In my post yesterday about Celtic Pets, I talked about another blog that is apologizing for Zonda and Alice MacIsaac for some unknown reason - and for some other unknown reason attacks me, and Netta Armitage and uses personal emails that we exchanged between Zonda MacIsaac after the raid last year to somehow prove that - either Zonda is not all that bad of a person, or that Netta and I are as bad as Zonda - who knows what the author of this blog is trying to prove.
The funny thing is that the author of this blog is guilty of doing the things that they chide me for of on my own blog - removing and changing things on blog posts - because they've done quite a bit of that on the post where they publish these private emails! But luckily for all of us - I copied the post when it first came out - so we can all share the love of what they originally published - and we can scratch our collective heads as to why they would feel the need to change it up.
So here we go -
The post is at "random email between a convicted animal abuser and two animal advocates in Nova Scotia" in case you want to follow along - I like the title, because at least they got that fact right.
The first hint you get that things may be a bit skewed is when you read the sentence - "About two months later, the shelter put down a handful of dogs that were being rehabilitated at Celtic Pets before they could be adopted." They're talking about after the raid and when Pam Keddy put down 5 dogs for being "aggressive" towards staff and the SPCA had no choice but to do it, supposedly - I find this sentence interesting, because they say that the dogs were being "rehabilitated at Celtic Pets" - just about anyone else on this planet would call those dogs "being tortured", or being "abused" - not "rehabilitated". I think you can get my drift.
It's interesting that the next sentence talks about the dog "Bre" - a big beautiful malamute. It says - "One of them was a big beautiful malamute named Bre. She probably have suffered a lot from being so confined for two months or more - the shelter is not meant for long-term care. The rumor is she became aggressive, but so far it's only rumor."
I say it's interesting - because this blog post doesn't have EVERY email that animal abuser Zonda MacIsaac and myself exchanged - one of those email exchanges was about Bre particularly.
Zonda emailed me a question after Bre was killed - she asked -
Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Please tell me something Joan...was Bre in pain and do you feel they were justified in euthanizing her (they legally weren't)but as an animal lover and not wanting to see a dog in physical pain, what are your thoughts.
My thoughts about this email are - why would Zonda be asking me if Bre was in pain? Maybe - did she know that Bre had been in pain for a long time and should have been put down a lot sooner - but didn't do it herself - and left it to the SPCA to do the dirty work for her? So I would say that she didn't suffer from being confined for 2 months - she suffered from being confined for 2 months - PLUS however long Zonda kept her confined in the living hell of the Celtic Pets kennel.
Now HERE'S something very interesting - a paragraph has been removed from the edition that Ms. Real Pooper originally published of this post - and the post you see today. Here is the paragraph that Ms. Real Pooper removed -
Because Zonda pled guilty to two counts of abuse (or was it neglect?)as part of a deal to get two of her own dogs back, there was no actual trial. But she can't have anything to do with dogs for 20 years.
Why would Ms. Real Pooper feel it necessary to remove that parapraph - I don't know - does anybody out there in readerland have any ideas?
I'm pasting the whole next paragpraph here, because it's full of gold nuggets -
After the raid a few people like Joan Sinden and Annette Armitage tried to support Zonda Macisaac. They soon changed their positions after getting a lot of flak. Joan then became a harsh critic of Zonda and to this day faults her with the ill-health and aggressive behavior of a dog named Jack that she adopted. Here's some examples of her recent opinion, an endorsement of Zonda that Joan posted in 2006, and what she had to say about the SPCA in September 2008. In many posts - some may have been deleted by now - she gives the distinct impression that Zonda was mistreating Jack, a dog that went through about a dozen foster homes that Zonda was actually trying desperately to keep from being put down. There is an email about Jack from one of these foster families.
"After the raid, a few people like Joan Sinden and Annette Armitage tried to support Zonda MacIsaac" - Zonda WISHES! We continued to support Zonda for about 12-18 hours after the raid - like everybody else did - until the animals started arriving back at the Dartmouth shelter, and reality started settling in and we knew that everything that Zonda had been telling everyone was absolute lies. The only support we gave after that was on a humanitarian level - hoping that she received the mental help that she needed - I even went on Global television and said that as a human being I could understand that she was in great pain and needed to get help and I hoped she would get the psychological help that she needed and people would have compassion for her as a human being. Only a person who is evil would want anything other than that - but to define that as support for Zonda as a rescuer, is definitely incorrect.
"They soon changed their positions after getting a lot of flak." See above - "getting a lot of flak" - can you imagine.
"to this day faults her (Zonda) with the ill-health and aggressive behavior of a dog named Jack that she adopted." I don't fault Zonda - I fault her Mother - Alice - with Jack's missing eye, his curled toe-nails, and his food aggression to Alice. How many times do I have to say that Jack went down to Cape Breton with TWO eyes and came back with one? And that he was living in a house with at least 37 other dogs that never went outside and he was living in a house full of shit and piss? There's no doubt that he's always had an attitude problem - he's had a ton of homes and foster homes and he's got some problems - but he's now 13 years old, and he was supposed to be going to a home that was "safe" and "healthy" and where he was going to be treated "well" and have "good healthcare" - and he got none of those things. He's got that now, anyway. So thanks a lot Zonda for placing him in a great home with your Mom - I'm sure Jack really appreciated it.
"an endorsement of Zonda that Joan posted in 2006" - that is a letter that is posted in the comments section of someone else's blog (it's actually a blog post from an American dog blog about the 2006 election when the NDP were saying that "personally I believe in breed specific legislation", and it's fallout) - my support letter of Zonda that she asked me to write - one of 170 other letters that people wrote before the raid - and mine is the only one being singled out? Where are the 169 other people's letters? And it wasn't posted in 2006 - that's when that blog post was written on the dogpolitics.com blog - but the letter was written in 2007 - the same time as the other 169 letters were written by people who were supporting Zonda at the time. That is very disingenuous of Ms. Real Pooper, don't you think? Maybe like the rest of the post?
"what she had to say about the SPCA in September 2008" - the NS SPCA is an organization that continues to grow and get better. They are continuing to work on their problems and are learning from their mistakes on an almost daily basis. The people who are volunteering at the provincial board level currently are sincere and willing to change things for the good of the animals and I think they're moving in the right direction - for a long time I didn't think that, and my blog posts at that time reflected that. I don't go back and change my posts to change my opinions to match my current opinions - unlike maybe Ms. Real Pooper.
The next couple paragraphs are very interesting once again - they are completely changed from Ms. Real Poopers original post - I'll post the original so you can compare the 2 versions -
the original -
In this email you can read other things that Joan wrote to Zonda about Jack, or Jackie, and other matters. Who knows for sure whether what she wrote then is the truth, or what's on her blog now? What is true is that she wrote both. The emails came from people who received copies. They are not responsible for this blog, nor are
any of the emailers. The content is unchanged; names and addresses of most third parties deleted, with some exceptions. Oops. We are not here to explain, accuse, or defend anybody, just to offer raw material. For answers, ask the authors, preferably in person.
The Real Pooper
And here is the current version -
In this email however it's clear that while Joan was bashing Zonda online, for some time she was very friendly with her and asked her for help in saving some of the dogs that were seized. She also shows a very different attitude to the SPCA than she does today. Who knows for sure whether what she wrote then is the truth, or what's on her blog now? What is true is that she wrote both. She claims now that she always writes the truth, but the question of personal integrity remains.
The emails came from people who received copies. They are not responsible for this blog, nor are any of the emailers. The content is unchanged; names and addresses of most third parties deleted, with some exceptions. Oops.
We are not here to explain, accuse, or defend anybody, just to offer raw material. For answers, ask the authors, preferably in person.
The Real Pooper
In the "new" version - Ms. Real Pooper questions my "personal integrity". That's interesting - why she would decide to add that idea into the mix.
In the blog post I'm talking about here, there are 58 private emails - 14 of them are from me to Zonda - and none of them do I regret. They were a means to an end, which I got. I got information, photos, and a dog named Jack. Ms. Real Pooper thinks she got something too - but she got nothing. This blogger thinks that they can have their cake and eat it too - apologizing for the animal abusers, and then titling the post - "animal abuser talks to animal advocates" - you can't have it both ways, Ms. Real Pooper, sorry.
The reason why I am able to write my blog posts is because I have little care for people like the "Real Pooper", or animal abuser Zonda MacIsaac - as long as what I say is the truth - it's writable. And I don't care about my "reputation" - because as far as I'm concerned, I don't have one - good or bad. When people see me on the street - they don't recognize me - I am just one of the masses moving through society - the interweb and the real are 2 very different places and they don't intersect - so there are no worries.
Lastly - I'll quote from an email I received last October - it's from Francesca Rogier when she gave her opinion about me which may give you, the reader, some insight into why I don't worry about such clap-trap when I read it (because I know it's untrue and not worth extra heart beats) -
October 28th, 2008 Francesca Rogier wrote in an email to me -
When you look at them from afar, you can see that behavior of these people - S, O, even the M - is all based on fear. They fear for themselves far more and far more often than they ought to. You don't have that kind of fear, Joan, and it shows, to your credit. It is a different way to be in the world, isn't it? Everybody has fear of some kind, but some people let it shape decisions too much. Anything can be perceived as a threat to their existence/ego/reputation. It's such a challenge to work things out and communicate clearly with people like that, because I can't help responding to the actions their fear manifests, rather than the fear itself.