HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Ulysses May be Freed
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:38:35 GMT

Ulysses May Be Freed

Ulysses, the 14-year-old killer whale kept captive in a
Barcelona zoo for most of his life, may have freedom in his
future.  After considering appeals from animal protectionists,
Barcelona zoo officials have announced a committee of experts
would review the viability of returning Ulysses to the wild
and implement their findings next February.
 
Ulysses suffered from boredom and began exhibiting abnormal
behavior.  The zoo originally intended to sell Ulysses to a
U.S. Sea World or loan him to Sea World while a larger tank
was built for him.
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:09:11 GMT

In <Bz47Lr.2MC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>No, it's not clear at all, Greg.  I noticed that *all* of your 
>references came from journals of associations with a vested 
>interest in the status quo.  And they're obviously intended to 
>serve a political goal by demeaning the views of opponents by means
>of fallacious "nazi" name-calling.   Typical.

	You might look at Greenpeace and then at the words given by
the nuclear agencies to see just what Russ is talking about.  In
this case, Greenpreach (no, not a typo) is on the losing end in
one journal, the winning end in another, but that has never stopped 
anybody before...

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:03:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.152146.13321@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.180934.3131@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>It may be useful here to address a recurring misunderstanding.  I doubt
>>that this example of a disease-spreading rat is a valid example of
>>speciesism. 
>>
>>Killing rats strictly because they're rats would be speciesism.  But
>>killing rats in self-defense to ward off disease would not be speciesism
>>(as I understand it).
>
>Robert, what do you think biomedical research is?

I had no idea that rats were invading these labs and attacking the
researchers.  What sort of stategy and tactics do they use? How well
armed are they?   Is there some way we could marshall the talents of
out-of-work defense workers and develop some new defensive weapons to
help you guys out?  :-)

>
>                   Greg 
--- 
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 (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:31:10 GMT

In article <BzBBuG.L1t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec15.132134.16590@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In the case of Barnard's pronouncements to the press, it is quite
>> reasonable to question his qualifications in the field of human
>> nutrition if he is going to set himself up as an expert to the public.
>
>Fine.  If you're going to portray yourself as the "voice of reason" 
>to readers of the vegetarian newsgroup, then perhaps we should continue
>to question your qualifications.   

	You still don't get it, do you?  Whatever I might have said in r.f.v.
	was said in a forum of opinions and not as an expert in the field.
	Barnard presents his opinions as fact and trades on his M.D. to lend
	them credibility, as if spoken by an expert in the field.  There is
	a substantive difference.

>> If he'd simply been expressing opinions on Usenet, no one would
>> have said a word.......
>
>I'm sure that you'd have said more than a word or two.

	....about his credentials.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:09:58 GMT

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

>In article <viking.724290520@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>>Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
>>>killed in vivisection laboratories?
>>
>>			The Black Death
>>	Remember, this particular plague wiped out roughly half the
>>population of Europe.  In short, it makes smallpox look like a
>>walk in the park.  The cure?  Sanitary conditions and rat extermination.
>>
>This is hardly relevant, the rats who are being killed in laboratories aren't
>taken off the street, they are being deliberately bred.

	And the threat is not the rats per se (heck, you can just step on
them, or use a flamethrower like they do in Austrailia), but rather the
disease they carry and can live with.  We can't, hence we attack the
disease by studying the disease on the carrier, and also the carrier if
it can be isolated.  Relevant?  I suppose you think killing mosquitos in
Panama was immoral because malaria was killing people, and the mosquitos
were only innocent carriers of the disease?  How about ticks, Rosemary?
What is not relevant is whether the animals were bred for a specific
purpose, not to what use their existence is made.

	BTW: did anybody else like the Black Death European Tour pun?
I have it on a T-shirt, and you'd be amazed at the number of people
who "just don't get it." 

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >





Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism 
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:34:12 GMT

In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Rich Young writes (on November 6th):
>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>ry> these:
>ry>
>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>ry> 
>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>ry> in the one performing the activity.

[...]

>=====================================================================
>rl> It seems to me that "guilt" arises, not simply from some innate 
>rl> feature of humankind, but from an individual's realization that 
>rl> he has violated a particular cultural taboo.  If it's true that 
>rl> all such taboos arise from someone's desire to avoid guilt, then 
>rl> we'd have to conclude that big taboos (big guilt) arise from 
>rl> medium-size taboos (medium guilt), and that medium-size taboos 
>rl> arise from small taboos (small guilt).  Question: Where do these 
>rl> small taboos come from?  
>=====================================================================

[...]

>From article <1992Dec15.004943.20653@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> When you answer my question, I'll consider addressing yours.  
>
>I already did.  If all behavior is selfishly motivated, how do you
>explain the initial development of taboos?

	You didn't answer my question, you asked another one.  I asked for
	specific information: one example of a human activity that CANNOT be
	explained by the two numbered principles above.

	A series of questions and pronouncements concerning "guilt" do not
	meet the criteria.  The answer needed is a specific human activity,
	not a discussion of "guilt."  Quit dancing around the campfire.

	I'll be more than happy to forward the entire exchange between 
	myself and Mr. Black on the subject, but until you answer my
	question, you'll be talking to yourself.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Trapping
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:28:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Joe Semrad writes:
>First off, Rob has finally answered the question about the traps being
>illegal in the park in the affirmative, and notified the authorities.
>Assuming there are no MORE facts that are being withheld that would
>change the picture, I fully support Rob in getting the authorites to
>remove the traps and perhaps cite the owner if warranted.  This is the
>way these situations should be handled.
>
>However his reaction to possibly breaking the law (was I springing traps or
>just dropping a stick on the ground...) was pretty lame.  He also wanted
>to send the trapper a message, which just springing the traps doesn't
>do.  

Pretty lame?  Do I not have a right to throw a stick on the ground?

>In other words, from the tone of many of Rob's posts on this subject,
>I get the idea that playing with the trapper's mind is giving Rob as much
>or more of a charge than is getting the traps removed.

I'd say they were about equal.

>I still don't like his repeated springing of the traps, for a couple of 
>reasons.  One, there is a possibility that the traps are legal, being set
>by the park management for pest eradication or some other reason unknown
>to Rob, or perhaps this park does issue trapping permits under certain
>circumstances even though trapping is generally prohibited.  

Any traps placed by the park management are the live capture type, they just
move the pests to a new location.  They are very down on leghold trapping
and have never allowed it or have done it themselves.

>Secondly,
>if the above is not true and the traps are illegal, then Rob may be 
>tampering with evidence, making it more difficult to provide legal
>penalties for their owner.

Actually, they were having a hard time finding the traps, or so I was told.

>If Rob is certain that the traps are illegal, perhaps he should monitor the
>area, without touching anything.  If the park authorites do not respond
>then he should continue to nag them until he gets a response.  

I have....

>Depending
>on the park management, I could see this being fairly low on some underpaid
>overworked park ranger's priority list.  However if Rob makes enough noise,
>I'm sure something will be done, or at least he will be told why nothing
>is going to be done.

See above.

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:14:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BzDy3r.604@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1goep0INN453@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>> In article <BzDFn2.tI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>>>> Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
>>>> of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
>>>> psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
>>>> as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
>>>> with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
>>>> from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.

>>>Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?
 
>> You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
>> mention above would you Russell?  Actually I guess it wouldn't surprise
>> me to see you taking whatever pokes you can at a religion that is based
>> on "mindless acceptance".  You continue to set new standards for foolish-
>> ness.  I forget who it was who stated the obvious that you have become 
>> nothing more than an irritant and the sadly comedic clown of t.p.a. (I 
>> added the clown part :-) )

>Do you truly agree with Rich's claim that _all_ behavior is selfishly 
>motivated?

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


Answer my question Russell.  I will not continue in a discussion with you
while you ignore my questions and answer them with your own questions.  
Play by the rules Russell.

Mike Linan
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:27:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec17.180118.20125@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <BzDFn2.tI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>>> In article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?

>Russell,
>Thanks for volunteering.  I have the hammer.  Mike, can you bring the
>nails?  Rich, you bring the main post, Martin, bring the horizontal.


On my way Mary.  Only problem I see is who gets to do the hammering? :-)


Mike Linan








>Mary Otto
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:55:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp drivels:

|If you want to use contradictions to argue with vegetarians, try getting
|the pro-abortion variety of vegetarians (which most are, in my experience)
|to explain their consistency.  To these people, a chicken has more right
|to life than a six-month old fetus.  Gets 'em every time.


This is nonsense.

In the U.S. about 3% of the people are vegetarian, and
these are about evenly split among ethical, religious,
and health rationales for their vegetarianism.

Of the health-induced veggies, one would expect them to be
pro/anti abortion in the same proportion as the public 
at large.

Of the religious veggies, you would expect them to adhere to
whatever aborition stance their church has adopted.

This leaves only the ethical vegetarians who conceivably
have some "contradiction" between their vegetarianism
and their abortion stance.  And even then, I don't
see any overt hypocrisy.

This is not to say there are not obnoxiously self-righteous
ethical veitarians out there...I just don't think
that's the norm at all.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:10:43 GMT

From article <1992Dec15.004206.20384@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> 	Unless I missed something, you've once again completely misinterpreted
> 	Martin's postings.  As I recall it, he questioned the qualifications
> 	of a psychiatrist with two published papers to set himself up as an
> 	expert in human nutrition to the population at large.  Barnard has
> 	set himself up as the holder of Truth-Based-On-Fact(tm).  Science
> 	does not, in general, recognize such excursions out of one's field
> 	of expertise.  

I think I understand your point, Rich.  What you're saying is 
that Martin's commentaries in areas such as ethics, law, 
medicine, history, and so on, ought to be discounted...  in view 
of the fact that Martin has an "abysmal" publication record in 
these diverse fields.  

> Now, you may consider this unfair, and perhaps it is,
> but it is the situation as it exists; psychiatrists with two published
> papers are not generally considered to be "experts" in human nutrition.
> For such a person to imply otherwise to the general public is hardly
> the highest of ethical standards.

You've certainly blathered on and on in talk.food.veg concerning 
human nutrition.  As I recall, you even had the gall to depict 
yourself as the "voice of reasons".  How many papers have you 
published in the field of nutrition?  Do you have an MD degree?  Or 
anything coming close?  [junior college perhaps?]   

> ...
> Martin simply questioned Barnard's already-published credentials...
> it was YOU who asked Martin to present his, and have since refused
> to reciprocate.

Is it reasonable to resolve a factual dispute by criticizing a speaker's 
credentials.

> You don't care what Martin's credentials are, you'll never reveal
> yours, and it's clear that your interest is simply the argument, not
> the information which might be contained within it.  Don't expect
> intellectual respect when you give none.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term, "intellectual
respect".   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:47:46 GMT

In article <75GZ02Sn2fcT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.015320.20433@samba.oit.unc.edu>, itsmine@med.unc.edu 
>(Greg Popken) writes:
>> (I just love Darwin)
> 
>What would Charles say about work done to ensure that the weakest genes are 
>propagated as frequently as are the strongest? Would he view this as 
>strengthening the species' ability to survive? 
>
Darwin's my dog. How should I know.  Just kidding.
First, of all discussion of diluting the gene pool as a result of
increased health do to medical research is irrelivant in cases other than
genetically transmitted diseases.
It is possible that increases in a maladaptive gene could weaken the gene
pool.  however, as long as the technolog,y that permitted the
first generation to pass the gene to the second generation, persisted the
effects of the "bad gene" on the gene pool would be neglegable.  As
technology would would still be able to correct the defect.

What do you think would happen?

                                   GREG POPKEN

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:50:18 GMT

In article <mhulsey-161292141424@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu
 (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <Bz9p2L.AwD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>
>> > As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
>> > that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
>> > degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
>> > too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
>> > evades questions posed here.
>>
>> Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?
>
>I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
>that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?

>mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
>Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
>Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
>University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity

Russell made a statement something along the lines of ["even at the
ivy-league institution I sometimes call my alma mater..."].

At least this much is apparent:  he states he did graduate from this
institution.

The context was the Hulsey/Lawrence debate about deemphasis at "quality"
universities of refereed journal articles.

As I recall, I would not characterize Russell's mention of his ivy-
league education a "boast," however, the entire passage would be
needed to confirm this interpretation.

Personally, I feel that Russell attended Cornell, or possibly Brown,
but this is total speculation.

As we know--"The truth or falsity of an idea cannot be determined
through appeals to authority."




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals