In article .com,
Steve Crane wrote:
This is a very dangerous organization which openly and vocally
supports ALF whom the FBI has labelled the #1 domestic terrorist
organization in the US.

The FBI somehow managed to pepper their "domestic terror"
list with left-affiliated groups while omitting
right-affiliated groups, which shouldn't be a surprise given
the politicization of national security. However, knowing
that the list is skewed on political grounds, we should view
it with an informed, skeptical eye.

I'm not fond of PETA but I do think that hysterical
accusations of things of which they're not actually guilty
will tend to undermine the case against them rather than
reinforce it. In the meantime, the fact that these two
people are accused of doing the exact same thing (getting
cats out of an animal shelter with assurances that the cats
would get a good home, then killing them) that Bill Frist
did in medical school and there's been this huge outcry
against them while Bill Frist is seen as a strong contender
for the White House in 2008 should raise some eyebrows, as
well. I'm none too fond of selective outrage or the
ascendancy of politics over basic morality.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

43% of all private-sector jobs created in the US
from 2001 to April 2005 are housing-related

There are bad people everywhere who will do evil but it does not mean
that the organization is evil. I read that PETA condemns the actions
of these two and that is enough for me. We will continue to make our
annual contributions to PETA.

Condemn the two, I call garbage, who hurt the animals but remember the
good works of PETA. I suspect that those who are the quickest to
condemn PETA, and not the two evil persons who committed those
despicable acts, are primarily upset with PETA because of their efforts
on behalf of animals.


Marshall Lev Dermer wrote:
buglady wrote:
PETA crosses over to the dark side......or have they always been there?

http://tinyurl.com/cx6tl

buglady
take out the dog before replying



Hi Buglady,

Is it fair to use the name "PETA," a name for an entire organization,
when the article only describes the behavior of two persons?

--Marshall

wrote in message
ups.com...
I read that PETA condemns the actions
of these two and that is enough for me.
.........the only action they condemned was tossing the dead animals in a
private dumpster.

I suspect that those who are the quickest to
condemn PETA, and not the two evil persons who committed those
despicable acts,
........what dispicable acts, euthanising animals they said they'd adopt out
or tossing them in the dumpster? I don't think those 2 people were evil.

are primarily upset with PETA because of their efforts
on behalf of animals.
...........nope, you'd be _dead_ wrong there.

buglady
take out the dog before replying

"Marshall Lev Dermer" wrote in message
...

BTW Marshall, for some reason my newsreader didn't bring up your first
post.....sorry to ignore.

buglady
take out the dog before replying

On 18 Jun 2005 14:06:43 -0700, wrote:

Condemn the two, I call garbage, who hurt the animals but remember the
good works of PETA.

which good works would those be?

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

Merz is a smile at the grave and gravity on cheerful occasions.
-- Kurt Schwitters

buglady wrote:
"Marshall Lev Dermer" wrote in message
...
All of this could have occurred

without an authorized person at PETA endorsing this unfortunate behavior.


...........Marshall when you're speaking of any organization the buck has to
stop somewhere. Even if the actions weren't authorized by higher-ups, they
need to step up and take full responsibility. In your personal example, no,
I doubt that the police dept. approved the actions of the cop, but they're
still responsible as he's an employee taking action in their name. End of
story. They may or may not have been cognizant of an employee's action, but
the first words I want to hear out of an organization's mouth are *We take
full responsibility.* It tells me what they're made of.

Hi Buglady,

The corporation might reprimand the employee or fire the employee. I
guess also the corporation could compensate parties that were injured by
the inappropriate actions of the employee and issue an apology. Is that
what you mean by "full responsibility"? I guess, also, the corporation
could establish a policy so that this behavior would not reoccur.

Next, why should a corporation do this? Good will? Perhaps. Are there
other reasons?

Next, are there reasons for a corporation not taking responsibility for
an employee's inappropriate, contra corporation, behavior?

--Marshall

shelly wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:15:08 GMT, Marshall Lev Dermer
wrote:


"Clearer than that" about what? The allegation was that PETA endorsed
(or appeared to endorse)these actions?


no, that was not the allegation. at least, that wasn't *my* allegation.


Sorry, I must be confused. :-)

Was this behavior endorsed
by the Glencoe Police Department? I doubt it.


unlikely. but, i believe, as the officer's employer, GPD was ultimately
responsible for his on-duty behavior.

Well, what would this responsibility consist of?

--Marshall

buglady wrote:
"Marshall Lev Dermer" wrote in message
...

BTW Marshall, for some reason my newsreader didn't bring up your first
post.....sorry to ignore.

buglady
take out the dog before replying


That's OK Buglady.

BTW, I just switched from reading the News with rn to Thunderbird.
What a very different view.

I'm an advocate of "trailing-edge" computing. Why buy it now for plenty
when you can buy it later for less? With that logic I had jumped
from DOS 6.1 to Windows 95; I never used Windows 3.1.

Thunderbird has some bugs but it is a step up from elm or pine. Also,
I ought to send the Thunderbird developers some cash. :-)

--Marshall

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:52:42 GMT, Marshall Lev Dermer
wrote:

Well, what would this responsibility consist of?

in that particular case? your analogy isn't a very good one, as cops
intimidating kids isn't illegal. that doesn't mean it's not the
employer's fault for allowing it's minions to pick on kids, but it's not
actionable, so the responsibility isn't as clear cut.

a better analogy might be sexual harassment, as it's--theoretically
anyay--illegal. if i sexually harass a coworker while on duty, my
employer can be sued for it. the last place i worked got hit by several
sexual harassment suits at about the same time. it was apparently
unpretty and they quickly got *very* serious about educating their staff
on keeping their hands and naughty language to themselves.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

We walked 5 miles backwards to get where we are today.
-- Melora (Rasputina)

Melinda wrote:

The FBI somehow managed to pepper their "domestic terror"
list with left-affiliated groups while omitting
right-affiliated groups, which shouldn't be a surprise given
the politicization of national security. However, knowing
that the list is skewed on political grounds, we should view
it with an informed, skeptical eye.


ALF has been on the domestic terrorist list since before 9/11, if that
makes any difference.

Beth