TRTL

Your lecture does not mitigate the fact that you are a hypocrite.

Nor does it mitigate the fact that both you and I resort to the use of ad hominems, though, unlike you, I am not reliant on innuendo.

When you infiltrate an animal welfare site to attack only those who care about the welfare of animals, then you obviously support those who don't.

I have yet to see you express any concern for animals which are being abominably treated in this country. Why are you here? Where are your constructive comments? Nil!

Therefore, one can only assume that you are here to slyly whack PETA. Unfortunately, your gutless posts are devoid of any substantial evidence to justify that whack.

"Though given that neither you nor Dickie have openly identified yourself as PETA spokespeople, I suppose this doesn't necessarily apply."

No it doesn't so why say it and why haven't you "openly identified" yourself?

Furthermore, whether I am "associated with PETA" or not is not your business. Those who object to PETA's work clearly have self-interests.

However, for the benefit of others, I do not donate to PETA nor have I ever made contact with them. Nevertheless, I thoroughly recommend the good work they are doing for defenceless creatures and your snide references about them, reveal your true intentions. Why not just express them?

So while you lounge in your armchair, composing your next post of irrelevant swill, you may like to read of PETA's achievements.

These achievements have been made possible with the dedicated assistance of 200 staff members and the financial support of many thousands of compassionate donors around the world.

These donors can actually witness the results of their investment where these results make very disturbing news for the gluttonous sadists who are charged with exploiting and criminally violating the rights of innocent species.

http://www.peta.org/about/victories_date.asp?selected_year=2008

Therefore, are you with PETA or against them? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. And like paedophilia, cruelty to animals has no grey area.

Hi all

TRTL, I do not resort to personal insults, in spite of being the target of particularly unpleasant personal attacks on various assumed attributes I may or may not have. I will, however, be quite vehement in my criticisms of what is clearly cruelty to animals, and what is blatant hypocrisy and/or untruth. You confuse the two.

Dickie's post containing the link about PETA's achievements is timely, and, for those who bother to look at it, it will clearly show that PETA in fact negotiates for better outcomes for animals and draws public attention to what it, and those who support it, believe is cruelty. Unlike Dickie, I HAVE had contact with PETA staff some time ago, and I found them to be well researched, highly intelligent individuals who were passionate about their cause. There doesn't seem to be too much wrong with any of that. That said, I do not contribute money to them, or any other group, nor am I a member.

PALE, I cannot understand what it is that makes you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is against animals and/or their welfare. In order to take up your feedlot cause, one would require some evidence of what you have claimed (Dickie, please take note). Without it, we have no way of knowing whether it is simply fiction. You provide no location, no legal facts, and no time of the alleged circumstances. Why do you not take the matter up with the Department of Primary Industry in whatever state this has occurred? Why do you not get your RSPCA friends to take it up?

And you still haven't answered any of my questions. You see, you claim to be a reputable animal welfare organization, so you should be prepared to state your credentials as requested. You seem to have inordinate difficulty in doing so. As for your "lawyers" being interested in the "blacklisting" - that says absolutely nothing. Being "interested" translates into - you guessed it - no action at all. The story of PALE's life really. It's all just a web of fantasy.

Nicky

#PALE, I cannot understand what it is that makes you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is against animals and/or their welfare#

pale
Nicky as you well aware pales in conjunction with RSPCA QLD. Also people such as the Humane Society International NSW Muslim groups.

No time did I say anybody was against animal welfare. I said 'You' were against fellow Animal Lovers. I asked you why.

Why post such horrible personal attacks on people who also love animals.

Its counter productive for animals. Counter productive especially for ones you support, such as Animals Australia and the American group PETA.

You have purposely avoided our question which was-

Please explain your hatred towards PALE= fellow animal’s lovers for 2 years Nicky. I put it to you ‘again’ you didn’t come into OLO to debate animal welfare at all. IMOP you came in OLO to rubbish our organization from day one and have never stopped. Why Nicky?

The following comment of yours is another example of your nasty personal attacks at our efforts to help animals.=

#(The story of PALE's life really. It's all just a web of fantasy.#)
pale -
You have zero idea of what our programes involve Nicky. See what I mean your just so nasty and bitchy.
You girls and your web sites. Tell me Nicky do you think having a fancy web site makes a hoot difference? I wish it were that easy.
All fancy web sites are good for is fund raising Nicky nothing much else.
Its behind doors attending meetings with those involved you can make the difference.
In regards answering your questions Nicky I just did. Your extremely rude. Sure our lawyers are interested in the attitudes of PETA and their friends. - Who isnt.
While they say replace live exports for chilled all hell broke loose when people tried to put that into practise.


Is it a concern it might eventually effect fund raising perhaps?

If intensive farms were replaced by free range + live exports to chilled -that would be a huge hole for their fund raisers.

Wouldnt it.?

Hi all

PALE, I have no difficulties at all dealing with genuine animal lovers, nor any problems relating to any other groups including those you mention. It is you who has the difficulty relating to animal lovers. I have simply asked you to prove the credentials of your organization and you continue to fail to do so. Until you do, it is very difficult to regard you as having any credibility. You still refuse to answer my simple questions.

When was your last "closed door meeting" with anyone, for example? Levelling insults and threats at me really does not constitute answers.

Nor is it I who discredits PETA, Animals Australia, Animal Liberation or anyone else, you do that with monotonous regularity with all the rubbish about "blacklisting".

Answer my questions and I'll try to take you seriously. Until then, there is no evidence to suggest that PALE has in fact any current or recent activities at all to do with animal welfare, or associations with anyone who would be instrumental in stopping the live export trade or expanding free-range farming.

Nicky

Nicky
It is you who refuse to disclose your true identity. Apart from which we I have never seen any evidence of you doing 'anything' other than posting on OLO. Is that It?

Had you wanted to know what pale are doing you were in the past along with your buddies invited to contact one of our lawyers to discuss several projects- but You refused claiming you would be of no help. (you were possibly right)
I remind you Nicky even on OLO I personally also invited you to meet with us and Muslim Leaders to discuss Animal Welfare along with RSPCA QLD.
You refused this offer prefering to hide out taking swipes at us.

I think your intentions have been made VERY clear. Your working to help your friends discredit pale IMOP.

We provide our real names and the names of the organisations we work in conjunction with. One which happens to be the RSPCA in our state. I am not about to post here everything we are doing.

I dont see Animals Australia or WSPA or PETA posting their behind door meetings on here- Do you?
'Hilarious' I bet they have had some:) You know you are the fourth person to ask us what we are doing and with whom:) You guys must be desperate.

Let me WSPA in your ear- If its about the discusting actions. PLENTY.'


Do tell us apart from playing lacky and serial trouble maker what on earth do you think you are doing for animals.

One thing we probably shouldnt share with you but will. One of our lawyers spoke with Glenyse re WA case. She promised to email him I was told.
Umm, Weeks ago and still waiting.

The QC is discusted.

Nicky this thread is about PETA. Note how little I have said comparied to what I could have.
Thats because there are many people in PETA that do a lot for animals.
Its just a pity about the odd person IMOP called Ingred.

That seems to follow you veggies about. Perhaps its something in the lettuce, who knows.

Dickie: "When you infiltrate an animal welfare site to attack only those who care about the welfare of animals, then you obviously support those who don't"

Last time I checked, this wasn't an animal welfare site, and this thread was about discussing the methods used by PETA.

Also, you're using a fallacy: "You oppose X therefore you support Y." My beef is not with those who 'care about the welfare of animals' it is the approaches used by a minority of people who care about animals. I have great respect for the RSPCA, and for those in organisations such as PETA who don't resource to underhanded tactics - provided they respect the wishes of those who continue to eat meat. I have seen sufficient examples to believe that many involved with PETA are indeed hostile toward those who consume meat. Like anyone, I would not be pleased to be attacked for a lifestyle choice I do not feel shame for, a lifestyle choice that the vast majority of Australians choose, I might add.

"I have yet to see you express any concern for animals which are being abominably treated in this country."

In another thread, a poster claimed that because there aren't plentiful examples of feminists extolling the virtues of men, they must hate men. I regarded that as illogical, same as this.
I take it as a given that people including myself do not condone needless cruelty, but realise that it happens, and sometimes we have to do unpleasant things for the greater good - for instance, putting down animals. Wherever possible it must be done humanely.

Cont'd.