Dickie continues to berate others and make insinuations.

She has admitted the intention to donate money to PETA which was proved to have given money to terrorist organisations; synonymous with 'acting as a front' if we were to use terminology associated with the Mafia. Words such as hypocritical do not seem strong enough to describe her attitude. Once again she provides more evidence that she and her peers are fundamentalist fanatics on an animal worshipping Jihad.

Dickie, please answer the questions 1- are flatworms sentient? 2-define cruelty. 3-Were you an abused child? This is not a snide question, we are being truthful with you and it would be nice if you did the same. 4- Is the phrase they were acting like animals anachronistic?

There is BIG money in all sorts of fuel these days. Money flows to those who create scape-coats and FUEL dissension. Every week there is another crisis identified in the papers that require solutions -- the media fuels their economic welfare in the process.

Lawyers and activists demonstrate they INTUITIVLEY UNDERSTAND this by creating businesses out of prolonging conflict, even creating them, in order to continue funding their life styles. They expand the mental paradigms into sophisticated organisations to fight the scape-coats they have constructed (much better than a franchise, but then again, I will agree ALs are creative)

S Keen in Faces of the Enemy, psychologist, has explained consensual paranoia -- a PATHOLOGY of a normal person who is a member of a war-justifying society. This forms a template from which all the images of the enemy are created ... Paranoia involves a complex of mental, emotional (including child abuse), and social mechanisms by which a person or people claim righteousness and purity, and attribute hostility and evil to the enemy, ... Paranoia reduces anxiety and guilt by transferring to others all the characteristics one does not want to recognize in oneself ... We only see and acknowledged those negative aspects of the enemy that support the stereotype we have already created. Just how relevant to the article is this cognitive light bulb.

We require a word for social or non-race based racism, AL loves to draw an analogy between slavery and animal husbandry. Vilification comes to mind but a modern improved word would be nice.

However, Animal Libbers exhibit the markings of racists; they just have a different target. For example, those who support culling feral animals by shooting are painted as amoral, cruel, stupid, untrustworthy and psychopaths.

I know of a young couple who are keen hunters one is a nurse (male) the wife is a primary teacher. AL are synonymous with a racist organisation as they attribute certain beliefs and attributes to a minority group. In addition these self appointed moralists define what is a pure belief system and then wage war when they think it is required ie ALF.

Society has taken a stand, it is called the RSPCA Dickie, which has some level of pragmatism and formal authority so most people can support it most of the time -- find some other cause as you won't have to look very hard to find one, homelessness for example.

We also have enough lawyers who always seem to be the biggest winners in any legal conflict.

Hmmmm. Mimosa says the majority of Australians are animal loving people and respect the animals under their stewardship. Bollocks!

West Australian Newspaper 5/1/07:

"One Perth cat sanctuary has been so inundated with kittens given as unwanted Christmas presents it predicts that 750 of the 1000 to be handed over will be put down."

Another small regional council pound collects 100 abandoned dogs per month.

May I suggest Mimosa, that it is not I who is "pompous" or "bullying". Official documents held by animal pounds, RSPCA's, other relevant authorities and the media clearly reveals that it is you and your buddies who are peddling propaganda to protect your vested interests!

My trivial error of "crutching" makes not one iota of difference to the practices you are condoning.

Dr John Auty (vet and sheep farmer) is quoted as saying:

"Flaying (mulesing) is unacceptable on any ground. To condone this practice in any form is immoral." It's downright criminal!

He said that the pain inflicted by the above practice would last for weeks probably months afterwards.

Now, perhaps we could get on to the subject of meat cows where I understand, these poor critters are placed in a crush, then slit open, fully conscious, without anaesthetic, while their ovaries are sliced out, one at a time. What charmers we are debating with, who categorically deny any form of cruelty takes place in factory farming.

If the AGWA are sincere in phasing out mulesing, then they too have finally entered the 21st century and now regard this practice as inhumane. So it's catch up time for the Yabbys, Mimosas, and the Gryphons (though don't gryphons have the brain of a bird?) Of course, these stakeholders' objections would be loudly reverberating within the establishment of the AGWA!

Thank you Yabby for advising me that PETA collect $20m a year. It reinforces my belief that you et al are unable to dupe everyone and that discerning citizens are able to make "qualified" and "informed opinions" before donating hard-earned dollars to a worthy cause.

Can we soon look forward to the hunter being hunted?

Dickie “Mimosa says the majority of Australians are animal loving people and respect the animals under their stewardship. Bollocks!”

“Bollocks” – I request you prove that they do not.

You might be able pick 100, 200 or a thousand examples of cruel behaviour from news articles.

However, Australia has a population of 20 million people.

For you to disclaim what Mimosa suggested, “that the majority of Australians are not animal loving and respectful of animals under their stewardship”

You will need to cite where 10 million + Australians are uncaring and disrespectful.

I await, with interest, your reply.

At this moment in time I am thinking “dickie by name, dickie by nature”.

At least “bollocks” is appropriate, you are generally seen hanging around with a couple of them.

As for PETA – a bunch of control freaks with more money and free time than sense or life purpose, busy telling the rest of us how we must live our lives.

They, along with the rest of the animal liberation movement, vegans, vegetarians and fellow opinion fascists would be better off excising themselves from the real world and try actually living according to their code.
Then we could all look back at them, after 5 years on a diet of mongo bean, thatched shirts and no soap or modern medicines and see how enthused they are with the lifestyle they would seek to inflict on the rest of us.

Dickie I wish you would answer Cowboy Joe and define cruelty as you see it. When do we cross that line between doing what we can to minimize animals suffering and actually inflicting it? It seems at time that we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

This happened to me this morning. Tell me what you would have done.

A small piglet had been savaged by a confused young mother. The resulting injuries – one gash about 1cm deep near the hip, another gaping whole in its neck about 20cm long and nearly as deep. The cut to the throat amazingly did not severe any thing vital. What do I do?

1. Put the animal down (sharp blown to head and stick with a sharp knife)
2. Attempt to get the animal to the nearest vet before it died (50km away) while also considering the actually monetary value of the piglet - $0
3. Attend to the wound myself and stitch it up without anesthetic. Of course I have on hand all the correct equipment and other medications to do so.

You know that I chose option 3. Tell me honestly, what would you have done?

I think you also need to clarify the ‘meat cow’ and ‘ovaries’ thing?

Dickie, you made more then a trivial error. What your comment in fact
suggests is that you don't know the first thing about the sheep
industry. Armchair animal libbers are a dime a dozen, that doesent
mean they have the foggiest of what they are talking about.

I've never heard of John Auty, but then one swallow does not make
a summer. There are plenty of vets, well informed about the sheep
industry, who fully understand what would happen if merino sheep
were not mulesed. Go out onto a half million acre station and try
searching behind every rock daily, for a flyblown sheep, to understand
the logisitics involved, if mulesing were banned. The reality is that
there would be huge suffering, with sheep dying, eaten alive by
millions of maggots.

As to mulesing, Peta clearly lied to their audience, claiming that
"dinner plate sized chunks of flesh" were removed from lambs.
What a load of bollocks! Have you ever seen mulesing? A couple
of small pieces of loose skin are removed, no flesh, no dinner plates.
But of course the funds might not pour in, if the truth were told.

Given that a small piece of skin is such a major concern to you,
perhaps best that you go and give a big comforting hug to all those
males whom you know, who lost their foreskins without anesthetics
as babies. No doubt they carry the traumatic scars with them
for life and could do with your affection :)