My response to a person:
The notion of "Animal welfare" in legislation is very old  and has been used as a regulationist approach. So it is not an use of erroneous language, it is merely a use of how the term always has been defined. It is sad they have stolen the term "Animal welfare" and redefined it. But lets stick to the terminology used.
"by his band of follower who repeat everything that he says verbatim and without thinking."
This is ignoring the fact that many, many people who found Gary Franciones teachings were endorsing "Animal welfare" reform and changed their approach because of the arguments. Your judgment is simply wrong. We shouldn't judge people. I write more about this in this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/hatred-violence-and-judging-peoples.html
It maybe true for some people that they blindly believe without analyzing the arguments. However, this is not encouraged. Gary Francione encourages people to educate themselves. Many people that stick to the 'Abolitionist approach' are surely thinking for themselves.
I e.g. liked PETA and other such organizations advozating for "Animal welfare" reform for a while in the beginning of being a vegan until I understood how their work (at large, I am not talking about every single action) is counterproductive and doesn't benefit the animals.
Some more good articles that show how counterproductive "Animal welfare" reform is:
Note 1. See. e.g. this "Animal welfare"-legislation from 1966.