HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:17:29 GMT

In article <C1Bsvx.JCA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan22.233938.20777@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

[...]

>>Your point?  The fact remains, assuming we can believe the statements
>>each of us posted, that the largest cause of atmospheric methane
>>is not the farming of livestock.
>
>Is this truly a fact?  You haven't posted the figures.  Instead,  
>you posted a vague quote from a newsletter alleging that
>termites and rice paddies pump out "almost twice as much methane"
>as cattle.   It's entirely possible that termites and rice paddies,
>taken individually, each contribute less methane than cows, yet 
>together produce "almost twice" as much.

	Is the raising of cattle the largest contributor of methane to the
	atmosphere, Russell?  By your own admission, all LIVESTOCK contribute
	only 15 to 20 percent.  How much of that is from cattle?

>Maybe you should write the editors a letter and let them know that 
>non-heart-disease is the biggest "single" problem in america, rather 
>than heart-disease per se.  I'm sure they'll enjoy one of your handwaving 
>demonstrations.

	Why should I do that when it's clear that the biggest single problem
	in America is the deficit?

Russell wrote (>>>):
>>> Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>>> we cut without causing famine?
>>
>>Famine for whom?
>
>For human beings, Rich.

	Of course "for human beings," you flaming idiot!  Observe, if you
	can muster your mental resources for a sufficient period of time:

	   whom, pron., objective case of WHO

	   who, pron., 1: what or which person or persons; 2: the person or
			persons that: WHOEVER; 3: used esp. in reference to
			persons, but also in reference to groups or to animals
			or to inanimate objects with the implication that the
			reference is really to a person.

	I'm sure the literate readers understood that I was asking the 
	question, "Famine for which humans?"

>>I could do no more than speculate regarding the answer to your
>>question.  I would guess that any answer would depend heavily on
>>the circumstances of the one supplying the answer.  A Masai, for
>>example, might well answer differently than you.  
>
>Perhaps, but let's put the Masai's cattle in proper perspective.
>How much do they contribute to methane emissions (if anything)?

	Have the Masai found a breed of cattle which does NOT emit methane?
	Remarkable!

	Would removal of the Masai cattle cause a famine in Masai society?

>>Eliminating
>>the production of rice wouldn't be a major impact on the diet
>>of most North Americans, but elimination of livestock production
>>certainly would.
>
>If this is true, then it's obvious that eliminating rice from
>US diets wouldn't have much impact on our methane emissions.

	You asked about famine, not methane production.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:55:11 GMT

From article <lm07bdINN8qk@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C181wI.J42@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>This, too, is irrelevant.  It's hat-wearing that causes the brain
>>tumors --- not my beliefs.
> 
> But, Russ, aren't brain tumors a human concept?  Just like chemistry?
> 
> If you don't believe, they won't exist.  You gave yourself the simple
> solution already, why not use it?

Again, it's important to make a distinction between ideas and the objects
which they represent.

-- 
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: Retractions on 60 Minutes
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:06:45 GMT

From article <1k1nsjINN6nr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> Russ tries to discredit 60 minutes by mentioning that they once, in over a
> decade of journalist excellence, distorted the dangers associated with a
> common dental procedure.  The difference between 60 Minutes and the AFR
> propaganda is that at the end of each broadcast, 60 Minutes airs letters
> regarding their programming and admit to mistakes or oversights...I dont
> think you'd find such candidness in your PeTA letter...

I'm not a member of PETA, Alex.  Nor am I a publisher of "AFR propaganda"
whatever that is.  If I were a publisher, I would surely include
opposing viewpoints.

> Oh, BTW, You tried to discredit the information on cattle methane release
> and atmopheric concentrations because they came from the journal science,

Nope.

> your exact reason for this was the Science once published an article about
> cold fusion.  

No.

> I'm not sure if you realize what this does to your
> argument...

You've apparently confused me with someone else.  

> If _Science_ is indeed bunk, then you must remember that that magazine was
> the one that semiseriously broke the news on cattle flatulence in the first
> place so if they are wrong then so are you...

I didn't say that _Science_ was bunk.  

> But your insistance on cold fusion as proof doesnt hold water because
> _Science_ didnt say that cold fusion worked, they reported that a couple of
> aTm researchers claimed that it did.  They published the researchers'
> method which allowed scientists all over the world to reproduce the
> experiment and show that it was flawed.  I hope you can see the difference
> between merely reporting a method and endorsing it...And besides, all of us
> in Texas know that the aggies couldnt be trusted.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.   Neither do you,
apparently.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:59:55 GMT

obrien@netcom.com (No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB) writes:

`Apologies to those in t.p.a, which I *do not* read.

`I'm peeved that none of you know that there ARE proven examples of
`toolmaking in the wild.  I think it's chimps, but some kind of monkey
`for sure.  They use a twig, which they insert into an ants' nest, sometimes
`even coated with something sticky.  When they pull it out, the yummy ants
`are clinging to it.

`They *definitely* select twigs with care, and remove branches from them
`to get the diameter and length desired.  I'm not certain about the
`coating with attractive/sticky substance, but the careful selection and the
`removal of the branching parts is certainly toolmaking.

I would hardly consider this toolmaking.  Tool use perhaps.  Not making.

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Feedback to ARFs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:32:31 GMT



I would like to relate the following story, which was told to me by
someone who has no knowledge of my involvement in any debates surrounding
the animal "rights" issues.

Last November, on the day after Thanksgiving, a family vacationing in
the SF area traveled in the city to do some site seeing.  In the center
of a shopping area, in a public square, they encountered an Anti-Fur
protest.  They saw a group of people dressed up as different animals
and with fake blood dripping at various points.  They blocked movement
and were laying down over the cable car tracks.

The woman's son, 4 years old, asked what was going on.  Her mother
told her, "It's kind of like Halloween.  Aren't they funny looking?"
They laughed at the "ridiculous" costumes.  When they and other tourists
boarded the cable car to resume their sight seeing, many exchanged jokes
about the "protest".

Another man I know, who, again, does not know of my opinions on the
subject, showed me a picture in a newspaper of protesters with an
oversized plush rabbit with red paint splashed on it by protesters
against animal testing.  He said that the animal rights people were
"really funny. ... good for a laugh ... what a bunch of loonies".

All this was before the expose' on 60 minutes.

So, just a sampling of what middle America thinks of the ARFs.

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: freeman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Kevin Freeman)
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:45:52 GMT

  Nice cut  Alex the quote was if I remeber correctly:
"We have the abiltity to eat now by killing less (ie lowest trophic level)"
That does not imply eating babies (nerdo).

  Don't you know what a trophic level is. The pyramid basically builds up
by base tens. A cow needs so much grass to produce so much meat. If we
just ate the grass we would be getting the same nutrients we get from the
cow (very simplified but you being a meat eater *smirk*). We are killing
less living organsims by just killing the grass.

  Someone also said are vagans unhealthy or something along the same line.
When used to eat animal products I always felt tired and sluggish now that
I have stopped I don't. I can't explain it it just happened. Maybe its'
because meat and milk are so hard to digest... I haven't talk to my
Doctor about it, asked a prof. or done any extra reading to find out. I
just know I don't feel as tired

  Ohh yah by the way I don't know what is going on in the states but I do
know up here in Canada we have changed are four food groups. Guess what
boys and girls.... They are: Grains, Luguines (beans for meaters), fruits
and I think vegatbles. I couldn't tell by the picture on the tv. It looked
like a banana lying in the sun. I could read the rest though. The
government is finally getting the idea.
 
  All you meat eaters can argue till you are blue in the face I don't care
I made my choice not only to be healthy but because I love life (all life)
and I wish to cause as little suffering to other organisms as is possible.

  Try a falafel instead of a burger, or try Nature's burger you may like
it better. But you farts will smell bad. I also make wicked Chick-Pea Samozas.

Vegan farts smell the worst but nothing smells better than your own farts.

lotsa love,
  Kev
 I can't get my groovy sig file to work maybe next time!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Date: 28 Jan 1993 12:01:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


In article <1993Jan27.143751.3729@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>What I am saying is that since the people reading this article have the 
>choice between veg(etari)anism and meat-eating, it is unethical for them
>to eat meat.  Since you have this choice, if you eat meat you are causing
>*avoidable* suffering and death!

I (and most of america) totally disagree with the concept that it is
unethical to eat meat.  I think it is unethical for you to judge others.

>Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics

alex the omnivore



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:38:15 GMT

In <C1DsCL.44B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Do you think they'd publish your commentary?    Probably not.

	No more than Greenpeace would publish studies by Commonwealth
Edison showing their nuclear plants are the most economical plants
they produce power with.

>Perhaps we'd be in a better position to tell us who is or isn't
>a "fuckwit", as you say, if you'd provide us with some verifiable
>facts to replace the ones which you're disputing.

	When common algebra and personal experience aren't considered
facts, then I suggest you simply print the posting, use the article
number instead of an ISBN number, write USENET as the publisher and
print it out.  Thus, it's a publication and apparently easier to believe.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:11:11 GMT

In <C1A8s3.AnI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C18vuF.509@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> In <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>>I think most people have figured out by now that meat,
>>>dairy, and egg production is more tightly bound (category-wise) 
>>>than the production of fibers, flowers, potatoes, leafy vegetables 
>>>fruits, etc.  
>> 
>> You left out footwear and belts among others in the first
>> category.

>Both categories include footwear and belts.

They both include fibres and food too. Heard of wool? Face it animals
and plants both give us things to eat, things to wear, things to
inject, things cosmetic... One is no more tightly bound than the
other.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:53:03 GMT

From article <lm062oINN8ov@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C16IM6.79L@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>I say:
>>> ingest to get the 4 grams of protein you got from the beef calorie?
>>> If you want to be fair, it would take an infinite number of calories
>>> because you *can't get* the 26 essential amino acids from soy alone,
>>> like you can from beef. 
>>
>>26 essential amino acids? 
>>
>>Why don't you try reading a book once in a while instead of wasting
> 
> Sorry.  I had just heard about this nifty book you scored, which talked
> about the 26 essential letters of the alphabet.
> 
> There are 7 essential amino acids, and you *still* can't get them all
> from soy, alone. 

Not according to the Handbook-8-13, published by the USDA's Human
Nutrition Service, May, 1990.  Some of the older issues of the handbook
show the comparison in a way that's more favorable to soybeans, but
still, I think we can see that your claim is false.

                     mg/100 grams

                   Medium    Boiled
                  Hamburger Soybeans
Tryptophan          284        242
Threonine           965        723
Isoleucine          987        807
Leucine            1845       1355
Lysine              538       1108
Phenylalanine       873        869
Tyrosine            718        630
Valine             1116        831
Methionine          538        224

                  Hamburger Soybeans
Calories            287        173
Protein             23g        17g
Fat                 21g         9g
Carbohydrate         0         10g   
Fiber                0          2g  
Saturated Fat       45%        15% 
Cholesterol         68mg        0

> The argument never lost a drop of water.

Too bad for you.  It's still piss.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:46:45 GMT

In article <C1862L.KnA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Why don't you help "poor Russell" by providing us with the 
>evidence that the author of the Tufts article used in reaching
>his/her conclusions about the relatively unimportant role
>that cattle play in global warming.

	Why should I do your homework for you, Russell?  I gave you the
	quote and the source of the quote.  If you want to know more, then
	feel free to explore it further with the Tufts Letter.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: New Study: Location, not Amount, of Body Fat is important
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:34:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Ok this just comes from a CBS news program today (not 60 Mins) and is
reported to be published in today's journal of the AMA.

According to a study on bodyfat done on 14,000 (maybe 1,400?) volunteers
the location of your bodyfat is more of a concern than the amount of it.
The research found that people shaped like pears, with most of the fat in
their waist, ass, and upper legs, are much less likely to suffer from all
sorts of diseases including heart disease, hardened arteries, cancer,
etc... than people shaped like apples.  The "pear is healthier than apple"
held through both sexes and all agegroups.  Oh I didnt mention that people
shaped like apples carry most of their weight in their torso and especially
belly.  One researcher interviewed by the programme said that the
difference in health problems was so dramatic, this might explain why women
tend to live 5-7 years longer than men--women tend to be pear shapped.  The
researcher then went on to say that "this turns everything we know about
obesity on its ear" because this study shows that amount of fat is only a
secondary concern.  

I posted this because I know many of you are concerned about your health
and new information is always interesting.  If someone can get their hands
on the actual document maybe we can get some more info...

alex the omnivore
 











Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11876 alt.activism:21508 rec.food.veg:12667
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Terrorism and Imagery
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:46:25 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1993Jan27.074239.14472@abo.fi> abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:

>Animal experimenters are more vicious because they attack targets
>which are softer - the victims hardly have a chance to defend
>themselves.

	Yeah, funny how the IRA targets Brits, who are not allowed to
own weapons save those used solely at an approved shooting club, and seem
to prefer bombs and similar gadgets designed to allow the terr ample
time to make good his escape.  A terrorist does not want direct
confrontation and will not allow it if at all possible.  That is why
they are terrorists and not militia -- they know they'll be wiped out
if they allow their targets opportunity to defend themselves or target
them back.  Personally, I like the way the Mossad and Spetsnaz (sp?)
take care of terrorists.  Notice hijackings are way down this decade?

	As for defense, I dare say even a half-grown calf could easily
kill any human if the human was not allowed access to weapons.  Animals
were given natural weapons; we were given intellect.  Said intellect is
no defense if it's not used to equalize or overcome the mentioned weapons.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:26:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.150657.12748@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
[Karl's factual report exerpt deleted]
>
>[lots of stuff deleted]

>>Just thought I'd bring an actual report from the field.  I am a licensed
>>trapper and nuisance control agent.  I wonder if any AR people out there  
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>can share their views, while backing them up with hands on field  
>>experience?
>
>>Karl Rominger
>
See Alka.  See Alka jump to conclusions.  Jump, Alka, Jump.

>I'd be happy to share a view:  I feel that the killing of an animal, just for
>the sake of his/her fur is an ethical travesty, something we should have left
             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>behind long ago (particularly in regions where such behaviour is not necessi-
>tated by a harsh environment).  I'm pleased to hear that the animals that 
>you've trapped, Karl, did not suffer, but I would still mourn the fact that
>they lost their lives to an industry that is motivated largely by vanity and
>greed.  

Alka, you are as entertaining as ever.  Karl didn't say he was trapping
"mink" or anything that would lead to a logical conclusion that he was
part of the "industry motivated by vanity".  Karl talked about "nuisance
control".  Nor did you ask him if he was.  You just jumped in with a
bunch of accusations to fit your ARF agenda.  Keep being silly.  You
do more damage to your cause that way.

Mary Otto
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <C1FFC8.ELp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1993Jan25.161122.9344@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> [lots and lots of Sixty Minutes stuff deleted]

>I'm going to address your comments in detail, but not without additional
>investigation.  In particular, I want to have a chat with James Gill
>at the Times-Picayune, who allegedly interviewed some of the LSU 
>employees who had complained about the cat screams.  

>Meanwhile, please call Enid Neidle at the American Dental Association 
>and ask her whether or not the ADA would consider Sixty Minutes to be:

>a) a purveyor of reliable information; or
>b) a television tabloid that's unconcerned about the factual
>   basis of its coverage.

Actually what Mr. Neidle's opinion of 60 minutes really doesn't matter
or have any relevance on the facts of the cat shooting research.  It would
also seem that even if 60 minutes was found to be a "tabloid that's uncon-
cerned about the factual basis of it's coverage", they would be no worse 
than what I have seen of PETA!  Certainly 60 minutes at least has shown
how PETA and other ARFs distort and actually tell bold face lies to further
their "causes" and agendas.  


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


Mike Linan






Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals