From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Rights?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:44:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.063205.14086@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>Todd, as the originator of this anecdote, could you please come forward
>>and confirm or deny the claim that the goat owner had been repeatedly
>>abusive to the goat over a period of time.  The absence of a denial will
>>be interpreted as confirmation.
>
>First of all, the last line in the above quote is the most ARROGANT bit of
>BULLSHIT I've had the pleasure to see here, *INCLUDING* Russell Lawrence's
>generous doses.  I've been out of town for the past 5 days, so by now you've
>probably determined that you're right, and I'm wrong, about whatever you felt
>like screwing with today.

Little irritable today, are we?

>
>Tell ya what - follow up to this message in the next 25 minutes, or I'll
>assume you do molest little boys.  Nice tactic, eh?
>
>Now, as for the goat story, it's your usual "who knows" story.  The Animal
>Rights Whackos claimed that the animal was abused, but the wife of the man
>who was killed claims it wasn't.  Now, unless those ARWs had been living with
>the guy, I'd think the wife is a slightly more expert witness, don't you?

If you're really interested in pursuing this, then please cite some
sources that I could follow up on.  All I know is what I heard from a
news report at the time, and my memory sometimes plays tricks on me. 

>
>It also seems kinda strange to me that a goat that the ARWs claimed was beaten
>until it couldn't walk could still stand up and kill a man.  Most goats don't
>go over about 70 pounds, so it takes a pretty healthy goat to do any damage
>to a full-grown human.  The ARWs also admitted that the goat showed no
>*physical* signs of abuse at the time that they took charge of it, but they
>were *sure* it had been abused.  I guess they all speak goat down there.

If you're really interested in pursuing this, then please cite some
sources that I could follow up on.

>
>I'm also pretty amused at how much energy y'all spend chasing down TOTALLY
>insignificant triviata.  ...

You're the one who brought this up.  If you think it's "triviata", then
why did you waste time and bandwidth on it?


>...The place that has the goat also has two pit bull
>terriers that attacked and seriously maimed a child.  No, the child was not
>killed, but he was terribly injured, perhaps for life.  And no, I don't think
>the four-year-old child was abusing the two dogs.  As a matter of fact, 
>neither do the ARWs, but they 'rescued' the dogs nonetheless, and blame 
>our society for breeding them to be nasty.  (excuse number 12)

Where would you assign the blame?  Do dogs have free will?

>
>>Only Todd knows for sure what case he was referring to.  But if it's the
>>case I suspect, then he has "forgotten" to disclose some very relevant
>>facts which may be needed in order to reach a just verdict.  Todd, could
>>you approach the stand to be sworn in, please?
>
>It's obvious from your attitude and statements that you don't think it's any
>big problem to make offhand statements about killing people, yet you're all
>concerned about a goat.  What an odd set of values you ARWs have.

Show me where I have indicated that I "don't think it's any big problem
to make offhand statements about killing people."

Todd, you have a history of dredging up these incidents, reporting them
without relevant details, flaming all "AR Whackos" (sic) in toto with
your misinformation, and then ignoring followups.  What are you hoping
to accomplish?  Anything productive?  Or are you just venting your
frustrations?  If the latter, then why not go to alt.flame?

When you make unsubstantiated, questionable, or deceptive verbal
assaults, I see nothing wrong with calling you on these.  My somewhat
sarcastic response to you can be directly traced to your past
techniques. 

>-- 
>Todd++;

---
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