----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 17 January 2001 22:28
Subject: Re: unfashionable thought
| The campaigners have done rather more than "out" the experimenters.
| There have been bricks through windows, cars torched, etc. The
| executive's description of the campaign was accurate.
Ok. but
The context was that the chap being interviewed said that wasn't his bag and
he wasn't calling for anyone to do that.
"Terrorism" is a
| technical term, as well as an emotive one. (You might say it's justified
| terrorism, and it certainly seems to be effective terrorism, but it's
| definitely terrorism.)
Well, interestingly he was only saying "financial terrorism". He *wasn't
talking about bricks through windows or cruelty to cars. So I think
terrorism was a bit over the top
& I thought that most of the people I know are subjected to financial
terrorism - give us 40m in grants or the workers get it
| One difference between animal experimenters and paedophiles is that the
| activities of the former are legal and those of the latter are not.
| While I don't necessarily think this makes everything all right, I do
| think it's a rather *important* difference.
in some contexts it's important
the other difference is that many of the paedophiles who have outed haven't
been paedophiles, including a paediatrician - everything I have heard
suggests the Cambridge Life Sciences campaign has got it about right
| I'm afraid I'm feeling sufficiently nervous about this post to want to
| mention the (hopefully obvious) facts that anyone who thinks I'm in
| favour of wanton cruelty to animals a) is wrong, and b) has missed the
| point.
thought never entered my head
that's *the thought
L
|