# Is this a Joke?



## Elf Mommy (Nov 14, 2004)

I look for funny pictures and video clips to showwhen I'm presenting. I like to lighten up the mood a bit. Lookingthrough some pictures, I found this one. Do you really think they havethese things? The characters look Korean, but I'm not 100% sure if theyare.


----------



## lanna21974 (Nov 14, 2004)

Ihope it's a joke. Poor bunnies would never get a good home if it isnt.How you gonna picke em up with that crane? They'd wiggle their way free.

Lanna


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

It's rather disturbing and I would not besurprised if it's the real deal. You'll find that allcountries aren't on the "same page" with the US in all aspects ofanimal welfare. In countries like these, young children arecommonly protestuted -- so no suprise that they'd put bunnies in acarnival game. It also appears that a couple of the poorcreatures may be dead. The ventilation is nil -- and it looksrather hot. Remember the story a while ago where a smallchild crawled into one of those?

What other "odd and unusual" rabbit related photos can we come up with?


----------



## rabbitluvr04 (Nov 14, 2004)

Thats HORRIBLE!!! that better not be true!


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

Photo from the Ukraine. Do NOT try this at home!


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

Another one of theblissfully naive girl . . .


----------



## angoralover (Nov 14, 2004)

OH MY GOODNESS!!! THE POORBUNNIES!!! WHY WOULD SOMEONE PULL THE BUNNIES BY THE EARS LIKE THATSOOO HARD!!!:XTHAT WOULD HURT SOOO MUCH!! Wouldn't it damagethe bunnies ears!? Does it hurt the bunnies??? I would NEVER do that toa rabbit. I hope the picture is a joke ElfMommy:XPoorbunnies

Cassandra


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

Some people simply don't know any better 



Pam


----------



## NightPoet00 (Nov 14, 2004)

That is so incredibly sad. :X This sort of isbad...but maybe those rabbits that she's holding are dead. I mean, theydon't seem to mind being held like that, and I'm not sure there's anyrabbit that would be okay with that treatment. Grrr.:X:X:X:X


----------



## u8myhouse (Nov 14, 2004)

People see things like this;







And think it's OK to pick up rabbits like that.

~Christine~


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

*NightPoet00 wrote:*


> That is so incredibly sad. :X This sort of is bad...butmaybe those rabbits that she's holding are dead. I mean, they don'tseem to mind being held like that, and I'm not sure there's any rabbitthat would be okay with that treatment. Grrr.:X:X:X:X




The rabbits are alive. The ears can be an incrediblyeffective form of restraint -- hence the "ear twitch" commonly used torestrain horses.

Pam


----------



## Jessica (Nov 14, 2004)

that's terrible :X


----------



## SLRabbits (Nov 14, 2004)

Oh my! That is terrible. :X

~Nichole


----------



## Brandy (Nov 14, 2004)

this issomethingcompletly different, but it is about the cruelty ofanimals(rabbits) Have any of you ever heard ofNathaliaEdenomont? well if not, Im sure she willget your blood boiling!! Heres a little bit about her, thisis posted on the art gallerys website

Is it permissible to kill animals in the name of art? 

Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time areimpressed by how beautiful they are. It takes a few seconds before youstart to wonder how they have been made. A photo-montage? Some kind ofdigital manipulation? When you look closer, there is something slightlydistorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal aboutthe face of the cat. Slowly you realise that the animal is dead, thatthe animal has died for the sake of the picture. Is this acceptable? 

One can, of course, choose to think that it is always wrong to killanimals in the name of art. That nothing can defend Nathalia Edenmont.But if you feel more doubtful, we would very much like to explainNathalia's reasoning, and how we at Wetterling Gallery argue when weexhibit her art. 

Art arouses thoughts and poses questions that are necessary. Nathalia'sbeautiful pictures are frightening in the same way that many otherbeautiful things hide some sort of suffering. One can enjoy beautifulexteriors, or one can go beneath the surface and find things thatperhaps you do not want to know about. If Nathalia's pictures had beenrepugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. But now they are sobeautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise tothoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of useat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals,without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a pictureshows a dead rabbit, all [censored] breaks loose. 

Nathalia grew up in the former Soviet Union, and she has a razor sharpeye for paradoxes and gaps in our western morals. She is not the firstto use dead animals in her works of art - that has been done at leastsince the 1700s, but she is a contemporary debater who provokesquestions which nowadays everyone should ask themselves. Her picturestell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - thelies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them. 

There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animalsin as humane a way as possible. Has she been guilty of a moral crime?We do not think so. We think that art is of vital importance. What doyou think? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Their email is: [email protected]" 

This is horrible! normally i would never encourage a protest oranything like that but this is soooo bad! there is a petition you cansign to Help stop Murder in the name of Art! 
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/853089392



http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm

thats the pictures of her "art"


----------



## Fergi (Nov 14, 2004)

Oh My God! That is the sickest **** I have everseen in my entire life. That is taking it way too far! Straight to thepetition for me. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Brandy.

Fergi's mom


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

I find her work rather disturbing. Thecat was bad enough, then I saw thelittle finger puppet mice,but the white rabbit just broke my heart. Those who wish toview one of the rabbit pieces and the little micemay look tothe following link (mid-page), but be forewarned, it is notpleasanthttp://www.recirca.com/artnews/218.shtml

I would like to know what people think of the pieces of similar "art"common in many homes -- the mounted deerhead, fish mount,etc. We see this all the time, and are not horribly disturbedby it, yet find Nathalia's art repulsive. Why?Curious to hear some thoughts on this. . .

Pam


----------



## m.e. (Nov 14, 2004)

I personally find mounted deer heads and such tobe distasteful. My dad hunts, and I do not have a problem with hunting.But his objective with hunting is to harvest meat our family can use,not to get a "trophy buck". I think to kill any animal, humane or not,with the intent to display that animal's corpse is disrespectful andmorally culpable.


----------



## pamnock (Nov 14, 2004)

Here are a couple comments from the CIRCA art forum . . .

Quite a thought provoking discussionhttp://www.recirca.com/artnews/218.shtml

"I don't pretend to understand it, so it is hard for me to condemn it.However, being an animal activist, I am saddened by the images, andfind it difficult to look at the animals eyes. "


"She should give the animals a break and put her own head on a platter for display."

"Is it any more disgusting that Edenmont has inserted her fingers intothe skins of dead mice, than it is that people slide their feet intothe hides of cows or snakes or horses? The mice finger pieces are nomore repulsive than kidskin gloves. "

"Miss Edenmont has lost touch with the sanctity of life. "

"I believe the purpose of her art is to expose the double standards,not only in our ways of thinking, but in our actions as well. Only in asociety that was completely vegan with no testing done on animals, canwe truly condemn a woman for the way she expresses her emotions. "


----------



## m.e. (Nov 14, 2004)

Interesting quotes...to an extent, I see themotive to truly reveal the double-standard we as a society hold inregards to our treatment of animals. But I don't see her work as muchmore than mere shock value, and certainly very distasteful.


----------



## NightPoet00 (Nov 15, 2004)

Pam, I went to the website with the two photos ofher artwork. I am utterly disgusted. This woman has absolutely norespect for other living creatures. Just because her work is touted as"art" doesn't make it right. Murder is murder, no matter what the guise.


----------



## NightPoet00 (Nov 15, 2004)

pamnock wrote:


> "Is it any more disgusting that Edenmont has inserted herfingers into the skins of dead mice, than it is that people slide theirfeet into the hides of cows or snakes or horses? The mice finger piecesare no more repulsive than kidskin gloves. "



I feel that there IS a very real difference between cowskin boots andmouse finger puppets. Obviously we are not a vegan society. People eatbeef. The cow hide used in leather allows us to make full use of eachanimal, letting as little go to waste as possible of the cows' precioussacrifice. I also feel that snakeskin and horse skin boots are NOTokay. We don't NEED to eat horse meat (don't get me started on horseslaughter, it's one of my soap box issues!), therefore there should beno surplus horse hide. However, due to the necessary evil of meatconsumption in our society, we have extra cow hide available. Why notuse it? Also, I highly doubt that Edenmont ATE the innards of thosepoor mice or of that rabbit. What's her excuse? 

Grrrr.


----------



## Spiced77 (Nov 15, 2004)

I have to agree with NightPoet. and what is with the quotes from that forum??



> I believe the purpose of her art is to expose the double standards



um.. but she has to kill to do it?? what happened to real art wherepeople *created* something to show what they meant. 

I'm not a vegan and never will be. I come from a farming/huntingfamily. however, there is still a respect for the animals and what theygive us. what that woman is doing is horrible imho. deadthings are not 'art', they deserve our respect. human oranimal. 



> can we truly condemn a woman for the way she expresses her emotions.



i can. there are other ways to express emotions and fight for what you believe in. 

if i'm way off base, let me have it.. i couldnt even go to her actualsite. just listening to you guys talk about it made me sick and sad.and angry.


----------



## Slynk (Nov 15, 2004)

Every now and again I meet people who should be shot. Then there are those who should be outright gutted.


----------



## LuvaBun (Nov 15, 2004)

I have to say that I was in two minds whether toview the pictures or not, and now that I have they have left me reallydisturbed. Personally, being a vegetarian and not wearing leather,suede etc I am really against all kinds of real animal 'art' includingbearskin rugs, trophy heads etc. I can understand hunting to eat,provide clothing etc (not that I would ever be involved with it), but Ithink to kill and desecrate for the sake of art is unforgiveable. Ithink the same about 'human' art as well. A recent show of actual humanbodies and body parts (I think it was a German artist) made me wonderwhat must go through an 'artists' mind as he is chopping up a body andarranging it. I also disagree with newspapers, TV news etc showingpictures of people killed in natural disasters and war - they are allsomeones family and I would hate the last thought of any member of myfamily being that of one shown to the world in their dying moment toget extra viewers or sell extra copies -Jan


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 15, 2004)

*LuvaBun wrote: *


> Ihave to say that I was in two minds whether to view the pictures ornot, and now that I have they have left me really disturbed.





I feel the same way. I realize it's out there, but thesepictures are tough. Especially the ones where the stupididiots are holding the rabbit's by their ears. 

I hope I can forget them. I don't normally view these posts, and I've had a quick reminder on why. 

It's more frustrating to know that you can't do anything aboutit. Ionly hope that all the rabbits in this postdied quickly because I'd hate to see any animal be continually treatedlike that.

Where are people's brains???

I wish I could hold them up by their ears so that they would experiencewhat the poor animal is going through. That may be a bitharsh, but to me...it only seems fair. The animal is helpless.

I'll be very disappointed when my day comes to go over to The OtherSide to find out that one doesn't have to feel everything they did toother people and animals. 

What goes around, comes around. I hope and pray for that justice.







-Carolyn


----------



## NightPoet00 (Nov 15, 2004)

Carolyn wrote:


> It's more frustrating to know that you can't do anything about it.



That's not completely true! We can take baby steps in the rightdirection by educating the public (a board like this helps, althoughmore active outreach would reach more), lending a hand at animalshelters, and raising our voices against animal abuse and neglect.Although it might not seem like we can do a lot, even if we accomplishonly a little, at least its something!


----------



## SunnieBunnie Rabbitry (Nov 15, 2004)

*pamnock wrote: *


> Iwould like to know what people think of the pieces of similar "art"common in many homes -- the mounted deerhead, fish mount,etc. We see this all the time, and are not horribly disturbedby it, yet find Nathalia's art repulsive. Why?Curious to hear some thoughts on this. . .
> 
> Pam



*My fatherhunts - Archery style, finger release.He does not do it for sport, He has a deep caring respectfor all of the wildlife.I have witnessed himfirst handchange through his experiencesand I wish I could somedayenjoy it with him. It'snot about "the thrill of the hunt", or anything likethat... the stories he brings home show just howmuch love and respect he has to give back, and the look on his facewhen he's reliving it, this isone of many stands out in mymind ---

"Ifound a spot between atree and a large boulder with a clear view of the well used trail about20 yards away, there were some rather fresh deer printsthere. There was a small clearing about 15 yardstothe right. It must have been about 2 hours I'd been sittingthere when I noticed a squirrel on a rock in theclearing. Behind the rock off a distance was a Fox that hadseen the squirrel too, I didn't even notice the Fox until it was almostright there! The squirrel was startled by a hawk that landedon a branch about 30 feet above my head, and it darted down the rock,which made the Foxtake offafter it. Thesquirrel took off running and went up a tree by the trail.TheFox stood there for a while with this "dang it" look on his face, thenwalked away with this bummed out kind of stride to him, the poorthing!"

He would have never witnessed anything like thisif it wasn't for his hunting. I think he isprivileged. I gave him, for his birthday, a mounted "DeerHead" to place above his fireplace... It'smade out of a hardplastic, but to the untrained eye it looks real. The mountsthemselves don't represent what they've accomplished, itissomewhata keepsake, souvenir, or memorabilia thatrepresents all of the memories,stories, and theexperiencesthey had up until that particular kill that theynow carry with them. Each time they look at it, they don'tsee a Deermount, they see the Fox and the Squirrel and manyother untold stories that God and Mother Nature were so generous toshare them.

Just my honest opinion.
*


----------



## NightPoet00 (Nov 15, 2004)

Oh and I just wanted to say that as much as Iwould like to, I don't think I'll ever forget this. It's what makes mean animal activist I guess! Last night I had a dream in which a ladywas trying to sell me bunnies she was holding by the ears. I kepttrying to tell her it was wrong, but somehow I couldn't. 

Anyway, is it good for us to forget? Put it this way...if we forgot theHolocaust, or the Japanese internement, or the Crusades, would that bea good thing? We learn from the mistakes of ourselves and others. Weshould remember and take action.


----------



## Lissa (Nov 15, 2004)

Ahhh! Don't pick your bun up by the ears!! :shock::shock::shock:


----------



## Lissa (Nov 15, 2004)

*Brandy wrote:*


> Have any of you ever heard ofNathaliaEdenomont?


I just lost my stomach. What a sick woman. Sheoughta be chopped up into a collage of her own.:X:XGRRRRRRRRR.


----------



## angoralover (Nov 15, 2004)

*Lissa wrote:*


> *Brandy wrote:*
> 
> 
> > Have any of you ever heard ofNathaliaEdenomont?
> ...




I agree Lissa...she is a sick woman:XI don't know whyshe doesn't understand thatanimals don't have feelings! Herart is VERY disturbing...and she should be STOPPED IMMEADIATELY! Sheshould be put in jail for animal abuse. I don't know why people areletting her get away with this!:XEVERYONE should go againsther and her art.....and then she would stop making her sick socalled,"art!":X

Cassandra


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 15, 2004)

Good Points made NightPoet about being able to do something about it in our own neighborhoods and not forgetting.

As to stuffed animal heads as trophies and the likes of the other 'art'you pointed out, Pam, I am always disturbed by it. I find it morbid nomatter how much someone tries to tell me how beautiful it is.To each his own, as they say.

-Carolyn


----------



## bunsforlife (Nov 15, 2004)

I was disgusted... what she does can EASILY bedone with photoshop with no animal deaths required, and it would stillbe considered original art. 

I am not a vegan. However, there are some things I refuse toeat, veal being one of them. (I've seen calves meant for vealand I couldnt stomach the treatment) 

My brother in law is an avid hunter, but he consumes what heshoots. the only 'trophy' he has is the barracuda mygrandfather caught many years ago (ugly thing!) 

I have no problem with eating meat because our stomachs and teeth aredesigned for it. We are omnivores. But I do have aproblem with the wasteful slaughter of animals, be it througheuthanasia, chemical testing, and other forms ofmistreatment. I dont have a problem with leather, because asit was stated before, it comes from cows which are raised to feedus. It is showing that we are trying to use as much of theanimal as we can. 

I remember one winter when I was growing up, I found a dead fox in mybackyard. I always loved watching the foxes... well the tailwas missing from the fox, and he had a bullet wound. A trailof blood lead from the woods, so he made the attempt toescape. 

It troubles me, all I can think of is the golden rule, "Do unto othersas you would have done unto you" I feel that applies to allliving things. People are so horrified when they think ofancient times when human sacrifice was a common occurance, as wasskinning of people to bind certain books. It is abhorant toall of us to treat another living thing with such blatantdisrespect. 

ANyway... off my soapbox... was a bit disgusted with those pictures... and well, I can be a wee bit opinionated.


----------



## rabbitluvr04 (Nov 15, 2004)

I went to the webdite with those two paintings and was discusted by her art, it made me cry!


----------



## Gabby (Nov 15, 2004)

i truly thinkif you are going to kill an animal,if it is not a sickly animal you are trying to ease over the bridge.then it should be for meat and full use of the animal killed. I don'tbelieve in trophy hunting, But i do think the hunters who dohave that deer head mounted do it for a tribute to thedeer(not the trophy hunters). I grew up on a farm, and with hunters allaround. But i don't believe in senceless killing just to make a buck. 

2 of my hubby's uncles have deer heads mounted, one uncle it is solely for a trophy, and they other is quite different...


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 15, 2004)

I agree, Gabby. I see nothing wrong with eating meat, but kill theanimal in a humane way and use all of it. If some folks take pride introphy heads, that's fine. To each his own, but respect the life youtake.

-Carolyn


----------



## m.e. (Nov 16, 2004)

> To each his own, but respect the life you take.



Yes, it seems to me that this artist is not only killing these animals,but killing them with the intent of mutilating and disrespecting theirremains. It's sick :X


----------



## Slynk (Nov 16, 2004)

Some of this is really not making sense. It'sokay to kill them if you look after their bodies? I can see why peopleuse them for food (although we're quite capable of stopping that now)and I know (some) hunters don't kill for joy, but I don't see how anyof that helps the animal. It's all the same to the dead what happens totheir body. Better to not kill it in the first place.


----------



## pamnock (Nov 16, 2004)

Should any life be more sacred thananother? We can eat cows and pigs (which are very intelligentby the way), but not roast the rather stupid pony? (Someonewanted to have a pony roast where I used to live).

What about the little flea, fish, the fly or the rat? Do theynot struggle to survive? Our ownbodies serveasa cemetery for millions of organisms slain by our immunesystems.

Were do we draw the line and what is happening to oursociety? A woman OD'd at someone's house in ourtown. They didn't know what to do with her, so they took thedeceased and propped her up on a hay bale in a field! 

I like m.e.'s statement about "disrespecting their remains".I believe all creatures should be treated with honor and respect, butall creatures also have a purpose to serve. We are not allequal on the food chain, which was designed for some creatures to bethe meals of other creatures.

What about animals used for research? How can we learn aboutphysiology without being able to have specimens?I am fascinated with animal biology and ourhouselooks likethe little shop of horrors (brains,eyes, hearts, and many misc. creatures in jars). Does thismake me a horrible person in everyone's eyes? Myhusbandwent to the butcher's over the weekend toget a beef roast and some cheese. I asked him if he couldalso pick up some eyes -- the ones in preservative can get too rubberyand it ruins the lenses. You simply can't study the structureof the eye from a book! 



Pam


----------



## lanna21974 (Nov 16, 2004)

Let me start out by saying that like everyoneelse...this woman's art truly disturbs me. I wish I'd never viewed it.It will impossible to get those images out of my head. 

Pam brings up a lot of good points. Some of which I'm not sure where Istand on. I am not a vegan nor do I know anyone who is. My brother is ahunter/fisherman. He kills for food, and any parts of theanimal he doesnt use he gives to needy families in our area. That's notto say thathe doesnt keep trophies. (mounts ofdeer,and fish) But, he didnt kill them for the trophy, hekilled them for the meat. 

This topic has managed to bring up a lot of points that make you think.Research for example. I would never kill an animal for research.BUT...where would we be today without the sacrifice of other buns thathave been mutilated (autopsied), and studied for the purpose of findingbetter treatments of our buns today. Or the ones that have been givenexperimental treatment in hopes that it MIGHT help? Arent they, ineffect, being used for research when we dont know whateffectthe proposedtreatment(s) will have on theirbodies?

Where would we be without Ivermectin, antibiotics, ect ect. How manyanimals do you think may have died while they were developing thosemedicines. Surely they had to find the appropriate dosage. How did theydo that without first experimenting with the dosage on animals? Do youthink they might have given too high a dosage tosome of theseanimals to start? Wouldnt those innapropriate doses cause healthproblems/death? I cant speak for anyone else, but for me I appreciateall the meds we have for our buns. Where would we be without thosemeds? I wish there was another way to test these things, but I'm suremy buns appreciate any sacrifice made on their behalf!!

Maybe in an Utopian societyall this wouldnt be necessary. Someday maybethey'll be able to test things without harming any living creature. 

Lanna


----------



## bunsforlife (Nov 16, 2004)

Pam, the difference in your situation is, you arent killing a cow just for the eyes and leaving the rest to rot. 

Its a very fine line we tread upon, on what is humane and what isnot. Many people have problems with using chimps and primatesfor experiments, but rats/rabbits/mice, they dont care. Allanimals deserve respect, be they primate or otherwise. 

As much as I dislike animals used for research, I know it is anecessity, but it isnt the same thing as decapitating a rabbit or a cator making 'finger gloves' out of mice just for a piece of shock valueart.


----------



## m.e. (Nov 16, 2004)

> As much as I dislike animals used forresearch, I know it is a necessity, but it isnt the same thing asdecapitating a rabbit or a cat or making 'finger gloves' out of micejust for a piece of shock value art.



Exactly. Mice or rats used in research (a necessary evil) at least diedwith a purpose: to find cures or treatments for diseases. These micedied so their mutilated corpses should be photographed.


----------



## lanna21974 (Nov 16, 2004)

*bunsforlife wrote:*


> Asmuch as I dislike animals used for research, Iknow it is a necessity, but it isnt the same thing as decapitating arabbit or a cat or making 'finger gloves' out of mice just for a pieceof shock value art.




I agree 100%, butDEAD IS DEAD. While I know that someday Imust die, because that is the cycle of life....I also know that MYpreference would be to die of natural causes !!NOT for research so thatothers may live OR FOR ART!!. I would love to say that I'd be a herolike that but I wouldnt and I'm not going to be pretentious. The beautyof being human is that we have a voice to say no. The downfall to allthis is that we sometimes forgetWE ARE THE ANIMAL'SVOICE.

Please keep in mind that I DONT AGREE with this women's art....I thinkshe should be stopped ASAP...but consider for a moment the method ofdeath for the two opposite purposes.

On the one hand, reserch related death will often bepainful,and frought with health problems and side effectsfrom testing. This is not humane.These animals make HUGEsacrifices for "others". On the other hand,IF the reports aretrue andNathalia uthanizesbefore hand, in my mindit would be the better way to go.JMHO

Again...I DO NOT SUPPORT HER ART!! I just wonder where the line issometimes. It's hard for me to separate in my mind how death in oneform can be ok but in another it's not. 

Lanna


----------



## Lissa (Nov 16, 2004)

I'd rather die than survive on treatment known to have been tested on innocent animals.


----------



## pamnock (Nov 16, 2004)

But that would mean to never accept _any_type of medical treatment, over the counter medicines, vaccines,etc. What of a family member dying of a heartattack? Extensive studies have been done using rabbits.

Pam


----------



## Fergi (Nov 16, 2004)

I hope nobody minds but I am going to send a linkto this post to my Ethics teacher, I think she would find it a veryinteresting post to look at, maybe it will give her insight for futureclasses, and maybe it will help make even more people aware of thisissue.

Fergi's mom

p.s. I am not touching this with a ten-foot pole I have ahard enough time in my ethics class figuring out why I believe what Ido and whether or not it follows a chain of thought that is logical.More often then not I have a position but can't back it up:shock:Kind of embarrassing!


----------



## pamnock (Nov 16, 2004)

*Fergi wrote: *


> Ihope nobody minds but I am going to send a link to this post to myEthics teacher, I think she would find it a very interesting post tolook at, maybe it will give her insight for future classes, and maybeit will help make even more people aware of this issue.
> 
> Fergi's mom
> 
> p.s. I am not touching this with a ten-foot pole I have ahard enough time in my ethics class figuring out why I believe what Ido and whether or not it follows a chain of thought that is logical.More often then not I have a position but can't back it up:shock:Kind of embarrassing!




Yes! That would be wonderful!

Pam


----------



## Gabby (Nov 16, 2004)

*pamnock wrote:*


> Should any life be more sacred than another? Wecan eat cows and pigs (which are very intelligent by the way), but notroast the rather stupid pony? (Someone wanted to have a ponyroast where I used to live).
> 
> What about the little flea, fish, the fly or the rat? Do theynot struggle to survive? Our ownbodies serveasa cemetery for millions of organisms slain by our immunesystems.
> 
> Were do we draw the line and what is happening to oursociety? A woman OD'd at someone's house in ourtown. They didn't know what to do with her, so they took thedeceased and propped her up on a hay bale in a field!


of course we could take on the mr Smith from the Matrix anddecide that humans are a virus on the earth

okwas feeling a little devilish LOL


----------



## pamnock (Nov 16, 2004)

Gabby -- I'm sure the animals certainly feel thatway! How many species have we been single handedlyresponsible for wiping off the face of this earth? :X

Pam


----------



## Delphinum (Nov 16, 2004)

Having bought Vogue for the second and last timethis month, I was disgusted to see pictures of rabbit fur trussed upinto a coat for some size 6, 6ft2" model to strut around in!A picture of a 2 headed fox stole and fur gilet made me sick!I don't know how these people can think that it's nice to have a deadanimal draped over their shoulders.

As for the 'artist' woman, well if we murdered our rabbits and stuckthem on a canvas, we'd be done by the RSPCA for animalcruelty! As my partner has just said, it's just cheapcontroversy to sell **** art! 

She should be prosecuted for this slaughter! I can't evenlook at the website as I fear I may be distressed by it. Icry at RSPCA adverts on tv, so goodness knows what I'd be like.

I am vegetarian, but I agree that people can eat meat if they like, Ijust don't see how there is a need to wear it as we have so many otherfabrics and faux furs on the market to choose from, I also don't seethe need to kill innocent animals just to make money! I dosee the need for medical research, not cosmetic, as I'd be dead if itwasn't for recombinant DNA technology.


----------



## Gabby (Nov 16, 2004)

*pamnock wrote:*


> Gabby -- I'm sure the animals certainly feel thatway! How many species have we been single handedlyresponsible for wiping off the face of this earth? :X
> 
> Pam


THat is a problem, humans have difficulty doing things in moderation,and for the good of something. If we had shown some restraint orrespect towards animals, we might still have certain specieswith us today. 

We take over the land they once so freely ranged on, then wonder whythere are bears or cyotes in the back yard. We can't kill them all thenwhere would we be? Wondering why we are missing yet another speciesfrom the earth, but i do think we need to find a better wayto live with them.

We take over one part of the planet and then once we have filledthat up we spread out and take over more. Iwouldn't be suprized if we did kill the earth. 

As for me I'm doing my part not to over populate the earth ... of humans LOL no human kids for ME! LOL

I do feel there is a time and purpose for everything, I think we just have to know where to draw the line.


----------



## SunnieBunnie Rabbitry (Nov 17, 2004)

*OOhh, this topic treads on so many thin lines... I love it!...LOL.*
*There has been many good points onall angles here.*

*I agree, scientific testing is a must and I do back it up -not just for our own medical benefit, but for every other living thingas well... Think about it, it even affects the Vegans -whether they like it or not in more ways than one. When thescientists made the fertilizers and pesticides for our farmers toensure a good crop, it had to be tested to ensure the fertilizerswouldn't harm or kill the wild animals that may andwillconsume the crop... as well as testing the pesticides toensure it killed what it was specified to and not everything else inthe vicinity.... vast majority ofall these tests were donewith live "lab" animals.*

*And why not purchase that rabbit fur coat? Chancesare the rabbit was killed formeat (be it human or animalconsumption) and the fur was used as a secondary "commodity".The rabbit is already dead, has already been processed, it doesn't needit's fur anymore... and as many have already said - best to make useofALL of the animal and not let any go towaste.*

*Another touchy subject - but it was previously mentioned...*

*Ifeveryone had a choice in thematter,I'm sure we (people) would all choose to go in our sleep, but it's theluck of the draw.Personally, I know that when it ismy time, regardless of how - I don't want my death to be in vain - forany reason... If I could save liveswith my death - so beit! (**Hoping I don't cross thin lines**) My family knowsthat when it is time, I am a designated donor - anything anyone needsto extend their lives can take it - then I'm going to be donated to theMedical schoolsas a teaching/learning toolforfuture doctors.*

*LikeFergi's Momsaid before - wether ornot I can backup my statementswith a sensible andreasonable answer is another story, these are my opinionsandwhat I belive to be the best way I know to give back toeveryone.*


----------



## Slynk (Nov 17, 2004)

Personally I'd hate to go in my sleep. And youknow what? I'd love to die of the experiments they do on those animals.ON CAMERA. Then see how many people support it. The sad part is: we arenow able to develop ways to research things without killing. We'vealready got some (like artificiallygrownskin).Thing is, people don't want to change, it costs too much to develop(even though it's cheaper afterwards)and they aren't gettinganything out of it. Scientists get recognition for helping humans. Notso with animals.


----------



## m.e. (Nov 17, 2004)

Well, as far as testing goes, there are a*lot* of unecessary and cruel animal tests. Cosmetic testing isabsolutely unacceptable, there _are_ humane alternatives. As faras pesticides and fertilizers go, most of them do kill animals and areshown to cause damage to humans! :shock: Thus the reason why organicfarming is becoming a much more viable alternative.

And I can see what you mean about the rabbit fur coat, but all theother fur animals are raised and cruelly killed *just* for theirfur.


----------



## Delphinum (Nov 17, 2004)

This is what I meant m.e. It's not thefact that it was a rabbit coat, it was the fact that it was fur atall! Personally, I don't wear leather or anything like that,just because I don't like the thought of it, or the smell for thatmatter. Wet suede jacket?! Bleugh! Stinksto the high heavens!

I still don't like the fact that animals are tested on, but I do acceptthat it has to happen. If not, I'd be injecting myself withpig insulin. At 12 years old, being 5ft4" and 2 and a halfstones, Iwould have died. My father wanted me tolive, I wanted to live... there's no wayhe or I would havesaid "Oh no, the technology used to save my life has been tested onanimals so I don't want it." I can't see many people,themselves, or their children, refuse medical treatment because animalswere harmed in the making. Even a simple paracetemol for aheadache would have been tested on them.


----------



## Gabby (Nov 17, 2004)

*Delphinum wrote:*


> This is what I meant m.e. It's not the fact thatit was a rabbit coat, it was the fact that it was fur at all!Personally, I don't wear leather or anything like that, just because Idon't like the thought of it, or the smell for that matter.Wet suede jacket?! Bleugh! Stinks to the highheavens!
> 
> I still don't like the fact that animals are tested on, but I do acceptthat it has to happen. If not, I'd be injecting myself withpig insulin. At 12 years old, being 5ft4" and 2 and a halfstones, Iwould have died. My father wanted me tolive, I wanted to live... there's no wayhe or I would havesaid "Oh no, the technology used to save my life has been tested onanimals so I don't want it." I can't see many people,themselves, or their children, refuse medical treatment because animalswere harmed in the making. Even a simple paracetemol for aheadache would have been tested on them.


I think it is easy for somene who has never had touse a life saving medicine to say they would never use one that wastested on animals. I think it is quite a different story for those whohave been there and their life depends on it.


----------



## MyBabyBunnies (Nov 17, 2004)

I do agree that if an animal is killed for meat,why waste what's left? People don't just skin animals and leave themeat, they use it. I really don't have a problem with that conceptbecause life and death is all part of life and it's just how it works.However, I do have my opinions on testing on animals. If you wouldn'ttest it on a human, why would you on an innocent animal? There areother ways to test things and I do not think testing on animals is byany means humane. It may be good for us as humans but not necessarilyfor the animals. Testing on animals is a form of abuse and I don'tthink it should be tolerated.


----------



## m.e. (Nov 17, 2004)

> People don't just skin animals and leave the meat, they use it.



No, not always. Mink and fox are two examples of animals whose bodies are incinerated after being skinned.


----------



## RaspberrySwirl (Nov 18, 2004)

Wow, you all havetossed in nearly every subject on all sides of all the lines! Myopinions run really closely with Pam and SunnieBunnies. To back upbriefly, the art thing certainly didn't do anything for meartistically, but it also didn't repulse me as much as it did some ofyou. I could let it make me very angry, but honestly watchingsome of the shows on TV that show abused and suffering animals thatlinger on and on in pain, that upsets me far more. Pam's inquiry as tothe feelings of others on animal trophies and such...I'm from a longline of farmers, hunters, and outdoors-men. Hunting was never donesimply as a sport. It stemmed from necessity in the early years andbecame more of a family/social event in the later years. Trophy sizeanimals were kept and mounted and the stories are still told andenjoyed. I think in general, most people who lived off of the land hadtremendous respect and appreciation for wildlife. Of course, there arealways exceptions. As far as animal testing goes. I believe in it. Iwould like to see it done as humanely as possible. But insituations where there are nogood options for humane testing,I would still pick the testing in hopes that it might result insomething significant likehaving my husband cured of hisdiabetes,my daughters cured of their Juvenile RheumatoidArthritis or myself of Lupus.I do believe (most)humans exist higher in the pecking order, though I do prefer many of myanimal friends to some humans I know. I think as the highest earthlylife form, it is our responsibility to stand up for and protect thosewho are not able to do so for themselves. The subject gets touchy. Allthings cannot be saved. One last thought. It has been scientificallyproven that thousands of life forms have become extinct with absolutelynothing whatsoever to do with man. It is a giant "circle of life" typeof thing, if you will. All of the things you hear all the time that wehave "made extinct" isn't always factual. Many of those things wouldhave happened whether man had been on earth or not. It just doesn't fitcertain political agendas to bring that to light. 

RaspberrySwirl


----------



## Slynk (Nov 18, 2004)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=12334

You mean curedlike that, Raspberry? Notice the lack of animals involved.


----------



## RaspberrySwirl (Nov 18, 2004)

That's exactly thekind of medical advancement that I love to see. I also think it'sawesome that there was no use of animals. But, based on a large part ofthepolitical scene, and USA pre-electionhooplah Irather imagine that there's a whole different group of people who willfind it far more distasteful that stem cell research was used instead.I applaud the medical breakthrough. Reading the article started my dayout on the sunny side!

Raspberry


----------



## Slynk (Nov 18, 2004)

I just wanted to point out to everyone that wecan nowuse the same methods to research animal sickness ashuman. So you can all stop supporting suffering, as it is no longer fora cause.

Edit: Remember, these were _spare_ eggs. No human life was lost.


----------



## pamnock (Nov 18, 2004)

*Slynk wrote: *


> Ijust wanted to point out to everyone that we can nowuse thesame methods to research animal sickness as human. So you can all stopsupporting suffering, as it is no longer for a cause.
> 
> Edit: Remember, these were _spare_ eggs. No human life was lost.




I think you have misunderstood the research. These are_embryos _being used in the research. The donated eggsare fertilized and growing. Depending on when you believelife actually begins, babies are being sacrificed (murdered).

Pam


----------



## Slynk (Nov 18, 2004)

They never would have been born anyway; hence nolife lost. But then, as to when life begins, I'd say when consciousness&lt;sp&gt;begins to take effect. Otherwise it wouldbe morally wrong to test on bacterial colonies and the like.


----------



## dmmcnair (Nov 18, 2004)

Well I am with Pam, Sunnibunnies, andRaspberry. My husband's family comes from a long line ofhunters. I got into it when I met him, never before huntedand thought I would never kill "Bambi", but they have taught me the joyof being with wildlife, and the joy of just seeing things I'd neverseen before. It's amazing watching does and their youngfeeding together, it is magnificent to catch a glimpse of a 10 pointbuck, it will stop your heart! We have many trophies fromNorth America and from Africa. I have trophies of animals Ihave only seen on TV! They grace our home and have wonderfulstories behind them. And yes we eat the meat. It isall about loving and respecting nature...it's about wildlifemanagement. What happens when there are too many deer and notenough food? They starve to death, or become diseased andpass those diseases to other animals...why do you think you have tohave a permit and you can only get 1 or 2 bucks on 1 or two does,depending on which county you hunt in? Poachers are killers who killfor the thrill of the kill, and kill when they want not following thelaws put out, not caring about how it will impact the ecology.

I didn't look at the art. I didn't want to. It's adisgrace to any "artist" out there who thinks killing for art isacceptable. I call myself an artist...I would not killanything for my art. I would rather paint and draw animalsliving and doing what they do best.

I believe to each their own for the most part...but do not tell me thatI am evil for eating meat, do not tell me I am evil because I want thedrugs to cure disease, do not tell me I'm evil for thinking humans aremore important than animals. I don't care if you are avegan. That doesn't make a person, nor does my eating meatmake me who I am. Furs...lots of controversy there, all I cansay is humans have been using fur from the beginning of time to clothethemselves. Animal testing...Alheimers, diabetes, ADHD, heartdisease, and cancer all run in my family. I wantcures. I don't want my children and grandchildren to gothrough what I went through when my mother got diagnosed with cancer,and died. Testing on animals will find a cure. Asit has found cures for other ailments, and disease, and producedvaccines that we have all recieved. Would you risk yourchild's life for an animal's? I'm not. You can die fromchicken pox, measles, mumps, and all the other childhooddiseases. Our lifespans would still be 40 years if not foranimal testing. That's only 9 years away for me, and I don'twant to miss seeing my grandchildren grow up. When they cantest on a nonliving entity to get a cure...hey good going, but thatwill not happen. Now they are trying to harvest embryos totest on....babies are better? This is a very sore topic forme as you can see. 

I believe that animals should not be beaten and abused andstarved. I love my pets. But if it comes to my petsor my kids...I chose my kids. 

This is just my opinion...no one has to believe what I believe, just asI don't have to believe what you believe. But I, for one, amgetting sick and tired of peopled telling me that I should conform totheir way of thinking. This is the problem with the worldtoday. No one is willing to let people believe in what theywill for their piece of mind. If you don't believe what Ibelieve you are evil. How is getting God out of the Pledge ofAllegiance going to bring peace? How is not eating meat goingto bring peace? It's not. 

If this offends anyone...oh well, some of the posts for this topic hasoffended me too. This is too touchy a subject for someone notto get offended. But I won't hold it against you. I like you guys for other reasons!!!

To each his own and let it alone. 

Dawn


----------



## Buck Jones (Nov 18, 2004)

I'm coming in rather at the tail end of thistopic I assume, but I must say, whatever one thinks of the "artist's"work, she has generated a great deal of thought and opinion on thematter and if that was her intention, she has been immanentlysuccessful. 

I don't know that we can accuse her of "murder" unless we know thecircumstances surrounding the animals' deaths. They could'vedied under some one else's hand for some other purpose, perhaps"justifiably" so. It they died purely for art's sake, I wouldpersonally take issue with that practice.

There was a time in my life when I hunted woodchuck forsport. I imagined I was doing the farmers a good deal byreducing the likelihood that their stock would break limbs by fallinginto woodchuck holes and farmers seemed to be appreciative of thepractice by permitting me to hunt on their land.

It was pointed out to me later that few people had ever met a farmerwhose stock ACTUALLY had broken a limb in such a manner, and I had toagree I fell into that category. I could no longerfinda "justification" to continue to hunt the haplesscreatures other than the ability to use a rifle to shoot "varmints" inthe State of NJ at that time. I, to this day, have never metsomeone who lost an animal due to stepping into a woodchuck hole.

When I had to carry a rifle to survive in a war time situation, Irealized I could never again "hunt" an animal for the "sport" ofit. One can accomplish just as much, if not more, with acamera. I also think few of us in this country HAVE to huntout of necessity, and for those few I wholeheartedly endorse a "pass"for them to do what they have and must do.

For those of us who just want to save a few bucks by stocking yourlarder with game, I'm not so sure you are justified in doing so, butyou've got to live with your actions, not me.

I've read a couple of books within the past few years, by clergymen Imight add, that suggest that we might just investigate the premise thatanimals have souls a great deal more than we have in thepast. Current advances in animal psychology andbehaviorism certainly indicate a much great sentience than we had everpreviously believed possible amongst such species as elephants,gorillas, apes, orang-utans, chimps, dogs, cats, horses, parrots,pigeons, chickens, porpoise, whales, and even fish, to namebut a few. It seems whenever someone sets up a serious studyof some species behavior, we are all extremely surprised to find athinking, loving, feeling being existing beneath that skin, fur,feather, or scale.

I know we are omnivores andmust eat. I do think itbehooves us to dispatch food animals as quickly and painlessly aspossible. I do wish there was a better solution and, perhaps,some day there may be.

Buck


----------



## lanna21974 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Slynk wrote: *


> Theynever would have been born anyway; hence no life lost. But then, as towhen life begins, I'd say when consciousness&lt;sp&gt;begins to take effect. Otherwise it wouldbe morally wrong to test on bacterial colonies and the like.




Oh this is sooo touchy. 

Being a "stem cell" receipient....I applaud all the efforts to researchstem cells and their many uses. HOWEVER, I !!DID NOT!! and !!WOULDNOT!! accept stem cells from an embryo. 

Whether or notembryos are "conscious" beings and at what agethey are conscious has not been proven. In my mind...atwohour old embryo is no different than a two hour old baby. MYOPINION. 

Lanna


----------



## Delphinum (Nov 18, 2004)

*Buck Jones wrote:*


> Current advances in animal psychology andbehaviorism certainly indicate a much great sentience than we had everpreviously believed possible amongst such species as elephants,gorillas, apes, orang-utans, chimps, dogs, cats, horses, parrots,pigeons, chickens, porpoise, whales, and even fish, to namebut a few. It seems whenever someone sets up a serious studyof some species behavior, we are all extremely surprised to find athinking, loving, feeling being existing beneath that skin, fur,feather, or scale.


I find animal behaviours fascinating, Buck! I studied the 60sculture, science, religion and music this year at uni and this was partof it... I've abridged to make it easier to type! LOL

Before the 1960s it was thought that women were 'naturally' subservientto men as they had studied female primatesand concluded thatfemales were "sexually receptive and docile" and were generally a prizefor the males to fight over. When some female scientistsinvestigated this further, they found that females were as competative,dominant and were sexually assertive, the opposite of what waspreviously thought.

From this one study of the animal world, we have found thathumanfemales are also competative, dominant, assertive, andcan juggle the demands of a male and children all at onetime!Our natural role was notto besubmissive, child bearers with no aggression.


----------



## Delphinum (Nov 18, 2004)

LOL I put my 60s text book down on the floor after typing that and already Henry's in there having a nibble!


----------



## Slynk (Nov 18, 2004)

Peace is definitely _not_ something I seek.I have the recipe to C-4, poison(s), and thermitein mybedroom. Perhaps unlike other people, I'd not kill something for a cure- being it for me or anyone. I'd kill for defence; butIcannot justifythe painful death of an entitywhowould never have harmed me any more than mostpeoplecould justifykillinganinnocentto save a hostage (I know, wierd reference). So howcan I justify trillions that died (and continuetoneedlessly)sad, lonely and in painsohumans can have convenient lives?

As for the morality of testing on stem cells, _technically_ wecould just harvest some once and grow them from then on. That's whatthey do anyway - only they don't keep the left overs for other reasons.I suppose they could even be harvested, grown, and then re-injectedinto an embryo so that both purposes (life, research) could be served.People don't _want_ to, or don't _care_ to; but it could bedone. When you _say_ it can't or won't happen, you demonstrate why.


----------



## AnnaS (Nov 18, 2004)

I have not read all of the posts, but actually most of the people do think that rabbits should be picked up by the ears.
When people come over to feed my bunny when I am not home, I alwaysleave them a note not to pick up the bunny by his ears or actually notto pick him up at all.

As a common sense, I always thought how do ears hold the entire weight of their body.

The first picture is just horrible.


----------



## RaspberrySwirl (Nov 18, 2004)

Slynk, 

Since this morning when I read your firstpost, it's been eating at me. I've been re-hashing your last commentsall day trying to figure out what it was that isn't meshing. I finallycopied it all to one so I could read and re-read your opinions.

------------------------------------------------------------
Slynk wrote-

Every now and again I meet people who should be shot. Then there are those who should be outright gutted.

Some of this is really not making sense. It's okay to kill them if youlook after their bodies? I can see why people use them for food(although we're quite capable of stopping that now) and I know (some)hunters don't kill for joy, but I don't see how any of that helps theanimal. It's all the same to the dead what happens to their body.Better to not kill it in the first place.

Personally I'd hate to go in my sleep. And you know what? I'd love todie of the experiments they do on those animals. ON CAMERA. Then seehow many people support it. The sad part is: we are now able to developways to research things without killing. We've already got some (likeartificially grown skin). Thing is, people don't want to change, itcosts too much to develop (even though it's cheaper afterwards) andthey aren't getting anything out of it. Scientists get recognition forhelping humans. Not so with animals.

You mean cured like that, Raspberry? Notice the lack of animals involved.


I just wanted to point out to everyone that we can now use the samemethods to research animal sickness as human. So you can all stopsupporting suffering, as it is no longer for a cause.

Edit: Remember, these were _spare_ eggs. No human life was lost.

They never would have been born anyway; hence no life lost. But then,as to when life begins, I'd say when consciousness &lt;sp&gt;begins to take effect. Otherwise it would be morally wrong to test onbacterial colonies and the like.

Peace is definitely _not_ something I seek. I have the recipe toC-4, poison(s), and thermite in my bedroom. Perhaps unlike otherpeople, I'd not kill something for a cure - being it for me or anyone.I'd kill for defence; but I cannot justify the painful death of anentity who would never have harmed me any more than most people couldjustify killing an innocent to save a hostage (I know, wierdreference). So how can I justify trillions that died (and continue toneedlessly) sad, lonely and in pain so humans can have convenient lives?

As for the morality of testing on stem cells, _technically_ wecould just harvest some once and grow them from then on. That's whatthey do anyway - only they don't keep the left overs for other reasons.I suppose they could even be harvested, grown, and then re-injectedinto an embryo so that both purposes (life, research) could be served.People don't _want_ to, or don't _care_ to; but it could bedone. When you _say_ it can't or won't happen, you demonstrate why.


--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't actually strongly disagree withmost of what you have to say.I do sensehoweverthatbecause of some distasteful acts of somehumans, you have chosen to value animal life above human life. I findit irrational that you can so easily spring to the defense of labanimals, yet so easily dismiss thetheory that an embryo mayindeed be a living being. I also must assume that you do not havechildren, for no one that I know who has children of their own couldverbalize the things that you did, not the least of which is your quote"Peace is definitely _not_ something Iseek".

I'd also like to point outthefact that you seem so angry with a select group of peoplethat you've began to lump all of us together into the same category. Asyour posts progressed you became more and more accusatory. I believeeveryone here has been fairly open minded about bouncing ideas off ofeach other. You might learn somethingyourself abouttolerance by doing as I did and going back over the post and reading itagain. 

Raspberry


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 18, 2004)

This Post is Going Too Far. 


The question was answered here by Elf Mommy. This post has gotten underfar too many's skin and I don't like what it's turning into. If itcontinues to pick up with saying things like 

"I'm don't care for peace" and 

"If this offends anyone, oh well...", or 

"Every now and again I meet people who should be shot, and then thereare those that should be outright gutted" (Stated on this publicrecord, I'm sure many would agree that this is a very disturbingcomment.) 

...then it's becoming corrupt.

No matter what your passion, if you feel strongly about the issue athand, Participate! Find a place that you can do something about it. 

*This forum is not that place.*

Let's wrap this one up, People, because no one's getting anywhere productive in this one anymore. 

This could go on and on and with no end in sight of agreeing. Agree to disagree. 

Unless you can state your case with respect for others opinions on this board, then don't hit the reply button. 

It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to shove it down each other's throats. 

-Carolyn


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 18, 2004)

Raspberry Swirl,

I'm sorry to have posted that after you're usual extremely well-thought out and diplomatic style. 

I haven't been keeping up with this post, and when I read it just awhile ago, I found some things within it as very disturbing...as I'vestated above. It was the things I've named in my previous post thatinspired me to write it.

-Carolyn


----------



## RaspberrySwirl (Nov 18, 2004)

No apology necessary. I trust your judgment. 

Raspberry


----------



## Carolyn (Nov 18, 2004)

Thank you, Raspberry.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

We all know where each other stands on this issue, now let this post fade.

* * * * * * *

"A Knowledgeable Man knows what to say, a Wise Man knows when not to speak."

-Carolyn


----------



## showrabbits (Nov 19, 2004)

Carolyn,

I love that quote!!!!!!

"A Knowledgeable Man knows what to say, a Wise Man knows when not to speak."

You always have those great sayings.... Where do you get them...


----------

