>Right now, it seems to me the important fight to fight is California.  Then,
>if one wishs to pursuit the issues with MF, include ALL the major breeders..
>as they are all guilty of the same thing.
>MC  (Joe, The rude one)
 
Perhaps to the uninformed, all major breeders are alike.  Fortunately, for
everyone's sake, your statement is not only misleading, it is simply
incorrect.  All major breeders are *not* alike.
 
MC, as to a mistaken depiction of an effort to confront and inform Marshall
Research and it's retailers as an attack, let me remind you there has never
been a suggestion of any aggressive behavior in this campaign.  There is a
clear distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness and you need to
realize that.  Women have been fighting the label of "bitch" for years
because many cannot make that distinction.
 
Now, if you want to play into Marshall Research's hands by not "rocking the
boat", that's your choice.  But if we do not show responsibility BEFORE we
increase the possibility of further ferret suffering by the thousands, *I*
feel we fail miserably as ferret lovers and responsible individuals.  The
"win at all costs" argument you present appears very narrow in focus, and
perhaps a better description of zealous behavior than the Campaign will
ever be.
 
>Why single out MF when we're all guilty of "enslaving" and "exploiting"
>ferrets, and could ease the problem by giving up our buds, for good?  When
>you think about it, pets aren't an acceptable "exploitation" of animals,
> regardless of the breeder, animal, or owner.
 
Swamp, this is your interpretation, and I believe you are drawing too
concrete a conclusion from a grafted analogous statement taken way out of
context.  I agree, some folks think *all* pet ownership is exploitation, but
first we are not discussing these folks or all pet ownership in general, we
are discussing breeding practices.  Secondly, you make a very broad and
highly inappropriate comparison between pet ownership and assembly line
breeding when these share none of the similarities of concern here.
 
Now, assuming these are honest mistakes, there is no flame intended here.
However, if the purpose of your argument is to distract or obfuscate the
real legitimate concerns that are the true focus of all this debate, then
perhaps you should reconsider.
 
Finally, some of the recent posts compel me to ask this question: "How many
times does it have to be clearly demonstrated and explicitly discussed this
is neither an argument of extremes or extremists before it becomes clear?
 
There is nothing extreme about requiring accountability from *any*
commercial enterprise.  Whether the argument is humane treatment,
discrimination, or environmental issues, this is a valid and reasonable
action.  Stonewalling is simply unacceptable behavior by *any* enterprise.
 
best wishes,
until next time,
alphachi
[Posted in FML issue 2239]