Joan Sinden wroteon April 26, 2009 at 8:15pm
Well there's a lot of untruths in there - they said that Netta Armitage had her membership revoked, they said that Netta and I stopped supporting Zonda after the raid because we were getting too much flak, when in fact we stopped supporting her because we found out that she actually had been abusing animals, they say there's an endorsement by me of Zonda posted from 2006 when in fact that is a post by someone on another blog about the 2006 provincial elections - but some guy named Dave copied my letter that I wrote supporting Zonda - of which tons of people also did - when she was asking for support letters - before the raid - on that post from 2006 - so I had nothing to do with that post or comment. They said that Zonda MacIsaac's abuse of the animals in her care was unintentional - and we all know that was untrue - so we can get a very good feeling from that who this "blog" is being slanted towards. And that is only a few of the "untruths" written in the commentary.
What I write in my personal emails to other people is always the truth.
Whether it's to an animal abuser, or a friend. What other people write on
their blogs, I have no control over. Written communications are unfortunately always filtered through the brain of the reader - and sometimes the reader only sees what they want to see, and interprets it in their twisted way - and then transmits it to the world to suit their needs.
I stand by everything that I have ever personally written. With no apologies. Zonda MacIsaac is not the only animal abuser who has ever contacted me - and I've corresponded with them all. My Dogkisser blog gets over 5,000 hits a week and is growing all the time and my Charlie loves Halifax website has gotten over 1,000,000 hits - so I get a lot of emails.
Joan Sinden
Well there's a lot of untruths in there - they said that Netta Armitage had her membership revoked, they said that Netta and I stopped supporting Zonda after the raid because we were getting too much flak, when in fact we stopped supporting her because we found out that she actually had been abusing animals, they say there's an endorsement by me of Zonda posted from 2006 when in fact that is a post by someone on another blog about the 2006 provincial elections - but some guy named Dave copied my letter that I wrote supporting Zonda - of which tons of people also did - when she was asking for support letters - before the raid - on that post from 2006 - so I had nothing to do with that post or comment. They said that Zonda MacIsaac's abuse of the animals in her care was unintentional - and we all know that was untrue - so we can get a very good feeling from that who this "blog" is being slanted towards. And that is only a few of the "untruths" written in the commentary.
What I write in my personal emails to other people is always the truth.
Whether it's to an animal abuser, or a friend. What other people write on
their blogs, I have no control over. Written communications are unfortunately always filtered through the brain of the reader - and sometimes the reader only sees what they want to see, and interprets it in their twisted way - and then transmits it to the world to suit their needs.
I stand by everything that I have ever personally written. With no apologies. Zonda MacIsaac is not the only animal abuser who has ever contacted me - and I've corresponded with them all. My Dogkisser blog gets over 5,000 hits a week and is growing all the time and my Charlie loves Halifax website has gotten over 1,000,000 hits - so I get a lot of emails.
Joan Sinden
The emails themselves suggest that Annette Armitage was kicked out; we made the necessary correction.
It may or may not be true that what she writes in personal emails is "always the truth". We can't know that for certain. Comparing the emails to her blog is a different matter, as she admits herself that what she writes in her personal emails differs from what she writes on her blog, as with her assessment of Zonda Macisaac for many months in 2008. We wonder exactly when she found out that Zonda had hurt animals, given the length of time Joan conducted her correspondence - months and months after the shelter was raided. We think Joan doth protest too much.
We do not take delight in labeling somebody an "animal abuser" in any instance and especially not for someone who not long before the raid was considered a vital part of the rescue community. Especially when there was no actual trial and she pled guilty as part of a bargain to get two dogs back - which to our knowledge had been seized illegally (because they were her own dogs and showed no signs of abuse - to our knowledge). We hope that some day the full story will come out in court, perhaps on appeal. Until then, as there are too many unanswered questions and not a lot of images to go by, we can't agree that "we all know" anything to be true or not. We'll just reserve the title of animal abuser for somebody who drowns cats or hits pomeranians in the head with a hammer.
As a final observation, we find it rather puzzling when Joan complains that readers filter written communication through their brains. Is there some other organ they should use? We sort of thought it was the reader's task to interpret text for themselves. And good thing, too! Who better? Their "twisted way" notwithstanding, clearly Joan also interprets text and "transmits it to the world" to suit her needs - doesn't that describe her blog, or anybody's blog, for that matter?
