>From: Edward Lipinski <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Ugh! White Hunter Hanna Speak with Forked Tongue? > >Face the fact folks: Ferrets have, do and will continue to bite and maul >human infants. You got a problem with that Pilgrim? > >So what if the incidence of dog bites proportionately exceeds ferret bites. >This is a defense for the ferret? How absurd. Edward, I think that you are off base here, but let's assume that you are tight and that some ferrets are a real threat to infants. So what? There are MANY threats to infants. Would you let your baby play on the stove, or how about the roof? Would you leave your baby unattended with your 12' python, or your pit bull? Come on, it's not about whether they are dangerous to infants or not. It's about being a responsible parent. If you want to ban things that are dangerous to infants, and kill and injure them, then there is a long list like pesticide, cleaning chemicals, electrical wires, guns, boiling water, dogs, cats, snakes, gasoline, bicycles, swimming pools, etc. of things that are far more dangerous than ferrets. All these things are found in people's homes. So let's say that some ferrets are dangerous to babies, so what? And, the fact that dog's hurt many more infants per year than ferrets is no excuse to allow ferrets to be legal is correct. But, this analogy is used not because ferret owners want to see dogs banned, but because it is a good demonstration of re-applying the logic of banning ferrets to dogs. It kind of puts it in perspective. What Mr. Hanna did was mislead the uneducated public about ferrets. This is the same as saying all Mexicans are dangerous robbers, just because you got robbed one time by a hispanic person. It would be misleading to say that. It's the same as what Mr. Hanna did. As a public "celebrity" and an "expert" his opinions are weighed heavily by a lot of people. Therefore, he has a duty and obligation not to say things that are misleading. Jerry King PS I liked your Hitler analogy! [Posted in FML issue 2540]