HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:55:01 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Oct2.163715.15877@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.211212.10980@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rob
>erts) writes:
>
>[>>Yes, I have noticed.  I find it very akin to other group hatreds.  It is
>>>generally best described as an intense bigotry.  The hater's mind is made
>>>up.
>>>]
>
>>You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
>>about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.
>
>Happy to be able to provide you with some amusement; we all could use
>more of it!  Jennifer's venomous hatred got the ball rolling; personally
>I found her point of view somewhat frightening, as did others.  Maybe
>you didn't ?

Not really. But maybe I'm not so easily frightened as you big brave
hunters? Yes, for heaven's sake let's have a few more light-hearted
comments here!

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <f6Ph02NQ23a601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com 
(Ted Robinson) writes:

> First, the AWA makes it illegal for AWA Committee members to reveal the 
> contents of the meetings.  
> 
 
Correction: the AWA makes it illegal for members to reveal *confidential* 
information, but provides little in the way of definition re. "confidential". 
I believe this ends up being determined by the committee, which often labels 
almost everything confidential. For example, in the case cited in my original 
post the use of animals in *education* was labeled confidential, requiring 
legal action to gain access to it.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:59:53 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <viking.717829862@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>>I doubt any hunter chose to attend the Expo _over_ the Conference, because I
>>doubt any hunter would have even considered attending an animal rights
>>conference, or would have even known about it.  Likewise, I did not choose
>>to attend the Conference _over_ the Expo.  No way I would attend a pro-hunting
>>event.  Come on!  
>
>	It's interesting to note you make the high claim of being Right, a
>knower of the Truth, standing outside of fur stores (do that when I enter
>and I'll buy one just to spite you --

That's a mightly lot of hate you are labouring under, Dan. I wonder what
Jennifer has done to provoke such "spite"? Incidentally, where did she
ever claim to be "Right", or have the "Truth", any more than anyone does
just by stating an opinion?

Reading this group, I get the strong impression that your side is
motivated mainly by a personal dislike of AR people. e.g. John E, still
grumbling about the failings of his numerous AR ex-girlfriends :-)

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:22:22 GMT

From article <1992Sep29.204047.9811@brtph560.bnr.ca>, by cboeker@batph78.bnr.ca (Craig Boeker):
cb> Lets review the points from the Rich Young quotes:
cb> 
cb> * A brain-dead human is not really alive.
cb> * A brain-dead or kidney deficient organism cannot continue to live without
cb>     external assistance.
cb> * A brain-dead human is a non-functional organism.
cb> * A carrot (apparently when pulled from the ground) is still a functional 
cb>     organism.
cb> * A brain-dead or kidney deficient human is effectively dead.
cb> 
cb> All these statements seem quite reasonable to me.  

I know several people with dysfunctional kidneys who would take 
issue with Rich's claim that they're "effectively dead".   They still
lead full and rewarding lives and might resent the notion that
human existence is defined by limbs and organs, rather than by
thinking and feeling abilities.

cb> Now how do you
cb> extract Rich feeling it's OK to kill a brain-dead human but not a
cb> kidney-dead human from this information?  I'm really quite interested
cb> and will subscribe to this group for a while to find out how that
cb> works out.

Perhaps Rich will surprise both of us by telling the world that it's
really ok to kill kidney patients, but I doubt it.    


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:10:04 GMT


In article <1992Oct2.235501.22426@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rob
erts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.163715.15877@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>
>>>You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
>>>about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.
>>

>>Happy to be able to provide you with some amusement; we all could use
>>more of it!  Jennifer's venomous hatred got the ball rolling; personally
>>I found her point of view somewhat frightening, as did others.  Maybe
>>you didn't ?
>
>Not really. But maybe I'm not so easily frightened as you big brave
>hunters? Yes, for heaven's sake let's have a few more light-hearted
>comments here!
>
>Paul

I was "frightened" not in the sense of quaking in my boots Paul, rather
distressed at seeing in print such harsh and hardened words directed
at all hunters, people whose actions Jennifer finds appalling.
I don't hunt! I do have several people who hunt on the farmland I rent.
One would fit the stereotype of the "big brave hunter" you advance above;
the others are about as ordinary and peaceful people as you could meet,
including a lay minister of a local church.  I ask you if you know or
have been around enough hunters to dismiss all of them as a reprehensible
class of people, your "big brave hunter" stereotype?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:55:27 GMT

In article <1aq3a6INNrp@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>
>
Russell wrote:
>>Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might

Mike responded:
>Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
>to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
>you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  
> 
Mike, Russell understands.  He just refuses to accept that anyone
else may be right about anything.  He refuses to acknowledge that
other opinions might be equally valid.

Russell uses a set of tactics to wage verbal warfare over the net.
Currently, he is hunting hunters.  He sets traps.  He tosses little
bombs (loaded questions).  He impales his victims on sharp insults,
pointed remarks, and the razor edge of inuendo.  He is vicious.
He searches for a weakness, a mistake, and pounces.  He wears down
his quarry until they are driven over the cliff in exhaustion and
are forced into oblivion.

He's not interested in fostering discussion, only in eliminating opponents.
a

And there is no worse fate for him than what Todd said about nobody taking
him seriously anymore.

Mary Otto
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:10:53 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.211212.10980@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.121240.7890@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>Yes, I have noticed.  I find it very akin to other group hatreds.  It is
>>generally best described as an intense bigotry.  The hater's mind is made
>>up.
>>
> 
> You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
> about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.

And the above is an example of something different right?  If you believe
that, I have this bridge I've been trying to sell.....

-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:33:40 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> And I explained my contention that the use of labels like "idiotic" 
rl> is usually inappropriate and uninformative.

From article <1992Oct3.182107.28229@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> This is my final question:
jh> ********************************
jh> I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion: is the assertion
jh> that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting
jh> challenges to the conclusion of hunting another hunter (due to
jh> the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?

If I'm not mistaken, the previous poster posed a question, not 
a statement: "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?" 

I've personally studied enough history to realize that the notion 
of hunters hunting hunters isn't without precedent, although it's 
a rapidly diminishing prospect in this day and age (and happily 
so).  I suspect that non-human-animal hunting will be also be a 
diminishing prospect in another fifty years.  Perhaps sooner.  

jh> Do you have an opinion on "hunters hunting hunters"?  I'm not asking
jh> you if it's an "idiotic" assertion (frame your answer as you wish) or
jh> how it relates to ML's religious faith.  What do you think?  If you
jh> don't want to answer the question, fine.  I'll leave you alone.

I don't mind answering the question.  I think such a practice 
would be bad for all the reasons that have obliged me to form a 
negative opinion of non-human animal hunting, plus many more.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 22:34:11 GMT

In article <BvGKuw.IAE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <BvF1FA.4tD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> Is it ok to kill kidney-dead humans?  [They're sentient and sapient]
>rl> Is it ok to kill brain-dead humans?  [They're not sentient and sapient]
>
>From article <1992Oct1.164234.12240@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> What do these questions, which have already been addressed way
>ry> back in August, have to do with the assigning of status to non-
>ry> human species by humans?
>
>Your answers will highlight the hypocrisy in your former arguments
>about the importance of sentience and sapience in ethical decision
>making.

	In that case, you should derive great glee in the reposting of the
	statements I've already made while addressing these questions.
	This is all in past postings, go look it up if you've forgotten
	so soon.  Try searching on the words brain-dead and kidney-dead.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.143925.714@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org   
(Udo_Meyer) writes:
> ... 

Sorry, for that I am writing again. But I try to argument correctly.
Some of the aggressive animal behaviour that is used as a argument
for hunting is man made. The polar bear is a good example.
Because people build the cities directly on their footpaths from north
to south and back again. No wonder when these animals become dangerous
while looking for food in an unknown territory.
Be assured, I do not want to look in the eyes of a any shark without a cage
(around me). Others we name killer whale but they aren't.
And if somebody looks for thrill, here is one of my good guy examples:
fireman.

With regards,
Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Animal Research (mouse screens?)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:01:03 GMT

In <1992Sep23.222817.13407@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> (James M Hoskins) writes:
> 
> How about some of the non-directed research that is conducted?  What's
> your opinion on this?  For example, last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal
> had a front page article on the status of research into the reinstitution
> of spinal cord function in cats.  Researchers surgically severed the
> spinal cords of cats.  The article detailed the success and lack of
> success of various procedures for reatachment.  In some cases,
> cats regained limited limb function.  In other cases, the procedures were
> failures and no function was restored.  I assume these animals were
> killed in these cases.  It seemed that about 30 cats have been
> utilized in this program.
> 
> Because I'm asking for your opinion, I should offer my own.  I have
> trouble with this.  It bothers me.  Healthy cats suddenly find themselves
> crippled, and there is undoubtedly pain involved for the animal.  I call
> this "non-directed" research because it apparently is an exploration of
> nerve regeneration in cats, with the way-down-the-road implication of
> shedding light on the human spinal column and spinal column injuries.
> Should this specific research program be banned?  I think not.  What's your 
> opinion?
> 

Without knowing more, I would have a problem with this.  Why were
healthy cats selected? Assuming that it's even possible to extrapolate
the results of the experimental techniques to human accident victims,
then was it really necessary to surgically sever the spines of healthy
cats rather than locate cats who had already suffered the types of
injuries that were being studied? For that matter, was there any attempt
to try these techniques directly on human volunteers who had suffered
the severing of spinal nerves.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:12:26 GMT

If that many people followed up, then YOUR wording was unclear....
swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:46:52 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>In article <1992Sep23.185529.3710@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>>
>> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>Ken writes:
>Well, Alka, old  (boy, girl, other, select one) thanks for your opinion and all
>                             ^^^^^
>the great information.
>>

>Alka retorts:
>What do mean by "other" Ken?  Are you implying that because I don't have an
>anglo-saxon name that is familiar to you that I may fall into a category
>other than male or female?  

>I jump in with:

>Wellllllllllllllllllll ...
>This is talk.politics.animals, afterall, and with all the discussion about
>the intellectual abilities animals may or may not possess, I think that Ken
>was being extremely open minded.  Actually, I knew someone who had a
>Samoyed named Alka.  %}

>[Note for the humor-challenged:  that was a joke.  It was not meant to
>mean that I have mistaken the professor for a dog, nor have I in any
>way construed that animals are participating on the net, nor have I
>attempted to insult the professor by insinuating that she resembles
>a dog in any way.]

>Mary Otto

------

Are you sure you mean "humor-challenged", Ms. Otto?  I think what you want
to say is "'Mary Otto's humor' challenged".  The fact that a dog shares my 
name intrigues me.  I know that some people often refer to companion animals
as "it", but surely even neutered and spayed animals still have a gender of
"male" or "female".  Thus, even by going into the animal kingdom, one does
not come upon "others".  Furthermore, let me inform you that I in no way 
regard your insinuation (intended or not) that I resemble a dog as an insult.
Recently, a dog with whom I shared my adolescence died of old age.  Jenny was 
a beautiful creature who, because I listened to her mode of communication, was
able to teach me very much about animals, their joys, their sufferings, their
individuality.  I'm rather grateful to have such a comparison drawn.  I'm 
sure you think this is a bit insane:  I guess you would have to understand the
value (not monetary, but intrinsic) of animals to appreciate my comments.

I think it's sad that we humans feel a need to see everything in our own holy
Image.  There's so much *beauty* to which we close our eyes.  We have to learn
to look closer & with more sensitive eyes.

	alka
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:21:06 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>Remember that Benke is not the only one who's attributing high wounding
>rates to the broadhead arrow.  If he stood alone, his proclamations
>might be more easily dismissed (though still not necessarily false).  He
>is backed up by other studies (with year and bowhunting wound rate
>parenthetically following each report) such as: 

>	Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1984 - 58%)
>	Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1987 - 50%)
>	Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1988 - 51%)
>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in Alabama)
>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in South Carolina)
>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1981 - 48% in South Dakota)
>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1983 - 49% in Iowa)
>	Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners (1963 - 44%)
>	Vermont Fish and Game Department (1972 - 63%)
>	Wisconsin Chapter of Wildlife Society (1983 - 55%)
>	Deer and Deer Hunting (1986 - 56%)

>and more.  As I indicated previously, I'm trying to get copies of some
>of these.  The only one I currently have is the Texas study.  Some of
>these are referenced by Benke, while others aren't.  But he names which
>are absent from this list. 

	Certainly these are groups I would have little problem with
accepting research from, but I do have a question: how did they define
"wounding" ?  I've "wounded" animals in that they required a second shot
to kill, and it took probably 30 seconds to reach them, so I would have
chalked it up as a wounding even though that animal would have died
fairly shortly thereafter.  I agree, the data show a large wounding rate,
and given the nature of bowhunting I'm not over suprised that rates are
so high, but I'd like to think most of those "wounded" deer ran a few
yards and dropped and didn't go to waste.  It's suprising that
scavengers aren't in larger numbers given this large population of
wounded prey to feast upon.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:20:37 GMT

In talk.politics.animals you write:

`In article <swood.717781369@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
`>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
`>
`>`Udo writes:
`>`u> Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
`>`u> Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?
`>
`>`The vast majority of the hunters I know wouldn't engage in the sport
`>`if the game could shoot back.  Yet, they still view the sport as
`>`a "manly" endeavor for some reason.
`>
`>I would not engage in such a sport if the animals could shoot back.  

`I'll bet you wouldn't!

`Paul

Nice try.  If you read in my other post, you will see that I do in fact
play a large number of strategic war games from FRP to real hands-on
splat ball and such.

However, I don't find it too appealing in the manner in which you have pulled
the first line of this particular post out of context.  If you read on - which
I am beginning to seriously doubt you are even capable of doing - you would
have seen my reason for making such a statement.  If another species of animal
could in fact use a gun - no less create such a weapon, then I would in fact
credit that animals as deserving rights.  Animals do not have self awareness.
The old think-therefore-I-am doesn't mean squabble to lower level thinkers.

You hear me speak often in my posts (if in fact you do read them) how the
power to manipulate the environment is distinct to man.  That is a very broad
and conclusive statement.  I mean both in the fact that man can to some extent
possitively as well as negatively alter his world, and even moreso, that he
can actually physically manipulate things in his world.  Pick them up, look
at them - turn them around in their hands.
This is the reason anthropologists credit man's opposable thumb with
advancing him evolutionally.  Try putting on a glove, and not putting your
thumb into the thumb whole.  The closest families of species to man, the
simeans' hands work like that.  When you do this, it is very hard (though
not impossible) to truly grab and strongly hold and manipulate things.

For this reason man was and is more capable of learning.  And the development
of mans' learning strengths themselves were no doubt selectively enforced.
Without these abilities, it is more difficult to write, and to teach as
well as to learn.

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:28:46 GMT

>
>If no hunter shows up at the debate, lots of folks will believe just that,
>that out of all the hunters in the state of Texas (and elsewhere), not one
>has the testicular fortitude to argue for the pro-hunting side.  Pretty sad.
>
>>>But seriously, why don't you just test
>>>your views and beliefs against those of Charles Manson.  Seems to be the
>>>same thing to me.  Charlie, Ingrid and Wayne are all nuts IMO.
>
>Save the juvenile rantings for your buddies, please.  
>

This from Jennifer? The very same person who refers to hunters (which she
hates) as cowardly scum? Who questions their testicular fortitude? 

>I honestly don't know how anyone could deliberately and needlessly take the
>life of an animal and "go on."  I know I couldn't.
>

Well, since you've already stated you hate me and called me cowardly scum,
I don't figure I've got anything to lose by saying "get a life, you pathetic
waste of skin."

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals