Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Real Estate Classifieds Contact
Next story:
Previous story:

Nathan J. Winograd: What’s in a Name?


“What’s in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”   –   Bill Shakepeare

 This post is a flagrant attempt to increase my Internet traffic so I can regain my stature on AV without having to resort to long boring posts filled with meaningless charts, graphs and pictures praising the local rich and famous and attacking community “obstructionists”.    After all, lots of us don’t want nice things.    

Yesterday’s innocous Winograd post, attracting more than 500 comments,  makes it abundently clear that Nathan has attracted an enormous following of nonexistant Internet stalkers and trolls.     There are useful articles on classifying trolls and dealing with them.     And Nathan himself has been know to whine about his stalkers, even identifying the most famous.

For myself, I have chosen the low road.    “Why not grind these people up and make something useful of them, like fertilizer for a healthy vegan snack?” I asked myself in one of the ever more frequent conversations I have with the one who understands me best.     If I can find a way to take the name of Nathan J. Winograd in vain and advantage myself, where’s the harm in that?    After all, stalkers and trolls will always be with us like the ubiquitous real world scavengers, dung beetles and Gramignas who digest our excrement and keep our planet clean.     What’s wrong with me being an opportunist for once?    But enough about me.     Let the games begin.

  • NKBN

    Loved the link to classifying trolls. We seemed to have quite a few of these:

    4. The Never-Give-Up, Never-Surrender Troll – his troll is ALWAYS right and will battle to the death to prove it.
    There’s no point in trying to fight her. If she can’t back something up
    with reality, she’ll make something up, just to show you how wrong you

    7. The Self-Feeding Troll – This guy likes to argue, even when everyone else in the forum tells him
    he’s wrong. Without support from his nonexistent friends, he changes
    handles—or makes up new ones—to show the forum how loved he is.

    • Definition of ‘Troll’:

      Anyone who dares to  disagree with you.

      • Hi Terry Ward.

      • Boy, are you sipping the koolaid. Ask Nathan why he hasn’t reinstated his attorney’s license. After all, legal services are the very thing that we need in the humane field. Yet, he doesn’t go in that direction. All those years and money getting an education and just throws it away. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it? If not, it should.

  • At least, Peter, you got a sense of humor.

  • Come on people.    Where is the hate and vitriol?

    • Julieveggie

      I’m all for a No-kill Nation, just not Nathan Winograd’s version. He has very distasteful tactics & strategies that turn people off. For instance, he makes accusations all the time that some people that care for animals want healthy pets killed that is a warped mind. Nathan Winograd states that pet overpopulation is a myth. There’s over 70 million strays in America that are fending for themselves. Most people active in rescue, know that there’s a pet overpopulation crisis. He spends an exorbitant amount of time and energy spreading malicious hearsay about PetA, HSUS, ASPCA. It’s not helping shelters become no-kill.

  • All these types of threads do is get people to run far away from adopting from a shelter.  Both sides of this debate will come off as unstable and immature.   If you were the average American family looking for a pet, and in your research you read some of the threads and comments that “no-kill” seems to bring with it, ask yourself this…would you let these people into your home for a home visit?  Would you want to give these people your personal information? 

    The end result is less adoptions.  Congrats.

    Egos-1  Animals-0

  • Seems that this reporter thinks that Winograd is the troll, the stalker.

    “Winograd regularly criticizes anyone who does not swallow his no-kill philosophy — no matter how much experience they have in the world of animal control and welfare.”
    “And just a few days after Winograd spoke with the Press, he blogged about how this paper’s line of questioning was based solely on the claims of one of his most vocal critics, a private citizen with the audacity to disagree with Winograd.
    Under the heading “A Smear Campaign,” Winograd wrote: “The line of questioning was based on the rumor and innuendo of No Kill detractors like Pat Dunaway in order to undermine my efforts and maintain a policy of killing in our shelters. No lie is too grand and no contradiction too obvious for them.””
    In Winograd’s mind, Dunaway’s trespasses are so severe that he devoted an entire blog post to attacking her personally, accusing her of using false names when feeding lies to gullible reporters. Morally, Winograd has placed Dunaway on the same level as the heads of the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States, who are alternately described as defeatists shackled by institutional complacency and malevolent demagogues who get off on killing perfectly healthy, squeaky-clean puppies.
    Patricia Ruland also found the same about Winograd.
    “However, his pre-emptive reaction to a story that hadn’t even been published didn’t end with me. According to a subsequent blog posting, Winograd claimed to have identified a Chronicle source and purported to “out” one of his former contacts in the animal-welfare community. At great length, he vilified her reputation, accused her of misinforming reporters about his record, and more specifically accused her of being the source for material for this story – a story that hadn’t even been fully reported or drafted yet, let alone published. (For the record, Winograd’s putative enemy was not a source for this story.)”

    • Plus Winograd issued a letter to the editor of the Houston Press that the reporter, Malisow, had tried to blackmail him. This was after the Austin article where Winograd wrote a letter accusing the reporter of bias when the story had not even been published.

  • Julieveggie

    Here’s an intelligent rebuttal to Nathan Winograd’s article.Even if HSUS spent their entire annual budget to local animals shelters, it would come to $12.00 per animal for a year that doesn’t even come close to making a dent to solve this problem. Winograd fails to explain how to get the funding necessary to build sanctuaries to hold all these animals. Keep in mind that is 4 million every year that we would have to find shelter for. His “vision” is a world of perfect pet owners, perfect rescues, perfect shelters, plenty of funding. All he has ever offered is lip service, he brought nothing new to the table as far as obtaining funding to become no kill, legislation to help become no kill, nothing”.