Things Don't Ad Up - VeganPolice.com.au

Photo Credit: ToGa Wanderings via Compfight cc

A number of people have contacted me asking about the comment that I made which was screen shot was taken of, and appeared in a recent article on Ecorazzi.com

While I don’t normally get involved in Fakebook drama, on this instance, I feel that I need to because something needs to be said, and it has to stop.

The comment, which is linked below relates to Gary’s vendetta he has against Casey Taft.

A vendetta that is now crossing the lines into an obsession.

An obsession that is getting more hostile with every comment/post that Gary Francione writes.

Background

As you can see from the comment above, it was my belief that comments made by someone supporting Francione were made by a fake profile.

This claim has proven to be true, by the author’s own admission in the Ecorazzi article.

Yet, the author chose to criticise ALL feminist vegans for not coming to “her” defence when the comment was made.

Even though it is a fake profile, for some reason we are all supposed to automatically believe that the accounts that this person has written of are true.

I guess these people have never read a fiction novel or heard of a ghost writer.

Fake Concern

While Gary Francione may feign concern, and Camp Francione mimic comments, the rest of us know different.

He is only concerned about someone’s situation when it allows him to push his own agenda.

In this case, the vendetta against Casey Taft.

Camp Francione are about as concerned about the violence that females within the animal advocacy movement face, as they are people in food deserts. The latter they tell to eat lettuce and tomato sandwiches or rice and beans.

Genuine concern must start with an acknowledgement of their own actions, and the way that they treat others.

Where was the concern from Camp Francione for those with mental illness who are constantly trivialised by Francione’s “moral schizophrenia” label?

Where was their concern for the families of those who take their own lives every day after Francione trivialised suicide in a political comment?

Follow The Evidence

Let us consider the publicly available evidence.

  1. Judith Woolf (fake profile) makes a comment on the blog of Casey Taft.
  2. This comment is allegedly ignored. (Who can blame him for not responding to a comment made by fake profile?)
  3. “Judith” then goes to add a comment, on Gary’s Facebook page supporting a rant against Casey, despite Gary asking for no comments.
  4. Gary allows comment to remain.
  5. “Judith” has made no other comments between early May, and now (late June). Then all of a sudden, “she” is listed as the author of a post on a website that is no longer impartial or accepting of anything that isn’t “Francione approved”.

What makes it even more interesting is that they (Judith) took a screen shot of the comment I made, despite only Gary’s page being tagged in it, to use in “her” rant against “feminist vegans”.

This also fits Francione’s narrative of “abolitionist approach vegans” being the only ones who truly care about others.

“Judith”, either took a screen shot at the time, or went searching through the images here to use it the published piece.

This leads to the questions that should be asked, a) if the screen shot was taken at the time the comment was made, why hold on to it for so long, and how did “she” find out about it? b) If the screenshot was only recently taken, how did “she” find it when she wasn’t tagged in it?

Remember, the Facebook page of Gary Francione was the only one tagged in the comment.

What makes this even more interesting is that Gary made comments outside of Facebook, in relation to this article. Something that, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t done in the past.

He has also called the lone dissenting voice a troll.

Then there is the recent comment made by Francione that the editor of Ecorazzi.com contacted him to let him know that an article was being removed from Ecorazzi.com and, that “We have a full copy of the comments as they were being copied as added.”

Why would the editor of an allegedly “independent” website notify a third party that a post was being taken down?

Could it be that said 3rd party was influential in authoring, or getting the article published?

Things aren’t adding up here…

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
+1
Share