Did he love them?

A question came up on this blog not long ago in the form of an accusatory comment: “When did you last hear him talk about loving his animals?”

As I work on this story and discuss it with people, I get that question a lot: “Did he love his animals?”

It is posed to me so frequently that a couple of months ago, I told Doug Spink what people were asking. I expected him to be offended. Most people with animal companions don’t get asked questions like that. It’s just assumed that we love them.

But he wasn’t offended. Just the opposite.

“That’s the question they should be asking,” was his answer.

In the course of our interviews, Doug Spink has spent many hours talking about his four-legged companions and how much he misses them. There has been tears, and intense mourning, and anger for what could have been if the raid never came. The other day, we sat down for a few hours with 600 photographs of his seven dogs and four horses, and went through them one at a time.

He talked about their personality traits. He spoke about the bonds they shared with him, and with each other. He told me who was inseparable from whom; which ones formed tight friendships, and which did not. He showed me pictures of the big bowls of high-quality food he mixed up for the dogs and horses at mealtime, “always a happy time”, meals which included vegetables he grew himself. He showed me favorite toys they played with, and the different colored bandanas he dressed them in day to day, plus the seasonal ones they had for the holidays, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving and St. Patrick’s Day. I saw the fuzzy warm coats he bought for them to wear when the rain and winter bite rolled in, and the cozy blankets he wrapped them in while they were sleeping.

Whatever you might think of this story and Doug Spink, the question of “Did he love his animals?” isn’t the difficult one to answer. There are other, more complicated questions that surround this subject, deep philosophical ideas about the bonds we share with other species on our planet, and the roles we should play in each other’s lives. But this isn’t one of those hard questions.

FYI: I still haven’t been able to find out from Whatcom Humane Society executive director Laura Clark if his dogs are dead or alive yet, but I will. New information is filtering in every day from a multitude of sources. Whether that happens before the book is published or after, I firmly believe the truth will become known. As it should be.

Did he love them?

View the photo gallery and decide for yourself.

19 thoughts on “Did he love them?

  1. Compiling these pictures was probably the best response to the baseless “He didn’t even love them” claim that could have been put forward. Our detractors are nothing if not persistent though (and/or ignorant) so I don’t exactly expect these pictures (proof, imagine that…) to sway all of them and keep them from making such claims again in the future, but at least it stands as a post that can be linked back to when they do.

    I have a hard time believing that they ACTUALLY think Doug’s Dogs and Horses were never loved, and this situation showcases a very large problem with attempted discourse thus far: The opposing side makes baseless emotionally-appealing accusations of abuse or neglect, and then the onus falls on us to prove that it DIDN’T happen. Truly, it is guilty until proven innocent, but I thank you Carreen for apparently not embracing what has, sadly, become the status quo.

  2. I tried to think of a witty response to this, or something meaningful…

    In the end, it just served to remind me of how easily our lives can be disrupted by people immune to reason and blinded by hatred and ignorance.

  3. They are wonderful pics. As said above, it just sucks the joy out of you to know that the system took them all, castrated and dispersed them to friends and family of the humane society and rescues based solely on bigotry and hate. That’s assuming some are not already dead, “for their protection.” :(

    I just cannot imagine how hard it would be for Doug to deal with that.

    Everyone (zoo or not) is living as fragile an existence, IF the authorities ever decide they hate you or “your type.” This recent example never fails to amaze me: There’s a case where there were all these allegations of terrible abuse and neglect, hints of brutal injuries noted by vets, yet when the case finally went to trial, the only thing that they really had was a general hatred of the person’s published views, and one entry on neglect which was that “the dog’s nails needed to be trimmed.” That was it. By that time the animals in that case had been “dispersed.” These lies are more subtle, but they’re still lies, if you are intelligent enough to wait for the trial before judging someone as guilty. In fact, the state typically seems to hope you’ll plea bargain yourself into a guilty plea (so they can avoid a trial and don’t have to have their lies exposed) just to avoid shame, which arguably doesn’t work anyway, as then you will be known as convicted. But it costs them nothing to give it a try, even if they have to throw it out at the last second.

    And sure, you can fight these charges and allegations, but it costs you tens of thousands of dollars to do so and many months, and by that time you are probably fired, ridiculed, your family has already been stolen and dispersed to friends of rescues and/or been euthanized, and the internet is full of lies that can never effectively been unsaid about the original hints and allegations (no-one ever looks at the trial documents and says, “oh, all the evidence about X or Y has magically evaporated, so I better take down my story that I wrote quoting all the BS that the sheriff said.”)

    I challenge the people who work for the welfare of animals to actually stop for a moment and view each case independently and think “if we have to make up a bunch of lies to make this case work, maybe we don’t really have a valid basis for the case in the first place?”

    Even if you hate people, the truth should be enough to judge them on without just making shit up.

  4. Doug may have exercised poor judgement about the HUMANS who he invited into his life and home which allowed all of this to happen, but there should be no question about, “Did he love them?” when speaking about his animal family. Of course the authorities out on this “witch hunt” could care less about whether he loved his animals….or even fundamentally about the animals at all! Their only REAL goal was to strike a blow at an outspoken zoophile…..the best interest of LOVED and well taken care of animals be damned.

  5. I love my dogs.
    I love my cats.
    I love my children.
    I love the little boy from across the street who watches me mow.
    I love the chickens from next door who wander over for scraps.
    I love the horses that come running to see me as I walk past in the evenings.

    In different ways and to different degrees these are all dependent on me, I am responsible for them.

    It is wrong for me to take advantage of my position and have sex with any of these.

    Call it incest, call it pedophelia, call it bestiality. It is wrong.
    It is wrong to the very core of what it means to be a human being.

    Feeling love for someone or something does not impart a license to have sex with it.
    Having sex with any of these is not a demonstration of love for them.

    Have sex with an adult man.
    Have sex with an adult woman.
    Have sex with both.
    Have sex with your hand or a vibrating machine.

    Leave those who are dependent on you out of your sexual activities.

    All of these are powerless to say no.
    Any sexual contact is by definition forced.
    Any sexual contact with any of these is rape.

    It is not about your needs it is about their needs.
    This is not about orientation or freedom or lifestyle, it is about responsibility and self control.

    Having sex with a child who depends on you is the same as having sex with a dog who depends on you.

    Both are especially selfish acts.
    Both are especially evil acts.

    • “It is not about your needs it is about their needs.”

      So mature, uncastrated animals wouldn’t have needs or even wants (how specist of you to assume that only humans have sexual desire)? I contend it would be selfish of you to deny them these due to some misplaced puritan code you have. It is not about your needs, it is about their needs.

      “Having sex with any of these is not a demonstration of love for them.”

      Nowhere in any of these pictures is any sex act conveyed. These pictures were put forth to address the notion that “he didn’t even love them”, and after looking at those photos, do they look unloved and uncared for?

      I would also disagree that having sex with mature animals has an inherent lack of love in terms of demostration. If they did not want such contact, then I agree wholeheartedly that it would be abusive and such people should be flogged, but one could also argue that it in fact IS a demonstration of love. To provide sexual release for them despite the almost guaranteed prospect of being ostracized and possibly jailed says a lot about how much you care for them. It is the context that is important not merely the act itself.

      “All of these are powerless to say no.”

      You’ve never seen an animal object to something? A bath? Medication or a vet visit? Non-sexual play with an individual they don’t get along with? Pestering? The problem that you and so many others have is that they think of sex as something sacred and that only Humans (way up there on their pedestal, looking down upon all others) are capable of deriving pleasure from sex.

      Looking at Dogs specifically, they can tell us when they’re hungry, tired, excited, need to go outside, injured, bored, and a whole host of other states, but sexual desire is somehow unique in that they’re wholly incapable of saying both yes or no… which would make all instances of mating cases of mutual rape. To this you might say “Well, animals have their own language and can understand one another”, to which I point back to the things we CAN understand and ask you to simply speak for yourself in your lack of understanding toward sex

    • NJ, you seem to be one of those who’s understanding of animals is low, despite claiming to like them. You are one of those people who as much as you almost certainly don’t realise it, really do see animals as objects. An animal is not a child, they are not a trophy, they are not a delicate antique that must be treated with kid gloves. They are living, breathing, thinking beings. They have their own personalities, their own likes and dislikes and as much as it may horrify you to know it, they have the ability to demonstrate their feelings.

      Intelligently most would come to the conclusion that as animals are fully able to object very strongly to unwanted sexual attention (if you don’t know this, then straight up, you don’t understand animals) then they are fully able of expressing this same objection to a possible human suitor. Of course this is ignoring the cases of animals, female or male, of many different species, who have been observed openly soliciting sex with humans. I guess when you see animals as fragile little leaves in the breeze then you probably can’t see this. Or you shut it out. Because how can something so unable to be independent and unable to show any kind of emotion or choice as an animal is in your eyes be able to want sex? How could this terrible situation occur?!
      Well i’ll tell you how. It happens because unlike some humans animals don’t have any hang-ups about sex. For them it isn’t a dirty word. They have nothing to be prudish about, no reason to feel guilty and no forcefully programmed morality that somehow they should feel bad for thinking outside their own species.
      To see this type of situation as rape is simply laughable and flies in the face of all logic. But then hey what’s new? When has any anti-zoo argument ever had any genuine logic or intelligence behind it ;)

      Now of course someone such as you NJ, as mentioned in the previous reply to your post, is likely to turn to the argument that we are unable to understand animals well enough to understand the signals. Of course some people wouldn’t understand the signals, or may misinterpret them. Mostly these people are the anti-zoos who don’t believe animals can want sex, so go figure on that one. Well I will let you into a little secret. There is an area of biology that almost exclusively deals with understanding behaviour of animals. I know! I was as shocked as you likely are to read that. Well I would be if I didn’t already well understand this. But I gotta recommend some reading if it’s new to you. Might teach you a whole lot.

      It is a great point in the human race when we reach a time that it is more ethical to surgically castrate an animal at the earliest possible age to try and prevent him doing anything that might make you embarrassed in front of polite company than it is to provide sexual relief for them.
      Actually that’s another point really. If animals did not show sexual interest in humans why would anyone ever get them spayed/neutered simply to prevent aforementioned “embarrassing” animal behaviour. Guess that’s another thing to ponder.

      The dependence card is a good try but the thing is you are trying to use it whilst comparing animals and children. A child and an animal will never be the same thing no matter how much some middle aged women might wish they were. The big, massive possibly even gargantuan difference is that an adult animal is a sexually mature being, a being for whom there is no baggage associated with sex, a being who can not be made feel guilty by society for what they did.
      Of course you then do spoil it somewhat when you get sucked into using the archetypal terms “powerless” and “forced”.

      I think I will finish by touching on another point made by zetas212. He/she hints that to ignore an animals sexual needs is making your needs higher than theirs is. Actually more accurately, it’s forgetting they even have any needs. Not only would I concur fully with this but I would further add that to ignore your animals sexual needs, either through a misplaced sense of moral exceptionalism or any other reason can be called something you alluded too at the end of your own post.

      Bet you never realised the especially selfish one was really you did you NJ. Because I can tell you now you have definitely done a damn good job of proving that’s the case.

    • @ NJ–Have sex with an adult man and/or woman? Right. There is almost ALWAYS a power differential like you describe in your comment ERRONEOUSLY equating zoophilia with pedophilia…..EVEN in those cases where one chooses THAT type of “normal” sexual relationship. So, where do you draw the line now? Sex is really OK only when between financially matched partners? Or is it socially matched?….or maybe INTELLECTUALLY matched based on IQ’s that are no more than say 15 points off? There are MANY MANY examples of HAPPY marriages where a wife (or husband) is…..as you put it…..DEPENDENT upon their partner in one way or another.

      What you describe is the very reason that zoophiles more than general pet owners take better care and are MORE in tune with their animals so that they are able to understand and respond to those animals’ needs and wants. To equate sex with a dog to sex with a child (and hence indicate that there likewise can be no consent from a dog as there can be no consent from a child) is the ONLY way an anti-zoo can attempt to back up their argument that sex with an animal is wrong (or EVIL, as you put it). The problem for anti-zoos is that their argument is so easily torn to shreds by even the slightest amount of critical thought.

      It’s this simple: Even if a child’s body wants sex, it IS wrong to exercise the power differential an adult has over that child since the child cannot make an informed decision to risk pregnancy and/or future emotional guilt or “second guesses” about what they have done. They grow up and possibly may regret what they have done or feel taken advantage of because of youthful lust and urges. A dog WILL NEVER GROW UP! Provided that he/she is sexually mature (and ANY zoophile will respect their partner’s body and will not be sexual until that animal has matured), any desire clearly communicated to a human partner will NEVER be regretted or “second guessed”. A dog will never feel guilt about seeking and experiencing pleasure. PERIOD.

      The only thing you proved with your comment is that there are indeed many ways to love and express love….not all of them sexual. Zoophiles almost to a one not only LOVE their animal partners, but in many cases are IN LOVE with them….as much as any human is in love with a partner. This is why it is natural as can be to express that type of romantic love in a MUTUALLY pleasurable sexual way.

      • My only issue is that you said “A dog WILL NEVER GROW UP!” which seems more of a typo mistake from my read of your views: Once a dog is sexually mature, they HAVE grown up, and they CAN make their own desires known, as they often do (for example, when you try to take certain dogs out in a thunderstorm, or try to trim their nails, or try to take them to the vets or groomers…)

      • That was not really a typo….it was more of a lack of clarity. At that time I was obviously comparing a dog to a child (or more specifically, showing how they SHOULD NOT be equated). The point is that unlike a child who may grow up and mature EMOTIONALLY (long after they are mature in body), a dog at sexual maturity IS as grown up emotionally as he/she will ever be. Therefore, the emotional issues that young adults (humans) often have due to beginning their sexual lives too early are NEVER experienced by a dog. This simple fact is what destroys an anti-zoo’s argument equating sex with a dog to that with a child. They BOTH can consent…..IF you look at what their bodies want…..but a child may grow up (emotionally) and regret what they have done. A dog…..as you point out…..IS grown up already.

    • Leaving at the door any personal feelings on the subject, simple understanding of animals and of children easily reveals that there is nothing wrong with consensual sexual relationships with mature animals, and that mature animals are not children. I have noticed that all arguments against romantic relationships with animals boil down to religion (which can’t even be backed up if you’re Christian as that part of the Bible was declared null and void by the newer parts) and a lack of understanding of animal behavior, anatomy, nature, and intelligence. Of course, anyone who believes that animals can’t give or deny consent really has very little understanding of animals and/or experience with them, meaning they shouldn’t have anything to say on the matter in the first place.

      • The problem is where you said “….which can’t even be backed up if you’re Christian as that part of the Bible was declared null and void by the newer parts.” The fact is that YOU may read it that way, but a Christian has a way of cherry picking the parts of the old testament which FIT their viewpoint or argument, while saying that the parts which are “inconvenient” to their lifestyle should be “overwritten” by Jesus in the new testament.

        Most pro-zoo arguments I’ve tried to make to people involve the consent issue…and as you or ANY thinking being realizes an animal IS able to consent to sexual activity. I do not usually even engage with those who object on religious morality since ALL religion is based on the whispery smoke of “faith”….which CAN NOT be argued against (:->) (my opinion)

    • NotJulia

      Adult Mammals typically possess the same glands and equipment. These organs, and their initiatory activators, operate in much the same way across the species. We’re talking about; pituitary, hypothalamus, thyroid, testes, ovaries, etc.

      Specifically, adult mammals produce estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, oxytocin, as well as FSH, LH, allopregnanolone and all the other good stuff that operates “the business”, “the mystery of life” or “the little miracle”. . . whatever obfuscatory, analogical or prudish term we might employ to describe it.

      Even a mediocre school-leaver is familiar with these fundamental biological and physiological facts, they are practically indisputable. They’re open to metaphysical discussion, the cosmic yoni and all that, but we’ll stick to terrestrial orthodox science to keep things simple.

      “The business” to which we’re ascribing here is the reproductive system. Us mammals do this bizarrely weird thing whereby we provide sustenance to an egg that is thereafter – in theory – mated with genetic code to produce a new life out of two others. One side effect of this process, for the female, is what we politely refer to as a “period” that occurs each time an egg is “ready” to receive an injection of code from the outside world. Not only that, but the female, as well as the male’s behavior and thought processes, alters significantly during these “cycles” to pull this situation together and make it happen.

      We experience psychological effects such as: lust, love, pair-bonding, affection, pleasure, erotic dreams, desire, fantasies and emotional warmth as part and parcel of the process that is: “making it happen”.

      We can expect some physical activities such as aggression between the males themselves and even certain social ritualistic ceremonies. It largely depends upon the biological makeup, genes, cultures, social mores and personal beliefs of those involved as to how all this plays out. Things aren’t always cut and dry, sometimes bonds develop between members of the same sex and sometimes bonds develop between individuals who possess differing genetic code. . . to name just two alternative natural processes that can occur during the reproductive cycles.

      With alternatives such as these; genetic, social, psychological and cultural diversity is promoted. Species and individuals thereof converge and diverge dependent upon their environments. (There’s some significant ecology to discuss here but we’ll move on…) Convergences result in survival adaptions at a number of levels, including the sexual reproductive level. If this didn’t occur then generations would cease to adapt to their environments and consequently cease to exist.

      Human beings fall under a category of mammal. That means all adult mammals, including human beings, barring extenuating circumstances, experience something along the lines of the processes outlined above. This is what “we” are at this point in time. All of us. There is no moral pedestal, no spiritual hierarchy that makes one species or gender better or worse than another, and certainly no Man-In-The-Sky-With-Sandals-On where relationships are concerned.

      I’ll finish up quickly with several other considerations…

      *) A “child” is not a permanent “dependent”. To conceive a child with the wanton desire to stunt their growth, comprehension and potential as well as to “deliberately make them a life-long dependent” is psychologically pathological. Psychologically healthy mammals raise their “children” to autonomously look after themselves and make choices as an adult. Obstruction of that process is what we might call “abuse”, i.e, chopping pieces of their bodies off to curb their ability to explore their world and referring to that individual as a child at an age when their bones are creaking with arthritis. That’s somewhat demeaning of everyone involved, it’s devolutionary, naturally counter-productive and ultimately inhibiting to any form of progress, and again, signs of …psychological instability, I might go so far to say.

      That someone persistently and deliberately fails to perceive this dynamic is further signs of a psychological condition we might refer to as a, “Egosyntonic” condition. In layman terms with regards to the situation, it means someone who makes decisions for others based upon only their own perspective, as though there can be no other way of conceptualizing reality but through the lens of one’s own particular mindset. The world is shaped, pruned and grafted in the image of their own ego.

      *) Children are pre-pubescent offspring lacking reproductive faculty. Adults are not.

      With that simple piece of logic, for the reader’s sake at least, consider the machinations of a contemporary factory farm.

      A “big child” is placed in a “rape rack” and impregnated via AI by a factory farm worker. A “little child” is conceived. The mother – I mean “bigger child” – lactates to nourish her, or rather “the miraculously conceived little child” (Because children can’t conceive children, produce milk and there’s no such science as biology and physiology, right?).

      The “little child” is taken away and roped up in a “veal crate” by the factory worker. The “little child’s” nourishment is forcefully taken from the “big child” by the factory worker and sold to corporations. In a merely unbalanced world, it’s acceptable to behave like this where “big children” are concerned, they must deserve it or something?

      What about the real child in this situation? The baby. Only in an absolutely psychotic world, is it acceptable to take a baby from her mother in order to sell him or her for the specific reason that her “flesh is juicy”….ahhh, of course, it’s OK to take a “little child” from a “big child”? (or something like that? Apologies that I can’t follow your thought processes on this, with what qualifications I have, I must admit to difficulties wrangling with your conceptual circus)

      The punchline is: Both the “big children” and the “little children”, are dependent upon the factory workers.

      An entire industry of child abuse? Is that what all this is considering all other non-human species are children according to your beliefs?

      I’d wager that you are actively participating in your very own definition of child abuse. If you eat meat or even drink milk, or products containing it, you are a part of the process.

      Recognizing that myself, I personally do not participate and would outlaw the exploitative industrialization of life were I able. Would you?

      How does it make you feel that you don’t care? I think it’s so sad that you’re here pretending to give a damn about the truth when clearly you’re only here to “win” with your hypocritical arguments that are so feeble and transparent they amount to little more than castles built on sand. It’s as though real lives are nothing more than pawns in a game to you. A game you egocentrically and megalomanically seem to think you own and hold all the rights too. That’s so incredibly and genuinely sad that I feel sympathy for you.

      • Shard, I dunno who you are, but … wow. That was well written. It really does pop the lid off of the logical farce of the whole thing.

        I think that it’s almost comical when people try to talk about consent as an issue, because they are so selective when they wield the concept: They don’t care about consent in any farm setting, as you point out, they try to argue that somehow animals are ours to force into all sorts of ugly situations in farming because… Well, it’s just not something that is as “icky” as the “horrible abuse” of someone getting humped by a very willing dog (and if you know anything about canines or equines, it’s near impossible to get humped by an unwilling participant without using all sorts of ugly electronic farm equipment that you don’t even want to know about — so sorry to burst your “abuse” fantasy.)

        Then there’s the rare vegetarian arguing against cross-species stuff who say “well, I don’t support farming or AI anyway, but I still think it’s wrong.” They actually have the (rightfully earned) moral high-ground, but they probably are of that set of people who call themselves “mom” or “dad” and seem to see sexually mature animals as their “furkids,” which is just a bit wacky if you think about it: Do breeders let their “furkids” mate? Do they say “go fuck that dog for mommy!” or something like that? Doesn’t that feel freakishly icky?? Or, more likely, do they for a brief instant shelve the fantasy and allow them to be adults, then once all that ugly sex stuff is done they shut the conceptual door again and call them kids? Isn’t that just a bit crazy-making?

        Boil it all down, and whatever the random and ever-shifting words are that people say out loud as the excuse for why they hate cross-species stuff, I think they really hate it because “Dogs humping humans is really icky, thus I need to create some sort of belief framework so that I can nail people to a cross for doing that ‘obviously wrong’ thing. So I will Google some crap others write that I will repeat without thinking about it and then I can feel better about myself.”

        If these people REALLY cared about the feelings of their dog, they’d jerk them off on occasion* (which is oddly only illegal in some jurisdictions ONLY IF THE HUMAN ENJOYS IT (the wording is “..for their own sexual gratification” or similar I think) otherwise it’s just training them for a possible future AI collection, and more importantly it’s making them happy. :P ;) :) )

        *I am semi-joking, obviously. I don’t condone such activity without you first seeking the advice of your lawyer and your furkids. ;)

  6. The entire specious comparison of zoophilia with pedophilia has a precedent in the homophobic conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia in decades past:

    If zoophobes actually took the issue of nonhuman sexual consent serious – which obviously they don’t, as numerous commenters have already noted, given acceptance of AI and other nonconsensual cross-species interactions – they’d have to also react with deep alarm at the sexual activity, within-species, of all nonhuman beings. Two deer, mating in the woods, would be a case of “rape” and thus would need to be policed. Wolves tied in the woods of Alberta? Rape, by definition: neither can “consent,” or so the paper-thin story goes.

    Obviously, if “animals” can “consent” in their within-species intimate pairings then they are just as capable of doing so cross-species. And if they can’t, then every mating on the entire planet becomes an horrific example of “rape.” The latter being utterly silly as a position to maintain – reductio ad absurdum – the former is by process of elimination the only remaining alternative. (that is, of course, ignoring the pseudo-mystical – and long since debunked – assertion that communications between species are somehow innately impossible… such a position can’t withstand the analysis of even a toddler)

    That said, zoophobes place their deeper prejudices on the table when they state overtly their patronizing assumption that every other living being on the planet, apart from hairless apes, is equivalent to a mere human child. They do so, of course, while also actively supporting the nonconsensual, violent, destructive practice of “de-sexing” nonhumans against their clearly stated will – and despite the growing mountain of literature documenting the shocking health costs of these barbaric, vicious attacks on the bodily integrity of nonhumans. The whiplash-inducing hypocrisy of these dual positions is breathtaking in its flagrant contempt for basic standards of logical coherence.

    Then again, bigots have never been known for their strong adherence to facts, logic, or indeed the basic foundations of the reality-based universe. From phrenology to the pseudo-science of anti-miscegenation zealots… from the spittle-flecked ranting of anti-semites through the now-debunked screeches of “unnatural” directed at gays by homophobic thugs… from the simpering self-assured mythologies of anti-female misogynists through the disgusting racisms of colonialists engaged in genocidal rampages against native peoples worldwide – they all share one thing in common:

    Bigots see facts as obstacles in the way of their hatred.

    The rest of us, those more closely aligned with the reality-based universe, look not to our personal prejudices for “proof” of their own tautological validity but rather to the world around us for guidance in how to live a good life. It is not such a difficult thing to do; indeed, even a young (human) child can do so, when she is asked…

  7. I think the complete emptiness of this blog proves the assertions of a few people (pro and anti-zoo) that there are really only a few anti-doug folks (like me) and Doug. All the long winded, freedom spouting answers from so many different alternate lifestyle folks are all Doug. Sorry Carreen, I don’t really think there is more than a superficial crowd who peeks in once in a while but has grown tired of Doug repeating himself.

    • I didn’t realize just how much I had missed all the conspiracy theories that the Doug-obsessed conjure so gleefully. Here I am, having forgotten I’m just a figment of someone’s imagination but nonetheless living my own life. Seeing yours and Julia’s comments again after so long is like driving past a pig farm after living in the city for a while: You know it stinks like shit, but for a brief moment you’re actually glad to experience it again.

      That’s not even to mention that all the accused alternate personalities have different IPs and writing styles, but I’m sure your theories compensate for that somehow. You’re nothing if not creative like that.

      Doug Spink is the computer program in control of it, and everyone with a differing opinion on the subject is part of his AI. Am I an Agent? Perhaps I can replicate myself and take over the world.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s