Glorfindel wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
>>> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
>>> authorized by PETA.
>
>
>> Do you accept that excuse when animals are abused by workers in the
>> meat industry?
>
>
> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
> were shelter animals transferred to PETA.

To be killed, which is all PeTA does to shelter animals.

John Wesley wrote:

>>There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
>>were shelter animals transferred to PETA. The technician who
>>euthanized them was licensed, and they weren't "smothered" as
>>alleged. The issue was proper disposal of the dead bodies.
>>
>
>
> Are you crazy. It was stated they were smothered. Thats why they are
> being charged with 31 felonies. They were found in a dumpster near
> where they took the animals. They were puppies and the people who
> turned them in were told they were being put up for adoption. You are
> in denial.

It wouldn't be the first time Karen Winter -
"glorfindel's" real name - was deep in denial.
However, where does it state the animals were
smothered? It's not in the original post; in fact,
Karen is the one who first brought it up. Hmm...

there -> their
there -> their
dads -> dad's
Hes -> He's
whats -> what's

SlipperySlope wrote:
> However, where does it state the animals were
> smothered? It's not in the original post;

No, it's not

> in fact, Glorfindel is the one who
> first brought it up.

No, I was not. Westley *claimed* this. I pointed out it is not
mentioned anywhere in the material he cited.

SlipperySlope wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:

<snip>


>> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
>> were shelter animals transferred to PETA.

> To be killed, which is all PeTA does to shelter animals.

Obviously not, since the hostile material cited by Westley himself
indicated that some animals were placed.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> there -> their
> there -> their
> dads -> dad's
> Hes -> He's
> whats -> what's
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

SlipperySlope wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:

>> This is obviously an unusual episode,

> You have no way of knowing that.

I do from PETA's record in general. You have no
way of knowing otherwise. Clearly, the
individuals involved acted on their own strange
initiative for some reason. It would make no
sense for PETA to dump animal bodies in trash
bins as a policy. If there were any question about
their procedures, that would be the surest way to
bring the issue to public attention.

As I noted in another response, every humane group
has this type of blunder occur at times. The
public (and the employees and volunteers) always have
a very ambivalent attitude toward euthanasia, and
the careless people who allow their animals to breed
and produce these unwanted animals are always quick
to blame the humane groups who get stuck with the
results. As I said to Westley -- why not attack the
factory farming industry? They have a 100 per cent
death rate, and they intend it it that way; they also
keep their animals in extremely inhumane conditions.
Yet people like Westley are eager to attack PETA,
which is trying to make a positive difference, and is
doing good work.

<snip>

>>> Newkirk has since said that dumping the animals into trash bins
>>> violates PETA policy.

Karen Winter wrote:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>> However, where does it state the animals were smothered? It's not in
>> the original post;
>
>
> No, it's not
>
>> in fact, Glorfindel is the one who first brought it up.
>
>
> No, I was not.

Yes, you were, Karen. It wasn't in John Wesley's (not
"Westley") post at all. YOU brought it up in a reply
to Dutch; Dutch didn't mention it, either.


> Westley *claimed* this.

No, he didn't, Karen. He didn't mention it until
*after* you did.

You obviously know more about this than you're letting
on, Karen.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
>>> were shelter animals transferred to PETA.
>
>
>> To be killed, which is all PeTA does to shelter animals.
>
>
> Obviously not, since the hostile material cited by Westley himself
> indicated that some animals were placed.

It does not. Either you can't read, or you're
deliberately lying. NOTHING in Wesley's (not
"Westley") balanced material - it's a news story from
the mainstream media, you dummy - indicates the PeTA
facility places *any* animals. It only says that
"Bertie County and Northampton County officials and one
Ahoskie veterinarian said they *believed* that
adoptable animals would find new homes" [emphasis
added]. PeTA MISREPRESENTED to these officials that
they placed animals with people wanting pets. They
lied - hardly for the first time.

Karen Winter lied:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
>>> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
>>> authorized by PETA.
>
>
>> Do you accept that excuse when animals are abused by workers in the
>> meat industry?
>
>
> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
> were shelter animals transferred to PETA. The technician who
> euthanized them was licensed, and they weren't "smothered" as
> alleged. The issue was proper disposal of the dead bodies.

Only in part. The bigger issue is that PeTA
MISREPRESENTS that they place any animals as pets.
They don't - they kill them.

Karen Winter lied:

> John Wesley wrote:
>
>> In article .com>,
>> says...
>
>
>>> Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
>>> but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
>>> has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
>>> would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
>>> is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
>>> than master and slave.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>
>
> For what?
>
>> Glorfindel will never get it.
>
>
> I certainly "get it."

You don't, Karen.


> It is the way I feel about my own companion
> animals,

Pets.


> and why there is a movement today to replace "pet owner"
> with "companion animal guardian" as the preferred term.

A movement that is going nowhere, and which only
appeals to diehard leftwing identity politics
extremists like you. The movement is going nowhere.
It's just more of your empty symbolism - pure mental
masturbation.


> But until the *legal* status of animals changes -- until they are
> no longer property -- nothing will really change.

It won't.

SlipperySlope wrote:

<snip>

>>> To be killed, which is all PeTA does to shelter animals.

>> Obviously not, since the hostile material cited by Wesley himself
>> indicated that some animals were placed.

> NOTHING in Wesley's (not "Westley") balanced material - it's a news
> story from the mainstream media, you dummy - indicates the PeTA facility
> places *any* animals.

That is incorrect. Reread the statistics he posted.

SlipperySlope wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:

<snip>

>> Wesley *claimed* this.

> No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

> He didn't mention it until *after* you did.

He was the one who mentioned it first. I noted nothing he
posted supported his claim. Reread the material he posted.

SlipperySlope wrote:

<snip>

> PeTA MISREPRESENTS that they
> place any animals as pets. They don't - they kill them.


That is false.

SlipperySlope wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>> there is a movement today to replace "pet owner"
>> with "companion animal guardian" as the preferred term.

> It's just more of your empty symbolism

It certainly is symbolic, because, as I said, until the
*legal* status of animals changes there will be no major
progress. However, language is very important. The words
we use both reflect and create our mental landscape, and
the idea that a human companion is a guardian rather than
an "owner" creates a very different picture in the mind of
the person who uses the term. I do hope the terminology
becomes more common; it will reflect a healthy shift in the
popular mind. Children have guardians, not owners, and if
humans see companion animals as analogous to their children,
as indeed they should, it may well improve animals' welfare.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
>>> This is obviously an unusual episode,
>
>
>> You have no way of knowing that.
>
>
> I do from PETA's record in general.

You don't know their "record in general". What you
know is the image of them you like to hold.


> You have no
> way of knowing otherwise. Clearly, the
> individuals involved acted on their own strange
> initiative for some reason.

That is not clear at all, and you certainly don't
"know" it.


> It would make no
> sense for PETA to dump animal bodies in trash
> bins as a policy.

Their entire existence makes no sense, except for
purposes of self promotion.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> To be killed, which is all PeTA does to shelter animals.
>
>
>>> Obviously not, since the hostile material cited by Wesley himself
>>> indicated that some animals were placed.
>
>
>> NOTHING in Wesley's (not "Westley") balanced material - it's a news
>> story from the mainstream media, you dummy - indicates the PeTA
>> facility places *any* animals.
>
>
> That is incorrect.

It isn't incorrect.


> Reread the statistics he posted.

He didn't post any statistics; not in this thread,
anyway. Stop lying, Karen.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Wesley *claimed* this.
>
>
>> No, he didn't.
>
>
> Yes, he did.

No, he didn't. Stop lying, Karen - YOU first mentioned it.


>
>> He didn't mention it until *after* you did.
>
>
> He was the one who mentioned it first.

No, you mentioned it first; sort of like a criminal
suspect blurting something out the police haven't even
mentioned.


> I noted nothing he
> posted supported his claim.

He didn't make the claim until *after* you brought up
"smothered". Stop lying, Karen.


> Reread the material he posted.

I have - all three posts he has made in this thread.
You mentioned "smothered" first, in response to Dutch.
John Wesley's first mention is in reponse to yours.

Stop lying, Karen.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> PeTA MISREPRESENTS that they place any animals as pets. They don't -
>> they kill them.
>
>
>
> That is false.

No, that's true. You're lying, Karen - typically.

SlipperySlope wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> Wesley *claimed* this.

>> He was the one who mentioned it first.

> No, you mentioned it first

That is false. In a post on 1/18 at 7:54, Wesley wrote:

"Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in Virginia."

to which I responded:

"I don't believe it."

And indeed no one has presented any evidence Wesley's claim was true.

Google it yourself, if you like.

I don't really mind you calling me by a wrong name. It offers
me a bit of protection. But if you do not stop posting false
claims about what others have posted here, I will be forced to
killfile you.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
>>>>> Wesley *claimed* this.
>
>
>>> He was the one who mentioned it first.
>
>
>> No, you mentioned it first
>
>
> That is false. In a post on 1/18 at 7:54, Wesley wrote:
>
> "Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in Virginia."

Not in this thread he didn't.


>
> to which I responded:
>
> "I don't believe it."
>
> And indeed no one has presented any evidence Wesley's claim was true.
>
> Google it yourself, if you like.
>
> I don't really mind you calling me by a wrong name.

It's your name. This is established: same ISP, IP
address in Santa Fe, same stupidly thorough familiarity
with every "ar" hack writer, same use of absurd
extremist leftwing terminology ("companion animals",
bleagh). You are Karen Winter.

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
> [...]
>
> I don't really mind you calling me by a wrong name.

Interesting as well, Karen, that although you claim
it's a false name and that you don't mind my referring
to you by it, it apparently bothered you enough that
you *removed* all the references to it and restored one
of them to your silly, juvenile pseudonyn.

You are always such a terrible liar, Karen - yet you
never stop trying.

More funny crap by Karen Winter that *proves* it's
Karen Winter:

> But if you do not stop posting false
> claims about what others have posted here, I will be forced to
> killfile you.

You "will be forced", eh? There's that *classic* Karen
Winter passivism again. No, Karen - you would *choose*
to killfile me (and people who announce their
killfilings are arrogant scum). No one would be
"forcing" you to do anything.

Always see yourself as some kind of victim, don't you?

Karen Winter lied:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
>>> there is a movement today to replace "pet owner"
>>> with "companion animal guardian" as the preferred term.
>
>
>> It's just more of your empty symbolism
>
>
> It certainly is symbolic,

Emptily symbolic - just like your "veganism".


> because, as I said, until the
> *legal* status of animals changes

It isn't going to change.


> there will be no major
> progress. However, language is very important.

Right. It is especially important not to succumb to
the use of inflammatory, ideological language like
"companion animals" in place of the perfectly
serviceable and correct "pets", and fortunately, not
1/100 of one percent of the population does so.


> The words
> we use both reflect and create our mental landscape, and
> the idea that a human companion is a guardian rather than
> an "owner" creates a very different picture in the mind of
> the person who uses the term. I do hope the terminology
> becomes more common; it will reflect a healthy shift in the
> popular mind. Children have guardians, not owners,

Children are not animals. Animals *do* have owners,
and that's just how it is, and it is good.

SlipperySlope wrote:

> Glorfindel - you would *choose* to killfile me

And so I do. No point in being polite to you, obviously.

In article >, says...
> SlipperySlope wrote:
> > However, where does it state the animals were
> > smothered? It's not in the original post;
>
> No, it's not
>
> > in fact, Glorfindel is the one who
> > first brought it up.
>
> No, I was not. Westley *claimed* this. I pointed out it is not
> mentioned anywhere in the material he cited.
>
It was stated on TV at the time it happened. It was stated in one of
the articles, maybe not the ones I posted. What do you think those 31
felonies were for?

jw

In article .com>,
says...
> there -> their
> there -> their
> dads -> dad's
> Hes -> He's
> whats -> what's
>
>

Who died and made you an Enlish Teacher?

In article et>,
says...
> Karen Winter lied:
>
>

She is full of crap isn't she! I gave up. You can't make her
understand even with facts.

jw

Karen Winter wrote:

> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>> Karen - you would *choose* to killfile me
>
>
> And so I do.

So what was with the malarkey about "being forced"?

John Wesley wrote:

> In article et>,
> says...
>
>>Karen Winter lied:
>>
>>
>
>
> She is full of crap isn't she! I gave up. You can't make her
> understand even with facts.

Karen Winter ("glorfindel" - what a stupid pseudonym,
but typical for her: pure fantasyland) is a
deliberately self-deluded nut.

In article >, says...
> John Wesley wrote:
>
> > You can't deny the truth!
>
> This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
> authorized by PETA.
>

read this.
especially the 3rd paragraph


PETA Kills Puppies and Kittens
June 21, 2005 - In a development stunning even to those who actively
follow the outrageous exploits of animal rights extremists, two full-
time staff members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), based in Norfolk, Virginia, have been charged with 31 felony
counts of animal cruelty after allegedly killing and disposing of 31
dead animals in a grocery store dumpster late last week. The Animal
Agriculture Alliance (Alliance) today called for a federal investigation
into these actions and greater scrutiny of potentially-related actions.

Authorities in Ahoskie, North Carolina have publicly charged the PETA
employees, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle, with 31 felony
counts of animal cruelty after the duo allegedly dumped 7 puppies and 11
other pets in a grocery store dumpster. When the authorities searched
their van, registered to PETA, the authorities found another 13 dead
pets, including two kittens which a local veterinarian is quoted as
being ''very adoptable.'' We understand that only hours earlier, Cook
and Hinkle picked up the animals from the local shelter, identifying
themselves as PETA employees, claming they would find the animals ''good
homes.''

This incident may be part of a pattern. According to news reports, the
grocery store manager in indicated that the duo had illicitly used his
dumpster as an impromptu pet cemetery nine times. Other similar reports
come from Greenville, North Carolina where authorities discovered more
than 70 dead animals last month which they believe to be connected to
PETA. Likewise, this spring, authorities found over 150 dead dogs dumped
in trash bags near a riverbank in Scott County, Virginia.

For years PETA has portrayed itself as a champion of animal rights,
attacking American farmers and ranchers who care for their animals. The
Alliance submits PETA's ''champion'' status would be highly misleading
if the organization is actively involved in the destruction of highly
adoptable puppies and kittens.

John Wesley wrote:

> She is full of crap isn't she! I gave up. You can't make her
> understand even with facts.

I understand you have an emotional connection to your companion
animal. So do I. That does not change the legal status of
either your companion animal or the similar animals raised for
meat, with whose deaths you seem to have no problem at all.

What makes a pig any different from your dog?

John Wesley wrote:

<snip>

Glorfindel wrote:

>>This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
>>indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
>>authorized by PETA.

<snip>

> This incident may be part of a pattern.

And it may be perpetrated by space aliens, too.

> Other similar reports
> come from Greenville, North Carolina where authorities discovered more
> than 70 dead animals last month which

*they believe*

on what evidence? None given here

> to be connected to
> PETA. Likewise, this spring, authorities found over 150 dead dogs dumped
> in trash bags near a riverbank in Scott County, Virginia.

No evidence this was connected with PETA is given.

This is the same kind of urban legend which was circulating years
ago claiming other things about PETA which were not true and never
proved.

How about that 100 per cent death rate in factory farming and the
dead piles and "downers" at slaughterhouses? Want to adopt some
of those animals, Wesley? Talk to Farm Sanctuary. They make
excellent companion animals.

> For years PETA has portrayed itself as a champion of animal rights,
> attacking American farmers and ranchers who care for their animals. The
> Alliance submits PETA's ''champion'' status would be highly misleading
> if the organization is actively involved in the destruction of highly
> adoptable puppies and kittens.

There are always many, many more "highly adoptable" animals of all
ages who have to be put down because there are no homes for them.
PETA is attacking the problem where it needs to be attacked by
running spay/neuter campaigns and providing a mobile spay/neuter van.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > there -> their
> > there -> their
> > dads -> dad's
> > Hes -> He's
> > whats -> what's
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> snip the racist spew from karen.....
> >
> > How is it racist?
> >===========
> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> are black

Her comparisons mentioned nothing about being American or black.

> to dogs.

Her comparisons were based on legal status, not individual worth.

> That you don't see comparing them to animals as racist says
> alot...

Glorfindel wrote:
> rick wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
>
> >>rick wrote:
>
> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>
> >>How is it racist?
> >>===========
>
> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> > are black to dogs.
>
> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> ethnic group.

Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.

> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>
> <snip>

rick wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >
> >>>rick wrote:
> >
> >>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
> >
> >>>How is it racist?
> >>>===========
> >
> >> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> >> are black to dogs.
> >
> > There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> > country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> > ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> > German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> > of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> > It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> > legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> >
> > <snip>
> =========================
> All racists try to cover their hatred...

False. There are plenty of people who are openly racist.

> You're not doing a very
> good job.
> Your comparisions are bogus.

I don't wish to defend her comparisons except against this
ludicrous accusation of racism. She is not comparing black
slaves with dogs but the legal status of black slaves with
the legal status of dogs.

> Thanks for proving you have
> nothing, should I also submit posts to you for spell-checking
> too?

John Wesley wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
> >
> > Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
> > but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
> > has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
> > would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
> > is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
> > than master and slave.
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks,
>
> Glorfindel will never get it.

Actually I think Glorfindel does get it. Making comparisons between
pet ownership and slavery seems OTT but I have now come to realise
that she is not criticising you for looking after a dog in your house.
She
is objecting to the legal status that the dog is granted. Perhaps it
isn't
so unreasonable after all.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>> rick wrote:
>> > "Dave" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>>
>> >>rick wrote:
>>
>> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>>
>> >>How is it racist?
>> >>===========
>>
>> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
>> > comparisons
>> > are black to dogs.
>>
>> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
>> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
>> ethnic group.
>
> Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
> be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
> were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
> from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
> that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
==========================
No, the fact that all vegan loons always compare animals to
people speaks volumes to their idiocy. Pets are like slaves, the
meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust. That you
can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you too...


>
>> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
>> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
>> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
>> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
>> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>>
>> <snip>
>

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Glorfindel wrote:
> >> rick wrote:
> >> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> >>rick wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
> >>
> >> >>How is it racist?
> >> >>===========
> >>
> >> > Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her
> >> > comparisons
> >> > are black to dogs.
> >>
> >> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> >> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> >> ethnic group.
> >
> > Even if this weren't the case it is preposterous of Rick to
> > be accusing you of racism. The setence "Black people
> > were treated like dogs" has a completely different meaning
> > from the sentence "black people are like dogs". The fact
> > that Rick can't see the difference speaks volumes.
> ==========================
> No, the fact that all

Some

> vegan loons

Advocates

> always compare animals to people

Well they do have some things in common don't they?

> speaks volumes to their idiocy.
> Pets are like slaves,

Is not a racist statement.

> the
> meat industry is like killing jews in the holocaust.

Is not a racist statement.

> That you
> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you too...

Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. Raising animals
for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>
> >
> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >