Sunday, October 6, 2013

Irreconcilable Differences.... INDEED

When it comes to the No-Kill Sheltering movement, I have always been squarely on board. Years ago, I read Nathan Winograd's books on the subject and found them enlightening, uplifting, and just plain exhilarating! California Federation of Dog Clubs, along with PetPAC, co-sponsored a no-kill sheltering seminar given by Winograd in Ventura, California at the July dog show cluster just a few years back. This was during the time when we were in the throes of battle with humaniacs who wanted every pet in the state to be spayed or neutered. 

At that time, I found Mr. Winograd to be a reasonable and earnest proponent of the cause of shelter reform. While he never mentioned being opposed to our mandatory spay-neuter proposal, he never outwardly advocated for it either. I had assumed that the groups asking him to do a presentation might have questioned his philosophy to see if it jived with the world view of animal owners and breeders.

In Mr. Winograd's seminar and his writing, there was never any blame placed on breeders or the public at large for issues with shelter killings; the blame was always placed squarely where it belonged, on regressive shelter management.There was certainly no mention made of blaming nebulous "abusers" for animals in shelters. Non-judgmentalism was the order of the day. 

It was a refreshing change from the lynch-mob mentality of the so-called "animal rights" groups who have always profited solely by highlighting pornographic pictures of animal abuse and neglect. In fact, Mr. Winograd is usually at odds with groups such as PETA, the HSUS, the ASPCA and is a very vocal critic of these groups who proclaim to be pro-animal but instead push for programs and policies that encourage needless shelter killings. At least, he criticized their killing ways, so one would think he also opposed other insane and illogical animal rights world views.I was happy to have him autograph my copy of "Redemption". I drove home with an exhilarating new hopefulness for the future of America's shelter animals.

I wrote a glowing, positive review for Winograd's book on Amazon. I joined the California Federation of Dog Clubs in order to help in the cause of public education to promote humane and responsible pet ownership, while at the same time ardently fighting to preserve ownership rights.

Meanwhile, as time passed, I noticed some disturbing trends. Clues that should have alerted my normally steady radar when it comes to trustworthy people. Winograd came out with a vegan cookbook. Well, OK, he's a vegan, but not an ARist who would ever try to legislate his way of thinking on the rest of us, right??

Wrong. Boy oh boy, was I ever WRONG.

Next we began to hear ramblings from Winograd about "puppy mills". In this blog post from 2012, Winograd answers a question about pet store sales:

 “Given that pet overpopulation is a myth, should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?” My answer was “Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills.

Say WHAT? Where to begin? Pet stores as evil peddler of abuse and greed, all the other bogus stereotypes. He goes on to describe his view of the horrors of dog breeding in establishments he slurs with the "PM" term. Naturally, we get no specific examples. Just hysterical ramblings.

And further down in the same blog post, Winograd states his opinion about breeders and the AKC quite clearly:

Moreover, I’ve held workshops on shutting down puppy mills or closing down their markets at every No Kill conference. I bashed the AKC in Redemption. And I believe that though dogs are not dying because of pet overpopulation, they are still dying. And as long as that is true, I believe people should adopt from a rescue or shelter. I also could not care less about maintaining breeds and never have. As far as I am concerned, if all dogs become all-mutt, that would be fine with me and probably healthier for the dogs. I’m a Heinz 57 man myself.

Funny, I attended that conference of his years ago, hosted by a dog show and dog interest groups. Oddly enough, he never made mention of his belief in "puppy mills", "adopt, don't shop", and had he mentioned his aversion to DOG BREEDS...well, I think you can imagine it would not have garnered a warm reception. I also read "Redemption" and honestly do not remember any jab at the AKC, but I'll have to go back and see if the stars in my eyes blinded me to the subtle displays of Winograd's ulterior anti-breeding motives.

Vegan...strike ONE. Puppy mill rhetoric, strike TWO! Bashing AKC for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it represents dog breeders: Strike THREE. 

But hey, we even have AKC breeders who buy into veganism and who call other breeders that "PM" slur, who are heavily involved in rescue; some even have those "until there are none, save one" and "if you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway" signature lines in their emails. They don't believe in their hearts that people should have the freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner. How about all the breed club people who believe no one should breed without health testing and dogs being titled? Hey, folks, these people are supposedly on our side and they walk among us.

Now we here at this blog have been openly critical at times of the AKC; But there is ONE big reason why AKC deserves our support. 

AKC is US. It represents the vast majority of dog breeders in this country. Rightly or wrongly in our methodology, we are the AKC and they are us. It's our family, and it is exactly what we make of it; no more, no less. Our delegates vote on the actions to be taken and on who will ascend to the upper hierarchy of the managing Board of Directors. The flaws of AKC are all our flaws. On the other hand, the very promotion and proliferation of dogs as pets in this country is due in large part to the AKC.

This is what separates us from animal wrongist "humaniacs". They don't want people to breed pets, or in fact to even OWN pets! That's the ultimate goal from their point of view.....NO PETS, no animals in our lives at all. "Enjoyment from a distance".
Does Winograd really differ from other humaniacs? Here is a quote from PETA's  president Ingrid Newkirk:

 "For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance."

Why, these words could have come directly from Winograd's mouth! He has paraphrased the exact same sentiments on his blog!! Ingrid and Nathan, long-lost twins separated at birth?

Winograd's objective was insidious but is now becoming crystal clear. His goals are the same as any other radical animal extremist group. Those stray sheep in our own flock need to eventually recognize the animal rights wolf at the door. And not just recognize the threat but ATTACK with our full force of effort! We hang in there with our own crowd, hoping they will "come to Jesus", because they are our eventual only hope to preserve a way of life that deserves preservation.

Winograd is exponentially more dangerous than assorted misled dog owners, because he sets himself up as an expert on matters of public policy regarding animal ownership.....while he doesn't believe in dog breeding!! According to him, dogs should just randomly mate and become free-ranging "Heinz 57" purposeless creatures. Or, worse, should all be sterilized until they no longer exist.

And what step would best separate people from their pets and from breeding? How about an ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY. Yes, this is the latest brainchild of this very dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing, this snake in the grass named Nathan Winograd. A registry with the intent to enshrine the names of “abusers” so that they will have a scarlet “A” emblazoned on their chest. Only not for anything quite as fun as adultery. The idea is for “Offenders” to be publicly known, and barred from animal ownership way beyond any legal penalties they may have already paid.

I went to Nathan Winograd’s Facebook page, which I had previously “liked” and tagged as a favorite for California Federation of Dog Clubs as well, to weigh in on this very onerous idea. I posted a few thoughts. Minor offenses like failure to license are considered animal offenses, should you be denied animal ownership due to that? What about dirty teeth? Chimed in another commenter. People have been prosecuted for that. Be careful what you wish for, someone else said, because when your rescue is busted for being over a numbers limit, you will then be branded “abuser”. One defender of the idea remarked “your veterinarian can speak in your defense!” To which I replied that there had been many unjust animal busts over the protestations of the accused’s veterinarian. I finished off my comment by stating that I believed that the rights of humans were being violated by misanthropists such as those in support of this registry. My friend Mr. Kirby also posted some thoughtful comments. We were met with venom such as this:

 "Brenda Mcnulty and I would say that THOMAS KIRBY and his ilk have shown their true u have children? how about I abuse them and see how u like it assholes."

Within a short period of time, lo and behold, all opposing comments were removed by Mr. Winograd. Also, I and other critics may no longer comment on that page! However, the offensive comment flinging the “asshole” insult and threatening our CHILDREN with their particular brand of misanthropist violence remains. Subsequently, Winograd posted a long, pompous statement, which for sake of brevity I will only include the beginning portion::

NW: Thank you for trying to respond to the inane, conspiratorial, anti-animal positions from Kirby and other trolls with your thoughtfulness and compassion. I’ve deleted and banned them.
I welcome criticism because criticism—when it is fair, thoughtful, and truthful—helps the No Kill philosophy I champion, grow. But criticism that defends an immoral status quo through selective use and even disregard of the truth is unconscionable. I used to spend a lot of time answering each of their criticisms, trying to educate them and others, and it’s been largely a waste of time. Instead of dialog, they attacked; instead of discussing the issues, they accused. Recently, you may have heard that Popular Science magazine no longer allows comments on their articles. This is what they wrote: “Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at, we're shutting them off.
”…. I would add that trolls are bad for the truth, too. I am joining Popular Science in two ways: I am turning off comments on my Huff Post pieces going forward and I am deleting and banning anti-animal, pro-killing trolls on this page.

WHOA. Let’s stop right there! Those who disagree with Winograd are automatically “anti-animal, pro-killing trolls” in his teeny tiny little mind! And the hypocritical Winograd, who proclaims to welcome criticism, shuts off comments and bans any disagreement. All in the name of science! He believes that his political machine gun of a registry is….scientific! He is omniscient and any disagreement is, well, simply wrong; and, worse than that, EVIL in intent!

What a giant crock of crap!

The concept of animal rights flies in the face of science. Science decrees that there is a food chain. Dogs and cats are not vegans, and neither are people according to the biology of our bodies. Science is the reason we include dogs in our lives to assist mankind as guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, guardians, herders, and hunters (watch the animal rights nuts heads explode trying to process the concept of HUNTING in the natural order of life). Science also has proven that pet ownership confers health benefits on humans; reduced blood pressure, lower stress levels, better heart health. Those who breed animals so that people can enjoy pet ownership are doing society a SERVICE.

Now THAT’S science.

Another commenter to Winograd’s page noted: Nathan Winograd I firmly support your no kill and totally believe in it but THIS I can not get behind. A registry like this will be abused. If someone was once convicted of animal abuse but is now legally able to get animals NOBODY has the right to say that they should not. I do not like the sex offenders lists for the same reasons. People will get put on the list for things that are not really abuse ( no water at the time of inspection, very minor things or having too many animals) these people do not deserve to be haunted for the rest of their lives by their conviction Many people that are convicted of animals abuse took a plea (I have talked and read many abuse cases) to escape a worse sentence even tho they really did not do any abuse. Many cases are bogus raids. This is like on a sex offender registry where the girl was 17 and the guy 21 (my parents) but girls dad filed charges. That guy does not deserve to be called a sex offender or harassed. Nor do those that are accused of abuse but no abuse happened. As for the ones that did abuse for real will continue and that will be found out.

But guess what?? A candidate for Los Angeles City Council, David Hernandez, has not had the opportunity to read any of the opposing points to this “abuser registry” concept, which as we have noted were removed. Only glowing comments with praise for this program remain. Mr. Hernandez writes on NW’s Facebook page:

“Can we implement this at a Local Level? As a candidate for LA City Council I am will to make this part of my platform…..Thank you, will get under way in presenting this to the Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles with the goal of getting them to request the Los Angeles City Council adopt it.”

Just peachy!

I believe I will never use the phrase “No Kill” again because it is inextricably entwined with misanthropist Winograd. From here on out, I’ll only note “successful shelters”. Leave the drama to the drama queens like Nathan Winograd.

Legislation proposal from those who wish to ban breeding and ultimately eliminate animals from our lives.


  1. Thank you for this blog post. For years I have posted that I did not trust Winograd and have said that I felt the No-Kill movement had outgrown the need for him. I have known for years that he self-identified as a pro-animal rights vegan activist. He's simply gotten more vocal and easily identified as such in the past couple of years.

    At one time I, like you, supported his movement and took his words at face value. When I started posting that I did not trust him, I was reassured that he was extremely trustworthy and that he opposed many animal rights positions. I am glad to see that other people are having their eyes opened to his shady rhetoric.

    I still do not believe in pet animal overpopulation. However, I believe that there is no overpopulation based on verifiable numbers, not on Winograd's say-so. Winograd needs to go away, so that we have more credibility when citing those statistics for the general public. He is definitely the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing and I do not doubt that he could also be a mole, as well.

    1. There are 3-4 million animals killed a year at shelters. The majority of animals killed at shelters are the hardest to place: 2.3 million adult cats & 900,000 pit bull type dogs are killed a year. We have an overpopulation of adult cats & pit bull type dogs and you can't force the public to adopt these animals. People want puppies & kittens and in two years many will be dumped at shelters. It's estimated there are over 70 million strays, mostly cats. You need to factor this number into your math equation: In ONE DAY & EVERYDAY over 733,000 puppies are advertised online by breeders. It's very hard for middle-aged to senior cats and pit-bull type dogs to compete with those odds stacked against them. The study I think you are thinking of states 17 million people want to acquire a pet, you cannot credibly equate 'considering acquiring a pet' with actual results."

    2. There are 3-4 million animals killed a year at shelters. The majority of animals killed at shelters are the hardest to place: 2.3 million adult cats & 900,000 pit bull type dogs are killed a year. We have an overpopulation of adult cats & pit bull type dogs and you can't force the public to adopt these animals. People want puppies & kittens and in two years many will be dumped at shelters. It's estimated there are over 70 million strays, mostly cats. You need to factor this number into your math equation: In ONE DAY & EVERYDAY over 733,000 puppies are advertised online by breeders. It's very hard for middle-aged to senior cats and pit-bull type dogs to compete with those odds stacked against them. We need to target spay/neuter the low income who are responsible for 80% of the pet overpopulation The study that states 17 million people want to acquire a pet, you cannot credibly equate 'considering acquiring a pet' with actual results.

  2. Whinograd trying hard to keep up with Pacelle.. his alter ego and true nemesis at the same time

  3. Two more posts.....let's see if they stay up. Here's the cut/paste:
    David Hernandez We have begun the campaign in Los Angeles.
    8 hours ago
    Jan Dykema yes because prison is such a kind and gentle place for people who have the mental illness called hoarding. lets brand them first with a scarlet letter them toss them in the clinker.. they will come out better people.. ready to join society again what bunk.. a registry will do not person any good and it certainly won;t do any animals any good those of you who compare this to a sex offenders registry?? well we know how well that works.. it doesn't.. every registry is a waste of time and resources
    10 minutes ago · 1
    Elizabeth Turner Brinkley Sex offender registries have been a notorious failure and led to harassment of often innocent people who have moved into a house where a sex offender used to live, cases of mistaken identities and the invasion of privacy of people not involved.
    4 minutes ago

  4. Great, great blog post!!! Disheartening because like you, I was at that CFODC seminar, and was in awe of the man. My only criticism was his posts/articles were way too long and verbose, but nothing evil about that. It seems there are quite a few drifters from our side to theirs. Is their propaganda really that powerful? It's one thing to complain about the lack of unity among dog owners and organizations, but at least we all had the same beliefs. Winograd should go back to his law practice where he can write longwinded articles and twist the truth to fit his own agenda. Glad to see him "outed" here and hope the word spreads. Thanks for writing such a compelling blog post!

  5. it's possible for child abusers to have kids. It's also possible for them to lie, use false names, etc. Also, "animal abuse" in CA includes being so "vile" as to make a sale transaction on a "public" street such as picking up an animal at a midway point Denny's (even if you see the seller face to face and see the anim al before paying the money) rather than say, driving from San Diego to San Francisco. Do we really need to "increase laws" and keep a list of such people? (or the person who used a perfectly safe overhead trolley tie out because they aren't allowed to have a fence high enough to keep their dog in the yard?), Or an owner who uses a gun as a humane killer for his horse with colic because the vet is 5 hours away (and would use captive bolt to do the same thing). . And oh by the way, since we have people who fake names and documentations, and don't seem to track people with severe mental illness to prevent them from shooting people, maybe we should use Govt resources for that instead of another useless "list". (CA turns out convicted criminals with major felonies and we want a list of people who failed to treat their dog for cancer?)

  6. I also fell for the Winograd No Kill Initiative as we had a fierce year-long
    battle in 2007 (which we lost!) over the San Antonio animal ordinance
    revision -- worst in the country. I bugged a local foundation to pay
    Winograd's $8,000 fee to come to SA and hold a seminar because the city
    wouldn't do it. Actually the city ignored his stand against legislation
    anyway so it was all for naught. I, too, have his autographed book
    "Redemption" and I don't remember him ever bashing AKC either.
    I receive Winograd's emails and I too have noticed the disturbing trends to
    "legislation" and now the "Animal Abuser Registry" to prevent animal
    cruelty. We've fought some of his "legislation" at our Texas state
    legislative sessions last two sessions. In fact we defeated the Pet Abuser
    Registry for the second time but it looks like the war is escalating. It
    will be back each session.

    Winograd told us at his San Antonio seminar that he was a vegan, but not
    "animal rights." I am now totally disillusioned and will never again
    promote No Kill. In fact, San Antonio and Austin are both having a major
    problem with so many unwanted animals after dedicating millions to No Kill
    Initiatives. Austin is in its second "No Kill" 5 Year Initiative and San
    Antonio just flunked their 2012 time line in spite of only picking up sick,
    injured or biting animals since 2007. Austin animal control recently put
    out an email saying: "Don't bring them here!"

  7. sadly, winograd's concept is directly responsible for shelter overcrowding as shelters designed to hold animals very temporarily were suborned into keeping them virtually indefinitely. It's also responsible for the "rescue shuffle" wherein a "no kill" shelter dumps the unadoptable on some other group so as to count these animals as "placed". It is responsible for blaming breeders for "overpopulation" caused by keeping animals significantly longer than the shelters were designed to accommodate and for the resultant limits on pets and increases in licensing. It's one thing to want to place those animals that really ARE placeable, it's another to insist that the one eyed, deaf epileptic dog must be kept alive for that possible adopter who might take it and that the public should not be given the option of selecting a locally bred dog from a breed of their choice.

    1. There is an overpopulation of animals, but it is of pit-bulls (largely backyard breeders or accidental breeding) and adult cats. There are not enough homes for these animals. The use of the words 'no overpopulation' puts undue pressure on shelters to adopt out animals for which there really is not sufficient demand. For pits and cats, spay and neuter is the solution, not blaming "regressive shelter management". There are bad shelter managers yes, but why is it pitbulls and adult cats that are the animals still euthanized year after year in shelters all around the country?

    2. Sadly, "no kill" sounded better than it was. The concept of trying to place shelter animals rather than killing them at 3 days (that was the original date in Kern Co, CA) is admirable. Keeping feral cats for 5, 10, 20 days, however, only drove costs for shelters sky high. keeping animals turned in due to advanced cancer or severe epilepsy also drove costs sky high. Inevitably, shelter numbers grew -- when you keep animals 2x, 5x or more than originally intended but don't have more kennels, this is an obvious result. This was blamed on "animal overpopulation" and the "throwaway pet" -- and there was some of that. It increased with people being told that breeders "should take back anything they bred" -- at ANY time in the animal's life -- and that the actual owner had little or no responsibility . It was compounded with harass ment of obedience clubs and animal trainers who didn't use the approved training techniques (no training being apparently preferable to using any aversive at all in training), with going after purebred breeders as "puppy millers" and "commercially driven greedy liars". Shortly thereafter, still using shelter "no kill" numbers as the reason, there was the geometric increase in dog licenses, restrictions on the number of pets a person could own without a special license and cumulating currently with the APHIS/USDA new regulations and the proposed PUPS bill. Winogard has probably done more to KILL animals than he has done to help them as people spay/neuter animals on the sacrificial altar of the current view that only neutered animals can be owned by a "good owner".

      So now we have the situations typical of Los Angeles City, where they tried giving away animals to reduce shelt er numbers only to find that the laws forbid giving away Govt property in this fashion and a fight between Kern County and the city of Bakersfield as to who "has" to deal with stray animals or feral cats (the city wants to only accept animals from someone who can prove they are a city resident. The county wanted to have it based on where the animal was located.). And all tout they use the "no kill" philosophy of Winograd. A reasonable idea of making good faith efforts to place the placeable has resulted in a nightmare of warehoused anmials kept in horrible conditions, frequent plagues of parvo and even distemper in the shelters, placements without care or concern as to suitability and breeders blamed for it all even though the number of clear purebreds or even "PAL" type purebreds is a small minority......

      The road to hell is paved.........

  8. Whiney weasel Winograd answers some commenters today. I am BANNED so I can't answer. So I'll answer here!

    NW: The proposed model law requires a conviction in a court of law. Are you against criminal convictions for abuse? Are you against a court ordered requirement that convicted abusers not have animals? And if you are not, why be against giving legally accurate information to shelters, rescue groups, individuals, pet stores and breeders looking to find homes for animals so that they know if the person has been convicted in a court of law for abuse and making it illegal to give, adopt, sell them one for a prescribed period of time?

    Yes Yes, and Yes.
    Against criminal convictions for "abuse" based on non-abuse crimes such as failure to license, being over legal limits, non-vaccination for rabies, minor cleanliness infractions, conducting a sale in a public place, breeding without a permit, and many other supid laws in effect nowadays.
    Against banning people from the love and blessings of having animals in their lives. DEAD AGAINST IT.
    And against a registry that would punish individuals even after they have PAID THEIR DEBT TO TO SOCIETY.
    You'll sing a different song when YOU are convicted of some minor offense and are banned forever from animal ownership, aided by stupid "registries" like this one.

    Now oh you who bans any dissent from your page, think on that for a while. You and any shelter you ever manage can easily be convicted when laws exempting shelters and rescues from these abuse crimes are lifted. You'll be at the top of the list.

    1. Excellent, and thank you. Did you all know that Mr. Winograd had written an article to the effect that he was REFUSED adoption of a dog by a rescue group when he worked at home and had a dog door and an apparently fenced yard? I think he has forgotten about that.

  9. An animal abuse registry is a notoriously bad idea. Lots of innocent people are convicted of animal "abuse". Mostly because prosecutors are taught how to prosecute cases, and NO ONE is taught how to defend an abuse case. Lots of innocent people convicted because they had lawyers that did not like the case, or people who did not have enough money. Besides, people are on sex offender registries just for urinating in public, which has nothing to do with a sex act. A 18 year old with a 17 year old girl friend can be put on a sex offender list. Most animal raids are done BEFORE 7 a.m. when most people have not changed the litter or walked to dog or changed the water or even gotten out of bed. Who here gets up at 6 a.m. to scoop litter and mop the floors? Seriously? Animal abuse registry is a very BAD idea and will not help ANY animals, because the individual abusers and the child abusers will never be put on an abuse list. Lots of CHILDREN abuse animals. Ever see 3 or 4 boys swinging a cat by a string tied around its neck?

    1. I want to know if they plan on putting CHILDREN who abuse animals on this animal abuse registry. I might possibly, maybe, be for it then, in a month with an X in it...

  10. I don't think it was a change of heart for NW. I have always distrusted him and told others that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Telling Breeders and regular dog owners what they wanted to hear and AR what they want to hear.

    I personally distrust anyone who thinks that hard line no kill is possible. There are many reasons that animals are being held by AC and one of the big ones is temperament issues. Animals with temperament issues are like criminals in prisons they can not function in society. Sometimes it is a genetic issue sometimes environmental, seldom can it be addressed adequately for reentry in society. Crimes/activity related to poor temperament are repeated and children and other animals are the ones that generally suffer.

    Sadly I feel vindicated by the article. My original mistrust proved to be well founded.

  11. What happens to the dream merchant when the dream becomes reality? He moves on to the "animal hoarder" and "animal abuser" platform with the rest of the Animal Rights Fanatics; all while no-Kill shelters are refusing animals thru one door, AND handing them out willy-nilly for free and without a home check to anyone thru the other door.

    I believe you are right in that we should have seen the signs. The No-Kill Advocacy Center issued a press release in which it identified itself as an "animal rights organization". I felt SURE this was a mistake.

    No-Kill needs to be fixed, because it is breaking. Animals are not being handled in ways that fit their best interests, as was intended by the No Kill Movement. Instead, Mr. Winograd ignores the obvious problems with the actual functioning process of No-Kill, and sets off into the ARF wilderness in search of some way to become meaningful once again, to join the crowd over there and try to become one of its leaders by usurping its twin battle cries of "animal abuse!" and "animal hoarder!"

  12. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. Winograd turns nothing but vile and hateful if anyone disagrees with him. And I knew that eventually his true colors would become clearer.

  13. It's both interesting and telling that the word 'vegan' garners an almost visceral reaction amongst the sycophant readership of this blog. Really, we come in peace.