From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:18:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Dan Sorenson writes:

>jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:

>>The public is invited to this event.  However, as of this posting, no one has
>>stepped forward to take them on in public - _even_ after a comprehensive
>>search.  Furthermore, several hunting advocates have backed out of the debate
>>after first accepting the invitation.

>	I smell a set-up.  What's the catch we're not hearing?

>If Nugent believes his message "works like magic," then why does he refuse to
>participate in the FoA debate?  It's certainly not because he's going to be
>busy bowhunting that day.

>	Why don't you ask Ted -- I'm sure he will be more than willing to
>give you his opinion with great gusto.

I believe he _was_ asked to participate in the debate.  The first announcement
for the Conference mentioned his name as a possible spokesperson for the
hunting side of the issue.  In fact, if you go waaaay back in this newsgroup,
you'll find a couple of responses to my base note announcing the Conference
in which at least a couple of hunters said it was unfair to include a "yahoo"
like Nugent (the hunter's words, not mine) as the hunting spokesperson.  The
hunter's claim was that Nugent was too radical, and would only fuel the fire
of the opposition.  This opinion of Nugent held by hunters surprised me,
because I thought he was respected among his ranks.  Another hunter suggested
that FoA might "stage" the whole event, include a phony hunter whose purpose
was to say all the wrong things, and thereby try to make all hunters look bad.
I followed up by saying the debate is open to anybody, and that hunters who
wanted to make sure they were represented by a "real" hunter could simply show
up and fill that role.

The last followup I got in the mail said that so far, no hunter has committed
to be there.  No reason was given as to why.  I assumed the pro-hunting
spokespersons backed out for some reason.

>Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?

	I smell a biased rat.  What's the protocol for the debate, and is
there a moderator?  Open forum?  Prepared questions? 

I don't know how the debate will be conducted.  

>I'll be in Austin for the Conference and for the debate, so I can post a
>followup as to whether any of those ~700 noble, level-headed hunters could
>muster the conviction and the courage to stand up to a bunch of gullible,
>Bambi-worshipping vegetarians.

	I'm sure it will be an unbiased report, too.  I'll be waiting to
see your report, and also look in on the media coverage if there is any.

What's with this biased/unbiased business?  Who said I was unbiased, or even
trying to be unbiased?  Certainly not me.  My bias is as clear as yours, or
Scott Woods', or Mike Linan's.  In case you're still not sure, I'm on the side
of the animals, and against those who enjoy killing them.  Is that clear
enough? 

If you wanted to ensure "fair" representation, i.e., biased remarks from
_both_ sides of the issue, I suggest you attend the debate and post your own
followup. 
-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "Those who kill animals for food will be more prone 
 jjohnson@convex.com |  than vegetarians to torture and kill their fellow
	IWTFM	     |  men."  		--Pythagoras 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals