I don't think anyone has a problem with the RIAA encrypting content for their own benefit

Actually, plenty of people have a problem with that as it prevents "fair use" under copyright law. If I want to make a copy of a song for my personal use, that's perfectly allowable. I cannot, however, sell it. I can even distribute (very) limited numbers of copies, if I recall the judgements that happened during home taping lawsuits of the 70s and 80s. Essentially, making a few mix tapes is legal.

Except that isn'tPersonally, given how fast and loose PETA is with its "facts", I doubt pus is a major problem in the milk industry.

please do not categorize all those people involved with PETA by the fringe activists.

Except I'm categorizing all the people involved with PETA by the people that officially represent PETA and speak for it in the media, run their ad campaigns and preside over the organization.

My original post had nothing to do with fighting for animals to be treated better, I'm all for that. My original post stated that PETA is a questionable source and that they are willing to do and say crazy things for media attention.

I'm defending the "horse gambling industry"? Huh. Who knew? I do support the right of every horse to gamble, but that's about it.

And you're akin to conspiracy theorists who insist that you respond to every last thing they say, even if it has nothing to do with the point you're responding to. Are you calling me condescending because I pointed out that your analogy made no sense? Are you claiming I'm incapable of a "comprehensive argument" because I'm only quoting paragraphs instead of the entire post? Because you have no valid response to what I'm saying or because you're just as condescending as you claim I am.

Have fun with your posts full of random statements.

It was my response to your response to me. You couldn't follow that far?

If you are going to place my words in quotes, I would respectfully request that you take the whole passage and not just portions in order to fit your argument.

I took the parts I was responding to, quite large parts in fact. I'm not going to repost your whole letter when it is available just a few pages earlier.

Milk from a cow you equate to grass?

Why not?

I guess you don't feel the whole pus issue is worth noting in your response?

It wasn't one of the things I felt like responding to at the time, no. Not unless you're suggesting pus is meant for calves, not people.

the PETA point of view is a complete end to "animal ownership".

Really? Even though according to you "The organization allows employees to bring their "pets" to work with them, so that they are not left home alone." Seems like an odd contradiction there. Don't own animals, but if you do, bring them to work with you!

with no backup or supporting documentation.

How would you like me to show a lack of correlation. The first is the characterization of the actions of a group, the latter is the actions of a group being interpreted as the actions of all the individual members of the group, despite half the individual members or more disagreeing with those actions. Are you suggesting that PETA is similarly riven? Or that they don't like all animals? There's just no logical connection between the two statements.

PETA is a well establish organization focused on ending animal abuse. If they do crazy antics to get media attention, if some of their surrogates get carried away, then oh well.

You almost had that right. PETA is a well establish organization focused on crazy antics.

Sorry, milk IS bad for you. It is meant for calves, not people.

Yes, and grass is only meant for goats, not cows. How inane to think only one kind of creature can gain nutrition from a single type of food.

As far as pets being enslavement, categorically untrue. The organization allows employees to bring their "pets" to work with them, so that they are not left home alone.

Perhaps they've changed their tune, wouldn't be the first time. However, they've made that statement in the past. Any particular reason you've put "pets" in quotes? Are they pet rocks that they're allowed to bring, not real pets at all?

Minimizing and marginalizing PETA's work on behalf of animals is the same as saying that America's current behavior globally is a direct reflection of the character of each individual citizen in the country.

Actually, no. The latter statement doesn't follow even as a comparison.

I know, I know, PETA isn't paying you all that much so we take what we get, but you could at least try to be coherent.

That's the best you could do for quotes about why horse racing needs to be changed or abolished? There are good reasons for change in horse racing, but using PETA as a source removes all credibility. This is the same organization that claims milk is bad for you and pet ownership is slavery.

You need to do a better job evaluating your sources.

You're reading racism into the article 'cause that's what you want to see. Salon could post "Today I had a sandwich" and you'd find racism in it. Perhaps you need a vacation.