Below is the extremely petty, juvenile reason why Nathan Winograd just cancelled his speaking presentation at the main AR event three days before the event starts. This is so Nathan Winograd. If he doesn't get his way, he runs away. He'll probably start attacking FARM in 3, 2 ...
I am surprised that he has never spoken at this event ever especially considering half of the time the event is in California where he lives. Why? Most likely because there are many who don't agree with him. As stated before Nathan Winograd does not work well with others. I think FARM was very reasonable. The event is about all points of view in the AR movement. Years ago I was invited to speak but did not go as I didn't want to present at an event where ALF people would be presenting. I am against illegal, unethical, terrorist acts. I would go today knowing that I will be at events with these people anyway.
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) We are disappointed too. Unfortunately Nathan added a last minute stipulation that no one proposing a path other than his could speak on the same day he spoke (despite originally agreeing to debate PETA if they chose to, which they didn't).
Fortunately we have two LA-based No Kill speakers attending who just confirmed this weekend. Francis and Brenda are actively working to implement NK in LA and will do an excellent job and bring on the ground experience!
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) That's not accurate Brandon. It was because of Merritt Clifton being right before him. Then when we offered to expand his time to get the full hour he expected, he said that no one with an alternate view could speak on the topic on the same day.
I expect Nathan to respond by ranting, attacking and lying about FARM in 3, 2...
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.
I am surprised that he has never spoken at this event ever especially considering half of the time the event is in California where he lives. Why? Most likely because there are many who don't agree with him. As stated before Nathan Winograd does not work well with others. I think FARM was very reasonable. The event is about all points of view in the AR movement. Years ago I was invited to speak but did not go as I didn't want to present at an event where ALF people would be presenting. I am against illegal, unethical, terrorist acts. I would go today knowing that I will be at events with these people anyway.
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) We are disappointed too. Unfortunately Nathan added a last minute stipulation that no one proposing a path other than his could speak on the same day he spoke (despite originally agreeing to debate PETA if they chose to, which they didn't).
Fortunately we have two LA-based No Kill speakers attending who just confirmed this weekend. Francis and Brenda are actively working to implement NK in LA and will do an excellent job and bring on the ground experience!
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) That's not accurate Brandon. It was because of Merritt Clifton being right before him. Then when we offered to expand his time to get the full hour he expected, he said that no one with an alternate view could speak on the topic on the same day.
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) When Nathan agreed to speak at AR2014 at our invitation, we discussed a debate with PETA, but FARM, PETA, and Nathan all agreed that format was not preferable. We told PETA that we insisted on inviting Nathan because his viewpoint was valuable, and PETA asked that his viewpoint not be the ONLY one offered, to which we replied that we always showcase multiple viewpoints, and this year would be no different. We in no way caved to PETA; in fact the last time Nathan's name came up between FARM and PETA was several months ago, before Nathan got his speaking assignments.
FARM then moved forward with Nathan. He asked for a full session to himself and to screen his movie.We agreed. I don't recall it ever being discussed with him whether there would or wouldn't be alternate viewpoints besides his, but I am 100% confident we never implied or said that there would not be. Either the subject never came up, or if it did we told him we'd be seeking other voices.
Cut to about one month later. I (Michael) admittedly forgot the exact terms of the agreement regarding his expected speaking time (I juggle with 120 speakers' requests in addition to all of the non-conference-related work I do for FARM). I gave Nathan 30-40 minutes and Merritt Clifton 15-20, followed by Nathan's movie. Nathan emailed me telling me that those were not the terms we agreed on, and that he had requested a session to himself. I then split the session into two: a 20-minute session by Merritt and a 40-minute session by Nathan. Nathan again said that these were not the terms, because he had an hour to himself. I actually do not have a record of us ever agreeing to that (I do have record of agreeing to give him a session to himself), but I concede I may have implied over the phone that he would get an hour.
Nathan told me that in order not to cancel his participation, he would require a full hour to himself and no other speakers on the issue speaking that day. He said other speakers on shelter killing would need to be different days, in different rooms. I emailed him back saying that I could give him the hour that I don't remember promising but that I may have offered, but told him it was unlikely I could get Merritt on a different day. I asked him to call me (I had already called several times and left unanswered voicemails) to work out the final details. He replied that I can not be trusted on the phone because of the lies I had told (as best I can tell, the "lie" was that I accidentally forgot I had offered him a full hour...a problem that I instantly remedied in my offer to him"). But just in case, I put in writing that he would now have a full hour, plus his movie, back to back, in the largest daytime session room of the conference, with only one hands-on training competing for the time.
He replied, "I am out", with no other words, and has ignored my emails since.
That is as objective an account as one can give of the situation. There is nothing else to expose. I admittedly did make mistakes in scheduling him, but I tried to remedy them immediately, upon which brand new demands were given (mainly that no alternate voices be allowed to speak on the same day as him). I was unable to meet that demand not because we catered to any sponsors, but because agreeing to that demand completely goes against the aims of the conference and our promise to allow open discussions in a venue of mutual respect.
It should be pointed out here that we have invited Nathan for years, but weren't ever able to make it work logistically, but this year we tried harder than ever, giving him a session on the only day/time he could arrive and working to meet his requests which are much more demanding than any other speaker this year. This is the EXACT opposite of catering to our sponsors. The year we tried hardest to get him was the year that we had the sponsor who would least appreciate his attendance. Also worth noting here is that we lost 5 large organizations 10 years ago because we feature direct action speakers, and we still feature those speakers and have never gotten those sponsors back. We also featured Gary Francione last year even though many of our sponsors didn't appreciate it, and we invited him again this year (though he never responded to us -- he has instead only attacked us online publicly). People can critique our conference if they'd like, but Nathan's claim that we caved to a sponsor is literally the polar opposite of reality, and we are dedicated to always featuring the conference that most accurately reflects the movement, despite what voices we're being asked to censor that year.
Fortunately, Merritt, Brenda, and Francis are excited to have a productive conversation, even though they disagree on how to best reduce and eventually end shelter killing. While I was very excited to have Nathan, I now believe that given the attitude he was bringing to the event, our movement is better off with the three speakers above. (Though we will continue to welcome Nathan in future years, if he drops the demand that his opinion be the only one voiced that day/hour).
Note: This response was posted as FARM but reflects Michael Webermann's account of the situation and was not reviewed/proofread by any others at FARM or AR2014.
FARM then moved forward with Nathan. He asked for a full session to himself and to screen his movie.We agreed. I don't recall it ever being discussed with him whether there would or wouldn't be alternate viewpoints besides his, but I am 100% confident we never implied or said that there would not be. Either the subject never came up, or if it did we told him we'd be seeking other voices.
Cut to about one month later. I (Michael) admittedly forgot the exact terms of the agreement regarding his expected speaking time (I juggle with 120 speakers' requests in addition to all of the non-conference-related work I do for FARM). I gave Nathan 30-40 minutes and Merritt Clifton 15-20, followed by Nathan's movie. Nathan emailed me telling me that those were not the terms we agreed on, and that he had requested a session to himself. I then split the session into two: a 20-minute session by Merritt and a 40-minute session by Nathan. Nathan again said that these were not the terms, because he had an hour to himself. I actually do not have a record of us ever agreeing to that (I do have record of agreeing to give him a session to himself), but I concede I may have implied over the phone that he would get an hour.
Nathan told me that in order not to cancel his participation, he would require a full hour to himself and no other speakers on the issue speaking that day. He said other speakers on shelter killing would need to be different days, in different rooms. I emailed him back saying that I could give him the hour that I don't remember promising but that I may have offered, but told him it was unlikely I could get Merritt on a different day. I asked him to call me (I had already called several times and left unanswered voicemails) to work out the final details. He replied that I can not be trusted on the phone because of the lies I had told (as best I can tell, the "lie" was that I accidentally forgot I had offered him a full hour...a problem that I instantly remedied in my offer to him"). But just in case, I put in writing that he would now have a full hour, plus his movie, back to back, in the largest daytime session room of the conference, with only one hands-on training competing for the time.
He replied, "I am out", with no other words, and has ignored my emails since.
That is as objective an account as one can give of the situation. There is nothing else to expose. I admittedly did make mistakes in scheduling him, but I tried to remedy them immediately, upon which brand new demands were given (mainly that no alternate voices be allowed to speak on the same day as him). I was unable to meet that demand not because we catered to any sponsors, but because agreeing to that demand completely goes against the aims of the conference and our promise to allow open discussions in a venue of mutual respect.
It should be pointed out here that we have invited Nathan for years, but weren't ever able to make it work logistically, but this year we tried harder than ever, giving him a session on the only day/time he could arrive and working to meet his requests which are much more demanding than any other speaker this year. This is the EXACT opposite of catering to our sponsors. The year we tried hardest to get him was the year that we had the sponsor who would least appreciate his attendance. Also worth noting here is that we lost 5 large organizations 10 years ago because we feature direct action speakers, and we still feature those speakers and have never gotten those sponsors back. We also featured Gary Francione last year even though many of our sponsors didn't appreciate it, and we invited him again this year (though he never responded to us -- he has instead only attacked us online publicly). People can critique our conference if they'd like, but Nathan's claim that we caved to a sponsor is literally the polar opposite of reality, and we are dedicated to always featuring the conference that most accurately reflects the movement, despite what voices we're being asked to censor that year.
Fortunately, Merritt, Brenda, and Francis are excited to have a productive conversation, even though they disagree on how to best reduce and eventually end shelter killing. While I was very excited to have Nathan, I now believe that given the attitude he was bringing to the event, our movement is better off with the three speakers above. (Though we will continue to welcome Nathan in future years, if he drops the demand that his opinion be the only one voiced that day/hour).
Note: This response was posted as FARM but reflects Michael Webermann's account of the situation and was not reviewed/proofread by any others at FARM or AR2014.
I expect Nathan to respond by ranting, attacking and lying about FARM in 3, 2...
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.
- Mary Cummins LinkedIn
- Mary Cummins Meet up
- Animal Advocates custom Facebook name
- Mary Cummins Real Estate blog
- Animal Advocates on Google maps
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates
- Mary Cummins biography resume short
- Mary Cummins Real Estate Services
- Animal Advocates fan page at Facebook.com
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates Squirrel Rescue
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Flickr photos
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Twitter.com
- Mary Cummins on Picasa web photo albums
- Mary Cummins on MySpace.com
- Mary Cummins on Google Blogger Blogspot
- Mary Cummins on YouTube.com videos
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates on Classmates
- Mary Cummins on VK
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates on Google+