Heather Mills McCartney loses prosthetic leg after row with J-Lo's guards

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=155937750&p=y55938456



Paul McCartney’s wife Heather Mills McCartney lost her prosthetic leg during a violent confrontation with security guards at Jennifer Lopez's New York office.

The incident happened on Tuesday as the model turned animal rights activist attempted to deliver a People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) DVD showing creatures being killed for fur to Lopez, following a demonstration at which the 37-year-old pleaded with fans to boycott the superstar's music, movies and clothes because she uses fur in her fashion range, Sweetface.

After striding into the building opposite Manhattan's Bryant Park, accompanied by an entourage of journalists and photographers, McCartney Mills - who lost a leg after being hit by a car in 1993 - was confronted by burley minders who yelled: "You have no authority to be here.

"Get out! Leave the floor immediately!" In the tussle that ensued, Mills McCartney's prosthetic leg became detached. She bent down and clutched her knee in pain, before asking to use a bathroom so she could reattach the leg. Guards refused and she was forced to cling onto a photographer as she carried out the humiliating task on a stairwell.

[Heidi]

1. OK, I'll be the one to say it: Ms. Mills was trespassing.

I don't wear fur, I rarely eat meat, and I have all the love in the world for animals. But that doesn't give me a right to trespass on private property, even in protest.

[DS1]

3. Beat me to it

I'm no Jennifer Lopez fan, but all I have to say about this is "Good".

[Shell Beau]

7. I have to agree. Although what

happened to her had to be embarrassing, she should've done it in a different way. And part of the reason she was there with photographers and journalists was to embarrass J-blo (or whatever) and she ended up being the one embarrassed. I don't agree with how J-Lo uses fur and all that either, but she went about it all wrong.

[Beaverhausen]

19. So, protesting something you disagree with is bad?

Really? Cause I thought a bunch of DUers were going to protest the war next weekend. guess you think they would just be harassing the president.

[Shell Beau]

34. Where did I say that?

I sure don't remember saying that. Plus there are ways to go about protesting as well. It's amazing how you got that out of my post! :eyes:

[zanne]

73. So where do you stand exactly?

Your explanation was vague. Should protest only be allowed in "1st Amendment Zones"? Should war protestors observe all the social niceties and protest the war in a "polite" way, or should they be loud, rude and demand to be heard? I don't understand what you object to--trespassing (like pushing through a barrier) or the fact that she belongs to PETA?

[Scout]

238. trespassing on private property, and not leaving when asked to

is the problem, not the protesting.

If you think HMM was justified in what she did, do you also think it's ok for anti-choicers to barge their way into an abortion clinic, and scream at the clients that they're murdering their babies?

Protesting on public property, such as the war protest will be, is not the same thing as what HMM did.

If you can't see that, then I think there is something wrong with you.

[chaska]

16. Damn, ya'll harsh...

I thought maybe I missed something so I reread it.

What is the world coming to when DUers sympathize with paid goons over animal rights activists. Was she weilding a gun or knife?

Sheesh!

[Shell Beau]

20. No. I see the point she

was making by trying to get J.Lo to understand issues with fur. But when you go on someone elses property unwanted, those are part of the consequences. That's just the way it is. She was there to embarrass J.Lo and I understand why, but do you really think J.Lo would have to stand for that on her own property?

[Debi]

85. Need a hug? Wow!

:hug: I didn't realize we were in the GDLounge

[Beaverhausen]

90. Did you read what the guards did to Heather?

J fucking Lo wasn't even there. How was poor miss thing embarrassed?

There is no defense for what those guards did.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

30. I generally agree with animal rights activists but

there are better ways to go about getting your message heard than doing what Mrs. McCartney did. Protests should be performed and heard but better planned than this one. This just plays into the hands of right wingers who think PETA is made up of a bunch of a loons.

[zanne]

76. Some people on DU are against animal rights

Not all of us love animals. I found out the hard way; in flame wars.

[gmoney]

37. Are you saying...

...she doesn't have a leg to stand on?

[Shell Beau]

38. Bad!

:spank:



:rofl:

[philosophie_en_rose]

125. So it's okay to assault her?

:shrug:

[regnaD kciN]

228. It depends on the "private property"...

We're not talking about J-Lo's home here. It's an office building with offices for her business. Is her business off-limits to anyone other than staff? Can people come there for information on her product line, to inquire about employment opportunities, as representatives of other businesses wanting to talk about possible deals? If so, then that building is open to the general public. You can refuse to meet with someone you don't want to see, you can even have them escorted off the property (and call the cops to do so if they refuse), but you cannot sic goons on them to beat them up. And pulling a known amputee's artificial leg off is assault, pure and simple (actually, in this case, it might be "aggrivated").

While working for Michael Moore's TV Nation, Janeane Garofalo had many spots where she barged in on corporate offices with a film crew. Would it have been justified for the corporation to have their security guards club Garofalo over the head, and maybe rip her clothes off for good measure, because she was "trespassing on private property?"

:crazy:

[Texasgal]

2. How sad....

Wow. I am speechless.

[Zuni]

4. well, I am no J Lo fan

but what Mrs. McCartney did was totally obnoxious and borderline harrasment

[BikeWriter]

5. Anyone thinking the loss of her prosthetic leg...

wasn't choreographed, please meet me at the coffee pot. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[zanne]

78. Bikewriter--You're no animal lover

And you definitely dislike PETA. She happenns to be a member, as the article points out.

[smbolisnch]

124. Oh please.

[KamaAina]

6. Boycott J.Lo becauses she uses fur?

How about just on general principles?

I'll bet Imus is having a field day with this. He has a pet name for Mrs. McCartney: (prepare to groan) "Stumpy the Golddigger". (okay, now groan)

edit: oh cripes I can't spell McCartney. Mom'll kill me!

[WCGreen]

11. JLo got to where she is today

through a big rounded booty and a lot of effects on an average voice.....

[chaska]

13. Average? My aren't we feeling generous today.

[southlandshari]

198. ROFL!

I am liking you more with every post you make, darlin'!

:rofl:

[LTR]

160. Imus should talk

Only difference between his wife and Mrs. McCartney is two legs.

Imus' wife isn't with him for good looks and charming personality. He's a crabby has-been bum.

[rene moon]

8. J. Lo deserves what she gets

Screw her and her stupid fur!

And what kind of "burly men" knock down a woman with a prosthetic leg?

[Shell Beau]

9. I agree on the screw J.Lo but

they are her security guards. They aren't just for men. She wasn't supposed to be there.

[BikeWriter]

10. Do you really believe professional bodyguards would risk...

a million dollar law suit by shoving down a handicapped woman? I don't think so. That part was planned to increase the media coverage. She took a dive while they were politely showing her to the door.

[Debi]

87. The kind who have a woman try to push past them to deliver

an unwanted package.

Don't you think Ms. Mills bodyguards would have stopped J-Lo from delivering a fur coat to her house?

J-Lo sucks, her music and 'acting' sucks and her fur clothing sucks. Boycott, do mailings, erect bill-boards, whatever. But, when you break the law to make a point you're still breaking the law.

[underpants]

12. _____ KICK

Oh that was bad

[RandomKoolzip]

14. I hate fur, but....

Aren't there far far more important issues to worry about these days? It ain't 1993 anymore, PETA-types.

[sasquatch]

15. I agree

[chaska]

17. Racists used that same argument against me when I was trying to....

get the confederate flag taken down off the South Carolina state capitol. SC is my (former) home state.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Ah, so I'm a racist.

Nice use of misdirection! :thumbsup:

[chaska]

21. Don't be silly...

We do what we can and in what area we know. It isn't up to us to choose someone's issue for them.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. I used to be a member of PETA. Seriously.

I used to be all about animal rights. That was back before there were real, live fascists taking over the government. Now, as much as it breaks my heart to see animals hurt or killed, I realize that there are bigger fish to fry (bad pun, sorry), and that PETA's tactics (and loopy rhetoric) end up alienating many of the people who would normally support their cause.

But equating PETA disrupting a fashion show or throwing blood on a fur wearer with attempting to remove the confederate flag from a State courthouse seems a bit specious of an argument to my mind. I fail to see the connection, and resent being slandered as somehow occupying the same moral plane as a racist by merely stating that animal rights probably languish at the bottom of my political priority list.

[zanne]

96. I am a proud PETA member.

No, I don't agree with all of their tactics. Then again, I'm a Democrat, so I'm used to belonging to groups with lots of potential.

[StopTheMorans]

63. SNAP!

[LeftyMom]

109. You don't think we can't worry about two things at once do you?

Most of us are dedicated to more than one issue. Mrs. Mills-McCartney does a lot of anti-landmine work, too. Like many people she wears more than one hat.

[RandomKoolzip]

221. You can worry about a zillion things at once....

What matters is the priority level at which we worry about those things. If there wasn't already such a HUGE uphill battle to fight as pertains to Voting Machines, encroaching fascism, packing the courts, abortion rights, and the War in Iraq, I'd probably join another animal rights group (not PETA, though.) As it stands, there's just too much on the plate right now.

Supporting PETA in the current political climate is like seeking treatment for a hangnail when there's a gigantic, malignant, oozing tumor on one's face.

[flvegan]

114. Like what? The fur trade is a high it hasn't seen in quite some time.

[RandomKoolzip]

223. Then why isn't Mrs. McCartney protesting Eskimo villagers?

[replacement]

216. There may be more important issues

But some DUers seem to regard PETA as the biggest problem facing the world at present, to judge by the quantity and rabidity of their posts.

[RandomKoolzip]

222. I don't think they do, personally.

Compared to the Bush administration, DUers reserve a great deal of their spleen that could possibly go to PETA. As a former PETA member myself, I can understand why DUers don't like the organization: their extremism causes mini-backlashes everywhere they protest, and the politics they stand for are a symbol of the "PC" craze of the 90's that the culture warriors on the right are still fighting (and, unfortunately, winning)

The number of posts condemning the Bush administration compared to those condemning PETA are deservedly large. If one wanted to support or join PETA, that's their choice. All I'm saying is that if one fights for causes, one must proritize those causes in order of immediacy. I think, in the main, DUers seem to know what's what.

[shockra]

23. The incident was filmed by the BBC.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16131576&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=heather-loses-leg-at-j-lo-fur-protest--name_page.html

[BikeWriter]

27. "About 12 or 13 of them forced their way in. "

"They were really rude and wouldn't leave when asked."
Yeah, it really sounds as if she were attacked! :sarcasm:

[rene moon]

36. so you defend J-Ho's goons????

come on--who cares about her...argh

[BikeWriter]

39. Two (2) guys against a dozen unlawful trespassers?

I would have used a chair on them until the cops got there to arrest the survivors.

[henslee]

24. I heard her leg got stuck in J-Lo's ass and J-Lo is collecting insurance.

[enigmatic]

25. Sounds like a bad Mel Brooks film

Seriously.

I have zero love for J Lo, but Mrs. McCartney was in the wrong.

[BikeWriter]

29. One more incidence of PeTa's extremism inviting opposition.

[Greyhound]

26. So Lopez is scum. Gee that's rare in hollywood. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. Oh, please .................

When the first Mrs. McCartney, that famous rock star and animal rights activist, was diagnosed with the cancer that eventually killed her, she wasted no time in availing herself of any and all chemotherapy treatments, all of which had been tested on - you got it! - ANIMALS!!!!

Her widower, to his credit, admitted this after her death.

Now comes the opportunistic second Mrs. McCartney, making her very public and well-documented move just as her husband gets ready to release his first album in how many years?

It's all PR, and I'll be tucking into my steak tonight, wearing my leather boots, sporting my big diamond ring, while I contemplate a cold winter made bright by the warmth supplied by my mink coat.

Those people are just so smug and pretentious and offensive. They're intolerant fanatics, as untoward in their ways as all the other terrorists.

[Dave Reynolds]

113. But, OLL,

The only BAD people trying to force their way of life on people are from the right, remember?

People from the left who try to force their way of life on us are GOOD, right?

A BAD person defaces property based on politics, a GOOD person defaces property...oh...wait a minute...never mind.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. Never fear, Dave

When you come flying through the air, this Leftie will be here to catch you.

Then, we'll team up and go after the righteous do-gooders, no matter what side they're coming from.



:woohoo:
:applause:

[Dave Reynolds]

123. I think I may get punted soon,

because Taliban is as Taliban does.

Let's get 'em!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

161. As if .........

The Taliban vs. a lawyer.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

We got 'em!

[flvegan]

117. "...all the other terrorists"

Very interesting wording.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

121. That's deliberate wording

Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of what side's mounting it.

[flvegan]

122. I wasn't suggesting it wasn't.

Interesting in that it's the same bs label being thrown at activists all over the country.

Hey, if you want to think of Paul and his wife as terrorists, that's your right. I can respect that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

153. Defining terrorism

I think it's a rather subjective word, so, yes, I'll use it according to my standards. It's something I think we all need to respect, since it's such a slippery concept.

When someone uninvited invades my space or my territory with the intention of taking some action, symbolic or not, because they do not approve of something I do, eat, or embrace - something very legal - then that's not activism.

That's terrorism.

It's also trespassing, assault, perhaps battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. I hope the parties involved sue Mrs. McCartney's pants off.

[flvegan]

165. Please stay away from DC later this month then.

According to your second statement, Bush is gonna charge a whole lot of folks with this very thing.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

171. Well, thanks for the caution, but,

since I live there, and have been a Washington lawyer for thirty years or so, that sort of stuff is familiar to me.

But, make sure you have your bail bondsman on call, or else you've got some ready cash.

Seriously, if the parade permits are in order and people don't get crazy, I doubt we'll see another Chicago of 1968.

Ah, those were the days ...........................

[flvegan]

174. But you understand my post, right?

You've got a pretty vague definition there, that's easily spun. That was my point.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

177. Uh...........

I think maybe you're looking for concrete in a world where concrete does not exist.

[shockra]

181. It exists.

Between the ears of a lot of DUers. :hide:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

191. HAHAHAHA!!!!

Kudos for that one ..................

Naughty, naughty .............

[flvegan]

183. You wish.

Nice parry, though.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

193. No, I don't wish, and we're not fencing

I wouldn't want to live in a world where things were so fixed and rigid as to be predictable. If I wished it were so, how would I have had a career such as mine for all these years? Think about it.

But, if the concept comforts someone, I take no issue with that. Everyone's gotta have something to hold onto. But, it's not going to get in the way of how I choose to live my life.

[flvegan]

195. Not fixed and rigid. Wide open.

You're educated. Think about it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

196. HAHAHAHAHA!

You're funny.

Think about that.

[flvegan]

199. Damn.

That was a real let down. I expected more. I expected better.

That's what I get. Oh, well.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

200. You expected?

Silly. What right have you to expect anything from someone on a message board?

Deflate, take a deep breath, and try to understand your place in my universe.

You expected. Yep. You are funny.

[flvegan]

202. Given.

You're right. I DID expect. An experienced attorney (as you've stated so many times) from DC...

I stand corrected.

[regnaD kciN]

229. By your standards...

Cindy Sheehan and the folks at Camp Casey were committing "terrorism," too.

:crazy:

[fujiyama]

140. I'm not going to criticize

you, but I wanted to let ya know that the thing about diamonds has nothing to do with animals.

Actual people are being killed over that.

Granted, slaves are also used for chocolate, so I can't say anything.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

154. Yeah, well, I just threw that in,

because my jewelry has irritated any number of anemic-looking vegans in health food stores and organic markets for reasons that have always entertained me.

Then I show them my leather briefcase or my leather backpack. Then they faint.

You're right, though - but these are old diamonds, inherited through families, and all that means, I am certain, is that the people who died mining them died long ago instead of recently. That's all. It's all wrong.

[flvegan]

167. We're not all anemic-looking.

Just letting you know.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

172. Two of my kids are vegans

But the ones who try to hassle me are always anemic-looking, need a good shampoo, and seem to be terribly cranky.

They just need a day at a spa, I think. Or just a good massage. Something.

[flvegan]

173. *snort*

I know what you mean. We're not all NON-anemic looking either.

Two vegan kids. I don't know you, but somebody instilled something right...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. You're right

You don't know me.

And their fling with veganism will go the way of their other flings. It's only a matter of time.

You're right about their parents instilling something right - these offspring like to give everything a try, and then they're far more capable of understanding than people who look down their non-superior noses at people who don't share their preferences.

Soon, they'll be wolfing down the steaks with the rest of the family. I know my kids.

[flvegan]

180. You implying something?

Sad lot. You take it personally.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

194. Sad lot?

Ah, aspersions. Ain't they a passive-aggressive bitch when their blowback lands on your tongue, all chewy and bloody?

[flvegan]

197. Nah. At least I was right...

someone sure did instill something.

Flings. Heh heh, wouldn't it be a bitch if it stuck.

Aspersion? No. Not my blowback. That's all on you.

Enjoy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

201. My kids

Yeah, well, you open up the box about how someone's kids are raised, and then you weasel.

Listen, there's a great recipe for weasel, when you finally see the light ....

[flvegan]

203. It started as a compliment.

You smacked it down. You belittled them.

"See the light?" I'll take that in jest, as you can't be even remotely serious.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

204. Two words, or maybe it's one ..........

Passive-aggressive.

[Tallison]

233. I don't see that at all

in fivegan's posts here, only generalized seething contempt in yours directed at fivegan as the nearest interlocutor. Where is that coming from?

[Dastard Stepchild]

151. All animal rights activists, in your opinion...

or just Ms. Mills-McCartney?

Just trying to clarify.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

156. Oh, don't get me wrong

I have no qualms about supporting animal right activists. I am in favor of treating our animal friends with love and respect and care.

I do not, though, hold with illegal (and celebrity presumptive - would the papers have given it any attention if Jane Jones had pulled this stunt?) invasions or any breaking of the law that puts others in peril or fear for their well-being.

[Dastard Stepchild]

175. Thanks :)

Just trying to clarify.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

176. FYI -

Here's a picture of the most powerful, most important, most loved member of our family -

[Dastard Stepchild]

187. A rather benevolent leader, I must say....

Here's ours:



:)

[friesianrider]

226. Wow..

And we're the "smug, pretentious, offensive and intolerant fanatics"?

Pot, meet kettle. :eyes:

[Chovexani]

31. That sounds like an Onion headline. (n/t)

[enigmatic]

32. I take my post back

That DOES sound like an Onion headline!

[ronnykmarshall]

33. I thought it was!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BikeWriter]

40. If it happened, McCartney's mob had no right to trespass!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Aren't you the guy with the 1000 post thread about songbirds?

Why start a flaming thread about cats eating birds then defend a woman that wears mangled marsupials?

If chickenshit J-Lo had the decency to return the numnerous calls made perhaps they would have felt no need to visit.
Either way..we shall see if her gang of thugs had legal standing as I have no doubt she will sue.

There's nothing sexy about wearing tortured animals.

At least the cats ATE the fucking songbirds, I doubt J-Lo dines on ferrets or minks.

[Pithlet]

42. I agree.

I'm not a big fan of McCartny-Mills, but I hope she sues and wins big. From what I read, it looks like they treated her terribly. It's not as though she broke into J-Lo's living room.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. If J-Lo passes me on the street in that fur, she'll be picking bubblegum

out of it...in the words of my favorite chef..I GUAR-RON-TEE!

[Pithlet]

45. If this were a thread

about a Union rep being roughed and losing his/her prosthetic at a Wal Mart, I think the overall reaction at DU would have been different.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. No..some people on this thread would still claim the union guy was

tresspassing.
In the words of my favorite chef, I GUAR-RON-TEE :D

[Pithlet]

53. Oh, to be sure

There's always a few in every bunch. I think the mention of PETA or any anti-fur cause just irrationally inflames some who would otherwise be against the actions of those security guards.

[BikeWriter]

46. You support the destruction of other's property then?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Yes. I support the destruction of any property obtained by unjustified

torture. I think if enough $50,000 furs are vandalized, people will just stop wearing them rather than risk the economic investment required to wear a tortured animal as a status symbol.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[BikeWriter]

60. Hey, why deface furs? Come to Sturgis and spray paint leathers!

Show us bikers what you got!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Leather is a by product. In most instances, fur is not.

and you bikers don't scare me...my car can run you over :D

[BikeWriter]

86. Aw bullshit! Fess up, you talk brave about gum on a little old Lady's

mink. That's chicken shit terrorism. If you have real convictions come to Sturgis and paint some leathers. You think a car would protect you, you are wrong. The same thing applies if I'm with a Lady whose fur you fuck with.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. Chickenshit terrorism is wearing fur.

And if Sturgis is in texas, it's not currently on my to-do list to visit..and I certainly hope whatever "lady" you date or would date you is not so desperately tasteless as to wear tortured animals.

[BikeWriter]

99. Whatever "lady" I date will decide what she wants to wear...

And, if you fuck with them, you will not enjoy it. Ha ha ha ha ha! Show you're committed. Spray paint biker's leathers! ;-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. As I said..leather is a by product..if a biker wears fur, my gum will

gladly find a resting place

Anyway..I gotta go pick up my dog from the groomer's before some bitch with zero fashion sense skins him for a coat

[BikeWriter]

111. I'm going out to buy a fur coat!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

184. I'm going out to buy some Wrigley's. See you when I see you

You will know me by the spearminty smell on your tortured animal apparel

[shockra]

188. You rock, lady!

:rofl:

[Dogmudgeon]

205. "Leather is a by product ..."

I don't quite get this. Leather is the skin of a steer, which has been stripped off the steer's (usually dead) body, tanned, cured, and used to make clothing or other things.

How is it different from fur -- which has been stripped off a fur-bearing creature's (usually dead) body, processed, and used to make clothing or other things. -- ?

I'm not looking for flamage here, I just never heard that point of view about leather, and would like to know what the facts of the matter are.

Thanks!

--p!

[yewberry]

206. Flameless response

Leather is a product (or a by-product, if you choose to think of it as such) created of animals raised as food. Few animals are raised and slaughtered solely to make leather goods.

"Fur animals" are bred and raised only for their pelts. These animals exist only to be killed for their fur--the notion is that the cruelty and exploitation involved in fur trade is worse because the sole end is vanity. No one is fed when minks are anally electrocuted.

Sorry for the ick factor; it's a hard thing to discuss. Hope I answered your question.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

207. Leather comes from cows used to feed us so it is the by product

of feeding ourselves which is a bit different than killing an animal solely raised for fur then tortured in a trap

[petronius]

208. I think the idea is that leather is not the primary reason

for raising steers. The cattle industry is geared toward meat production, and the steers that produce leather would be slaughtered anyway. In contrast, animals for fur are raised for fur only, and the rest of the body is discarded (or so I assume).

I think it's a bit of a flawed argument - if the objection to fur is that we have substitutes for fur that don't require killing an animal and it is wrong to kill for fashion, then we can make the same argument about beef: it isn't really necessary and we eat it because we like it. If you can make the morally equivalent argument about beef as you can make about fur, then you can't use the 'leather is a byproduct' argument to treat leather as less objectionable than fur. People have to fall back on the rationalization that the demands of fashion are more trivial than the demands of dietary preference if they want to condemn fur and not condemn meat.

However, you can still use the 'personal preservation' argument if you choose not to bubblegum bikers - I don't want any animals to suffer, including myself...

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. Hm.

Does that mean you could get behind people running about with sledgehammers and smashing diamonds into carbon dust? I mean, you DO know what the conditions the miners are forced to work under are like, right?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. As long as the blood diamond is not on a human, sure :)

If a person were wearing it, I would not say harm to the human was justified. If I knew it was a blood diamond and it was sitting there...sure...bang away

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

[zanne]

131. That's it--I'm sending my four cats to poop on your lawn!

n/t

[BikeWriter]

141. How many do you think will come home? I adore little kittys!

:)

[Chovexani]

65. I miss Justin Wilson

:(

[ronnykmarshall]

152. Ok so here's a question ...

1. You see some woman walking down the street in a fur jacket. You pull your little gum thang and come to find out the jacket is FAKE fur. What now?

2. Also, what would you do if you if some little old blue haired woman was so upset by your action she had a heart attack?

[BikeWriter]

48. Her office is her property. She pays her guards to protect it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Good..then she can pay when her guard assaults someone

maybe she'll have to auction off the fur to some blue haired old fuck to cover her court costs

[BikeWriter]

55. Perhaps you noticed the guards were calling for police help?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. The article did not say that...reading comrehension, anyone?

According to 25hoursonline.com, Lopez's guards continued to verbally attack the group – screaming: "Call the cops! Call the cops!" - until Mills McCartney recovered her composure and was able to leave the building.

The guards were talling THEM "call the cops" like the chest pounding above the law nazi's those little bouncers think they are.

As I said, if they had a right to assault Ms McCartney, it's all on film and will come out in the wash and in the courts.

[BikeWriter]

89. Wonderful! I will abide by the Court's decision.

[Pithlet]

51. Whatever

Personal property doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want to people who're on it, particularly when it is a public place.

[BikeWriter]

56. Hey, they were asked to leave!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. So what? So that justifies battery?

[BikeWriter]

66. I would hurt defend my property, wouldn't you?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. SO they should have called the cops..not assaulted her

[BikeWriter]

91. Two men supposedly were trying to eject a dozen or more trespassers...

I don't call that an assault. Obviously we disagree.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. Where in the article does it say TWO GUARDS or even men?

Of course we disagree....you keep seeing things that aren't there!

[Pithlet]

61. That may be

You still don't get to do whatever the hell you like with them. Property rights do not trump all. Public figures don't get protection above the law from people and messages that do not agree with them. Based solely on what I read, it appears they went too far. I'm not arguing that they didn't have the right to ask her to leave. I'm saying they didn't have the right to physically handle her the way they did.

[BikeWriter]

44. "Mangled marsupials?" I've yet to see platypus fur worn by anyone.

Yes, I posted the infamous classic flame thread about feral and roaming cats decimating our native song birds. What's your point? That has nothing to do with the use of d-o-m-e-s-t-i-c raised furs used in the fashion industry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. So you support torturing animals just not natural selection

What would I expect from a guy that still calls Fonda "Hanoi Jane"?

[BikeWriter]

52. What is "natural" about a feral animal preying on native birds?

I've been calling her that since she called our POWs liars and hypocrites. Do you call our POWs liars and hypocrites?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. It's a hell of a lot more natural for a wild animal to eat a bird than for

a bad actor to wear a tortured animal.

And yes...I think John McCain is a liar and a hypocrite. Don't you?

[BikeWriter]

62. John McCain was not our only POW!

[Pithlet]

64. Cat does what its instincts tell it and kill bird for food = Bad.

Celebrity in the 21st century wearing and selling fur for the sake of vanity and status from a slaughtered animal likely tortured and kept in deplorable coniditions? = Good. Didn't you know that?

[BikeWriter]

71. A feral cat is a destructive alien pest. Period. Not cuddly, not loving.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. A songbird is a disease carrying host...not cuddly either

and they shit all over your Harley (especially black ones)

[BikeWriter]

77. Hey, let's keep my Harley out of this! The songbirds are native birds.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Well when God retires, you can torture mink and protect songbirds

In the meantime, anytime some blue haired bourgeoisie walks past me wearing a tortured animal, I'm gonna consider it a gum wrapper.

[BikeWriter]

95. In my opinion, that is the act of a cowardly terrorist. C'mon to Sturgis!

[Pithlet]

82. To you

If facts were only based on your perceptions alone, then you'd have a point. But, it's not BikeWriter world. Cats are, in fact, only following their instincts, whether you like cats or not. Period, end of sentence, finis. It's okay to hate cats, but it is ridiculous to judge them for doing something that they can't help. It's ridiculous to expect the world to change for you based on your whims and desires.

I hate spiders. But I won't go around condemning them for building webs, because that's what they do. It isn't Pithlet world where everyting has to conform to the way I want things done. How silly would it be if I went around blasting everyone that posted about how cool spiders were, and saying stuff like "Damn spiders, building webs I have to sweep off the porch railing. Who do they think they are!!!!! I insist that all spiders be eradicated, and anyone pro-spider is stupid."

[BikeWriter]

110. This thread will be locked soon, I'm sure. I was looking for...

an article I have here somewhere from a former "cat Lady" that shows exactly why cats are so destructive in America. Our birds did not evolve in competition with them. African, and now European birds did. It's so simple. I'll look for it some more. Would you be interested in seeing it if the thread gets locked? I could PM it to you.

[Pithlet]

115. I watched a show on PBS

about cats and songbirds. I understand that they didn't evolve together without human influence. But, my whole point is the cats didn't change their essential nature, and neither did the birds. They both do what they do because of what they are. Cats didn't interject themselves into the whole mess. We did that. We (as in humanity we) cannot then condemn them for doing what comes to them naturally. You, as an individual, can personally loath them. I understand that. I don't understand the rest of your point. Unless you live completely free and natural from all other human interferences and dint' benefit from any of them, it's hypocritical to blame the animals for something we humans created. Very few species in America are native any more. Much of the plant and animal life was brought from other places. We can't undo that now.

It is a shame that domesticated animals, including cats, have negative impacts on native wildlife. But, we as humans, by our very existence, do FAR more damage. We kill far more of them byh eradicate more of their wildlife habitat than all the cats in the world. If you live in a developed area, and not out in the wilderness, you've killed more individual species over time than most cats could ever dream of in their feline fantasies. We are all a negative impact.

[BikeWriter]

138. When you see the AR people cursing me, remind them I have a kitty...

in my downstairs bathroom. I wasn't asked, someone allowed his Mom to run loose and she came into my house through a broken window and had them. I am not without some feelings for them, but no one should allow their animals to intrude on another's property! You want a kitty?

[Pithlet]

142. Do you still have that kitty?

I remember when you rescued it. I have to say knowing how you feel about kitties, I was impressed. Most wouldn't have bothered.

I do agree that pet owners need to be more responsible with their animals. I just think you're a little bit over the top on the whole Cats as Song Bird Murderers thing. I also think you're a bit harsh on the animal rights activits, to say the least. I'm a meat eating leather wearing DUer, and I do think the AR crowd gets an unfair beating, here.

[BikeWriter]

148. Yes, I still have the spotted one...

I was taught as a youngster to be responsible for my own animals welfare. It hurts me that I am not able to provide this little varmint what he needs, then again I never asked for him.
The AR people of the world can do their own thing, wonderful, but they can keep their hands off my raw meat!

[BikeWriter]

164. IF YOU CLAIM TO BE INTERESTED IN ECOLOGY, READ THIS!

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM02/earth.htm

"My understanding then of predator and prey relationships in nature was simple and misguided. I viewed predation as a natural phenomenon. Predators hunt and kill, and prey utilize evasive maneuvers to avoid getting caught. It's natural for cats to kill and so I thought that birds and other local wildlife had built-in defenses against their predation. I couldn't have been more wrong. My reasoning was missing an extremely important variable called evolution."

[Pithlet]

192. I know all that

It just reinforces everything I've said. Cats can't help it. It isn't their fault, and it certainly isn't their fault they were introduced into that environment. Birds haven't evolved any defense, that is true. They also haven't evoved a defense against humans destroying their habitate for parking lots and malls.

[friesianrider]

235. Pithlet...

Despite our differences on the parenting thread, I think you're right on. I know many DUers who are meat-eaters and leather-wearers think that we AR folks are the ones who condemn and judge, but in reality it is often the other way around. I don't remember the last time an AR DUer posted a thread deliberately trying to poke fun at those who choose to eat meat, but I know that BW has on numerous occasions. It's a shame that we can't all express our opinions openly and honestly here without being judged or poked fun at.

Good post! :hi:

[flvegan]

144. I would sing your praises from the highest mountain

Were I on one, of course, of your compassion for that kitty (and what I'm suspecting to be her kittens). You should be applauded for the kindhearted things that you do.

I'm assuming that this is a mom kitty that had babies in your home?

[BikeWriter]

159. Yes, the Mama cat had kittens. I placed her and two elsewhere.

I still have this one. I got sliced and diced handling the Mama. I'm dealing with PTSD and chronic depression, so I am not a great provider for the critter, but I have kept it from the kill pound.

[flvegan]

163. Nice work, Bikewriter.

Good on ya for doing that, saving those lives and finding homes for them.

Much respect.

[BikeWriter]

166. Read this, please and I will be repaid:

"My understanding then of predator and prey relationships in nature was simple and misguided. I viewed predation as a natural phenomenon. Predators hunt and kill, and prey utilize evasive maneuvers to avoid getting caught. It's natural for cats to kill and so I thought that birds and other local wildlife had built-in defenses against their predation. I couldn't have been more wrong. My reasoning was missing an extremely important variable called evolution."
http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM02/earth.htm

[flvegan]

169. Okay, done.

I'll agree with the article. Birds probably haven't been given the needed instincts to avoid a feline predator as they should have. I'm not for the killing of songbirds (hell, I saved a blue jay last weekend that was being stalked by a stray cat).

I don't have the answer for either side. Killing one animal to save another isn't in my book either.

[BikeWriter]

168. I am bowing out of the thread. This is about where Skinner asked...

me to STFU in another cat flaming thread. :)

[zanne]

84. Didn't you once advocate for shooting stray cats?

I seem to remember being in a flamewar with you over some town thinking about making it legal to shoot stray cats. You were all for it. The flames were high!

[flvegan]

116. That poster has also threatened great bodily harm on anyone

that might deface any clothing he or anyone he cares about owns.

Violence, violence, violence.

edited for clarity

[BikeWriter]

134. Uh, you don't protect your property?

:shrug:

[flvegan]

139. I wouldn't send someone to the hospital for ruining a pair of

shorts on a laundry line. Besides, protecting and doing intentional damage are two different things in that case.

[BikeWriter]

145. People imposing their agenda in my territory...

are subject to being fucked up beyond all repair! I learned that in the United States Military. You have your moral tenets, I have mine.

[flvegan]

147. Your post that I refer to had nothing to do with an agenda.

Your post was very matter of fact, that ANYONE that messed with your gear (or the gear of your lady) was going to the hopital. You were very non-specific, and that's why I remembered it so well.

[BikeWriter]

162. I learned to defend myself in VietNam. That's how I lived so long.

[replacement]

213. It's a pretty sick "moral tenet"

That holds that someone who damages a piece of clothing should recieve a punishment-beating that leaves them "beyond repair" and requiring hospitalisation. In fact, it's contemptible thuggery. But then, those who regard animal life as disposable usually do hold similar views towards human life when you scratch the surface.

[zanne]

135. You mean bikewriter, right?

n/t

[flvegan]

137. Absolutely. I was adding to what you said, not stating

"this" as in, the one I was replying to.

Most certainly, not you. No way.

[smbolisnch]

126. Would not surprise me ONE bit.

[Debi]

93. Why would J-Lo call her back?

Does * call any Democrats back?

J-Lo SUCKS, but as long as killing animals for fur is legal she doesn't have to meet with PETA activists if she doesn't want to.

Doesn't she have a right to privacy?

I don't agree with the republican party's philosophies, does that mean I have to talk with them when they call my house? And if I don't will they barge their way in? And if I have someone protecting my home that embarrasses them will they then sue me?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. If she had an ounce of class that all her fur is supposed to convey

she would have called them back.

Of course she doesn't have to meet with them. Instead they can protest her piggish actions which is exactly what they were doing?

How does this compromise her privacy? I'm not getting that one.

Knocking a prosthetic off someone certainly rises above the level of embarrassment (except to J-Lo and her band of thugs)

[Debi]

107. How could a person who uses fur in their 'fashion' have class?

Yes, they can protest her, but they can't break the law and attempting to force your way into an area that you are not invited and do not belong is breaking the law whether you have two legs or one.

[ronnykmarshall]

157. I kinda liked her in "Selena".

She was also pretty funny on "Will & Grace".

I don't like fur myself. But sure as hell won't attack someone like PETA does for wearing it.

PETA's tactics do more harm than good. La Mills-McCartney is just as big of a media whore as La Lopez if you ask me.

[zanne]

136. Bikewriter--Consider the karma you're creating...

The ultimate justice would be for you to come back in the next life as a stray cat!

[smbolisnch]

149. Hahahaha, I second that!!

:rofl:

[Scout]

237. and you can come back as the songbird that he eats! n/t

[zanne]

97. You're my hero!

No doubt, you will be flamed and have probably been flamed before for standing up for animals. Keep it up, nothingshocksmeanymore!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. I shall. I can't believe people justifying knocking a prosthetic off

a woman over a simple visit to a fur wearing pig's office.

Some things are worthy of anarchy :headbang:

[Beaverhausen]

108. They are secretly big J Lo fans but don't want to admit it

and they wear fur. Lets see who would admit that here.

[StopTheMorans]

68. .

:popcorn: damn it, i wish they had an icon with a little smiley with a steak bib and knife eating a nice juicy steak, but the popcorn will have to do :nuke:

[ronnykmarshall]

80. Here's the steak!

[skygazer]

83. Ooh, can I have some of that?

:popcorn:

[Debi]

98. MMMMmmmmmm Steak...

[dhinojosa]

69. If I had a prosthetic leg like McCartney I'd use it to my advantage

I'd attach a device to it that gushes out fake blood and once I get into a ruckus I'd eject my leg and start screaming, "MY LEG!!! YOU RIPPED MY FUCKING LEG OFF!!! YOU ASSHOLES!!!!!!!! ARGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"

[BikeWriter]

81. True story! We ride to Galveston beach, one of the Bros has...

a prosthetic leg. We gathered around him at the water's edge and I poured ketchup on his stump and we hid his leg. All the Ladys screamed "SHARK!" I wrote that one into my book. :)

[dhinojosa]

88. Fanastic......

:rofl:

[BikeWriter]

101. Oh, Dude! It was hilarious! The first Emergency vehicles...

were showing up as we rode out!

[Horse with no Name]

104. Is that the guy from the Teague/Mexia area?

Can't remember his name anymore--had his entire leg ripped off in a motorcycle accident.

[BikeWriter]

112. No, that's not the one. This guy was from this area.

[Horse with no Name]

118. The guy I mentioned is a legend

I remember hearing all about his accident in nursing school and then in the hospitals.
Amazing story.

[BikeWriter]

132. LOL! There are many bikers who are legendary. One of my Bros...

was shot in the chest by a lightweight. He beat the guy so unmercifully he thought he'd killed him. He figured he'd get off lighter if he took the guy in alive so he transported him to the hospital on his own bike.

[miss_kitty]

133. My dad's aunt used to have a fake leg

she used it as a shoplifting aid in the 20s and 30s.

[Coexist]

100. My first lounge post:

If you are going to use something as controversial as fur in your fashion line, and not expect a protest - You are an idiot.

Those darn protesters get what they deserve, right. Does anyone have the video of the police officer trying to run over the drummer with his horse because he stepped off the curb and out of the "designated protest area".

Protesters have a right to protest. Nice attitude, DU. No wonder I stay out of the lounge.

[Dukkha]

119. it's best to avoid animal rights threads altogether

they really expose the ugliness of all the "WANNABE" liberals who clearly hate animals, can't think beyond one issue at a time, are against civil disobedience of any kind, and believe torturing a sentient being is permissible if it makes they pampered gluttonous lifestyles more luxurious.

At least you know who the enemy sympathizers are and put them on ignore.

[ronnykmarshall]

155. So people that don't support PETA are

"wannabe" liberal and hate animals?

[arwalden]

215. Tortured Logic.

[smbolisnch]

127. At DU, AR protesters have NO rights.

Sad but true. I only come in here when something is brought to my attention. This is why.

[Horse with no Name]

103. Add some TASER apologists in here and you will have a real

flamewar.
That said...this ain't bad.
:popcorn:

[crispini]

128. It's so nice to have the Lounge sort of back to normal.

:popcorn: Got any butter?

[ronnykmarshall]

158. PETA threads are always hot ...

plenty of heat to make some :popcorn:

[KyndCulture]

129. Is it wrong that this reminded me of Deuce Bigalow?

hahahaha..

[d_b]

130. The best is when he uses it to knock on the door.

[Robeson]

143. I can't believe that someone doesn't have basic human compassion...

...for another human being, when seeing that persons fake prosthetic limb fall to the ground. They couldn't at least open a door for her and allow her reattach her leg? And then they're still yelling and screaming at her while she hops to a stairwell to reattach it? What are these guys, fucking robots? That's pretty cold-hearted.

[Beware the Beast Man]

146. I'm no fan of PETA, but J-Lo is an uber-bitch (delete if you must).

Anyone who makes a list of ridiculous demands for a fucking CHARITY event is trash in my book.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/lopezrider/lopezrider1.html
Fuck J-Lo and her $25,000 flip-flops.

[Robeson]

150. I agree....

...after reading that, talk about self-absorbed.

[Piperay]

170. Cheers to Heather!

Good for her!!!! :thumbsup:

[arwalden]

179. Oh Whaaaaah! Get Over Yourself, Heather!

WHAAAAAH!

Raise your hand if you actually believe that this publicity stunt wasn't planned. How muchya wanna bet that her prosthetic leg attathments/straps/suction was already pre-loosened in ANTICIPATION of some mild confrontation?

Once again, PETA KOOKS show us that they believe the rules of law do not apply them. Harassment, trespassing, assault, vandalism are all part and parcel to their opportunistic stunts.

Screw them! Screw PETA! And we'll let Paul screw Heather! Get a life! Get over yourself, witch!

[flvegan]

185. But what if it wasn't?

You're assuming. What if you're wrong?

[arwalden]

190. Sorry... I'm Not Stupid Enough To Believe For One Second That She

... went there with the SOLE purpose to quietly and politely deliver a DVD and then leave without incident. What purpose would that serve?!? That's not NEWS! That's not titilating! Any rational person can tell that she went there to cause a scene and to intentionally disrupt a legitimate business and trespass on private property. Par for the course for PETA kooks.


re-edit: typo

[Piperay]

209. IF that is the case then it was STUPID

of J-LOW to buy into it and allow herself to be had, fault still lies on J-LOW's side.

[arwalden]

212. Nobody Is Under Any Obligation To Kowtow To Heather's Vanity...

... and gimmicks. Nobody is under any obligation to give her the red-carpet treatment because of who her husband is, or because she thinks that she deserves special treatment. She should have known better. She got exactly what she deserved! She's still nothing more than a common criminal PETA KOOK.



-- Allen

"J-LOW"? :eyes:

[replacement]

214. Wow

I hope to God your not on hand next time a disabled person needs assistance. Seriously though, the rabid hatred and paranoia PETA seems to provoke in you can't be good for your health.

[arwalden]

219. "Wow" Yourself. This Is Not About Me, replacement ...

<< I hope to God your not on hand next time a disabled person needs assistance. >>

What a stupid thing to say. Irrelevant.

<< Seriously though, the rabid hatred and paranoia PETA seems to provoke in you can't be good for your health. >>

I'm not rabid. I'm not paranoid. On whose authority can you claim to know whether or not I "hate" PETA? Please explain.

When it comes to this issue, my "health" (and any faux concern that anyone expresses for it) is *also* irrelevant.

Do you have any comments that DON'T have anything to do with ME personally? :eyes:

[friesianrider]

227. Well..

When you make such rabid and fanatical comments...how do you expect one to not think there's something a little unstable going on?

Amazing that so many people on a supposedly "progressive" board are so hateful, condescending, judgmental, closed-minded, and unaccepting. I realize you may have personal beef with PETA's tactics. Cool. You're entitled to your opinion same as I am. So just don't be a member. :shrug:

But you DON'T have to go about it in the way you did. It's just very un-progressive of you, and I hope you realize that.

[arwalden]

232. friesianrider, Here Is Your Reply...

<< "Well.." Posted by friesianrider Edited on Sun Sep-18-05 03:20 AM by friesianrider When you make such rabid and fanatical comments...how do you expect one to not think there's something a little unstable going on? >>

Ah... when you DEFEND the notion that I'm a "little unstable", you are--in effect--calling me unstable. That's a personal attack. A clever backhanded way to do it... but still it's a personal attack and that's against the rules.

<< Amazing that so many people on a supposedly "progressive" board are so hateful, condescending, judgmental, closed-minded, and unaccepting. >>

What's so "progressive" about allowing people to intimidate, vandalize, assault, trespass, interfere with business, liable, slander, etc etc? What's progressive about CRIMINAL activity?

<< I realize you may have personal beef with PETA's tactics. >>

You would realize incorrectly.

<< Cool. You're entitled to your opinion same as I am. So just don't be a member. >>

:eyes: Oh brother.

<< But you DON'T have to go about it in the way you did. >>

Too fucking bad. Learn to cope.

<< It's just very un-progressive of you, and I hope you realize that. >>

Ah... so it's back to ME again, is it? Frankly, I don't think that any PETA kook is is any position to tell me how to be "progressive".

[friesianrider]

234. Well yes, I am talking about you.

After all, YOU are the one who made such inflammatory comments. So...who should I talk about? Princess Grace? Just because I think you sound a little fanatical in your rabid PETA hatred doesn;t mean I'm personally attacking you - I'm not. If what I'm saying is a personal attack then sweetie you fall into the personal attack category, too.

I personally think you may be one of those raging anti-PETA individuals whose head nearly explodes anytime the group is even mentioned. ALl I'm saying is that you need to get over it. MANY DUers support PETA, including me. Do I agree with *everything* they do? Of course not! I don't agree with everything many groups I support do. But if you think they do nothing good for animals, then you know very little about the group other than a few news stories you may have read. You may *think* you know all about them (which apparently you do) but trust me hun...you don't. And if many DUers support some or even most of the work PETA does (they are after all, one of DU's sponsors if you check DU's homepage, so I don't think you should really trash them anyway if for that reason only), then if you think you're a progressive you should at least have some respect for that and not launch personal attacks against those of us who like most of PETA's work. And yes, you started the personal attacks. Not me, or anyone else. You started off very aggressive and rude to posters on this issue (I believe your exact words were "common criminal PETA KOOK"). And you are continuing to be aggressive and rude to posters. Knowing that many on here are members of PETA, you have no right to say what you did. NONE. If I call you on that, you can't say that I'm "personally attacking" you. I think you need to take a step back and relax a little.

Perhaps you should take a break from this thread for a bit. You don't seem to be able to calmly and rationally debate anything substantive on this issue, and honestly you are just making yourself look a wee bit overly aggressive. Not a personal attack, just think you maybe are a little too hot under the collar about this issue.

JMHO of course...you got last word -I know you can't stand not to throw in an attack or two. :eyes: I'm off to the Eagles game :P

[arwalden]

236. Astounding.

<< "Well yes, I am talking about you." Posted by friesianrider After all, YOU are the one who made such inflammatory comments. >>

My comments were about PETA, not about you personally. Feel free to defend PETA's illegal and self-serving methods... but stick to the message and avoid attacking the messenger. That's against DU rules.

<< So...who should I talk about? Princess Grace? >>

Stick to the subject and avoid personal attacks. I'm not the subject matter.

<< Just because I think you sound a little fanatical in your rabid PETA hatred doesn;t mean I'm personally attacking you - I'm not. >>

But when you suggest (or defend suggestions) that I have mental problems, you are engaging in ad hominem personal attacks.

<< If what I'm saying is a personal attack then sweetie you fall into the personal attack category, too. >>

Oh brother... "sweetie"? :eyes: Enough with this juvenile passive-aggressive horseshit.

<< I personally think you may be one of those raging anti-PETA individuals whose head nearly explodes anytime the group is even mentioned. >>

Who cares what you think about me? I'm not the topic of discussion, no matter how much you want to make it about ME, it's about PETA. Stick to the subject and STOP with the ad hominem attacks!

<< ALl I'm saying is that you need to get over it. >>

Dream on.

<< MANY DUers support PETA, including me. >>

So? What's your point?

<< Do I agree with *everything* they do? Of course not! I don't agree with everything many groups I support do. >>

Well, that's a good sign.

<< But if you think they do nothing good for animals, then you know very little about the group other than a few news stories you may have read. >>

Have you confused me with someone else? Please show me where I have said or suggested such a thing. --- What I have said, repeatedly, is that PETA does more HARM than good.

<< You may *think* you know all about them (which apparently you do) but trust me hun...you don't. >>

Good grief... "hun"?? :eyes: Please stop. These juvenile passive-aggressive terms of endearment just sound stupid.

<< And if many DUers support some or even most of the work PETA does (they are after all, one of DU's sponsors if you check DU's homepage, so I don't think you should really trash them anyway if for that reason only), then if you think you're a progressive you should at least have some respect for that and not launch personal attacks against those of us who like most of PETA's work. >>

I will try to work through the tortured syntax and rambling nature of that sentence... and break it down into its separate parts.

1) I don't care if PETA is one of DU's sponsors. So what? So they bought a blog-ad... big deal! -- THAT's suppose to change my mind about them? :shrug:

2) I know how to think for myself... I'm not easily influenced into supporting PETA terrorist and criminal activity simply because "many DUers support some or even most of the work PETA does".

3) PETA does not get my respect simply because I am a "progressive", or a liberal, or a Democrat! What nonsense! They are criminals. I do not respect criminals.

4) Personal attacks are against DU rules. If you feel that I have personally attacked a DU member, then you may alert on it. When I "attack" PETA and PETA supporters, I am not making a "personal attack" (as you call it).

<< And yes, you started the personal attacks. Not me, or anyone else. You started off very aggressive and rude to posters on this issue (I believe your exact words were "common criminal PETA KOOK").>>

See item number 4 above. I am permitted by DU rules to criticize and scorn public organizations and their supporters in that fashion. But I am not permitted to call YOU a "kook". --- You may have TAKEN my comments personally, but they were not directed at you. Stop owning them, or... learn to cope.

<< And you are continuing to be aggressive and rude to posters. >>

PETA supporters seem to be awfully sensitive. Poor things. They need to work on their coping skills or develop thicker skin... or just AVOID public discussion forums where they are likely to encounter people who disagree with them and their organization.

<< Knowing that many on here are members of PETA, you have no right to say what you did. NONE. >>

What complete BULLSHIT! Yes I do. Check the rules and get back with me.

<< If I call you on that, you can't say that I'm "personally attacking" you. >>

That is untrue. You personally attack me when you direct your insults directly at me and try to make ME the subject with your insults.

<< I think you need to take a step back and relax a little.>>

I don't care what you think about me. Work on your coping skills.

<< Perhaps you should take a break from this thread for a bit. >>

It's not appropriate for you to be telling me where I should and where I shouldn't be posting. This is a public forum. I'll post in this thread as long as I please. I'll post in this thread as long as it remains open and as long as I'm a member of DU.

<< You don't seem to be able to calmly and rationally debate anything substantive on this issue, >>

That's a personal attack. I'm not the subject matter... but you CONTINUE to hurl these personal insults directly at me.

<< and honestly you are just making yourself look a wee bit overly aggressive. >>

Who cares what you think about me? I'm not the subject. Stick to the MESSAGE and stop attacking the MESSENGER.

<<Not a personal attack, just think you maybe are a little too hot under the collar about this issue.>>

:eyes: Astounding.

<< JMHO of course...>>

Humble?

<< you got last word -I know you can't stand not to throw in an attack or two. >>

Stop trying to make it about ME. Almost ALL of your recent messages and PM's have been focused on ME, or MY attitude, or MY reaction, or MY being "un-progressive"... the list goes on.

HOLY SHIT! Enough already. Would you like to talk about PETA instead of ME??

<< : eyes: I'm off to the Eagles game : P >>

Good.

[Dastard Stepchild]

182. Heather likely expected to be turned away...

An activist knows that a stern finger pointing the way out the door is one of the risks of being an activist. What she probably did not expect was to lose her prosthetic in a tussle, and this is what I find unfortunate. She also protested J Crew earlier in the week, and left with all appendages firmly attached. So, it is possible to ask protesters to vamoose without resorting to more physical means. It appears to even be possible to ask Heather Mills McCartney to vamoose without physical means, since she did so at J Crew.
I always find myself concerned when physical force is used to remove protesters. Since I do not know the full story, and since there seems to be an element of he said, she said involved, I'll leave my impressions at that.

[flowomo]

186. hey, I clicked the link on BikeWriter's posts....

and here's what's there:



it just somehow seemed fitting to the thread.

[MadisonProgressive]

189. She's a real nowhere girl

Livin in her nowhere worl

Isn't she a bit like you and me?

[6000eliot]

210. Fuck Jennifer Lopez

I say boycott. Not that I'd ever actually buy any of the trash she puts out anyway.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

211. For God's sake, it's ONE PERSON wearing fur.

I can't stand J-Lo, but why the hell can't PETA just leave her alone and get on with their lives?

[progmom]

217. it's not just one person

she is using fur in her signature clothing line. it's a helluva lot of people using fur because of her.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

225. Yes, but they're going after her specifically, not her customers.

[arwalden]

220. That's Just The Thing...

<< and get on with their lives >>

... PETA kooks have no lives. Unless you count harassment, interfering with legitimate business, assault, vandalism, liable, slander, criminal trespassing. That's the kind of shit they live for.

[billyskank]

218. It is done.

;)

[Darth_Kitten]

224. Now I've officially heard everything....

okay, I hate it when people who don't live in the arctic wear fur, but really you cannot force your views on others. :(

I have no sympathy for JLO....and I think the guards should not have been so hard on Heather McCartny.

[LisaL]

230. To be fair, that leg comes off very easily.

When Heather was on LKL, I believe she took that thing off and put it on the table.

[Mutley]

231. PETA gives animal rights activism a bad name...

For people like me who might just want to help out some animals, but no one will take the cause seriously because of PETA. McCartney's message may have been on target but her delivery was horrible. She could have gained just as much press by standing outside the building with her 12 people with protest signs and a nice catchy rally cry. And she could have kept her leg on while she was at it.

[ronnykmarshall]

239. Holy shit!

This thing is still going?

Someone run out the store we're out of :popcorn:

[Midlodemocrat]

240. Locking.

I just wanted to make sure I won Supernova's poll about how long this would last.

Thank you.