who'S SOPHIE DAHL? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHO SHE IS?

Posted by: SUSAN | November 6, 2007 05:31 PM

These pictures are amazing, we have a fantastic anti-fur campaign going here in Ireland, any USA AR activists should help us do more!

Thanks!

Posted by: John Carmody | November 6, 2007 05:47 PM

its always nice to see all those tough protesters ganging up on women... how about picking on some basketball or football players that demonstrate their freedom of choice to wear fur coats.... or hell's angels motorcyclists wearing their leather
but alas.... guts is not a true fixture when it comes to animal rights extremists;unless you want to count the bravery of terrorists who dress up in the night and burn down buildings and let mink out to run to freedom..... very brave indeed....

Posted by: steve | November 6, 2007 07:57 PM

The only reason that she gets works is that she is a celebrity relative

Roald Dahl had an appreciation for animals.

Maybe she should read a book every once in a while.

Sophie is yet another brainless twat in a world with too many of them.

Posted by: kelly | November 6, 2007 08:49 PM

"Powned"

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 6, 2007 09:16 PM

I love it! That is too cool!

Posted by: Mike | November 6, 2007 10:21 PM

Shame on her!
Look at her how she is smiling, she is seem to be least bothered about animal suffering.

Posted by: Niranjan | November 7, 2007 01:54 AM

Being surrounded by a bunch of nutcases would make any normal person uneasy.

Posted by: Mars | November 7, 2007 07:24 AM

i really do not understand people how they could buy and wear fur i guess their just fuckin assholes so cruel people could be theres not a day that goes by that i dont think about all those animals that suffer

Posted by: Tracy | November 7, 2007 08:26 AM

How can she just waltz down the street with a grin from ear to ear? I think people are way too disconnected from reality

Posted by: Russell | November 7, 2007 09:40 AM

This is great. The guy on the left with the black baseball cap is the singer from the band, the Bastard Sons Of Boris Karloff. They are a big animal rights band. More people should approach celebs who wear fur, in this way.

Posted by: Martin Hannet | November 7, 2007 10:02 AM

Those of us purported to be barbarians tend to avoid accosting law abiding citizens on the street; even more so if it is a group of men versus a woman. I would like to see those walking phalluses accost a woman in my part of the world. If you think what this woman is doing is wrong, committing an inappropriate act is not the right thing to do. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 7, 2007 11:10 AM

Steve,
They are not terrorists they are Freedom Fighters....

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | November 7, 2007 11:39 AM

steve and mars the two wanker kings are back on stage - me also! shut up your dirty mouth - because once more you are just farting in the air without knowing anything but i have to admit it: you are exactly as stubbern and persistent as the virus on my pc and it shall be revised in a few days and then i shall be back and show you ball- and brainless guys who has the balls because impotent guys always have a loud mouth but no message! if you really would not be castrated folks you would show up in front of the peta headquarter and sing your naughty song there!

Posted by: animalfriend | November 7, 2007 12:58 PM

Looks like she is somewhat just enjoying the attention and is amused.

Maybe something else could have been done to help her understand what the victims go through and take it more seriously?

Posted by: stoptorture | November 7, 2007 01:10 PM

Post 11-7-07, 7:57 pm:
steve, aka, (lack of) common sense steve, aka, bad steve,
Did you or did you not write to an a/r's activist previously: give it up already. your comments are arrogant and boring.(?) If so, take your own advice.
Your comments are cynical and have often spewed hatred. Btw, I think the CCF might be looking for you.

Posted by: Ariel | November 7, 2007 02:12 PM

Whose that great looking guy jumping up behind her. I wish I was there with him.

Posted by: Judy | November 7, 2007 02:28 PM

Hey Steve..

The only cowards are the animal hating/abusing/killing men who abuse me and my friends for protesting peacefully. They threaten us with physical assault and have punched in the stomach several of the women as well. They curse us and tear up our educational materials. Then there are the the husbands/boyfriends of the crappy female fur wearers who fight and threaten us as well. Those males that drive the carriage horses also whip activists. Wow, real "men" beating up on women who are peacefully protesting. Get a dictionary. The only terrorists are those extremists killing Americans and other innocent people all in the name of a "religious" cult. Basketball and football players are not exactly a good example; they also beat women and take no responsibility for the children they leave behind. People involved with the Underground Railroad, which was illegal, are now considered heroes. It takes courage to free animals oppressed under such deplorable and violent conditions where they are being slaughtered all in the name of mad science. The only extremists are the sadists that are torturing animals in labs, on fur farms and on factory farms and slaughterhouses.

Mars, I agree, that's why animal advocates cringe when we have to read your crap on this blog.

Posted by: Ana | November 7, 2007 03:44 PM

cocky the scizo:
i just come over in your part of the world and spit on your feet as i did years ago when i entered a furrer's shop to protest against the skinning alive of innocient animals and i give a fuck on your pissy statements because they are boring and ridiculous - because you don't know anything about the activities of an animal rights activist - i think that you don't know anything at all! at least it would be great to e-mail your doctor's certificate to peta and we shall see if you are a real doctor or just a sick disturber on this blog!

Posted by: Old Spiderwoman | November 7, 2007 05:17 PM

this is directed to Judith, Freedom Fighter, you really are ignorant, terrorists call themselves freedom fighters, using fear to push their views unto others. RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS, I have the right to believe what I want without peta people going crazy, and threatening my life. EVERYONE instead of focusing so much of your energy telling people that they are stupid and ignorant for eating meat, why not start become a proper activist and trying to end world hunger, or to help with world peace!

Posted by: Julian | November 7, 2007 06:08 PM

Well, well - look who's talking about "Two wrongs don't make a right."
The cc(md?) who's still whining about be referred to as a "barbarian," is referring to the guys on the street as "phalluses." (a real "man" who is insulting his own gender.) The same (cowardly) cc(md?) who kills innocent animals and refers to it as "harvesting."
And btw, accosting -approaching someone on the street, (female or male)- is not an inappropriate act as is viewed in the pictures. Assaulting someone, however, is more than inappropriate - it is a crime.

Posted by: Ariel | November 7, 2007 06:36 PM

Judith

The REAL terrorists are today's U.S Govt

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 7, 2007 07:01 PM

What you mean "normal" Mars? Selfish,ruthless,ignorant,cruel, unethical people perhaps?I'm glad I am not that "normal"... uh?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2007 08:27 PM

(Julian)
Of course Julian is another one of those who makes irrational claims and runs. Oh sure,his life was threatened - give me a break!
Instead of talking the talk, Julian, should walk the walk to work at ending world hunger and for world peace.
He can start by finding out that it costs more to accommodate the meat-eaters than vegs., and that extra $$$$$$ "accommodation" to feed grains to farm animals for slaughter subtracts from the grain that could help towards ending world hunger.
Julian is afraid of "Freedom Fighters" for animals because it would upset his uneducated, backward thinking, so it's easier for him to use the WORN-OUT label of "terrorists." That seems to be the new label used by anyone who can't cope with respectable changes in society. What a woos!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 10:40 AM

People who wear the skins of tortured animals should be fully prepared to accept responsiblity for their actions and should not mind taking a little heat every now and then. I always carry fur info cards in my purse to hand out to fur wearers when I see them. I am also fully prepared to take a punch at some point--it is a small price to pay compared to what those animals went through.

Posted by: Kelley | November 8, 2007 11:22 AM

if sophie dahl is wearing skins from tortured animals she is rather insensitive and rude and can easily 'survive' this correction! it's funny to read statements like those of julian, mars, steve and cochran: these animal haters are sooooooo primitive and backminded and also want to make us believe that we can seriously hurt their neandertalic feelings! what a pitty, what a fun - their hearts are bleeding because of bad treatment of animal protectors! instead of making the fools here every day: go out and help the people: the hungry, the beggars, and cocky: join the doctors without borders! it's time for you to make something else than just showing your malicious baseness, arrogance and primitive stroppy mind! have a look at the elite of the world on: godsdirectcontact or google, vegan and vegetarian elite of the world - instead of being ridiculous ad nauseam on this blog!

Posted by: tao | November 8, 2007 01:00 PM

I would like to ask the antibloggers on-here: Mars; Cochran MD.... as you are critisizing continuously; what's your SOLUTION to animal abuse because it's very easy to critisize but it's very difficult to have a real good answer: it would be rather intelligent to bring a good solution making everybody happy instead of showing your daily childish behaviour - or what's your age????????

Posted by: QUESTIONMARK??? | November 8, 2007 01:52 PM

i dont like da last pic looks like shes smiling cuz she dont care..
well for her info she aint even famous...who is dis w.e her name is

Posted by: wendy Segovia | November 8, 2007 02:14 PM

QUESTIONMARK

Simple, some RATATATATATATA....! and some .50 cal aspirin

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 8, 2007 03:52 PM

I think when one has witnessed the attrocities of the fur industry, an animal being skinned alive for example, it motivates one to go to the extreme, and in the best way possible. Sophie Dahl is a FUR HAG and whether people like it or not compassionate people around the world are confronting those with cold hearts.

Posted by: Marley | November 8, 2007 06:14 PM

this is directed to anonymous, lol you make me laugh, someone did say that they would kill me if they knew where i lived. there you peta people go again, pretend to know the facts when really you are the ignorant radicals that live in this world.

Posted by: Julian | November 8, 2007 07:46 PM

back up your facts, with the truth bitches hahahaha!

Posted by: Julian | November 8, 2007 07:51 PM

Oh Sophie Dahl, you formerly fat slag! Now what would dear old grandad say if he saw you walking around in carcasses you water retaining twit?

Posted by: Victoria | November 8, 2007 09:12 PM

Oh Sophie Dahl, you formerly fat slag. Now what would grandad say if he saw you walking around in carcasses? You give all Brits a bad name you slovenly twit!

Posted by: Victoria | November 8, 2007 09:27 PM

QUESTIONMARK

The only solution that I see would be aTotalitarian Dictatorship, since Pinochet did it, and almost no crime EVER happened at that time because of it.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 9, 2007 06:15 AM

"What you mean "normal" Mars? "

Fitting a PETA supporter would need a definition of normal.LOL

"what's your SOLUTION to animal abuse because it's very easy to critisize but it's very difficult to have a real good answer:"

Define abuse for us please.As Mike Q correctly pointed out, you cannot define abuse for something other then yourself. It is the reciever of the abuse that must state that it is being abused.

"if sophie dahl is wearing skins from tortured animals "

How do you know the animals where tortured?

Posted by: Mars | November 9, 2007 07:59 AM

"a lover of expensive furs."

So what? If she liked cheap furs you would then be OK with it?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 11:19 AM

mars: every living being has an aversion against being killed and abused and a human being with no damaged brains is able to see this - so it's clear to a normal human being that the animal is abused and afraid of it - but you are an abnormal mound of flesh or a worthless worn out coat which doesn't feel and think and should be put in moth balls for the rest of time!

Posted by: tao | November 9, 2007 03:37 PM

For the record: I did not purposely intend for my comment about JULIAN to come up as "Anonymous," esp. since I ALWAYS have identified myself.

Uh, JULIAN, I really "hate" to point this out to you, but you were the one who made the claim about your life being threatened and insinuated that it was by PeTA activists. Therefore, the ball is in YOUR court to prove/backup that claim you made by providing FACTS.
I speculate by your ignorant, vicious comments that IF there was an actual threat against your life, it would be from someone else for a totally different reason than what you are implying. (More like you really rubbed somebody the wrong way concerning a personal issue, and now they have a personal agenda against you)

So with the image that you are projecting in your irrational comments, I find it practically impossible to believe that you would be a person who is sincerely passionate about human rights' causes that you claim would be "proper" activism. And your immature attitude also further indicates that you don't have much -if any- respect for anyone's human rights except for your own self-centered self.
Now, I hope you go yuck it up some more. And when you are done, I would normally suggest for you to work towards ending world hunger and towards world peace. But obviously, you are a nasty woos who is all talk and no action - and I really, really don't think any respectable social/humanity org. would have you represent them anyway. Yuck! yuck!

Posted by: Ariel | November 9, 2007 05:47 PM

Mars said, "As Mike Q correctly pointed out, you cannot define abuse for something other than yourself. It is the receiver of the abuse that must state that it is being abused."

I might be mistaken, but I believe I used the word "pain", not "abuse."

For example, a human performing debeaking (or "beak conditioning" as the trade likes to euphemize now) on a bird, may like to self-advantageously propone that it causes the bird no distress. One can usually surmise, though, if a voiceless child or animal is suffering abuse.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 9, 2007 06:45 PM

"so it's clear to a normal human being that the animal is abused and afraid of it "

So fear indicates abuse? So PETA, as in this article, supports abuse. I notice PETA has an eversion to confronting adult males that wear fur.

Posted by: Mars | November 9, 2007 10:21 PM

tao, "every living being has an aversion against being killed"

except when they don't know they're being killed.

Posted by: rojo | November 10, 2007 07:45 AM

I have never seen the lure of wearing fur. It has never appealed to me and never will.

Posted by: sherri smith | November 10, 2007 01:11 PM

rojo:
yes and that time it's cowardly murder!!!

mars: your statements are showing more and more symptoms of a syphilitic jerk!

Posted by: tao | November 10, 2007 02:03 PM

"So fear indicates abuse?" (post 11-9-07, 10:21pm)

Yes, fear indicates abuse. Animals are living, feeling beings, who have emotions - and that being so, as with a human animals, there is such a thing as emotional abuse via fear.

Posted by: Ariel | November 10, 2007 04:29 PM

she doesn't look like she even cares

Posted by: valli | November 10, 2007 08:43 PM

Mike Q;

Debeaking a bird is painless and the biology proves it.

" One can usually surmise, though, if a voiceless child or animal is suffering abuse."

So you have witnessed debeaking on birds?

You also seem to compare humans to animals alot yet decry when we meat eaters do the same.As you posted to myself; if humans and animals are the same and react the same then animal testing is reliable.If as you post that there is sucj a difference that animal testing is useless then you cannot by that statement say we feel pain/abuse the same.

Posted by: Mars | November 11, 2007 01:58 AM

To whatever model "working" for outdated YSL. Has she ever been to high school? may be she has no thought of her own on the subject...Oups! You can't blame someone for having the IQ of wall paper and look preeetty, poor girl. Its OK, ignorance can go away, not with a pill like all these ego-centric mess women obsessed by their look but with a book...Reading while wearing sweat pants in polyester fibers. I am so sorry it is indeed difficult to explain chemistry to so. that can't read. By the way, is that Yves Saint Moron stuff still sell, because it is old like the world.

Posted by: pascale finkeldey | November 11, 2007 12:31 PM

Rojo

Like a sniper............

(Especially if the sniper is either Solid Snake, or Sam Fisher)

Posted by: Caboose (anti Combine. Go Gordon Freeman) | November 11, 2007 06:20 PM

rojo you are an idiot...they know they are being killed.

Have you ever seen the clip from "Kid Nation" where the little boy has the chickens head on the tree stump?

The boy is holding up the hatchet and the look in that poor chicken's eyes is excruciating.

Even the little boy says "he knows he's going to die" and is obviously upset about what he is to do.

The producers of that stupid show made those kids do that "for food" and I'm sure some vegetarians were born that day. At least I hope so.

There is a blog on here about it.

Make yourself useful and look it up. It's not that old. Maybe a month or a little more.

Posted by: Tamara | November 12, 2007 08:40 AM

Mars said, "Debeaking a bird is painless and the biology proves it."

Research scientist Dr Phil Glatz has described the pain and stress of debeaking as follows:

"In the short term beak trimming is likely to be stressful in a number of ways. The hen has to be approached, caught and restrained by the operator - a procedure which has been shown to evoke fear in hens. The procedure of cutting and cauterising the beak of the hen with a heated blade is likely to result in acute short term pain because of the presence of cutaneous afferent nerves in the beak which respond to thermal stimuli. Furthermore, the beak of hens contains mechanoreceptors which when removed appear to impair the mechanical ability of the beak to pick up food both in the short and long term."

Mars, as you well know from my previous posts, I've said many a time we will only get truly reliable, safe and predictable drugs when their administration is based upon our own unique individual genetic makeup.

"According to a federal study in today's (Oct 18, 2006) issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, adverse reactions to prescription drugs are responsible for 700,000 Americans' visits to emergency rooms every year."

Does that seem to you like the animal model for testing drugs is working?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 12, 2007 03:08 PM

Mar's,
Then you were not here when PETA tried to get
P. Fucking Diddy to stop making and selling furs.
He was having a fashion show about 3 years ago and he was going to show his new fur line called Sean John.
Peta called him to ask him to not show the furs.
He called back and said I promise no furs.
Peta was very nice and sent him violets with a message that said, Thank You Sean, the animals really need you.
When the time came for the fashion show at least every other model had on a fur.
He and you are nothing but pieces of shit who are both sub-human and live in the bowels of this earth.
Have a wonderful day visiting the slaughterhouses in you bare feet as brain matter and other pieces of the poor farm animals squish between you toes.
You seem to love those visits.

Julian,
Grow some balls you wimp.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | November 12, 2007 04:37 PM

Tamara

Rojo meant an unsuspecting victim, not a factory farm raised ruminant (if you can EVER graze in there)

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 12, 2007 05:10 PM

Mars said:
"you cannot define abuse for something other then yourself. It is the reciever of the abuse that must state that it is being abused."

Following this logic a child suffering from the sexual advances of an adult is not suffering from abuse. Are you serious???????? I am a CSA survivor and although it has taken me a good 20 years to be able to voice what I went through, I can assure you that I suffered abuse...Others never manage to voice their experiences, so I am one of the lucky ones. According to you, thoses who never speak up never suffered abuse in the first place. Great reasoning there...

The statement you have made, along with Mike displays not only your ignorance but your incapacity for empathy and a severe handicap as regards your emotional IQ. You have insulted abuse victims and survivors everywhere by belittling their trauma, be they human or nonhuman.

You also ask

"How do you know the animals where tortured?"

displaying your ignorance of and lack of curiosity about the world around you. Stunted emotionally and intellectually, I think the AR bloggers here ought to pity you to be honest. It's not your fault you were born/brought up in such a way as to be so disadvantaged... I feel the same sad pity for you as I do for the guy who abused me when I was 10. Perhaps counselling would help...? (Just a suggestion)

Posted by: C. | November 13, 2007 02:54 AM

Mars said:
"you cannot define abuse for something other then yourself. It is the reciever of the abuse that must state that it is being abused."

Following this logic a child suffering from the sexual advances of an adult is not suffering from abuse. Are you serious???????? I am a CSA survivor and although it has taken me a good 20 years to be able to voice what I went through, I can assure you that I suffered abuse...Others never manage to voice their experiences, so I am one of the lucky ones. According to you, thoses who never speak up never suffered abuse in the first place. Great reasoning there...

The statement you have made, along with Mike displays not only your ignorance but your incapacity for empathy and a severe handicap as regards your emotional IQ. You have insulted abuse victims and survivors everywhere by belittling their trauma, be they human or nonhuman.

You also ask

"How do you know the animals where tortured?"

displaying your ignorance of and lack of curiosity about the world around you. Stunted emotionally and intellectually, I think the AR bloggers here ought to pity you to be honest. It's not your fault you were born/brought up in such a way as to be so disadvantaged... I feel the same sad pity for you as I do for the guy who abused me when I was 10. Perhaps counselling would help...? (Just a suggestion)

Posted by: C. | November 13, 2007 02:56 AM

Mars post to Mike Q., 11-11-07,1:58am.
Since MARS insists on being wrong, IT can either refer to my elaborated comment about debeaking being excruciatingly painful with PROOF under the heading: "PeTA to Omelette Festival - scramble tofu not eggs." OR IT can simply refer to the UNbiased report website that I posted on 11-11-07, at 8:52 pm:
www.upc-online.org/debeaking/ota.html
Time for the SAME "cut and paste" for an unknown amount of times: animal testing is NOT reliable because animals and human animals do NOT have the exact same physiologies, just as much as each human animal has his/her own unique DNA. Therefore, it is not guaranteed that even testing on human animals would give the same results.
However, ALL living sentinent beings are just that: sentinent, meaning, ALL feel pain due to having a central nervous system that relates pain to the brain, therefore ALL automatically re-act to pain.
If a person is unconscienable, then he or she will not be sympathetic to another sentinent being's pain. If a person has had any level of pain and unconscienably cannot relate to another being's pain, then that person is not empathetic either.

Posted by: Ariel | November 13, 2007 07:11 AM

Ariel

Do you have a whole list of "cut and pastes"?

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 13, 2007 03:46 PM

We a/r folks have several "cut and pastes", because, unfortunately, the same old anti's keep trying to post the same old myths - we are simply repeating the FACTS so that those who are new to the site will have accurate information about animal suffering. It is much more efficient to cut and paste in these circumstances. Oh, and Caboose, in your seemingly endless spare time, why don't you watch the movie "Earthlings" (in its entirety)? So far none of the anti's commenting on the PETA files has ever responded to my suggestions to do so - I don't know if this is because they simply have ignored the suggestion (quelle surprise!) or because they have watched the movie and realized they cannot admit publicly how humans really do abuse animals.

Posted by: Michele | November 14, 2007 09:43 PM

Michele

If abuse was phased out, it would still be acceptable to eat meat. If you dont think so, then you are calling the Native Americans cruel and evil for being omnivores.

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 15, 2007 08:43 PM

Hi, Michele,
Isn't it so predictable? When the "other side" won't admit to the FACTS, and can't come up with anything logical (which is ALWAYS), that they finally have to resort to putting words in our mouths. Pitiful.
And your are SO right: they continue to ignore the suggestions that you recommend, "Earthlings," etc. OR if they have seen it, yes, they refuse to admit the FACTS publicly.
And I will add that they have a fear of truth, education, change, and reality. Therefore, they are not courageous people - and would be the same types who believed and insisted that the world is flat.

Posted by: Ariel | November 17, 2007 08:41 AM

" I am a CSA survivor and although it has taken me a good 20 years to be able to voice what I went through, I can assure you that I suffered abuse..."

Exactly as I posted. You spoke up and said abuse.

Posted by: Mars | November 20, 2007 04:42 PM

MARS,
Why aren't you addressing my comments (that obviously you so conveniently overlooked) concerning the UNbiased website pertaining to triming/debeaking being excruciatingly painful - which you had previously denied it being so?

Posted by: Ariel | November 21, 2007 08:40 AM

I came to this site interested in animal rights and how I could be more active in supporting the cause. The inane comments posted here by self-professed animal lovers and the threatening behaviour of your 'activists' towards other human beings has put me right off. Congratulations.

Posted by: R Church | November 21, 2007 11:35 PM

R Church,
Interesting. You came to this site with interest on how you can help to support the ANIMAL cause, but didn't seem to take the time to learn the whole picture of why some of us had expressed ourselves as we did, which you found to YOUR disliking. And in doing as such, it's quite interesting that you only focused on the "self-professed animal lovers" comments, but not the continuous-to- daily "resident" commenters on this blog site, who are HIGHLY abrasive ANTI-animal rights'.
Well, first of all, ANIMAL RIGHTS'is NOT about loving animals. It is a MOVEMENT for JUSTICE and FREEDOM...for those who cannot speak for themselves: the ANIMALS (NOT humans). The sentinent beings that are captured, enslaved, tortured, abused, exploited, and killed for mankind's greed, vanity, destruction, -while be SO unconscienable, they will resort to any kind of barbaric, horrendous tactics, basically for the almighty dollar.
A person doesn't even have to like animals to be an a/r/a, but merely have a VERY strong sense of JUSTICE.
This cause is not unlike any other cause in history -such as slavery, segregation, etc.-where there was so much resistance in the fight for the freedoms of those demeaned people, to change society's acceptance of those horrible situations, that it became VERY heated -because convictions and passions for a cause run deep. They run SO deep, that one cannot be apathetic or nicey-nice all the time in order to accomplish goals. One needs to be strong and to show strength, ie, a STRONGER (verbal) resistance.
Therefore, in order to be an a/r/a, one must be STRONGLY prepared to deal with the verbal abuses from those who oppose us with their RELENTLESSLY nasty or antagonistic, nonsensical comments, which they use to TRY to degrade the dignity of animal rights' through us a/r/a's. They are not truly interested in learning, but have so much time on their hands, that they need to seek attention by TRYING to rattle us -AND we are NOT whimps because whimps would not be able to "survive" in this cause.
NOTE: Ignoring the anti's doesn't stop them; and also, their comments are misleading about the issues, which is harmful to the ANIMALS -so we must defy them accordingly.
It's interesting to note that you took the time to find some a/r/a's comments to be a turn-off, but not the anti's comments. (perhaps you couldn't discern the anti's from the a/r/a's). Yet you didn't seem to take the time to read other type of a/r/a's comments. And there is NEVER any "threatening behavior" from a/r/a's, which behavior would not even be possible on a blog site, AND the blog site moderator would not even allow any threats on this site from anyone.
So I gather that you were not sincerely interested in helping the ANIMAL cause right from the start since you didn't take the time to learn all that it entails. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I challenge you to comment on here daily for one month straight as an a/r/a: to go one-to-one with any or all anti's, and we will see if you come to the same conclusion as in your post. Remember: this is a very, very tough world.

Posted by: Ariel | November 22, 2007 11:05 AM

Seems like she is smiling to me. Odd that you would think a smile is a sign of being uncomfortable, do you smile? I do.

Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2007 08:44 PM