From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:59:49 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Nov11.160606.18495@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov09.160447.12222@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>>>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>>Are you saying that, for example, Marc Mead and Mary Lou Sapone were not
>>on the US Surgical payroll but instead received money from Friends of
>>Animals (FOA)?
>
>>Please be specific.  What are you claiming and what is your source?
>
>I'm claiming that FOA supported and funded Fran Trutt in an operation against
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>U.S. Surgical.  This was stated in an FOA newsletter some years back, but
>Ms. Feral suggested that when she gave Trutt the money, she wasn't fully 
>aware of what she was going to do with it.  Gee, sorta sounds like the old
>Ollie North - Ronald Reagan thing, don't it?  "I don't recall".

Please be specific here.  What sort of operation? Do you have or have
you seen evidence to show that FOA intentionally planned and funded a
bombing. 

Who was funding Mead and Sapone?


>>Will you stand behind your statements to the extent that you will
>>authorize me to send copies to FOA for their response?
>
>Don't worry, FOA keeps copies of thier newsletters, I'm sure.

So are you saying that their newsletter will tell me that they planned
and funded a bombing?

Will you make a clear statement of your accusation about FOA?

Will you stand behind your statements to the extent that you will
authorize me to send copies to FOA for their response?


>>>Hey, while we're at it, perhaps you can explain why the National Anti-
>>>Viviseciton Society is investing so heavily in US Surgical and several other
>>>"animal abusing" companies?  If it's to be able to get a measure onto the
>>>agenda in a stockholder's meeting, then you're wrong, because they've bought
>>>QUITE a bit more than they'd need to to get that done.  Actually, it looks to
>>>me like savvy investing, because so far they've really cleaned up from the
>>>rise in the "abusers" stock prices rising.  So much for that definition -
>>>even the LEADERS in your movement are lying to you.
>
>>You're the first one I've heard refer to NAVS as LEADERS in the
>>movement.  I don't know much about them, except that Animals' Agenda has
>>in the past reported on some alleged irregularities in their finances. 
>>Are you trying to discredit the entire AR movement by repeating some
>>*big secret* which was reported many months ago in a prominent AR journal.
>>If so, you'll have to do better.
>
>Oh, it's no secret, and I never represented it as such.  As a matter of fact,
>the source I quote is indeed the same you do - Animals Agenda.  I asked 
>simply how a group that bills itself as one of the tops in the fight AGAINST
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>vivisection and other 'cruelties' can get away with such actions and stay
>in the AR fold.  I guess just by calling themselves AR, huh?
        ^^^^^^^

Many people and groups "bill" themselves in a certain way.  So what? 

If an AR magazine hadn't exposed this information, would you even
know about?

And what, pray tell, is the "AR fold?"

>
>-- 
>Todd++;

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.