|
Exchange
between Mr. Cohen and Jeff Nelson in which Nelson asks Mr. Cohen if he
would like to make a public response for Nelson to publish when publishing
Dr. Walsh's Open Letter
Subject:
article
Date:
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:50:04 -0800
From:
Jeff Nelson
Organization:
VegSource Interactive, Inc.
To:
Robert Cohen
Hi
there, Rob:
How
goes? Round here we were hacked the end of last week with all the
discussion boards on VegSource having been hit,
and we've been picking
up the pieces and moving on.
Meanwhile,
I want you to take a look at this "open letter" from Stephen
Walsh which he's asked me to run:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/walsh_openletter.htm
You've
already seen it. Stephen may have come on a little strong here,
which you may not have appreciated. But beyond
that, I think he may
raise some valid points that are worthy of consideration and discussion.
I'd
like to get a response from you, if you'd like, to publish with this
when I run it. I don't want to take sides
here, I'm not an expert. But
I know that I, and I think a lot of our audience,
would enjoy seeing a
dialog on this issue. If Walsh is all wet,
now is a good time to point
out exactly where. On the other hand, if
he raises some valid points,
on consideration you might want to respond and
make some fixes on your
article.
Lemme
know.
Jeff
----------
Subject: article
Date: Mon,
28 Jan 2002 13:47:40 -0500
From: Robert Cohen
To:
Jeff Nelson
Dear Jeff,
The last time you
wrote to me and represented that
you don't take sides, I was unceremoniously threated
that you would throw me off of vegsource. You also
eliminated the NOTMILKIN in bulletin board with no
notice to myself or my readers, then called me
"wakced-out" in a public forum, and blocked any
opportunity for me to respond. Not bad for
guy who does not take sides.
Steve Walsh is a destroyer.
He followed me around England trying to saboutage my talks.
Three hundred people attended my lecture at Regents College.
When Walsh walked up to the stage and spoke, dirupting my
talk in the middle, what came out of his mouth was:
"Robert Cohen is a
liar."
My wife and three
children were there to witness that.
I later learned that
Walsh is employed by one of Europe's
largest chemical companies, the equivalent of Monsanto.
He clearly had an
agenda.
In my book, Milk The
Deadly Poison, I wrote that
spleens from laboratory animals injected with Monsanto's
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone increase
by a factor of between 39 and 46%. I also wrote that
the group treated orally had increases of 8%. Apparantly,
Walsh claims that I am claiming that all of the animals
experienced 46% increases. My book clearly states the
extent of the adverse effects. I am no liar.
After the Regents
lecture, he followed me about 200
kilometers and repeated the same stunt. He was not there
for truth. He was there to disrupt.
Any one of the 300
EarthSave witnesses will tell you that
I stopped the crowd from booing him, allowing him to make
his points, which he did with venom.
John Robbins has already
pre-judged me.
So too have you, apparantly, Jeff.
What you did to me
was a major disappointment.
Now you seek to take it to another level.
The further I distance
myself from you, the better
off we will both be. That remains clear from your past
actions, and your present threat.
I do not like being
the recipient of your agenda,
whatever that might be. Should you wish to attack me
as vindication for the John Robbins incident, I will
consider that all all out declaration of war.
It's your site. Do
whatever you please, but be warned.
Cross that line, and you burn every bridge between us.
I have previously
ignored your pre-emptive strikes and insults,
your snide public comments about me being out of whack,
and your erasing every one of twenty or so files related to
myself and my work that appeared on VegSource. You are a
vengeful guy, Jeff.
If you wish to continue
to wage war between us, know that
I will react in kind.
What John Robbins
pulled (including your strings) was
a mean and vengeful act. Your actions may very well bring
the entire vegetarian movement to a new level.
Robert Cohen
---------
Subject:
Re: article
Date:
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:54:07 -0800
From:
Jeff Nelson
Organization:
VegSource Interactive, Inc.
To:
Robert Cohen
Hi,
Rob:
Comments
below:
Robert Cohenwrote:
>
> Dear Jeff,
>
> The last time you wrote to me and represented that
> you don't take sides, I was unceremoniously threated
> that you would throw me off of vegsource.
Rob,
when I wrote you about John Robbins' soy article, and you turned it
into a discussion of JR, I never said I wasn't
"taking sides." I said I
believed you were wrong about your take on him. And you are.
You don't
create truth by spewing out a bunch of insults,
as you did with John.
Nor
were you "unceremoniously threatened" that you I would "throw you off
VegSource." I asked you a number of times
if you would remove JR's
article. I tried to reason with you. I would do the
same if it were your
article you wanted removed from someone's site
where I had some
involvement. I told you that if you were going to persist
in doing
something unethical (refusing to remove someone
else's article from your
site), that I didn't want to have a part of that, and that you should
find
other hosting if you were going to follow that
course. I urged you to think
about it and not make some hot-headed response, which is exactly
what you
ended up doing. You were given a choice and
encouraged to take your time
making it, and didn't.
The
article was then removed from your other sites by the other ISP because
it clearly *was* copyright infringement.
You think you have a right to
steal someone else's work, maybe because you put
in 18 hours a day or
whatever. Hey, you could put in 24 hours
and donate 100% of your income to
PETA. That does not give you a right to steal.
So
what did you get for all your bravado? You made a stupid stand and
broke
faith with me on something you were totally wrong
about. It's not like you
were making a stand for the animals or something
ethical. You made a stand
in order to have the right to spit in JR's face
and keep his article up when
he's asking you to take it down. It's unsupportable.
> You also
> eliminated the NOTMILKIN in bulletin board with no
> notice to myself or my readers, then called me
> "wakced-out" in a public forum, and blocked any
> opportunity for me to respond. Not bad for
> guy who does not take sides.
Not
true. You are not blocked from posting on VegSource. You can
post as
Rob Cohen and say just about anything you want.
If you're having some
problem, let me know and I'll have you do a test
on our test board where
there are no blocks and we can see.
As
for turning the board over to PCRM and removing you, did you think after
behaving like an idiot and saying you're leaving
VegSource that I'm going to
leave the board up and not get someone else?
You gave *me* notice, that you
were leaving, after I specifically urged you to
"think about it."
And
yes, it was "whacked out" what you did. No reasonable person would
think that you've behaved in any decent way here,
just being angry and
abusive, and cutting your nose off to spite your face. Think
about it. It
was a temper tantrum, and it was "whacked out."
"Whacked out" was being
kind.
>
>
> Steve Walsh is a destroyer.
> He followed me around England trying to saboutage my talks.
> Three hundred people attended my lecture at Regents College.
> When Walsh walked up to the stage and spoke, dirupting my
> talk in the middle, what came out of his mouth was:
>
> "Robert Cohen is a liar."
>
> My wife and three children were there to witness that.
>
> I later learned that Walsh is employed by one of Europe's
> largest chemical companies, the equivalent of Monsanto.
>
> He clearly had an agenda.
>
> In my book, Milk The Deadly Poison, I wrote that
> spleens from laboratory animals injected with Monsanto's
> genetically engineered bovine growth hormone increase
> by a factor of between 39 and 46%. I also wrote that
> the group treated orally had increases of 8%. Apparantly,
> Walsh claims that I am claiming that all of the animals
> experienced 46% increases. My book clearly states the
> extent of the adverse effects. I am no liar.
>
> After the Regents lecture, he followed me about 200
> kilometers and repeated the same stunt. He was not there
> for truth. He was there to disrupt.
>
> Any one of the 300 EarthSave witnesses will tell you that
> I stopped the crowd from booing him, allowing him to make
> his points, which he did with venom.
I
don't know anything about your UK trip or any "agenda" you believe Walsh
has. I was writing to ask you about the specific
comments he made about
your article, and instead you're turning it into
an attack of him. Why not
respond to what he said about your article, and
whether or not there's merit
in those specifics?
Just
as when I wrote asking if you would respect John Robbins' request and
copyright, and remove the article, you wanted to
turn it instead into a
personal blast at JR and his being "unsupportive" of you.
Maybe he is
unsupportive of you, maybe he isn't. So what?
(I think he's definitely is
unsupportive now, after the way you behaved.) But what difference
does it
make who JR is as to whether you remove his article
from your site? It's
*his* article.
This
is your way of dodging questions -- use a personal attack to divert
from the issue raised. That's unfortuante, and
it seems to be a pattern
here.
>
>
> John Robbins has already pre-judged me.
> So too have you, apparantly, Jeff.
What
do you mean pre-judged? You mean hosting 6 sites for free for you
for
years, saying 'yes' when you asked to speak on
Saturday at the e-Vent,
saying yes when you asked for a VegSource discussion board, etc.
etc.? How
is that pre-judging? I saw what you wrote
to JR and how you were treating
him, and saw your unreasonable refusal to remove the guy's article,
so I
asked you to take it down myself. I didn't
try to get into a discussion of
JR, you brought that up. I told you I thought you were wrong
there, but the
main thing is I told you to think about it, be
smart and just remove the
articles or else get hosting elsewhere. And I only said that
after
corresponding with you several times about it,
I didn't issue any ultimatums
or anything. So you decided to get hosting
elsewhere. That's not
"prejudging," that's letting you make the decision.
>
>
> What you did to me was a major disappointment.
> Now you seek to take it to another level.
What
I did was to object to your infringing on someone else's copyright, the
copyright of a friend of mine. I'm sorry
if my standing up for my friends
and what's right was a "disappointment" to you.
>
>
> The further I distance myself from you, the better
> off we will both be. That remains clear from your past
> actions, and your present threat.
My
"past actions?" Hosting you for free for several years? I
could see how
that could be offensive to you.
And
what "present threat?" There are no threats. You're making
that up.
>
>
> I do not like being the recipient of your agenda,
> whatever that might be. Should you wish to attack me
> as vindication for the John Robbins incident, I will
> consider that all all out declaration of war.
That's
ridiculous. You're just being ludicrous. Vidicating what?
You're
the one who seems to have some bizarre need for vindication.
As
for the Walsh open letter, he sent that to me a month ago and asked if
I
would publish it if you didn't respond, and I said
okay. He gave you a lot
of time to respond. I read your response
to him. The Walsh letter is
something I planned to do with you and Stephen
long before the JR thing
appeared.
>
>
> It's your site. Do whatever you please, but be warned.
> Cross that line, and you burn every bridge between us.
Burn
what bridge? I would say your letter last week that you'd rather
leave
VegSource and me, rather than pull the JR's article
down was a pretty good
torching. See, you really have your priorities
straight.
>
>
> I have previously ignored your pre-emptive strikes and insults,
> your snide public comments about me being out of whack,
> and your erasing every one of twenty or so files related to
> myself and my work that appeared on VegSource. You are a
> vengeful guy, Jeff.
This
is all bullshit.
>
>
> If you wish to continue to wage war between us, know that
> I will react in kind.
You
mean you'll publish one of my articles on your site, pointing out the
false reasoning (after giving me a chance to respond
before the article goes
up)? Go right ahead. In fact, when
I've been contacted by people pointing
out problems in an article I did, I'm interested
to know what they say and
correct it if I think they're right...
>
>
> What John Robbins pulled (including your strings) was
> a mean and vengeful act. Your actions may very well bring
> the entire vegetarian movement to a new level.
Nah,
more bullshit. This kind of stuff doesn't work with me...
Jeff
---------
Subject:
DO WHAT YOU WANT---I HAVE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Date: Mon,
28 Jan 2002 15:17:54 -0500
From: Robert Cohen
To:
Jeff Nelson
Dear Jeff,
There is nothing to
gain by arguing with a man
who warps truth as thoroughly as you do. Do
whatever you want, that's your choice. Use
VegSource as a powerful weapon of vindictiveness,
and you negate everything that you pretend to
believe in. Be aware that if you seek to destroy
me, the only appropriate response that I can
have is to defend myself by revealing you and
and many things that you do as being phony.
You are in a position to fire the first shot.
I warn you. This will not be a shining moment
in our movement. Let your ego get in the way
of truth and you will regret starting this.
---------
Subject:
Re: DO WHAT YOU WANT---I HAVE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Date:
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:25:08 -0800
From:
Jeff Nelson
Organization:
VegSource Interactive, Inc.
To:
Rob Cohen
Whatever...
I could just publish the emails and no one would think I'm being
vindictive. If you publish our emails without commentary,
people would read
them wonder why I stood for the crap as long as
I did.
I'm
going to run Walsh's article, Rob. I asked you to respond rather
than
publishing the obscene response you sent to Walsh,
which would make you look
bad. So I guess I'll just publish your threat
below, that you're going to
"reveal [me] and the many things [I] do as phony"
if I let Walsh criticize your
article. John Ashcroft would be proud of
your tactics. :-)
close
window
|