From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:12:35 GMT

In <BvxLx8.92x@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1992Oct10.191633.4604@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> You're hoist by your own verbal petard here, Russell, and you know
>ry> it.  First, you claim that none of the ARFs you know would DO such
>ry> a thing as blow up mailboxes, implying that this attitude applies
>ry> to ARFs in general, and then you turn around and attempt to disown
>ry> those ARFs who actually DO trash laboratories...and probably blow
>ry> up mailboxes.  Make up your mind, do you speak for ARFs or not?
>ry> Are the ARFs you know representative or are they not?
>
>Here in New Orleans,... [...local AR activities deleted...]

	Do you speak for ARFs or not?  Are the ARAs you know representative
	or are they not?  Just "yes" or "no" will suffice.

>Perhaps the answer lies in the possibility that most AR activists
>prefer to pursue their goals by digging at the truth, rather than
>resorting to violence.

	Sure, that's why PETA supports the activities of ALF, as in trashing
	laboratories in Michigan.

>As I stated previously, every political movement has it's share 
>of individuals who aren't fully committed to the major goals at 
>hand, and there may well be some people associated with the AR 
>movement would would engage in mailbox bombing, but I'd be the 
>first to criticise such actions.  Silly acts of terrorism (ie 
>blowing up mailboxes) are unlikely to have positive results.  

	Do you speak for ARFs or not?  Are the ARAs you know representative
	or are they not?

>ry> And while you're at it, how about addressing the Aspen, Colorado 
>ry> demonstrations...I note that, once again, you're notably silent on the
>ry> subject.
>
>rl> Why don't you give me some pointers to the literature so that I 
>rl> can study the facts for myself?  Without digging very deeply, it 
>rl> seems rather safe to conclude that paint and blood throwing 
>rl> aren't commonplace occurrences, given the fact that there are 
>rl> hundreds of thousands of fur-wearers in NYC, yet no police records
>rl> to document any incidents.
>
>ry> I've told you where it happened, and the time of year in which it
>ry> occurred.  I've given you a rough idea of which years might be
>ry> fruitful starting points.  The action made national TV, so it must
>ry> have been an important event in the annals of AR groups everywhere.
>ry> It was part of an attempt to have the sale of furs banned within
>ry> Aspen city limits.  I'm sure you can find appropriate references
>ry> with little trouble...frankly, I'M not concerned enough to be
>ry> bothered.
>
>I don't recall you giving me a rough idea of which years such 
>incidents may have occurred.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Oct9.164049.18387@pixel.kodak.com>:

	"On the other hand, when I mentioned the incidents in Aspen, Colorado
	which occurred a few Christmases ago......."

Hint: a "few", in this instance, means two or three.  Call PETA, I'm
	sure they can isolate the year the AR movement tried to have
	the sale of fur banned in Aspen by popular referendum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>In any case, I'm not interested 
>in spending hours in the library tracking down a nebulous event
>that you heard about while watching television.

	Your choice, of course.

>Do the research yourself and report back.

	"Report back" is redundant...and since this isn't the first time
	you've ignored it...and since you tend to ignore things which you
	find uncomfortable...I think I'll just let it sit and ferment.

>rl> I was under the impression that persons were innocent until proven
>rl> guilty.  You seem to be saying that your unfounded accusations ought
>rl> to be accepted as truth until they're falsified.
>
>ry> Indeed, indeed.  Why then do you automatically accuse anti-AR
>ry> people of pulling a PR stunt?  The FACTS are that we just don't
>ry> know, isn't that right?  Suspicion, however, must fall on those
>ry> with motive; the greater suspicion on those with history.
>
>What "history" are you designating here, Rich?   Do you know anyone
>who's either confessed to, or been convicted of, blowing up mailboxes?

	No, but we BOTH know about the laboratory in Michigan, don't we?
	And it's only one state away, too.  One wonders.........

[...]

>Would anti-AR "fanatics" have a motive???

	You have to even ASK???  Their avowed purpose is to eradicate
	hunting by humans from the face of the Earth!  By making it clear
	to the farmer that his tolerance of hunting on his private land
	would be met with destruction of his personal possessions, the
	ARFs hoped that he would opt for personal safety and financial
	liquidity rather than altruism, which he ultimately did.

	The possible motive is clear, although I'll agree that the ultimate
	choice of action made by these people might not have been well 
	thought out to include consideration of all possible consequences.

[...]

>My personal recommendation is that we cut the crap, and stick with the
>known facts.

	A wise idea; I trust we won't be seeing more speculation regarding
	PR stunts by hunters in your future postings unless there is proof?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals