Pro-test

[Somebody Else]

www.pro-test.org.uk and one opinion (http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/articles/20060201wash_hands.php) on it. Funny thing, on one side is a 16 year old boy, the other side an organization of some sort. Not quite sure which comes off as peurile, any ideas?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is the Speak thing the 16 year old boy? Considering their 'response' was naught but a bunch of slander and ad homenims, it would appear so. The Pro-test site seems to be a calm, rational one with facts and logic. Plus, the Speak site seems to equate having an interesting in firearms to being a lurking homocidal maniac.

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke Malcolm]

The former seems more polite, sensible, and just generally respectable, so one might assume that it is the organisation.
The latter is puerile, insolent, and as foul-mouthed as a 16 year-old, so that seems like the 16 year-old.

However, upon further investigations one can deduce the former is a small group and the latter is more substantial, which leads me to think that the Pro-Test is the 16 year-old boy, but is sensible, rational, and mature whilst the SPEAK is a group of immature people with nothing better to do than slander a 16 year-old boy.

[Marcellus]

Pro-test was the one founded by the 16 year old, although it is now a full organisation rather than one person and a website.

I do find it rather annoying how a few people who campaign for animal testing to be banned end up simply shouting 'how could you do that to those cute animals?' through tear filled eys instead of having a reasoned debate on the issue. SPEAK very much comes across as being made up of these sorts of people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pro-Test is the 16 year-old boy, but is sensible, rational, and mature whilst the SPEAK is a group of immature people with nothing better to do than slander a 16 year-old boy.Sums it up, eh? :balloon2:

These anti-vivisectionists (http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/articles/20060201wash_hands.php) totally lack any sense of humour. That 16 year old does know how to have himself a good time - check out his exploits at 'kittenhate'. :laugh4:
(Can't give you a link, not PG-13 material.)

[A.Saturnus]

It seems that the latest in a long line of anti-vivisectionist haters has muscled in on the Oxford lab debacle to try to rise above the mediocrity of his worthless, puerile existence in becoming the organiser of a new pro-vivisection lobby called Pro-test.

A comment beginning with that sentence imediately defeats its own purpose.

[rory_20_uk]

My recent favourite comment was one anti tester who viewed that drugs should be tested on people, and not animals.

The person in question did not seem to overly trouble herself at the logistics of this, let alone the increased time to achieve a single result. Just it would be better done this way... :inquisitive:

I hold the opinion that currently testing on animals is required, although efforts should be made to decrease as far as possible this need. Testing on tissues or organs only goes so far, so IMO there is some way to go.

Possibly a mix of criminals and the brain dead might be the ideal cohort to use??

~:smoking:

[Somebody Else]

Possibly a mix of criminals and the brain dead might be the ideal cohort to use??

Shall we start with SPEAK?