HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:52:19 GMT
	<1992Sep25.060653.14099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Oct1021348@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Oct1.171047.18630@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: none

>>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:10:47 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>(pre 1920 rate, post 1920 rate).
>>> The third parameter is the year at which the change occured (1920). 
>>Is it your contention that I could have picked 1915 as the year in
>>which the change occured if that gave a better fit?

> You could have picked any year after 1920. It would be quite reasonable
> to claim the law took a few year after enactment to have its full effect.

A model with a gradual effect (i.e a decline starting in 1920 and
continuing for some years) would be reasonable, but this is not the
same as a model with an abrupt effect in 1928, which is not
reasonable.

You originally proposed the model (in article
<ko7h7lINNoub@agate.berkeley.edu>) and only fitted two parameters for
it, so you apparently considered it to be a two parameter model at the
time.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: troy@cs.sfu.ca (Troy Brooks)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:08:55 GMT

In article <20963@drutx.ATT.COM> ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240) writes:
>I won't include the article because its too long.
	
	Ditto.

>6. So much for my reasoned, educated arguments.  The Canadians are for the most
>part a meek people (save some of their true living pioneers).  
	
	What a bunch of crap. Save this jingoism for someone
	who shares your narrow minded prejudices.

>They are a fairly homogeneous group ethnically, politically and economically.  
>Comparisons of their
>culture, or any other culture to that of the U.S. is erroneous.  Our ancestors
>did not come to this land to live like the serfs of Europe, Asia or any other 
>land which they fled or were driven from.  Rather, they wished to live in 
>freedom and depend on themselves for sustenance, not on the wimsical largess 
>of some government benefactor.  
	
	Actually, I think Bill Murray said it best in 'Stripes':
	"We're Americans! That means our forefathers... were thrown
	out of every decent country in the world! We're mutts! We're
	mongrels! ..." :-)

	Seriously, your arguments are not well served by resorting
	to this kind of lame-brain statement. If you're proud of your
	heritage, that's great. It has nothing to do with the statistical
	validity of the study you're referring to, however, and THAT,
	in turn, has nothing to do with your ignorance of Canada, it's
	people, or it's social makeup.

>
>Larry Bonham
>"We are but warriors for the working day.  All our gilt and our gaines is
>besmerched from painful marching in the rainy field." 

Troy Brooks
troy@cs.sfu.ca

From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:51:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:

 >The ones who don't realize "the other half of the country" has 80% of the
 >population.
 >
 >Not literally true, but close enough to expose the trick.

Can we conclude that people, or perhaps population density, is more of a
problem than guns themselves?  Or is it "people problems" like exposure to
violence in the media, idleness due to job loss, poverty related causes,
opportunistic morals, etc etc.....

Doesn't sound like gun problems to me.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Summary: Hey, it's over for this session folks.
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:11:44 GMT

It's official.

	Today, while listening to the radio, I heard the crime bill
failed to get past the Senate.  Part of the crime bill was the
Brady Bill.  It was not at all suprising to hear only a quote from
the sponsor stating that the bill was about guns (he even spelled
it, possibly to prove that he did indeed graduate the second grade)
and the power of the NRA.  The reporter on the radio referred to
the bill as requiring a nationwide waiting period, and specifically
did not mention anything of a background check.

	Since this wasn't mentioned, I suspect a background check
was still not mandated in the bill.  BTW: the bill was defeated
due to a Republican fillibuster, something you might want to look
for when determining which senator to vote for in upcoming elections.

	In other news, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (yes, I'm
a ditto-head, and I enjoy listening to him.  Flames in e-mail)
this afternoon when the Veep called in.  The Quayle-Gore debates
are scheduled for October 13 at 8:00pm (Eastern time?), and Rush
was asked to be the moderator.  This one ought to be worth watching.
Now if I can just figure a way to get a gun-control question in
the debate, we could find some real news on the issue.

<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: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Hunter Hatred
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:34:20 GMT

Paul Roberts writes:

>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, I think I need to clarify my position, since you seem to have
misinterpreted it somewhat.  I don't feel either of the two ARettes
(is that an acceptable term?) had any failings, other than being a bit
hypocritical in some of their actions.  In fact, they deserve nothing
but respect for rising above their "hunter hatred" enough to be able
to see a person that protests on behalf of the environment and does
things like saving harmless little wolf spiders from urbanized hero--
wannabes.  Both were able to see what I stand for, and see that I take
the time to go out and feed drop apples and hay to starving deer on
land where they can't be hunted.  They were able to see a guy that
puts up wood duck boxes in the Bashakill wetlands to help save the
local wood duck population.  They were able to see a guy that protests
cruel practices like force-feeding animals.
     Their friends were only able to see an Evil-nasty-cruel-Bambi--
slaying-gun-loving-Nazi image which they've conjured up of hunters.
And the level of abuse these poor ladies were subjected to (which
caused both breakups) by their friends made me want to puke.  Yet it
seemed to be just fine that the friends' boyfriends were all meat
eaters and inflicted the corresponding cruelty on farm animals.  As
I've stated in this forum many times, I hunt because it is the only
way I can guarantee that the animal was treated humanely and given a
quick death with as little pain as possible.  I kill it and the blood
is on my hands.  The fact that others pay people to kill animals for
them and are so isolated they truly don't think they've killed doesn't
cut it.  Hunters are honest.  We admit that we kill.
     So the actions of all the other happy little AR folk (notably
*not* the two ladies in question) are what bothers me.  If you
(general) don't like the fact that your relatives and friends eat
meat, fine, but don't take it out on the one group of people that does
the most good for wildlife and animals in general.  I still see hunter
hatred as being misdirected pent-up frustration with others that are
closer to you folk.  We are merely an ironically undeserving
scapegoat.


John

P.S.-- I don't know many hunters that hate AR folk personally.

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should Humans assign status?  Animals do.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:34:50 GMT

In <Bv4JpK.3L5@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Wrong, Rich.  Our respect for sentience and sapience is fundamental,
rl> and not layered on top of structural similarities.  To illustrate,
rl> let me remind you that I made it clear that I would respect the
rl> sentience and sapience of all beings, even those that might not
rl> be "alive" in the conventional sense.

From article <1992Sep29.003252.3604@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Indeed, you DID say that...and then went on to say that, in the case
ry> of mammals and birds such differences did not exist, thereby basing
ry> your judgement of worth IN THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT on similarity of 
ry> structure.  [See <Bsv4GK.Cw0@wpg.com>]

Wrong, Rich.  I judge actions on the basis of the impact that they
may have on sentient/sapient beings... not on the basis of similarity
of structure.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you value one 
class of chemicals (ie "life") more highly than other chemicals
(ie, non-living entities), simply because of similarities between 
those chemicals and the chemicals found in humans.   

If it just so happened that all sentient/sapient beings had three 
eyes, I'd still base my judgments on sentience/sapience, and not 
on the presence or absence of three eyes.  In such a case, I'm 
sure you'd try to confuse the issue by claiming that I worship 
eyes that come in sets of three.  

> ...
rl> If you have any evidence to support your argument that a carrot 
rl> would feel pain if I pluck it from the ground, let's hear it.  

ry> What do you mean by "pain?"  A carrot is so dissimilar in structure
ry> that it would be foolish to assume that its "perceptions" are identical.
ry> It is NOT foolish, however, to assume that there may be some analogue
ry> of which we are not aware, and which we would find extremely difficult
ry> to detect and comprehend.  

Do red-herrings feel pain, Rich?

Please present your evidence.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:54:46 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>On further thought, how about if I amend the original ethic to read:
> >  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Perhaps "unwarranted" would be a better term, as it does allow
for the use of medical treatments, corporal punishment, and the like
even though the recipient obviously doesn't want it but quite likely
is deserving of it.

<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.>
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:33:54 GMT

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

`In article <1992Sep23.222212.398@halfab.ka.sub.org> me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org writes:
`>In article <92261.143315DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> <DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
`>> Keep up the good work swood!  And good hunting
`>
`>Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
`>Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?
`>
`>With regards, 
`>Udo.

`Regards?  I think not.

`Second question:  (Are hunters ...) afraid of an animal that can
`defend itself?
`No.  Bears, for example, can defend themselves pretty darn well.
`In fact, every animal has some form of defense, and many are
`quite capable of killing a human.

`Mary Otto

Try reading any of the books by John Hathaway Capstick.  See what
hunter man-eaters is all about.  The titles I can remember are:

	"Death in the Long Grass"
	"Death in the Silent Places

This is a good source for a few instances in which hunting plays an
important part in human survival (J. Capstick was a hired hunter who
was most oftened hired to kill animals that developed a taste for
human blood - a majority of his stories take place in the wilds of
Africa but there are few that are even close to home)

swood


-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: One good thing about the Austin debate
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:14:10 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

One good thing I just discovered about the Austin debates and the corresponding
AR-head gathering.  No posts from Jennifer till next week!!!!


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: 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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:24:08 GMT

In article <swood.717782731@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood -  
EVENSONG) writes:
> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:
> 
> `In article <viking.717355193@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
> `Sorenson) writes:
> `> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:
> `> Animals can defend themselves.
> 
> `At once, if they are attacked.
> `But, asthonished I've seen a TV report about tourists observing
> `grizzly bears fishing salmon only some inches apart.
> 
> BS!  Get on the old telephone and call Alaska - NOW.  Talk to a game warden
> and ask him for information about tourism and seeing grizzlies.  Ask him
> for recommendations for being involved in such activity.  Chances are
> he is going to tell you your out of your tree for even thinking of it
...

The tourists have been scientists and the tours have been made repeated times
(as mentioned in the documentary report). The scientists are unarmed.
Only one armed attendant who knows how to behave close by the animals.
Anybody out there who can report on these tours?
Shure, it is not safe for real tourists, because they will make mistakes.
Their last mistake. But it shows that animals are not monsters.

...
> 
> `In case of self-defence you are allowed to kill the aggressor.
> 
> I agree there...
...
> `Not all animals are born with weapons. And many of them used as
> `game animal (is my dictionary correct???) only can run or fly away
> `(rabbits, deers, ducks ...).
> 
> My father told me a story once of when he was a boy.  He tried to pick
> up a ground squirrel and got the "sewing machine" treatment.  Before he
> could even put the thing back down, he was bitten five times by a set of
> 1/4" teeth.
>
 
Wasn't this also self-defence? Dangerous, I think, was only the
possibility of a pathogen and not the attack of the animal.
But I agree. Even small animals try to survive.
I was bitten also by small animals. OK, it hurts.
There is no injury that makes great pleasure.

Udo
-- 
Sunrise will be there even if you carry a camera instead of a gun.
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:20:50 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep30.000234.29469@convex.com>, jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
> 
[...]
>
> Jeff Achenbach writes:
> 
>>  Is this the kind of crap the AR leaders are feeding you? That hunters are
>>cowardly weasels taking out their fears of inadequacy on poor helpless little
>>fuzzy cute animals? Get a grip, lady.
> 
> I hated hunters long before there _was_ an AR movement.  Nobody convinced me
> to view hunters as cowardly scum, and no hunter has ever given me reason to
> doubt that assessment.

So.  You hate hunters.  Presumably you hate hunters as a group.  Hate is a
powerful and dangerous emotion.  By reason of the fact that hate, as an 
emotion, contains a large degree of irrationality, hate gives the one or 
ones who are hated a certain degree of power over the hater.  It gives the 
hated the power to upset, irritate, and intensify the hate, and thus the 
insanity associated with it.  Thus hate, like love, should never be given 
lightly.  Nor should it give directed at a group.  It is best not to hate 
at all, but if one must hate, one should only hate individuals, not groups. 
 Furthermore, hate implies a certain degree of knowledge about the one who 
is hated.  Perhaps you hate your own internal stereotype of what hunters 
are, but you do not hate all hunters, for you do not know all those who 
hunt.  Your stereotype is a part of who and what you are, so in some sense 
I think it is probably more accurate to say you hate yourself, and therein 
lies maddness and dispair.

> 
> You hunters keep talking about how this debate is stacked against you, how
> we want subhuman debris to represent the pro-hunting side, etc., but evidently
> not one hunter has the fortitude to just show up and make sure their side is
> fairly represented.  If you're unwilling to even try to make this a fair
> debate, you forfeit the right to bitch about its unfairness.

An interesting concept.  How exactly will the appearance of any hunters 
help to balance the media treatment of the issue?  If we show up, then it 
becomes controversial, and gives the media a better opportunity to talk 
about what nasty awful people we are.  If we don't show up then it's just a 
bunch of lunatics venting hot air.  Not very controversial at all.

Sun Tzu says a good general will always choose his battlefields rather than 
take what the opposition offers.  If we do choose not to take this 
battlefield, but instead wait and pick one of our own choosing, that is simply 
good strategy, not cowardice.  This, as you've presented it so far, looks 
little better than the Charge of the Light Brigade to me.

> -- 
>  Jennifer L. Johnson | "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
>  jjohnson@convex.com |  		--George Bernard Shaw
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: TOP 40 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY PER-READER COST (SEP 92)
Keywords: arbitron, statistics
Date: 4 Oct 92 11:01:08 GMT
Organization: I'm at, not speaking for: Uni of Wales, College of Cardiff

From news.groups...
} TOP 40 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY PER-READER COST
} 
}      +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
}      |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
}      |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
}      |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
}      |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
}      |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
}      |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
}      |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
}      |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
}      V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V
}11   5400   177   52%   777  2535.2     2%  0.48   0.4%  talk.politics.animals 

Cor, 5400 of us!

Instead of 11th, we were 8th a few months ago...

Gedge
--
Geraint A Edwards, Computing PhD student.      gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk
Graphic-free .sig's rule! Unix+Usenet 0pence/hr, Spuddy +44 203 638780
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:02:27 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) asks:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>One million times per year US citizens thwart crimes by the use of a
>>firearm ...

>Where does this statistic come from? I have seen it variously quoted
>as anything up to "100 million per year" (by the NRA?)

	Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use Of Armed Force"
_Social Problems, February 1988, p4.  This was well before Desert Storm, and
counted only private use, not armed forces use.  The figure was one million,
but the 100 million you refer to above is the estimated number of private
firearm owners in the USA.  It's easy to get them confused.  BTW: if you'll
check, the NRA ranks at the top on reliability of data by the National
Libray Association, or whatever group that is that libraries belong to.
If you can catch the NRA in a lie, I know people willing to pay money for
the evidence.

	Follow-ups should go to talk.politics.guns, but I can't change
that line on this system.

<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: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: results of discussions
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:30:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.000434.499@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org writes

>Hello,
>
>sometimes the contents of the articles go below the belt:-(
>Mine sometimes too :-((
>Is there any chance to come together?
>Or do we only have frontlines without any movement.
>Do discussions like these in this group lead to any
>changing of the front?
>What do you think of a talk.politiks.animals-census?
>
>With regards,
>Udo.
>

There are few times when you or one of the hunting representatives will
come together.  The discussion allows people having divergent opinions
on emotional and serious issues to counter one another and air out
their views.  Some people reading the group have minds that are not
set on certain issues.  I think the "fronts" as you call them may be
changed because the new readers who arrive may not have well thought
out points of view (me, for example) on the important issues being discussed.
If you're interested in animals--whether you observe, protect, or hunt
--the opinions and facts advanced in the discussions can be very educational.