From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:57:21 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

> Todd H. writes:
>>
>>But if the definition was true, then I wouldn't see an AR whacko beating the
>>hell out of a hunter on TV, and I wouldn't see messages on the Usenet asking
>>me to send a 'get out of jail soon' card to an arsonist to cheer him up.  I
>>wouldn't see Fran Trutt planting bombs at US Surgical, and mostly, I wouldn't
>>be getting threating Email, telling me how I'm going to be killed in the woods
>>instead of the defenseless animals I'm supposedly slaughtering by the basket-
>>full. (Ask me sometime how successful I consider a *good* hunt - you'll be
>>surprised).
>>
>Isn't natural language fun!  By my definition of AR supporter, people who
>commit violence are *not* AR supporters in practice.  Their actions violate
>the rights of humans, who are animals.
>Just as you would distinguish between your philosophies and those of
>slob hunters, surely I can distinguish between animal rights, which I support,
>and the terrorist actions of a small group of violent hypocrits.

Apparently we agree - poacher's aren't hunters, and arsonists are ARs.

>>I've seen the references, and they're all AR propaganda.  She *claims* that
>>she was pushed into it by these people, when in actuality, Pricilla Feral
>>and the group known as Friends of Animals FUNDED the bombing.  If your above
>>definition was indeed a definition, then there's a few groups labelling 
>>themselves as AR who don't quite fit.
>>
>I will post my reference next week, after I've had time to get to the library.
>Could very well be that my reference is false; I would appreciate seeing
>your references.  Of course whether or not Fran Trutt  is a terrorist has
>nothing to do with the question of whether or not animals have rights; the
>point was to illustrate that some of the actions attributed to AR groups
>may in fact be carried out or incited by anti-AR people seeking to discredit
>the AR movement.  You have to admit that this is a possibility.

If your reference is from the AR Propaganda Machine (Animal Agenda, Bunny
Hugger's Gazette, etc.) then I will disbelieve it.  My reading is from the
mainstream liberal press - UPI.  I would also expect you to disbelieve my
source had it been from something like Putting People First.

Actually, the 'possibility' that comes to my mind is the natural 'cover your
ass' bit that the ARs have done in the past.  I can't count the times that I've
been told that "Nobody ever threw red paint on a fur coat - that's a lie made
up by the fur people to discredit the AR movement".  Now, explain the red
paint on my mother's rabbit jacket.  Oh, right!!  The thrower MUST have been
an ANTI-AR, just out to discredit the movement.  How silly of me not to have
figured it out by myself.  Give me a break.

The wingnuts at Earth First! a few years back told thier followers to shoot
cattle out west, and blame it on hunters.  Really nice dudes, eh?

What I believe is this: Fran Trutt and Pricilla Feral blame it on Anti-AR
folks because they think it's thier only defense.  The bug that Feral showed
a picture of in the FOA newsletter was bogus, nobody in this country need
enter your office to bug your phone system - it's much easier done from down
the street.  All in all, the 'blame them for making us do it' line is weak,
and sometimes hilarious.

>>rise in the "abusers" stock prices rising.  So much for that definition -
>>even the LEADERS in your movement are lying to you.
>>
>I don't follow any "leaders", I think for myself.

Got any plans to deal with the people who claim to be your leaders, who are
doing your non-violent ways terrible damage by association?  The latest
PETA newsletter has the most telling photo on the cover - a terrorist, a
member of ALF, suitably shadowed.  Looks like PETA is finally coming out of
the closet on thier affiliation.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals