HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:06:22 GMT


From article <92Oct08.203751.14843@acs.ucalgary.ca>, by powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland):
jp> If PETA and others of their ilk had the courage, they would
jp> travel to the northern communities on the North American
jp> continent and explain to the trappers, many of whom are
jp> Aboriginal peoples trying to maintain their culture by living off
jp> the land, why they shouldn't be harvesting furbearing animals. 

What percentage of fur skins comes from these people?  And, do 
you believe that their dependency on fur might somehow justify 
fur ranching in other places where employment and cultural 
opportunities are far more extensive?  

jp> I suspect they do not because they know they would encounter
jp> everything from derision to their own personal death.  They would
jp> rather stay in the major cities in the south where it's safe and
jp> hassle legitimate businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
jp> is ranched) to a market that demands it.

We have quite a few trappers here in Louisiana, Jim.  In fact, 
the secretary of the National Taxidermists Association lives in 
Slidell, Louisiana, just outside New Orleans.  She wrote a letter 
to the local paper a year or so ago that heaped praise on the fur 
industry, while misinforming readers about the nature of the fur 
trade.  I responded by sending the editor a packet of information 
from the Humane Society of the United States as well as 
bibliographical pointers to additional information.  Several days 
later, he published a rebuttal entitled, "Fur advocate didn't 
reveal the harsh realities".  

Incidently, do you support the continued use of the steel leghold
trap?  Or, do you believe the US should join the 65+ countries 
that have banned its use elsewhere in the world?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:59:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



>In article <1992Oct5.222340.326@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org 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.

>From article <1avcj4INN1c3@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Even Christains?  How about especially Christains won't stand up to 
>ml> to say killing animals for food is unethical because their (our) 
>ml> God has stated that there is no wrong in doing so.

>Uh huh.  And that's the same "god" who said: 

>	 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

>Thanks for reminding me.

>> > What a untruthful society. Not killing is tougher than killing.
>> > No step forward. On the contrary, only steps backward.
>> > Why so down? Just seen a report about Ireland. These people are
>> > making 'war' since 800 years against each other (as one of them told).
>> > Luzy (if this is the name of the oldest known link to mankind) will
>> > feel ashamed for her descendants.

>ml> This is how you feel.  I can appreciate that for what it is.  However,
>ml> I do not agree with you and your views concerning the killing of animals
>ml> and that is that.  I do agree that killing of humans is unethical :-).
>ml> You are welcome to your beliefs but, don't bash us (those who don't feel
>ml> the same) just because our views are different.

>You say that killing of humans is unethical.  Would this include 
>"witches" in particular, not to mention all sorts of other people 
>who don't share your religious beliefs?  


I don't know of any "witches", do you?  That is not just someone who likes
to pretend they are a witch but rather someone who has supernatural powers.
As I said, I feel killing humans is unethical.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000






Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:59:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvuC2o.8n3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
more ranting about witches deleted

Russell is still using his unfair tactics and continuing this wild
tangeant on religion.

Challenge to Russell:  Take your debate to one of the religion groups.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:14:54
	<1992Oct9.164717.15385@clpd.kodak.com>
	<1992Oct9.212235.15811@spdc.ti.com>
In-reply-to: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.212235.15811@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
   In article <1992Oct9.164717.15385@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   >I don't recall seeing them.  Tim objected to the idea of drug-tainted
   >venison.  Is that your gripe too?


I thought of another issue.  Just what is the injection system?  How
does it relate to current archery equipment?  Is it just another type
of "broadhead"?  

Also, what does it wiegh and how does it fly?  These issues play a
large role in the accuracy of the delivery.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:54:37 GMT

In article <BvpwFz.4ox@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Be that as it may, do you consider the statement, "Thou shalt not
rl> suffer a witch to live", to be equally valid as the statement:
rl> "Government should make no laws restricting private exercise
rl> of religion, be it christianity or witchcraft."  Bear in mind that
rl> Linan's "god" made the first statement, whereas the second is
rl> a paraphrase of something written by Thomas Jefferson.

From article <1av4ccINNsrs@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Wow.  Thomas Jerfferson.  Now there's someone we all should worship and
ml> base our lives on.

Personally, I'm not interested in finding someone to "worship", but
I am deeply interested in the foundation of Jefferson's philosophy.
Would you be more inclined to respect Jefferson's ideas if he had
claimed that they were the dictates of a deity?  

Who do you think truly wrote the phrase: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
to live."

Mary Otto wrote:
mo> Russell uses a set of tactics to wage verbal warfare over the net.
mo> Currently, he is hunting hunters.  He sets traps.  He tosses little
mo> bombs (loaded questions).  He impales his victims on sharp insults,
mo> pointed remarks, and the razor edge of inuendo.  He is vicious.
mo> He searches for a weakness, a mistake, and pounces.  He wears down
mo> his quarry until they are driven over the cliff in exhaustion and
mo> are forced into oblivion...
mo> And there is no worse fate for him than what Todd said about nobody 
mo> taking him seriously anymore...

rl> Are you trying to insult me?  Are you making pointed remarks?  Are
rl> you vicious?  Are you trying to wear me down?  Are you trying to
rl> eliminate me from the discussion?   

ml> Exactly how old are you Russell?  Sometimes you act like an 
ml> elementry school bully.  If you want to be taken seriously I 
ml> suggest you start by being honest and stop with the snide remarks 
ml> and dishonest tactics.  

I'm still trying to understand your penchant for name-calling, Mike.

Which person is truly more immature: the man who labels his 
opponents as "idiots" and "fools" while claiming that "god" is on 
his side?  Or the man who's trying very hard to understand such 
behavior?  

-- 
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: Bambi Fishing
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:46:12 GMT


[re an explosion blamed on AR activists]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... Or perhaps we should blame one of the many groups whose financial 
rl> interests are threatened by the growing debate over animal 
rl> rights.  

From article <92Oct08.202025.15338@acs.ucalgary.ca>, by powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland):
jp> Please! The debate over animal rights is not growing. I think you
jp> are confusing it with media atttention which has SEEMED to grow
jp> over the years. However the bottom line is, the vast majority of
jp> humanity could care less what AR-types think or whether animals
jp> have rights or not.

Not really.  Some practices that were commonplace a hundred years 
ago would be unacceptable to most americans living today.  I 
agree that many people still disagree with the notion that 
animals ought to have rights, but then again, many of these same
people also disagree with the notion that humans ought to have 
rights.  

From the historical point-of-view, however, such disagreements are
neither surprising nor discouraging.  The concept of personal rights,
as we know it today, didn't really appear in western civilisation
until the late 17th century, whereas the concept of property, which
drove the progress of civilization from its inception, has been
around for thousands of years.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:13:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.162251.14889@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.200646.18120@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.164239.14987@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>In article <RIGG.92Oct5151040@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>>
>>>	"According to the experts, animals can completely evade an
>>>	arrow at distances of 15 to 'less than 20 yards.' (95,147)
>>>	This is undoubtedly true, which means they can also PARTIALLY
>>>	[emphasis mine] evade the arrow and become wounded.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I don't doubt this is true of an alert deer aware of your presence. But you
>>have no business shooting under such conditions.
>
>So hunters only shoot at deer who are unaware of their presence?
>

Not all, I'm sure, but that is what is taught (preached?) in all the 
bowhunting magazines and books I have read. It is my practice and also
those whom I respect as ethical bowhunters. We realize deer have lightning
fast reflexes. We spend a great deal of time and effort making out bows 
shoot quietly. I can't even draw and aim at a deer that's aware of me 
without alarming it and having it bolt and run. I have little doubt that
a deer facing me could evade my arrow at 25 yards (I shoot a recurve, slow
by today's standards). I cannot in good conscience risk a shot that has a
high probability of only wounding. The reason I state it this way is I 
realize every shot has some probability of wounding. I try my best to 
reduce it, but it will never be zero. 
   If you were to read Bowhunter magazine, or Bow and Arrow Hunter, you
might be surprised how much space is devoted to discussion of hunting 
ethics. We (hunters) are well aware of the unethical slobs in our midst,
who reflect poorly on all of us. We are trying to police our ranks.
 

Jeff Achenbach
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:22:51 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Oct7.200646.18120@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.164239.14987@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <RIGG.92Oct5151040@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]
>
>With a bullet, it is generally quite easy due to expansion of the slug while
>traveling through the body. The exit hole, if there is one, is generally 
>much larger than the entrance. With an arrow, it would be extremely difficult
>if not impossible, unless one were on an elevated stand shooting at a sharp
>downward angle.
>   If Benke was shooting at short range (say 20 yards) it would be quite 
>difficult to follow the arrow in flight and determine exactly which came 
>first, the hit or the turn. Even my relatively slow recurve (slow compared
>to compounds) seems to reach a 15 yard target almost instantaneously. A deer
>can swap ends fast enough to make the action difficult to follow. Overall, I
>would guess that we are all guessing, including Benke. The difference, judging
>from the quoted text, is that Benke won't admit it.

Or perhaps, as a good researcher, he has it all on videotape?

>   Someone else (I forget who) brought it up, but it's still not clear to me.
>Was Benke intentionally trying to gutshoot these deer? I find the thought 
>sickening myself.

I agree totally.  The thought is sickening and that's why, as I
mentioned previously, AR groups tend to have very mixed feelings about
his studies. 

Benke's argument in support of them is that this represents what happens
in real life, but the suffering occurs out of sight.  Ignoring it won't
make it go away.  And by not doing the research, we're "indirectly
allowing tens of thousands of wild animals to suffer the same fate in
the woods, out of sight and out of mind."  By conducting the research
and publicizing the results, we have started down the road of admitting
there's a problem and pondering possible corrective actions.

>>Finally for those who question how far a deer can move in a split second,
>>Benke, in his paragraph immediately preceding the above quote, writes:
>>
>>	"According to the experts, animals can completely evade an
>>	arrow at distances of 15 to 'less than 20 yards.' (95,147)
>>	This is undoubtedly true, which means they can also PARTIALLY
>>	[emphasis mine] evade the arrow and become wounded.
>>
>
>
>I don't doubt this is true of an alert deer aware of your presence. But you
>have no business shooting under such conditions.

So hunters only shoot at deer who are unaware of their presence?

>
>Jeff Achenbach

---
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: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:40:49 GMT

In article <BvuAux.853@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>...blowing up mailboxes is not something that the AR activists I know would 
>ever consider doing.                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	If you can't speak for ALL AR activists, then this statement doesn't
	carry much weight, does it?

>I heard the story about the "AR radicals" who'd thrown paint on 
>women wearing fur coats in NYC so many times that I was tempted 
>to believe it myself. [...]  The NYC police department didn't have a
>single record of such an event in their files.  

	On the other hand, when I mentioned the incidents in Aspen, Colorado
	which occurred a few Christmases ago, and which were broadcast on
	national TV, you were spectacularly silent.

	Like others, I do not believe that ALL AR activists engage in such
	terrorist activities, but there are certainly some who do, just
	as there are hunters which shoot holes in "STOP" signs.  Pretending,
	as you seem wont to do, that EVERY supporter of a particular
	viewpoint, especially such an emotionally charged one as AR, limits
	actions to calm, reasoned discourse is ingenuous and smacks of
	fanaticism-induced blindness.

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

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
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, 15 Oct 1992 04:00:02 GMT

In <Bw3Dys.1MI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Oct13.212416.9819@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
>wc> Show me how God disproves of the way humans treat animals.

>Show me that your "god" really and truly disapproved of the 
>mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of witches, heretics, and 
>unbelievers during the late middle ages.  After all, your "god" 
>did say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  

You have been told the context and definitions of the above statement.  It
is then irrelavent to the question you pose above. 

To answer your question God does disprove of the abuse of using God's name
to commit acts God is opposed to.  You are blaming the principle (in this
case Christian faith) for the acts it's adherents have done.  Can I blame
all Americans for the protectionist (as I and our press see it) policies
your trade representatives impose on Canadian softwood, or the subsidies
America and Europe give their farmers that make it difficult for Canadian
farmers to survie (no flame intended to the general citizens of either
country/continent)?

Would you please answer my question that was left from the last post?

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.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Reply-To: me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.045404.9699@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com  
(mary.rita.otto) writes:
...
> 
> Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
> "manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
> lagging self-concepts.
> 
> Russell, how does this apply to me?
>
...
"Manly" and "macho" attributes are not mans domain only.
Every bad environment (war, natural desasters, street gangs, ...)
shows that females are quite tough to survive?
And in most families the female makes the politics?
Tough guys you may often find in bars telling stories?

Udo.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:57:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <BvpvGF.4Jt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
>rl> be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting 
>rl> hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
>rl> claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.

>From article <1aq3a6INNrp@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
>ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
>ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

>In this case, I suppose you won't have any objection if we expand the
>scope of rights to protect the deer that you wish to kill, as well as
>the witches that you might otherwise wish to kill.    

You don't read or listen very well Russell.  I've told you that God doesn't
ask that witchs be killed.  You can hope for whatever rights you wish.  That
doesn't mean they will be so or that I or anyone else will agree.

 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:09:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct9.043953.10021@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com 
(mary.rita.otto) writes:
> 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.  
 
Somebody grabs your fingers and forces you to respond? No, the choice is 
yours. Personally, I like a lot of Russell's postings, but I find there are a 
lot of anti-AR posters who aren't worth paying attention to. Sometimes I 
respond anyway, usually out of anger, and sometimes I just ignore them. 
Sometimes I try to reason with them. Regardless, the choice is mine. And if I 
choose to respond, especially in a confrontational manner, then I need to 
recognize that in doing so, I'm contributing to the situation.  I find that 
engaging in a tit for tat "dialogue" does little to improve things, and 
usually makes them worse. Of course I still do it, being human and all.  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:57:37 GMT

In <Bvpwxo.4qv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
>of the conversation.

>Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
>disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.

	If your credibility can be disproven this way, it is indeed a
valid method of persuasion.  Witness the attacks on various people
who hold viewpoints contrary to their opposition: Rush Limbaugh, the
NRA, PETA, Sarah and Jim Brady, Jane Fonda, and Dan Quayle just to
name a few prominent people.  If your past posts show a trend, it is
sour grapes to claim an attack thusly; if all that is left to an
attacker is personal innuendo, the argument is lost according to the
generally-approved Usenet guidelines.

	Which camp Russell falls in is left as an exercise for the
reader of this post.

<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