HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:39:53 GMT

In article <37N=02Ji25P701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>Whoops! Something got chopped off. I meant to say:
>
>If you don't like Russell's tactics, why not
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>find someone else who's tactics are more to your liking and engage him/her in 
>a dialogue. You should realize that when you slam Russell, you tell us far 
>more about yourself than about him.   

Ted,

You overlook the sad truth that there is no way to avoid Russell while
still posting to t.p.a., because he responds to every article.  If this
were not the case, it would not have been worth the effort to study and
document Russell's tactics.  Sadly, Russell demonstrates no interest in
playing fair, and to participate in this forum will require subjecting
oneself to his abuse.  At some point, it just isn't worth it.  At some
point, Russell will drive away people with interesting viewpoints that
differ from his own -- no one will tolerate his abuse forever.  But if
what I have written has given just one person the courage to disagree,
if it has given just one person an insight to enable them to defend a
differing viewpoint under fire, then it was worthwhile.

As for what my words say about me; well, to the net-world, my words are me.
The fact that I post my words and thoughts and feelings says that I have
the courage and conviction to publicly state my position and opinions.
The fact that I published my analysis of tactics shows that I not only
read the posts of others, but studied their dynamics.  You might not
agree with my opinions or my tactics, either, but you have read them, and
for that, I thank you.  If you chose not to like me, that is your perogative.

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:21:48 GMT

In <b4PN02Kq25rs01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, Ted Robinson writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct9.165010.18739@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com 
>writes:
>
>Ted Robinson writes:
>>>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.
>
>Rich writes:
>> 	You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
>> 	the statement above. 
>
>Depends on what you mean by "absolute truth". I believe the statement to be 
>true. I believe the vast majority of people in the U.S. believe it to be 
>true.  (I'd include all of humanity, but that would be too presumptious for 
>one as parochial as I.) Perhaps the phrase "universally recognized truth" 
>would be more fitting (a phrase that I stole from the definition of "axiom"). 
> 
>
>>  There may well be thousands of people who
>> 	do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
>> 	inappropriate.
> 
>Certainly. That's why I first posted the postulate and asked for 
>disagreement. I'm searching for common ground here. From your post, I suspect 
>you missed the first thread and are coming in on the middle of things. 

	True enough.  I saw the thread begin, but since I was already
	embroiled in a similar discussion, I didn't pay it much attention.
	The statement and your questions caught my eye, however, and
	prompted the response.  If I'm way off the mark with these comments,
	please feel free to ignore me.  Dan Sorenson doesn't need my help...
	and probably doesn't even want it.   :*)


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:42:12 GMT
Organization: WP Group

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
rl> limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".  Yet,
rl> the philosophers who pioneered the development of the concept of
rl> rights (ie Locke, Jefferson, Paine, etc) from the late 17th century
rl> onward faced stiff opposition from clerics who claimed to represent 
rl> the christian deity.  How come?
rl> 
rl> Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
rl> 
rl>    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
rl> 
rl> Instead of saying something like:
rl> 
rl>    "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

From article <1992Oct11.175152.23029@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
wc> He did.  He said 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

Possibly.  And he may have written, "Do unto others as you would 
have them do unto you".  Unfortunately, there are many who would 
say that such consideration don't apply to our mammalian 
cousins, not to mention our more distant animal relatives.  

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:00:23 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Moreover, some of these folks have stated in the past that their
rl> denial of rights to humans and animals alike is justifiable because
rl> of the dictates of their "god".   As long as they maintain these 
rl> beliefs, it won't make much sense to banish their rationales to 
rl> another newsgroup. 

From article <1992Oct10.013852.28072@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
wc> I think in this instance you are assuming that they are denying
wc> rights to humans because you believe that they 'shall not suffer a
wc> witch to live'.  You would have to first prove that they will kill a
wc> witch if they found one.

How many witches have been killed by christians in the name of god?

If your "god" ordered you to kill a group of individuals...  without 
explaining his reasons, would you disobey? 

rl> Again, let's consider a statement and a question:
rl> 
rl>  -   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
rl>  -   "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?"
rl> 
rl> Why would someone be willing to accept the first statement on "faith",
rl> yet be quick to dismiss the second question as "idiotic"?

wc> The first statement was made in the Old Testament which to 
wc> Christians is neccessary to understand the significance of a 
wc> Messiah.  However it outlines a covenant God made with the Jews 
wc> before the coming of Jesus of Nazareth (who I will for 
wc> convenience call Christ).  After Christs' crucifixion a new 
wc> convenant was made for all people.  References to the new 
wc> covenant (contained in the New Testament) about witches are 
wc> outlined in Galations 5:20, the general gist of which is that 
wc> witches are not allowed to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The first 
wc> statement is not necessarily valid to Christians.  Another point 
wc> is that finding a statement in the Christian Bible does not mean 
wc> that it's followers accept it.  Another example of that is 
wc> extra-marital sex (Mathew 5:27-28) and it's practice in the 
wc> modern day, but that discussion is for another newsgroup.  
wc> 
wc> The second statement dealing strictly with hunters is murder.  To 
wc> me it seems to say that human hunters should hunt other human 
wc> hunters.  Unequivocally murder in my eyes.  I concur that this 
wc> statement is idiotic as it advocates murder of human beings.  

Was god behaving idiotically when he said: "Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live?"   Would you be inclined to say that the many,
many christians who participated in the killing of heretics and
witches during the middle ages and renaissance periods were also 
behaving idiotically?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:13:45 GMT

In <1992Oct5.222340.326@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:

>Hunters hunting hunters are murderers because they are killing life.
>It is against law. It is immoral under most societies and religions.
>BUT sometimes just these societies go crazy and are making war.
>None of the above statements is remembered. Nobody stands upright
>(even christians) to say that killing any life is immoral anytime.
[stuff deleted about Ireland]

I fail to see what being a Christian has to do with killing or not killing
any life.  With regards to human life one of the commandments that Moses
brought back to the Hebrews was 'thou shalt not murder'.  This has been
translated many times however as 'thou shalt not kill'.  Where do we draw
the line?  That depends on the situation and can only be judged by
whatever higher power you believe in.  
With respect to animals, killing may be synonomous with murder for some
people, but for my opinion killing an animal if there is a legitimate need
is acceptable.  Of course that raises the question; what is a legitimate need?

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:00:39 GMT


In article <5ptzr2#@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> And yes, Russell, I do still think your Space Invader Friends 
jve> would consider it ethical for them to hunt humans and that my 
jve> opinion on the issue is not relevant.  

Would the suffering of the victims and their friends be relevant?  
Or, would their pain and sorrow be "arbitrary" considerations?  

-- 
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: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:46:08 GMT

Ted Robinson writes:
tr>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

From article <1992Oct9.165010.18739@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
ry> the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
ry> do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
ry> inappropriate.

Would you object if someone were to inflict unwanted pain on you?

-- 
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: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:28:39 GMT

In article <92Oct08.203751.14843@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>If PETA and others of their ilk had the courage, they would
>travel to the northern communities on the North American
>continent and explain to the trappers, many of whom are
>Aboriginal peoples trying to maintain their culture by living off
>the land, why they shouldn't be harvesting furbearing animals. I
>suspect they do not because they know they would encounter
>everything from derision to their own personal death.  They would
>rather stay in the major cities in the south where it's safe and
>hassle legitimate businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
>is ranched) to a market that demands it.

If the majority of fur sold is ranched, it's not helping the aboriginal
trappers in the North, is it?  Perhaps the fur ranchers should explain to
the people of the north why it is okay for them to compete for the already
small fur market.

Rosemary Waigh
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

P.S.  t.p.a readers might also be interested in learning more about Native/
      Animal Brotherhood, an anti-fur organization whose membership is 
      restricted to aboriginal people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:15:49 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> According to Jesus, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which contains the 
rl> passage concerning witches.   Is it ok to kill witches, simply because
rl> your "god" says so?  Would it be ok for someone else to kill
rl> protestant christians if "god" told them to do so?

From article <1b4hdaINN2il@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Do you believe in God?  We already know you don't so if you want to know
ml> what my position is, read the Bible and you will know.  That is if your
ml> interpretation is the same as mine.  Again, I don't know what you aim to
ml> achieve by asking these questions.

I think your responses would demonstrate your disrespect for the notion of
human rights, Mike.  Why don't you answer the questions?

rl> You have a particular fondness for the names: "fool" and "idiot".

ml> When dealing with you, yes I do.  You have made comments and displayed 
ml> behavior that lends me to use these subjective labels where you are 
ml> concerned.  

Does the term, "fool", as you use it, have any meaning?  Or is it 
an empty label that you empty-headedly apply to anyone who 
disagrees with your position?  

BTW, I took your advice and read the bible this morning and came across
this passage:

"... Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Are you in danger of hell fire, Mike?    Or does "god" make a special
exception for folks like you who use the term fool "subjectively"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:28:55 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Oct7165438@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   >But your solution appears to be a ban on bowhunting, whereas
>
>   Though I haven't yet mentioned a bowhunting ban, I have not seen any
>   convincing reasons to oppose such a ban.  
>
>   The main case for bowhunting seems to be that it provides excitement and
>   recreation for a subset of hunters.  From the animals' standpoint, it
>   offers no "advantages" which are not already available from gun hunting.
>
>There are advantages for the animals:
>
>1)  Hunters are much more limited so they will do a better job of
>removing the young and the weak.

So for hunters to do a better, we need fewer of them?  Is removing the
young really an "advantage" for the animals?

>
>2) There is much less disturbance.  The sound of a bow is almost
>imperceptable whereas a gun shot alarms animals over a much wider
>area.

But a gun has the advantage of warning other animals of the danger.
Sounds like a wash at least to me.

>
>3)  A bow requires much more dedication and effort which results in a
>better class of hunters.  I know I will get flamed by gun hunters for
>this and I am also a gun hunter.  But I think bow hunters know and
>understand their prey much better: they have to.  This results in a
>hunter that has much more respect for the animal.

Respect is nice, but so is life.  Which is more advantageous to you:
Someone who respects you but is out to kill you?  Or someone who
respects you but is not out to kill you?

[...]

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Drinking and Hunting (was re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters)
Reply-To: me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 12:14:25 GMT

In article <swood.718572175@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood -  
EVENSONG) writes:
> There has been a lot of talk about drinking and hunting.  I do not endorse
> the concept, and in fact I actively try to discourage it.  But I am just
> curious.  Does anyone have any hard statistics or proof of where alcohol
> use and hunting has led to harm to humans or deaths of animals.  Please
> email me with any hard proof you may have.  Posting such is up to you.

Hello,
sorry but I do not have special statistics about drinking while hunting
that results in unwanted injuries of humans or animals. This is not a
special problem of hunters. Statistics that tell us that drinking may
result in harm to humans is that about accidents with cars. And I think
if somebody can't control a stearing wheel then he should not carry
a gun, because studies show the prejudice to perceptive faculty.

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:57:08 GMT

From article <1992Oct9.145231.3357@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> The trap seems inhumane to me--the intense pain of animals who suffer
> and perhaps gnaw their leg off to get out of the trap is troubling.
> My first reaction is that a ban would be called for.
> 
> Question for Russell:  What's your position regarding the necessity
> of the above mentioned Humane Society of the United States to put
> down many of the animals coming into shelters who cannot be placed
> with people?

It's a lesser of the evils situation.   IMHO, the alternatives to
euthanasia in many cities are far worse than a painless death.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Call for Response: alt.russell.biblical.nonsense
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:44:44 GMT

This train of thought does not need to go on in a talk.politics.animals group.
Over the past two weeks I have seen these articles fill close to 40% of
the articles in the group.  Of those, I have seen less than 25% that
directly touch animal issues.

Take the religion discussions either to an appropriate group, or even better,
to email (as the majority of this discussion has included the same names)

I wrote to the people directly involved, and of all the ones that I wrote,
the only negative - non-cooperative response I received, was from Russell,
so thus the Subject line....

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: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 22:20:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Scott Woods writes:

>The second I used as a reply to Jennifers comments that all hunters were
>murderers and thus she would not like to hang around murderers.  I had
>argued that her logic to show that a hunter was a murderer was false (IMHO)
>and used as a contrast the arguement that (IMHO) AR-heads were out of
>touch with reality (better known in psychiatry as crazy) and that I would
>not want to spend my time with crazy people.

Near the end of last week, Scott posted a response in which he "quoted" me
as saying that hunters are murderers, etc.  I took exception to that response
(and to this one), because
  1) I never made the statements he "quoted."
  2) The lines he attributed to me were his own--poorly-paraphrased from
     email correspondence between us.  
  3) Net etiquette frowns on the unauthorized posting of personal email
     to a newsgroup.
  4) The use of ">" followed by text attributed to an individual implies
     that the words are those of the individual, not the responder's
     interpretation of what that individual wrote.
  5) Scott's command of the language doesn't even come close to my standards.
     Having his ineloquent paraphrasing attributed directly to me is quite
     insulting.  

Because I was taking care of lots of last-minute business before driving to
Austin for the Conference, I didn't have time to respond.  When I read this
response and saw that Scott was continuing to refer to his own shoddily-phrased
misinterpretation of my email correspondence as "Jennifers [sic] comments," I
felt the need to set the record straight, and to expose Scott as someone who
disregards net etiquette and, whether deliberately or not, takes great
liberties with other people's words. 

In the interest of fair play, Scott, next time you attribute a comment to me,
please be honest.  Quote my exact words, not your interpretation; and
stick to words posted in this forum, not sent via email.  

BTW: I haven't forgotten my promise to post a summary of the
debate-that-never-was, the anti-hunting protest, and the Conference.  I'm
simply taking the time to do justice to reporting these events; I'll post
a summary when it's ready.

-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our
 jjohnson@convex.com |  circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures." 
		     |				--Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:44:31 GMT


In article <BvuAux.853@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I heard the story about the "AR radicals" who'd thrown paint on 
rl> women wearing fur coats in NYC so many times that I was tempted 
rl> to believe it myself. [...]  The NYC police department didn't have a
rl> single record of such an event in their files.  

From article <1992Oct9.164049.18387@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> On the other hand, when I mentioned the incidents in Aspen, Colorado
ry> which occurred a few Christmases ago, and which were broadcast on
ry> national TV, you were spectacularly silent.
ry> 
ry> Like others, I do not believe that ALL AR activists engage in such
ry> terrorist activities, but there are certainly some who do, just
ry> as there are hunters which shoot holes in "STOP" signs.  Pretending,
ry> as you seem wont to do, that EVERY supporter of a particular
ry> viewpoint, especially such an emotionally charged one as AR, limits
ry> actions to calm, reasoned discourse is ingenuous and smacks of
ry> fanaticism-induced blindness.

You're dreaming.  Let's edit-in the brief section of my article that you
carefully edited-out:

rl> I heard the story about the "AR radicals" who'd thrown paint on 
rl> women wearing fur coats in NYC so many times that I was tempted 
rl> to believe it myself.  And why not?  Every political movement has 
rl> it's share of people who aren't fully committed to the major 
rl> goals at hand.  

Does it sound like I'm saying that "EVERY supporter" of any movement 
is committed to peaceful activity?

ry> Sure, it is POSSIBLE that the farmer's mailbox was blown up in order
ry> to provide PR for anti-AR supporters, but it's far more likely that
ry> a group of people like the ones who trashed the lab in Michigan were
ry> responsible.

So you say (without proof).

Incidently, I've noticed that all the rumors about AR activists 
releasing and poisoning animals at dog shows have been fading 
away since PETA posted a reward for information leading to the 
arrest of the alleged culprits.   

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