Why Create "About TEARS"?
On December 31, 2009, I received a phone call from a friend of mine telling me that "they" were closing down TEARS (The Emergency Animal Rescue Service). Initially I thought she had to be mistaken, but once I got online and searched some of the local MSM news sites, I realized that she was not mistaken. To say that I was utterly amazed by some of the things being said and reported about TEARS would be an understatement! Just a few weeks before the raid on TEARS, I was at TEARStown adopting my dog. I don't think there could be a greater contradiction between the place where I adopted my dog and the place beginning December 31, 2009, the media was reporting as being TEARS. At that point, I truly had to know which of the two was the "real" TEARS. For the next two weeks I did a lot of research and in doing so I kept finding more and more conflicts, contradictions, and untruths (whether intentional or unintentional, I don't know) regarding the TEARS that was making headlines. During that time I contacted someone who loves animals more than I do (if possible) and whose integrity I hold in high-esteem. I knew that this person not only would never be an active (or passive) participant in any type of animal cruelty and/or neglect - but would actually report any activity that even remotely resembled such. I also knew that this person had extensive, regular, and recent experience with TEARStown. With the promise that I would never divulge their identity, anything that they told me, or the fact that I had even contacted them regarding TEARS, I asked that person to in all honesty help me resolve the conflict I was having between which TEARS was the "real" TEARS: the one being reported in the media or the one I knew I saw the day I adopted my dog and that my dog represented. Obviously I have since received that person's permission to reveal that this conversation did, in fact, take place. But unless I can independently do so, I will not reveal any of the details that person shared with me. But what I can reveal is that this person's answer was basically this, "believe what you saw - not what you are being told."
At one time I believed (hoped) that there was a website where anyone who was interested in the TEARS situation, regardless of their opinion, could express their comments/opinions and share information regarding this matter as long as no one threatened anyone or used abusive language. Had that in fact been true, I actually saw no reason for there to be any more sites devoted to the same matter. But, imho, this site went from appearing to be "neutral" to slanting toward one side. Posts representing that side would be posted over and over again and over again. All comments posted by the spokesperson for that side had their comments treated as though they were the gospel while any comments/information from the other side was attacked immediately. And then that site became unabashedly one sided when the site owner stated, "She reserves the right to prohibit all comments, to delete or edit all or any portion of any comment made, and to ban any commenter or IP address from making any comments to this blog." I already knew that one since even before that rule was made I had tried posting information that the other side probably didn't really want made public just to have my post deleted immediately. After that rule (and the others) were adopted I even tried to post a comment pointing out the one-sidedness of one of the site owner's comments (my post began, "in all fairness"). Needless to say, that post was deleted as well. And I will be the first person to say that any website owner has the absolute right to post anything she/he wants posted and to delete anything she/he doesn't want posted on their website. But with that website going from "neutral" to blatantly one sided and the fact that one side of this situation has done everything in their power to try this case in front of the public instead of in a court of law, I am no longer willing to allow just one side to be represented by a website without having an alternative for the public to consider as well.
In this blog I will try to be very clear as to what is strictly opinion, what is fact, and what are just random thoughts.
~pita7763~
.
At one time I believed (hoped) that there was a website where anyone who was interested in the TEARS situation, regardless of their opinion, could express their comments/opinions and share information regarding this matter as long as no one threatened anyone or used abusive language. Had that in fact been true, I actually saw no reason for there to be any more sites devoted to the same matter. But, imho, this site went from appearing to be "neutral" to slanting toward one side. Posts representing that side would be posted over and over again and over again. All comments posted by the spokesperson for that side had their comments treated as though they were the gospel while any comments/information from the other side was attacked immediately. And then that site became unabashedly one sided when the site owner stated, "She reserves the right to prohibit all comments, to delete or edit all or any portion of any comment made, and to ban any commenter or IP address from making any comments to this blog." I already knew that one since even before that rule was made I had tried posting information that the other side probably didn't really want made public just to have my post deleted immediately. After that rule (and the others) were adopted I even tried to post a comment pointing out the one-sidedness of one of the site owner's comments (my post began, "in all fairness"). Needless to say, that post was deleted as well. And I will be the first person to say that any website owner has the absolute right to post anything she/he wants posted and to delete anything she/he doesn't want posted on their website. But with that website going from "neutral" to blatantly one sided and the fact that one side of this situation has done everything in their power to try this case in front of the public instead of in a court of law, I am no longer willing to allow just one side to be represented by a website without having an alternative for the public to consider as well.
In this blog I will try to be very clear as to what is strictly opinion, what is fact, and what are just random thoughts.
~pita7763~
.
