perfect 10!

Posted by: Russell | October 23, 2007 03:31 PM

perfect 10!

Posted by: Russell | October 23, 2007 03:31 PM

Ok, Ok, in Anna Wintour's closet I thought all the above. But I didn't know Dolphins can commit suicide in captivity?

Posted by: Carla | October 23, 2007 03:46 PM

I am not halo snipe anymore, I'm Mr. Chief.

It's not free then!

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 23, 2007 04:01 PM

Tried it: low score. But who cares? Trivial knowlege is useless (Any idiot can memorize facts.)

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 23, 2007 04:12 PM

What percent chance is there that you are gay for not eating meat and sticking up for animals when you people would gladly abort a child, or threaten the life of a hunter?

100% gay

Posted by: John Porter | October 23, 2007 04:23 PM

"Chief" of what or who - the ad nauseum, hate-filled, attention-seeking loser anti-a/r's activists on here who vomit bile, make concoctions, distortions, false accusations, spout nonsense and absurdities, etc., like a bunch of juvenile deliquents? (if so, I'll agree to "chief.)
But "Mr." doesn't even come close. LOL

Posted by: Ariel | October 23, 2007 05:12 PM

Carla, you've seen "The Devil Wears Prada" one too many times...*snicker*

I like that you guys mentioned the Geico Caveman...

Posted by: Tamara | October 23, 2007 05:43 PM

Dolphins commit suicide in captivity???

:o(

Posted by: Jaclyn | October 23, 2007 05:47 PM

"Dolphins can commit suicide in captivity?"

Yea, that's why they have to wait 5 days for a handgun purchase.

"Even though the sale of dog and cat fur is illegal in the US, it is still imported from China illegally and falsely labeled as fur from other species;"

Wrong, cat and dog fur is commonly sold in the U.S.. Examples of dogs,

Red Fox,gray fox,coyote,wolf.

Example of cat fur;

Bobcat,mountain lion,lynx

As for the domestic varieties,they are also saleable though there is not much demand for "housecat fur" because of it's usual very poor quality.

Why would I pay to take a very biased propaganda "test". A Hunter Education course and test is free. Let us know how you do.

Posted by: Mars | October 23, 2007 07:17 PM

The Nuge is a good guitarist, but he sucks big time as an animal rights activist. He should take his cue from Steve Vai, B. B. King, Kirk Hammett, Jeff Beck, Steve Morse, John Jorgenson, Joan Jett, Steve Howe, Paul McCartney, Phil Collen, Tom Scholz, Eric Johnson, Brian May, Prince, Richard Thompson, Link Wray (and others I can't think of) who are all veg*n guitarists.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 23, 2007 08:12 PM

I think that was a very reasonable "guess" by the moderator to suggest that the frequent commenters: halo snipe, Dr. C., Mars, and the "bad steve" are not PeTA members, which I am VERY inclined to agree. However, unless it was an oversight - or just not worth mentioning - my "guess" also would be that "rojo" should have been included. : ) In fact, I have reasonable suspicions - (aha!)- to "guess" that they are strongly anti-animal rights. : )

On another note, at this time, I would like to bring to forum's attention that all of the above commenters are "assumed" to be of the human animal male species. However, that doesn't classify them as "gentlemen." I came to this conclusion because more than anything else, they love to "challenge" -with their juvenile delinquent type of responses/comments - the female a/r's activists (those of whom STRONGLY point out their nonsense). So I think the accurate classification for them would be "woos," ie, male wooses.
I would also like to bring to the forum's attention that I have certain reasonable suspicions about the (seemingly) sudden appearance of two particular females under another forum heading, who had a tendency to side with a few of the above mentioned male wooses, while giving the impression of being concerned a/r's activists.(?) Oh, no, wait, sorry - they were REAL "a/r's activists" giving their opinions (which just happened to co-incide with just a tad or defend a few of the male wooses.)
Just giving my opinions.

Posted by: Ariel | October 23, 2007 09:24 PM

I got a perfect 10! People who wear fur make me sick!

Posted by: Aleasha | October 24, 2007 01:02 AM

i only missed a few but im workin on it.

Posted by: Brittany | October 24, 2007 09:34 AM

I am honored to be recognized by name. Peta and I have a different idea about what an animal expert is, but rest assured, I am at least as passionate about wildlife as Peta, just from a different perspective. I am extremely thankful for this forum and appreciate Peta and it's passion for cause. Although I don't usually agree with Peta, I realize the importance of the organization being able to express viewpoints freely. I am extremely grateful to be able to express mine as well. Many of you wish that I would go away, and I don't blame you. I am happy you are all here expressing your opinions and reading mine. If we all agreed on everything, nothing would ever change. All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 24, 2007 11:18 AM

while not formally invited I'd like to make a few comments.

1, you need to state skinless chicken, because no significant increase was found from chicken cooked with the skin on. Bacon is even worse at 59%.

2, suicide is a difficult diagnosis as it requires the animal to have a concept of dying, and that doing so will end it's suffering. I don't doubt that it could be a result of captivity induced self-harm , dolphins unlike humans don't breathe if knocked unconscious, which could happen when swimming into a pool wall.
Free the dolphins, well those that haven't been bred in captivity anyway.

3, fur is for freaks, but why be particularly offended that it comes from cats and dogs.

4, I'm surprised any cosmetic company still animal tests. Yes it will sting your eyes if you get it in there.

5, I guess this is one animal experiment peta approves of. Maybe we all look alike to sheep too.

6, depends how long his showers are.

7, Don't know much about dutch politics, but Marianne Thieme is cute enough to get my vote.

8, shed the fur, keep the leather.

9, nothing that doesn't happen in suburbia, although hydraulic door injuries might be a little rare.

10, they must do easter a little differently in slovenia, ham is not something I would associate with this occasion. The presidents easter comments relate only to the slaughter of animals for this occasion.
"We spare them this time from our lust for meat "

No malice is intended in the above comments by rojo, an "anti" in ariels eyes.

Posted by: rojo | October 24, 2007 11:29 AM

Suicide is the second most common cause of death in captivity, behind perforated ulcers (from stress).
They either open their blowholes underwater and drown themselves, or slam their heads repeatedly against their bleak cement tank walls until they die from brain trauma or a buildup of blood in the cerebral cavity.
But they're "happy" so it's okay....

These and other "natural" causes of captive death (electrocution, malnutrition, swallowing foreign objects) are a matter of public record and can be found on the annual MMIR.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2007 03:29 PM

And wild dolphins never commit suicide by swimming onto beaches.

"However, that doesn't classify them as "gentlemen." "

Nor does being female make you a Lady. From your comments here I'd say your as far from being a Lady as any female can be.

Posted by: Mars | October 24, 2007 05:03 PM

ariel, nice to know you still care :)

Posted by: rojo | October 24, 2007 06:07 PM

This is what I gathered from poster 10-24-07, 11:18 am, (who has been saying this all along anyway):

By mentioning my name, I am enjoying my recognition even more!
My different perspective than PETA's passion about wildlife, is that I am passionate about killing wildlife.
I am extremely thankful for this forum and appreciate PETA's passion for its cause because this gives me daily opportunities to express my contempt for a/r's activism and a/r's activists.
Although I NEVER agree with PETA, I realize the GREAT "importance" of freely expressing my anti-animal rights' viewpoints on an animal rights' blog site because I get my kicks out of (tryng) to knock around a/r's activists, the irrational bigots!

I really wish that all of you a/r's activists would go away, and I am not happy about all of you expressing your (justifiable) opinions, but you should definitely read all of mine, which ("justifiably") makes great attempts to insult and degrade everything that you believe.
If every a/r's activists agreed with me, then we would all be enjoying the great joys of killing animals.
Try your best, but I am not going to change because a leopard doesn't change its spots.

Posted by: Ariel | October 24, 2007 08:34 PM

Why, why, why do we mention the names of those who have a lot to learn about compassion.

By naming the nameless - "But a, b, c, and d: I’m expecting you all to post your scores." you're giving attention to those who don't deserve it.

We as a society should focus on people who can offer a valuable contribution.

By giving attention to the nameless you are encouraging the bad behavior to continue.

All they want is attention. Let's ignore them and maybe they'll go away.

I'm not saying ignore those who have opposing views. Just those who provide comments that are obviously uneducated.

Posted by: EAS | October 25, 2007 10:31 AM

I also said all of the above for Anna Wintour's closet. She is evil and all the make-up and couture in the world could never make her beautiful!

Posted by: Kristin | October 25, 2007 03:49 PM

Michael Q

....and very talented guitarists they truly are.

Ariel

Thanks for your accurate perception of the animal haters/killers/abusers. The implementation of animal rights philosophy would change everything and that is what these losers fear. Fear of compassion and non-violence and, of course, loss of revenue from killing animals. But, happily, the numbers of animal rights advocates are growing daily worlwide. Peace! :)

Posted by: Ana | October 25, 2007 04:04 PM

Ariel

WOW! One little comment like mine, and you go off like a bomb (The A-Bomb. (Triple meaning!)! I am not a person like what you just described! In case you are wondering, Mr. Chief is a parody of Master Chief from Halo. Search for it; you might like it.

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 26, 2007 01:05 AM

anon, perforated ulcers are no longer thought to be caused by stress, but it can be a contributing factor. Infection is the main culprit.

Could you tell us how many cause of death reports state suicide?

Posted by: rojo | October 26, 2007 11:10 AM

Hello Ariel!

Your October 24, 8:34 comment is completely accurate.

EAS

You also are completely right!

Peace to both of you!

Posted by: Ana | October 26, 2007 06:31 PM

I GUESS YOU DIDN'T LIKE MY QUIZ?????

Posted by: steve | October 27, 2007 07:06 AM

Uh, space cadet,(Mars) when you quote me and address my quote, I would appreciate it if you would specify who you are quoting and addressing. Thank you.

Ana,
I think that was an interesting point about the anti's "fears."
Apparently there are deeper reasons than just resisting being educated about animal rights other than the reasons the anti's present. It seems as if they are so accustomed to not having or extending compassion -and unfortunately so familiar with accepting violence as the norm- that they have become comfortable with themselves as is. So it seems that anyone who they perceive as "invading" their comfortable familiarities/ideations and habits, they lash out in defense due to having a fear of the unfamiliar.
It seems like it is easier for them to express hatred or any similar type comment than to take the first, one small step towards even considering challenging their own fears of being open to change - that they might not even really realize they have.
And of course, change is not always easy. In fact, I know some women who are so resistant to change, that they refuse to change their same hairstyle they have had for the past 30 years!
As for me, I think it would be a VERY boring life if I were to be stagnant and narrow-minded. And thanks to being involved in animal rights, I have learned more about so many broadened areas of life that otherwise I highly doubt if I would have ever known.
May the animals finally be free of mankind's fears, insecurities, hate, and greed.

Posted by: Ariel | October 27, 2007 12:07 PM

Ariel the A-Bomb and Friends,

When you assume crap, you make an ass out of u and me! (Hey, there is the third meaning of the A-Bomb!).

Posted by: Caboose | October 27, 2007 08:06 PM

Find out if you pass the "Hunter Education" test. You will pass with answering -but not having to admit- to one or most of the following:

1. you enjoy killing wildlife (because you have no respect or compassion for wild animals.)
2. you can change the meaning of "killed" into "bagged."
3. you don't think that you have a bloodlust desire to kill innocent beings. (even though it's really a need to fulfill a sense of superiority over "lesser" beings)
4. you can spend thousands of dollars to kill one (or the alloted amount of wild animals during a particular killing season) just to say you needed meat. (even though a thousand dollars would feed a lot more of the needy.)
5. you don't believe or care that animals feel any pain or only feel a little pain when they are trapped for their furs or shot with arrows. (even though they linger in excruciating pain up to hours or days until death.)
6. you can TRY to FOOL non-hunters by saying any, most, or all of the following:
a) you appreciate nature because you just mostly enjoy being in the woods with the fresh air and seeing wildlife.
b) wildlife needs to be controlled because they are starving to death. (even though you proudly "bag" the largest animals, and any animals that are at no risk for starvation)
c) wildlife needs to be controlled because of over-population (but you don't consider that hunters and/or greedy mankind has interfered enough with nature already)
d) you believe that you are an expert at controlling wildlife (even though hunters can and have brought some species to the point of near extinction or extinction)
e) your hunting expenses goes towards preservation and conservation because you think that is the most honorable way wildlife and "game" land can be saved.
d) you are a (humble) humanitarian because you donate some of your hunted meat to soup kitchens for the needy (even though you boast about it, and hunting orgs. boast about it in the newspapers.)
7. you believe that wildlife was put on this earth to be killed for your personal pleasure or hobby, or because it's a "great" legacy handed down from past generations.
8. you believe that killing wild animals is a "sport," so you believe that makes you a "brave" "sportsman."
9. you believe that hunters are responsible people (even though some of them shoot and sometimes kill each other), but you can never be a victim.
10. you believe that no other hunters have realized that killing animals was wrong and cruel...
Even though they became NON-hunters, and MORE are continuing to become NON-hunters, and also speak out AGAINST hunting!

Posted by: Ariel | October 29, 2007 09:51 AM

An alternative to hunting would be bounty hunting. OOOh yeah, there's a new Boba Fett in town!

Posted by: Caboose | October 29, 2007 04:00 PM

"Uh, space cadet,(Mars) when you quote me and address my quote, I would appreciate it if you would specify who you are quoting and addressing. Thank you"

Why? Are you that incapable of not reconizing your own comments?

"4. you can spend thousands of dollars to kill one (or the alloted amount of wild animals during a particular killing season) just to say you needed meat. (even though a thousand dollars would feed a lot more of the needy.)"

Thousands? Nope. I pay $130.for my resident license.Feed the needy? Nope, I hunt for my own family not others. They can go kill their own.

"5. you don't believe or care that animals feel any pain or only feel a little pain when they are trapped for their furs or shot with arrows. (even though they linger in excruciating pain up to hours or days until death.)"

Pain is a fact of life and nobody or no thing is exempt no matter the Utopian world you dream about and will never happen.

"a) you appreciate nature because you just mostly enjoy being in the woods with the fresh air and seeing wildlife."

Nope. I hunt to kill.I don't go hunting to look at trees.

"b) wildlife needs to be controlled because they are starving to death. (even though you proudly "bag" the largest animals, and any animals that are at no risk for starvation)"

Nope. All animals in a group starve not just certain ones.Hunting controls the population so starvation doesn't become a problem.Largest animal? So why do we kill females and small game if we only want the "largest"?

"d) you believe that you are an expert at controlling wildlife (even though hunters can and have brought some species to the point of near extinction or extinction)"

Nope.Habitat destruction is the #1 cause of animal endangerment and always has been and you are part and party to that destruction.We leave the claim of "expert" to you that have probaly never seen a wild animal.

"e) your hunting expenses goes towards preservation and conservation because you think that is the most honorable way wildlife and "game" land can be saved."

And how would you preserve the wildlife? Spay and nueter and put them in zoos..eerr..shelters?

"7. you believe that wildlife was put on this earth to be killed for your personal pleasure or hobby, or because it's a "great" legacy handed down from past generations."

Nope. There is a natural order that has to be followed and hunting is part of it.

"8. you believe that killing wild animals is a "sport," so you believe that makes you a "brave" "sportsman."

Nope.Those that call it a sport are those not very good at it.

"9. you believe that hunters are responsible people (even though some of them shoot and sometimes kill each other), "

That would then make anybody with a car unresponsible as far more people are killed by them.That would then include yourself, most likely.

"10. you believe that no other hunters have realized that killing animals was wrong and cruel...
Even though they became NON-hunters, and MORE are continuing to become NON-hunters, and also speak out AGAINST hunting!

Nope. And PETA supporters have also left that group and became hunters.FYI, there are more hunters in this State then PETA supporters WORLDWIDE.

Posted by: Mars | October 29, 2007 07:26 PM

To any "new" readers/commenters on here:

I would like to make it very clear that I do NOT "assume" anything. In fact, I am more aware of assuming than a lot of people who use the word "assume" freely or frequently; and I have even written at great length about the mistakes of making "assumptons" previously. Therefore, when I wrote the word "assumed" in one of my posts, it clearly had identifiable marks around it - which indicated some "question" or strong possiblity, but not particular known fact. However, having said that, two of the four males have identified themselves to be males, (yet, that is STILL questionable on a blog site). Nevertheless, the remainder of my comments in that post would be factual providing ANY one to four are male(s) but are not "gentlemen," according to the nature of their previous comments.
And Ariel's friends(?) did not make any assumptions either. But a commenter had cautioned us about the "risks" of assuming. So I am well aware of ass-u-me.

Posted by: Ariel | October 30, 2007 12:35 AM

To the contray, space cadet (MARS), I am very capabale of recognizing my own quotes, otherwise I wouldn't have addressed your comment. DUUUHHHH!
So you must definitely be a woos because you still weren't even brave enough to specify who you were addressing even AFTER I encouraged you to do so in order for other readers to know who you were referring to specifically. What are you afraid of?
Btw, I'm still waiting for you to quote (with time and date) all the claims I was supposed to have made according to you, which of course I did not recognize because I did not make those claims.
So it proves that what ever you claim about anything or anyone are concoctions, distortions, and/or total nonsense.
Anyway, thank you for proving ALL of my points about you, which didn't even really require proof to the intelligent readers on this blog site. You have been proving all those things, all along, all by yourself.

Posted by: Ariel | October 30, 2007 12:42 PM

"So you must definitely be a woos because you still weren't even brave enough to specify who you were addressing even AFTER I encouraged you to do so in order for other readers to know who you were referring to specifically."

You did not "encourage but asked.

""Uh, space cadet,(Mars) when you quote me and address my quote, I would appreciate it if you would specify who you are quoting and addressing. Thank you"

Sorry for you that I do not need to follow your rules.Reference though that Mike Q asked the same thing and I did as he asked with him. Then again his replies are civil and intelligent.Go figure.

"To the contray, space cadet (MARS), I am very capabale of recognizing my own quotes, otherwise I wouldn't have addressed your comment. DUUUHHHH!"

Evidently not since you are now insisting I label them for you.DDDUUUHHH

"Btw, I'm still waiting for you to quote (with time and date) all the claims I was supposed to have made according to you, which of course I did not recognize because I did not make those claims."

Actualy I did on the appropriate topics.Too bad your reading comprehension is so lousy you can't even make sense of your own posts.

I'm still waiting on you to paste that study that you say was done the proves that poeple who abuse animals become criminals.

Posted by: Mars | October 30, 2007 06:57 PM

Ariel

I said ass-u-me because before, you called us anti's animal haters/killers/abusers (Which is false), attention seeking losers (False. I guess only PETA members can have the first ammendment without criticism and ignorance), and it seems that you think that all omnivores are evil.
I said friends because Michelle, Ana and others must be your friends. [I take the "A-Bomb" back. 999 apologies]

u=socialist

Posted by: Caboose | October 30, 2007 11:09 PM