I want to give a shout out to ProSense.

[grantcart]

182. horse slaughter?

Did you really think that I was specifically referring to a particular posting about your interaction with her on horse slaughter?

Her general M.O. is driven by extensive citation of the available facts and clear reasoning. Of course its possible that personal experience can put a person into a position to have a better perspective than what is commonly available and that is entirely possible about the question of sustainability and culling horse population. The fact that you use the word 'slaughter' leads me to wonder if you have a bias to that question because, obviously, it is possible for herds to over populate and require humane reduction. I don't have any facts or experience on the matter and you might be 100% correct on the issue, but the word 'slaughter' is an emotionally charged one.

My comment on 'wild assertions' was a general one and not specific to you or your particular issues as I have no idea what issues you post on.

Your term 'e-thug' however is a comical example of the kind of responses ProSense threads generate and the ones that she demolishes.

There is no thuggery here, there are only facts, analysis, analogies and logic. It recalls the old line that President Truman used when someone shouted "Give em hell Harry", and he responded "I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think its hell".

ProSense doesn't engage in thuggery but responds, in most cases, with facts and reason, and her adversaries think its thuggery.

Now as I said you may have a point of personal knowledge on a particular subject that you are more well informed than ProSense or anybody else at DU about. Its still up to you to make the case in such a way that the expertise you have makes sense and is convincing. My work, for example, brings me into contact with scientists and biologists who work for NOAA, the DOD, Fish and Wildlife. The several dozen individuals who I have had contact with have all stated that their work was severely restricted and interfered with during the Bush administration and that it is 100% the opposite now. One more than one occassion I have sat in sober silence while a doctoral level biologists has teared up and in some cases cried at how they had to compromise their life work while working for the Bush administration. The change afterwards was palpable.

So to summarize. That you would infer that my general response was specific to you, that you use emotional charged terminology, that you find it possible to be the victim of 'thuggery' when exchanging viewpoints in a discussion forum and that you think that this administration has sold 'animal welfare' and the 'environment' 'down the river' does give me sufficient facts to judge your opinions vis a vis ProSense. Finally occassionally I will see someone post a 'pat on the back' thread to someone that I disagree with. I try to stay away and let them have their moment and engage them in the future. Therefore I am surprised that you are surprised that on a thread like this that people who share similar points of view would make it a point to stop by and say something positive. I think even the most casual observer here would not be surprised that ProSense and my positions share a lot in common.