From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.152017.23464@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>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. 
>
>The FOA magazine stated that they had given Fran Trutt money, supposedly to
>protest in some way US Surgical.  They made a big deal out of the fact that
>they didn't know precisely what she was up to, I guess so that thier faithful
>will forgive them because they were stupid enough not to ask.
>
>>Who was funding Mead and Sapone?
>
>That makes NO difference.  Fran Trutt had the choice to not plant a bomb -
>if she was the 'defined' animal rights activist that Rosemary had described,
>then she *WOULD* have chosen not to attempt murder, no matter how many
>people were pushing her into it.  Let me ask you this - if 100 people came
>to you tomorrow, and each one asked you to plant a bomb, would you?  Next,
>if you DID choose to plant the bomb, what difference would it make who asked
>you to do it - isn't it your choice?

I agree that the mitigating circumstances do not excuse Trutt's action. 
But there is much more, as you know, to this case than you seem anxious
to admit.  There are a few "details" which point toward a setup and
entrapment orchestrated by the US Surgical president himself, acting
through people like Sapone (who, it was alleged, repeatedly supported
and urged the bomb attempt) and Mead (who, in violation of his parole,
allegedly drove Trutt and the bomb across a state boundary).  There's
evidence that both these people were on the US Surgical payroll at the
time. 

>>So are you saying that their newsletter will tell me that they planned
>>and funded a bombing?
>
>Thier newsletter shows that they funded Fran Trutt, not knowing what she
>intended.  This is at the very least irresponsible behavior, criminally so
>in my view.

Not if they were unaware of her precise activities.  If they fund her,
they no doubt retrospectively wish they had monitored her more closely. 
I'm still looking for a statement and evidence from you that FOA
knowingly funded a bomb attempt and for authorization from you to send
your accusation to FOA for confirmation or rebuttal.  That seems only
fair when a serious accusation like this is publicly made. 

>>>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? 
>
>The animal rights 'movement' is self-defined.  So far, I've seen no indication,
>other than Rosemary here, that they've got any intentions of policing the bad
>apples out of thier midst.  

Huh? What do you suppose Animals' Agenda was doing by printing the
series of articles exposing the NAVS financing controversy?

>NAVS calls themselves AR, so they become part of
>the definition of it.  I call myself a hunter, I become part of the definition
>of hunter.

I call myself infallible, so I become infallible? :-)

Actually I do agree with you that it's valid to consider NAVS part of
the AR movement.  But I also see the public exposure of their activities
as an attempt to police the movement ...  just like you're calling on
them to do.  Instead of making derogatory comments about AR leaders'
lies, it seems like you would be expressing satisfaction at the attempts
to self-police.

>>If an AR magazine hadn't exposed this information, would you even
>>know about?
>
>Oh, yes.  I'd read about it in several other places before I saw it in the
>Animals Agenda, I just thought that was the most amusing place to quote it
>from.

Where else did you read about it?

>
>>And what, pray tell, is the "AR fold?"
>
>y'all.

Who all?

>
>-- 
>Todd++;

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