Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- [Dr. Singer was Ian Masters' Guest on "Background Briefing," KPFK-FM, 3-14-04] ---------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SingerViews on inter-species sexual relationships In a 2001 book review, Singer stated that humans and animals can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. Bestiality should remain illegal if it involves cruelty, but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror, writes Singer, because "we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes." Thus, Singer concludes, sex between humans and non-humans, while abnormal, "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings." These views themselves are regarded as criminal in a few legal systems; and persons acting on such views would be arrested in a number of nations, even though there are also places where bestiality is not explicitly criminalized. Some people regard Singer's views as immoral and supportive of animal abuse. Most Jewish, Christian and Muslim fundamentalist groups view such actions as one of the most heinous offenses possible. Singer himself, though, does not consider that his views on this subject are important enough to merit so much attention. ------------------------- IN HIS OWN WORDS Dr. Peter Singer Supports Bestiality Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, translated by Paul Vincent, Verso, © 2000. Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime. But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs. How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob. Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it. Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . " The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition ‹ less so in the East ‹ we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights ‹ rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals ‹ maintains this separation. On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do ‹ or mammals, anyway ‹ and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals. Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.) But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety. At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. ------------------- Violent Role Models: Peter Singer and Bestiality At the request of Nerve Magazine, Peter Singer, a former leader in the animal rights movement and current professor of philosophy at Princeton University, wrote a book review of Dearest Pet: On Bestiality. In this book review entitled "Heavy Petting", Singer so philosophizes about bestiality and the acts of zoophiles, that he actually ends up endorsing such behavior under certain circumstances. In our opinion, the tragedy of this situation is that a founder of the modern animal rights movement has betrayed the very animals he supposedly sought to liberate. Instead of liberating the animals, he has further enslaved them and added to their abuse. The proof of the damage he has done is reflected in comments from zoophiles who have referred to his book review as an animal rights leader's vindication of their immoral and evil acts. Peter Singer has shot himself in the foot, and the ricochet has wounded many innocent ones. He may not be doing direct violence to these animals, but he has given ammunition to a zoophile to carry out his or her repugnant deed. It is obvious to us that Peter Singer and those who practice bestiality are totally devoid of any moral concept of right and wrong. Such acts are so abominable to God that He says: "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 22:19) "Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." (Leviticus 18:23) "If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them." (Leviticus 20:15-16) "Cursed is he who lies with an animal." (Deuteronomy 27:21a) God was so upset with the depravity among the nations surrounding Israel that in order to protect His people from being like the other nations, He had to resort to these harsh measures. God did not want to put anyone to death; He just wanted to keep His people from defiling themselves. Even if the animal is not physically hurt and even if the animal seems to want to please the zoophile, it is nevertheless a violent act and is no different from an adult abusing a human child in the same way. If we don't stand against these morally violent acts and attempts to sanitize them such as Peter Singer's, we will surely shoot ourselves in our collective foot. It is time to stop sanitizing all moral and physical violence in our society. ---------------------- http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2001/000042.html Animal Rights Activist Attack Peter Singer Over Bestiality Stance By Brian Carnell Wednesday, March 28, 2001 Peter Singer still has not made any comments about his book review for Nerve which, on the most friendly interpretation, offered a weak argument against bestiality. While People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' Ingrid Newkirk offered a defense of Singer, many animal rights activists were quick to pile on denunciations of Singer, many of which were posted to the Nerve web site as well as being distributed through Internet e-mail lists. Friends of Animals president Priscillia Feral wrote, Friends of Animals, an interntional non-profit organization with 200,000 members throughout the world dedicated to promoting the rights of animals and concern for wildlife and the environment, denounces Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, for an essay in which Singer maintains that under some circumstances, it is acceptable for humans and animals to have sex with each other. FoA finds Singer's position shocking and disgusting. Bestiality is wrong in part because the animal cannot meaningfully consent to sex with a human. In this sense, bestiality is wrong for the same reason pedophilia is wrong. Children cannot consent to sexual contact and neither can animals. Contrary to a statement from a spokesperson for PETA, Singer's essay isn't an intellectual issue, and his thinking isn't logical. It's a moral issue. Singer and his apologists just need to stop repeating every annoying idea they've developed for shock value. Megan Metzellar, program coordinator for Friends of Animals weighed in as well, Singer is basically condoning rape and molestation as long as one (presumably he?) can find a way to interpret the situation as being "mutually satisfying." I suppose Mr. Singer can find a way to justify any base behavior in his mind via his meaningless hypotheticals. Singer has been put on a pedestal by the animal rights movement for a very long time but this essay is a wake-up call to those who have blindly idolized him. Moreover, since women are often sexually abused and exploited in conjunction with acts of bestiality, feminists should be outraged by his position on this issue. Child advocates should also be alarmed since Singer is condoning sex acts in which one party is basically incapable of giving consent. Singer is in dangerous territory here and if he has any sense left he will realize the potential fallout from this essay and retract his position. Theodora Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, was worried about the damage that Singer's views will have on the animal rights movement. As someone who has played and continues to play a high profile and influential role in the animal rights movement, I believe your responsibility changes. The success of animal liberation depends not only on the ideology, the legal arguments, and the philosophical reasoning but perhaps more importantly on the sophisticated strategies that will allow mainstream populations to hear the message, accept the message and act on the message. Heavy Petting will come back to haunt us and is a step backwards. Unchallenged, this essay will serve to further marginalize and, therefore, damage the animal rights movement. The consequences of it will push us back into the bubble-gum bottomed recess of prejudice that hell hole of ridicule that remains our greatest obstacle and enemy. Some people may care about your thoughts on bestiality from some perverse unconscious desires. More significantly, however, many others will study your every word not to better ground their arguments in support of animal rights but rather to find new ways to discredit our efforts. They have been given new ammunition and new accusations with which to boost their arguments about the absurdity of our beliefs. Heavy Petting will be used against us. Have no doubt. Live by the sound bite, die by the sound bite. Gary Francione, who seems to have laid low after shutting down his animal law center, reminded animal rights activists that Singer's argument is beside the point since the existence of pets is an abomination itself, regardless of whether or not anyone is having sex with the animals. Even if animals can desire to have sexual contact with humans, that does not mean that they are "consenting" to that contact any more than does a child who can have sexual desires (or who even initiates sexual contact) can be said to consent to sex. Moreover, Peter ignores completely that bestiality is a phenomenon that occurs largely within the unnatural relationship of domestication; a domestic animal can no more consent to sex than could a human slave. Therefore, since the threshold requirement--informed consent--cannot be met, sexual contact with animals cannot be morally justified....It is bad enough that Peter defends the killing or other exploitation of those humans whose lives he regards as not worth living, and, through his pop media image, he has succeeded in connecting the issue of animal rights with the very ideas that were promoted by some academics as part of the theoretical basis for Nazism. It is bad enough that the "father of the animal rights movement" regards PETA's sell-out liaison with McDonalds as "the biggest step forward for farm animals in America in the past quarter of a century" (a direct quote from Peter) and that PETAphiles are pointing to Peter's approval as justification for the sell-out. It is bad enough that Peter continues to support and promote those whose unethical actions have actually harmed animals. Bestiality merits nothing more or less than our outright and unequivocal condemnation. Peter's disturbing view that humans and nonhumans may enjoy sexual contact as part of "mutually satisfying activities" will only further harm the cause of animal rights, and I can only hope that those who care will register their strong dissent. Aside from the animal rights movement, it will be interesting to see how the Princeton community reacts to Singer's newly found views on sex with animals. ------------------- Reading The Singer on "Bestiality" Dianne N. Irving copyright February 8, 2004 Reproduced with Permission Peter Singer's1 "global ethics"2 (read, BIOethics) is notoriously controversial, and for good reason. Among other outrageous "ethical conclusions" he has taught for decades now is that the infanticide of newborn human infants is "ethically acceptable" because they are not "persons", whereas the killing of certain animals who are "persons" is not: "Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many non-human animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel pain (sentience), and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee". [Peter Singer, "Taking life: abortion", in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 118.] (emphasis added) I emphasize "capacity to feel pain (sentience)" in the above quotation because, contra the claims of some, as you can see "personhood" for Singer is not defined only in terms of "rational attributes" (e.g., "rationality, self-consciousness, awareness"), but also in terms of "sentience" (e.g., "capacity to feel pain" - or pleasure) - as demonstrated above. Thus, according to Singer, perfectly normal human infants are also "non-persons" (and thus could be killed) - not just those who are "defective". The issue is "personhood". If you've got it - you're OK; if you don't - watch out. ------------------------- Peter Singer once again pushes the envelope in his recent essay on the ancient bestiality taboo Peter Singer's 'Heavy Petting' Laura Vanderkam '01 Princetonian Columnist Peter Singer has a nasty way of pushing everything to the extreme. His arguments on abortion try to induce the reader to believe that unless you think all contraception is immoral, you should support abortion up to the time of birth and then infanticide for 30 days afterwards, just for good measure. But Princeton's favorite ethicist has gotten tired of defending killing disabled babies and has now started defending something completely different: bestiality. Yes. In his essay "Heavy Petting," published at nerve.com, Singer reviews Midas Dekkers' "Dearest Pet," a treatise on the long and storied history of humanity's not-so-platonic interactions with animals. Singer also throws in a few ideas of his own and tries to frame the debate in the same set of extremes. If you're not willing to disapprove of all non-procreative sex, then you should reconsider the taboo on bestiality. After all, since sex doesn't have to result in babies, and since we all know from reading various Singer texts that we're not so different from animals, it's not an offense to our dignity as human beings to have a little fun with the family pet now and then. Dekkers' book, Singer says, contains many illustrations of bestiality, which he describes using words I'm not allowed to use in the 'Prince.' One noteworthy illustration is "an eighteenth century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling." How much of this is fantasy, asks Singer. Perhaps not much: he cites those oh-so-famous Kinsey sexual statistics to claim that bestiality is far more common than we think. Remember Kinsey? He's the one who claimed 10 percent of people were homosexual, based on his survey of a prison population. The figures for bestiality are similarly large: eight percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. "Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent," Singer writes. A quick survey of my male friends from rural states ("No") reveals this number, too, to be a bit inflated. Having "established" that bestiality isn't rare, Singer says that although the Judeo-Christian tradition maintains a gulf between men and animals, this may be just a Western construction. "We copulate, as they do," Singer insists. "They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are." The vehemence with which people react to bestiality "suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals." Anyone who has read Peter Singer's other works knows that once the debate is framed this way, the die has been cast. In Singer's world, we're not that different from animals: animal experiments are only okay if we'd also do them on disabled humans. And dogs and pigs are more sentient, and therefore more valuable, than infants or the demented old. So Singer praises a contemporary of Freud's, Otto Soyka, for a book which argued against the prohibition of various "unnatural" sexual acts, because they limited the "inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire." Bestiality, Soyka wrote, should only be illegal because it can be cruel to animals. On this point, Singer is willing to concede. Can an animal really consent? (Is the cow "asking for it?") Some men have tried intercourse with hens, which tends to be fatal to the hen. This is cruelty. "But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in a barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings . . . ?" Has the proponent of animal rights backed himself into a corner? "But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty," Singer then rationalizes. He mentions the oft-observed lascivious attention of a dog to visiting guests. "The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop." He also relates the story of a woman who was nearly violated by a large male orangutan. To the observer, who'd lived with apes most of her life, "The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." After all, we're just great apes ourselves. What's so bad about having sex with our furrier cousins? Why on earth would Singer write this? While pedophilia is starting to look chic some places (mainstream books of gay fiction have featured such stories), the bestiality taboo has yet to fall. But Singer is trying to push the envelope. In his world of extremes, if bestiality can be pushed into philosophical discourse, then the debate over whether Boy Scouts should have gay scout leaders or over San Francisco's new sex-change policy for municipal employees starts to seem quaint. If he busies mainstream Americans with trying to put out brushfires like this one on our left fringe, then the long, slow burn in the center of the culture war becomes less relevant. It becomes almost . . . normal. And that's what radicals like Singer want. (Laura Vanderkam is a Wilson School major from Granger, Ind. She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ------------------------ http://www.euthanasia.com/singersmith.html Source: Wesley J. Smith press release, March 28, 2001. Return to the Euthanasia Home Page. Pro-Euthanasia Princeton Professor Singer's Pro-Bestiality Article Professor Gary Francione today called for Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer to stand down as President of The Great Ape Project International. Francione, who is Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law and author of several books on animal rights, called for Singer's resignation in the wake of Singer's essay on bestiality, available in the March/April edition of Nerve Magazine. In the essay, Singer maintains that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. Singer describes an encounter between a human woman and a male orangutan living at Camp Leakey in Borneo. According to Singer, the orangutan saw the human woman "as an object of sexual interest." This is no cause for shock or horror, writes Singer, because "we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes." Thus, Singer concludes, the idea of sex between humans and non-humans "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings." In a letter to Singer dated March 28, Francione asked Singer to resign, stating that in light of Singer's position in GAP, his support for bestiality could be used to justify the sexual abuse of great apes and other non-human animals. Francione stated: "It is a shame that Singer's desire to be in the public spotlight is so intense that he would promote sex with animals--a position that deserves nothing less than outright condemnation." Last year, Singer received international attention when he argued that it was morally acceptable in certain circumstances to kill haemophiliac and other disabled infants. Francione was one of the original signers of the Declaration on the Rights of Great Apes contained in the book "The Great Ape Project," published in 1993 and edited by Paola Cavalieri and Singer. Francione also wrote a chapter in the book entitled "Personhood, Property, and Legal Competence." He presented a discussion of the property status of great apes, and was the first legal theorist to call for legal rights for great apes and other animals. Tony Smith, who works at a Canadian sanctuary which provides shelter and psychological enrichment for 15 non-human great apes, also expressed concerns about Singer's position on bestiality. "Peter Singer misses the significance of the incident's occurrence in a rehabilitation camp for apes trying to cope with what we have imposed on them. As a person who lives daily with the psychological problems of non-human victims of human interference and manipulation, I can tell you that such individuals are by no means sexually well-adjusted. Many of their behaviors are heartbreaking symptoms of human domination. Such acts should not be taken as moral guidance or justification." Lee Hall, of the international legal group Great Ape Standing & Personhood, said, "Whether the idea of sex between humans and non-humans offends our status is beside the point. The point is that non-human animals cannot consent to sexual contact with us. Singer's request that we drop our sense of disgust at the creation of the quintessential sex object is shocking and disappointing." Enquiries: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GREAT APE STANDING & PERSONHOOD (GRASP), Inc. U.S./CANADA ---------------------- http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/tilford_singer_7_15_02.htm FACULTY OPINIONS... On the rantings of Peter Singer By Dr. Earl Tilford download Tilford photo JULY 15, 2002 -- Dr. Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, speaking to the 2002 Animal Rights Conference held in McLean, Va., earlier this month, gave a talk in which he declared that consensual sex with animals is all right. Singer, who like the ancient Spartans and the more recent Nazis, believes disabled newborns should be killed, now states the case for bestiality. According to Singer, "Your dog or whatever else it is can show you when he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact." I guess that's why I learned not to cross my legs at the knee whenever Wolf, my toy poodle, was around.... --------------------- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
