From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:36:23 GMT

Alka Chandna writes:

>vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>
>>One might ask if there was a purpose to this post other than simply
>>blowing off steam because Ken was heads-up enough to make these groups
>>aware of the problem and scored one for "our side."  One also wonders
>>why people need to resort to insults simply because the battle was
>>lost. <sigh>
>
>Well, John, having posted the earlier note, I'll offer following explanation.
>No, the purpose of the post was not simply to "blow off steam".  I sincerely
>thought that Ken Whitehead was unaware of the fact that many activist groups
>employ the technique of calling the 1-800 numbers of their opponents.  I was
>of the mind that perhaps if Ken agreed with a certain human rights organiza-
>tion, for instance, he might appreciate the effectiveness of the tactic.  I
>must confess, quite candidly, that it shocks me that in a country whose history
>has been predicated on civil disobedience, there would be people who believe
>that everything should be done to the letter of the law, or the letter of some
>corporation or some industry lobby group.  My earlier post was aimed at trying
>to deconstruct what I thought was confusion over animal rights ideals and a
>commonly used activist tactic.  Clearly, I stand corrected.  

Odd, I've always had a much different view of civil disobedience.  To
me that term means marching around and carrying signs, debating,
signing petitions, writing letters to editors of newspapers, etc.  To
me it's never meant any act that could hurt anyone, or cause any kind
of damage of any sort.  I've always thought it to mean causing change
through information dissemination.  Clearly we disagree here.
     That's one of the fundamental problems I have with the AR
movement, and the main reason I participate in this forum to defend
against it.  It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if all you folk
ever did was walk around spewing forth your opinions on the subject.
In fact, I *encourage* it.  I don't even care if such opinions are
propaganda, since they can be easily countered.  Destroying other
peoples' property and hurting them is why I must stand against you.
In your fevered minds it is somehow OK to smash a leghold trap or tear
down a tree stand in the name of your cause.  I disagree.


>Regarding a lost battle, what exactly are you referring to John?  Has Ken
>Whitehead won some sort of battle by informing animal exploiting groups with
>1-800 lines that there happen to be some netters that want to take advantage
>of their lines?  Honestly!  These numbers have been published for years and
>years in animal rights magazines, with very clear indications of how they can
>be used.  Likewise, anti-censorship groups with which I have been involved 
>publish similar lists of numbers with similar guidelines.    

Then why your need to get so upset about it?  Clearly having Ken
remind them of something you feel they should already be well aware of
shouldn't have sparked as heated a reply as the one you made.  While
the abuse of 800 numbers by AR folks may be well known, the fact that
arrests can be made because of it is not.  I'd sooner think that's
what got the fire to sparkle in your eyes...


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--