From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:26:08 GMT

In article <swood.716185837@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>
>`> "I was there," responds the editor, "and personally observed the
>` 
>`Read this description again, especially the part about screaming loudly that 
>`they were PETA members. Also, the part about being interested in causing 
>`*obvious* trouble. Which does it sound more like, people working to help 
>`animals, or people working to discredit the AR movement? I think you've been 
>`bamboozled.  
>
>Aw, come on now.  And you say that I am fabricating?  I suppose that you
>are going to tell me now that the attacks on local animal research clinics
>were actually just people working to discredit The Animal Liberation Front?
>I suppose that we are going to have to issue ID's to Animal Rights and Anti`s
>so that we can truely identify them as real or not.

You're dodging the issue by changing the subject from dogshows to
research clinics.  The two are totally different.  And as I understand
it, the PETA position acknowledges this.  But why listen to me or PPF
(the originators of your posted article).  If you want to charge PETA
with these actions or ask about their culpability, why not call and ask
them directly.  I have their number if you want it. 

>
>This activity (as was stated in the article) occurred at the same time
>PeTA nationals were down talking pets and pet shows.  

If they were, so what? This proves nothing about whether they support,
encourage, or participate in the release of dogs from cages at dog
shows.  

Opposing the further breeding of pets until the overpopulation problem
eases and opposing pet shows out of concern for the animals' interests
are NOT the same as advocating policies that would directly cause harm
to animals.  Though I don't totally agree with the PETA position (as I
understand), I nevertheless respect their position. 

>Also at the same
>time they were endorsing the "liberation" of caged animals.  They claimed
>to be PeTA members.  What else is there?

There's a lot "else", Scott:  arrest; conviction; name of persons;
verifiable statements from persons that they are PETA members and acting
at PETA's behest; acknowledgement from PETA that they instigated the
action. 

In your eagerness to pin the blame on PETA, you seem to have lost your
sense of objectivity. 

>I also do not think an Anti-Animal Right member would endanger an
>expensive show dog just to spite a AR group.  I just think your grabbing
>at straws on this one.

I do not think that an Animal Rights member would knowingly endanger any
dog to spite anyone.  I think you're grabbing at straws.

Just as an aside: most show dogs aren't that expensive.  Nor are they all
necessarily very highly valued once their show career is over.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals