HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 03:27:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.015739.19965@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.014640.14502@julian.uwo.ca> morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton) writes:
>>all they see is someone killing a nice, cute, cow (or any other creature you 
>>can name). Their efforts would be better spent supporting a group such as 
>>Amnesty International.

>Several members of UofT SETA are actively involved in Amnesty International.

I donate $100 annually to EACH of Amnesty International and
Animal Alliance of Canada. What about you, Brent Morton?
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:48:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>It is also noteworthy that Taub was also unanimously exhonorated by the
>Ethics Committee of the Americal Physiological Society

Big deal.  The APS and its so-called "Ethics Committee" hardly
constitute an objective unbiased fountain of wisdom on
animal testing ethics.

If you consider this "noteworthy" it doesn't say much
for the rest of your arguments.

But you could sway me a bit on this if you can cite
any cases where the APS Ethics Committee actually sided
against an animal research on an ethics charge.

Steve
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Trapping
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:22:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <30967@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> jsemrad@ems.cdc.com writes:

>governing unit to get trapping made illegal in the park?  If the traps bother
>you that much why don't you take constructive action instead of just being
>a weenie about it?
>

But springing the traps *is* constructive action. The most "weenie" thing
I have yet seen on this newsgroup is Karl saying "I am forwarding your
posts to the authorities".

Sure, campaigning to have trapping made illegal is a better long-term
solution. In them meantime, springing the traps is the right thing to
do, even if it is against the law.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:49:06 GMT

In article <viking.724290520@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
>>killed in vivisection laboratories?
>
>			The Black Death
>			 European Tour
>
>		Dec 1347	Constantinople
>		Dec 1347	Marseilles
>		Jun 1348	Naples
>		Jun 1348	Rome
>		Dec 1348	Bristol
>		Jun 1349	London
>		Jun 1349	Oxford
>		Dec 1349	Dublin
>		Dec 1349	York
>		Jun 1350	Magdeburg
>		Jun 1350	Rostock Hamburg
>		Dec 1350	Wisby
>		Dec 1350	Danzig
                    ^^^^

Uh Rip, ... er I mean Dan, in case you just woke up after a long sleep,
this is 1992. :-)

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:20:29 GMT

In article <Bz7oss.Lqz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec13.173709.4716@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <Bz46GK.2Ho@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>
>>>> The only person whose credentials I questioned was Dr. Neal Barnard.  I do
>>>> not consider him an opponent, although I do wish that he had the
>>>> inclination to become an opponent by appearing here and defending his
>>>> pseudo-physician's group.  
>>>
>>>So you say.  Yet you haven't explained how/why you consider yourself
>>>qualified to question Dr. Barnard's credentials.  Do you have a degree
>>>in medicine, BTW?
>> 
>> Russell, would the opinion of an M.D. be sufficient to put into question
>> Dr. Barnard's credentials as a scientist?
>
>Let me try to make it simple for you, Greg.

Oh. please do Russell.  You know how hard it is for me to follow a
argument of more than a few lines.

>    Can the truth or falsity
>of a statement be determined by appealing to the authority of the speaker?
>
No, it can not.  But that is not the point here.  Dr. Barnard has offered
his "professional" opinion regarding the scientific value of an experiment.
If someone were to walk up to me and say "Don't put your savings into
growth stocks.  The market is so unstable right now that
investment in
mutual funds  will offer the best return on your investment."  
Would you immediately remove your savings and place it in the mutual fund
market?
Would you be inclined to inquire as to the credentials of the man who
offered the information?  If he was an unemployed shoe salesman would his
advise carry as much wieght as the advise of Peter Lynch(director of one
of the most profitable funds in history).   

>As an example, can we determine the truth or falsity of your "nazi!" 
>cries by examining your credentials as an historian?

The Nazi example is not a good analogy because it is a historical
fact.  
If I had said the postision of the nazis on animal rights led to the
social justification for use of jews in experiments, then my credentials
as a historical socialogist would lend to or detract from the
credibility of the statement.

                                       GREG POPKEN

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Poem about animal rescue
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:10:33 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec12.230912.4170@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>[from _The_Animals'_Voice_, Vol. 3, No. 5.]
> 
>White Coats, Black Masks
> 
>The dog was old.
>He'd lived his life 
>in nothing but a cage.
>The white coats came,
>and he stood still
>to not incite their rage.
> 
   [deletions]
> 
>He wondered why 
>they so enjoyed 
>the pain they did bestow.
>And next time, oh,
>perhaps this time, 
>they wouldn't hurt him so.
> 
    [the rest deleted]

Can you give us some indication of what kind of research 
or what kind of testing program we might imagine this animal
to be involved in? In particular, I am curious about the
environment in which the animal would be exposed to multiple
invasive procedures, which is the way I read the 'And the next time ...'
lines. Although I haven't direct experience with this
sort of work, it is my understanding that there are few instances
where animals may be subjected to invasive procedures and then
're-used'. To my understanding, sacrifice of the animal would be
mandated as the termination of the first invasive procedure
or experiment, except under unusual circumstances.


Also, it is difficult for me to imagine how an 'old dog'
could have 'lived his life in a cage'. I take this to suggest
that the animal had been subjected a lifetime of experimentation
or testing. This seems unusual both on scientific and economic
grounds (eg. have any idea what it costs to keep a dog?).
Could you please explain?

Or is this to be regarded as creative writing not related to
any factual occurrance?

Bob Straubinger
Dept Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:11:46 GMT

From article <1992Dec18.175644.25650@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <BzFp2D.BEn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>The next time you portray yourself as the "voice of reason", 
>>perhaps you should advise readers that you're not an expert and 
>>that your statements are merely opinions...  rather than facts.  
> 
> 	What, pray tell, has portrayal as a "voice of reason" got to do 
> 	with expertise in a field?  As for the factual nature of my
> 	statements, they're certainly no less factual than yours...and
> 	usually far more completely documented.  Besides, my credentials
> 	are not at issue here.

Hypocritical thinking is the issue, Rich.   

>>Meanwhile, let's not forget that Barnard, Spock, and Oski all 
>>have MD degrees.  And both Spock and Oski are prominent experts 
>>in the field of pediatrics.  
> 
> 	Sure, they all have M.D. degrees.  Would you like Dr. Spock to
> 	repair your faulty mitral valve simply because he has an M.D.?
> 	Or perhaps Dr. Barnard could give you a liver transplant?
> 
> 	By the way, even Dr. Spock was a bit nonplussed at the PCRM press
> 	release.  He stated to the New York Times that, regardless of what
> 	the PCRM had claimed, he had agreed only that breast milk was the
> 	preferred way to feed infants and that cow's milk should not be fed
> 	to infants under one year...standard advice for many years.

Would you mind posting a reference to this article?  

> 	Barnard is no more qualified to make dietary recommendations to
> 	the public than he is to perform liver transplants.

Yet you seem to think that you're qualified to make dietary 
recommendations to the readers of usenet.   And not ordinary
recommendations, mind you, but special recommendations from
the "voice of reason" himself.   Let's hope you don't decide
to repair any faulty mitral valves or perform liver transplants.

> 	As an aside, I'd like to make the following observation: in a past
> 	posting, I made a comment which attributed you with high, if wasted,
> 	intelligence; I no longer believe this to be true.  I think you are
> 	very CLEVER, but not overwhelmingly intelligent.  Please note that
> 	this is not meant as an attack, but merely a correction to a
> 	previous statement.

You're not only a "voice of reason" when it comes to nutritional
advice, but you're also an expert on intelligence.  How convenient.

A few months ago one of the readers of sci.med.nutrition
with an interest in breast-feeding posted references to several 
scientific articles suggesting that breast-feeding raises the 
intelligence of infants.  Weren't you the guy who disputed 
the evidence by claiming to be one of three, bottle-fed brothers 
all of whom had IQ's over 150?  Is do-it-yourself intelligence 
testing one of your many hobbies perhaps?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:35:04 GMT

From article <mhulsey-141292153059@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> Taub was tried and convicted in the public's mind before he ever set foot
> in court.  Taub's subsequent exhoneration by the Maryland court of appeals
> was considered less newsworthy.

Let's clarify the nature of this "exoneration".

According to a Washington Post article that I have on my desk at the 
moment, Taub's conviction was overturned when the Maryland Court of
Appeals ruled that state animal cruelty laws do not apply to
federally funded animal experiments.  

> The popular press has some Bambiphilic inclinations (or they wouldn't
> swallow PCRM's crap so readily).  

Can you point to a particular newspaper or magazine publisher 
who's misrepresented the facts?  The only one that I can think 
of, right offhand, is the _Washingtonian_ magazine, but they've
apologized publicly for misrepresenting key figures in the AR
movement.

Is it true that the _Washingtonian_ agreed to make a financial 
contribution to an animal rights newsgroup to compensate for the 
erroneous statements in the infamous Katie McCabe article?  


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:07:02 GMT

From article <1goep0INN453@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
> In article <BzDFn2.tI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>>> Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
>>> of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
>>> psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
>>> as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
>>> with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
>>> from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.
> 
>>Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?
> 
> You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
> mention above would you Russell?  Actually I guess it wouldn't surprise
> me to see you taking whatever pokes you can at a religion that is based
> on "mindless acceptance".  You continue to set new standards for foolish-
> ness.  I forget who it was who stated the obvious that you have become 
> nothing more than an irritant and the sadly comedic clown of t.p.a. (I 
> added the clown part :-) )

Do you truly agree with Rich's claim that _all_ behavior is selfishly 
motivated?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: PETA Action Line (Dec)
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:37:31 GMT


>From the PETA Action Line - (301)770-8980:
 
+ Victoria's Secret is now offering a Scandinavian fox fur-
trimmed parka.  Encourage the company, which manufactures a
line of non animal-tested cosmetics, to show compassion to all
animals.  You can 1-800-888-8200 and write to:
 
Victoria's Secret
Sales & Marketing
3425 Stelzer Road
Columbus, OH  43069-0002
 
+ The wolf debate continues in Alaska!  The following is a new
list of folks to call and write.  Please make the following 1-
800 calls and let them know that you will spend your vacation
dollars elsewhere as long as the wolf is in danger of being
slaughtered in Alaska.
 
Fairbanks Convention & Visitors Bureau, 800-327-5774
 
Alaska Airlines Vacations, 800-468-2248
 
Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau
1600 A Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK  99501-5162
(907)276-4118 Fax: (907)278-5559
 
Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 800-245-2527
 
Days Inn, 800-325-2525
 
Kenai Visitor & Convention Bureau
P.O. Box 1991
Kenai, AK  99611
(907)283-1991  Fax: (907)283-2230
 
Kenai Princess Lodge, 800-426-0500
 
Sitka Convention and Visitor Bureau
P.O. Box 1226
Sitka, AK  99835
 
AK Wildland Adventures, 800-334-8730
 
Eagle Custom Tours, 800-428-8296
 
AK Wilderness Packages, 800-544-2236, Fax: (907)277-4197
 
Adventures & Delights, 800-288-3134
 
AK Wilderness Travel, 800-544-2236
 
Finally write to:
 
Mr. Dick Burley, Chairman
AK Department of Fish and Game
Board of Game
Headquarters
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau,  AK  99802-5526
 
+ Please write to Elton John and thank him for his support of
the anti-fur movement.  Elton recently appeared in an ad
against fur and animal abusers have begun a letter writing
campaign to "educate" him on the realities of the Animal
Rights movement.  Let him know how much you appreciate his
efforts and being such a great spokesperson for the animals.
Write to:
 
Elton John
John Reed Enterprises, Unit A
Galena Court, Galena Road
London  W60LT


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:59:29 GMT


>In article <BzF96G.7AE@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>>
>> You're confused.  There's quite a difference between the desire of a
>> man to evade questions that he cannot answer, and the desire of a
>> man who doesn't wish to waste his time answering stupid questions
>> or time-consuming questions that he considers uninteresting at the
>> moment.
>



Russell, this is disrespectful of your audience.  Am I to take from
your words above that your contributions here are nothing more than
whims of what interests you at the moment?   You're a smart person.
You could take a couple of minutes--if you wanted--and say:  "I have
not supplied the cat-shooting reference because..." or, "I consider
your question asking me how I personally weigh the intrinsic value
of a person versus a dog stupid because..."  You should accept on good
faith that some of the questions people put to you matter to them, even
if you don't get what they're after.  Frankly, I find your opinions
(when you give them and don't wrap them in your ill-founded notions of
what good debate form is) on a variety of issues very insightful.  This
would be an honest interchange between interested parties.  It might even
get heated and be just as entertaining.  I doubt very much if people would
even care about your degree or school or status of your personal life.
When's the last time someone asked Bob Black or Ted Robinson (both
writers I admire) where their degrees are from.  Such question should be,
in this forum, basically non-issues.  I wonder when, if ever, you may
recognize the limitations of the "debate" framework you operate within.
Given the energy you have committed to constructing it, I suspect never.




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:01:18 GMT

In article <BzDFn2.tI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>> In article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>>In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>
>>>>Rich Young writes (on November 6th):
>>>>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>>>>ry> these:
>>>>ry>
>>>>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>>>>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>>>>ry> 
>>>>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>>>>ry> in the one performing the activity.
>> 
>> Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
>> of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
>> psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
>> as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
>> with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
>> from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.
>
>Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?
Russell,
Thanks for volunteering.  I have the hammer.  Mike, can you bring the
nails?  Rich, you bring the main post, Martin, bring the horizontal.

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Speciesism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.195859.18114@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.214227.21383@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>
>
>>It's not a case of evolving morality.  It's a case of economic expedience.
>>Racism and sexism and ageism are issues because we need more people
>>in the workforce and so the workforce has to include more than just
>>white males in their prime.  Expedience.
>[much deleted]
>>Mary Otto
>>
>Mary, maybe all you care about is money, but most people have consideration
>for others regardless of expedience!
>
>Ro
>rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
>
Ro,

1.  Why the personal attack?  What is the basis of "all you care about
is money"?  It is obviously untrue since I spend the time to
read and post to t.p.a.

2.  Consideration for others is in many cases, expedient.  Caring for
the sick, for example, reduces the spread of disease.
Expedience is real, measurable.


Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:55:12 GMT

From article <mhulsey-181292092325@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> > As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:
>> 
>> You're confused.  There's quite a difference between the desire of a
>> man to evade questions that he cannot answer, and the desire of a 
>> man who doesn't wish to waste his time answering stupid questions
>> or time-consuming questions that he considers uninteresting at the 
>> moment.
> 
> I believe that I am asking pertinent questions.  If you feel that my
> questions are "stupid" or "uninteresting," rather than simply damaging to
> your point of view, please indicate which ones and why.

I'd say that your groundless conjectures about my alleged 
presence at an AR debate in Athens, Georgia, were an excellent 
example of sheer stupidity.  If you think those conjectures were 
damaging to my "point of view", as opposed to your credibility as 
a "scientist", dream on.   If you want to engage in flights of
fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
your pretentious suppositions.

It's rather obvious to some of us that you can't seem to 
distinguish differences of opinion among your net opponents, just 
as you can't seem to tell the difference between the 
philosophical views of Regan versus Singer.  [For example, you 
made the preposterous claim that Singer held "absolutist" views 
on animal research.]  Perhaps this inability stems from the fact 
that you employ your ideological theories to conjure up "facts" 
about your opponents, in lieu of expending the time and energy that 
might be required to truly understand what your opponents are 
saying.  As such, it's not surprising that you would envision 
similarities between myself and anybody else whom you perceive as 
an animal rights advocate;  to a large degree, all of us are 
simply the product of your own imagination.  As long as you persist
in telling us what we think, and why we think the way we do, it's not 
surprising that "we" should all be so similar in your mind.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals