EnviroLink Forum

Josh, if you read this post and have the time, I would love to hear some of your insights on all of this.

I am posting this in feedback section because it has nothing to do with the topic of the Freegan Story thread where this quoted post bellow is, to which I am replying, and also this may be my farewell to "Animal Concerns," pending what kind of feed back I get from Josh.



No, there was no name calling on my end, no more than you were calling me names. I've expressed what I think about your posts AFTER you have expressed what you think about mine. Likewise, I did not call you an amoeba. I said that I write neither for you OR the amoebas but for the people who are interested in what I write and for those who understand and can appreciate the nature and purpose of my posts and what they are meant to convey.

By the way, I don't think I've changed much or that what I think or post has changed very much in the last few years except that I've learned couple of technical skills which allows me to be more versatile with the presentations of my views through these posts.

Sorry that you and others don't like my posts. As I said, I am not forcing or expecting anyone to read what I write. If you think that all I do is "merely regurgitate the original thoughts of others" which is what you are indicating in your question, then feel free to skip them. I do not read your posts or the posts of many other members here unless they are directed at me and are posted in the thread with which I am involved. I simply find posts of many of the posters here waste of my time, boring, nothing new, unintelligible, incoherent and sometimes downright vicious deceptions and lies. Many of them are nothing but provocations consisting of nothing but numerous identical emoticons any great ape can post by clicking on the same key dozen of times.

As far as posting things that are not "original and my own," I can only say that this is laughable." It has been articulated by numerous prominent postmodern scholars that "originality" is a myth. That nothing new is possible any more; that rearrangement, simulation and appropriation of already existing concepts to arrive at a new meaning is a norm in communication and arts these days. I spend great deal of time in research and presentation of my posts here. I am not here to chit chat, entertain myself or to date but to express the views I hold, to educate and disseminate the information which I believe needs to be heard. If no one here appreciate what I post, I'll take it some other place where it will be appreciated and understood. However, I have notices that my recent threads have been viewed 24,202, 17,506, 14,312 times (respectively) and all this could not be only by the active posters here. As a matter of fact, for example, I've started my last thread "Animal Persons - Direct Action - Law&Order" after Donnie Mac Lead had started the thread "Jury picked for another animal rights trial." Donnie's thread was viewed, so far 1888 times and mine 4199 times. I like to know what some other people think about this and specially how Mr. Knauer feels about all of this. Is this just a biased, vicious opinion of some posters here or do most readers of this forum perhaps feel this way?

The fact that this forum is infested and has been infested by anti animal rights and anti animal welfare posters is nothing new and is obvious. By animal welfare I mean true animal welfare; not animal illfare -- the term originated and defined by Canadian PhD ethicist Dr. David Sztybel. Those who kill animals for profit, pleasure, palate or other self interests can hardly be considered to be concerned with animal welfare and therefore are NOT animal welfarists in any true sense of the word but should be called illfarists. There are many PETA, HSUA bashers and other extreme animal illfarists here such as trappers, cock fighters etc. So, I keep asking myself a question: "Ante, what are you doing on this forum." I have couple of justifications, but now to think about it, none are maybe good enough. However, I am not sure though who the majority of readers of this forum are?

So perhaps, it's time for me to move on, finally! I have no doubt that ARA, PETA, ALF etc. bashers - animal exploiters here, would be very pleased to hear this. I can already picture parade of sillycons celebrating my departure. Let me post a few more posts of unfinished business here and I'll try to make you all happy. I said "try" my best, since I know I've said this before and I am still here. Au revoir!

Again, I do hope Josh can throw some light on this if possible. I'll make my final decision after I hear his honest opinion. How about it Josh?

Best,
Ante

Ante-

I don't think I understand what question is being asked. It sounds like you could be asking two different questions:

1) Do I agree with you that this place is "infested by anti animal rights and anti animal welfare posters" ? I'm not sure infested is the word I would use, but I do think there are a large number of people who you would define that way. I think the fact that they are here on a site established by people with a different viewpoint from them is a very good thing. I set up this forum as a way to bring together people that normally do not interact with each other very much. We have hill-country, squirrel-eating hicks interacting with tofu munching vegan city slickers and every other type of stereotype you can imagine. I personally find many of the views expressed here to be repugnant and wrong, but as long as they are expressed in a semi-respectful way (which has been our biggest problem), I'm thrilled to have a place for the opinions to be expressed. We're never going to solve the world's problems by isolating ourselves with only those we agree with. I think it's a huge shame that by in large, many in the animal rights/welfare movement have not had what it takes to stick it out here and actually try to work through some of the areas of disagreement. If you left, there would be an even greater void left on "your" side of the issues.

2) Do I appreciate your presence here as a poster? It seems you are angling at this too, which surprises me. I value everyone's participation, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, as long as our pretty simple rules are followed. I think you add a great deal to the discourse and exposure to new ideas (for some) here. It would be a shame if you left.


My biggest concern for the past few years here has been the tone of the discourse here. There is a bit of a mafia attitude from the anti-animal rights folks here. If anyone shows up and posts here that seems to have the slightest bit of a pro-animal agenda, they immediately get piled on with a bunch of snide comments and very intense accusations that they are sleeping with Ingrid Newkirk or Paul Watson (an obvious exaggeration, but you get the idea). Many of these people seem to have no middle ground or room to change their perspective. This is quite disheartening and makes me wonder why they bother to come here so much. In the past I've wondered if maybe they are paid to be disruptive on boards like this, but I think really they use online boards to vent frustrations that exist in their own lives. Obviously, we've had some doozies of personalities and problems from the pro-animal rights/welfare side here too. But right now the problem is with a small group of users who purposefully attack just about anyone who posts here that might seem to disagree with them (and usually go brag about it elsewhere).

I don't know what the solution is, Ante. The forums here, for better or for worse, are a place where lots of people who are not in your choir happen to be. You either want to continue to reach out beyond the choir or you don't.

-josh

Hey, excellent! Thanks a lot! This is more than I was hoping for and very much kind of feedback from you that I was hoping for.

I said in the past that I have great respect for you, and since I don't know much about you beyond this forum, it is primarily because of the way that you have set up this forum as you have explained above. One of the main reason I am posting here is because I am tired of the narrow art elite and perhaps even smaller AR groups and want to reach into these communities you have mentioned.

I guess my "question" was rather a way of looking for reassurance, more than anything else. I'm sure that you understand that when you are constantly bombarded with the negativity about yourselves, you begin doubting yourself. Recently this constant attacks and accusations that I am appropriating, "plagiarizing" and most recently that I "regurgitate the original thoughts of others," is getting to me. Also the persistent insinuations about my sanity are a bit too much.

So anyway, if you don't have any problem with my style of posting and the way I use videos and pictures in them, then I'll just continue what I've been doing. What I may try to do is make an attempt to be less confrontational and practice the art of laughingly brushing off or just ignoring the provocations.

Awesome! For the record Ante, I totally appreciate your creativity and intelligence. I can see that your posts are visual collages with smatterings of text which you have put together to convey a certain meaning or message. I'm sure there are other readers/viewers on this forum who have the same appreciation for your posts. Don't let the "peanut gallery" get you down.

So you are saying Steve is a squirrel eating hick? Interesting. I wonder if he sees himself the same way. I guess I'd be a deer eating hick.



Perhaps Josh this comes from what has been said to us. While I understand Ranka hasn't posted here, and may even be banned. This is the first forum I've gone to where just because I hunt and consume meat, I have been called a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile. I was told because of the number 88 in my name I have a Nazi connection, and the list goes on and on. There have been many on the AR side that have been vulgar and spiteful, so it seems only logical the same will be given back. Look at how many pictures Ante has posted that have been removed because of their content. I don't see that happening with those on the other side.

None of us like to see our shortcomings. Perhaps you do not wish to see some of what has been said by those that side with you, which is of course your right. It is your forum.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Right now? Really? And who would that be?

I call bovine excrement on that one Josh.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

The issue brought to the feedback forum has been resolved, folks. Chime in somewhere else.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Just so we're clear here.

Are you saying if I wish to take issue with Josh's comments I should start a new thread?

Or are you saying no one should take issue with Josh's comments?

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Heh... no one should ever take issue with my comments, since they are always true!

-josh

Well at least you still have your sense of humor.

As misguided as it may be.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

I just thought I would "chime in" and say that I really enjoy Ante's link-filled comments. Even though I don't fit in either of the polar opposite sides (lets call them carnivores and vegans), I have a kinship with both sides (wish to use animals for tests to improve the lives of other animals and eat foods that do not need cooking or refrigeration which eliminates most animal products... but done for environmental purposes). A pack of wolves go nuts when they hear the death cries of a prey animal... I think the same mentality happens on forums when the out-numbered opinion starts fighting back (or if it just looks that way).

Hey, I wasn't talking to you as much, but since you asked, hell no, you don't need to start a new thread. If you've still got questions or concerns about something said in a thread, air them in that thread.



If you must, I would advise caution so as not to flaunt the rules when you do. Still, there are no guarantees of "safety".

_________________
TANG SOO!

Oh, were you talkin' to me? Don't worry, I'm done with this thread since its obvious that Josh won't, or can't, back up his insinuations.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Well it is nice to know that following all the forum rules may not be enough if one is questioning Josh.



I guess I'd have to agree with Siber on this one. I don't think there will be any answers to the questions from Josh, so not much use wasting time on it. But then I suppose that was the plan to begin with.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Well, this thread certainly qualifies. Lots of back slapping for antagonistic posting here. It's pathetic at so many levels, including the fact that I even bothered to go over there and find an example. Luckily I didn't have to look past the first thread.

-josh