peta makes me laugh hahaha. what about the people that get eaten and "tortured" by animals? what about the stingray that killed steve iriwn? how about the thousands of people that die from poisonous sanke bites? are you saying your on the dangerous animals side?

lets say: my brother and i go out skin diving and out of nowhere my little brother gets eaten by a shark. i swim up to the boat throw out my net and catch that shark. pull that shark to shore and gut him just so i can bury my little brother. is that being cruel to the shark? hhhhhmmmmmmmm...

didnt think so.

you cant get past, that even without modern technology, animals are animals. and YES people are animals. whos to say that 5,000 years ago (when anaesthesia wasnt even a word) some person wasnt doing the same thing. hhhhhhmmmmmmmm.. another good point.

fact is its nature that living creatures are curious. be it a shark attack or a man cutting open a monkey.

Posted by: simple bill | October 5, 2007 05:06 PM

These bastards both should have holes drilled in their heads without meds.
Hagai Bergman is my vote but the other bastard is just as bad. Both have ugly, ugly souls.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 5, 2007 05:19 PM

Hagai Bergman, Hebrew University

WHAT A FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Nat | October 5, 2007 06:31 PM

HOW IS IT SUCH SENSELESS CRUELTY IS [OR EVER WAS] DEEMED ACCEPTABLE AND ALLOWED TO CONTINUE EVEN AFTER IT'S BEEN EXPOSED?

IMO NON-STOP AND DETAILED EXPOSURE ON A GRANDER SCALE, [ie., names, addresses, etc., OF EVERY SADISTIC DREG OF HUMANITY ANIMAL ABUSER] MUST BE A PRIORITY IN ORDER TO CREATE MORE PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND GREATER RESULTS TO STOP THIS SICK TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AGAINST ANIMALS GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS UNDER THE GUISE AND PROTECTION OF AND IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!!!

Posted by: 007 | October 5, 2007 06:56 PM

i am always amazed at the vermin that you guys dig up and im apalled-- as a student of science i think this makes a very bad name for people who want to protect, conserve and study animals without a single scalpel, i cant believe this A-holes are hiding under the cloak of 'science' and invasive --

Posted by: stasya berber | October 5, 2007 07:45 PM

Why do anti-peta people come to this website and post ignorant comments? Seriously?

Jeffrey Schall has my vote this week...He seems pretty vile.

Posted by: Marianne | October 5, 2007 08:09 PM

I agree 100% with what you are saying guys, this is completely disgusting and needs to be stopped, but the swearing and all capitals is unnecessary. That is the kind of thing that discredits our arguments completely. I know it is horrible and it makes me extremely angry too, but swearing and shouting arent the right way to express that.

Posted by: Chris | October 5, 2007 08:52 PM

Hagai is definitely the most vile of the two....

Posted by: kitty | October 5, 2007 09:37 PM

easy on the caps lock 007. and i agree simple bill

Posted by: Q | October 5, 2007 11:35 PM

Bergman wins, hands down. He is a psycho. Absolutely no remorse, just hurting these animals for something to do.

Posted by: Michele | October 5, 2007 11:52 PM

Hagai Bergman from Hebrew University.

(Simple bill certainly is a simpleton).

Posted by: Patricia Panitz | October 6, 2007 12:24 AM

simple bill wrote:

“peta makes me laugh hahaha. what about the people that get eaten and "tortured" by animals? what about the stingray that killed steve iriwn? how about the thousands of people that die from poisonous sanke bites? are you saying your on the dangerous animals side?”

First of all dumb ass, animals DON'T torture people. When people get eaten by say a shark, the shark usually lets go because he/she mistakes a human for a seal. These animals are usually defending themselves because they feel threatened. Steve Irwin, don't even get me started with that Darwin candidate. That jack ass got what he deserved, he made a career out of harassing wild life in the name of 'education', so don't even go there.

Vivisectors are some of the most worthless people on the planet, they secure funding to torture and kill animals, all in the name of 'science'. They rank right up there with pedophiles, serial killers and spousal abusers. I have only come across and animal abuser once, he threw a stray cat across the street and bounced off the hood of a parked car. The cat was OK aside from some abrasions and bruises. I made it abundantly clear that if he ever did that again, I would put his ass into a hospital. He was just absolutely beside himself as to why I was so upset and didn't understand what the problem was.

Animals are living beings, they are NOT things to be owned or experimented on, period.

Posted by: Craig | October 6, 2007 01:50 AM

bill makes me laugh hahahaha was steve iriwin in the water where all stingrays and sharks live didnt he bother the animals thats how he made a living his choice humans bother animals they go where their at so thats the fact of life humans are just nasty

Posted by: Tracy | October 6, 2007 08:29 AM

Simple Bill: "Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."  ~Thomas A. Edison

007: I fully agree with what you are SHOUTING, but I would listen to you more carefully if you talk in a normal voice.

Earlier in the week, I thought Jeffrey Schall was unbeatable. But, sad to say, he's met his match. I'm voting for Bergman because of his total lack of scientific purpose. It's not that I believe scientific "purpose" sanctions vivisection. But some scientists who do believe that are at least acting in good faith and treating their subjects as humanely as possible. Bergman, on the other hand, seems to have the mentality of a three year old pulling wings off of flies - nothing in mind, really, just squishing lives to see how they bleed.

Posted by: The Good Steve | October 6, 2007 10:37 AM

TO THE SELF PROCLAIMED CRITICS QUICK TO OVERLOOK MY POINT
AND TAKING EXCEPTION TO MY "SHOUTING," TOO BAD!

MY POINT SPEAKS LOUDER THAN MY CAPS.
NO SENSE ALLOWING PETTINESS TO DIMINISH A SOUND POINT.

Nevertheless, I don't have a problem easing up on the cap lock on behalf of basic protocol and in consideration of others.

Posted by: 007 | October 6, 2007 02:14 PM

simpleton bill and Q:

re "...another good point you say?!"
there wasn't even a first one, you clown!

your post is a cry for attention if ever there was one.
good grief man, can you be anymore desparate?!!

your crackpot reasoning and frame of references, and DUMB questions clearly show you're NOT the least bit sincere in your "quest" for answers, now are you,
so why don't you and your friend Q who "agrees" with you (ROTFLMAO)...
GO make a fool of yourselves elsewhere?!!

Posted by: 007 | October 6, 2007 03:04 PM

to simple bill:
that shark made one mistake: instead of swallowing just your little brother he should have swallowed also you - and there was a big silence on the waters and no more simple bill!!!

Posted by: Old Spiderwoman | October 6, 2007 03:09 PM

I think I might give these uni's a call about these folks. I can't vote either way because they are both very bad and sad men.

Posted by: Deb | October 6, 2007 03:20 PM

What if the shark had eaten simple bill instead...hhhhhmmmmmmmm...
Indigestion perhaps.

Let's stick to what is real, simple bill, and not what is hypothetical.

Bergman gets my vote (can you not make these a little easier, Jack?).

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 6, 2007 05:33 PM

what can you even say about these guys

both super scumbags

id love to drill holes in there heads see how they like that

no class

Posted by: Pasky | October 6, 2007 08:28 PM

In the name of Lil´ Wayne, Malish and all the other victims of these psychcopaths my vote goes to Bergman. Schall got a headstart a few days ago.

Posted by: Maureen | October 7, 2007 10:00 AM

Bergman is the worst--wonder what his childhood was like--he is surely psychotic--but does Vanderbilt have the ethics to throw him out? would like to know the answer--no mercy for the poor animals

Posted by: mary panos | October 7, 2007 05:12 PM

--obviously--Bergman is really a sadistic creature, how could he possibly be called a scientist

Posted by: mary | October 7, 2007 05:21 PM

If you don't agree with PETA then here's a thought... DON'T GET ON THE WEBSITE.

Posted by: Chelsea | October 7, 2007 08:57 PM

It's really hard to choose between these two scum of the earth. I'll pick Hagai Bergman.

Posted by: Sally | October 7, 2007 10:25 PM

You Rock,
Old Spiderwoman..LMAO

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 8, 2007 02:38 PM

If there's anything that grabs my attention to cruelty on innocent animals is the so called vivisectors! It should have been 12 to 5 for Robert Rucker but unfortunatly my vote never got in because of my foul mouth. So let me try to be a little lighter on my choice of words for the next two contestants. Hagai Bergman! Well, Well, Well if I ever disliked a human being before you'ld have to be up there with the rest of your sadistic pieces of work who call themselves more superior. Who could of possibly taught you that torturing these animals would get you highier marks! Or is it your own therories that got you where you are today! Let me tell you something, F*****'s torturing animals over and beyond the call of duty is criminal and I hope justice will be served! Unleash Malish, ENOUGH said!

Posted by: Carla | October 8, 2007 04:24 PM

Having being unenlightened until the age of three years...I ate meat. When my father gave me a stuffed baby chick for Easter I froze with horror...I thought I would open the box and a chick would be there. Visiting my mother's farm...that's where she originated...I watched the cows, pigs, sheep, dogs, cats...and tried to figure it out. Then at dinner I asked what we were eating...turned out it was beef...what is beef??? a cow!!! This little Taurus was NOT AMUSED!!! Loved our pampered Siamese and every wounded creature I met...even dragonflies...and there in the soul of a small child over a period of a year evolved a higher consciousness...and I have wonderful company in the world, having being a vegan for over 25 years...I KNOW that those who eat meat and torture animals are UNENLIGHTENED. It is an "AHHHH" moment...I pray really hard that it happens to more people yesterday because they truly "know not what they do".
One to kingdom come in place of multitudes...??? Hmmmm...Generally love and respect for animals is bred in the hearts of the gentle. But for every Martine Luther King there is a Malcom X...

Love,

withgoddess

Posted by: withgoddess | October 8, 2007 09:42 PM

Hi, Carla,
Wait a minute - am I getting this straight?
PeTA informs us about these two maniacs with gory details, - and as an animal activist, - you initially expressed your justifiable feelings in a manner that was not supposedly acceptable to print, so PeTA didn't post your comments?
I have a tendency to believe you, and I would find that as being a bit hypocritical on PeTA's part since gory details - which are derived from ACTIONS - are acceptable to print, but an animal activist's comments (WORDS) speaking out against their atrocities are not acceptable. To my mind, foul language can't even come close to animal atrocities.
And I also find a LOT of hypocrisy that ANTI-animal activists are allowed to rattle on here with their hate and nonsense ad nauseum. Sometimes it seems like this is a more of a sounding board just for the anti's to have their golden opportunity to (attempt to) knock us and run.
Thank you, Carla, for bringing this to our attenton, and for re-submitting your comments!
(maybe PeTA would like all of us to apologize to those two maniacs for not approving of them)

Posted by: Ariel | October 9, 2007 11:28 AM

Check out the Nobel Prize in Medicine "winners" I read about in the paper yesterday...the mice were the losers in that little venture. Maybe these scientists deserve another award...Vivisectionists of the (next) Week?

Posted by: BullyDawg | October 9, 2007 12:57 PM

Your named Simple Bill stating you have a simple mind, your mentality beyond comprehension. Remember God told Noah to build an ark to first saved all kinds of animals and then bring along few humans doesn't that tell you anything. You go figure.

Posted by: Anna | October 10, 2007 12:34 AM

They are both horrible, but my vote goes to Bergman.

Posted by: Kyla | October 11, 2007 11:11 AM

Hagai Bergman, Hebrew University.

the bastard is getting my vote!

Posted by: valerio | October 11, 2007 03:22 PM

"Remember God told Noah to build an ark to first saved all kinds of animals and then bring along few humans doesn't that tell you anything. "

Yep, that you need to read your Bible.Noah took more humans then any other specie. God brought animals to Noah so Noah didn't save a single one.God knew humans where needed to care for the animals just like in the Garden since God gave humans dominion over them.

Posted by: Mars | October 11, 2007 04:34 PM

mars you are wrong:
if you read the bible carefully you shall remark that there are actually two texts about the flood: in one it's about two animals of every species - the otherone talks about seven animals of every species - if they didn't take it out in the meantime!

Posted by: animalfriend | October 12, 2007 10:56 AM

mars,
again, ...and your point is?!
again, your apparent intelligence is precluded by an incessant invalidation and distortion of other peoples comments.

however, in reference to your dominion comment... "dominion" yes, NOT abuse.
biblically speaking and paraphrased, man is commanded to humanely care for
his animal(s).

Posted by: 007 | October 12, 2007 02:29 PM

Dominion also includes abuse mainly because what you call abuse to an animal may not be what I call abuse to an animal.Well, really it would differ since I believe an animal cannot be abused.

Posted by: Mars | October 15, 2007 07:35 AM

Mars,

Whether a thing is abusive or not is a judgement of the recipient, not the perpetrator. So, unless you are the recipient of abuse, it's not your decision in the first place.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 15, 2007 12:36 PM

How I or others treat their property is our decision and not abuse no matter if it be animal, vegetable or mineral.God gave humans dominion over all of it to use as we see fit. If it was not His will that we be allowed to "abuse" that dominion then we could not as we humans are unable to disobey a mandate like that from God.
Abuse is not determined by the reciever.If that was the case they how could you have abuses like , abuse of priviledge or self abuse.
In the case of animals, I have yet to see them complain of abuse.If your point was valid then only they can make that determination.You cannot make that determination for them because all you have is opinion on what YOU think is abuse and not what the recipient may think is.

Posted by: Mars | October 16, 2007 01:53 PM

Mars,

But, YOU think you can make that determination for them. It doesn't take an Einstein to see when another living being is suffering—unless, of course, you'd rather not know.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 16, 2007 08:35 PM

Just because non-human animals cannot tell us they are being harmed does not mean it is not abuse. Small children, the disabled, and the elderly are often unable to communicate that they are being harmed, but it does not mean they are not being abused. As a supposedly enlightened species, humans have the responsibility for speaking up for ALL animals, human and non-human. Just because we are capable of making weapons and poisons does not mean we should be doing so. Just because we are capable of aiming a gun at a deer does not mean we should do this. Humans should know better, and those that continue to treat non-human animals in such an abominable manner should be ashamed of themselves.

I would like to think that the majority of the individuals reading these posts would agree that smashing a rabbit with a baseball bat is a horrific case of abuse. But if animals were in fact property for humans to treat however they wanted, logic would say that hitting a rabbit with a bat was no different than smashing one's own dishes with a hammer. This is an indicator of psychopathic behaviour! Why is something so obvious so hard for some people to understand?

I am not a religious person, though I have a value system that would be similar to that of Christians. I find it very concerning that some people can take portions of the Bible and create their own definitions for things like "dominion", to justify their barbaric actions.

Posted by: Michele | October 16, 2007 11:52 PM

I think I have read of what this person, Mars, has written before and I thought he was on our side. Am I mistaken? Why these scumballs so called scientists aren't brought to justice for all the horror and pain they inflict on animals?

Posted by: Margarita | October 18, 2007 11:46 PM

Hagai Bergman gets my vote. And when we talk about "holocaust", what about the holocaust of these helpless souls??? MY GOD..it's just a crime no matter how you look at it. How can these people get away with it in the 21st century? Where are the laws?

Posted by: Lorena | October 19, 2007 05:32 PM

Hey Simple Bill - you are an IDIOT!!! When was the last time a shark or a stingray came to break down your door and eat you alive? The animals that are being tested on are meek and helpless and don't hurt anyone. Hey, swim in a shark pool - get eaten by a shark - its a no-brainer.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2007 11:15 AM

I think thee two****** should have done to them what they hav done to these defenseless creatures. Maybe then, they would see the "horror of their ways" They are just evil.Sounds alot like WWII concentration camps to me. Mars, as usual, you are twisting things and arguing just to argue. You are obviously void of humane compassion and understanding.

Posted by: c. | October 25, 2007 07:32 PM

I think thee two****** should have done to them what they hav done to these defenseless creatures. Maybe then, they would see the "horror of their ways" They are just evil.Sounds alot like WWII concentration camps to me. Mars, as usual, you are twisting things and arguing just to argue. You are obviously void of humane compassion and understanding.

Posted by: c. | October 25, 2007 07:32 PM

C

DONT ever compare a lab to a Nazi concentration camp again, unless you are anti-semitist.

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 26, 2007 11:06 PM

I vote for Jeffrey Schall. He seems like a real jerk.

Posted by: Ryan | November 15, 2007 05:28 PM

Mr. Chief,

You are obviously uncomfortable with comparing animal testing to concentration camps, but I feel C. made a very good point. It's hard to face the similarities of the events mostly because people don't want to believe such atrocities can still happen today, and some people are doing nothing to stop it. Why? Because worse things did happen, are happening, and will happen. This is a sorry excuse for you to turn your head. The comparison wasn't to minimize the horrific events that took place in Nazi Germany, it was to open your eyes. A creatures suffering isn't measured by it's power. That kind of pain is felt equally...animals are suffering no less today. If you feel so strongly about that kind of suffering, then you should do something to stop it. Joining the fight to end our fellow animal's suffering is one place to start.

-MC

Posted by: M.C. | November 20, 2007 01:45 PM