Re: If Ogilvie was smart

On Jan 27, 11:32 am, Adam Hart <Adam.H...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:19:37 -0800 (PST), "John M."



<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:43 am, Malcolm <Malc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <fcfnp3tqge3p4v8m9ui5hffs98ic0a6...@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil...@xxxxxxx writes>If Malcolm Ogilvie was smart he'd be doing something like this -
rather than counting birds and "advising" Scottish Natural Heritage.

Could you not get anything better, Malcolm?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-01-25-ratalternatives_N.htm

Several years away yet, it seems, but very much worth pursuing.

I think we can all say "Hooray" to that.

It means, too, that ARists will also benefit from formerly, animal-
tested drugs - which previously their ethical conviction prevented
them from taking, didn't it?

And have the animals died in vain? I don't think so, we all benefit
from history thank you very much. If it had not been of the death and
destruction of millions of animals in the past some of us now may
never have seen the light.

So that makes it all right does it, Pete? So why eschew meat from
animals that died in the past, but accept drugs tested on animals that
died in the past. Seems you want it both ways.
.