They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.

The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.

So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.

Didn't you read the bulletin? Little boys are always attacking the girls they secretly like. Obviously APK thinks it gives him an aura of boyish charm.

But not to worry - his personality is sufficient to turn off anything with a pulse.

No. Taking the worst of the worst shelter practices is a bogus argument. Passing laws against animal cruelty (both in shelters, breeders, and owners), along with enforcement, is the proper way to fix the problem. Not "OMG look at how bad THEY are" when PETA is just as bad in it's own way.

Did you even READ the links on the Times story? How perfectly healthy animals are euthanized? How a government inspection found that 90% of all animals are euthanized within less than 24 hours? That's not even time enough to do an evaluation.

To PETA, "somehow unadoptable" translates into "Oh, we can't sell this mutt or this mixed-breed cat to a pet store for big bucks like we could with a pure-bred, so put it down."

Your "answers" just make my point.

We euthanized the dog because we don't know for sure. In such cases, it's NOT an over-abundance of caution.

We don't know for sure that fruit bats are the reservoir. "All research points to various species of fruit bats native to West Africa, which have been implicated in Marburg and Ebola outbreaks in the past" is not the same as "We know that fruit bats serve as the reservoir." So, again, we don't know.

Even the government has admitted that temperature screening is next to useless, wouldn't have caught Thomas Duncan (whereas passport screening would have), and has been roundly criticized as security theatre. And at least one airline (El Al) does passport screening, in response to bombers. When's the last time El Al had a hijacking? The first and last time was in 1968.

It's not what you know, it's what you "know" that ain't so, that will bite you in the rear. So, until we know for sure ...

As for who pays for the 23-day quarantine? Simple - you want to come here, you pay all the costs, same as any visitor, unless you're an aid worker sent to alleviate the problem.

By now, everyone with a clue knows he was never a patent lawyer, just a blogger who tried to intermediate himself into paid gigs (which he succeeded in doing with Oracle and Microsoft) by promoting the impression that he had expertise that he clearly lacked.

It's funny, I leave for a few years, and when I come back EVERYTHING is still the same. Florian Mueller is still whoring himself out as some sort of "expert", Canonical is still coming up with "this product will be the one!!!" every so often, my personal troll still tracks me down to post junk, and Slashdot still can't handle smart quotes in pasted articles. Ahhh, it's good to be back :-)

So much for the web moving on "Internet Time."

Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"

They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.

Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.

$35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.

^ THIS.

We were discussing the killing of his two children by cardiologist Guy Turcotte yesterday (found not criminally responsible, now under appeal). I was arguing with my sister, saying that you'd pretty much *have* to have something wrong in the head to kill your own kids - even if it doesn't rise to the level of insanity. She was saying, No, she could see how some people just get really pissed off and kill.

I guess if people can think this way about defenseless pets, it might be the same for their children. But it still seems royally messed up to me. If I were a juror on that case, I would want to hear the experts before making a decision, because that whole way of thinking just doesn't compute.

I still miss my newfie, my st. bernard, and my other newfie. (I stole the second newfie from a city pound when an animal rescue group got hold of me and told me it was going to be put down first thing in the morning, just walk in and take it, the person working there would look the other way provided I got there within the next 15 minutes - the other two were also from pounds). Cancer got the two newfs, and a wasting disease of the hind legs was the indirect cause of the infection that got the st. bernard.

I've got my mutt (who's now also getting old), and a couple of dogs from two neighbors (one who thinks he lives here, and one who wants to live here :-) So sorry for your loss, because I know what it's like.

Anyway, gotta go walk the dogs ...

A lot of people are noticing the similarities between the two. Crazy over-the-top behavior and a holier-than-everyone-else attitude.

Normally I would urge someone like you to use a condom to help prevent the spread of stupidity. However, with your personality, there's no worry about that.

As for the rest ... sheesh!