We have talked with people in apparently higher levels of power than some
others that have posted.
 
We know what happened in France but we were told the information was
proprietary.  We are sorry we can not tell yo umore but be sure it is not
a pretty story.  Marshall is not the "bad guy".
 
Other things we have been told were likewise told to us in confidence.  We
can not tell you everything we learned or everybody we know.  We were told
we could not.  The Marshall family seems to have a need for privacy and
with that they have not sued those that do indeed lie about them.  We are
wrong if we assume guilt on Marshall's part for making the personal choice
as a family and the corporate choice as a business not to sue the people
that are spreading false hoods.
 
Let us explain the business decision.  Most of those that are telling
these perposterous stories are not wealthy.  They are not businesses.
When you sue someone for defamation there are desired outcomes, the
defendant if found guilty will have to pay the costs and damages.  A gag
is put in place under penalty of more fines and costs to prevent further
defamation.  BUT if the potential defendant is not wealthy, described as
suit proof, there is no point in a suit.  Defamation is not a criminal
charge, no jail or prison time can ever be the result of a defamation
charge.  If the defendent is poor enough - say they rent a home and have
no new cars - then if they loose they end up not paying.  The plaintiff
ends up with a hollow victory.  The entire suit would have cost them
probably tens of thousands of dollars.  Now that the defendant lost and
still has no more or really less money than they did before, what is to
prevent them from just starting to lie again?  Nothing.  We have been in
that position along with Marshall Farms, and over a few of the same
people.  Someone who loves to tells lies about us lives ina trailer and
has no real assets.  Sure we could prove she is a liar and has maliciously
attacked us, but she has nothing to lose if she lost a court case.
 
Marshall Farms is a business.  We have to accept that.  With that
acceptance comes us also having to accept that yes profit is indeed a
motive.  If Marshall Farms was not profitable with ferrets, arguably most
of the list members would not own ferrets at this point.  If Marshall is
to remain profitable they will have to do things we do not like.
 
But to protest againt the agricultural nature of Marshall and to remain
consistent one should more emphatically decry all livestock farming for
profit.  And twit hthat comes the end of commercially available meat and
leather products.
 
Marshall Farms is the ONLY farm we have heard of that ever had a permanent
position for a vet working on staff.  This means that instead of complaing
about there only being one vet at a given time we should celebrate that
there were any.  This is one of the things that seperates Marshall Farms
from the puppy mills of the world.  Marshall Farms is the single largets
contributer to medical research on ferrets.  Much possibly even most of
what we know about ferret medicine comes directly or indirectly from
efforts and expenditures of Marshall Farms.
 
Marshall Farms does some things we find distasteful.  That is why we are
not in that business.  We do not want to have to do the things that have
to be done to run a successful ferret ranch.
 
This is all repetitive.  We have personally debunked most of the "Acme
ferret info bank" stories several times over the years it has been around.
Like a bad penny it keeps popping up as someone new stumbles across it.
 
We are not in any way business associates of Marshall Farms but rather in
a tiny way competitors as we have done ferret breeding.  We just hate any
lies.
 
Bill and Diane Killian
zen and the art of ferrets
[Posted in FML issue 3623]