Presenting a united face.

[Guest guest]

>While we can disagree among ourselves, to the outside world we must

>present a united face.

 

When I read this in the original email, I just deleted the email as this is an

impossibility.

 

We are very much like the rest of society.

Church groups do not get along and do not present a united face.

Your local Parent and Citizens clubs do not get along and do not present a

united face.

The environment movement often disagree within themselves and do not present a

united face.

Staff of organisations and corporate concerns do not present a united face.

Take any section of society and look to see if they present a united face. They

do not and to expect us to present a united face is putting a further burden on

us when most of us are suffering from compassion burn out.

The other night we saw on TV here how the Mormons do not present a united face

because some believe in polygamy and others are speaking out against it. People

will speak out against what they do not believe in but to expect us to just

present a united face to the public is to expect us to Super Super human.

 

How can we present a united face. We are people with different ideas and aims.

We believe in different ways of going about things and believe in different

approaches to a problem.

 

So if I believe one way is the right way and everyone else thinks I am wrong,

are you going to give up you view just to present a united face to the public.

You would need to do this as I would not give up on my view just to present a

united face to the public.

 

Does this mean I have to present myself as supporting an animal welfare group

who is doing something I don't like such as mass euthanasia, just for the

public. I would not do it so we can't present a united face.

 

Does this mean that orgs that are spending heaps on wages should get my support

when facing the public, even though I do not support that. Do not expect us to

be super human.

 

If you had to support my ideas when facing the public, even if you do not agree

with me, you would just resent me for putting you in that position. No we have

every right to voice our opposition .

 

Last year many of you in a very public way (on this list and in public)

demonstrated public opposition to Christine Townend. You had every right to

voice opposition and she said she would not try to stop you protesting. But she

also had every right to support what she believed to be true. Does this mean you

are willing to support Elephant polo to present a united face to the public. No

you want to reserve your right to be different.

 

I also thought most of you were wrong in your attack on Christine Townend. I do

not support elephant polo and do not support any animals performing but I do

know Christine Townend very well and do believe she did what she thought was the

right thing. I have spoken to Christine Townend personally when she was back in

Australia and could see her the dilemma she was in. I heard the full story which

this list did not. Are you going to back down to present a united face to the

public. Of course you are not.

 

We are different and we should celebrate that. Some animal rights people are

taking steps to have their voice heard that I strongly disagree with. I am not

going to present a united face with them to the public.

 

Lets be reasonable. We are different. Do not expect anyone to present a united

face. If you do you are expecting an impossibility to happen and you will be

disappointed. Accept that we are like all humans and will disagree over many

things. On some things we will agree and we should make the most of that when it

happens.

 

Lyn