on the positive side of negative/critical posts

[Guest guest]

I want to thank those of you who post critical comments (and the positive

ones too). Like the recent observations about Urban Forage, and about PETA.

You've given me the option to avoid having an experience similar to yours

(re Urban Forage). And I do read the positive comments too, but positive

information is also readily available from those who are invested in the

status quo. Like the letter from PETA. IF any aspect of what they do is

pro-kill, what are the chances that PETA would say so, knowing that would

cost them donations and volunteers? This is not just a

difference-of-opinion situation (some people like Urban Forage, some like

PETA, some don't). I appreciate having the full range of information that

can help me to make a more conscious choice.

The following is excerpted from editor Merritt Clifton's answer to a

letter in the December 2000 edition of Animal People.

(www.animalpeoplenews.org click on " search archives " and search for

" December 2000 letters " for the larger context)

 

" That's why PETA is adamantly anti-no-kill sheltering, anti-neuter/return,

anti-high-volume adoption, and continues to maintain hit squads who

eradicate feral cat colonies. "

 

[Note to Tammy: I just checked the forum (1:14a.m. 6/29) and none of this

discussion seems to be there. It has continued on this basic BAV list

however, even after your 6/24 request. I'd prefer to put my input where

others who have expressed interest in the subject have put theirs, and where

they are apparently reading. Thanks for your forbearance.]

 

Robert

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release 6/24/04

[Guest guest]

Robert, I agree with you that critical views on topics are useful. I also

agree with you that on-topic, active threads (activity demonstrating group

relevance and interest) should not be censored by a moderator.

 

Personally I am undecided on the PETA debate as I would like more

substantive information. To that end, without a substantiating example your

speculation about PETA hiding their political position is just conjecture.

I've always found them much more to be taking flak for being forthright than

the other way around.

 

Also: your quote of a member of one organization, purporting the policies of

another, is heresay and only makes the reality that much harder to suss out.

I recommend a different web search: use the search box at peta.org and the

term " shelter " to see a great number of examples of their positions on

shelter animals.

 

--Bruce

 

 

 

> I want to thank those of you who post critical comments (and the positive

> ones too). Like the recent observations about Urban Forage, and

> about PETA.

> You've given me the option to avoid having an experience similar to yours

> (re Urban Forage). And I do read the positive comments too, but positive

> information is also readily available from those who are invested in the

> status quo. Like the letter from PETA. IF any aspect of what they do is

> pro-kill, what are the chances that PETA would say so, knowing that would

> cost them donations and volunteers? This is not just a

> difference-of-opinion situation (some people like Urban Forage, some like

> PETA, some don't). I appreciate having the full range of information that

> can help me to make a more conscious choice.

> The following is excerpted from editor Merritt Clifton's answer to a

> letter in the December 2000 edition of Animal People.

> (www.animalpeoplenews.org click on " search archives " and search for

> " December 2000 letters " for the larger context)

>

> " That's why PETA is adamantly anti-no-kill sheltering,

> anti-neuter/return,

> anti-high-volume adoption, and continues to maintain hit squads who

> eradicate feral cat colonies. "

>

> [Note to Tammy: I just checked the forum (1:14a.m. 6/29) and none of this

> discussion seems to be there. It has continued on this basic BAV list

> however, even after your 6/24 request. I'd prefer to put my input where

> others who have expressed interest in the subject have put

> theirs, and where

> they are apparently reading. Thanks for your forbearance.]

>

> Robert