rock. I have said that their actions are "morally unacceptable". I have now even used the word "condemn". And yet still you quibble! One may be forgiven for concluding that you simply do not wish to face the reality of the situation – that some (or probably most) ARists *oppose* the use of violence and intimidation. Say it, Paul.  Say, "ALF acts of violence – all of them – are evil." Why should I use particular form of words? Earlier "condemn" was the magic word; now it is "evil". Why the switch?

Take your pick.  Just make a positive statement of condemnation.  Here are some of my suggestions, but it really would be better if you were to phrase it in your own words. "The violent acts committed by the ALF are: a) absolutely wrong b) loathsome in every way c) deeply evil" Be direct, for a change. I have been direct from the start. You, on the other hand, have been engaging in sophistry from start to finish.

Nope.  I’ve been objecting to your sophistry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Stop beating around the bush. I think it is you who are doing that, Sir. [...] civil disobedience that i could support. I would certainly describe such an action as being morally wrong. You "would" describe it as wrong?  Then, why don’t you?  Go ahead and do it. I just did.

No, you said you "would" do it.  There’s still ambiguity.  Now there’s also dishonesty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment? When have I made any pronouncements about cell culture? Doesn’t Regan, too? Why don’t you ask him? I did.  I posted the results.  He whiffed.

Your boy whiffed, Paul.  Doesn’t that bother you?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] I believe I do. No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you? I have! Of course I condemn the use of violence and intimidation – It’s about time! Any reasonably objective person would have concluded that I had done that long ago. You are not the one to whom the world comes for a definition of "objective".

Neither are you, my friend! You clearly are anything but.  You’re blatantly partisan.

Oh – but you aren’t? I’m a more than reasonably objective person,

I *don’t* think so. Your posts thus far would suggest exactly the opposite, I am afraid. and I conclude both from your original batch of mush, and from all your mealymouthed defense of it since, that you are decidely not condemning "AR"-motivated acts of violence.

You are just plain wrong there. Any open-minded acquaintance with the relevent citations would demonstrate as much.   You’re trying to foster the appearance of it.  You’ve failed. I am not fostering anything. I have made my disgust at acts of violence and intimidation quite clear. You simply cannot seem to accept that emprical fact. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited. It’s anything but. I would beg to differ. There’s nothing with which you can reasonably differ.  It’s someone else’s perception, not yours.

I am suggesting that John is simply wrong in his interpretation of what I have said. That is all. You seem to be insisting upon a particular form of words that will meet your approval, however. You’re the one insisting that Jonathan’s claim was false, remember? Yes. And it was. No.  It was not.

Yes, it was! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] How does that fall short of condemnation? Because semantically, it does. No it doesn’t. Deplore means "to find exceedingly bad" or to be "scandalized by". Neither of which are synonymous with "condemn." To find something to be "exceedingly bad" within the context of it’s also being "morally unacceptable" certainly is. No, it isn’t.

Sure it is. You’re still trying to argue that "not white" equals black.

Huh? You seem to be under the impression that expressing yourself in negative terms somehow carries less weight than expressing yourself in positive terms. That is simply incorrect. The word "immoral" is a negative term; but I would suggest that it has rather more force than the word "wrong", which is a positive term. You are setting up a false dichotomy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation. That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation. Not to any objective observer, I would suggest. Yes, to at least two.

Neither John Mercer nor yourself are in any way objective. Would you interpret that statement of his to imply tacit support for Islamic Jihad or Hamas? Of course not.

But you interpreted my statement that I in no way supported the ALF actions as somehow implying that I *did* support them. How so? Why a double standard?  Nor is it an unambiguous condemnation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons. No, because I have already stated that they are "morally unacceptable", There’s a huge gulf between "unacceptable" and "wrong." If an action is "morally unacceptable", it is rejected on moral grounds. If an action is rejected on moral groups it is by definition judged to be morally wrong. Not so.

Quite so. The logic is impeccable. If one finds something MORALLY unacceptable, one thereby rejects it on MORAL grounds. If one rejects something on MORAL grounds, one quite clearly believes that it is MORALLY wrong. "Not white" does not mean black, and vice versa.

So saying that "x is immoral" carries less weight than saying "x is wrong?" This is getting comical.

It certainly is. You seem, I regret to say, unwilling to accept facts that are plain to see – presumably because they conflict with your stereotypes. Half a dozen or more posts into this, you *still* have not said, "ALF acts of violence are evil."

Well, previously your complaint was that I hadn’t used the word "condemn". In the post above, I do. Now you complain that I do not use the word "evil". Why on earth should I be obliged to use certain words because *you* want me to?! If I say "evil", will you then instist on "wicked"? And then "depraved"?We could go on forever. Instead, you keep trying to insist that what you actually said *could* be interpreted that way,

No; I am saying that what I actually said *would* be interpreted that way by any open-minded person. even that it ought to be interpreted that way…but *you* won’t explicitly say it.

Let us review the facts: I have said that I do not support the use of violence under any circumstances – no exceptions or qualifications. I have said that I deplore acts of violence. I have said that I wish that the ALF would crawl back under a rock. I have said that their actions are "morally unacceptable". I have now even used the word "condemn". And yet still you quibble! One may be forgiven for concluding that you simply do not wish to face the reality of the situation – that some (or probably most) ARists *oppose* the use of violence and intimidation. Say it, Paul.  Say, "ALF acts of violence – all of them – are evil."

Why should I use particular form of words? Earlier "condemn" was the magic word; now it is "evil". Why the switch? Be direct, for a change.

I have been direct from the start. You, on the other hand, have been engaging in sophistry from start to finish.  Stop beating around the bush.

I think it is you who are doing that, Sir. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders? Give me more info and I can respond. My prima facie response is that both were indeed immoral. But I need the details before I can make a considered judgement. http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-070739.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990408-125701.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990409-160003.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-164912.html Going by the references here, I would certainly object to the ALF’s actions on a number of moral grounds: 1. The suffering caused to the animals as a result of their escape/abandonment; 2.  The wantan vandalism and descruction of property; 3. The effect of the above action upon staff etc who would certainly have feared for their safety; 4. The fact that it was undetaken by an organisation known for its use of violence and intimidation. So: the incident you refer to would certainly not be the kind of nonviolent civil disobedience that i could support. I would certainly describe such an action as being morally wrong. You "would" describe it as wrong?  Then, why don’t you?  Go ahead and do

it. I just did. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment? When have I made any pronouncements about cell culture? Doesn’t Regan, too? Why don’t you ask him? I did.  I posted the results.  He whiffed.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] I believe I do. No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you? I have! Of course I condemn the use of violence and intimidation – It’s about time! Any reasonably objective person would have concluded that I had done that long ago.

You are not the one to whom the world comes for a definition of "objective".  You clearly are anything but.  You’re blatantly partisan. I’m a more than reasonably objective person, and I conclude both from your original batch of mush, and from all your mealymouthed defense of it since, that you are decidely not condemning "AR"-motivated acts of violence.  You’re trying to foster the appearance of it.  You’ve failed. that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited. It’s anything but. I would beg to differ.

There’s nothing with which you can reasonably differ.  It’s someone else’s perception, not yours. You seem to be insisting upon a particular form of words that will meet your approval, however. You’re the one insisting that Jonathan’s claim was false, remember? Yes. And it was.

No.  It was not. [...] How does that fall short of condemnation? Because semantically, it does. No it doesn’t. Deplore means "to find exceedingly bad" or to be "scandalized by". Neither of which are synonymous with "condemn." To find something to be "exceedingly bad" within the context of it’s also being "morally unacceptable" certainly is.

No, it isn’t.  You’re still trying to argue that "not white" equals black. I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation. That amounts to considerably less than a moral condemnation. Not to any objective observer, I would suggest.

Yes, to at least two. Would you interpret that statement of his to imply tacit support for Islamic Jihad or Hamas?

Of course not.  Nor is it an unambiguous condemnation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons. No, because I have already stated that they are "morally unacceptable", There’s a huge gulf between "unacceptable" and "wrong." If an action is "morally unacceptable", it is rejected on moral grounds. If an action is rejected on moral groups it is by definition judged to be morally wrong.

Not so.  "Not white" does not mean black, and vice versa. This is getting comical.  Half a dozen or more posts into this, you *still* have not said, "ALF acts of violence are evil."  Instead, you keep trying to insist that what you actually said *could* be interpreted that way, even that it ought to be interpreted that way…but *you* won’t explicitly say it. Say it, Paul.  Say, "ALF acts of violence – all of them – are evil."  Be direct, for a change.  Stop beating around the bush. [...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders? Give me more info and I can respond. My prima facie response is that both were indeed immoral. But I need the details before I can make a considered judgement. http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-070739.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990408-125701.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990409-160003.html http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990407-164912.html Going by the references here, I would certainly object to the ALF’s actions on a number of moral grounds: 1. The suffering caused to the animals as a result of their escape/abandonment; 2.  The wantan vandalism and descruction of property; 3. The effect of the above action upon staff etc who would certainly have feared for their safety; 4. The fact that it was undetaken by an organisation known for its use of violence and intimidation. So: the incident you refer to would certainly not be the kind of nonviolent civil disobedience that i could support. I would certainly describe such an action as being morally wrong.

You "would" describe it as wrong?  Then, why don’t you?  Go ahead and do it. Don’t you need the details about cell culture to make a considered judgment? When have I made any pronouncements about cell culture? Doesn’t Regan, too? Why don’t you ask him?

I did.  I posted the results.  He whiffed.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? No. I believe I do. No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you?

I have! Of course I condemn the use of violence and intimidation – that is crystal clear from the quotations I have cited. You seem to be insisting upon a particular form of words that will meet your approval, however. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what about my posting of 14-04-01? Closer, but no cigar. —- —snip— You are lumping all AR supporters together in referring to "you people". I deplore each and every one of the actions mentioned – as do most AR supporters. They are carried out by a small extreme element within the AR movement – an element which I wish would just crawl back under the rock from whence they came. And you have still not addressed the central point: you are asserting the truth of a conspiracy theory whilst having no evidence that it is true. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly credible approach. —- How does that fall short of condemnation? Because semantically, it does.

No it doesn’t. Deplore means "to find exceedingly bad" or to be "scandalized by". I heard reference to George Bush "deploring" the bombing in Israel today. No-one suggested that that amounted to anything less than a moral condemnation.  It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons.

No, because I have already stated that they are "morally unacceptable", quite apart from their prgamatic value or lack thereof. So was it evil for the Minnesota ALF to take lab animals from their controlled environments and dump them in fields to be eaten, to starve, or to freeze to death?

I don’t know of the specific instance. If you could post a fuller account than I would be happy to respond. What about when they ruined the cultures of cancer patients’ cells?

Again, I don’t know the details. Post the details and I will respond.. Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders?

Give me more info and I can respond. My prima facie response is that both were indeed immoral. But I need the details before I can make a considered judgement.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? No. I believe I do.

No, you don’t. You could settle the whole thing by simply condemning them and their acts. Why don’t you? And what about my posting of 14-04-01?

Closer, but no cigar. —- —snip— You are lumping all AR supporters together in referring to "you people". I deplore each and every one of the actions mentioned – as do most AR supporters. They are carried out by a small extreme element within the AR movement – an element which I wish would just crawl back under the rock from whence they came. And you have still not addressed the central point: you are asserting the truth of a conspiracy theory whilst having no evidence that it is true. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly credible approach. —- How does that fall short of condemnation?

Because semantically, it does. It’s much better than your weaselly claim that you find the actions "morally unacceptable." However, you are still leaving the door open; you might "deplore" those actions for purely strategic reasons. So was it evil for the Minnesota ALF to take lab animals from their controlled environments and dump them in fields to be eaten, to starve, or to freeze to death? What about when they ruined the cultures of cancer patients’ cells? Do you condemn those activities as evil, or do you not support them as strategic blunders?

Response:

(…) How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? No.

I believe I do. And what about my posting of 14-04-01? —- http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&q=msgid:20010413213853.16998.000… 0ng-cf1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Incidently, I am astonished that some people are so quick to concoct an "AR Conspiracy Theory" without any evidence at all. Past experience of life would suggest that the "cock-up" theory is more credible than any conspiracy theory. I was astonished when the AR started physically attacking hunter. I was astonished when in the US they indeed injected Turkey’s with antifreeze. I was astonished when AR started letting animals go from fur farms only to be ran over by cars. I was astonished when ARA started sending mail with razor blades. I was astonished when the AR started fire bombings. I was astonished when they started sending nail bombs with children as victims.  If anything they do actually astonishes you anymore your living in a world of denial. Yopu people denied any and all of the above when it first started happening but now its second nature.

To which I replied: You are lumping all AR supporters together in referring to "you people". I deplore each and every one of the actions mentioned – as do most AR supporters. They are carried out by a small extreme element within the AR movement – an element which I wish would just crawl back under the rock from whence they came. And you have still not addressed the central point: you are asserting the truth of a conspiracy theory whilst having no evidence that it is true. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly credible approach. —- How does that fall short of condemnation?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". Why are none of the three instances below condemnations, then? They are unambigious statements distancing myself from those who would perpetrate violence under the banner of "AR".

But distancing yourself from people is not the same as condemning them. I also describe acts of violence perpetrated by the ALF as being "morally unacceptable".

So what? Not accepting something falls far short of unambiguously condemning it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk There’s a difference between not advocating something and condemning something. But what about my posting to uk.politics.animals on 12/4/01: "I passionately believe in the cause of animal protection, but extremist groupings such as the ALF, ARM etc simply put the clock back 20 years. Not only is the use of violenec morally unacceptable (in my view), but it is also counterproductive. To advance the cause we must win hearts and minds – and you don’t do that through threats and intimidation." Doesn’t my  describing something as being "morally unacceptable" constitute a condemnation?

No, it falls short of doing so. I even "name names", as Jonathan insists that I must!

But you didn’t unambiguously condemn their acts of violence. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances. No exceptions, no qualifications. Period." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk There’s a difference between not supporting an act and condemning an act. Well, above I unambigiously state that I do not support the use of violence OR intimidation under ANY circumstances – I even added "no exceptions, no qualifications. period." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

It falls far short of condemnation. How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01?

No. —snip—

Response:

No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists".

Why are none of the three instances below condemnations, then? "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk

There’s a difference between not advocating something and condemning something. "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances.  No exceptions, no qualifications. Period." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk

There’s a difference between not supporting an act and condemning an act. How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists?

By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them. Your statement above is evidently false.

I have yet to see an exception, including you. So why make it?

Because it’s true.

Response:

No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". Why are none of the three instances below condemnations, then?

They are unambigious statements distancing myself from those who would perpetrate violence under the banner of "AR". I also describe acts of violence perpetrated by the ALF as being "morally unacceptable". "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk There’s a difference between not advocating something and condemning something.

But what about my posting to uk.politics.animals on 12/4/01: "I passionately believe in the cause of animal protection, but extremist groupings such as the ALF, ARM etc simply put the clock back 20 years. Not only is the use of violenec morally unacceptable (in my view), but it is also counterproductive. To advance the cause we must win hearts and minds – and you don’t do that through threats and intimidation." Doesn’t my  describing something as being "morally unacceptable" constitute a condemnation? I even "name names", as Jonathan insists that I must! "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances. No exceptions, no qualifications. Period."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk There’s a difference between not supporting an act and condemning an act.

Well, above I unambigiously state that I do not support the use of violence OR intimidation under ANY circumstances – I even added "no exceptions, no qualifications. period." Seems pretty straightforward to me. How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? By condemning acts of violence, instead of whining that you don’t support them.

Don’t I do that in my posting of 12/04/01? Your statement above is evidently false. I have yet to see an exception, including you.

Then open your eyes. So why make it? Because it’s true.

No it isn’t. It is false. You are seeking to stereotype and demonise those who disagree with you, John.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances. No exceptions, no qualifications. Period."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – pol.co.uk How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? Your statement above is evidently false. So why make it? Apologies for the faulty links – I cannot get the hang of this google thing. Just do a search for postings by "Paul Rees" containing the word "violence" and you will find them. In OE, if you go Tools/Options/Send/News Sending Format/Plain Text Settings, select Mime Quoted Printable. Now paste your long URLs into that message and send it. The URLs will be clickable. Change the setting back or else all your messages will have ugly wide formatting

Thanks!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances. No exceptions, no qualifications. Period." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? Your statement above is evidently false. So why make it? Apologies for the faulty links – I cannot get the hang of this google thing. Just do a search for postings by "Paul Rees" containing the word "violence" and you will find them.

In OE, if you go Tools/Options/Send/News Sending Format/Plain Text Settings, select Mime Quoted Printable. Now paste your long URLs into that message and send it. The URLs will be clickable. Change the setting back or else all your messages will have ugly wide formatting

Response:

No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others. That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances. No exceptions, no qualifications. Period."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? Your statement above is evidently false. So why make it?

Apologies for the faulty links – I cannot get the hang of this google thing. Just do a search for postings by "Paul Rees" containing the word "violence" and you will find them.

Response:

No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others.

That is simply false. On a number of occasions, I have unreservedly condemned any use of violence by "AR activists". "I, for one, have never advocated the use of violence or intimidation." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=3&selm=995hlf%242re%246%40news5.svr. p ol.co.uk "I have already stated that I do not support the use of violence or intimidation under any circumstances.  No exceptions, no qualifications. Period." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=violence+group:talk.politics.animal… r:Paul+author:Rees&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&selm=9968u9%24227%243%40newsg3.svr . pol.co.uk How can I be more unambigious in my disgust at acts of violence carried out by so-called ARists? Your statement above is evidently false. So why make it?

Response:

Nicely presented. Something to work from – or towards. And applicable beyond the AR issue.

   Thanks. I agree on that.   MC (…) —                 http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html

Response:

Hmm… same shit, different day.  When are you going to find new shit to post? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS                          INTRODUCTION:     Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.                  THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:     Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.       The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory   and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be   found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement   has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer   to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.              ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:     It is tempting to believe that people who think   differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma   without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by   their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights   is based on rational consideration of the world as humans   perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While   there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who   never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of   time considering and reconsidering our positions and the   reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of   The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.   From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student   activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational   undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions   may be different from the mainstream, but our basic   perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the   same.                      THE ARA AS LUDDITE:     The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in   medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be   symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along   with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,   more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that   the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,   and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the   world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.   While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t.   It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support   the exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional   manner. There is no direct link between the two   philosophies, any more than there is a direct link between   political Conservatism and anti-government militias.                 THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:     Another common myth about animal rights activists   (that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned   one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real   experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions   that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality.   Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology.   For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel,   mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for   killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.     Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct   experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have   formal training in fields like biology and wildlife   rehabilitation, and some of us are even former hunters.   The ‘city dweller’ tag is a double-edged weapon, as many   hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a hunter   who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a   repository of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who   drives to wild areas to hike and camp deserves the same   consideration.       ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:     Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings,   both to raise funds and to get their message out to the   largest possible number of people. Antis often look at   the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim   that organizations like PETA and HSUS are ‘in it for the   money’. This view ignores the fact that most of the gross   income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk   mailings, and that the actual funds raised are fairly   modest. A few million dollars may seem like a lot, but   it is a pittance when compared with the tens to hundreds   of millions of dollars available to groups that are   funded by industries that use animals or manufacture   the tools and weapons used in animal research and hunting.   Salaries in AR organizations are typically quite modest,   and most activists are either completely unpaid, or make   poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a wealthy   movement.     A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal   rights spend only a small portion of their available funds   to help animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic   is effective – until one realizes that if money is spent   on ‘band-aid’ approaches that don’t attempt to change the   status quo, then the status quo will continue, and more   animals will suffer in the long run. Animal welfare   groups do a good job of trying to help animals that are   currently suffering. The mission of animal rights groups   is to change society’s attitudes about using animals, in   the hope that future suffering will be greatly reduced.   The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR   groups and activists each benefit from the presence of the other, despite our disagreements.                  THE ARA AS TERRORIST:     Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights   is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation   Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction   of property, and sometimes threats of violence against   people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The   media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes   used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on   fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to   a general perception of the animal rights activist as   someone who practices, or at least supports, violence.   In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more menacing   than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket   line holding a placard. Many animal rights activists   are also *human* rights activists who abhor violence   against any conscious being. The typical ARA is more   likely to financially support human charities than   the ALF. Even the Animal Liberation Front, while   using extreme and controversial tactics, has expressed   a commitment to avoid direct harm to human beings.   ARAs as a group do not hate children, or people in   general, and do not wish to grant animals more   (or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply   believe that animals have the right to be considered   as more than a means to human ends.                   ARAs AS ELITISTS:     Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed   as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for   humanity’s economic well-being, and no willingness   to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship   for their cause. There are also regular accusations   of intellectual elitism and disconnection from   everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works   full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved   with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as   previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with   matters of human rights and economic justice in   addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are   much more likely to be found in college towns and   low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive   suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well   for the vast majority of those who work at it   professionally, and people who are activists in   addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not   the exception.                            CONCLUSION:     One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy   opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests   of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists,   in the long term they would do well to learn more about   how we really are, as opposed to how we are sometimes   portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in more genuine dialog, and less demonization.   Copyright 1999 by Michael Cerkowski Reproduce freely, but do not modify.

Response:

His monthly reposting of a dishonestly conceived document.  Slick claims that this document reflects the contributions on "both" sides.  In fact, he received real, public criticism of the document from animal "rights" opponents, and he didn’t change a thing in it based on that criticism. Most of the criticism was well founded. This entire document is a little squad of straw men.  The intent of it is to allow Cerkowski to try to portray opponents of animal "rights" as being politically unfair.  In fact, since the document is itself a *deliberately* unfair portrayal, it is itself what it purports to be complaining about.      COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS  

Slick has not demonstrated that these are misconceptions, and in cases where such an argument might be made, he has not demonstrated that the views are commonly held.  This has been pointed out to him lots of times. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                         INTRODUCTION:      Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.                   THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:      Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,  

Hence, it is not a "misconception". Furthermore, the fact that *every* serious pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups at some point makes reference to one or more of three "AR" authors – Peter Singer, Tom Regan and to a lesser extent, Gary Francione – and in most cases *only* to these three, lends further credence to the charge that there are "a few charismatic leaders and/or texts". [...]             ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:      It is tempting to believe that people who think   differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma   without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by   their beliefs and actions.

Tempting to whom?  Slick the polemicist never says. The philosophy of animal rights   is based on rational consideration of the world as humans   perceive it,

Ipse dixit. just like many other schools of thought. While   there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who   never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of   time considering and reconsidering our positions and the   reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of   The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.   From Peter Singer and Tom Regan

What was the whine above about "near-mindless followers of a few charismatic leaders and/or texts"?                     THE ARA AS LUDDITE:      The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in   medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be   symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along   with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,   more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that   the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,   and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the   world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.  

Ipse dixit. While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren’t.  

Ipse dixit. In fact, a general sentiment against much of modern life is consistently exhibited by pro-"AR" posters in these newsgroups.  One only has to look for some of the commentary on farming methods irrespective of animal husbandry to detect a longing for a bygone era of sturdy yeoman farmers – lots of them – tilling small farms. [...]                THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:      Another common myth about animal rights activists   (that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned   one)

There is no conflict.  In fact, is precisely urbanites who are *most* likely to yearn for a return to a simpler time.  And this yearning is based on a romantic, sentimental cluelessness about what life *really* was like in earlier times. is that we are all city dwellers, with no real   experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions   that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality.  

Urbanites’ day hikes in nearby state-funded parks and "wilderness" areas, in which most of any dangerous wildlife have been exterminated, hardly qualify them as having any real experience of the natural world. Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology.   For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel,   mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for   killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.  

This is the single most egregious bit of dishonest sophistry in the entire screed.  It is an attempt to show that there is a parallel unfairness on both sides.  But examine it closely; there is no parallelism. First, there is ample evidence that "ARAs", and even many people who don’t consider themselves "ARAs", *do* view hunters as cruel, mindless brutes.  Pro-"AR" posters here regularly call hunters "murderers", "bloodthirsty" and so forth. Second, note that this is how "ARAs" view others; but the supposed "parallel" is about how hunters *view themselves*.  In what way could that false statement about how hunters view themselves be taken as a "common misconception" about "ARAs"?  It clearly isn’t. [...]      ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:      Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings,   both to raise funds and to get their message out to the   largest possible number of people. Antis often look at   the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim   that organizations like PETA and HSUS are ‘in it for the   money’.

The tax filings of "mainstream" "AR" organizations operating in the U.S. are a matter of public record.  These frequently show enormous salaries paid to the top executives.  In the case of one apparently not-so-highly paid executive, Ingrid Newkirk of PeTA, there is an open question about how she obtained the money to purchase a large estate in an expensive suburb of New York City. Public relations, which is the line of business for all of these organizations, is a notoriously extravagant business.                 THE ARA AS TERRORIST:      Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights   is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation   Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction   of property, and sometimes threats of violence against   people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The   media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes   used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on   fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to   a general perception of the animal rights activist as   someone who practices, or at least supports, violence.  

No pro-"AR" poster in these newsgroups has *EVER* unambiguously condemned acts of violence perpetrated by ALF or others.  The best one can expect is a limp, insincere hope that the violence is limited to property.  The ambush beating administered to a Huntingdon Life Sciences manager, by hooded, baseball bat-wielding terrorists, goes unmentioned by most pro-"AR" posters here; if it’s mentioned at all, it’s labeled justified.                  ARAs AS ELITISTS:      Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed   as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for   humanity’s economic well-being, and no willingness   to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship   for their cause. There are also regular accusations   of intellectual elitism and disconnection from   everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works   full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved   with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as   previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with   matters of human rights and economic justice in   addition to the issue of animal rights.

Ipse dixit. ARAs are   much more likely to be found in college towns and   low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive   suburbs.

That doesn’t save them from the charge of elitism.  They are elitist in the worst sense of the word:  they claim to know what’s best for everyone, irrespective of what the "beneficiaries" of their wisdom feel is in their own best interest. If they do in fact tend to be in college towns and low-rent districts, this is a matter of lifestyle choice. Anyway, the high rolling executives of PeTA and HSUS certainly don’t live in low-rent districts.                       CONCLUSION:  

The "Common Misconceptions" screed is a dishonest endeavor from start to finish.

Response:

Nicely presented. Something to work from – or towards. And applicable beyond the AR issue. visit  http://www.1marketsquare.com It’s there for you. It can be your neighborhood market… or your community square.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — …                       CONCLUSION:    One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists, in the long term they would do well to learn more about how we really are, as opposed to how we are sometimes portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in more genuine dialog, and less demonization.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS                          INTRODUCTION:     Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as possible.                  THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:     Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few   charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR   movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs   and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different   answers.       The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory   and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be   found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement   has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer   to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.  

    But there is the danger that people who want to promote better lives for domestic animals in the future (Animal Welfare), are unawarely contributing to "Animal Rights" groups instead. People should be very careful who they send their money to, because the goal of "AR" groups is to cause the extinction of domestic animals, not improve their welfare. The accomplishment of the "AR" goal would make welfare improvements for domestic animals impossible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –            ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:     It is tempting to believe that people who think   differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma   without a moment’s thought to the logical issues raised by   their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights   is based on rational consideration of the world as humans   perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While   there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who   never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of   time considering and reconsidering our positions and the   reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of   The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.   From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student   activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational   undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions   may be different from the mainstream, but our basic   perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the   same.  

[...]        No one who accepts the philosophy of animal rights would be satisfied with a continuation of our society’s rapacious consumption of farm animals, for example, even if these animals were raised in an ecologically sustainable fashion, and were transported and slaughtered "humanely". Animal welfarists, by contrast, are committed to the pursuit of "gentle usage." They believe it morally permissible to use nonhumans for human benefit, but think humans should try to "minimize" suffering. Thus, whereas welfarists seek to *reform* current practices of animal exploitation, while retaining such exploitation in principle, rights advocates oppose all such exploitation in principle and seek to *abolish* all such exploitation in practice.        Recognition of the moral inviolability of individual animals not only helps shape the ends that the animal rights movement seeks, it should also help articulate the morally acceptable means that may be used. And this is important. Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons. [...] "A Movement’s Means Create Its Ends" By Tom Regan and    Gary Francione The Animal’s Agenda   (pp.40-43) January/February 1992

Question:

Thanks for the reply – what are probiotics?

Response:

Thanks Margie – I will ask him to prescribe the patch for me – what can it hurt?

Response:

Thanks so much for the reply.  I appreciate the info from the Mayo clinic.  I will be showing this to my doctor, and see if he will prescribe the patch for me.  

Response:

I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!!   HELP!!!

As a smoker, and fellow UC sufferer, let me first say…PLEASE DON’T GO BACK TO SMOKING!!  That would be a shame.  The nicotine patch, from what I understand to date, does help with UC.  Many doctors are prescribing it for their patients.  I would try that first.  If I were able to give up smoking for as long as you have, it would be such a shame to take it up again now, when the patch can help so much without all that risk that cigarette smoking has.  Just a thought. Always,   Margie CD Class of 67 UC Class of 96

Response:

Check out the mayo’s website on the nico patch.  I found it there.

Response:

That is such a shame that they stopped the research.  I’m going to ask my dr.for it anyway.  What can it hurt.

Response:

Have the doctors ruled out CD on your wife? Just curious? Mike Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

About 2 years ago, I tried the nicotine patches for my UC. Had some success, but it was 20mg of prednisone for a month that finally cleared up my flare. Had been using the nicotine patches to quit smoking. When I stepped down from 14mg to 7mg patches, had a big flare. Saw this article in the Mayo Clinic Newsletter, showed it to my dr, and with his ok went back on the 21mg patch for about the next 3-4 months. It did help me some, but did not clear up the flare completely. Here is the link to the article. http://www.mayohealth.org/mayo/9803/htm/nicotine.htm And just a couple comments about nicotine patches. 1) they are expensive (and insurance does not pay) 2) they are ’strong medicine’ – I switched arms/shoulders every day and put them on different places to avoid the skin sensativity. (And I know some people who tried to use them to quit, but could not tolerate them because of this.) And follow the precautions on the package. The did help me some. Go for it. Howard in Alaska Let me cut & paste that article here.        ULCERATIVE COLITIS        Nicotine patch may help                                          03.11.98     Originally published in Mayo Clinic Health Letter, February     1998     Q. I’ve heard that the nicotine skin patch is a new     treatment for ulcerative colitis. Is this true?     A. Yes, the nicotine skin patch (the same kind used by     smokers to stop smoking) is a new option for treating     active ulcerative colitis. However, Mayo Clinic doctors     generally prefer trying more traditional drugs, such as     prednisone, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine) or mesalamine     (Asacol, Pentasa, Rowasa) before recommending the     patch.     Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammation of your     colon lining. About 320,000 Americans have it. The     disease can flare up unpredictably, often causing     abdominal cramping, urgent and frequent bowel     movements, diarrhea and bloody stools.     Between flare-ups, many people have long     remissions. Having ulcerative colitis increases your     risk for colon cancer. The risk steadily increases the     longer you have the disease.     Several studies have shown that using the nicotine     patch may help provide short-term relief from     ulcerative colitis flare-ups. In the most recent study,     which appeared in the March 1, 1997, Annals of     Internal Medicine, people with active ulcerative colitis     who wore the patch for a month were four times more     likely to experience relief than people who wore a     placebo patch.     How nicotine helps relieve symptoms of the disease     isn’t clear, although doctors believe it may protect your     colon by thickening and increasing mucus in it.     Nicotine may also play a role in reducing inflammation     in your colon.     Although the studies are promising, it’s important to     note that research has only shown that the nicotine     patch is effective in treating active ulcerative colitis for     a short time. It’s not yet clear whether it’s effective in     preventing relapses of the disease. In addition, more     study is needed to determine if the patch is an     effective way to treat flare-ups of the disease for an     extended length of time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi!! I haven’t posted in sooo long. No flare-ups for about 1 year!!! But—wham — now I am in the middle of the worst flare-up.  Bleeding for about 3 weeks now.  When I was posting, there was discussion about the nicotine patch to relieve UC.  It had worked for so many people, is it still working? I was a smoker, and three months after I quit, is when I had my first flare-up.  That was 5 years ago.  I WILL NOT TAKE PREDNISONE ANYMORE!!!  I am on Rowasa, but that is not helping right now.  I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!! HELP!!! Thanks

Response:

My wife who is a former smoker and has UC for 4 years tried the nicotine patch for a month. It did nothing for the UC but she then developed a skin sensitivity to the patch and she did not continue. This was under the supervision of 2 GI’s. Prednisone,Rowasa, Pepto Bismol, Asacol. Budesonide enemas, Cortenema, the SC Diet – all did not help. She has gained some relief lately through the use of Probiotics – "compressed" the period of BM’s into the 6AM-11 AM period, the rest of the day relatively OK.

Response:

I used to smoke and my UC went from left side only to full colon during that time.  So much for nicotine being a savior.  I have since quit Thank God and do not suggest smoking as an option.  Ask your doc to try the patch.  How about 6mp? That works the best for me.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi!! I haven’t posted in sooo long. No flare-ups for about 1 year!!! But—wham — now I am in the middle of the worst flare-up.  Bleeding for about 3 weeks now.  When I was posting, there was discussion about the nicotine patch to relieve UC.  It had worked for so many people, is it still working? I was a smoker, and three months after I quit, is when I had my first flare-up. That was 5 years ago.  I WILL NOT TAKE PREDNISONE ANYMORE!!!  I am on Rowasa, but that is not helping right now.  I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!! HELP!!! Thanks

Response:

Hi I used nicotine patch for 3 months, 1st month on 21mg, 2nd month on 14mg and last 6 weeks on 7 mg. I have been symptoms for the last 8 months. It did help me. Anju

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi!! I haven’t posted in sooo long. No flare-ups for about 1 year!!! But—wham — now I am in the middle of the worst flare-up.  Bleeding for about 3 weeks now.  When I was posting, there was discussion about the nicotine patch to relieve UC.  It had worked for so many people, is it still working? I was a smoker, and three months after I quit, is when I had my first flare-up. That was 5 years ago.  I WILL NOT TAKE PREDNISONE ANYMORE!!!  I am on Rowasa, but that is not helping right now.  I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!! HELP!!! Thanks

Response:

I would try anything that shows promise as long as it does not pose a treat for major damage to the body. Give it a whirl, everything I had read about it has been good. I smoke and my Dr. told me to quit because it will slow the healing of the CD. When I said that every time I quit smoking I would flare. His response was my flair was caused by the stress of quitting and not the nicotine. He also said that if I had UC that the nicotine would help, but because I have CD I can’t use it as an excuse to keep smoking. (dang it… I have been using that one on my wife for 5 years… and he said this in front of her) Mike Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Try the patch… what would it hurt? Mike Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Nicotine therapy looked promising, however I just read that the company that was looking into it further discontinued research.  I’m hoping that they were smart enough not to equate therapeutic nicotine with cigasrettes and Big Tobacco.  If that was the reason they stopped, that kind of angers me. Andy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi!! I haven’t posted in sooo long. No flare-ups for about 1 year!!! But—wham — now I am in the middle of the worst flare-up.  Bleeding for about 3 weeks now.  When I was posting, there was discussion about the nicotine patch to relieve UC.  It had worked for so many people, is it still working? I was a smoker, and three months after I quit, is when I had my first flare-up.  That was 5 years ago.  I WILL NOT TAKE PREDNISONE ANYMORE!!!  I am on Rowasa, but that is not helping right now.  I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!!   HELP!!! Thanks

Response:

My GI doctor prescribed the Nicotine Patch for me (I don’t smoke) but the insurance wouldn’t cover it. I ended up in the hospital where they had me on the patch for a few days. To make a long story short, I wasn’t on the patch long enough to see if it worked because I ended up having surgery. My doctor must have gotten some positive feedback on it though, since he wanted me to try it. Good Luck, I hope this works for you !!! Tammy Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Hi!! I haven’t posted in sooo long. No flare-ups for about 1 year!!! But—wham — now I am in the middle of the worst flare-up.  Bleeding for about 3 weeks now.  When I was posting, there was discussion about the nicotine patch to relieve UC.  It had worked for so many people, is it still working? I was a smoker, and three months after I quit, is when I had my first flare-up.  That was 5 years ago.  I WILL NOT TAKE PREDNISONE ANYMORE!!!  I am on Rowasa, but that is not helping right now.  I’m going to my Gastro next week, and I wanted ammunition regarding the nicotine patch. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I’m almost to point of smoking again, to relieve this!!!   HELP!!! Thanks

Response:

Question:

Hi David, I agree about the "funny-stuff" in gastroenterology.  I’m amazed that this info. is out there and generally being ignored.  Probably because (and call me a conspiracy theorist here – but conspiracy’s in multi-national companies do exist!) there’s a lot of money poured into research and medicine to treat the symptoms of IBD/IBS, rather than the cause.  Think of all the gastros, drug companies, researchers etc who would not benefit from everyone being tested and treated correctly. Mind you the path. labs would benefit from the sheer cost of testing three samples in preservative kits (3 x the cost of a regular stool test)! Regardless, I really feel that the connection between amoebic paras and IBD/IBS should be looked into more closely…..the fact that many people either get there symptoms under control or get better after taking beneficial bacteria for their bowel must point to something significant.  The purpose of this approach is to crowd out the bad stuff and replace it with the good stuff.   Researchers used a similar approach recently when they used anti-amoebic drugs to kill off pathogenic E.coli and then used non-pathogenic strain of E.coli to replace it after the drug therapy. I think it was about 80% of people with colitis in this study got better. This story was going around on newsgroups as the "worm" treatment for colitis.  I’m going to put this on my web page also, so please check back in a week or so. Regards, Jackie Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

I noticed your critical comment, perhaps you could add more to support your views since I for one have been suffering from this affliction and am desperate for answers. <supp…@fluxsoft.com

wrote in message

news:support-6A87F2.00322803022000@news.erols.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <qNPl4.410$3v6.15…@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "David W." <dewattsNOS…@earthlink.net wrote: This is excellent, I’m glad to see this type of research breakthrough,

and

even happier to see people that share them for our collective knowledge. Research breakthrough? I don’t even see where the research is.

Response:

In article <87ek7s$9d…@enyo.uwa.edu.au

, "Brennan"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<sh…@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

wrote: I noticed your critical comment, perhaps you could add more to support your views since I for one have been suffering from this affliction and am desperate for answers. <supp…@fluxsoft.com wrote in message news:support-6A87F2.00322803022000@news.erols.com… In article <qNPl4.410$3v6.15…@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "David W." <dewattsNOS…@earthlink.net wrote: This is excellent, I’m glad to see this type of research breakthrough, and even happier to see people that share them for our collective knowledge. Research breakthrough? I don’t even see where the research is.

I think that page you saw was manufacturered for the purpose of fulfiling those desperate for answer. That is, they are looking to appease those out there desperate for answers, so extend real information beyond the limits of reality and sometimes even make information up to give one something to believe in.

Response:

The support guy who is critical seems to think ALL stomach problems is caused by celiac. He/she doesn’t seem to believe in any other type of stomach ailment. Just avoid it’s posts. http://members.xoom.com/renditions/americanpiesample.wav

Response:

Please visit my website – research on this amoebic parasite shows that it causes IBS symptoms and worse in some people.  Read emails page from others who were diagnosed for years with IBS and found out they have this parasite.  Research indicates it can cause to the bowel wall resulting in colitis! Jackie http://member.rivernet.com.au/bara/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

This is excellent, I’m glad to see this type of research breakthrough, and even happier to see people that share them for our collective knowledge.  I for one believe that there is just too much "funny-stuff" going on with this gastro business to think that it "all-in-the-mind". Thanks for the post! David "Jackie" <b…@rivernet.com.au

wrote in message

news:8789fd$k5s$1@nnrp1.deja.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Please visit my website – research on this amoebic parasite shows that it causes IBS symptoms and worse in some people.  Read emails page from others who were diagnosed for years with IBS and found out they have this parasite.  Research indicates it can cause to the bowel wall resulting in colitis! Jackie http://member.rivernet.com.au/bara/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Hi Jackie, I am intrigued by the info on your web site. I have never been diagnosed with ibs but my doctor thinks I may have incomplete coeliac disease. However, my symptoms match what I have heard about ibs but I have begun to suspect that I have a parasitic infection (I thought possibly some sort of super yeast – I’m not the slightest bit knowledgable in microbiology!). My symptoms seem to build up depending on what I eat until they burst making me think that I was growing a colony of something (probiotics also help a lot). I would also get dandruff very badly around the same time. Wheat is the main culprit but if I have wheat and sugar then things can turn bad fairly quickly. I have two questions for you if you don’t mind: 1. Has this parasite ever been connected to dandruff? 2. How is this parasite contracted? Thanks in advance. Dermot Jackie <b…@rivernet.com.au

wrote in message

news:8789fd$k5s$1@nnrp1.deja.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Please visit my website – research on this amoebic parasite shows that it causes IBS symptoms and worse in some people.  Read emails page from others who were diagnosed for years with IBS and found out they have this parasite.  Research indicates it can cause to the bowel wall resulting in colitis! Jackie http://member.rivernet.com.au/bara/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Amoebic parasites survive on the food you ingest.  My personal feeling is that foods which are "heavier" – ie carbs such as wheat, potatoes etc take longer to break down and can feed parasites.  The same thing happens to me – my symptoms build up if I eat these things and then I come down with a bad flare.  Sugar is used in microbiology to grow bacteria…so I guess the same thing would apply to amoebic parasites? Can any microbiologists out there confirm this??? Another explanation could be that infections such as this throw the whole of the microflora in the bowel out of whack and all foods to varying degrees cause a reaction.  I think it’s probably a bit of both. I haven’t heard of dandruff as a symptom – I’ll check it out though. There are too many questions, and not enough research. About how do you catch DF – basically in a similar way to most other parasites – faecal/oral route – ie. you could have eaten from a take-away shop and the assistant hasn’t washed their hands after visiting the loo.  This particular parasite is found highest in "closed communities" ie. kindergartens, nursing homes etc.  It is not uncommon for it to go through families.  Some people can be carriers but show no symptoms.  There are lots of amoebic parasites which give no symptoms in some but do in others.  Researchers haven’t come up with any clear answers – except that they think it could be different strains of the same bug, or based on the bowel flora – if it’s in balance then these things won’t get out of hand…if not you’re in trouble! Hope this helps, Jackie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

super yeast – I’m not the slightest bit knowledgable in

microbiology!). My

symptoms seem to build up depending on what I eat until they burst

making me

think that I was growing a colony of something (probiotics also help a

lot).

I would also get dandruff very badly around the same time. Wheat is the main culprit but if I have wheat and sugar then things

can turn

bad fairly quickly. I have two questions for you if you don’t mind: 1. Has this parasite ever been connected to dandruff? 2. How is this parasite contracted? Thanks in advance. Dermot Jackie <b…@rivernet.com.au wrote in message news:8789fd$k5s$1@nnrp1.deja.com… Please visit my website – research on this amoebic parasite shows

that

it causes IBS symptoms and worse in some people.  Read emails page

from

others who were diagnosed for years with IBS and found out they have this parasite.  Research indicates it can cause to the bowel wall resulting in colitis! Jackie http://member.rivernet.com.au/bara/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Question:

I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun

Response:

I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun

Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Response:

But Googley,      There’s lots of people in intractable pain from soft tissues, honest!!! Peace,  Jane

|Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain |doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. |Googleymoogley | I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to | adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain | questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to | send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). | | Thanks | | Shaun |

Response:

Mmmm, not only can chronic pain occur in soft tissue, but it can even occur in non-existant tissue(i.e. phantom pain). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Response:

Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems.

Exactly where did you get your medical degree from?? This is a very common scenario. I happen to be one the people that this has happened to – the pain is severe enough that I am considered disabled by the federal government. I have had to give up my career and many internal organs to this dreadful problem and must take narcotic medication on a daily basis. Don’t think that because YOU haven’t heard of a particular problem, that it does not exist. Terri "Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional"

Response:

Yup, this is why one should try and have pain dealt with as soon as possible;  due to the fact that permanent change occurs in central and peripheral neuronal tissue if a pain stimulous is maintained chronically for more than a week.  The study primarily deals with an actual mechanical insult to the dorsal ganglion near the central cord but may imply irrevocable changes in the cord or brain itself regardless the nature of the irritant.  And, after all, nerves are soft tissue. (Howe J F, Loeser J D, Calvin W H, 1977  Mechano-sensibility of dorsal root ganglia and from focal nerve injuries.  Brain Research 116: 139)  This citation came from the book which all doctors approach on bended knee, The Textbook of Pain, Wall and Melzack, 4ed, 1994) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mmmm, not only can chronic pain occur in soft tissue, but it can even occur in non-existant tissue(i.e. phantom pain). I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Response:

[snip] Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

This is so wrong that I am stunned. Chronic pain does occur in soft tissue, in fact bone is almost insensible and bone related sensation is mostly derived from the periosteal coverings. Chronic pain is a very real problem to many people. It can be devastating in its effects. Ten years experience running a pain clinic allows me to make the above assertions with some confidence. Adrian

Response:

Googley, In a word….BOLLUX! Intractable pain *can* and *does* indeed occur in soft tissue. Many on this newsgroup can testify to that. Lily  

Response:

Who are you? What an ignorant comment. Shell

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Response:

Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Bullshit it dosen’t. Than why am I in exruciating pain?

Response:

Someone who does not believe chronic pain can be caused in abdominal soft tissue does not have or has not experienced abdominal adhesions. You know Jefe

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley Bullshit it dosen’t. Than why am I in exruciating pain?

Response:

I had hernia surgery and it still hurts about 10 yrs latter. According to several docs I have talked to over the yrs there is nothing wrong. Furtunity this is rarely pain of any great signifigance. Not like my back stuff.

Response:

: I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to : adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain : questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to : send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). : : Thanks : : Shaun : : : Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain : doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. : Googleymoogley         That’s so untrue. Never heard of adhesions? Adhesion can occur in abdomen. Never heard of endometriosis?         Read more. emma

Response:

: Yup, this is why one should try and have pain dealt with as soon as possible;  due : to the fact that permanent change occurs in central and peripheral neuronal tissue : if a pain stimulous is maintained chronically for more than a week.  The study : primarily deals with an actual mechanical insult to the dorsal ganglion near the : central cord but may imply irrevocable changes in the cord or brain itself : regardless the nature of the irritant.  And, after all, nerves are soft tissue. : (Howe J F, Loeser J D, Calvin W H, 1977  Mechano-sensibility of dorsal root ganglia : and from focal nerve injuries.  Brain Research 116: 139)  This citation came from : the book which all doctors approach on bended knee, The Textbook of Pain, Wall and : Melzack, 4ed, 1994)         And even if the pain stimulus stops, the pain can remain. It’s called LTP (long-term potentiation). emma

Response:

Cool, thanks Emma.  That is my next keyword search.  Do you have those citations?  Where have yall been these last two miserable years of my life (yup, fourth generation Texan but don’t let that dissuade the barbs because my dream is to meet a nice Canadian or European girl to take me away from all this)?  What a great group!    . Terrill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Yup, this is why one should try and have pain dealt with as soon as possible;  due : to the fact that permanent change occurs in central and peripheral neuronal tissue : if a pain stimulous is maintained chronically for more than a week.  The study : primarily deals with an actual mechanical insult to the dorsal ganglion near the : central cord but may imply irrevocable changes in the cord or brain itself : regardless the nature of the irritant.  And, after all, nerves are soft tissue. : (Howe J F, Loeser J D, Calvin W H, 1977  Mechano-sensibility of dorsal root ganglia : and from focal nerve injuries.  Brain Research 116: 139)  This citation came from : the book which all doctors approach on bended knee, The Textbook of Pain, Wall and : Melzack, 4ed, 1994)         And even if the pain stimulus stops, the pain can remain. It’s called LTP (long-term potentiation). emma

Response:

I have IBD/UC and I read alot about Chrohns Disease.  Yes adhesions can happen after surgery.  You can also have endometriosis.  You can go to this site and find out more.

Response:

Dude, just who do you think you are?  I have only been reading this NG for about 2-3months now.  This place is like my second home.  I don’t appreciate your comments / statements.  This is by far the worst thing I have read yet. UP!!!!!. I apologize to any one else in the NG if I have spoken out of place, Please accept my apology if needed.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m undertaking a study looking at chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions following surgery. Can anyone suggest a validated chronic pain questionnaire that can be mailed to people in the study? I already intend to send the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Thanks Shaun Chronic pain after abdoninal surgery???? Get real. Chronic intractable pain doesn’t occur in soft tissue. Save your "Questionaire for real problems. Googleymoogley

Response:

Yup, did not realize that.  Thanks, I will try and be more attentive. Terrill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Question:

Panic and anxiety disorders can cause tightness in the chest, breathing difficulties and the like.  You may want to consult a new dr perhaps a pulmonologist Good luck HTML<PRELaura Southard <A HREF="healthyenvironments.com"Healthy Environments</A Seattle,WA Email or call us for your free catalog<FONT COLOR="#0080ff" BACK="#ff80c0" SIZE=3 http://healthyenvironments.com 800.511.7732 </FONT</FONT<FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#FFFFFF" SIZE=3</B</I Healthy Homes and Offices Resources – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi folks, I was wondering what other conditions mimic asthma.  My doctor diagnosed me as asthmatic about six months ago, but the meds, Ventolin and Becotide, don’t seem to help very much.  As this doctor has proven in other areas to be totally worthless, I was concerned that maybe i should be looking more closely at my breathing problems and what might cause them. Thanks Kat Visit our web site!  http://www.k-humble.dircon.co.uk/home.htm Stop by our IRC channels on EFNet – #CraftChat and #GingerTabby

– <

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are several other conditions that could be the problem.  They would take some testing.  I think that first you should have a Pulmonary Function Test, this would establish if you had asthma or not. Is the PFT the only criteria for asthma?  I have at varying times been told I have 1) mild asthma 2) chronic rhinitis with post nasal drip 3) chronic bronchitis 4) chest x-ray suggestive of early emphysema 5) COPD. Asthma meds help some, allergy shots didn’t do much, nor did claritin, or beconase.  I don’t think I wheeze, but cough so much I ruptured a hernia repair requiring a second surgery.  I see pulmonologist this friday.  So far, chest x-ray and PFT have been done.  Any other ideas? Susan LeBailly Northwestern University

Lung function tests involve measuring lung function before and after administering a bronchodilator. A 15-20% improvement tends to support the asthma diagnosis. If this test is inconclusive, a methacholine challenge test may be recommended. It involves measuring lung function before and after administering methacholine; a 20% decrease in lung function tends to support the asthma diagnosis. See: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/archive/inte/vol_157/no_17/… Excerpt: "Interpretation of Positive Results of a Methacholine Inhalation Challenge and 1 Week of Inhaled Bronchodilator Use in Diagnosing and Treating Cough-Variant Asthma Background: In diagnosing cough due to asthma, methacholine chloride inhalation challenge (MIC) interpreted in a traditional fashion has been shown to have positive predictive values from 60% to 82%. Conclusions: No matter how the results are analyzed, positive MIC results,  without observing response to therapy, are only consistent with asthma as  the cause of the cough. The results are only diagnostic of asthma when  they are followed by a favorable response to asthma therapy. After 1 week  of inhaled beta-agonist, only the cough due to cough-variant asthma is  significantly better." Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1981-1987 Ellis

Response:

Hi, There are several other conditions that could be the problem.  They would take some testing.  I think that first you should have a Pulmonary Function Test, this would establish if you had asthma or not.  

Is the PFT the only criteria for asthma?  I have at varying times been told I have 1) mild asthma 2) chronic rhinitis with post nasal drip 3) chronic bronchitis 4) chest x-ray suggestive of early emphysema 5) COPD. Asthma meds help some, allergy shots didn’t do much, nor did claritin, or beconase.  I don’t think I wheeze, but cough so much I ruptured a hernia repair requiring a second surgery.  I see pulmonologist this friday.  So far, chest x-ray and PFT have been done.  Any other ideas? — Susan LeBailly Northwestern University

Response:

I was wondering what other conditions mimic asthma.  My doctor diagnosed me as asthmatic about six months ago, but the meds, Ventolin and Becotide, don’t seem to help very much.  As this doctor has proven in other areas to be totally worthless, I was concerned that maybe i should be looking more closely at my breathing problems and what might cause them. Kat

Here’s a link: http://www.e-asthma.com/news9.htm ASTHMA TODAY NEWSLETTER Excerpt: "NOT ALL WHEEZING IS FROM ASTHMA           15 June Wheezing is the most prominent sign of asthma. Many physicians still wait for wheezing before making a diagnosis of asthma. However, not all wheezing is from asthma. There are many other causes of wheezing. If your wheezing is persistent and not getting better from the asthma medications, you should discuss it with your clinician. A chest X-ray is the first and most important test that should be requested. Your clinician should consider the following conditions:                   1. Pulmonary edema                   2. Bronchiectasis                   3. Cystic Fibrosis                   4. Chronic bronchitis                   5. Extrensic allergic alveolitis                   6. COPD                   7. Asthma                   8. Stenosis, bronchial carcinoma                   9. Sarcoidosis,  TB                   10. Foreign body aspiration                   11. Vocal cord dysfunction                   12. Laryngeal or tracheal tumor                   13. Tracheo-malacia                   14. Infections such as croup, laryngitis                   15. Acute traceho-bronchitis                   16. Pertussis or whooping cough If you re not improving on standard asthma medications and wheezing is persistent especially on one side, you and your clinician should wonder whether you have another condition and not asthma." Ellis

Response:

Oh wow!  I had no idea so many things could mimic Asthma.  Scary scary scary.  The second I find a decent doctor (very hard to do in this area) I will ask for a chest X ray and that Pulmonary Function test. Thanks for all the advice folks kat Visit our web site!  http://www.k-humble.dircon.co.uk/home.htm     Stop by our IRC channels on EFNet – #CraftChat and #GingerTabby

Response:

Hi, There are several other conditions that could be the problem.  They would take some testing.  I think that first you should have a Pulmonary Function Test, this would establish if you had asthma or not.  Other possibilities could be Vocal Cord Dysfunction, in which National Jewish Hospital and Research Center has the most information.  Perhaps the breathing problems could be associated with Gastro-esophalgeal Reflux (heartburn), or something like bronchitis or a lung infection.  I hope this helps.  I have serious doubts about doctors who just put people on medication without the necessary test to diagnosis.  Take Care and let us know.  Pam.

Response:

Hi folks, I was wondering what other conditions mimic asthma.  My doctor diagnosed me as asthmatic about six months ago, but the meds, Ventolin and Becotide, don’t seem to help very much.  As this doctor has proven in other areas to be totally worthless, I was concerned that maybe i should be looking more closely at my breathing problems and what might cause them.

Actually ther are a lot of things that can mimic asthma.  Hyperventilation syndrome, vocal cord disorder, broncitis, reflux, etc. Your best bet would be to ask for a referral to a pulmonoglist.

Response:

Hi folks, I was wondering what other conditions mimic asthma.  My doctor diagnosed me as asthmatic about six months ago, but the meds, Ventolin and Becotide, don’t seem to help very much.  As this doctor has proven in other areas to be totally worthless, I was concerned that maybe i should be looking more closely at my breathing problems and what might cause them. Thanks Kat Visit our web site!  http://www.k-humble.dircon.co.uk/home.htm     Stop by our IRC channels on EFNet – #CraftChat and #GingerTabby

Response:

Question:

Nice infomercial.  It’s nice that your first contribution is a prolonged sales pitch. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I am new to this news group and just thought I’d say hey and tell ya’ll about myself. I live in Columbus,GA. I’m a small breeder, having a bird " house" instead of a bird room. I’ve been breeding birds for about 5 years. Right now I’m breeding plum-headed parakeets and red-rumped parakeets. I’ve bred these birds in the past: zebra finches, society finches, lovebirds, and budgies. I try to attend every bird show I can get to, as well as talk to every reeder I meet to find out as much about birds and breeding that I can, and hope that this news group is as informing as they are.  Also I’m looking for pairs of slaty-heads and blossom-heads if anyone out there has any. I would like to trade two or three of my  one year old plum-heads for the pairs if possible. They haven’t sexed out yet but they are very beautiful, no health problems. I also have two bonded pairs of red-rumped parakeets for sale $150.00 USA. I’ll only sell as pairs. If anyone is interested e-mail me. — I am a parcel of vain strivings tied By a chance bond together.                                          Sic Vita [1841], st. I                  by Henry David Thoreau

Response:

Hello,  I am new to this news group and just thought I’d say hey and tell ya’ll about myself. I live in Columbus,GA. I’m a small breeder, having a bird " house" instead of a bird room. I’ve been breeding birds for about 5 years. Right now I’m breeding plum-headed parakeets and red-rumped parakeets. I’ve bred these birds in the past: zebra finches, society finches, lovebirds, and budgies. I try to attend every bird show I can get to, as well as talk to every reeder I meet to find out as much about birds and breeding that I can, and hope that this news group is as informing as they are.   Also I’m looking for pairs of slaty-heads and blossom-heads if anyone out there has any. I would like to trade two or three of my  one year old plum-heads for the pairs if possible. They haven’t sexed out yet but they are very beautiful, no health problems. I also have two bonded pairs of red-rumped parakeets for sale $150.00 USA. I’ll only sell as pairs. If anyone is interested e-mail me. — I am a parcel of vain strivings tied By a chance bond together.                                           Sic Vita [1841], st. I                   by Henry David Thoreau

Response:

Hello! Welcome! . I’m a small breeder, having a bird " house" instead of a bird room.

It sounds like my home…. birds birds and more birds! I don’t consider myself a breeder at all, tho I have has a few clutches from my zebra finches & my cut throats & gouldians are trying. I trade the zebras for food mostly. Right now I’m breeding plum-headed parakeets and red-rumped parakeets.

I would like to hear more on the RRPs.. I have a female but info on these birds seem very limited.

Response:

Welcome

Response:

Hello to you too! Happy you’ve decided to join us. The group has it’s ups and downs, but the ups outweigh the downs. Looking forward to sharing info with you. — "Mamabird" I’m Out Of Estrogen …..  And I Have A Gun! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I am new to this news group and just thought I’d say hey and tell ya’ll about myself. I live in Columbus,GA. I’m a small breeder, having a bird " house" instead of a bird room. I’ve been breeding birds for about 5 years. Right now I’m breeding plum-headed parakeets and red-rumped parakeets. I’ve bred these birds in the past: zebra finches, society finches, lovebirds, and budgies. I try to attend every bird show I can get to, as well as talk to every reeder I meet to find out as much about birds and breeding that I can, and hope that this news group is as informing as they are.  Also I’m looking for pairs of slaty-heads and blossom-heads if anyone out there has any. I would like to trade two or three of my  one year old plum-heads for the pairs if possible. They haven’t sexed out yet but they are very beautiful, no health problems. I also have two bonded pairs of red-rumped parakeets for sale $150.00 USA. I’ll only sell as pairs. If anyone is interested e-mail me. — I am a parcel of vain strivings tied By a chance bond together.                                          Sic Vita [1841], st. I                  by Henry David Thoreau

Response:

I live in Columbus,GA. I’m a small breeder, having a bird<BR " house" instead of a bird room. I’ve been breeding birds for about 5<BR

Hi, welcome to our group, look forward to any information you can provide us with….. Christine & Cody (My feathered treasure) Do unto others, and run like hell.  Be careful I might run faster than you.

Response:

Invicto, Welcome to the group.  I think you will find alot of people here in the same boat as you.  Including me.  I see a surgeon on the 18th and at this point I think I will do anything.  I am tired of waiting and hoping something will come up that will work for me.  Good Luck. Lynn in Fl – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was sent home from the Navy after 14 years since I refused surgery. Refusing surgery was your main mistake.  I recommend that you subscribe to the alt.support.ostomy newsgroup and pose this problem to the people who have experienced your agony.  I am sure you will find many of them saying, "I wish I would have done this a long time ago". Earl (U)

Response:

Hi! I had an ileostomy a while back and am doing fine..  DO visit alt.support.ostomy we’re not a bad bunch – and you’ll be surprised how free of pain we are!  :-) Candy home page    http://freespace.virgin.net/candy.moran

Response:

I was sent home from the Navy after 14 years since I refused surgery.

Refusing surgery was your main mistake.  I recommend that you subscribe to the alt.support.ostomy newsgroup and pose this problem to the people who have experienced your agony.  I am sure you will find many of them saying, "I wish I would have done this a long time ago". Earl (U)

Response:

I’ve had UC since 1985, active 4-6 months/yr – now to 40cm distal, and have been on asulfadine (sp?), Asacol, Flagyl, 6MP and of course Prednisone. I was sent home from the Navy after 14 years since I refused surgery, hoping that some wonder drug was around the corner and I’d still have my colon. That was 2 years ago and I have grown weary of the fight. I am at the point where I want to beat down the current flare, kick the steroid habit, get rid of my colon (at this point I’ve lost my loyalty) and regain my independence. Don’t know if I’m looking for the answers (are there any?) or just a venue to vent my frustration, pain and even anger at the loss of quality of my life. Thanks for the opportunity.

Response:

Welcome Larry! Rebecca

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Folks, I stumbled upon this newsgroup in a late-night "I can’t sleep ’cause of you-know-what."  I’m not one to just jump into a NG without knowing a little about it and the people that frequent it.  I must say, I expected a lot of very technical posts, but I’ve found what seems to be a community. However, it’s this freeform openness that makes me a little wary to participate at first.  (Kind of like when you walk into a party where you only know one or two people.) So, I ask any kindhearted souls to give me a few pointers about the NG, where it’s been, and what the consensus is about where it’s going.  After that, I think I may be more comfortable discussing my own experiences, sharing a few jokes, and going with the flow.  (Maybe "flow" isn’t the right word to use right now.)  :-) Thanks. Good morning!  :-) Larry

Response:

HA !!!   Another former New Yorker ,,  !  From what area did you hail from … If you say Long Island, then I can add it to the many of us with IBD that has drank the Long Island water !!! Love & Peace Maryjo

Response:

Connie Love & Peace Maryjo

Response:

HA !!!   Another former New Yorker ,,  !  From what area did you hail from … If you say Long Island, then I can add it to the many of us with IBD that has drank the Long Island water !!!

Yep, Long Island.  Between IBD and breast cancer, Long Island’s ready to fall back into the Atlantic. –L

Response:

Hi Larry, I live in Stafford, Virginia.  Originally from Upstate New York. Pam CD 2000

Response:

That is one of them, yes.  Sue, the ng founder, will post more info, I’m sure. I went to the website that someone posted earlier.  Answered some of my questions. Larry

The website has both FAQs for the newsgroup, the IBD FAQ, and the sadly outdated Information Resources FAQ.  Here’s a short "Welcome FAQ" I post whenever it seems needed or wanted or whenever the mood hits me. Welcome to alt.support.crohns-colitis!  Here are some important links to get you started, and the newsgroup charter to give you an idea of what we’re all about here: Want the FAQs, plus lots of other useful information about IBD and this newsgroup?  Check out these websites http://qurlyjoe.bu.edu/cduchome.html   AND http://ascc.healingwell.com Confused ’cause you’ve got mail from Gail?  Check out http://ascc.healingwell.com/info/gailfaq.htm And now (drumroll please) our charter: What is Alt.support.crohns-colitis? Alt.support.crohns-colitis was created in early 1994 as a forum where people suffering from ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s Disease, and irritable bowel syndrome can share their everyday struggles with these illnesses, as well as discuss medicines, treatments, surgery, diet, health care providers, related illnesses, and anything else anyone can think of that relates to these diseases.  In other words, this is the online equivalent of a support group, which means that no question is stupid and no condition embarrassing here.  It also means we’re all here to help each other out, so please be nice, be polite, and no flaming. Discussions of all types of medicine- conventional and alternative, Western and Eastern, your Aunt Harriet’s home remedies, whatever- are welcome here; however, any person discussing a potential remedy which he or she also sells must explicitly begin the "Subject" header of their post with the word "AD" or "ADVERTISEMENT" in all caps, regardless of whether or not they profit from such sales.  Spamming is expressly forbidden as violating the rules of netiquette as well as those of this newsgroup.  Finally, please keep in mind that no one knows what causes these illnesses, no one’s come up with a cure, and we need all the help we can get.

Response:

That is one of them, yes.  Sue, the ng founder, will post more info, I’m sure.  mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] There is a FAQ that is posted periodically, if you search the archives you can find it. I found an FAQ on here, but after quickly scanning the TOC, it looked like just an FAQ for IBD and related disorders.  Is this what you are talking about? Larry

Response:

That is one of them, yes.  Sue, the ng founder, will post more info, I’m

sure. I went to the website that someone posted earlier.  Answered some of my questions. Larry

Response:

That is one of them, yes.  Sue, the ng founder, will post more info, I’m sure. I went to the website that someone posted earlier.  Answered some of my questions. Larry

I’m not sure which website you went to, but there are two FAQ’s for this group at mine http://ascc.healingwell.com as well as the group charter. The group charter really has more info about the group per se, the FAQ’s are really about IBD and available resources; however, I also have a kind of informal rules for the group on the site as well. As with most newsgroups, there are NO hard and fast rules and it’s not like we could really enforce them unless someone gets so obnoxious that they can be reported to their ISP for violating terms of service. It’s really more a matter of common sense. We don’t mind questions — even if you think they’re silly or stupid; none of us was born with this knowledge and we’re happy to share what we do know with others. I hope this helps. steve (H) CD Class of ‘82 ASCC on the WWW: http://ascc.healingwell.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

How would you know if you were not here? Mike

LOL Navid

Response:

Mike We only mother hen cause we care !! Love & Peace Maryjo

Response:

Gee, Mike, I feel bad, no one ever posted a "where’s Connie" message about me!!! You don’t love me anymore.  Boo hoo  boo hooooooooo, boooo hoooo! Love & Peace, Connie

Response:

How would you know if you were not here? Mike Gee, Mike, I feel bad, no one ever posted a "where’s Connie" message about me!!! You don’t love me anymore.  Boo hoo  boo hooooooooo, boooo hoooo! Love & Peace, Connie

All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted. Copyright

Question:

My brother, 49, was diagnosed bronchial asthma 2 weeks ago for the first time in his life. He had only 2-3 light attacks which passed without taking any medicine. He has been treated with aminophyllin, bromhexin, calcium chloride, but no prednisolone. He feels better now, but once he had a collapse after an injection of calcium chloride. He likes to play tennis and jogs a few miles every morning. I think it is not good for his health. How could I help him?

Asthma is a chronic disease that needs regular drugs on a daily basis. The main long-acting asthma drug now is inhaled steroids, like Beconase, Flovent,Pulmicort. For short term relief, the bronchodilator inhaler Ventolin is normally prescribed. Sustained-release theophylline might also be prescribed, especially if cost is a big factor. The drugs you mentioned would be given by injection I think. Aminophylline is injectable theophylline. I don’t recognize the other 2 drugs as having anything to do with asthma. Usually asthma drugs are given by inhalation or orally, not by injection; except perhaps in extreme emergency. Sounds like he needs to find a better doctor who understands asthma. Many asthma drugs come from United Kingdom and Sweden, so I assume you have access to them. Exercise is good for asthmatics, in moderation. You could help him by learning more about asthma. If you have web access you could start by reading the asthma FAQs http://www.cs.unc.edu/~kupstas/FAQ.html Allergy & Asthma  FAQ kupstas http://www.cs.unc.edu/~kupstas/FAQ_web.html  Allergy and Asthma FAQ –  Other Web Sites http://www.radix.net/~mwg/asthma-gen.html  alt.support.asthma FAQ Ellis

Response:

My brother, 49, was diagnosed bronchial asthma 2 weeks ago for the first time in his life. He had only 2-3 light attacks which passed without taking any medicine. He has been treated with aminophyllin, bromhexin, calcium chloride, but no prednisolone. He feels better now, but once he had a collapse after an injection of calcium chloride. He likes to play tennis and jogs a few miles every morning. I think it is not good for his health. How could I help him?

Tell him to find another doctor!  I just did a Medline search and discovered that calcium chloride has _never_ been tested in humans. Aminophylin seems to be a drug similar to theophyline (my doctor says that he wouldn’t put his worst enemy on theophyline).  And I can find no reference for bromhexin. Have him find another doctor – preferably one who is an asthma specalist.

Response:

My brother, 49, was diagnosed bronchial asthma 2 weeks ago for the first time in his life. He had only 2-3 light attacks which passed without taking any medicine. He has been treated with aminophyllin, bromhexin, calcium chloride, but no prednisolone. He feels better now, but once he had a collapse after an injection of calcium chloride. He likes to play tennis and jogs a few miles every morning. I think it is not good for his health. How could I help him?

Response:

Question:

Probably sounds crazy to lots/most? of CD sufferers for some of us to be talking about laxatives … I was surprised/relieved to hear others had the same problem … inability to go regularly (or for days) instead of uncontrollable D. MOM’s is only thing I can tolerate.  Yes, it makes me a bit nauseous (SP?) and I usually gag drinking it, and my tum does the rumbling bit as it works its way through.  But like you, nadia, the other types give me bad cramping and pain. Can’t even take Citrucel anymore … Carla

Response:

you cant take citrucel anymore either?! my bm’s suddenly got so bad the only thing i could pass one with was a dulcolax suppository each time (which causes cramps of course). citrucel made it even worse.. this ends in a good way though, have you ever been on propulsid? i was on it a year ago so my stomach would empty faster or something but it didnt help. i just started taking it earlier this week and it’s been better than everything else. doesnt make me nauseous, doesnt give me cramps. it’s not perfect, i still feel kinf of like i cant get everything out – im passing small bm’s frequently, but i think it’s because i was taking colace with it. i stopped the colace yesterday, and today has been fine so far. it’s helped with my stomach being bloated as well… nadia.

Response:

do you find that the milk of magnesia makes you feel sick? i get pretty bad nausea.. and i get that rumbling bloating (i think im full of water) for a number of hours afterwards (untils everythig pours out the other end). nadia.

Response:

This is more or less a laxative—sort of tricky for us folks!   –JV

Response:

i just figure it makes me feel sick, but every other laxative on the shelf gives me cramps.. i guess i pick nausea over cramps most of the time. nadia.

Response:

My dr told me that a residual effect of chrohns was water retention in the gut.

Response:

I’m not on pred, and have times when I feel 6 mos pregnant (know you know how  we moms feel!) Bloatedness is fairly common side effect of CD.  The gas buildup, obstructions  and stool not moving through the colon … all adds up to a very full gut. I’m still trying to figure out how to best deal with it.  I avoid lots of gassy  foods (beans, fiber, SHOULD avoid dairy and fat — I limit them both, but  can’t cut them out) – you need to determine for yourself what foods bother  you.  I cut so much fiber oout, don’t know if that’s one reason I have trouble  keeping my colon moving; think it’s more cuz I have a significant narrowing in  my illeum and get partial(?) obstructions.  Take Milk of Magnesia (the  laxative doseage on bottle) and it helps move things along somewhat,  sometimes. Mostly, I just keep unbuckling the belt.

Response:

I had the same problem and thought it was the Prednisone. But since having an ileostomy 4 weeks ago, the bloating instantly disappeared. I’m still on the same dosage of Prednisone, so I think it was just the CD. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, anyone had problem with a bloated stomach which at times makes one look very fat? Any ideas how to get rid of this. My doctor says it’s exstenuated (spelling ?) stomach caused by Predislone, yet before my bowel retactions when I was on higher dosage of predislone, didn’t have the problem. Post or email reply. Thanks Phil

Response:

Question:

Can anyone tell me what the effects of long-term oxygen deprivation are, as in mild chronic untreated allergic asthma?  Also, short-term effects would be helpful.  Is there any long-term consequence to not treating mild chronic asthma? Thanks in advance, J. Burgess  

Response:

Can anyone tell me what the effects of long-term oxygen deprivation are, as in mild chronic untreated allergic asthma?  Also, short-term effects would be helpful.  Is there any long-term consequence to not treating mild chronic asthma? Thanks in advance, J. Burgess  

Dear J.Burgess, I can’t claim to be an expert on this, but my fiancee was a chronic and unstable asthmatic for many years. The effets I recognise as being directly linked to oxygen deficiency were: 1.     Clubbing of fingers and toes 2.     Confusion and mental "fog" 3.     Poor circulation, particularly to the extremeties Although I obviously don’t know your situation, I would encourage you to seek treatment, despite recieving the best available opinions and medications my fiancee died 3 weeks ago. Ian at

Response:

Question:

Yes, there is Please visit this site:  http://www.fwi.com/cmg/index.html Good luck Benito

Response:

I would disagree with the above.  But then I’ for over a year now.  Yes at first you lose weight because you cut out all carbohydrates and sugars.  But that levels after the first month when you can add a greater range of foods such as the nut muffins.  And, yes, anyone using nut muffins in the first few weeks would feel worse,  it is contrary to the diet.  For me this diet was the first thing that worked and is a life saver.  I still get problems from time to time but I’m so much improved. Perhaps it doesn’t work for everyone but I think a trail of the 1st month is worth a shot and is a lot less damaging than some of the meds out there. Amanda

I’m glad to hear the Gottshall diet has worked for some people.  I didn’t mean to imply that the diet wasn’t worth trying.  I’m a strong believer that what we eat affects our health and certainly the digestive tract. This diet at least attempts to use a biological basis rather than mumbo-jumbo.  Our timing and planning weren’t very good and so unfortunately we didn’t stick with the diet long enough to know if it would really help.  The meds scare the death out of us too and that’s why we’re looking for other means of treatment and healing. My comment about the cannon vs. a shotgun becomes clear when you consider, for instance, the treatment of celiac disease:  celiacs are gluten intolerant and need only cut out gluten containing foods (wheat, barley, rye, perhaps oats, and foods with gluten added).  So, the Gottschall diet would work for that as it cuts those things out, but it goes much, much further, which won’t make much difference for celiacs but is much harder to do in terms of eating & cooking. I should note that in my research on celiac disease I heard from 3 people who had various types and degrees of inflamation in the colon along with other symptoms, one of whom had been diagnosed with crohns many years before.  Once they went gluten free they healed and have been symptom free ever since.  Two were finally specifically diagnosed with celiac disease and went gluten free; the one diagnosed with crohns tried it on his own, and didn’t want to go back on gluten and chance the colitis returning just to get a definitive diagnosis.  My point is, these people had symptoms of colitis, crohns, etc., rather than or not just the "common" celiac disease symptoms, and yet they turned out to be celiacs.  A diet modification has them drug-free and symptom free. Given the large variation in celiac symptoms, I wonder how many other people with inflammatory bowel symptoms are incorrectly diagnosed?   You can learn more about celiac disease and gluten intolerance starting at The Gluten Free Page at http://www.panix.com/~donwiss/ Cindy "Madness takes its toll…please have exact change"

Response:

I’m confused.  People with Crohn’s and UC are allowed to eat nuts?  I thought that’s the ONE food none of us are supposed to eat, because nuts barely digest! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would disagree with the above.  But then I’ for over a year now.  Yes at first you lose weight because you cut out all carbohydrates and sugars.  But that levels after the first month when you can add a greater range of foods such as the nut muffins.  And, yes, anyone using nut muffins in the first few weeks would feel worse,  it is contrary to the diet.  For me this diet was the first thing that worked and is a life saver.  I still get problems from time to time but I’m so much improved.  Perhaps it doesn’t work for everyone but I think a trail of the 1st month is worth a shot and is a lot less damaging than some of the meds out there. Amanda Amanda I’m curious,do you have UC or Crohn’s? I’ve heard on the newsgroup that the SCD is more likely to work for Crohn’s. Also, did it take a whole month for you to start feeling improvement, or did you start feeling better sooner than that. Simon

write back to me!     / |  ’                                      (  )         0                               _/-, ,—-’                                    ====            //                                   /  -’~;    /~~~(O)              /  __/~|   /       |                   "Pleasant day, pretty sky, life goes on, things pass by. Not bad, not bad at all."                     -Snoopy from "You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown"

Response:

I would disagree with the above.  But then I’ for over a year now.  Yes at first you lose weight because you cut out all carbohydrates and sugars.  But that levels after the first month when you can add a greater range of foods such as the nut muffins.  And, yes, anyone using nut muffins in the first few weeks would feel worse,  it is contrary to the diet.  For me this diet was the first thing that worked and is a life saver.  I still get problems from time to time but I’m so much improved.  Perhaps it doesn’t work for everyone but I think a trail of the 1st month is worth a shot and is a lot less damaging than some of the meds out there. Amanda

Amanda I’m curious,do you have UC or Crohn’s? I’ve heard on the newsgroup that the SCD is more likely to work for Crohn’s. Also, did it take a whole month for you to start feeling improvement, or did you start feeling better sooner than that. Simon

Response:

Hi- I’m new to this newsgroup, so please bear with me.  What is the Gottschall diet? Is there a website address? Thanks:) K.

The Gottschall diet is outlined in the book "Breaking the Viscious Cycle: Intestinal health through Diet" by Elaine Gottschall.  It can be found in bookstores.  It purports to be a "Diet for crohns disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis and chronic diarrhea."  There is a website:   http://www.fwi.com/cmg/index.html.  We tried this diet for someone with inflamation in the colon, not diagnosed as actual crohns or u.c.  It’s very restrictive and we had a hard time finding enough to eat.  As the person kept losing weight and was in more pain than before, he canned it after 10 days.  We suspect he jumped into the middle of it too quickly, eating lots of nut muffins and so forth right away, but what else he could eat was unclear given that we’re vegetarians.  I think the diet has a reasonable biological basis, but is probaby a cannon where perhaps a shotgun might work (Don Wiss’s idea with which I agree).  Finding the right shotgun is the problem. Cindy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The Gottschall diet is outlined in the book "Breaking the Viscious Cycle: Intestinal health through Diet" by Elaine Gottschall.  It can be found in bookstores.  It purports to be a "Diet for crohns disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis and chronic diarrhea."  There is a website:   http://www.fwi.com/cmg/index.html.  We tried this diet for someone with inflamation in the colon, not diagnosed as actual crohns or u.c.  It’s very restrictive and we had a hard time finding enough to eat.  As the person kept losing weight and was in more pain than before, he canned it after 10 days.  We suspect he jumped into the middle of it too quickly, eating lots of nut muffins and so forth right away, but what else he could eat was unclear given that we’re vegetarians.  I think the diet has a reasonable biological basis, but is probaby a cannon where perhaps a shotgun might work (Don Wiss’s idea with which I agree).  Finding the right shotgun is the problem. Cindy

I would disagree with the above.  But then I’ve been on the Gotschall diet for over a year now.  Yes at first you lose weight because you cut out all carbohydrates and sugars.  But that levels after the first month when you can add a greater range of foods such as the nut muffins.  And, yes, anyone using nut muffins in the first few weeks would feel worse,  it is contrary to the diet.  For me this diet was the first thing that worked and is a life saver.  I still get problems from time to time but I’m so much improved.  Perhaps it doesn’t work for everyone but I think a trail of the 1st month is worth a shot and is a lot less damaging than some of the meds out there. Amanda

Response:

Hi- I’m new to this newsgroup, so please bear with me.  What is the Gottschall diet? Is there a website address? Thanks:) K.

The diet is described in a book by Elaine Gottshall, _Breaking the Viscious Cycle_. The results from following this very strict diet are mixed, based on reports in this newsgroup. There have been no controlled studies that prove its effectiveness.

Response:

I’m new to this newsgroup, so please bear with me.  What is the Gottschall diet? Is there a website address?

There are several web sites on the book. I have listed them in a paragraph on my web page. You will find them at:   http://www.panix.com/~donwiss/index.shtml#gott Don.

Response:

Hi- I’m new to this newsgroup, so please bear with me.  What is the Gottschall diet? Is there a website address? Thanks:) K.

Response: