HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:02:32 GMT

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

>>>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>>Do I have a right to view the animals that this bozo is trying to murder?

>>>Mike Linan writes:
>>Yes you do.

>Hmmm...  I've studied the Constitution pretty carefully, and I've never seen
>that one...

	Check the 9th and 10th amendments.  The Constitution was not a limit
on the rights of the people, but rather a document that specifically spelled
out the rights of th government.  If it isn't there, it's your right.

>No. If the trapper is legally licensed by the state to trap, you have no right
>at all to interfere with his trapping.  His specifically-granted right to trap
>overrides your supposed, and actually quite non-existant, "right" to see the
>animal alive.  If you don't believe me, ask a game warden.

	"to the states, or the people."  The state can take away right, not
the federal government.  Welcome to the US Law, not that it's followed...


< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

>ru>>Was it breaking the law or self-defense?  Was I springing a trap or throwing
>ru>>a stick on the ground?  Hmmmmmmm........


>Sounds to me like a real juvenile excuse for disregarding the law, Bob.  I assure
>you that if it is against the law and you get caught doing it, that defense won't
>get you anything besides a pissed-off judge who's just itching to adjust the 
>attitude of some wise guy.



>ru>Now you hit upon a real problem.  How do you think an AR'er feels when his/her
>ru>position is always referred to as "fanatic" or "radical"?  How do you think
>ru>they feel when their positions are "being attacked for what they view as
>ru>moral and their right"?  It cuts both ways.


>Coming on the heels of you telling us the story about springing somebody's
>traps repeatedly, in possible violation of the law and with utter disregard for
>his rights, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for you on this.  Sounds like, by
>your actions, you're just LOOKING to get tagged with those labels.  It sounds
>like in your fanaticism, you care so little about the law that you don't even
>know what it says, and couldn't care less about the rights of those with whom
>you disagree.

>Let me ask you something.  How would you like it if we started playing dirty
>tricks on you guys?  We certainly have had adequate provocation.  Like you said...
>It cuts both ways; and you really seem to be asking for it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Shedd Plans Capture
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:36:53 GMT


Dolphin Project
Joy Pote-Stanford, Director/Midwest Chapter
P.O. Box 623
Orland Park, IL  60462
Voice: 708/403-1462
Fax:   708/403-5510
 
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 15 DECEMBER 1992
 
        SHEDD PLANNING CAPTURE IN MARINE SANCTUARY
 
Reliable sources from inside the public display industry have
revealed that the John G. Shedd Aquarium plans to capture the
three additional Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus
obliquidens) remaining under Permit #643 issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service within the next few weeks.
 
In September 1992 the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration designated the area where the captures are
scheduled to take place a national marine sanctuary; the
largest in the lower 48 states, which includes 375 miles of
California coastal waters, extending from San Simeon to north
of the Golden Gate.  The permit application filed by the Shedd
specifically states:  "The dolphins will be collected in
Monterey Bay, California ..."
 
Additionally, it was reported the dolphins would be held for
approximately six to eight weeks, either at Long Marine
Laboratory, as specified in the permit application; or a
facility such as Marine World Africa USA, located in Vallejo.
 
In light of the recent tragedies at the Shedd Aquarium:  i.e.,
the tragic deaths of two Beluga whales within 34 days of
captivity, and the discovery by the Department of Professional
Regulation that Dr. Jeff Boehm is not licensed to practice in
the State of Illinois, a number of environmental and animal
protection groups demand an end to the capture of marine
mammals, particularly in a designated marine sanctuary, and
the immediate surrender of Permit #643 by the Shedd Aquarium
to the National Marine Fisheries Service for revocation.
 
FOR FURTHER INFO:  Joy Pote-Stanford
                   708/403-1462
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:42:52 GMT

In article <Bz9qII.B0p@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>[...]
> > Let me get this straight Russell.  You say that professional historians
> > will not  spend a lot of time reading "nazi" claims in journals like
> > _Endocrinology_, yet, in time, they will regard them as "far more
> > interesting artifacts?"
> 
> Can you understand the difference between:
> 
> - a forum of historical study, and
> - a focal point of historical study.

Yes.  Can you explain how something can, in time, become a "far more
interesting artifact" without being read "a lot of time" by historians? 

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 08:08:57 GMT
Organization: Plant Pathology, maybe.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec16.015320.20433@samba.oit.unc.edu>, itsmine@med.unc.edu
(Greg Popken) writes:
> (I just love Darwin)

Ted Robinson comments:
*What would Charles say about work done to ensure that the weakest genes are
*propagated as frequently as are the strongest? Would he view this as
*strengthening the species' ability to survive?

Quite possibly, yes.  The ability to maintain a large and diverse
pool of genes can increase the overall survival of a species. A larger
gene pool often allows a species a greater range of options under
selective pressure. Then again, if the problems of carrying a "bad
gene" can be corrected, then the gene is really no longer "bad", but
"different."  More power to the species then!

At the other extreme; cheetahs appear to have recently gone through
an evolutionary "bottle-neck."  Currently, their genetic "repertoire"
is very limited and it has been suggested that their overall ability
to respond to other challenges (such a disease) has been compromised
as a result.

Not that this has much to do with anything in TPA...
(It's just that Darwin's old, moldy bones keep getting trotted out
and flogged for things he never said.)
Whatever.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:15:27 GMT
Organization: WP Group

Rich Young writes:
ry> When you answer my question, I'll consider addressing yours.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I already did.  If all behavior is selfishly motivated, how do you
rl> explain the initial development of taboos?

From article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> You didn't answer my question, you asked another one.  I asked for
ry> specific information: one example of a human activity that CANNOT be
ry> explained by the two numbered principles above.
ry> 
ry> A series of questions and pronouncements concerning "guilt" do not
ry> meet the criteria.  The answer needed is a specific human activity,
ry> not a discussion of "guilt."  Quit dancing around the campfire.

Amazing.  Please explain why you refuse to consider ethical thinking
to be a form of human activity?  Perhaps you were thinking that our
ancestors invented rules of conduct in order to explain guilt, so that 
Rich Young's theory of human motivation wouldn't seem so silly.

-- 
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: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:23:11 GMT

From article <mhulsey-161292100622@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz9zI5.BJu@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> From article <mhulsey-141292090123@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> mh> Have you accomplished ANYTHING in your life outside of UseNet?  
>> mh> Is UseNet your occupation?  What does the "WP" in "WP Group" 
>> mh> stand for?  Word Processing?  Wombat protection?  Wanton 
>> mh> paranoia?  Waffling prevarication?  
>> 
>> Interesting.  Were you hoping to establish the truthfulness 
>> of your position by ridiculing the name of my company?  Is this 
>> the sort of behavior that one should expect from "doctors" like 
>> yourself in the University of Georgia's Department of Nutrition 
>> Science?  
> 
> Were you trying to establish the truthfulness of *your* position by
> ridiculing my employment?  I responded to your snide comments _quid pro
> quo_.  You consider it reasonable to make offhand remarks about your
> opponents, but when they return fire, you holler "ad hominem! ad hominem!" 
> This is PRECISELY the "sort of behavior" that everyone expects from a
> "pagan dancer" like you.

Pagan dancer???  Please define the meaning of this term, and 
explain why you think it's relevant to an intellectual discussion.  

Speaking of quid pro quo, I'd be happy to repost my arguments from
the beginning of the thread, wherein I asked you to stick with
facts and arguments in lieu of attacking the credentials of your
opponents.   Have you forgotten? 

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to post your credentials in ethics, 
medicine, history, law, etc, etc.  

-- 
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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:41:49 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Yes, yes, we know that some people always behave selfishly, but 
rl> to the best of my knowledge, no one's presented any evidence to 
rl> show that all behavior is selfishly motivated.  

From article <1992Nov6.162026.7683@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
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.

Another one of your "prove me wrong" arguments, Rich???

Please present us with the evidence that you have available to
prove your claim that *all* altruistic behavior is selfishly motivated.

I previously wrote:
rl> It seems to me that "guilt" arises, not simply from some innate 
rl> feature of humankind, but from an individual's realization that 
rl> he has violated a particular cultural taboo.  If it's true that 
rl> all such taboos arise from someone's desire to avoid guilt, then 
rl> we'd have to conclude that big taboos (big guilt) arise from 
rl> medium-size taboos (medium guilt), and that medium-size taboos 
rl> arise from small taboos (small guilt).  Question: Where do these 
rl> small taboos come from?  

Please answer this last question.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:59:15 GMT

In article <sf=a0t_00WBL86WsUE@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>In article <TODD.92Dec14121806@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
>todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>>If you want to use contradictions to argue with vegetarians, try getting
>>the pro-abortion variety of vegetarians (which most are, in my experience)
>>to explain their consistency.  To these people, a chicken has more right
>>to life than a six-month old fetus.  Gets 'em every time.
>
>In my naive childhood days as a vegiefanatic, I would eat eggs and
>explain that my eating of eggs was indicative of my support for abortion
>rights.  I am now a vegie apostate, but I still think the killing of
>human fetuses is a positive moral good on a planet overpopulated by homo
>sapiens.
>
>Michael Loomis

Micheal,
If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?

Mary Otto


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:46:17 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)

In article <TODD.92Dec14121806@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>If you want to use contradictions to argue with vegetarians, try getting
>the pro-abortion variety of vegetarians (which most are, in my experience)
>to explain their consistency.  To these people, a chicken has more right
>to life than a six-month old fetus.  Gets 'em every time.

In my naive childhood days as a vegiefanatic, I would eat eggs and
explain that my eating of eggs was indicative of my support for abortion
rights.  I am now a vegie apostate, but I still think the killing of
human fetuses is a positive moral good on a planet overpopulated by homo
sapiens.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism/Abortion
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:30:20 GMT

jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak) writes:

>Todd said:                                
>>"rights" should read "convenience".

>>I make no claim to consistency, but derive fun from arguing with those 
>>who think they have it.  Pass the headcheese.

>Oh Todd, keep on eating that headcheese (a very German snack) its real "brain food".

>Jenny

If you're going to attribute someone else's words to me, Jenny, at least pick
some that make some sense.

You've got the wrong guy.  Learn to type, not just burn labs.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
From: rwaigh@zooid.guild.org (Rosemary Waigh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:31:58 GMT
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids

In article <mhulsey-181292093625@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>Your shortcomings are not "alleged," but factual.  I cannot prove that
>Barnard does not have a degree or other credentials in nutrition.  If he
>did, he would have indicated so when he wrote his book on "nutrition"
>called "The Power of Your Plate" or when giving any one of his many press
>conferences.  He clearly has no publications referenced in Medline remotely
>related to nutrition, as I demonstrated.

Hi Martin,

Have you actually read _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_ yet?  Which parts did you
object to?  (I apologize in advance if I am asking you to repeat yourself.)

Thanks,
Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:31:30 GMT

From article <mhulsey-111292102727@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz2uuB.GKC@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>> Not really.  I support my arguments with facts and reasons, not
>> appeals to my own authority.  
> 
> I don't believe that you support your arguments very well at all.  You
> continue to evade my inquiries, and simultaneously ignore direct answers
> that I give to you.  Despite numerous requests, you refuse to give
> references to support your claims regarding the "cat-shooting" and
> "beagle-drowning" experiments that you condemn.  These requests are over
> one month old, and your excuse of not being able to key in entire articles
> (when only references were requested) was and is lame.

You're entitled to your opinions.  I've decided to prepare a list of 
"unanswered martin hulsey questions" that I'm going to post from time 
to time in response to your "unanswered russell lawrence questions".  
Perhaps your responses will help occupy your time when you're not patrolling
the streets of downtown Athens, Georgia, looking for a first-rate job in 
"nutrition science".  

> 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 Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:01:16 GMT


> > 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.
>
The NY Times, The Washington Post, Life, Time, ABC, NBC, etc. ect. are all  
prejudice and pro AR leaning.  This is obvious from there coverage and  
editorials.  The only major paper with a fair view that I can find is the  
Wall Street Journal.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:20:48 GMT

In article <kbanaian.100.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>,
kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec8.025720.13151@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:

>[exchange deleted]  

Although it is noteworthy that Alex & Ingrid found it necessary to "take
the fifth" when questioned about ALF involvement, they are innocent until
found guilty in a court of law.

However, I must remind everyone that the phenomenon of "trial by popular
press and innuendo" is precisely what was perpetrated by Alex & Ingrid
against Dr. Robert Taub in 1982.  The raid on Taub's lab was conducted in
such a manner as to provide maximum media exposure.  In fact, it was
described by Taub as a "media circus."  The press was (illegally) present
before the search warrant for Taub's lab was executed.  Pacheco was handing
out prepared press releases during the police raid.  Media exposure was a
primary focus for PETA.

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.

It would be poetic justice, at least, if PETA now suffered a taste of its
own medicine.  Unfortunately, it probably won't happen.

The popular press has some Bambiphilic inclinations (or they wouldn't
swallow PCRM's crap so readily).  I have seen nothing about the grand jury
subpoena in the national news.  I expect that these developments will get
little attention in the popular press compared to Taub's experiences. 

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:48:56 GMT

In article <BzDFEo.Mu@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> Pagan dancer???  Please define the meaning of this term, and 
> explain why you think it's relevant to an intellectual discussion.  

"Pagan dancer," as coined by Rich Young, is a figurative term for a person
who constantly evades relevant questions.  You are the person to whom Rich
was referring to when he defined the term.

My experiences with you on the net bear out Rich's characterization of your
tactics.

As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:

+++++++++++++++++++  Russell's unanswered questions  +++++++++++++++++++++

[some questions rephrased or extracted from points Russell avoided in
previous posts]

How would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the
interests of human and non-human animals?

Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one
that proved trivial?

Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
believe the information is tainted?

Did you visit Athens, Georgia last Spring (April 28, 1992) during the PETA
debate?

Would you, for some period, allow heart patients to die for their
"stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
valve, etc?

Can you provide evidence that the actions of other species are not
"self-serving?

What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
a human?

Do you see the importance of John Orem's basic electrophysiological studies
of the neural regulation of sleep?

What evidence do you have to suggest that Heimlich published his 1981
reference before the "early 80's beagle-drowning" experiment that you cited
was proposed?

What if the "alternative" tests fail to detect a hazardous physical
irritant in your toothpaste?  Wouldn't this result in human suffering?

Have you considered the suffering of the mouse or rabbit that is ground up
by the thresher that harvests your wheat?

How do you propose that the Ames test of bacterial mutagenicity can serve
as a test for ocular irritancy?

If a product's raw materials are tested on animals, and, if animal tests
are cruel, how can the resultant product be called "cruelty-free?"

When purchasing cosmetics, should people care more about their eyes than
those of a rabbit?

Precisely where did I say that I consider myself "qualified to judge the
credentials of whomever I please?"

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity