Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:30:16 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:12:57 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
>> > No. What you're saying is that, "The AWA is probably
>> > the best piece of legislation that is there to protect
>> > lab animals", and this claim rests on your memory of a
>> > copy of something you had 14 years ago, and though
>> > you've been shown recent evidence proving 90% of the
>> > animals used in labs aren't protected by the AWA, for
>> > the simple reason that they aren't listed as animals, you
>> > choose to just snip that evidence away and carry on
>> > insisting your claim is correct nevertheless, so why is
>> > that?
>> [you]
>> I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently
>> there to protect lab animals ....
>> [end]
>
>I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently there to protect
>lab animals because I can't think of one other single piece of legislation
>that does more than it does. Can you? If so, I'll stand corrected.
>
If your claim now rests on the fact that it is the
ONLY piece of legislation to protect lab animals,
even though it excludes 90% of them on the weird
basis of them not being animals, then you have won
your argument in that it is the best.