From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:43:54 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:

	(we lost attributes in here somewhere -- I trust who said what
is clear anyway)

>Dan Sorenson writes:

>>	I smell a set-up.  What's the catch we're not hearing?
>>If Nugent believes his message "works like magic," then why does he refuse to
>>participate in the FoA debate?  It's certainly not because he's going to be
>>busy bowhunting that day.
>>	Why don't you ask Ted -- I'm sure he will be more than willing to
>>give you his opinion with great gusto.

>I believe he _was_ asked to participate in the debate.  The first announcement
>for the Conference mentioned his name as a possible spokesperson for the
>hunting side of the issue.  

	This means he was given an invitation, not that he accepted or
declined.  In other words, I can have a birthday party and send an invitation
to Ted Nugent, and put "possible guest: Ted Nugent" in my invitations, but
that doesn't obligate him to attend.

>In fact, if you go waaaay back in this newsgroup,
>you'll find a couple of responses to my base note announcing the Conference
>in which at least a couple of hunters said it was unfair to include a "yahoo"
>like Nugent (the hunter's words, not mine) as the hunting spokesperson.  The
>hunter's claim was that Nugent was too radical, and would only fuel the fire
>of the opposition.  This opinion of Nugent held by hunters surprised me,
>because I thought he was respected among his ranks.

	He is respected among his ranks.  The problem is that his respect
has been earned from the hunters, but he is a radical.  He was actually
considered for a top position in the NRA, but being a rock star and as
flambouyant as he is doesn't make for good publicity.  Basically, if you
don't know him, you'll dismiss him as a flake, and that hurts the cause.
Come to think of it, one can make the same case for Dan Quayle, Rush
Limbaugh, and Phyllis Shafly to name some personalities.

>  Another hunter suggested
>that FoA might "stage" the whole event, include a phony hunter whose purpose
>was to say all the wrong things, and thereby try to make all hunters look bad.
>I followed up by saying the debate is open to anybody, and that hunters who
>wanted to make sure they were represented by a "real" hunter could simply show
>up and fill that role.

	This is an old trick, but most will see right through it.

>The last followup I got in the mail said that so far, no hunter has committed
>to be there.  No reason was given as to why.  I assumed the pro-hunting
>spokespersons backed out for some reason.

	Perhaps speaking in front of a lynch mob isn't a popular thing to
do?  I suspect David Duke had a similar problem stumping in south Chicago.

>>>Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>>>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?
>>	I smell a biased rat.  What's the protocol for the debate, and is
>>there a moderator?  Open forum?  Prepared questions? 

>I don't know how the debate will be conducted.  

	Then there is no guarantee that media coverage will be balanced,
that speakers will even be allowed to talk, or that facts, figures, and
opinions will be heard.  I've seen this before at anti-nuclear rallies,
me being the pro-nuke voice in the crowd.  If you want a debate, you
set up a debate, not a fund-raiser and rally.

>>	I'm sure it will be an unbiased report, too.  I'll be waiting to
>>see your report, and also look in on the media coverage if there is any.

>What's with this biased/unbiased business?  Who said I was unbiased, or even
>trying to be unbiased?  Certainly not me.  My bias is as clear as yours, or
>Scott Woods', or Mike Linan's.  In case you're still not sure, I'm on the side
>of the animals, and against those who enjoy killing them.  Is that clear
>enough? 

	That's fine by me, but there's a big difference between admitting a
bias here, where I have equal time to pose arguments, and at a rally.
Would you be willing to speak at a meeting of the ISU Furharvesters Club
if I said the meeting was an open debate where we charged admission and
had several thousand members attending?  It cuts both ways.

>If you wanted to ensure "fair" representation, i.e., biased remarks from
>_both_ sides of the issue, I suggest you attend the debate and post your own
>followup. 

	Sure will.  Please provide a round-trip ticket, Midwest Express
airlines, from Kansas City to Austin or wherever and back.  I'll pick
up the drive to KS on my own, and even pay my own accommodations.  Are
you willing to put your money down?  Why should I?

	Better yet, hold your conference in Omaha, Nebraska.  It has a
first-class airport, several large auditoriums, and excellent touristy
areas close to downtown hotels.  What more could you ask for, save
supporters?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals