HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:29:19 GMT

Hunter Kills Jogger

>From _The ARIES Newsletter_, December 1992, Animal Rights
Information & Education Service, Inc., P.O. Box 332, Rowayton,
CT  06853:
 
Kevin Elliott loved running and hated hunting.  He was killed
in a bizarre accident that brought the two together.  Elliott
was running in a wooded section of Morris, CT, when he was
fatally shot by a hunter who told police he mistook him for a
deer.  "It's so ironic because his older brothers are avid
hunters, but he was different," said Glen Spino, a neighbor
and family friend, "He didn't like guns or hunting."
 
The hunter, Robert Cook, 42, of Thomaston, was hunting with
two others in a special anterless deer season and apparently
mistook Elliott for one of them, state police Sgt. Charles
McIntyre said.  Elliott, who had blond hair, was wearing a
dark blue jogging suit, police said.  News of Elliott's death
prompted his brother, John Elliott of Goshen, to dismantle his
hunting rifles and vow never to hunt again.  "My two (other)
sons have hunting licenses," Jean Elliott said.  "One has a
gun and says he'll never have anything to do with guns again."
Elliott worked as a teen-age counselor in Waterbury and was
working on a doctorate degree at Central CT State U, Spino
said.  Elliott had the day off for Veterans Day and used it to
run, he said.  Cook was treated apparently for shock at
Charlotte Hungerford Hospital in nearby Torrington after the
shooting and was later released.  He has not been charged in
connection with the fatal accident.
 
John Zontok, who has been hunting in the Northwest area for
more than three years, said many hunters get buck fever when
they hunt.  "When you see a deer, you shake, your adrenaline
flows and you want to pull the trigger," Zontok said.  Eric
Nelson, a conservation officer for the DEP, said Cook's
hunting permit will be automatically suspended pending a
hearing.  "Generally, once someone is involved in a hunting
accident they don't care any more.  It's a traumatic
experience.  They don't want to go hunting anymore," he said.
A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.
 
- Norwalk Hour, 11/12/92


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 01:31:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.180401.27092@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>

[...]

>>	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
>>	assumptions, too.  BTW, when, exactly, DID you stop molesting your
>>	neighbor's little boy?
>
>The only assumption is the implied one in the "If" clause of the first
>sentence.

	Is there some number of assumptions required before any can be called
	"unjustified?"

>By saying that it's unjustified, you're aligning yourself
>with those who deny a rough moral equivalence between animals and
>plants.   [...]

	No, I'm not making any moral statements at all.  I'm merely saying
	that dismissal of plants (and "lower" animals) as physiologically
	"inferior" may be a bit hasty, based on the tidbits of knowledge we
	have to date.

>>>You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
>>>an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
>>>relevant?"
>>
>>	No, AR advocates and "ethical" vegetarians have equated "unfeeling"
>>	with "ethically irrelevant."  I've merely restated this claim, and
>>	offered some evidence which shows that plants may not be as far
>>	removed from animals as those groups would like to believe, and
>>	that plants are not "unfeeling."  Since you are certainly a member
>>	of the first group, if not the second, I ask YOU, "Does 'feeling'
>>	equate to 'ethically relevant?'"
>
>"Equate" may be too strong a word to characterize the relationship. 
>"Linkage" might be better. 

	Why the ambivalence?  And how does it "unlink" when you get to
	garden slugs and amoebas?

>>>If there are similarities between plants and nonhuman animals which "may
>>>preclude simple relegation of plants to the [ethically irrelevant]
>>>category", then aren't there similarities between nonhuman animals and
>>>human animals, which actually *do* preclude simple relegation of animals
>>>to the ethically irrelevant category?
>>
>>	What a silly question: of COURSE there are.  Who ever said
>>	otherwise?
>
>Again would you be surprised that your past postings could have been
>interpreted to be a defense of the view that animals and plants should
>be relegated to equivalent moral categories?

	You asked, in essence, "Aren't non-human and human animals
	sufficiently similar that we should be somewhat concerned with
	their welfare?"  You asked nothing about plants; I answered in
	the affirmative.  There is nothing mysterious and misleading
	about that.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10592 talk.abortion:53443
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:15:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <cfAWvRK00UhBA2aWJV@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 16-Dec-92 Re: Vegetarianism and
>abort.. by mary.rita.otto@cbnewsf.c 
>> >In my naive childhood days as a vegiefanatic, I would eat eggs and
>> >explain that my eating of eggs was indicative of my support for abortion
>> >rights.  I am now a vegie apostate, but I still think the killing of
>> >human fetuses is a positive moral good on a planet overpopulated by homo
>> >sapiens.
>> >
>> >Michael Loomis
>>  
>> Micheal,
>> If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
>> your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?
>>  
>> Mary Otto
>
>Dear Mary,
>
>    I appreciate your interest in the sincerity of my beliefs.  I have
>thought about suicide but I feel that committing suicide would negate
>the potential good that I could do.  Killing just myself would be such a
>selfish act.  Could you send me your address and a recent picture of
>yourself?
>
>Michaeloomis
>
>ps  Suicide as means of solving the global overpopulation problem is
>only a meaningful answer if we could get up a billion person suicide
>pact.  There would still be the problem that we would leave the planet
>in the hands of the stupid and selfish.

Michael,

That's why I asked the question.  You see, if I could understand why
*you* should go on living, then perhaps I can understand what makes
you different from the fetuses you wish to see aborted.  I take it
from what you replied that you think of yourself as neither stupid
nor selfish.  Why then, can't you see enough value in the lives of
unborn to be willing to share the planet with them?  Are only the
stupid and selfish being aborted, thus improving the quality of
humanity?  What is your reasoning here?  I asked why you do not
suicide because that motivation is important in understanding what
merits you see as necessary in granting a right to human life.

I am somewhat insulted that you would want to murder me, since I
feel I'm neither selfish nor stupid, either.

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:22:48 GMT

In article <BzzqrM.q1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>> If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have 
>> a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals. Without it,
>> they wouldn't tolerate the long hours and hard work for little pay. It's a
>> 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job, and damn near any good trade will make 
>> you a better living with a lot smaller investment and a lot less risk. Maybe
>> you can get a summer job on a farm, if you're lucky. It would probably be
>> a real eye opener for you.
>
>75% of the food consumed in the US is produced by 3% of the farms/ranches.
>Do you think the large operations have a genuine love and concern for 
>animals --- hidden away somewhere between the mail room and the executive
>boardroom perhaps?
>

A corporation is an legal entity devoid of emotions. The humans who work 
for it are quite different. I've worked the west Texas oil patch, which 
is predominantly composed of huge corporate ranches. In doing so, I came
into contact with the ranch managers as well as the cowboys. These cowboys
have a tough life for little pay. They do it for love of the outdoors, and
yes, the animals they work with. It is not very different from the way I
feel about the game animals that I hunt. Probably similar to the way the
plains Indian felt about the bison. You kill to survive, to eat. There is
sorrow in the killing, and sustenance in the eating. When you are in close
contact with death, there is a heightened awareness and appreciation for 
the fragility and the value of life. Both are part of the cycle. And so
are we. The hunter, the rancher, the farmer, all are aware of the finality
of their actions when taking a life. Most also see it as a necessity for
achieving their desired quality of life.

Jeff Achenbach
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:34:18 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec30.162825.3901@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>+ Investigators report the vehicles General Motors used in
>crash tests performed to obtain federal certification may have
>been equipped differently than the millions of pickup trucks
>actually sold to the public.  The National Highway Traffic
>Safety Administration also states General Motors may not have
>disclosed information pertaining to fuel tank leakage
>resulting from crash tests.  A consumer safety group claims
>fuel-fed fires in certain GM truck models have led to the
>deaths of at least 300 people and is urging a recall.
> 

What is the relevance of this to t.p.a. ?

Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:37:05 GMT

In article <BzHL7s.7v7@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> I wasn't boasting when I made this comment.  Your insistence to 
> the contrary is another indication of your inability to think 
> critically.  

Because you are such a "critical thinker," why don't you tell us why it is
not a boast?  Doesn't the term "ivy-league" suggest an premier institution
of higher learning?
 
> Incidently, I made this statement in response to the following
> comments from you, Martin:
> 
> ===================================================================
> mh> When I exchanged "letters to the editor" with Barnard in our 
> mh> local newspaper (The Athens Observer 4/2/92), he said that John 
> mh> Orem's research had "nothing of clinical value," and was "macabre 
> mh> and useless." I replied (ibid., 4/16/92) that Barnard was not 
> mh> qualified to make such judgements against Orem, because his 
> mh> publication record (two papers in Medline since 1986 when I last 
> mh> checked) would not qualify him for a position at a second-rate 
> mh> university, much less at UGA.  I never heard back from him or 
> mh> PCRM's lawyer.  What I said was true, and therefore not libelous.  
> ===================================================================
>
> You seem to be making a distinction here between "second-rate" 
> schools and your own school, University of Georgia at Athens.

Yep.  I'm proud of my institution.  You might say that I was boasting here.
 I was not intending to disparage any other institution.  Note that I
indicated they, too, would be smart enough not to hire a "scientist" who
had published only two papers in eight years.

> Was this supposed to add an additional aroma to your "air" of 
> authority?

Nope.

> BTW, you say that you "exchanged" letters with Neil Barnard.  Do
> you have any reason to believe that Dr. Barnard reads _The Athens
> Observer_ on a regular basis, and hence, had a chance to see your
> response?

I'm not sure how he got the info from the Athens paper.  He did not say. 
He replied to a letter that I wrote.  I was quite surprised that he would
bother.  He may or may not have been sent my reply.  I assume that the
Bambiphiles in Athens have hard-working faxes just as they do in New
Orleans.

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 09:39:25 GMT

In <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
>less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.

	Ever hear of a database, Michael?  Perhaps you might care to share
how a rancher might interpret a few pounds drop in weight gain per ton of
feed, or maybe you will wax eloquent on how health can be judged by the
coat of the animal?  Might you tell us how many thousands of animals you
have raised?  Could you possibly inform us of the affect antibiotics to
combat pnuemonia have on profit?

	Frankly, you sound like another city kid -- all talk, no walk.
When you can judge to within a few days when a sow will have her litter,
or how much feed a particular herd needs to maintain weight, I know of
a farm you might be qualified to work on.  Until then, I suggest you
read and learn -- you are out of your depth here, and I suspect you
would be out of your depth anywhere the sidewalk was wet when it
comes to raising animals profitably.

< 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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:39:29 GMT

In <BznC0o.IsA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> I do remember covering this before, but I could be wrong.
>mh> 
>mh> I have not (yet) objected to the contents of the book.I have not yet read
>mh> the book, but only glanced at it.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

>Let me get this straight: You previously claimed that Barnard's 
>credentials must be non-existent --- otherwise he would have 
>mentioned them in _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_.  Yet, now you're 
>telling us that your information about this book came from 
>second-hand opinions (ie book reviews).  

	In case you missed it, Russ, he said he glanced at it.  This can
easily be construed as perusing the intro, perhaps a chapter, the
bibliography and index, and perhaps the blurb on the author.

>I don't agree with your assumption that a writer would 
>necessarily list his own credentials in books and press conferences. 

	It's fairly common for an author to place his own credentials
on the book when they are relevant and only then.  Since Barnard didn't
seem to think them applicable, why should anybody else?

	I recall a Mr. Flavin, who wrote a few books for the Worldwatch
Institute.  His specialty seemed to be the health effects and physics
of nuclear power, given what he wrote on Chernobyl.  As I recall, his
degree was in economics or some other highly-unrelated field.  I found
it telling that he didn't specifically mention that.  No doubt it
would have undermined his credibility.

	Now then, all this penis^H^H^H^Hh.d waving is fine and dandy,
but perhaps the initial disagreements could once again become the point
of contention?  It would doubtless be more informative and illuminating.

< 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                    >
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:35:53 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec15.210116.27573@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>> > The popular press has some Bambiphilic inclinations (or they wouldn't
>> > swallow PCRM's crap so readily).  
>> 
>> Can you point to a particular newspaper or magazine publisher 
>> who's misrepresented the facts?  The only one that I can think 
>> of, right offhand, is the _Washingtonian_ magazine, but they've
>> apologized publicly for misrepresenting key figures in the AR
>> movement.
>>
>The NY Times, The Washington Post, Life, Time, ABC, NBC, etc. ect. are all  
>prejudice and pro AR leaning.  This is obvious from there coverage and  
>editorials.  [...]

That's right Karl: everyone is out of step except for you. By the way,
that should be "their coverage".

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:29:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194026.13658@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec30.170617.16865@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
> >
> >Which will be approx. 20 yrs later thanks to medical research.
> >
> 
> Wrong. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to public
> health and civil engineering (clean water supplies, sewerage treatment,
> etc). Statistically speaking, medicine has done little to increase
> life expectancy.
> 
> Paul

Paul, I'm afraid that you have it wrong here.

To deemphasize the importance of medical research using animals,
antivivisectionists point to advances in sanitation and nutrition as causes
for our increased longevity.  Little do they realize the role that animal
research played in these advances as well.

Although Girolamo Fracastoro first proposed that "Contagion is an infection
that passes from one thing to another" in 1546, the "Germ Theory" of
disease remained unproven for centuries.  As late as 1876, leading surgeons
such as Theirsch presented a sound case for those opposed to the theory: 
"It is still undecided whether putrefaction follows from bacteria or
whether bacteria simply appear where there is putrefaction."  If not for
the pioneering animal work of Jenner, Koch and Pasteur, confirmation of the
 "Germ Theory" of disease would have been delayed, and the importance of
sanitation in the prevention of disease would not have been fully
appreciated.

For more information on the role of animals in demonstrating the etiology
of disease, please consult:

Lechevalier, H. A. and Solotorovsky, M.  Three Centuries of Microbiology. 
Dover Publications, New York, 1974.

For more information on the role of animals in Biomedical research, please
consult any of the following:

Swine in Biomedical Research, Volume 3.  Ed: M. E. Tumbleson.  Plenum Press
New York. 1985.

Animal Models:  Assessing the Scope of Their Use in Biomedical Research. 
Ed:  Junichi Kawamata and Edward C. Melby, Jr.  Alan R. Liss, New York
1987.

The Canine as a Biomedical Research Model:  Immunological, Hematological,
and Oncological Aspects.  Ed:  Moshe Shifrine and Floyd D. Wilson.  1980

Experimental Surgery and Physiology:  Induced Animal Models of Human
Disease.  Ed:  M. Michael Swindle and Robert J. Adams.  Williams & Wilkins.
 1988.

Fuller, R. W. and Yen, T.  The Place of Animal Models and Animal
Experimentation in the Study of Food Intake Regulation and Obesity in
Humans.  Human Obesity Annals Ny. Acad. Sci. 499:167-178.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10678 talk.abortion:53883
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
|That's why I asked the question.  You see, if I could understand why
|*you* should go on living, then perhaps I can understand what makes
|you different from the fetuses you wish to see aborted.   [...]

Why, that's an easy one.  Michael Loomis has a functioning brain,
and they don't.  Michael Loomis is a person, and fetuses aren't.
You should try doing some reading on fetal development.

Followups to talk.abortion, unless the talk.politics.animals
people really care about this topic.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 7
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:49:16 GMT

In <BzMJn5.401@ccu.umanitoba.ca> () writes:

>> 	If Senator Paul Simon intends to enforce this through legislative
>> acts, Senator Simon has violated his oath of office and may be legally
>> removed from office.  No mention has been made of this in the media I
>> read and listen to.  Anybody else know how it came about?

>Forgive me...being a Canadian, I often underestimate the inanity
>of American politics, so maybe I'm off the mark here.

	Indeed.

>Is it true that it is illegal for American legislators to legislate?
>If so, that certainly explains a good deal.

	No, it is not illegal to legislate in accordance with the powers
given to the US Government.  Censoring or otherwise stifling the free
press and media through legislation is unconstitutional, though the
courts may interpret otherwise based upon rather strict criterion.

>A second of thought before opening one's mouth would suffice to
>avoid this sort of silliness, wouldn't it?

	Yes, it would.  How did you manage to think that simply passing
a law was breaking an oath of office were the law not illegal?

< 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