From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 19:16:33 GMT

In article <Bvvxv4.n0A@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From a previous article:
>rl> [...]  Every political movement has 
>rl> it's share of people who aren't fully committed to the major 
>rl> goals at hand.  
>
>Rich Young replies, after editing out a crucial part of the above passage:

	Right, Russell, I have such a long and infamous history of editing
	with malicious intent.  I'm just trying to save space; if you don't
	like what I take out, then put it back in, but assumption of bad
	intent is both paranoid and inaccurate.

>ry> Like others, I do not believe that ALL AR activists engage in such
>ry> terrorist activities, but there are certainly some who do, just
>ry> as there are hunters which shoot holes in "STOP" signs.  Pretending,
>ry> as you seem wont to do, that EVERY supporter of a particular
>ry> viewpoint, especially such an emotionally charged one as AR, limits
>ry> actions to calm, reasoned discourse is ingenuous and smacks of
>ry> fanaticism-induced blindness.

[...]

>From article <1992Oct9.220438.28359@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> How about THIS part of your posting:
>ry> ======================================================================
>ry> ...blowing up mailboxes is not something that the AR activists I
>ry> know would ever consider doing.  [From <BvuAux.853@wpg.com>]
>ry> ======================================================================
>ry> 
>ry> You imply here that the "AR activists [you] know" are representative of
>ry> AR activists in general, ...
>
>Of course.  Were you assuming that the bombmakers were representative 
>of AR activists in general?   

	You're hoist by your own verbal petard here, Russell, and you know
	it.  First, you claim that none of the ARFs you know would DO such
	a thing as blow up mailboxes, implying that this attitude applies
	to ARFs in general, and then you turn around and attempt to disown
	those ARFs who actually DO trash laboratories...and probably blow
	up mailboxes.  Make up your mind, do you speak for ARFs or not?
	Are the ARFs you know representative or are they not?

[...]

>ry> And while you're at it, how about addressing the Aspen, Colorado 
>ry> demonstrations...I note that, once again, you're notably silent on the
>ry> subject.
>
>Why don't you give me some pointers to the literature so that I 
>can study the facts for myself?  Without digging very deeply, it 
>seems rather safe to conclude that paint and blood throwing 
>aren't commonplace occurrences, given the fact that there are 
>hundreds of thousands of fur-wearers in NYC, yet no police records
>to document any incidents.

	I've told you where it happened, and the time of year in which it
	occurred.  I've given you a rough idea of which years might be
	fruitful starting points.  The action made national TV, so it must
	have been an important event in the annals of AR groups everywhere.
	It was part of an attempt to have the sale of furs banned within
	Aspen city limits.  I'm sure you can find appropriate references
	with little trouble...frankly, I'M not concerned enough to be
	bothered.

>ry> Sure, it is POSSIBLE that the farmer's mailbox was blown up in order
>ry> to provide PR for anti-AR supporters, but it's far more likely that
>ry> a group of people like the ones who trashed the lab in Michigan were
>ry> responsible.
>
>rl> So you say (without proof).
>
>ry> And so did YOU say......without proof.  Funny how the standards
>ry> you impose upon yourself are so much more lax.
>
>I was under the impression that persons were innocent until proven
>guilty.  You seem to be saying that your unfounded accusations ought
>to be accepted as truth until they're falsified.

	Indeed, indeed.  Why then do you automatically accuse anti-AR
	people of pulling a PR stunt?  The FACTS are that we just don't
	know, isn't that right?  Suspicion, however, must fall on those
	with motive; the greater suspicion on those with history.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals