From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re;Texas AR Conference
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:34:22 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>Perhaps hunters dislike AR activists, but most of the AR 
>activists that I know aren't inclined to deal with the issue on 
>an emotional level, the way some hunters seem inclined to do.  

WHAT?  I can't believe that for a minute, Russell.  That's what
you AR folks do best.  And, yes, you're right.  By and large, I would
say that most hunters probably DO dislike AR activists.  Are you
gonna sit there sanctimoniously and try and tell me and God and all
the net that you ARFs don't dislike us?  Us..us.. us scum that should 
be eradicated? (p.s. - thanks, dreamer;  that was a great line..)

>An emotional response may be an acceptable problem solving tool for 
>lizards, but it won't be particularly useful in resolving the sort 
>of complex problem that presently confronts us.

Well gosh, Russ, (Ken said, his long, sticky tongue snapping out and 
capturing a perfectly innocent bug in mid-flight) I hardly know what to 
say...  I guess my predatory, reptilian little mind just isn't up
to your level of sophistication, because I must admit, I do find certain 
things just make me feel downright emotionally satisfied, like the
thought of a few hundred Pro-People protestors giving Ingrid and Wayne a 
taste of their own medicine.  (BTW, thanks for the insight, Russell.  I 
never realized lizards had emotions, but far be it fom me to disagree.)

>In claiming that prohunting positions and antihunting positions 
>are diametrically opposed, were you speaking of the superficial
>differences?  Or, do you believe the differences are deeply rooted?

It depends upon to which antihunter you refer;  with regards to some folks,
I would imagine that the differences might be characterized as superficial,
in that we might actually be able to communicate and possibly alter one
another's opinions;  with others, the zealots, I would suspect that the 
differences are so fundamental that there is no point in trying to carry
on dialogue, only in being able to recognize them for what they are and
be ready to stand in opposition to them.

See, I don't see AR folks as being monolithic, although I used to until I 
joined this newsgroup. I don't blame every AR supporter for the sins of ALF 
anymore, for example.  But nonetheless, I realize that for some among you 
this conflict between the AR faction and the rest of society has taken on 
an element of holy war, and I will not forget that fact when dealing with 
those type of people.

>You're entitled to your opinions, but do you really believe that 
>you'll win converts among undecided listeners by ridiculing the names of 
>your opponents?  Do you think AR folks would win points by referring
>to you as "Kenneth Blankhead"?  [probably not]

Well, darn, Russell;  at least you coulda stuck on a smiley! :-)  All
joking aside, when you grow up with something like "Whitehead" for a last 
name, you learn how to not let such things bother you. I've been hearing
that kind of joke off and on since gradeschool.  Most of the time
it comes out "Blackhead", though; but your version is MUCH wittier than 
that! :-)  As far as winning converts to my side, I think raving AR
crazies like "dreamer" do a far better job of that than I ever could.

>Of cour
se.  I'd love to debate the issues with you in a public forum.
>Was that what you had in mind?   

Well, I think that's kinda what we're doing, right?


>Or were you interested in disrupting
>a public forum, so that various viewpoints might not be heard?


No, I wasn't talking about disrupting a public forum, but simply having a 
few hunters present so that various viewpoints WOULD be heard.  Hey, this
thing IS open to the public, isn't it?


KW>If you don't want hunters showing
kw> up to protest your AR conference, then tell your cohorts not to bother
kw> us at the NRA Whitetail Clinic, etc., and out in the woods.  What goes 
kw> around comes around.

>I'm not sure that the two situations are analogous.


Your opinion on that is of no significance as far as what others may
think or do.  Like I said before, if you don't want your conferences
protested, tell your cohorts to leave us alone.  You are the aggressors,
not us.  For years, ARFs have sought out hunters (and others they disagree 
with) for harrassment, and when anybody tried to complain, you squealed loud
and long about freedom of speech.  Well, freedom of speech can be a real
two-edged sword sometimes, can't it?  And just so we don't lose track of
this fact, what I'm talking about is not disruption, but merely the presence
of enough people of an opposing viewpoint at this conference in order to make 
sure that the deck isn't stacked TOO badly against your opponents;  peaceful, 
orderly protest, by peaceful, ordinary people who don't believe that "Meat
is Murder" or that pet ownership is a form of slavery.  Get used to it, Russ.  
The days of easy victories are over for you guys.

Ken 

>>>>------------->  "One shot, quick and clean"