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:

If you can access any of the older messages, you will see that some of the best threads are those started by wives.  So you are very welcome here. Sorry for the loss of your father.  When it rains, it pours. What is his Gleason score and stage? 1. Yes, I think most doctors will talk to patients with their wives present. 2. Besides surgery, radiation can also get rid of the cancer, even if it has spread.  See http://www.phoenix5.org/         Radiation has the same risks, but of course there are many, many sets of statistics on the outcomes. 3. If the lymph nodes are cancerous, the prostate gland is no longer the source of the cancer.  It is then in the lymphatic system, and/or the bones. So there is no point in removing the prostate gland. 4. This disease is not black and white.  When you see the doctor, you should ask him the actual probablity of cure and unwanted side effects with each treatment option.  Then, if he will do the treatment, ask how many times he has done the procedure, and what results his patients got.  If he is not doing the treatment, ask whoever will be doing it. Before treatment, people find it hard to follow the advice of us veterans here when we say stay calm, don’t panic, be optimistic, everything can turn out all right.  But do the best you can in that regard, it helps a lot. jimhoney Radical prostatectomy Apr 2002, cured, no after-effects

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

Hi, I see you have lots of advice there. Here’s my bit. I am 44 and diagnosed in Septembr last year with PSA of 3 and Gleason score 7. After extensive research I decided on a radical prostatectomy. Your husband’s PSA and mine are very close and the doctor said very high probability of cure. Had operation in December. Fully recovered from op now with no detectable PSA. I saw four urologists and a radiation specialist before deciding on treatment. Given my age (ie under 50) operation the only way to go (they were unanimous on that!) for long-term survival. Very glad I took that route. Best book I read (and I read a few) was Dr Patrick Walsh’s Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer). It is a hard road but there is a way though it. Do the research and find the best surgeon you can, who does nerve-sparing and does the operation often! All the best. Mark.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

Linda! The responses are overwhelming with love and concern.  You are in the right place.  I too panicked when I first learned of the diagnoses. As stated before, stay calm and educate yourself.

Response:

Linda, The first thing both you and your husband need to do is take a step back and relax. Sorry to hear about your dad, but this is probably adding to your worries re: your husband. NUMBER ONE- absolutely you should go with your husband on this and all visits if it’s agreeable to the both of you. I don’t know about anyone else but it sure seems like there were an awfull lot of tests ordered given his young age and relatively minor PSA level. What were his biopsy results ie. Gleason grades, Gleason score, number of positive cores etc? The more info you can provide the better advice those of us you have been through this can give. It should be comforting for you to see just how many of us there are on this an other forums that have "survived" and hopefully conquered this scary beast! SEE MY ANSWERS BELOW.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment.

YES GO WITH HIM. BE SURE HE EXPLAINS ALL OF THE PROS AND CONS OF ALL TREATMENTS. IF HE’S A URO HE’LL LEAN TOWARDS AN RRP. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread?

THERE ARE SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES. RADIATION, SEEDS, HORMONES AND A COUPLE OTHERS.IT WILL DEPEND ON WHETHER IT IS ORGAN CONFINED OR NOT. 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside.

THIS WAS BECAUSE IF THE CANCER HAS SPREAD OUTSIDE THE PROSTATE CAPSULE AND INVADED THE LYMPH NODES THAN YOU WON’T BE HELPED BY SURGERY. THIS WOULD BE AN UNDO PROCEDURE SINCE THE CANCER HAS ALREADY SPREAD. IN THIS CASE YOU WILL PROBABLY BE ADVISED TO PROCEED WITH HORMONES AND/OR RADIATION. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with?

IF YOU HAVE TIME DO A GOOGLE SEARCH RE: PROSTATE CANCER. YOU WILL FIND THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFO TO BE HAD ON THE INTERNET. REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A BATTLE AND YOU NEED ALL THE AMMO YOU CAN GET. BE SURE THAT IF YOU DECIDE ON THE SURGERY, IF THAT’S AN OPTION, THAT YOUR URO HAS DONE A LOT OF THEM, NUMBERING IN THE 100′S IF NOT 1000′S. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.YOUR HUSBAND IS STILL A YOUNG MAN AND NEEDS THE BEST SURGEON HE CAN FIND TO TRY AND PREVENT AS MUCH TROUBLE AS HE CAN. YOU BOTH ARE IN MY THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS, GEO WRITE BACK WITH ANY SPECIFIC ?? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

You and your husband will both be ok.  It sounds like he is in the early stages of PCa.  Education is so important.  Get a second and third opinion when all tests results come back.  Cooleyville.com, Phoenix5.com and my favorite, Protonbob.com are very excellent resources.   I am 58 and am almost finished with Proton Therapy at Loma Linda University Medical Center in the Los Angeles area.  I suggest that you read the pros and cons of all treatments inorder to make your own decision. Cooleyville.com will take you step by step and give you a host of questions to ask the Drs.  The men who write on this web site are vetrans of Pca and love to share their experiences with you.  Good Luck! Keith

Response:

Hi, Linda… Of course wives are welcome!  PCa affects your life, as well as that of your husband. I see you’ve gotten many replies, and all the suggestions for books and sites are already there.  I just wanted to say hello and to let you know that we are here for you as you go through this together.  Please believe those who say it’s not as bad as you might imagine.  If caught early, it can be cured and life goes on! Take care…. and please keep us posted! MikeH

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

Linda, Ok, let’s start at the beginning. When you say diagnosed with PC and begin to talk about bone scans, etc. – well, did he have a biopsy done? That should yield you a Gleason score and that is often the basis for a diagnosis of PC. They can’t do it based on PSA alone. The Gleason score will help weigh what can and cannot be done. There are several ways to deal with PC. Watchful Waiting: Whoever coined the term needs to be taken out and shot! Waiting for what? To die? Hormone Therapy: Actually what they do is block the production of hormones – used primarily on much older men or men whose cancer has escaped the prostate and this is one of the final defenses to slow the disease down. Radical Prostatectomy (RP): There are several forms of RP depending on how they access the site during surgery. It’s very efficient at removing contained cancer. Radiation Therapy: Lots of variations using RT. From radioactive seed implants to External Beam with lots of things in-between and combinations of RT. Loma Linda has some new cutting technology along with a just a few University hospitals also in on the project. Cryosurgery:  Which is not used much here in the USA but has gained a good reputation elsewhere in the world. Go to http://www.phoenix5.org It’s a great place to read all the general  and detailed information you will need about almost every aspect of PC. http://www.cooleyville.com/ Will give you more information on brachytherapy (seed implants) Forty-seven is very young for PC and it tends to be more aggressive in younger men than in older men. But you must realize that this cancer is not really that fast. Take enough time to educate yourselves on the various treatments. Talk to a radiation oncologist and to a urologist before you make a decision. Read the phoenix site first! It will help you to understand and ask better questions. The better you are informed the better you will understand what the doctors are telling you. Personally I’ve found most doctors to be very general until I asked a few hard questions. Then the tone changed and we got down to some nitty-gritty conversation. If the Gleason score was 7 or 8 you’ll have less time to play around looking for the perfect treatment. If it is a 6 then you have more time on your side. Just remember that RT and RP work. Most of the guys here have had RP’s and therefore are going to be very much in favor of RP as that is how they chose to treat their cancer. Just remember there is no perfect treatment and there are no guarantees. My husband chose brachytherapy and had some external beam with it. He was 55 at the time and turned 56 before treatment started. Statistically it is running neck and neck on the 10 year studies with RP in fact it is slightly better. (But the difference is insignificant.) The one thing I see is your husband’s age. After 30 years there is the possibility that he could develop a cancer from the radiation. That is why it is often not recommended for younger men. But it is a very treatable form of cancer. So they just start watching and testing for it after 20-25 years. I know exactly what you are going through right now. Every time I looked at my husband or put my arms around him I burst into tears. I did not want to lose him. I’ve also gone with my husband on every doctor’s visit. We made lists of questions and I kept notes on the answers. Made it easier afterwards when listening. Go right ahead and post! There are several wives out here. You may also email me privately if you wish. Bev

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

My PSA was 4.9.  I just spoke to my doctor not 20 minutes ago with these two questions: Q.  Do I need a bone scan or a CT scan? A.  Not unless PSA is 10 or higher. Q.  Do I need Doppler of leg veins before and after surgery. A.  No because you will be wearing some kind of pulsing stocking that keeps the blood flowing and avoids deep venous thrombosis. This was from Dr. Robert Smith at the Clark Urological Center at UCLA. I have no reason not to trust his answers.  He is very confident of a good outcome for me.  I am 65.   My wife accompanied me to my visit with Dr. Clark and was present during the digital rectal exam (DRE).  After he had done the exam, he then invited the medical student to examine me also.  When she had finished he then asked my wife if she wanted to try it.  She said had she known he was going to allow her to try it, she would have brought a pair of boots and try to place one up there.  The visit was very pleasant.  Dr. Smith asked me to call him at any time, which I have. On one occasion he actually answered the office phone, quite a surprise.  Of course, each situation will be different as will each doctor and each doctor will have his/her own protocol for doing things.  I offer my experience in order that you have a baseline from which to begin.   Chuck H.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. Absolutely and don’t wait for an invitation. Two listeners are always better than one. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? No treatment can guarantee complete elimination of cancer cells from

the body. The better you are able to understand the characteristics of this disease and the more you know about treatment options, the better off you’ll be. The key here is to take enough time to become well educated about PCa and then make the most informed decison given your particular circumstances and resources available to you. 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. Understand your concern about this, but hospitals all have a

protocol that’s based on a combination of their practical experience, research and other considerations – many of them related to patient’s managing the disease. Lymph node involvment is a clear indication of "systemic disease." Radical prostatectomy is most effective if the cancer is "localized" or confined to the prostate. One of the challenges facing patients is to make an informed decision as to whether the disease is localized or not. There are a number of tools available to help make this decision and there is a body of evidence to support it. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with?

You need three key pieces of information that comprise each patient’s "critical information" at diagnosis. The are: PSA at diagnosis Clinical staging based on the results of the digital rectal exam. This is expressed as "T1c, T2a …" Gleason score (GS) of the tissue taken at biopsy. It is alwys expressed as two numbers (3+3, 4+3, 3+4, 4+6, etc.) with the total not to exceed 10. It is an indication of the cancer’s agressiveness based on the tissue removed at biopsy. You should ask for a copy of the pathologist’s report and make arrangements to have a second review of the tissue made by a different medical group or other hospital not associated with the diagnosing doctor’s. Finally, go to your local bookstore and get a copy of Dr. Patrick Walsh’s book "Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer." It’s written for the layperson and is a very clear representation – something that will get you started on the road to understanding the complexities of this disease. Keep a clear head and be deliberate in your decision process. Also be prepared to be confused and don’t be surprised when you encounter what appears to be conflicting information about this disease. There is no one "best way" to manage PCa. Some approaches are more effective than others and every approach should be based on the individual patient’s staging, age, relative health and physical condition. Finally, talk to others who’ve also been down this road, Many have been in exactly the place you are now. Take time to understand and then act decisively. Bob Randolph Ann Arbor, MI dx’d age 53, bPSA 4.4, GS 7, CS T2a; RRP 9/98; undetectable PSAs since. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

Get a copy of Dr. Patrick Walsh’s, Guide To Surviving Prostate Cancer, it’s $16.95 soft cover, 462 pages, 6X9 inch format, it will answer your questions.  It’s a good book.  It will inform you about the surgery and radiation treatments, the pro’s and con’s of each.  I was diagnosed at age 59, I had the surgery on my 60th birthday, Dec 2, 02.  I’m now at 20 weeks post operation and doing just fine in all areas.  The surgery route if that’s what he chooses, careful selection of your doctor is important.  Be sure to ask him questions in your meeting.  Especally how many operations he does a year, more the better.  If you happen to be in the Minneapolis Minnesota area I can give you some names to start with.   Otherwise perhaps you know someone in your area who can recommend a doctor.  This was my biggest problem, knowing if I had a competent surgeon.  As it turned out I feel I had one of the best.   Given your husbands young age I would go with an aggressive treatment, but that depends on the stage of the ca.  What ever he does don’t let him wait and watch, treat it in some way, he is still too young to wait and watch. My doctor encouraged me to bring the family with to the consutation meeting.  I bet your doctor feels the same, this is a family affair. The surgery is not that bad.  I never had surgery before so I was quite jittery, but after all was said and done, not bad at all.  If he chooses this route, ask about it in more detail and there are many here who can give a detailed discription of the whole surgery before during and after.  If he chooses radiation ask, there many here who can give much information about that treatment. The lymph nodes were checked during my operation.  It’s standard operating procedure with my doctor to do that.  Chances are with the PSA at 4.1, the nodes will be clear, not a for sure though.  This is something you should discuss with your doctor. The doctor will go over the biopsy results, the Partin tables and his opinion as to what you should do to treat this.  I’m sure he will cover much more and of course be open to your questions. Dale J. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

hi linda – welcome to the club you don’t want to join.  now to answer your questions, but first take a deep breath, relax, and remember it isn’t a death sentence. question 1 – it is usually up to the patient if your want the S/O to be there.  the doctor doesn’t have a problem.  so talk with jim, does he want you there?  that may sound strange, but each person takes pca differently, and react differently. question 2 – there are other options than surgery.  that is what is so great.  we all have had different treatments and can bring to the ng, a wealth of information.  by the same, we each believe in the fact that our treatment was the best for us. there is no one treatment that is a cure-all.  research, research, research. do not jump into any quick treatment.  pca is slow growing. question 3 – your friend is right.  that is what they did to me last week.  the reason is to see if the cancer has spread.  they don’t remove any more than they have to.  use to, when a woman had breast cancer – OFF it comes.  the whole breast.  now, they only take what is involved. this is no different. question 4 – there are many, many questions, but just as you have made your post, you are so involved with the situation that you didn’t said, what gleason score he has, or the stage he is.  all of this brings certain questions to light when talking with the doctor. linda, you are not the only wife here, right, bev, heather, beth, carolyn? what i have to offer you is this,  jim is going to be around for a long, long time.  he ain’t planning to leave anytime soon.  buy yourself a copy of dr. walsh’s book – guild to surviving prostate cancer – isbn 0-446-67914-3   pca is beatable and we have the folks here to back it up.  so, pour yourself a cup of java and relax,  welcome  ~ curtis  - 7 days post RP knowledge is power – growing old is mandatory – growing wise is optional

Response:

I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again.

   Sounds like me, except I was 59 when diagnosed.  You are on the right track, going to the internet.  Check out the Phoenix prostate cancer site. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment.

   Yes, definitely.  It is a good idea to go with him. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread?

   Radiation can get rid of the cancer, if it has not spread.  The main side-effects are similar but take six months to two years to appear.  I had both surgery and radiation.  My continence was gone for about six months, came back, and has gone again… 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside.

 Once a cancer cell has escaped and taken up residence elsewhere, it becomes all the source that is needed.  Some physicians take out the prostate anyway in order to reduce the tumor load and thus perhaps slow progression a bit. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with?

    Who is going to do the surgery?  How much experience has he had?  What is his  success rate?  And of course, is there any sign of metastasis?  With a PSA of only 4.1 it is unlikely that it has spread, but still remotely possible.      My surgery was 727 days ago…. it was not a success, my PSA is 14 and going up…    The biopsy results should include a Gleason Score.  3 + 3 would be encouraging, 5 + 5 would be terrifying.    Hormones can stop prostate cancer in its tracks for two to five years, roughly.  Chemotheropy held it for another four, for one of my friends.  Some gene therapy is coming up that may actually make you "immune" to the cancer, although my physician is on the team developing it and says the hype is a bit overdone… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again. We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Some specific questions: 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread? 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with? Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Response:

  I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just   diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today. Well, you certainly are in for some rough times ahead, but if experience is any guide, it won’t be nearly as bad as you fear.     He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the   hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread. You should let us know the other results of the biopsy such as Gleason score.  Also, did the doctor feel anything on digital rectal examination?     Thursday we are supposed to see the doctor again.     We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this   diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two   days before the diagnosis of the cancer. Take some comfort in the fact that prostate cancer is relatively slow growing.  Your husband is almost certainly in no immediate danger of dying.  And, depending on the diagnosis, there is a good chance he can be cured completely with relatively little in the way of side effects. Many people find Patrick Walsh’s book "Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer" a good source of information, although some dislike his emphasis on surgery.   www.phoenix5.org is a good web site to start at for information.     Some specific questions:     1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a   consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment. Very likely.     2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects,   what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t   spread? If the cancer is thought to be still confined to the prostate or at worst to the area around the prostate, there are basically two methods of treatment aimed at curing the disease: surgery and radiation.  Each method has variations.  The most common surgery is radical prostatectomy and, if feasible, the nerve sparing variation designed to preserve potency.  Radiation may either be external using powerful, well focused Xrays or other forms of radiation or internal through implantation of radioactive seeds.  Sometimes both external and internal radiation are combined.  Often young men like your husband are advised to choose surgery because the current very effective methods of using radiation having been around long enough to evaluate their success for periods of 15 or 20 years or more.  But you should study all the alternatives, and realizing there are no certainties in any of this, choose the best alternative for him.   Often the choice of practitioner may be more important than the choice of treatment method.     3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when   they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has   spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving   the source of the cancer inside. If the cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, most likely it has spread to distant sites.  If that is the case, even though the cancer may take a long time to develop further, aggressive treatment of the prostate won’t cure the disease.  So doctors may be reluctant to take even the relatively low risk of serious side effects from aggressive treatment of the local cancer.   In some cases, however, doctors may choose to remove the prostate just for the reasons you envision, even though it won’t cure the disease.  In most cases of early prostate cancer, the cancer has not spread to distant sites.  One way to estimate its likelihood is use of the so-called Partin Tables.     4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should   we hope to leave there with? If the doctor proposes to do surgery, you should find out his track record on cases similar to your husband’s.  Normally you should expect that he should have performed hundreds of such surgeries and does many each year.  If you get Walsh’s book, which you should be able to find at any good library or booksotre, you will find a list of questions to ask the doctor about surgery.     Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my   hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. A couple of other points.  First, prostate cancer is a complex disease, and what applied to some other man may be irrelevant for your husband. You have to avoid comparing apples and oranges.  Second, don’t be scared off by the side effects of treatment.   Such side effects include incontinence and impotence and sometimes for radiation bowel problems.    But these side effects are less common than is normally thought to be the case, and in particular they are much less common in younger men. In the great majority of cases, if they occur, they can be treated. I know most about surgery, so let me comment on that.  With a good surgeon, serious long term incontinence is quite rare, a few percent at most.  Long term impotence is more common, but still with a good surgeon may occur less than 30 percent of the time in men under 50.  Even when it does occur, it can be treated and does not usually mean the end of a satisfying sex life.     Linda   Pennsylvania Good luck, and feel free to ask other questions. — Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Response:

I’m writing because I’m the bigger internet user, but my hubby was just diagnosed with prostate cancer exactly two weeks ago today.

You’re not the only one here whose husbands would prefer to leave the typing to the wife.  Personally, I didn’t even start lurking here, let alone typing, until months after my surgery. Welcome aboard, though neither you or we wanted you in the ‘club.’ He is only 47, his PSA level was 4.1.  Last Wednesday, he was sent to the hospital for bone scans, CT scans, and blood work to see if it has spread.

The good news is that at 4.1 they found it really fast (mine was 16 at 46 years).  Bone and CT scans are absolutely normal.  There is very little likelihood that they will find anything, which clears him for radical prostatectomy (RP), the only real treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) in a 47-year-old.  Since he was "diagnosed", I assume there was a biopsy.  We will need the numbers from the biopsy to give you our best unmedical opinion.  The most important ones are Gleason Score (which will look like 3+3 = 6 or 3+4 = 7) and Stage (which will look like T1a, T2c, etc). We desperately need any and all input and advice.  We never even imagined this diagnosis.  I am a total wreck, compounded by the fact that my father died two days before the diagnosis of the cancer.

The best advise everyone here will concur with is to learn as much about it as possible even though you only have several weeks to do so.  First, purchase Dr. Patrick Walsh’s "Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer" and read it.  Both of you need to read it.  Also check out www.phoenix5.org, a non-profit website created and managed by a man going through the latter stages of PCa. 1)  Thursday-can I go with Jim to the doctor?  I presume this will just be a consultation-type visit, to get the test results and discuss treatment.

Yes!  I cannot imagine a doctor not wanting the wife to be there.  The decision he and you make may save his life and may end his ability to have unassisted erections.  Both will have as great or greater effect on you. You will be told that there are often very few options for PCa, but at your husband’s young age there is only one.  You will also be told about nerve-sparing and the possibility that your husband’s nerves might be spared and what risk.  Nerves are essential for erections. 2)  Although I realize the surgery is nasty, and can have undesirable effects, what other treatment can actually get rid of the cancer, provided it hasn’t spread?

None.  For older men, radiation, radioactive seeds, and/or what and wait are sometimes viable options.  For a 47-year-old, there is only one — take it out. 3)  A friend of ours just had this surgery last year.  He was told that when they open you up, they test the lymph nodes first, and if the cancer has spread, they just close you up.  Why would they do this?  They’re just leaving the source of the cancer inside.

The reason is that if it gets into the lymph nodes, then it is already traveling around the body.  Most experts believe that taking the prostate at that point is just a whole lot of surgery and sexual function lost for nothing.  Some docs only check the lymph nodes if the Gleason Score is above 6.  Some docs will let you decide if the prostate should still come out if lymph nodes are effected. 4)  What questions should be ask the doctor Thursday, what information should we hope to leave there with?

What was the free PSA score? What was the Gleason score? What was the Stage? Does the surgeon do nerve sparing? How many such surgeries has the doc done? How successful has he been in nerve sparing? But, get the book and read the first 7 chapters (200 pages) before your doctor’s visit.  Then read Chapters 8, 10, and 11 any time after the visit and before the operation. Thanks so much…I hope you all don’t mind a wife posting here.  I love my hubby dearly and want him around for a long, long time. Linda Pennsylvania

Don’t give it a second thought, Linda.  This disease effects men and wives (and the occasional girlfriend) equally and there is no one hear that doesn’t know it. — Steve Kramer PSA 16 10/17/2000 Dx 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75 Radiation MAY – JUL 2002 PSA  .34  .22  .15  .21

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – UK Experts: Continue Hrt Trial, Despite US Results Reuters Health By Richard Woodman Friday, July 19, 2002 You are about a week behind Peter. TDN  report this last week. LONDON (Reuters Health) – British scientists recommended on Friday that a major trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involving up to 22,000 women continue despite a US study that showed the therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, stroke, blood clots and heart disease. Wonder how much Brit scientists were paid to continue the study?? And where will they find guinea pig women who will take a chance with their health to continue?? Jan And the health benefits of not taking HRT?

That’s what started the discussion. http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/13/estrogen.htm Bombshell — Major Premarin Trial Halted One of the largest and best-designed federal studies of hormone replacement therapy was halted because women taking the hormones after menopause had a greater risk of: Breast cancer, Heart attack, Stroke and Blood clots than those who did not take the drugs. The trial, which was to last for 8.5 years, was halted to continue till 2005 because of a significant increase in the risk of invasive breast cancer. More than 6 million women in the US currently take estrogen and progestin (Prempro) combination therapy for a variety of reasons, including relief of hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms. This has significant implications, however on Premarin was introduced in 1942. It was the most-prescribed drug in America each year from 1992 through 1999 and perhaps the most prescribed drug ever. Last year Premarin generated more than $2 billion in sales for Wyeth. Please recognize that the progestin drug used in this study is not the same as human progesterone, but a synthetic derivative of the natural female hormone progesterone. Progestin can actually kill a fetus if taken when the woman is pregnant. The only reason it is used the drug companies have a patent on it and can make more money than the safer natural progesterone. The confusion about estrogen is that it actually raises levels of HDL (or "good") cholesterol in women, which is often considered one of the reasons that a woman’s risk of heart disease is low prior to menopause. For years, HRT was widely believed to reduce the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, but recent studies have failed to document any protective effects. The hope–and the hype of the drug companies–has been that estrogen would also confer a reduced risk of heart disease. The study suggests the exact opposite though, in that when women take the drugs for more than about 5 years, the risks of the hormones clearly outweigh the benefits. The trial involved over 16,000 women aged 50 to 79 who still had their uterus. Such women are given a combination of estrogen and progestin, because estrogen alone can promote cancer in the lining of the uterus. The new findings do not apply to the health effects of estrogen alone, which is being looked at in a separate study by researchers at the NHLBI. The findings support the recent American Heart Association recommendations that postmenopausal women should not take hormone therapy to lower their risk for heart disease. Interestingly this study comes right on the heels of another full text article that was published the week earlier in JAMA, which showed the similar negative findings regarding estrogen and heart disease The original Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) study found that women taking hormone therapy were up to three times more likely to develop blood clots than those taking a placebo. Hormone therapy was also associated with a higher risk of gallbladder disease surgery in the study. Together, the findings argue that hormone replacement therapy should not be recommended for postmenopausal women with heart disease. JAMA July 17, 2002;288:321-333 (Free Full Text Article) —— DR. MERCOLA’S COMMENT: E-mail to a friend   Any physician who still believes estrogen reduces a woman’s risk for heart disease, should have his license suspended. Evidence to the contrary has been published in some of the most widely circulated, peer-reviewed journals for the last four years. The study published this week is as critical as that published in NEJM in 1975 showing unopposed estrogen increased the risk of uterine cancer. The drug companies easily got around that issue by adding synthetic progestin to estrogen in an attempt to reduce that risk. They were able to circumvent the marketing dilemma and eventually made Premarin the number one consumer drug for nearly a decade. I can understand how a physician, and certainly the consumer, would be confused on this issue. Twenty years ago, I was too. In 1984 I was completing my residency and eventually did an additional year of postgraduate training were I compiled a preventive medicine review which focused on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since I was fresh out of medical school, and freshly brain washed with the drug model, I was convinced that estrogen was one of the best things since sliced bread. I developed a lecture series about how beneficial estrogen was for preventing disease. I became a speaker for Wyeth in the mid 80s, and they actually paid me to fly around the country lecturing to physician groups about the benefits of estrogen for osteoporosis and heart disease. Since then, a large number of studies demonstrating how dangerous estrogen is have been done. However, the drug companies knew this for many years. There was a clear deception foisted upon us by the drug companies so they could sell their hormone replacements. They were quite successful. Premarin has become almost synonymous with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Premarin was introduced in 1942, long before synthetic alternatives existed. It was the most prescribed drug in America each year from 1992 through 1999; perhaps the most prescribed drug ever. It generated more than $2 billion in sales for Wyeth last year alone. Wyeth tried to preserve its market share. I was one of the physicians who received the "Dear Doctor" letters from Wyeth. The letter urged physicians to consider talking to patients about the "critical role" that one of its products, Prempro, has in relieving the symptoms of menopause. However, the letter couldn’t hide the facts. Estrogen increases your risk of breast cancer and heart disease. It makes no sense for any woman not surrering from menopausal hot flashes to be on it. Even with hot flashes, estrogen should only be used as last resort, and even then the lowest dose human forms of estrogen would be far preferred to Premarin. Related Articles: Hormone Treatment in Older Women Questioned Premarin Fails to Benefit Bones, So Let’s Use Fosamax Instead??? Hormone Replacement Therapy When Is It Necessary? Hormone Replacement Does Not Reduce Heart Disease Premarin Does Not Reduce Heart Disease or Alzheimer’s Now It Is Official: Estrogen Does Not Benefit Women’s Hearts ——

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – UK Experts: Continue Hrt Trial, Despite US Results Reuters Health By Richard Woodman Friday, July 19, 2002 You are about a week behind Peter. TDN  report this last week. LONDON (Reuters Health) – British scientists recommended on Friday that a major trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involving up to 22,000 women continue despite a US study that showed the therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, stroke, blood clots and heart disease. Wonder how much Brit scientists were paid to continue the study?? And where will they find guinea pig women who will take a chance with their health to continue?? Jan

And the health benefits of not taking HRT?

Response:

UK Experts: Continue Hrt Trial, Despite US Results Reuters Health By Richard Woodman Friday, July 19, 2002

You are about a week behind Peter. TDN  report this last week. LONDON (Reuters Health) – British scientists recommended on Friday that a major trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involving up to 22,000 women continue despite a US study that showed the therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, stroke, blood clots and heart disease.

Wonder how much Brit scientists were paid to continue the study?? And where will they find guinea pig women who will take a chance with their health to continue?? Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The American Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial of 16,000 women taking combined HRT was stopped earlier this month after early analysis showed the therapy raised the risk of strokes, heart attacks and breast cancer. While the risk to the individual user was small, the treatment would cause 8 additional cases of breast cancer, 7 heart attacks, 8 strokes, and 18 clots in 10,000 women taking oestrogen/progestin for one year compared with nonusers. The same group of women would have 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures than women not taking HRT, the findings indicate. Britain’s Medical Research Council said the committee in charge of the WISDOM trial believed there were "no strong ethical or scientific reasons to stop the trial" and that there were "still important questions about the balance of risks and benefits from taking HRT long-term that have not yet been answered". The committee was advised by the trial’s independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee that as long as women volunteering for the trial were fully informed of all the known risks and benefits of HRT, including the results of the Women’s Health Initiative, the study should continue. The recommendation will be considered next week by the MRC’s governing body, which will decide on the future of the trial. WISDOM–which stands for the Women’s International Study of Long Duration Oestrogen after Menopause–began in 1999 and has already recruited 5,000 British women. Eventually over 16,000 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 69, in the UK and a further 6,000 from Australia and New Zealand will be involved. The ?20 million study, which is not due to end until 2012, is trying to find out if HRT lowers or increases the chances of developing diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, breast cancer, osteoporosis and dementia. HRT can either be oestrogen alone (typically given to women who have had a hysterectomy) or oestrogen combined with progestogen. Professor Rory Collins, chair of the Trial Steering Committee, said: "I’ll be briefing the MRC’s Council on Wednesday. In the meantime, GPs and patients already involved in the trial were sent letters yesterday advising them of the recommendation to continue and the reasons for doing so. "The WISDOM study aims to answer important questions about the long-term risks and benefits of taking HRT and the results of the study could provide important information for generations of women to come. "It’s vital that women already involved in the study are informed of all the known risks and benefits associated with taking HRT, including the new results from the WHI study. "Until revised information has been prepared, and the MRC Council has made a decision, further women will not be recruited into the trial. But I hope very much that the women currently in the trial will wish to stay in it and that many more women will join in the future." The MRC said that the trial steering committee believed there were still uncertainties about the effects of HRT on vascular disease and on different types of cancer. "Questions also remain about the effects of HRT on dementia, cognitive decline, arthritis and other conditions that have a major impact on morbidity in later life. "The committee believes the increased number of breast cancers seen with HRT in the WHI study remains a relatively low risk. The committee also believes there are still questions over the size of any effects on heart disease, stroke, colorectal and other cancers." — P Moran

Response:

UK Experts: Continue Hrt Trial, Despite US Results Reuters Health By Richard Woodman Friday, July 19, 2002 LONDON (Reuters Health) – British scientists recommended on Friday that a major trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involving up to 22,000 women continue despite a US study that showed the therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, stroke, blood clots and heart disease. The American Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial of 16,000 women taking combined HRT was stopped earlier this month after early analysis showed the therapy raised the risk of strokes, heart attacks and breast cancer. While the risk to the individual user was small, the treatment would cause 8 additional cases of breast cancer, 7 heart attacks, 8 strokes, and 18 clots in 10,000 women taking oestrogen/progestin for one year compared with nonusers. The same group of women would have 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures than women not taking HRT, the findings indicate. Britain’s Medical Research Council said the committee in charge of the WISDOM trial believed there were "no strong ethical or scientific reasons to stop the trial" and that there were "still important questions about the balance of risks and benefits from taking HRT long-term that have not yet been answered". The committee was advised by the trial’s independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee that as long as women volunteering for the trial were fully informed of all the known risks and benefits of HRT, including the results of the Women’s Health Initiative, the study should continue. The recommendation will be considered next week by the MRC’s governing body, which will decide on the future of the trial. WISDOM–which stands for the Women’s International Study of Long Duration Oestrogen after Menopause–began in 1999 and has already recruited 5,000 British women. Eventually over 16,000 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 69, in the UK and a further 6,000 from Australia and New Zealand will be involved. The ?20 million study, which is not due to end until 2012, is trying to find out if HRT lowers or increases the chances of developing diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, breast cancer, osteoporosis and dementia. HRT can either be oestrogen alone (typically given to women who have had a hysterectomy) or oestrogen combined with progestogen. Professor Rory Collins, chair of the Trial Steering Committee, said: "I’ll be briefing the MRC’s Council on Wednesday. In the meantime, GPs and patients already involved in the trial were sent letters yesterday advising them of the recommendation to continue and the reasons for doing so. "The WISDOM study aims to answer important questions about the long-term risks and benefits of taking HRT and the results of the study could provide important information for generations of women to come. "It’s vital that women already involved in the study are informed of all the known risks and benefits associated with taking HRT, including the new results from the WHI study. "Until revised information has been prepared, and the MRC Council has made a decision, further women will not be recruited into the trial. But I hope very much that the women currently in the trial will wish to stay in it and that many more women will join in the future." The MRC said that the trial steering committee believed there were still uncertainties about the effects of HRT on vascular disease and on different types of cancer. "Questions also remain about the effects of HRT on dementia, cognitive decline, arthritis and other conditions that have a major impact on morbidity in later life. "The committee believes the increased number of breast cancers seen with HRT in the WHI study remains a relatively low risk. The committee also believes there are still questions over the size of any effects on heart disease, stroke, colorectal and other cancers." — P Moran

Response:

Question:

My dogs are family.  Period.  So I can relate to how concerned you are. Sounds like you would have noticed if this had been there a while.  I have had both males and females neutered/spayed, and the surgery for males is by far a lot less complicated than spaying a female.  I agree with one of the other postings.  If it is cancer, you will have to put him under again to remove it.  Putting dogs under is still the biggest risk.  We had a 12-year old with serious heart problems and she needed to have her teeth cleaned and after consulting with a veterinary cardiologist, we decided to go ahead and do it, because gum disease would only make her heart valve problems worse. I am happy to say that she came through it like a trooper and lived a happy and relatively healthy additional two years, despite the heart disease. Surgery is always a difficult decision.  But, remember, there is so much more that vets can do for our dogs medically than even a few years ago.  If it is cancer, and it hasn’t spread, he stands a good chance of losing a part of his anatomy, but going on to live a good life.  If you have to put him under for a biopsy anyway, I would try and get as much done as I could to minimize the risk of the anesthetic.  I would opt for the neutering, but that is just my opinion.  Good luck.  These are not easy decision when we love these guys as much as we do. Please keep us posted. Cynthia – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all: This past thursday night I noticed a marble sized lump on my 11.5 year old German Shepherd type (dunno if full GSD or not, found him in a dumpster at 6 weeks or so of age) dogs testicles. I immediately took him to the vet Friday morning. The lump actually feels just like a marble. it is hard, but at least it does not seem to be any bigger than what we can see. I really can’t believe it has been there long as the dog always precedes me up the stairs from the garage when I get home from work and I think I would have noticed it. This dog is more than a dog to me. He has his own room, health insurance, etc. After I’d had him a couple of years I even quit flying on business trips and started driving so I could take him with me. We’ve been all over the US together. I am saying all this to explain my feelings for this dog far exceed those for my wife even. (well, ex actually heheh) But really, he is the most important "person" in my life and he is treated as such. Anyway, he is going in for surgery first thing Monday morning. What I am undecided about, is the vet suggested I may want to neuter him. I said I really didn’t want to do that but that I did want to do what is best for him. I just don’t know what that is. It would seem to me that neutering an 11.5 year old animal is more than minor surgery. On the other hand, if the lump is not a benign lump, would neutering help remove the cancerous cells? The vet is going to check his prostate also while he is under and call me immediately with the result of the test. At that point I have to decide what to do. WHAT DO I DO? I guess if he in fact does have prostate problems I should go ahead and have it done. But what if he doesn’t? They won’t know if the lump is cancerous until after the operation is over. Thats one reason I want to know if neutering would even help if it was in fact cancerous. I’m no expert on health issues. I wish I was. I don’t want to find out later I made the wrong decision for my best friend. So anyone with vet training or anyone that has had a similar experience please reply. Thanks

Response:

It would seem to me that neutering an 11.5 year old animal is more than minor surgery. On the other hand, if the lump is not a benign lump, would neutering help remove the cancerous cells?

It’s obvious that you love your dog very much and I’m sorry that you’re having to go through this. Your vet is quite right to get him into surgery ASAP–testicular cancer is common in older intact male dogs, I’m afraid. The good news is, if the lump is cancerous, neutering will be curative as long as the cancer hasn’t spread yet. If he were my dog, I wouldn’t be messing around with a biopsy or trying to remove the lump–neutering him quick is the best chance to prevent it from spreading. Neutering really *is* minor surgery, even for an 11.5-year-old. The only increased risk for adult dogs that you might want to be aware of is that sometimes they will experience some bleeding into the scrotum afterwards (it’s happened to 2 boys I had neutered as adults). This is uncomfortable for them, but not a real problem, and it resolves on its own. You might also ask your vet about the advisability of having chest xrays done. Many kinds of cancer metastacize to the lungs first–a clear chest xray isn’t a guarantee that a tumor hasn’t spread, but if something does show up on the xray you’d at least have more information about what’s going on. Good luck, and keep us posted, OK? Dianne

Response:

Hi all: This past thursday night I noticed a marble sized lump on my 11.5 year old German Shepherd type (dunno if full GSD or not, found him in a dumpster at 6 weeks or so of age) dogs testicles. I immediately took him to the vet Friday morning. The lump actually feels just like a marble. it is hard, but at least it does not seem to be any bigger than what we can see. I really can’t believe it has been there long as the dog always precedes me up the stairs from the garage when I get home from work and I think I would have noticed it. This dog is more than a dog to me. He has his own room, health insurance, etc. After I’d had him a couple of years I even quit flying on business trips and started driving so I could take him with me. We’ve been all over the US together. I am saying all this to explain my feelings for this dog far exceed those for my wife even. (well, ex actually heheh) But really, he is the most important "person" in my life and he is treated as such. Anyway, he is going in for surgery first thing Monday morning. What I am undecided about, is the vet suggested I may want to neuter him. I said I really didn’t want to do that but that I did want to do what is best for him. I just don’t know what that is. It would seem to me that neutering an 11.5 year old animal is more than minor surgery. On the other hand, if the lump is not a benign lump, would neutering help remove the cancerous cells? The vet is going to check his prostate also while he is under and call me immediately with the result of the test. At that point I have to decide what to do. WHAT DO I DO? I guess if he in fact does have prostate problems I should go ahead and have it done. But what if he doesn’t? They won’t know if the lump is cancerous until after the operation is over. Thats one reason I want to know if neutering would even help if it was in fact cancerous. I’m no expert on health issues. I wish I was. I don’t want to find out later I made the wrong decision for my best friend. So anyone with vet training or anyone that has had a similar experience please reply. Thanks

Response:

I must stae I am not a vet, and have had a simliar experience to yours though.  It envolved my then 15 yr old.  She is a small spitz/poodle cross. She was having a continuous estrus, and the only recommendation was a spay. I was really worried about her,and they couldn’t tell me that YES, the is cancer, or that it was just a hormonal change.  However, I did agree to the operation.  After the pathology came back there was some abnormalities. Could be early canacerous, but they were not sure.  My old girl went through the surgery fine, and I was glad I had okayed it.  She is almost 17 and still enjoying life. Nuetering is less complicated than a spay procedure. I can’t tell you WHAT you should do.  I do know that if the cells are abnormal, or cancerous then your dog will have to go under again to have testicals removed…  I would side with the vet on having the nueter done while he is out.  It usually doesn’t take long, and this way you and your dog won’t have to go through another surgery, and if anything cancerous or abnormal is detected then you won’t have waited, it would hopefully be gone with nueter. Hope your baby is fine.   I understand how you feel about him, as my pets are my children.  Let me know what you decide and how things go. Take Care, B – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health Hi all: This past thursday night I noticed a marble sized lump on my 11.5 year old German Shepherd type (dunno if full GSD or not, found him in a dumpster at 6 weeks or so of age) dogs testicles. I immediately took him to the vet Friday morning. The lump actually feels just like a marble. it is hard, but at least it does not seem to be any bigger than what we can see. I really can’t believe it has been there long as the dog always precedes me up the stairs from the garage when I get home from work and I think I would have noticed it. portion removed from text I’m no expert on health issues. I wish I was. I don’t want to find out later I made the wrong decision for my best friend. So anyone with vet training or anyone that has had a similar experience please reply. Thanks

Response:

Question:

Response to Homeopathic Help-Leigh[?      I have suffered w/ SLE for at least 15yrs. I know when I take some herbals I feel better sometimes than when I do not. Unfortuanetly I have mant Drs. who have not seen the light[?]  I am tired of the now 20 [and never-ending] additions of prescription medicenes that I must take daily for an over-whelming medical conditions that I have on top of the SLE.        Is Herbal the same as Homeopathic??   And can you list anyones that have helped you feel better w/pain and also give you more energy I am so tired of the revolving door at the pharmacy for my 3-4 times a week trips to pick up medications!!!! I am quite[sp] aware that no matter what I will still have to take some of these for the rest of my life. But when it comes down the line I still feel alot of the time awful.        Thank you in advance for replys. [?]

Response:

This is a direct resonse to Sandra’s email.  Get real, if I wanted to sell something, I would have included my doctor’s name and phone number.  What do you think I’m plugging, Poisen Oak?  Fact is, and the specialists agree, homeopathic remedies are quite powerful and can provide great relief when modern medicine cannot.  There are also no side efffects to homeopathic remedies… a far cry from the prescription drugs.  This wasn’t quite the welcome I expected at this website…  I am just someone who has suffered a lot trying to help someone else so maybe they won’t suffer as long as I have.  My doctors’ do feel there is a correlation between my improving blood tests and the homeopathic treatment.  What are your credentials and why would you insist otherwise?  Are you a lupus sufferer?  Have you ever tried homeopathy?  My first visit was three months ago and I doubted that it would work.  I’m happy to say it has; atleast for now.  Maybe if people were a little more open minded, they would be willing to try some alternative medicine. In article <20001003172056.10760.00000…@ng-ct1.aol.com

,

  scroyle…@aol.com (SCroyle909) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Sorry, but this really sounds like an ad to try to sell something–

bad form for

a newgroup. BTW, there is little correlation between the ANA titer and the

severity of

lupus symptoms.  A decreased ANA is no sign that either lupus or a

lupus-like

syndrome has gotten any better.  To know that, you’d have to look at

some other

disease markers such as sed rate, C-reactive protein, complements,

anti-dsDNA

and so on.  Furthermore, a positive ANA in itself isn’t diagnostic of

lupus.

It’s common to many autoimmune diseases and even occurs in some

perfectly

healthy people. Sandra

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

Response:

I have a few questions: Here’s the scenario: I have had chronic Achilles tendonitis in both feet for 4 years.  I have had 3 surgeries because they thought that bone deformities under the tendon was causing the tendonitis.  Nothing has helped.  I have a rash on my face that was identified as Cutaneous Lupus that I use cultivate cream topically to control.  I don’t tan in the sun I get a rash.  I had a ANA that read 1:640 (normal is 1:80) an elevated Sed rate of 43.  Negative Anti DNA.  Has any one ever heard of Lupus causing tendonitis.  I have my first appointment with a Rheumatoiogist on Wed.  Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA?  How high is high for an ANA?  I appreciate any information. Cinde

Response:

Hey My ANA is lower than yours I have no increased sed rate and no other abnormal labs, but my rheumy has diagnosed me with undifferental connective tissue disease, which is a diagnoses that puts you into the catagory of having an auto immune disease but means they don’t know which one. I also have at least 4 of the 11 criteria used to diagnose true lupus so because of that and being unspecifically diagnosed I myself just hang in here on the internet with all the lupies. Lupus in a connective tissue disease and your whole body is made up of that, it is possible the lupus is responsible for the tendonitis in you achilles tendon, and yes you can still have lupus with a neg anti DNA you have the two big ones the elevated ANA and the increased sed rate. I wish my lab work would change and make this thing easier for them to diagnose. If you need anything else just yell. You can e-mail me if you would like. HoneysuckleR

Response:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:37:12 -0700, you wrote:

I have a few questions: Here’s the scenario: I have had chronic Achilles tendonitis in both feet for 4 years.  I have had 3 surgeries because they thought that bone deformities under the tendon was causing the tendonitis.  Nothing has helped.  I have a rash on my face that was identified as Cutaneous Lupus that I use cultivate cream topically to control.  I don’t tan in the sun I get a rash.  I had a ANA that read 1:640 (normal is 1:80)

1:640 is significant – though it isn’t specific for SLE – it would make most docs suspicious.  1:320 or less is typically considered a *possible* false positive.  Most docs will take 1:640 or higher more seriously.  Still, it could be some *other* autoimmune condition that is similar to SLE.  As Honeysuckle suggested, a dx of "UCTD" is not unusual under circumstances where not enough of the criteria or met or the more heavily weighted criteria are not met (anti-dsDNA, very high ANA, anti-Sm, etc.)

an elevated Sed rate of 43.  Negative Anti DNA.  Has any one ever heard of Lupus causing tendonitis.  

I have bad tendonitis in my left hip and have had for almost 2 years. Extremely painful at times with no detectable bone deformity or other problems.  I am told it is the Fibromyalgia that is causing this – but after doing all the "right things" – gentle exercise daily, stretching, and so on, it has not gone away.  I have doubts that it is a result of the FMS and believe that the connective tissue disease is probably the culprit.  But can’t and won’t try to talk my doctor into that. Still, FMS is often seen in tandem with autoimmune diseases so it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that this might be the cause in you or me.  

I have my first appointment with a Rheumatoiogist on Wed.  Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA?  

Absolutely.  Anti-dsDNA is highly specific for lupus – however there are some 30% or more lupus patients who never have measurable anti-dsDNA.  Doctors who rely on this test alone to diagnose are negligent IMO – however, there are benefits to not getting a diagnosis as long as you are getting proper treatment.  I do not have a diagnosis but I am treated like a lupus patient by my doctor.  She calls it "lupus-like rheumatism".

How high is high for an ANA?  

Theoretically, ANAs can be in the 1:Millions.  Though I think that is extremely rarely,  if ever, seen.  But "high" would be probably around 1:2560 (7 dilutions) or higher.  Moderate would be 1:640 – 1:1280. 1:80 is typically viewed as a false positive or negligible at best. Though as with anti-dsDNA, if there are other significant symptoms than a high ANA is not necessary for a diagnosis (though preferred). something like 90% of all lupus patients will have a positive ANA – but I don’t know what percentage of those would be above the 1:320 mark (4 dilutions).  All doctors choose their own weighting system on this and while some would view 7 dilutions as quite high, another might not.  It would be wise to ask the rheumatologist what he/she thinks in that regard.  What does he/she consider "high". Still, ANA levels are only sometimes relevant to disease activity and a small percentage of patients have no detectable ANAs.  ANAs titre can also decrease considerably and even "go negative" after treatment with standard lupus meds or during remissions.  Also, repeated positive ANAs, even in the low range, can sometimes result in a dx. HTH, *********************************** KCat http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/mypage.htm http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/aslfaq20.htm   ("`-”-/").___..–”"`-._   (`6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.’`)    (_Y_.)’  ._   )  `._ `. “-..-”   _..`–’_..-_/  /–’_.’ ,’ (()),-”  (()),’    (((.-’

Response:

One of my first symptoms was tendonitis, along with plantar facicitis. I  am a negative ANA (10:40) , sed. rate elevated +44, blood in urine, still awaiting AntiDNA, Ro/So.  Should be getting back my Rhum. Factor tomarrow, all these tests, so much fun! Dunno if this helped any…

Response:

I am a newbie here and just learning to use MSN’s Newsgroups so I hope this is the correct way to thank all of you for the information you have provided.  As you can probably tell from my screen name I am an RN but I specialize in critical care.  We don’t see much autoimmune disease there so much of this is new to me.  I knew that my questions would be answered knowledgeably in this forum.  I can’t get questions answered this straight from Doctors.   I am impressed with your understanding of these diseases. You have helped educate me so that I will not be totally ignorant when I see the Rheumatiologist Wed.  I will post then and tell you all what happened. Again I thank each one of you for taking the time to help me. Cinde "SCroyle909" <scroyle…@aol.com

wrote in message

news:20001001202707.26156.00000146@ng-fb1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

<< Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA? About 50% of people with lupus have a negative anti-DNA.  ANA is the one

for

which most people with lupus test positive (about 95%). << How high is high for an ANA?   1:640 is moderately high…high enough that doctors generally wouldn’t

think

there was a possibility of a false positive.  Sky high readings can be in

the

thousands.  My daughter’s ANA was only 1:160 when she was diagnosed. Sandra

Response:

<< Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA?

About 50% of people with lupus have a negative anti-DNA.  ANA is the one for which most people with lupus test positive (about 95%). << How high is high for an ANA?  

1:640 is moderately high…high enough that doctors generally wouldn’t think there was a possibility of a false positive.  Sky high readings can be in the thousands.  My daughter’s ANA was only 1:160 when she was diagnosed.   Sandra

Response:

My rheumatologist told me that the antiDNA test is specific for Lupus and that there are no false positives.  The only problem with a positive ANA is that it does not necessarily mean a dx of Lupus.  I’m not sure of the statistic of approx 95% of Lupus patients having a +ANA.  I need to do more research, as I’m still learning. "SCroyle909" <scroyle…@aol.com

wrote in message

news:20001001202707.26156.00000146@ng-fb1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

<< Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA? About 50% of people with lupus have a negative anti-DNA.  ANA is the one

for

which most people with lupus test positive (about 95%). << How high is high for an ANA?   1:640 is moderately high…high enough that doctors generally wouldn’t

think

there was a possibility of a false positive.  Sky high readings can be in

the

thousands.  My daughter’s ANA was only 1:160 when she was diagnosed. Sandra

Response:

Thanks for the information.  I’m going to go to Amazon and look for those books.  My ANA was somewhat elevated 9 years ago but the Dr just said that it wasn’t high enough to mean anything.  I had gone to see him after I had been in the sun and had a red rash and swelling on both legs. He told me to stay out of the sun.  But being in the sun was unusual for me….I have avoided it for years because I burn and get cold sores (herpes simplex) flare ups on my mouth and nose.  In 1997 I was hurting everywhere and could hardly move.  This was really rough because my husband has a spinal cord injury and is in a wheelchair.  I am the legs of the family and I do a lot of lifting.  I went to the new Dr my HMO sent me too.  I mentioned the ANA from before and she said, "You don’t have anything like lupus"  I have always had a weight problem and she said the problem was from arthritis from being overweight. She gave me a Medrol Dose Pack and it helped temporarily. I had xrays that confirmed osteoarthrits and degeneration in my hip and low back.  But I could never figure out how pain in non weight bearing joints could be from being overweight.  My wrists hurt a lot and sometimes I can’t find a comfortable place to put them so I can sleep.  The Achilles Tendonitis started 8 weeks after my 20 year old son was killed in a car accident.  First one foot, then 2 years later the other.  I continued to work 12 hour shifts in pain.  I have just learned to live with it. I work in ICU so I am able to limit long walks because I spend my entire shift next to my patient’s bed and all the supplies I need are at the bedside.   At home I am so tired and I am very careful to "save my steps" as I call it, and only walk when necessary. I was given a shot of a steroid into the tendons first and was pain free for about 4 days, once it wore off the pain returned.(they can only give you 1 shot in the Achilles because it weakens the tendon and it can rupture) I had the last surgery (both feet) in Jun. and have been unable to return to work. The area over the incisions is hard, swollen and painful so I can’t wear regular shoes.  I wear slip-on shoes.  I keep gaining weight because I can’t walk.  Prior to my son’s accident I walked 3 miles a day.      My sister has been diagnosed with "Lupus Like Syndrome"  She gets pericarditis.  She had been treated for costal condritis for years. They gave her Darvocette.  They even gave her tranquilizers and told her it was tension.  The only thing that ever helped her was when they would give in and give her a steroid. The only problem she would have to endure pain in her chest and shoulders for a few weeks and miss work before they would finally give in.  On one visit to the ER (after many, many) another patient was getting an Echocardiogram,  the Dr grabed the machine and looked at her heart for the hell of it.  Sure enough her heart was inflamed and rubbing against the wall of her chest.  They did all of the tests and told her she had Lupus….gave her prednisone.  4 years later her HMO changed, she was undiagnosed….they took her steroids (she takes them only for flare ups) and spent $5000 on tests to find out what she had. She had a flare up and they refused to give her a steroid.  She missed 6 weeks of work and spent it in pain.  In the end they told her she has Lupus like Syndrome, gave her back her prednisone prn…put her on Plaquinil and she has only had a few minor flare ups since (1 1/2 years).     I certainly have a lot to learn about this. Thanks for your help. Cinde – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"CinderellaRN" <Cinderell…@email.msn.com

wrote in message news:… I am a newbie here and just learning to use MSN’s Newsgroups so I hope

this

is the correct way to thank all of you for the information you have provided.  As you can probably tell from my screen name I am an RN but I specialize in critical care.  We don’t see much autoimmune disease there

so

much of this is new to me.  I knew that my questions would be answered knowledgeably in this forum.  I can’t get questions answered this straight from Doctors.   I am impressed with your understanding of these diseases. You have helped educate me so that I will not be totally ignorant when I

see

the Rheumatiologist Wed.  I will post then and tell you all what happened. Again I thank each one of you for taking the time to help me. Cinde "SCroyle909" <scroyle…@aol.com wrote in message news:20001001202707.26156.00000146@ng-fb1.aol.com… << Can you still have Lupus with a negative Anti DNA? About 50% of people with lupus have a negative anti-DNA.  ANA is the one for which most people with lupus test positive (about 95%). << How high is high for an ANA?   1:640 is moderately high…high enough that doctors generally wouldn’t think there was a possibility of a false positive.  Sky high readings can be

in

the thousands.  My daughter’s ANA was only 1:160 when she was diagnosed. Sandra

Response:

Sorry, but this really sounds like an ad to try to sell something–bad form for a newgroup.   BTW, there is little correlation between the ANA titer and the severity of lupus symptoms.  A decreased ANA is no sign that either lupus or a lupus-like syndrome has gotten any better.  To know that, you’d have to look at some other disease markers such as sed rate, C-reactive protein, complements, anti-dsDNA and so on.  Furthermore, a positive ANA in itself isn’t diagnostic of lupus. It’s common to many autoimmune diseases and even occurs in some perfectly healthy people. Sandra

Response:

In article <8rjah9$75…@nnrp1.deja.com

, leigh2…@my-deja.com wrote: This is a direct resonse to Sandra’s email.  Get real, if I wanted to sell something, I would have included my doctor’s name and phone number.  What do you think I’m plugging, Poisen Oak?  Fact is, and the specialists agree, homeopathic remedies are quite powerful and can provide great relief when modern medicine cannot.  There are also no side efffects to homeopathic remedies… a far cry from the prescription drugs.

Define "specialists" and point to actual, scientific documentation underscoring the ability of homeopathic remedies to significantly decrease disease activity. Indeed, homeopathic remedies can be quite powerful and alas VERY foolish to believe that they carry no side-effects. (ex: Gingko and high BP, St john’s and photosensitivty, Kava Kava and CNS therapy). This ofcourse will never be brought to the consumer’s attention by the company since homeopathy, at least here in Canada, is not regulated.

This wasn’t quite the welcome I expected at this website…  I am just someone who has suffered a lot trying to help someone else so maybe they won’t suffer as long as I have.  My doctors’ do feel there is a correlation between my improving blood tests and the homeopathic treatment.  What are your credentials and why would you insist otherwise?  Are you a lupus sufferer?  Have you ever tried homeopathy?  My first visit was three months ago and I doubted that it would work.  I’m happy to say it has; atleast for now.  Maybe if people were a little more open minded, they would be willing to try some alternative medicine.

I’m elated that you feel better through homeopathy but this does not give you carte blanche to attack those that question your motives and ,from what I read in Sandra’s response, point to an erroneous connection that improved blood results equals decreased disease activity. Open-mindedness does not mean blind acceptance. I will bet the farm that most in this NG have tried alternative treatments of various forms and if you feel that you’re welcome here was laden with suspicion it should clearly tell you that they too have gone through painful ordeals. On this note, I wish you nothing but painless and sunny days Frank – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <20001003172056.10760.00000…@ng-ct1.aol.com,  scroyle…@aol.com (SCroyle909) wrote: Sorry, but this really sounds like an ad to try to sell something– bad form for a newgroup. BTW, there is little correlation between the ANA titer and the severity of lupus symptoms.  A decreased ANA is no sign that either lupus or a lupus-like syndrome has gotten any better.  To know that, you’d have to look at some other disease markers such as sed rate, C-reactive protein, complements, anti-dsDNA and so on.  Furthermore, a positive ANA in itself isn’t diagnostic of lupus. It’s common to many autoimmune diseases and even occurs in some perfectly healthy people. Sandra Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy

— increase temperature to hot before emailing

Response:

It’s true that ANA is not specific for lupus.  It’s commonly positive in a wide range of autoimmune disorders, as well as a few normal individuals.  The reason it’s used as a screening test for lupus is that approximately 95% with lupus test positive for it.  The number a few years ago was more around 90%; however, the test has been greatly improved since then (at least in most labs…testing methods can vary) and has greater sensitivity.   As for anti-dsDNA, it is indeed very specific for lupus.  About half the people with lupus will test positive for it.  They usually run this after a symptomatic individual has a positive ANA.  If it comes back positive, it usually confirms lupus.  It’s been thought in the past that the presence of anti-dsDNA meant a much greater likelihood for major organ damage (esp. kidney).  However, not everyone positive for anti-dsDNA will have major organ problems.  Conversely, not everyone negative for it has an easier disease course or escapes major organ damage.  Still, as far as I know, very high levels of anti-dsDNA usually do mean major organ damage, especially if accompanied by low complement (C3, C4) levels.   Sandra

Response:

I also suffered from Fibromyalgia like symptoms on and off for 5 years.  I have gotten pretty close to getting a Lupus diagnosis; but not quite. My ANA was at 1:640 and I was feeling absolutely terrible – arthritis and morning stiffness was unbelievable.  I thought I wouldn’t be able to get out of bed in the morning.  I tried regular medincine and nothing worked well enough to make me want to risk the side effects.  I went to a great homeopathic doctor who reviewed my case and began researching a ‘remedy’ for me.  The day after I took my remedy, I improved 500%!  It was absolutely amazing.  I have continued on the remedy (taken once a month) for the last three months and am feeling so much better.  My ANA has dropped to 1:80.  Only once in a while do I feel arthritic; usually after exercising.  The remedy I am taking is Poison Oak.  Now my dr. says this is not a remedy for everyone and that each person needs to be studied individually.  He would not treat every patient with mixed connective tissue or Lupus with this.  I was a sceptic when I first went; but it only took one dose and one day, and I’m a believer.  My primary care physician and the rheumatologists in Philadelphia are all amazed over the power of homeopathic medicine. In article <5f5ftsc8i3j26ajd1525kpmk2vhi3t7…@4ax.com

,

  KCat <kcdoc…@ghg.net

wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:37:12 -0700, you wrote: I have a few questions: Here’s the scenario: I have had chronic Achilles tendonitis in both

feet for 4 years.  I have had

3 surgeries because they thought that bone

deformities under the tendon was

causing the tendonitis.  Nothing has helped.

I have a rash on my face that

was identified as Cutaneous Lupus that I use

cultivate cream topically to

control.  I don’t tan in the sun I get a

rash.  I had a ANA that read 1:640

(normal is 1:80) 1:640 is significant – though it isn’t specific

for SLE – it would

make most docs suspicious.  1:320 or less is

typically considered a

*possible* false positive.  Most docs will take

1:640 or higher more

seriously.  Still, it could be some *other*

autoimmune condition that

is similar to SLE.  As Honeysuckle suggested, a

dx of "UCTD" is not

unusual under circumstances where not enough of

the criteria or met or

the more heavily weighted criteria are not met

(anti-dsDNA, very high

ANA, anti-Sm, etc.) an elevated Sed rate of 43.  Negative Anti

DNA.  Has any one ever heard of

Lupus causing tendonitis. I have bad tendonitis in my left hip and have

had for almost 2 years.

Extremely painful at times with no detectable

bone deformity or other

problems.  I am told it is the Fibromyalgia

that is causing this – but

after doing all the "right things" – gentle

exercise daily,

stretching, and so on, it has not gone away.  I

have doubts that it is

a result of the FMS and believe that the

connective tissue disease is

probably the culprit.  But can’t and won’t try

to talk my doctor into

that. Still, FMS is often seen in tandem with

autoimmune diseases so it

isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that this

might be the cause in

you or me. I have my first appointment with a

Rheumatoiogist

on Wed.  Can you still have Lupus with a

negative Anti DNA?

Absolutely.  Anti-dsDNA is highly specific for

lupus – however there

are some 30% or more lupus patients who never

have measurable

anti-dsDNA.  Doctors who rely on this test

alone to diagnose are

negligent IMO – however, there are benefits to

not getting a diagnosis

as long as you are getting proper treatment.  I

do not have a

diagnosis but I am treated like a lupus patient

by my doctor.  She

calls it "lupus-like rheumatism". How high is high for an ANA? Theoretically, ANAs can be in the 1:Millions.

Though I think that is

extremely rarely,  if ever, seen.  But "high"

would be probably around

1:2560 (7 dilutions) or higher.  Moderate would

be 1:640 – 1:1280.

1:80 is typically viewed as a false positive or

negligible at best.

Though as with anti-dsDNA, if there are other

significant symptoms

than a high ANA is not necessary for a

diagnosis (though preferred).

something like 90% of all lupus patients will

have a positive ANA -

but I don’t know what percentage of those would

be above the 1:320

mark (4 dilutions).  All doctors choose their

own weighting system on

this and while some would view 7 dilutions as

quite high, another

might not.  It would be wise to ask the

rheumatologist what he/she

thinks in that regard.  What does he/she

consider "high".

Still, ANA levels are only sometimes relevant

to disease activity and

a small percentage of patients have no

detectable ANAs.  ANAs titre

can also decrease considerably and even "go

negative" after treatment

with standard lupus meds or during remissions.

Also, repeated

positive ANAs, even in the low range, can

sometimes result in a dx.

HTH, *********************************** KCat http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/mypage.htm http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/aslfaq20.htm   ("`-”-/").___..–”"`-._   (`6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.’`)    (_Y_.)’  ._   )  `._ `. “-..-”   _..`–’_..-_/  /–’_.’ ,’ (()),-”  (()),’    (((.-’

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

Response:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:43:12 -0700, you wrote:

But being in the sun was unusual for me….I have avoided it for years because I burn and get cold sores (herpes simplex) flare ups on my mouth and nose.

Actually, these may not be herpes at all – anything that can trigger a lupus flare can trigger nasal and oral ulcers. (doesn’t happen to everyone but is quite common)

I have always had a weight problem and she said the problem was from arthritis from being overweight.

rrrrrghhh.

The Achilles Tendonitis started 8 weeks after my 20 year old son was killed in a car accident.  

I’m very sorry, I can’t imagine your pain.

unable to return to work. The area over the incisions is hard, swollen and painful so I can’t wear regular shoes.  

If there is autoimmune disease, surgery can sometimes make certain conditions worse or trigger flares.

I wear slip-on shoes.  I keep gaining weight because I can’t walk.  

You might consider Bed Top Yoga (www.stretch.com) – it is very gentle and the deep breathing can improve your metabolism supposedly (I have benefitted greatly from it overall)

    My sister has been diagnosed with "Lupus Like Syndrome"  

ahhhhhhhh… aka – Hell without a Label.  (sorry, KCat is not a happy camper today)

against the wall of her chest.  They did all of the tests and told her she had Lupus….gave her prednisone.  4 years later her HMO changed, she was undiagnosed….they took her steroids (she takes them only for flare ups) and spent $5000 on tests to find out what she had. She had a flare up and they refused to give her a steroid.  She missed 6 weeks of work and spent it in pain.  In the end they told her she has Lupus like Syndrome, gave her back her prednisone prn…put her on Plaquinil and she has only had a few minor flare ups since (1 1/2 years).

wow..  what a mess.  

   I certainly have a lot to learn about this. Thanks for your help.

We are all continuously learning – as are the doctors and researchers – so it’s a never-ending effort.   Best wishes, *********************************** KCat http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/mypage.htm http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/aslfaq20.htm   ("`-”-/").___..–”"`-._   (`6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.’`)    (_Y_.)’  ._   )  `._ `. “-..-”   _..`–’_..-_/  /–’_.’ ,’ (()),-”  (()),’    (((.-’

Response:

Question:

the breeder where I got my cat recommends Nutro  the first ingredient is not poultry by products as Science Diet is. You should also try to avoid cat foods with yellow corn added cats will have a problem digesting or may be allergic to that .

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

I have a 13 yr old that has been deemed cured from cancer. During the whole time he was on chemo he was on SD or Iams. I stick with SD now, as I find less piles of puke with it. <G he has been fed one of those two foods for most of his life, as have my other cats. Diane Diane http://www.74ghia.com

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

There’s a cat in my neighborhood that is 19 years old and in good health that  eats the cheapest cat food the owners can find. The cat also eats mice, shrews, birds, table scraps and, when possible, raids the dog’s food bowl. If you’d fed your cat only Science Diet up to about 20 years ago, your cat would have suffered the consequences (often fatal) of a taurine difficiency. My conclusion is that you really can’t trust your cats longterm health to any one brand or type or production-run of cat food. The ingredients and processing involved in the manufacture of cat food assures that some (or several) micronutrients are going to be lost, and untested compounds will be added or formed. Eventually, after numerous reports of health problems, the industry figures out the problem. Feed your cat a diverse diet and let the premium cat food true-believers be the guinea pig.     RH — to email–delete * (asterik) in address

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills.

My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

Response:

I know three people that fed their pets Science Diet and each of their pets died of cancer before the age of 8. Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. Why would any sane person feed their pets known carcinogens — Science Diet contains just that.  I feed my cats Flynt River and they’re both extremely healthy at 12 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Before you buy.

Response:

Greetings, I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food?

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Response:

I’ve had no luck with Science Diet even with the Vet selling it and suggesting it. My cats don’t like the taste, there is a lot of corn in it and my cats sometimes throw it up. I did some research on my own and am going to try Nutro Max. It has meat in it and the cats love it! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver  cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats.

Well, considering practically everything out there causes cancer in mice, I’m not going to worry too much about it then. Has anyone gotten proof that it for sure causes kidney failure in cats however? If so, then why haven’t breeders, the ASPCA and vets come out against it. A small organized effort against the manufacturors with a guarantee of REALLY bad publicity (you are deliberatly killing our animals) will see their stocks plummet and their shareholders storming the gates. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food.

Well considering my one cat prefers his food REALLY well dead (ugh! He likes to stash half the mice until they ripen!), I’ve found cats don’t care a lot of times what goes in their food, tho Mister has been stalking emus again! Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate

Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. In the meantime, we’ll start experimenting with Science diet and Iams to see which works better (she can’t have anything with lamb in it. It isn’t pretty, I didn’t know that color can come out of a cat!). Jean C  "To lose confidence in on’es body is to lose confidence in oneself"    Simone de Beauvoir http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

There are much better foods than Science Diet, and if your cat has chronic diarrhea, you may be dealing with IBD or a food allergy, and Science Diet has quite a bit of corn, which wouldn’t be good for either one of these problems. What foods have you tried so far? There is an excellent food designed for cats with food sensitivities called California Natural that might help you. If you go to http://www.naturapet.com , there is a dealer locater that will help you find a place near you that sells it. Megan

Response:

You might want to do a search in Deja.com covering the last year or so. There’s been a lot of discussion about cat food ingredients and what’s good nutrition and not.  I’ve avoided Science Diet because of the high level of corn and the use of chemical preservatives.   But, as a last resort, after trying several of the so-called higher fiber diets such as Iams light and Nature’s Recipe light with no results, we’re using Science Diet R/D for two cats who need to lose a few pounds, and it’s working.  As soon as they’re done to a better weight, I’ll try stabilizing them on a non-prescription, more natural commercial food.  The shelter we volunteer also uses Science Diet (does the company donate as a publicity move?), and I’ve seen great results from the R/D with some very overweight cats. Susan L.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

Everything I’ve ever heard is Science Diet is OK…that’s what we feed our cats.  We find that the coats are healthier, they recover from disease/surgery/fights/other wounds quicker, and just appear to be in better health than the "cheaper" foods. The IAMS food is also good, if you don’t want to try Science Diet.  IAMS gave one of our cats the runs.  I’ve also heard excellent things about (forgive my spelling) Eukanuba.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

Response:

I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

the breeder where I got my cat recommends Nutro  the first ingredient is not poultry by products as Science Diet is. You should also try to avoid cat foods with yellow corn added cats will have a problem digesting or may be allergic to that .

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

I have a 13 yr old that has been deemed cured from cancer. During the whole time he was on chemo he was on SD or Iams. I stick with SD now, as I find less piles of puke with it. <G he has been fed one of those two foods for most of his life, as have my other cats. Diane Diane http://www.74ghia.com

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

There’s a cat in my neighborhood that is 19 years old and in good health that  eats the cheapest cat food the owners can find. The cat also eats mice, shrews, birds, table scraps and, when possible, raids the dog’s food bowl. If you’d fed your cat only Science Diet up to about 20 years ago, your cat would have suffered the consequences (often fatal) of a taurine difficiency. My conclusion is that you really can’t trust your cats longterm health to any one brand or type or production-run of cat food. The ingredients and processing involved in the manufacture of cat food assures that some (or several) micronutrients are going to be lost, and untested compounds will be added or formed. Eventually, after numerous reports of health problems, the industry figures out the problem. Feed your cat a diverse diet and let the premium cat food true-believers be the guinea pig.     RH — to email–delete * (asterik) in address

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills.

My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

Response:

I know three people that fed their pets Science Diet and each of their pets died of cancer before the age of 8. Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. Why would any sane person feed their pets known carcinogens — Science Diet contains just that.  I feed my cats Flynt River and they’re both extremely healthy at 12 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Before you buy.

Response:

Greetings, I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food?

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Response:

I’ve had no luck with Science Diet even with the Vet selling it and suggesting it. My cats don’t like the taste, there is a lot of corn in it and my cats sometimes throw it up. I did some research on my own and am going to try Nutro Max. It has meat in it and the cats love it! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver  cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats.

Well, considering practically everything out there causes cancer in mice, I’m not going to worry too much about it then. Has anyone gotten proof that it for sure causes kidney failure in cats however? If so, then why haven’t breeders, the ASPCA and vets come out against it. A small organized effort against the manufacturors with a guarantee of REALLY bad publicity (you are deliberatly killing our animals) will see their stocks plummet and their shareholders storming the gates. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food.

Well considering my one cat prefers his food REALLY well dead (ugh! He likes to stash half the mice until they ripen!), I’ve found cats don’t care a lot of times what goes in their food, tho Mister has been stalking emus again! Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate

Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. In the meantime, we’ll start experimenting with Science diet and Iams to see which works better (she can’t have anything with lamb in it. It isn’t pretty, I didn’t know that color can come out of a cat!). Jean C  "To lose confidence in on’es body is to lose confidence in oneself"    Simone de Beauvoir http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

There are much better foods than Science Diet, and if your cat has chronic diarrhea, you may be dealing with IBD or a food allergy, and Science Diet has quite a bit of corn, which wouldn’t be good for either one of these problems. What foods have you tried so far? There is an excellent food designed for cats with food sensitivities called California Natural that might help you. If you go to http://www.naturapet.com , there is a dealer locater that will help you find a place near you that sells it. Megan

Response:

You might want to do a search in Deja.com covering the last year or so. There’s been a lot of discussion about cat food ingredients and what’s good nutrition and not.  I’ve avoided Science Diet because of the high level of corn and the use of chemical preservatives.   But, as a last resort, after trying several of the so-called higher fiber diets such as Iams light and Nature’s Recipe light with no results, we’re using Science Diet R/D for two cats who need to lose a few pounds, and it’s working.  As soon as they’re done to a better weight, I’ll try stabilizing them on a non-prescription, more natural commercial food.  The shelter we volunteer also uses Science Diet (does the company donate as a publicity move?), and I’ve seen great results from the R/D with some very overweight cats. Susan L.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

Everything I’ve ever heard is Science Diet is OK…that’s what we feed our cats.  We find that the coats are healthier, they recover from disease/surgery/fights/other wounds quicker, and just appear to be in better health than the "cheaper" foods. The IAMS food is also good, if you don’t want to try Science Diet.  IAMS gave one of our cats the runs.  I’ve also heard excellent things about (forgive my spelling) Eukanuba.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

Response:

I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

the breeder where I got my cat recommends Nutro  the first ingredient is not poultry by products as Science Diet is. You should also try to avoid cat foods with yellow corn added cats will have a problem digesting or may be allergic to that .

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

I have a 13 yr old that has been deemed cured from cancer. During the whole time he was on chemo he was on SD or Iams. I stick with SD now, as I find less piles of puke with it. <G he has been fed one of those two foods for most of his life, as have my other cats. Diane Diane http://www.74ghia.com

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

There’s a cat in my neighborhood that is 19 years old and in good health that  eats the cheapest cat food the owners can find. The cat also eats mice, shrews, birds, table scraps and, when possible, raids the dog’s food bowl. If you’d fed your cat only Science Diet up to about 20 years ago, your cat would have suffered the consequences (often fatal) of a taurine difficiency. My conclusion is that you really can’t trust your cats longterm health to any one brand or type or production-run of cat food. The ingredients and processing involved in the manufacture of cat food assures that some (or several) micronutrients are going to be lost, and untested compounds will be added or formed. Eventually, after numerous reports of health problems, the industry figures out the problem. Feed your cat a diverse diet and let the premium cat food true-believers be the guinea pig.     RH — to email–delete * (asterik) in address

Response:

Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills.

My oldest cat is 11 years old, and going strong. She has always been fed Science Diet, and has never had ANY health problems.  The only time she has been to the vet is for annual shots and check ups.

Response:

I know three people that fed their pets Science Diet and each of their pets died of cancer before the age of 8. Personally, I think many vets like recommending foods that keep you coming back to them only to receive huge medical bills. Why would any sane person feed their pets known carcinogens — Science Diet contains just that.  I feed my cats Flynt River and they’re both extremely healthy at 12 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Before you buy.

Response:

Greetings, I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food?

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Hello, I have been feeding Science Diet Feline Maintenance to my house cats for about 3 years. They have all done really well on it, one has had cronic bladder problems and the maint. helps to neutralize his pH without medication or prescription food. Maintenance is 100% better than anything you can buy at a grogery store, but I know there are some naturally preserved foods that are just as good or better. You have to give it to Hills for doing the research, they (and Iams) have the only formulas that are labeled with exactly what is in the bag, and the ingredients are consistently the same in every bag. The preservatives are known carcinogens in larger quantities, but I have seen many, many cats eating Science Diet that live to a ripe old age without any real health problems. Melissa JeanC wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C

Response:

I’ve had no luck with Science Diet even with the Vet selling it and suggesting it. My cats don’t like the taste, there is a lot of corn in it and my cats sometimes throw it up. I did some research on my own and am going to try Nutro Max. It has meat in it and the cats love it! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet <   Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food. Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate —— "Panta cwrei, oudei menei." "Everything flows and nothing stays." (Heraclitus)

Response:

Ethoxyquin or some chemical like that is said to be in Science Diet. Don’t know for certain as we’ve never bought it. It’s been linked with health probs. It’s a preservative, that it’s claimed been found to cause liver  cancer in mice, and kidney failure in small animals, such as cats.

Well, considering practically everything out there causes cancer in mice, I’m not going to worry too much about it then. Has anyone gotten proof that it for sure causes kidney failure in cats however? If so, then why haven’t breeders, the ASPCA and vets come out against it. A small organized effort against the manufacturors with a guarantee of REALLY bad publicity (you are deliberatly killing our animals) will see their stocks plummet and their shareholders storming the gates. Have a look at www.api4animals.org where you might be quite surprised to learn what some people claim is in commercial cat food.

Well considering my one cat prefers his food REALLY well dead (ugh! He likes to stash half the mice until they ripen!), I’ve found cats don’t care a lot of times what goes in their food, tho Mister has been stalking emus again! Also think Phil P has posted some articles at http://maxshouse.com Or you could try http://www.altnews.com.au/nexus/Petfood.html There’s lots of info on the web about this issue; you can then make up your own mind … and feed accordingly Regards Kate

Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. In the meantime, we’ll start experimenting with Science diet and Iams to see which works better (she can’t have anything with lamb in it. It isn’t pretty, I didn’t know that color can come out of a cat!). Jean C  "To lose confidence in on’es body is to lose confidence in oneself"    Simone de Beauvoir http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

There are much better foods than Science Diet, and if your cat has chronic diarrhea, you may be dealing with IBD or a food allergy, and Science Diet has quite a bit of corn, which wouldn’t be good for either one of these problems. What foods have you tried so far? There is an excellent food designed for cats with food sensitivities called California Natural that might help you. If you go to http://www.naturapet.com , there is a dealer locater that will help you find a place near you that sells it. Megan

Response:

You might want to do a search in Deja.com covering the last year or so. There’s been a lot of discussion about cat food ingredients and what’s good nutrition and not.  I’ve avoided Science Diet because of the high level of corn and the use of chemical preservatives.   But, as a last resort, after trying several of the so-called higher fiber diets such as Iams light and Nature’s Recipe light with no results, we’re using Science Diet R/D for two cats who need to lose a few pounds, and it’s working.  As soon as they’re done to a better weight, I’ll try stabilizing them on a non-prescription, more natural commercial food.  The shelter we volunteer also uses Science Diet (does the company donate as a publicity move?), and I’ve seen great results from the R/D with some very overweight cats. Susan L.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

Everything I’ve ever heard is Science Diet is OK…that’s what we feed our cats.  We find that the coats are healthier, they recover from disease/surgery/fights/other wounds quicker, and just appear to be in better health than the "cheaper" foods. The IAMS food is also good, if you don’t want to try Science Diet.  IAMS gave one of our cats the runs.  I’ve also heard excellent things about (forgive my spelling) Eukanuba.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors.

Response:

I had a friend who had a hissy fit when I mentioned I was considering switching one of my cats over to Science diet (we are rapidly running out of choices for dry food that doesn’t give her constant diarreha. An inherited problem, her daddy had it and her sister has it to a small degree. We are considering the pumpkin option, but are going to try adding fiber from rolled oats in the meantime). Has anyone heard of this, and if it is so, why would they put a cancer causing agent into the food? My next door neighbor feeds Science diet to her cat and she is perfectly healthy, as are all my bosses animals and I would seriously doubt that vets would sell this if it was so bad (the vets in our are sell not only the presription,but the regular Science diet you get in the pet shops also). So what is the deal? I get the strangest feeling this is one of those urban rumors. Jean C  "The supreme irony of life is hardly anyone ever    gets out of it alive" Robert A Heinlein http://www.uidaho.edu/~bjcraw/ Before you buy.

Response:

Question:

When, when the T will be cured by a simple and fast surgery…? Is there any chance that is’ll happen? Are there any reserches of that? Any mail subscribtions which inform on any advantages and news? Thanx, Dadi.

Response:

Subject: When, when the T will be cured by a simple and fast surgery…? From: "Dad" <d…@hotmail.com Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 When, when the T will be cured by a simple and fast surgery…?

From your mouth to God’s ear! Due to the nature of T (a symptom which is brought on by many causes

Question:

In my humble opinion, smoking soothes my Crohns. It darn sure soothes my nerves when I am having problems or pain.   Besides, screw lung cancer and emphysema. I have other things to worry about.  I don’t smoke in my house or around my husband and child or co-workers so no one else is being hurt by it.  My doctor told me once that there was circumstantial evidence that smoking soothed Crohns so therefore he wouldn’t bitch at me about it, or at least not for awhile. Works for me. There are also a number of retrospective studies that show that smoking aggravates Crohn’s, or at least that smoking and Crohn’s have a positive correlation. It’s always possible that both a craving for tobacco and Crohn’s have a common cause. So why do people think that? it is so wierd! Because they did research instead of saying "I don’t care what anyone says?"

Roseanne Roseannadanna AGC Visually Impaired Item Maintenance Technician See the Blind Item Website at:  http://members.tripod.com/~Rogow/RoRo.htm  

Response:

If you could find it and repost it, I would be happy (ok, maybe happy is too strong a word  ) to apologize.

Re-post something that was supposedly a flame in the first place???  Isn’t this dragging unpleasantness out to new lengths?  Just my opinion. Jan…  

Response:

I guess you are right, it may differ from person to person. But my CD reacts to smoking very much too. When I go somewhere where people smoke, I am sick for at least two days. Can’t imagine what would happen if I was a smoker myself. I have heard that for some people with C. Ulcerosa quiting smoking actually activates their inflamation though. I can’t believe this means it is a good idea to actually start smoking for this reason, but I can imagine this is a good reason for not quiting. I just hope there won’t be too many of these people around me! (have not had any problems beeing with them in the same newsgroup though ;- ) best wishes, Peter Heuts – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I do not claim to be an authority on this subject. I am a non smoker, so I guess I can’t really say that I know any "real" info on this. But I do know that even second hand smokes throws my whole system out of whack. It aggrivates me a lot. I am assuming that just like everything else with this disease, it is on a person to person basis. Just me two cents…. Terri S

Response:

If I had UC and was suffering with it, I’d be smoking in a FLASH!!  I don’t see that the risks of smoking to control symptoms even come close to the risks from many years of UC and the drugs one must take to *try* to control it.   Jan…  

Response:

I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard.

Then you have heard incorrectly or didn’t hear it right. There are a number of controlled studies that show that smoking helps UC. Try a MEDLINE search, to see for yourself. There are several studies currently underway to determing WHY (not IF) smoking helps UC. There are also a number of retrospective studies that show that smoking aggravates Crohn’s, or at least that smoking and Crohn’s have a positive correlation. It’s always possible that both a craving for tobacco and Crohn’s have a common cause. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Because they did research instead of saying "I don’t care what anyone says?" — Larry Finch ::(whew!)

Response:

I was diagnosed 15 years ago with colitus (I was 14) smoked the whole time (13 years)  until 8 months ago.  MY colitus was under control the whole time (not a single flare up-using salofalk enams every three days) I quite smoking on new years and  went on the patch.  after I stopped the patch I had a horrible experience ( a huge flare up) that lasted for five months (I had three scopes took high dose prednesone, salofalk pills and enames every day); my doctor was going to put me in the hospital. Then I mentioned I used to smoke. He suggested; and I went on the nicoderm patch again, and two days later I was fine.  And I have been fine for 2 months (using the patch every three days). So in my case i’d say smoking (or nocotine) played a huge roll in controlling my condition… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Terry< I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

Dave, I don’t remember any male-bashing, what I remember is the is the use of the term ‘feminazi’ as I find that term particularly cringeworthy.  I did glance thru dejanews before posting and didn’t see the post you’re referring to.  If you could find it and repost it, I would be happy (ok, maybe happy is too strong a word  ) to apologize. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:) Ah HAH! So this is a personal vendetta? Okay, I’m just kidding, I’m a kidder! Sue, I don’t think I would have ever stepped in for Jan if the other poster hadn’t gotten condescending and insulting. As I remember (and apparently you don’t, check dejanews) I watched from the sidelines until the ‘other’ lady went off on some serious hardcore ‘feminazi arguments’ as her hypothosize (sp, sorry), destroying her credibility in my book, but also turning it from support to some personal male bashing crusade. You know, keep in mind, i’m NOT some kind of moderator in this group, but note that I will defend EACH of you passionately if someone does anything to stress you out or upset you, thus potentially making you sick. This is where I’m coming from, nowhere else . . . Grundman When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all B the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way. Steve, Another example:  (this should have been in my prior post but my ISP is misbehaving and I’m getting cut off a lot).  This past summer Jan and some other woman were having a very intense discussion about estrogen replacement therapy.  It was very clear that they really disagreed with each other, but they acted maturely and refrained from flaming.  Instead, they answered each argument with a thoughtful well reasoned counterargument, and I was really grateful as I was learning quite a bit about natural estrogens that could be very important to me in the future.  Dave came along and flamed the other woman in defense of "his buddy Jan", didn’t contribute anything to my knowledge of ERT, and in fact the thread shut down completely shortly thereafter.  Dave contributes a lot to this newsgroup, but he also detracts quite a bit by doing a lot of flaming that, since he is an adult and a pretty knowledgable guy, is completely unecessary. "If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic.  You can always call him names." – Oscar Wilde

Response:

Actually sue, IIRC, I responded originally to his post not beleiving smoking actually helped some IBD pateints, then when reading the newsgroup again saw his adamant ‘I won’t listen to any opinion that doesnt’ agree with me’ statement, which set me off. If saying ‘I’m not going to listen to YOUR opinion’ is NOT a flame starter, I really don’t know what is, especially in a support group. I see that I went overboard with the Wyoming incident comparison, and apologize. Maybe I was feeling a little ‘hot’ and should’ve held my tongue or waited to post, I’ll accept that. Grundman

Dave, I agree with you, the original post was a bit of a flame starter.  The thing is, since this is a support group we can’t just do what we would do offline in equivalent circumstances, namely answering a flame with a flame, because that leads to a flamewar and flamewars always have the potential of burning the ng down.  I’m pretty hot-tempered myself in real life- in fact I was a real asshole to my Mom about a half an hour ago, but I keep it out of the group. What I have found really interesting (and kinda fun) is that most of the time answering flames with a well-reasoned, thought-out, nonflaming result shuts the flamers up.  

Response:

Ah HAH! So this is a personal vendetta? Okay, I’m just kidding, I’m a kidder! Sue, I don’t think I would have ever stepped in for Jan if the other poster hadn’t gotten condescending and insulting. As I remember (and apparently you don’t, check dejanews) I watched from the sidelines until the ‘other’ lady went off on some serious hardcore ‘feminazi arguments’ as her hypothosize (sp, sorry), destroying her credibility in my book, but also turning it from support to some personal male bashing crusade. You know, keep in mind, i’m NOT some kind of moderator in this group, but note that I will defend EACH of you passionately if someone does anything to stress you out or upset you, thus potentially making you sick. This is where I’m coming from, nowhere else . . . Grundman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all B the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way. Steve, Another example:  (this should have been in my prior post but my ISP is misbehaving and I’m getting cut off a lot).  This past summer Jan and some other woman were having a very intense discussion about estrogen replacement therapy.  It was very clear that they really disagreed with each other, but they acted maturely and refrained from flaming.  Instead, they answered each argument with a thoughtful well reasoned counterargument, and I was really grateful as I was learning quite a bit about natural estrogens that could be very important to me in the future.  Dave came along and flamed the other woman in defense of "his buddy Jan", didn’t contribute anything to my knowledge of ERT, and in fact the thread shut down completely shortly thereafter.  Dave contributes a lot to this newsgroup, but he also detracts quite a bit by doing a lot of flaming that, since he is an adult and a pretty knowledgable guy, is completely unecessary. "If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic.  You can always call him names." – Oscar Wilde

Response:

When we were wrestling with have surgery for our 4 year old son with UC, I looked at everything.  It seems that someone discovered that smokers rarely come down with UC compared to the population as a whole.  They did a couple of studies with transdermal nicotine and found that it helped a substantial percentage of cases. We actually thought about this pending future medical breakthroughs.  Because nicotine is a carcinigen, and he was so young, we rejected this as a treatment. Our Pediatric Gastrenerlogist would probably NOT have gone along with it as a treatment anyway, but he agrees that the studies do show significant percenteages of UC patients being helped by nicotine. If you’re that bad and UC is the disease, surgery is probably your best bet. I wouldn’t have said so before my son had surgery.  However, comparing him now (post surgery) to before, there is no doubt in my mind that people with severe cases of UC should have surgery rather than suffer, especially kids. Jut my humble opinion, Rick Cadruvi,,,

Response:

Upon reflection I did go a little overboard with the wyoming comparison, and apologize. I just have no patience for people who throw their hands over their ears and say ‘You not saying what I want to hear, hence I choose to not listen to you’. that attitude could NEVER work in this forum, no? Communication involves both giving and recieving information. It’s like being on a telephone that has no earpiece . . . . Grundman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – newsgroup one day, the next day you’re murdering homosexuals…..get real. This attitude right here David will get you a real special place in this Newsgroup amigo. "I don’t care what anybody says" sounds exactly like our good buddy Maurice, and completely defeats the purpose of this group…. Close mindedness leads to oppression. How bought that poor gay kid that just got terribly murdered in Wyoming simply because he was different? Your sounding ALOT like that David…. Grundman I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

Actually sue, IIRC, I responded originally to his post not beleiving smoking actually helped some IBD pateints, then when reading the newsgroup again saw his adamant ‘I won’t listen to any opinion that doesnt’ agree with me’ statement, which set me off. If saying ‘I’m not going to listen to YOUR opinion’ is NOT a flame starter, I really don’t know what is, especially in a support group. I see that I went overboard with the Wyoming incident comparison, and apologize. Maybe I was feeling a little ‘hot’ and should’ve held my tongue or waited to post, I’ll accept that. Grundman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way. And, BTW, there will be NO murdering of homosexuals here. I will not defend what or who I am here because this is not the forum. But neither will I ask for your approval in the matter — because I didn’t have that chance either. Just the same, you owe me just as much respect as you owe anyone else here. And that’s what the whole bottom line is: that we should respect each other. That we remember that each of us has the right to make certain decisions for ourselves. That we remember that each of us is different and that our diseases all have different courses, and that what works for some, may not work for others. And that it’s not a bad thing that Dave’s personality is gruff while mine tends to be more reconcilatory. We need all kinds here! steve, One Proud Faggot! Steve, You’re contradicting yourself.  Yes, there’s nothing wrong with gruff, and yes Dave’s heart is in the right place, but every time Dave flames, or responds to a flames with flames he is doing the opposite of "promoting discussion in a postive, cooperative way" For example, it was very easy to respond to the original post here with a simple reply about studies done regarding smoking and IBD without any flaming.  I and several others did that. Dave responded with flames which begat more flames and now here we are posting posts that have nothing to do with IBD and are more likely to turn people off from reading the newgroup than anything else.

Response:

No offense taken Steverino. Perhaps change the word to ‘passionate’ and we’ll be fine! Grundman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve, Another example:  (this should have been in my prior post but my ISP is misbehaving and I’m getting cut off a lot).  This past summer Jan and some other woman were having a very intense discussion about estrogen replacement therapy.  It was very clear that they really disagreed with each other, but they acted maturely and refrained from flaming.  Instead, they answered each argument with a thoughtful well reasoned counterargument, and I was really grateful as I was learning quite a bit about natural estrogens that could be very important to me in the future.  Dave came along and flamed the other woman in defense of "his buddy Jan", didn’t contribute anything to my knowledge of ERT, and in fact the thread shut down completely shortly thereafter.  Dave contributes a lot to this newsgroup, but he also detracts quite a bit by doing a lot of flaming that, since he is an adult and a pretty knowledgable guy, is completely unecessary. "If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic.  You can always call him names." – Oscar Wilde Admittedly, you have a point. But my point was that, since I know Dave flies off the handle a little easier than most, I know to take him with a grain of salt sometimes. Um, sorry, Dave, that probably doesn’t sound too positive to you! I mean, life is too short and too unpleasant for those of us with IBD to live in flames. And maybe when it’s someone that I don’t know as well, I’m just as likely to respond in kind. I don’t know — I’m not making any sense at the moment. Just ask Tink! Tell ya what, I’m gonna stop writing here and start a new thread called, "Dazed and Confused." Look for it in a shopping mall near you soon! steve preferred e-mail address: without the "SPAM," of course! My life goes on in endless song above Earth’s lamentations, I hear the real, though far off, hymn, that hails a new creation. Through all the tumult and the strife I hear its music ringing, It sounds an echo in my soul. How can I keep from singing?           — from the song How Can I Keep from Singing

Response:

I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

A number of gastro specialists and internists have told me.  I have also experienced it myself.  Everytime, I cut down on smoking (I don’t smoke a lot), my symptoms worsen.  I have also read the research.  And, met lots of people with the same opinion.  Smoking helps my UC (and I am alive still, I can still think, and I’m in closer touch with my own body than anyone else is). Garth

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way. And, BTW, there will be NO murdering of homosexuals here. I will not defend what or who I am here because this is not the forum. But neither will I ask for your approval in the matter — because I didn’t have that chance either. Just the same, you owe me just as much respect as you owe anyone else here. And that’s what the whole bottom line is: that we should respect each other. That we remember that each of us has the right to make certain decisions for ourselves. That we remember that each of us is different and that our diseases all have different courses, and that what works for some, may not work for others. And that it’s not a bad thing that Dave’s personality is gruff while mine tends to be more reconcilatory. We need all kinds here! steve, One Proud Faggot!

Steve, You’re contradicting yourself.  Yes, there’s nothing wrong with gruff, and yes Dave’s heart is in the right place, but every time Dave flames, or responds to a flames with flames he is doing the opposite of "promoting discussion in a postive, cooperative way" For example, it was very easy to respond to the original post here with a simple reply about studies done regarding smoking and IBD without any flaming.  I and several others did that. Dave responded with flames which begat more flames and now here we are posting posts that have nothing to do with IBD and are more likely to turn people off from reading the newgroup than anything else.  

Response:

newsgroup one day, the next day you’re murdering homosexuals…..get real.

When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way. And, BTW, there will be NO murdering of homosexuals here. I will not defend what or who I am here because this is not the forum. But neither will I ask for your approval in the matter — because I didn’t have that chance either. Just the same, you owe me just as much respect as you owe anyone else here. And that’s what the whole bottom line is: that we should respect each other. That we remember that each of us has the right to make certain decisions for ourselves. That we remember that each of us is different and that our diseases all have different courses, and that what works for some, may not work for others. And that it’s not a bad thing that Dave’s personality is gruff while mine tends to be more reconcilatory. We need all kinds here! steve, One Proud Faggot! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This attitude right here David will get you a real special place in this Newsgroup amigo. "I don’t care what anybody says" sounds exactly like our good buddy Maurice, and completely defeats the purpose of this group…. Close mindedness leads to oppression. How bought that poor gay kid that just got terribly murdered in Wyoming simply because he was different? Your sounding ALOT like that David…. Grundman I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

I do not claim to be an authority on this subject. I am a non smoker, so I guess I can’t really say that I know any "real" info on this. But I do know that even second hand smokes throws my whole system out of whack. It aggrivates me a lot. I am assuming that just like everything else with this disease, it is on a person to person basis. Just me two cents…. Terri S

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Steve, Another example:  (this should have been in my prior post but my ISP is misbehaving and I’m getting cut off a lot).  This past summer Jan and some other woman were having a very intense discussion about estrogen replacement therapy.  It was very clear that they really disagreed with each other, but they acted maturely and refrained from flaming.  Instead, they answered each argument with a thoughtful well reasoned counterargument, and I was really grateful as I was learning quite a bit about natural estrogens that could be very important to me in the future.  Dave came along and flamed the other woman in defense of "his buddy Jan", didn’t contribute anything to my knowledge of ERT, and in fact the thread shut down completely shortly thereafter.  Dave contributes a lot to this newsgroup, but he also detracts quite a bit by doing a lot of flaming that, since he is an adult and a pretty knowledgable guy, is completely unecessary. "If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic.  You can always call him names." – Oscar Wilde

Admittedly, you have a point. But my point was that, since I know Dave flies off the handle a little easier than most, I know to take him with a grain of salt sometimes. Um, sorry, Dave, that probably doesn’t sound too positive to you! I mean, life is too short and too unpleasant for those of us with IBD to live in flames. And maybe when it’s someone that I don’t know as well, I’m just as likely to respond in kind. I don’t know — I’m not making any sense at the moment. Just ask Tink! Tell ya what, I’m gonna stop writing here and start a new thread called, "Dazed and Confused." Look for it in a shopping mall near you soon! steve preferred e-mail address: without the "SPAM," of course! My life goes on in endless song above Earth’s lamentations, I hear the real, though far off, hymn, that hails a new creation. Through all the tumult and the strife I hear its music ringing, It sounds an echo in my soul. How can I keep from singing?           — from the song How Can I Keep from Singing

Response:

When are you guys going to get it through your thick heads that Grundman is Grundman? He is gruff! A little argumentative — but once you accept that his heart is in the right place, you understand where he is coming from. And he’s abslutely right (if a little tactless) that the attitudes and close-mindedness is the same. I don’t have to believe anything you guys post, but I owe to you and to me and to all B the others here to respect what you believe and promote discussion in a positive, cooperative way.

Steve, Another example:  (this should have been in my prior post but my ISP is misbehaving and I’m getting cut off a lot).  This past summer Jan and some other woman were having a very intense discussion about estrogen replacement therapy.  It was very clear that they really disagreed with each other, but they acted maturely and refrained from flaming.  Instead, they answered each argument with a thoughtful well reasoned counterargument, and I was really grateful as I was learning quite a bit about natural estrogens that could be very important to me in the future.  Dave came along and flamed the other woman in defense of "his buddy Jan", didn’t contribute anything to my knowledge of ERT, and in fact the thread shut down completely shortly thereafter.  Dave contributes a lot to this newsgroup, but he also detracts quite a bit by doing a lot of flaming that, since he is an adult and a pretty knowledgable guy, is completely unecessary. "If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic.  You can always call him names." – Oscar Wilde

Response:

newsgroup one day, the next day you’re murdering homosexuals…..get real. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This attitude right here David will get you a real special place in this Newsgroup amigo. "I don’t care what anybody says" sounds exactly like our good buddy Maurice, and completely defeats the purpose of this group…. Close mindedness leads to oppression. How bought that poor gay kid that just got terribly murdered in Wyoming simply because he was different? Your sounding ALOT like that David…. Grundman I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

In Grundman’s defense,  the fellow who said ‘I don’t care what anybody says’ followed that with ‘I heard’ and indicated that he was unwilling to accept any other views.  That is just plain bias and if he were willing to search for the truth about these things he would see that there is a LOT of research done on this topic and that much of it DOES indicate that UC may be benefitted by nicotine (and some people say by cigarettes, not just the nicotine) while CD seems to be aggravated by the same.  Not knowing something is one thing but just blatantly saying you’re not willing to learn is another.

Response:

I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Because there is research that indicates that smoking may be beneficial to UC but may be harmful for CD. Incidentally, I happen to believe that they’ve got it backwards with the CD — I just think that people with bad CD are more likely to smoke, not that the smoking makes CD worse. But that is just my opinion, of course. love, steve preferred e-mail address: without the "SPAM," of course! You need to laugh every day, because a day without sunshine is like … night.                                                  Steve Martin

Response:

Grundman,  HI….did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today…gees….I think when he said, " I don’t care what anyone says" he was using that term very loosely.I didn’t take that as a personal attack……did you really? You know where I come from we have a name for you. It’s called A " shit stirrer" and how appropriate for this NG . Maurice is yesterdays new……get over it…..move on.

Response:

I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

This attitude right here David will get you a real special place in this Newsgroup amigo. "I don’t care what anybody says" sounds exactly like our good buddy Maurice, and completely defeats the purpose of this group…. Close mindedness leads to oppression. How bought that poor gay kid that just got terribly murdered in Wyoming simply because he was different? Your sounding ALOT like that David…. Grundman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t care what anyone says. Smoking irritates UC and Crohns from what I have heard. So why do people think that? it is so wierd!

Response:

Question:

Hi. I’ve been away for awhile, getting diagnosed and treated. The degenerative disc disease in my spine has worsened, and now I have bone spurs and dried up discs causing a pinched nerve root. Surgery has been mentioned, but if I do that, won’t the bone spurs continue to occur? Has anyone in the group dealt with this?? Thanks, Carolyn

I have Carolyn and the surgery was a nightmare.  If you’re talking fusion, I would only have it as a "last resort".  Mine was in the cervical spine and the surgeon walked away with 10 or 15 grand and I have chronic, intractible, pain and con- tinued degenerative disc disease.  I think the fusion hurts other areas of the back.

Response:

Hi Carolyn, Yes the spurs will continue after surgery….in fact the surgeon wants that to happen for fusion to take place. The disc needs spinal motion to thrive ( not dry up). Find someone to manually manipulate your spine over a period of time to maintain motion between vertebrae. You needn’t worry either. It is EXTREMEMLY safe contrary to what you might hear from ill informed "authorities".  You can always have a nerve root block. But it should be AFTER you have tried EVERYTHING else. Physicians who perform such procedures without sending you to safer more conservative treatments (manipulation) first are NOT working in your best interest. Caviat Emptor!

Response:

[...]. The degenerative disc disease in my spine has worsened, and now I have bone spurs and dried up discs causing a pinched nerve root. Surgery has been mentioned, but if I do that, won’t the bone spurs continue to occur? Has anyone in the group dealt with this?? [...] I have Carolyn and the surgery was a nightmare.  If you’re talking fusion, I would only have it as a "last resort".  Mine was in the cervical spine and the surgeon walked away with 10 or 15 grand and I have chronic, intractible, pain and con- tinued degenerative disc disease.  I think the fusion hurts other areas of the back.

        I had cervical degenerative disk disease in the 1970’s. Postponed surgery through physical therapy for about 5 years.         Important to postpone surgery as long as possible; scarring (sp?) makes repeated surgery more difficult, less successful.         Got a 2d opinion. That confirmed need for surgery, and gave me a far less intrusive method than my original orthopod would have used.         Had the surgery in 1981. Went in from front, over collarbone. Removed the two disks, smoothed spurs internal to vertebrae, and fused C5/C6/C7 with chips from my hip.         Neurosurgeon was lead, assisted by orthopod. Neuro stated national failure rate for the surgery was about 2%. Neuro had performed same type of surgery on 400 pts; varying degrees of success but no, zero, failures (worse pain, paralysis or death).         Instant success. Docs said they would only "guarantee" the work for five years. 1997 minus 1981 equals 16. Guess my warranty has expired.         I’m now 62. Have twinges of  old problem from time to time. Manage mostly by avoiding what hurts, being careful about sleeping posture, occasional use of NSAIDs,  and more occasional use of serious pain pills. A prescription for 25 pills lasts me 9 months to a year.         Was employed for years after surgery. Then retired on age qualifications, not health problems.         I am in an active retirement – EMT with volunteer rescue squad, 4-H volunteer, election official, appointed member of a county land study commission, travel to visit our 5 adult children, etc. The surgery was one of my better decisions.         The spurs have not regrown _significantly_yet_.         — Postpone surgery as long as possible, unless your doctor advises otherwise.         — Get a second opinion from a doctor NOT associated with original doctor in any way. — "It’s a magical world, Hobbes . . . Let’s go exploring!"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...]. The degenerative disc disease in my spine has worsened, and now I have bone spurs and dried up discs causing a pinched nerve root. Surgery has been mentioned, but if I do that, won’t the bone spurs continue to occur? Has anyone in the group dealt with this?? [...] I have Carolyn and the surgery was a nightmare.  If you’re talking fusion, I would only have it as a "last resort".  Mine was in the cervical spine and the surgeon walked away with 10 or 15 grand and I have chronic, intractible, pain and con- tinued degenerative disc disease.  I think the fusion hurts other areas of the back.         I had cervical degenerative disk disease in the 1970’s. Postponed surgery through physical therapy for about 5 years.         Important to postpone surgery as long as possible; scarring (sp?) makes repeated surgery more difficult, less successful.         Got a 2d opinion. That confirmed need for surgery, and gave me a far less intrusive method than my original orthopod would have used.         Had the surgery in 1981. Went in from front, over collarbone. Removed the two disks, smoothed spurs internal to vertebrae, and fused C5/C6/C7 with chips from my hip.         Neurosurgeon was lead, assisted by orthopod. Neuro stated national failure rate for the surgery was about 2%. Neuro had performed same type of surgery on 400 pts; varying degrees of success but no, zero, failures (worse pain, paralysis or death).         Instant success. Docs said they would only "guarantee" the work for five years. 1997 minus 1981 equals 16. Guess my warranty has expired.         I’m now 62. Have twinges of  old problem from time to time. Manage mostly by avoiding what hurts, being careful about sleeping posture, occasional use of NSAIDs,  and more occasional use of serious pain pills. A prescription for 25 pills lasts me 9 months to a year.         Was employed for years after surgery. Then retired on age qualifications, not health problems.         I am in an active retirement – EMT with volunteer rescue squad, 4-H volunteer, election official, appointed member of a county land study commission, travel to visit our 5 adult children, etc. The surgery was one of my better decisions.         The spurs have not regrown _significantly_yet_.         — Postpone surgery as long as possible, unless your doctor advises otherwise.         — Get a second opinion from a doctor NOT associated with original doctor in any way. — "It’s a magical world, Hobbes . . . Let’s go exploring!"

I found all of the letters about degenerative disc disease very interesting.  I was first diagnosed in 1978 and had my first surgery for it last year.  Mine was because of a herniated disc resulting from the degenerative disc disease.  I had microsurgery, which wasn’t too bad, but in July of this year I had to have the same surgery on the same disc again.  The failure rate was supposed to be like 4-6%.  My neurosurgeon does not beleive in fusions, except as the very last resort.  Has anyone else had an experience like this?  I have arthritis all up and down my spine, with 4 more discs bulging at various spots along the spine.  I also have had RA for about 12 years and have been disabled for 5 years. My surgeon also remarked that I have many "dehydrated" discs.   Judi

Response:

About the spinal fusion thing, I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.  DJDD problems are at three different locations 3 C-spine, 1 T-spine, and 3 L-spine.   Two spinal Orrthopaedists refused to fuse my c3-4, 4-5, 5-6, said this would only cause worse problems for me later on.  Did not have that explained to me, I was hurting so bad at the time all I wanted to do was get in the bed with a small rolled up towel under my neck.  The other two locations aren’t all that bad, so I’ll just put them off ’till I really need the relief.  I truly wish something could be done about my neck.   Butch

Response:

Hi. I’ve been away for awhile, getting diagnosed and treated. The degenerative disc disease in my spine has worsened, and now I have bone spurs and dried up discs causing a pinched nerve root. Surgery has been mentioned, but if I do that, won’t the bone spurs continue to occur? Has anyone in the group dealt with this?? Thanks, Carolyn

Response: