HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:42:28 GMT


Kenneth D. Whitehead writes:
kw> Jane Fonda actively supported the enemy, and I'm not going to let 
kw> you try to obscure that fact.  What she did in making propaganda 
kw> statements from Hanoi on behalf of the enemy, urging American 
kw> troops to put down their weapons and refuse to fight, was EXACTLY 
kw> the same things that "Tokyo Rose" (who was also an American 
kw> citizen, btw) did on behalf of the Japanese during WW2.  (Tokyo 
kw> Rose was hanged for treason, although she was an Asian, not Henry 
kw> Fonda's lily-white darling little commie bitch.) I suppose you 
kw> think Tokyo Rose was just another patriot?  If you don't, maybe 
kw> you DON'T understand the meaning of "hypocrisy".  

In article <swood.722143804@vela>, swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
sw> CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP !!!

The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 11, 1941 in the
wake of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.  Would you mind telling us 
when the US Congress declared war on the people of Vietnam?  [it 
didn't]  When did the Vietnamese people launch their attack on the 
US as a precursor to US involvement?  [they didn't]

Do you agree with the principles of democracy and free speech, 
Scott?  Or, do you think those principles ought to be curtailed, 
by means of force, among folks who don't share your peculiar 
political, economic, and religious ideologies?  

sw> Someone should make a post to the net as a sort of public survey 
sw> of use net to see if anyone has actually felt informed, 
sw> enlightened or converted to a different way of thought by 
sw> Russell.  Then they should also check to see how many people have 
sw> been offended or appauled by his tactics, pias B.S.  and 
sw> self-righteous stature.  
sw> 
sw> Gee, then if the results were as I would presume they would, 
sw> perhaps we could start publicly distributing bug fixes to common 
sw> news readers to kill his articles for new readers/subscribers to 
sw> the group 

Gee Scott.  Just a week ago you were telling me that you were going
to have me thrown off usenet.  Whatever happened to your plans?

sw> P.S. feel free to post any or all of this reply - use my name 
sw> if you wish

I don't need your permission to repost your articles, Scott.  
However, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me permission to repost 
some of your email messages...  especially the ones concerning 
your antipathy for the disadvantaged americans receiving 
government-subsidized health care.  In my opinion, those messages 
speak volumes about the real meaning of your "Putting [some 
privileged] People First" concept.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: research and medicine
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:45:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.165547.29817@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.201612.5344@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.193707.6535@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>> (The researcher can't be *certain* that the results obtained
>>>in non-human animals will apply to humans anyway, can (s)he?)
>>No your right nothing in science is certain.  If we already know how
>>things will turn out we wouldn't need to do the research.
>
>There are two separate questions here:
>
>1. How does the non-human animal respond to the treatment. No, science cannot
>   predict this completely, hence the need for the experiment.
>
>2. Whatever the result, how well does it correlate to an experiment
>   done with humans, which, of course, has never been done so far.
>
>You give the answer to [1]. Rosemary Waigh asked question [2].
>

Yes, this is what I meant.  It's a good thing you replied, Michael, because
my site was doing maintenance this weekend and a number of articles, including
Greg's, were lost before I could read them.
>
>>But, in the vast majority of cases the information gathered from
>>animals studies is applicable to humans.
>
Can you cite some references Greg?  Approximate percentages for various
models (I know there are a huge number of models with varying degrees of
accuracy and don't expect you to cite figures for everything, but a few
representative examples would be nice.)
Dr. Robert Sharpe, in _The_Cruel_Deception_, cites a study by D. Salsburg,
in _Fundamental_&_Applied_Toxicology_, 63-67, volume 3, 1983, which states
"...the lifetime feeding study in mice and rats appears to have less than a 50
per cent probability of finding known human carcinogens."

>Often times, using voluntary human subjects can give you far faster and
Well, I don't know about faster, humans do have a long lifespan compared
to the kinds of non-human animals used in reseach.


>far more accurate results. Humans can talk to you. And you remove the
>uncertainty in question [2] above, resulting in far faster
>certification of new drugs and treatments. Now with Bill Clinton as
>President, let's hope he repeals the executive order banning use of
>fetal tissue for research.

>-- 
>Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:07:30 GMT

In <By3sF5.J26@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

	Adopting the "answer a question with a question" routine,

>-- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  

	They exhibit a response to the stimulus, which can be
construed as placing them in pain.  They invariably tend to die, which
can be seen as pain under most definitions of the word.

>-- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

	Can a natural action be unjustifiable?  If not, then the
naturalness of an action makes it ethically justifiable.

< 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                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Robodoc and animal testing
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:00:52 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>In article <BxxzwE.BFF.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

>>Here's an interesting example of animal testing "with a heart". Many of
>>you have probably heard about Robodoc, the robot that drills the hole
>>for the femur part of a hip replacement. Robodoc gets 95%+ contact between
>>the implant and the bone (I think 98% is the correct figure), while a
>>surgeon going in with a rasp gets ~40% contact.

>(Of course there are still the problems of how applicable results obtained
>in non-humans will be to humans, if treating humans is the ultimate goal.)

I think it's safe to assume that dogs and humans both have bones.
Don't you?

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Robodoc and animal testing
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:24:34 GMT

In article <BxxzwE.BFF.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>Here's an interesting example of animal testing "with a heart". Many of
>you have probably heard about Robodoc, the robot that drills the hole
>for the femur part of a hip replacement. Robodoc gets 95%+ contact between
>the implant and the bone (I think 98% is the correct figure), while a
>surgeon going in with a rasp gets ~40% contact. The procedure was tested 
>on 30 dogs before it was tried on a human. Here's the interesting bit -- 
>the dogs needed hip replacements _anyways_. Does the fact that the
>procedure benefited the test animals make a difference to those who 
>object to the use of animals in medical experimentation?

Yes, I think it does make a difference.  Of course the animals should be
treated with the same degree of care as they would if they were patients in
a veterinary hospital, etc.

(Of course there are still the problems of how applicable results obtained
in non-humans will be to humans, if treating humans is the ultimate goal.)

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Is a FAQ finally needed?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:01:22 GMT

In <By3sF5.J26@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>-- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  
>-- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

	What?  Do you mean that after over a year of asking these
same questions you still don't have the answers?

	Alright, I'm pretty sure Russ is asking this because he feels
them to be important questions that new readers should answer before
claiming their actions moral or otherwise valid.  However, it's been
dealt with so many times before, perhaps it *is* time for that
talk.politics.animals FAQ?  Anybody willing to compile the answers to
the questions posed here and elsewhere?

	I suggest a format consisting of a Question and several
answers, to show not only the diversity of opinion on here but also
to allow the reader to have several differing views that they may
partially agree or disagree with.

	Russ, you spend a lot of time here; would you care to head up
the effort?  I volunteer my services (once finals are done) to help
write the thing, but I don't keep archives on this group so the
answers will have to be found by others.

	Volunteers this time?

< 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                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:03:55 GMT

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

`The park with the deer problem has been in the area for years and years.
`It was a fine looking nature preserve--today it is stripped of
`vegetation up to the point the deer can reach.  The herd is diseased
`and starving.  The problem was created by rapid suburbanization in the
`immediate area, forcing the deer to take refuge in one of the last
`tranquil areas.  I agree Steve that the issues are not easy when
`the problems faced by the animals are due to human encroachment.

I commented on the same thing in regards to the game reserve here in
southern Michigan that basically is responsible for rehabilitating
deseased animals, in the case I witnessed, Elk.  The elk hand literally
destroyed about 5 acres of forest in less than a month, even though there
was a plentiful amount of food on hand in multiple feeders.

I also noticed that on campus here, as well as at that local county building
where large numbers of geese are abound, there is no real tree growth as high
as the geese can reach.  Add to this the fact that the powder that many times
takes flight with the wind from dried geese/seagull droppings has been
responsible for many serious respiratory problems and you have dangerous
combination indeed....

swood
-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Question FOR Ted
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:17:19 GMT



In article <c8lp02X22b3c01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted
Robinson) writes:
>Ted Robinson writes:
>
>ml>It seems far-fetched for anyone to argue that
>ml>killing animals for food is unethical when so many species do it.  It also
>ml>seems silly to me to suggest, based simply on the ability to perceive pain,
>ml>that killing plants for food is more ethical than killing animals.  All
>ml>living beings have an equal capacity to suffer death.
>
>This was dealt with on the Universal Ethic and Meating thread. Given only the
>assumption that one of the ethics in our collection is:
>
>  "The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.",
>
>all comers were invited to posit additional ethics which would refute the
>conclusion:
>
> Eating meat is less ethical than not eating meat.
>
>I think those that tried to do so found it quite difficult. If you want I can
>e-mail you a copy of the thread so you can reach your own conclusions.
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.


Ted, again I ask you for clarification.  When the Universal Ethic was
being debated I asked how it could be that such an ironclad Ethic would
in practice not be lived up to, neither today nor through history, by
roughly 80% of the World's human population, and, about 97% of its 
non-human animal population.  Russell Lawrence [Cornell University,
Class of '81, B.S. Animal Ecology (just a guess)] sent me an illuminating
email statement of his position which remains private.  Could you state
your view here?
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:25:24 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov16.231414.23703@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>According to media reports here in Columbus, where relocation was
>considered for a city part whose deer population density had reached
>the point where the herd was becoming diseased and starving, about
>50% will die during a relocation effort.  And you're right, it's
>also expensive.

If 50% of disease-stressed deer survive relocation, I'll bet
a greater fraction of healthy deer would survive relocation.

>Steve,  I don't understand why Jeff's question about other "less cute
>and cuddly pests" is one which you do not want to address.  Discussions
>here are always sidetracked, issues are rarely resolved... we're just
>involved in an exchange of ideas.

Okay, I'll address it.

Jeff's thesis is that I care about deer, but not killer bees,
because deer are "cute and cuddly".  In fact, I care about
deer since they have more highly developed nervous systems
than killer bees; hence suffer when mistreated.  

>I'd be interested in your reaction to the following situation which
>occurred in Columbus.  [..]
>[ a proposed solution was ] sucking the hogs out of their burrows 
>into a big truck and then
>driving the truck to a rural area to deposit the live unharmed animals.

Good plan.

>The problem with this scenario was that no place within the county or
>immediate area wanted the animals 

No problem.  Do it in the dark of night.  Leave no trace.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:50:56 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1992Nov13.230132.25353@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>
>The problem is, Greg, that this same argument could be used to justify
>comparable experiments on humans who did not consent (i.e. harming N humans
>in the hopes of saving N*X humans by preventing/curing diseases later on).
>I do not accept these experiments (*when done without consent*), therefore
>I must reject that argument.
>
>Ro
>
>(P.S.  I am voluntarily taking part in a study myself though (a study of
>       correlations or lack thereof between diet and a certain disease.))
>       Volunteering as subjects for medical research was recently
>       recommended at an AR symposium I attended.  I think it is a good
>       idea, though there aren't many I can do since I am healthy (darn)
>       and until recently I was on the pill, which made me unsuited for
>       many experiments.)

Again, the comarision with humans.  AR supporter constantly draw
comparisions between animals and humans, granting both equal moral
standing.  I have yet to be convienced that animals are equal to humans.
And therefore they should be treated equally. 
Will someone (God I hope its not Russell!) please enlighten me?

By the way I comend you on your initiative regarding the study you
vounteered for.  I would be interested in learning more of the specifics
of the study, as would Martin I'm sure.  (please e-mail me if you wish.)

I would also like to address your comment regarding your ineligibility for
other studies because of your past history.  It is for that vary reason
clinical assesment alone cannot answer the questions regarding disease and
cientific inquiry necessitates controling various parameters.  That is
possible with animals but often impossible with humans.
In your case your history of using certain medications may alter the
results of some treatment.  In which case the researcher can not be
certain of the outcome of the experiment.
						   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.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@phoebe.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:27:21 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From Vogue magazine (November, 1990):

`"Though neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety 
`Commission requires animal testing before a consumer product or 
`cosmetic goes on the market....."

Well then, how about their insurance companies that give them liability
coverage or the court system in general?  I would imagine that the existance
of both would financially mandate any and all possible testing for human
safety.

swood

-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:34:34 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

I wrote:
*>Still, not having heard how your idea of involuntary sterilization
*>of humans fits into your plan for solving the problems of
*>population growth, I cannot judge whether you premise is feasible.

Steve Pope responds:
>I am presuming that by sterilizing somewhere between
>30% and 50% of the adult populace, population growth
>would decline to zero, thus saving the earth from total
>eco-destruction.  I could be off base on this, but I
>can't think of any alternatives.

Even better, limiting families to only one or two children per couple
would yield a *negative* growth rate.  This could be accomplished through
social or economic pressure and education (As is already the case in
Japan and possibly Germany). Then nobody would have to play 
god with another's genetic inheritance.

Other less permanent forms of birth control are also options which have
not yet been fully explored. (No thanks to the Jerry Falwells of the world)

Anyway, since this is getting so far off the original thread, I'll
stop now.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:01:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.230003.18614@zooid.guild.org>, Rosemary Waigh
<rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-131192153346@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >Russell, your actions here might be ill-informed.  Although P&G does test
> >its products on animals, you may be unaware that they also spend a
> >considerable amount of money funding extramural proposals for the
> >development of alternatives to animal testing.  To my knowledge, none of
> >their competitors that you support have such research programs.  Consider
> >that your support of P&G might help fund the breakthrough that ultimately
> >allows animal testing of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.
> >
> Um, Martin, if we can already buy consumer products which have not been
> animal-tested, it would appear that the breakthrough has already occurred.
> Even if the end of animal-testing really did mean no more new shampoos or
> dishwashing liquids, so what?  New and improved consumer products are
> hardly essential.
> 
> Ro

Rosemary, appearances can be deceiving.  You should be aware that there are
*no* standards or guidelines in force for labeling a product
"cruelty-free."  What usually happens is that unscrupulous manufacturers
buy formulations or materials that are animal-tested elsewhere.

If you watch TV, please note that Paul Mitchell's commercials with Mariel
Hemingway originally touted his products as "cruelty-free," but no longer
make this claim.  Why do you suppose that they would discontinue this
claim?

I agree that we could probably get by with a fewer choices in the area of
personal products.  I also wish that competing companies would be less
reluctant to share animal testing data.

That, however, was not Russell's point.

--
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: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: PeTA Investigation
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:24:29 GMT



>The articles goes on to explain that if convictions are made PETA could be
>financially destroyed, paying fines and restitutions, lossing their tax
>exempt status.  In addition the RICO act permits the government to seize
>property or other assets.

I wonder...  if they're convicted if PeTA will try to claim that they
were just renegades, and that the organization itself isn't responsible?
Would this be a case of the "ship" deserting the sinking "rats"?


>From National Ass. for Biomed. Res. news letter Vol. 13 number 20 Nov.5 92

>    .... , Peta cofounders Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk refused to
 >   answer a number of questions asked during depositions in Sept. on the
 >   ground of relevancy or because their answers might incriminate them.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm....  Interesting how just a few words can speak volumes....