From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Dishonest character attacks.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:39:19 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Kindly cite an article, written by me, where I've stated that 
rl> arson is ok.  

From article <5jh1y9g@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Please feel free to try and tell us that you weren't talking about
jve> arson when you said, "Cases of vandalism may help the particular
jve> animals who are at risk..."  

I'm still waiting for you to cite an article where I've stated 
that arson is ok.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that John Van Etten 
lives next door to a delapidated, crack house run by the
practitioners of a caribbean cult who engage in the weekly, 
ritual sacrifice of live chickens, goats, and dogs.  And let's 
suppose that John and his friends are so distraught by the frequent
screams of the animal-victims that they decide to burn down the crack 
house after taking measures to assure that no lives will be 
endangered.  In such a case, their actions would clearly help the 
animals that might have been at risk.  And it's conceivable that 
their actions might also help some neighborhood kids who might 
otherwise have succombed to crack use.  

Does this mean that arson would be ok?  Not at all, in spite of 
the fact that it might appear (to John) to be the lesser of the 
evils.  

Here's the complete text of the fragment that you quoted previously,
concerning animal rights advocates who allegedly condone arson:

=================================================================
I don't share their view.  Cases of vandalism may help the particular
animals who are at risk in a specific lab, but over the long haul, I
suspect that expressions of violence will delay the realization of AR 
goals.
=================================================================

Please reread this statement very carefully and pay special 
attention to the sentence that says: "I don't share their view".  
Read it over and over again until you can finally get a grip on 
the fact that I don't consider arson to be "ok".  

jve> The rest of us were.  Now if you'd like to publically retract 
jve> your statement made about arson, feel free to do that as well.  
jve> Unfortunately that will do nothing to change the convoluted view 
jve> inside which caused you to say it in the first place.  The one 
jve> which causes this old mountain man to sadly shake his head and 
jve> wonder what is wrong with the youth in America.  <*sigh*> 

Would you mind explaining how your fantasies about "old mountain men"
and "youth in America" are relevant to this discussion?

jve> And before I let you off the hook, Russell, old friend, I'd like to
jve> know why you didn't answer any of my questions which you edited out.
jve> As I recall, I had asked you why you considered arson to be "the
jve> lesser of evils" and indeed, why you thought it was necessary to the
jve> liberation of the animals at all.  

I don't think arson is necessary.  Rather than engage in acts of 
violence, I would prefer to accomplish goals peacefully, by 
discussing the evidence in a rational manner.  

jve> The point, we all know, being that it is *not*.  I also asked you 
jve> just what the heck this "other evil" is of which you were so 
jve> quick to speak.  Do you need to light unnecessary fires and put 
jve> innocent firemen in danger because the bright lights scare some 
jve> Cosmic Spider which you are afraid is coming to get you, Russell?  
jve> What is this "other evil" which has you so terrified that you'll 
jve> say it's OK to kill innocent firemen because of it?  I really 
jve> want to hear this one, old friend.  It ought to be good.  

You're ranting, John.  Please furnish some evidence to support 
your dishonest allegation that I'm "terrified" or that I've said 
that it's "OK to kill innocent firemen".  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals