ant
Novice
Sep 30, 2004, 12:52 AM
Post #2 of 18
(2403 views)
Shortcut
|
Dear Zazi, I decided to reply your post as you seemed to have taken my note seriously enough to respond positively. (Though, some of your remarks, I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not) First, you seem to be suspicious of my name. Don't be; I really don't have time to play games with you or anyone on this list. I am NOT a supporter of Mr Manjeet and I will not waste my time trying to defend him. From the way he writes, I can clearly see that he is perfectly capable in supporting himself. And he seems to be doing a good job of it too. So, if you don't mind, I do not wish to comment about him. I am nobody to judge your intentions of wanting to help PAWS but in all sincerity, I feel that if anyone wants to help PAWS, they should not go on a collision course with them. Such a move serves no one and it will be the animals who suffer at the end. I think the point about PAWS needing much improvement had been made. And I think that Mr Manjeet on behalf of PAWS to have conceded this is very gracious of not only him but the committee as well. (Even you mentioned that Manjeet admitted the mistakes) And I think we should respect him for it even if we don't agree with everything he or the PAWS committee says. But what I can't understand is that some people are not satisfied with this and seem to want blood! I think one needs to wisen up and find a point of building bridges rather than burning them in order to work together for the betterment of PAWS. Judging from some of the relentless arguments in the varioius posts, it is clear that some people have a personal vendetta to score with certain persons in the committee of PAWS rather than to fight for the real cause. I want PAWS to improve but NOT at the extent of helping certain individuals in the group to settle their personal scores, get employment with the society, become President, etc. Regarding the "polls", I don't think anyone needs to be ashamed about it. But in all reality, it will never qualify to be a real "Poll" and it will only serve certain narrowminded interests of some. If there is was a real poll or gauge that is sincerely interested to find out how people felt about PAWS, then people would be clearly welcoming of my response for example instead of trying to discredit me or run my down shamelessly like some Dodo did with his childish and baseless allegations against my post which I wrote in all sincerity. His or her paranoid email just went to underscore my argument that some people are not necessarily out there for the betterment of PAWS = animals but for reasons better known to themselves. I make it a practice not to waste my time with such hogwash that is why I chose to respond to you instead. I didn't know that you are trying to start another shelter. This is great and I think is THE BEST answer to PAWS. And I am very glad that you are willing to welcome the expertise of PAWS in your organisation. This is the right way to go about it as we all as animal lovers have a bigger war to fight against non animal lovers at large than PAWS. Do we all realise this? Seeing some of the posts, I seriously wonder. My policy is we should be helping other animal shelters in whatever way we can - not fight against them because we are really outnumbered. Finally, by all means let's continue giving our point of view to PAWS and Mr Manjeet via email. But please, let's refrain from making below the belt statements, unfair statements and untruths. You mentioned that PAWS hasn't had an AGM since donkey's years. Well, we all know that and PAWS has admitted it. We just have to wait and trust in good faith in the next few weeks and months for PAWS to call for a proper AGM. By the way, I will not be able to attend it when that time comes because I am not a member of PAWS. This is a reality that we have to face. Whether we like it or not, only members of the society are legally allowed to enter. This may be unfair to many of us but that is how the law goes. So it will be up to the official members of PAWS to bring up the issue/issues at the AGM. That is why I have been trying to point out that some of the things that "we" have been doing is also illegal. We may not like it but that is how the law goes. (If anyone knows otherwise, then please do correct me here because that will be useful info for me, too) From my experience with societies, every society has the right of taking in members and refusing entry as well. (Unless PAWS constitution says otherwise) If donors are not happy with this, then just STOP donating to the soceity. That is the only way that you can express yourselves. But you can't do something that you have no right to when you are a non member. Maybe as Mr Manjeet pointed out, the mistake is also with us. We should've become members long ago before we started fighting PAWS where we would now be able to put in our democrative right in voting for the people we think should best run PAWS. Zazi, as for your remark that PAWS should have gone ahead with the handful of committee members, you are mistaken here because in every society you need a certain quorum to have a proper meeting and one can have a meeting as one likes. I hope these comments of mine gives you an accurate picture of what I meant and where I stand in all of this. Just because I don't agree with all of the anti PAWS views doesn't mean that I don't want to animal shelter to come out tops in animal care. ant
|