HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Halloween
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:00:51 GMT

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



>All this talk about witches brings to mind reported violence against
>animals perpetrated around Halloween.

>Russell and Alka have said that they know "witches" -- do any of
>these witches use animal sacrifice?

The witches that I've said I know are followers of the Wiccin (sp?) faith, 
which from my understanding, is a very old faith (predating Christianity by
several centuries) based on matriarchal principles & ecology.  There's a bit
of a tie-in with ecofeminism in that the species of the earth are viewed as
existing on a horizontal plane (as opposed to the vertical hierarchy imposed
by the prevalent thinking).  These women are into goddess worship, full moon
rituals and the like.  It's quite interesting, I think, but not something which
is truly up my alley.  The witches with whom I'm acquainted are peaceful (some
are vegetarians & even pacifists), and I know there are no animal sacrifice 
involved in their ceremonies.  

 
>I've read newspaper reports that people should be especially careful
>to safeguard their cats (especially black cats) around the Halloween
>season.  Is there any need for true concern?

Good question.  I've heard similar reports, particularly with regard to 
Devil's Night (October 30), but I've never heard of actual cases of cat-
kidnappings and/or mutilations.
>Mary Otto

alka

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 21:21:36 GMT

From article <1992Oct9.182443.9049@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> Certainly I disagree with you.  According to Mike Linan, the old
> covenant of God has been replaced with the new one (the New Testament)
> in which God no longer presents the directive to kill witches.
> Apparently, God changed her mind between the writing of the two
> testaments.  It took backward mankind centuries to update his practices
> with the "new and improved" directive from God, i.e., people in Salem,
> MA burned witches, people in 1990's Berkeley do not (at least not
> usually!).
> 
> If you're to make your argument effective that Mike is erroniously
> basing his hunting on biblical "permission" don't you have a duty
> to show that the bible does not grant this permission?  

Where does the bible say, "Thou shalt not kill witches"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
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 22:04:38 GMT

In article <BvvGA8.Hz4@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.  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?

   How about THIS part of your posting:

	>...blowing up mailboxes is not something that the AR activists I
	>know would ever consider doing.  [From <BvuAux.853@wpg.com>]

   You imply here that the "AR activists [you] know" are representative of
   AR activists in general, yet now you wish to disown them? Make up your
   mind.

   And while you're at it, how about addressing the Aspen, Colorado 
   demonstrations...I note that, once again, you're notably silent on the
   subject.

>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).

	And so did YOU say......without proof.  Funny how the standards
	you impose upon yourself are so much more lax.

[...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: 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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:44:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.151345.19526@ccu.umanitoba.ca> chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
(William John M. Christie) writes:
> 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.
... 
> is acceptable.  Of course that raises the question; what is a legitimate  
need?
> 
> Will Christie

A legitimate may be wrong.
One example: it was 'legitimate' for nazis to kill jews, invalids, ...
Another example: it is 'legitimate' for some people to blast airplanes.
Many other examples exist.
Maybe the answer is: for man there is no legitimate to kill life.

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:41:19 GMT

Regarding the fur issue, and specifically, the steel-jaw leghold trap that
was being discussed earlier on this thread, an interesting incident took place
a couple of years ago at our campus.  The Univ. of Western Ontario Students
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (in London, Ontario) had invited Ainslie
Willock from the Toronto Humane Society (& the Canadian Anti-Fur Alliance, whichwas a THS project) to give a talk on the state of the fur industry.  Ainslie 
had brought several traps with her to demonstrate the power of these traps.
Included in her selection of traps were a couple "humane" traps - essentially
the leghold traps, padded with rubber.  A trapper in the audience wished to
convince all those present that the trap was in fact quite benign, and volun-
teered to put his hand into the trap.  He did, and appeared to be quite
unscathed when the trap closed on his fingers.  In a very composed manner,
Ainslie acknowledged this, and asked that the man keep his hand in the trap
during the presentation.  He was further told that he could remove his hand
at any time if we wanted to.  A mere 40 minutes later, the man's hand was a
deep purple.

Now imagine if instead of that man's hand, an animal's paw was trapped in the
"humane" device.  Not having the ability to release him/herself & being 
alarmed by the sitation, the animal would probably wriggle and squirm and do
all sorts of things to try and escape from the pain of the trap.  Perhaps the
rubberized jaws would keep any tearing of flesh to a minimum, but physical
and psychological agony would persist.  Furthermore, time is an important 
factor.  In the U.S., the laws governing such things are much worse than in
Canada, and in Canada, trappers may not check their traplines for several 
days, and perhaps not even for a week!  There is no such thing as a humane 
trap, and there is no escaping that fact if a fur coat is made up of trapped
animals.

alka

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: Thu, 8 Oct 92 23:06:14 GMT

In article <Bvrq9w.LM9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...article from AMERICAN RIFLEMAN regarding Wisconsin farmer deleted...]

>This reminds me of the crock about AR activists allegedly 
>throwing blood on women who wear fur coats.  Have there been any 
>arrests?  Any convictions?  If not, it seems rather silly for 
>anyone to blame the threats and the blown-up mailbox on an 
>unknown group of animal rights "terrorists".

	HEY!  This sounds like a new version of Schrodinger's Cat!  To
	wit: the protesters aren't really there unless one of them is
	arrested.  I wasn't aware that quantum physics applied on a macro
	scale!  Think of the possibilities...the mailbox isn't really
	blown up unless it's been photographed and scanned into Usenet,
	the newspaper article doesn't really exist until it's been presented
	in full to Russell...........

[...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

   P.S. I'm being sarcastic, Russell, not scientifically accurate.
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:22:05 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.718951917@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:

Robert Black writes:
> >It may well be that there are thousands of people who reject Ted's
> >postulate.  But has anyone actually done so? 

Dan writes:

> 	I did.
> 

I'd say you haven't rejected it outright, but are nibbling at the edges.

Dan writes:
> In reverse chronological order: planned hernia surgery
> this Christmas break, hernia surgery September 1991, surgery on left
> ankle fall 1987, same leg set w/o anaesthetic one month previous, not
> to mention various other assorted nasties like having teeth filled,
> giving blood, rehabilitation for various injuries, etc...  And I take
> this pain voluntarially because I hate pain-killers when I can get
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> by without them, but none of this pain is wanted.

It sounds like you wanted the pain from the procedures more than you wanted 
the results of leaving the procedures undone. So in this sense, you did want 
it. Perhaps the problem here is using the word unwanted. A more precise 
phrase might be "pain that the recipient doesn't choose to have inflicted on 
him/her". This is clumsy so I just used the phrase "unwanted pain". Perhaps 
"unchosen pain" would work better. The key point is that the decision to 
receive pain is up to the recipient. 

 >I won't tell the surgeon this December that he's being
> unethical in inflicting pain upon me  
 
Good, as that would be a misapplication of my proposed ethic. I said "the 
less unwanted pain I inflict, the better". No mention is made of a boundary 
line between unethical and ethical.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:17:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvvHv1.InE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Is there a passage in the New Testament where God says that it's
>ok for you to hunt deer with high-powered rifles?  Or raise chickens
>in tiny, tiny coops?  Or use chimps in medical experiments?
>
The New Testament on the subject of animals:

I Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same:  men have one kind of
                     flesh, animals have another, birds another, 
                    and fish another."

Jude 1:10 - "And what things they do understand by instinct by
             UNREASONING ANIMALS - these are the very things that
             destroy them."  (emphasis mine)

Acts 11:6 - "I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth,
             wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air.  Then I heard
             a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter.  KILL AND EAT."
             (Emphasis mine.  *Snicker*)

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>
>Secondly, why does the issue of tracking skills keep surfacing? If the
>shot is on target and immobilization is rapid, then what are keen tracking
>skills needed for? Maybe it's related to the particular terrain where
>bowhunters typically hunt? 
>

Rapid immobilization is a relative term. I don't honestly know the top
speed of a deer, but would guess 30mph is not too far off. That is, I 
think, about 44 ft, or 15 yards, per second. 75 yards in 5 seconds.
That's a long way and far out of sight in the areas bowhunters are likely
to shoot a deer. Remember, we must get quite close. We can't do that 
without benefit of cover. Camouflage doesn't work if you're out in the
open. 

>It seems to me that if death or immobilization occurs quickly, then the
>tracking skills needed to find a deer within, say a 100 yard radius, are
>not that demanding.  If necessary, you just assemble a coterie of
>hunting buddies and sweep the area.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
>

A deer live and standing virtually disappears before your eyes in heavy 
brush when it stops moving. (Yeah, I've missed some opportunities in this
way) When they bed down in brush or weeds, their protective coloration is
such that you can easily pass within 5 yards and not see them if they don't
move. (Yup, I miss these on a regular basis. Don't notice them till they're
up and running.) When they're laying dead, it's even harder. A 100 yard 
radius where I hunt is darn near room enough to get lost, and no, I'm not
exaggerating. I've hunted the same area for four years, and still have a 
hard time finding my way to recognizable locations.

>On the other hand, if death and/or immobilization do not occur quickly,
>then good tracking skills are helpful.  If a hit deer can still cover
>great distances, then something went wrong and this is not supposed to
>happen with the modern broadhead arrow. 
>

Great distances? Again, relative terms. 100 yards doesn't take a deer long.
If it is running across a field, it'll be easy to find. If in brush, it'll 
be a long, difficult job.

>
>I appreciate your concern about drug-tainted meat, but I think in this
>case your fears are unfounded for these reasons:
>
>	2. Many thousands of bowhunters and their families have been
>	   eating SCC-killed venison since 1960 and there's NEVER been
>	   a problem.
>

Where? I didn't know any state allowed drug-tipped arrows.

>	5. Thirty minutes of cooking at 212 degree F results in 50%
>	   breakdown of the SCC.
>

Who the heck wants to eat meat that's this overcooked? Might as well chew
on my boots.


Jeff Achenbach
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 01:04:08 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
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.  

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

From article <1av4hlINNssn@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> What an idiot.  :-) Look Russell, I've tired of you and your 
ml> drivel.  If you have something interesting to discuss I'll be 
ml> happy to do so.  But, for now you have bored me to pieces and I 
ml> don't feel like wasting any more of my time responding to stupid 
ml> questions.  

Yes, there is something I want to discuss.  You've stated in the 
past that non-human animals do not have rights, yet you've 
admitted that you support existing laws than ban unnecessary 
cruelty to dogs and cats.  Would the existence of such laws not 
lead us to believe that (some) animals already enjoy (some) 
rights in our society?  If so, would you also agree with me that 
the concept of non-human-animal rights is not altogether 
different from the concept of human-animal rights?  

-- 
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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:24:16 GMT

In <Bw0zoI.4tG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Fair enough.  In this case, we'll also insist that any modern-day 
>human who claims to speak for "god" be required to walk on water or 
>raise the dead or perform some sort of "Biblical" miracle under 
>controlled conditions.    

Obviously you don't understand Christianity.  One can still preach
what they hear as the Word of God.  What you describe are miracles
that are reserved for only those as God approves.  If modern-day
witches want to call themselves such then they will have to prove
their malevolent powers to claim their Biblical ancestry.

>Otherwise, we'llhave to dismiss their pretense that "god" approves 
>of the way that our society mistreats non-human animals, just as
>Mary Otto would dismiss the claims of modern-day witches.

Show me how God disproves of the way humans treat animals.

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Call for Response: alt.russell.biblical.nonsense
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:08:46 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It doesn't take a genius to figure out that religious concepts, 
rl> like it or not, have played a major role in rights debates over 
rl> the past three hundred years, and they continue to do so even in
rl> our day and age.

From article <swood.719119374@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> Yes, but this debate has sprung away from animal concerns and 
sw> into tangents in regards to witches and specifics of the bible.  
sw> It also amongst a few individuals repetitively and does not have 
sw> any relativeness to the rest of the majority - TAKE IT TO EMAIL 

It's clear that you didn't comprehend the gist of the threads that
you're criticizing, perhaps because you were so preoccupied with
deep thoughts about archery.   My advice is this: skip past the
articles that you have no wish to read.

-- 
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:35:14 GMT

From article <1992Oct9.165959.2257@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
> 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.

The relationship between religious beliefs and animal-rights 
issues is hardly a tangent.  Just a few weeks ago, I had an 
interesting discussion with an ex-cop who's now serving as an 
animal-control officer for the parish (county) where I live.  He 
brought up the roles that the concepts of dominion and souls have 
played in the rationales that dog owners had presented to him as 
excuses for their illegal mistreatment of dogs.   

I wasn't surprised.  I'd heard similar stories from other animal
control officers and shelter workers several times in the past.

Challenge to Mary: If my articles are disturbing to you, why don't
you skip them?  You won't hurt my feelings.

-- 
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: Response to Bob Black (long)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:54:09 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <wmsztj-@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>>>  I feel hunters care far more
>>>about deer than nonhunters and antihunters.
>>
>>I'm sure you'll appreciate that I disagree with this statement due the
>>inclusion of antihunters.  WRT nonhunters, it might be true in some
>>cases but not necessarily universally so. 
>
>Sorry, Bob, but Tim is correct.  You'd have to replace the word "deer"
>with "individual deer" in order for antihunters to register on the
>scale.  We've been through this before. :-)  I'll agree with you that
>some nonhunters care (but not as many as hunters).  Antihunters don't.

I believe that Tim is incorrect if he's saying that *all* antihunters
don't care about animals.  But I also think it's a pointless thing to
argue about.

>
>John
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal Ethic
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:23:46 GMT


Stephen Clark is a Christian philosopher who writes extensively
on ecological theology and philosophy.  Here is one of my favorite
quotes of his that embodies something of a "universal ethic."



         Whatever else be true, whether there be gods or only atoms,

     whether men are significantly superior to non-human animals or no,

        whether there be a life to come or this poor accident be all,

                       this at least cannot be true,

            that it is proper to be the cause of avoidable ill.

  There may be other moral principles than this, but this at least is dogma.

                 And if this minimal principle be accepted,

there is no other honest course than the immediate rejection of all flesh-foods.


                                --- Stephen R. L. Clark
                                    The Moral Status of Animals

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 20:53:01 GMT


Mike Linan writes: 
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.  

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

From article <1b4h6tINN2gt@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> You don't read or listen very well Russell.  I've told you that 
ml> God doesn't ask that witchs be killed.  You can hope for whatever 
ml> rights you wish.  That doesn't mean they will be so or that I or 
ml> anyone else will agree.  

You're contradicting yourself.  When I asked you how you knew 
that hunting was acceptable, you explained that the bible told 
you so and that the bible is the literal word of god.  Yet the 
bible also says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  I've 
read the bible and I don't recall a passage that says: "Forget 
about killing witches.  I've changed my mind".  

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