From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Robert's Goat Hangup
Followup-To: alt.get.a.life.todd
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:15:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.142451.23961@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec12.063205.14086@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
> 
> >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. 
> 
> if *I'M* interested??  You're the one who asked me, and made the statement that
> if I didn't supply details, it would prove to the net that I'm a liar.  When
> those details are supplied, you decide that things didn't go your way, so it's
> time for the next delaying tactic - get a life, Robert.

You were the one who brought up the goat incident and used it to ridicule
AR people.  I simply questioned whether you were leaving out relevant
facts (like you did during the previous Fran Trutt discussion), which if
mentioned might lead to a different conclusion than you appeared to be
encouraging.

[...]

> >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?
> 
> What a joke!!  You've gotta be kidding when you typed this, because it's a
> mess.  

Did you miss the beginning part of this paragraph? ...  the part stating
with "you have a history"?  

History implies past tense.  I was referring to the Fran Trutt
discussion where you omitted information that was not in step with the
conclusion you apparently wished to propagandize.  You deleted and
ignored my questions about Mead and Sapone.  And you never responded to
at least six posts (one from me) on the topic.  Perhaps you never read
them? That's understandable, but it doesn't explain your initial
approach of ignoring data which was inconvenient to the view you seemed
to be peddling. 

> 
> >"dredging up these incidents"  I cited an example of ARWhacko disregard for
> human lives in the holy cause of saving individual animals.  It was a good
> enough example, even your self-admitted failing mind remembered it.  You 
> continue to beat the (unfortunately not dead) goat.

How was saving the goat a disregard for any human lives, except perhaps
those who volunteered to take custody of him and thus put themselves at
risk if the goat is as dangerous as you seem to believe?

> 
> >"reporting them without relevant details"  I gave the relevant details for
> the question at hand the first time, and you decided to expand the issue.  Then
> you accuse me of not giving you enough details for your expanded questions
> before you even asked them.

Again, this referred to your past history regarding the Fran Trutt
discussion.  You knew enough to raise the case; weren't you aware of all
the ambiguities surrounding it?

> 
> >"flaming all "AR Whackos" (sic)"  Guilty as charged, and proud of it.

Are you interested in a rational discussion or not?

> 
> >"misinformation"  You have yet to find *ANYTHING* that I'm saying to be false.
> You, on the other hand, seem to be dismissing first-hand information on your
> own predjudice against me.

By omitting key information in the Fran Trutt discussion, you appeared to
be disseminating misinformation.  Were you intentionally trying to create
an impression compatible with your prejudices by omitting important data
and ignoring followup questions intended to draw out that information
from you voluntarily?  You were given a chance to correct the record, and
at least once you chose to delete and ignore the questions.  When you
brought up this goat incident, it looked like "deja vu all over again."

> 
> >"then ignoring followups"  Huh???  I go out of town for a week to do some
> honest WORK (remember that stuff - some of us do it), and when I come back
> I find that you've dropped a silly ultimatum on me to respond to one of your
> messages.  I did, and now I'm accused of "ignoring followups".  In case you
> didn't see it, or you 'ignored' it, I said your ultimatum is BULLSHIT - just
> like this one.
> 
> Keep it up, boy - you're starting to show your true colors as a budding ARW
> propagandist.  The only thing you forgot is that *good* propogandists drop
> thier shit on the unsuspecting public, and make certain that the unwashed
> can't rebut the trash.  For a good example, see "Wheeler, Ferrell".
> 

I'm interested in hearing what others think, believe, and know - including
those who disagree with me.  I have no interest in a flame war with you or
anyone else.
---
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