Revised: Dec 23, 2012; 19:29 GMT
SRUV received a one-line email in response to a recent post. The message is reproduced in its entirety below, followed by our reply.
* * * * *
Your e-mails are unsupported rhetoric and I hope that responsible people just trash them. I do.
Associate Professor of Law
Animal Law Program
- - - - - - - - University
* * * * *
Hello Jane Doe,
We've been thinking about your use of the word responsible. We understand it is intended to humiliate us. Of greater interest is that you have made a defamatory comment about the people who, rather than trash our letters, find them of some interest.
The simple truth is, SRUV is a blog, not an academic paper.
Yet we make every effort not to talk down to our readers, or to call the views of our opponents trash. If you take our emails out of your trash bin you will notice that each of our major posts ends with an appeal for cooperation. For example:
Letter to the Animals & Society Institute:
"Perhaps ASI will serve as a beacon in this forthcoming discussion and lead all of us to a new perspective on public safety. Perhaps ASI will lead us to the realization that as animal advocates, we can fulfill our moral and ethical responsibilities as animal stewards by a wiser use of our resources, by directing our compassionate care to the animals who are often the victims of pit bull attacks, and by finally acting to diminish the number of those attacks."
The Future of the APBT:
"Millions of pet owners and tens of thousands of attack victims, and their families, look to the UKC for responsible leadership on this issue."
Rescue and Relocation (the post which gave you such offense):
"Pit bull advocacy groups such as Bad Rap, Animal Farm, and others, who have unwittingly encouraged the proliferation of the breed, are positioned to lead this campaign."
And so on. Your email was an attack on SRUV, not on our proposals. As responsible readers we couldn't ignore it.