HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:11:45 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>=> Go out to your garden.  Pull up one pound of carrots.  Take it to your
>=> dinner table.  How many pounds of carrots do you have?  Probably one pound,
>=> unless you threw most of it away peeling it.

Contents may have settled during Shipping writes:
>I have .9 pound of carrot flesh, and .1 pound of carrot top that I
>discard.

Try using the tops as garnishes or mixed in a toss salad.  Works well.  Another
option is to put it into a compost bin for use as fertilizer.
 
>=> Go out to your pasture.  Get a 1000 lb cow.  Take it to your dinner table.
>=> How many pounds of beef do you have?  Somewhere around 540 to 600 pounds.
>=> Which is closer to 100%.
>
>I have 600 pounds of meat (some of us do eat brain and tongue).  I
>have a bunch of leather.  Say another 50 pounds.  I have a bunch of
>bones, which, in commercial industry, get used.  I have "meat
>byproducts" which get used in dog food and Hot Dogs.  I have steer's
>horns, which go to the cadillac dealer in West Texas.
>
>Your missing the point son.  We use cattle for more than just red
>meat.

And we also use corn for more than food or feed.  So what's the point?

>=> again.  So about twice your figure. That works out to be about 1/3 of all
>=> the irrigation water goes to cattle directly.  Seems a bit wasteful to me 
>=> seeing how the water level dropped in California lakes by about 13 million
>=> acre-feet from 1986 to 1990.
>
>Well, boy.
>
>You did all that nice research work, and then threw away all of your
>figures.  You've just come to the same general conclusion that Rich
>and Russell have been fighting about for months.
>Livestock use of water runs roughly one third.  Why is that
>wastefull?

Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.

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: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Quote from Clinton?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:42:38 GMT

Scott Wood writes:
>I was listening to the quote that Clinton gave the other day in regards to
>the lifting of the "Gag Rule" used in government funded planned parenthood
>clinics.  He was basically stating that the censoring of doctors based on
>the issue of abortion was a result of;
>
>	* 'Ideological concepts that have no place in medicine.' *
>
>If only he could keep this type of a policy in regards to the area of animal
>testing, then it might not be a bad four years after all....

You're actually going to listen to Clinton?!  Man, my opinion of you has
sunk even lower.....  :-)

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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:49:46 GMT

In <C183B3.J82@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):

>>>From World Watch Paper #103, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
>>>Environment", by Alan Durning and Holly Brough:
>> 
>> 	Grep for "Flavin" in your worldwatch index, and read his paper
>> on Chernobyl.  Then compare his description with what is possible as
>> described in any decent physics textbook...

>This makes no sense to me whatsoever.   Is there some connection
>between Flavin's account of Chernobyl and the findings of a 
>joint Japanese/American study on the sources of greenhouse gas,
>as reported by the authors of the WorldWatch paper?

	Yes.  Let me make it perfectly clear: World Watch Institute
publishes anything they get their hands on, apparently.  Flavin is a
fuckwit who would have a hard time tying his shoelaces in a strong
breeze.  The idiot can't figure the difference between a water-moderated
and graphite-moderated reactor, thinks that it was a nuclear explosion
and not a steam explosion, and furthermore can't realize that plants
several miles away weren't shut down immediately because there was
no reason to do so (aside from the power from the other plants being
needed to pump the water to the fire mains, supply 1/4 of the Ukraine
with electricity, and various other little things power plants do).

	If such blatant things get past WWI, they aren't reputable.
Even the ISU Daily editorial board asked me questions before publishing
my work on the ITR-10 reactor here on campus, and additionally asked
for confirmations from professors and reactor operators, one of whom
was Bernard Spinrad, who gets patent money for *any* reactor made.
This man was making power before anybody here was out of diapers.  If
WWI can't do this, but ISU can, then WWI ranks up there with the Weekly
Word News for factual publications.

< 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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:55:47 GMT

From article <1k3me1$la8@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
> 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.  

That's Dr. Neidle, Mike.  And Dr. Neidle is a woman.  The prior story
on dental amalgam is certainly relevant because it demonstrates that
"Sixty Minutes" coverage can be sensational, rather than reliable.

> 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.  

Is this true?

Did PETA and/or PCRM write the letter that was apparently based on 
heresay?  Would it be fair to say that the woman who did write the
letter was telling a "bold face lie"?   Several months ago, you 
posted a series of articles claiming that I was a "pervert".  Would
it be truthful for me to say that your statements were a set of "bold 
face lies" since I know for a fact that I'm not a "pervert"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:39:56 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan26.232343.13251@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

James speaks up about when he thinks animal research shold be allowed:

>1)  To be conducted by researchers of established reputation whose peers
>    can certify merit to the approach, along with great potential for
>    positive outcomes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that a experiment won't get funded
nowadays if the proposals in not passed through committee.  I dont fully
agree with the "peers" theory, Columbus and Galileo wouldnt have gone
anywhere if their peers had a chance to nix their proposals.

>2)  Under carefully specified standards of conduct within a closely
>    supervised framework of doing everything possible to minimize pain
>    and suffering felt by the research animals.  (ie., let "Russell
>    Lawrence" into the lab to observe and inspect)

You would give someone with an agenda opposed to research a veto power over
it?  Perhaps I've got Russ pegged wrong but that seems to me like letting
the fox guard the henhouse.  If anyone has a veto power, I would hope it
would at least be a doctor, but then again a panal has already approved.

>3)  After an evaluation of the efficacy of alternative research methods.
>    Thus, in the Carey example, if, as Barnard claims, clinical approaches
>    are the way to go with head injuries I would place a heavy burden
>    of proof on alternative approachs such as Carey's.  In other words,
>    just because Carey might claim his approach as novel, hypothetically
>    promising and so forth, because his research involves pain and
>    suffering the standard of approval he must meet must be high.

The problem with clinical research of this type is that Carey would have to
actually shoot the humans in order to acertain the chemical reactions that
go on in the brain of the person at that instant.  At the very least he'd
have to hang around the emergeny room and wait for brain trama patients to
be admitted.  The emergency room doctor would be setting himself up for a
malpractice suit if he decided to experiment on such a victum instead of
trying to save him.  The stakes arent quite as high if you are dealing with
a cat as they are if you are dealing with a person.  On the 60 Mins
programme Carey said that he understood the functions of the cats' brains
better than human brains, I assume this allows him to rule out certain
uncertainties in dealing with the human brain.  He also mentioned that many
of the chemicals in the cat do the same in the human...I'm not sure if this
is contrary to his first statement but it seemed to me that Carey's goal
was to use the cats to learn healing techniques that may be applied to
humans rather than attempting new techniques on humans before they had been
test on animals.

alex the omnivore
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11499 alt.peeves:19488
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:58:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



Don "red of tooth and claw" Baldwin writes:

>Actually, that may be the key to our getting rid of them.  I read 
>somewhere that an AR leader was encouraging her people to go off 
					     ^^^
>into the woods in brown coats, so that hunters would get bad press
>for shooting people.  Surely, Father Darwin will be relieving us of 
>some of these people soon.


Now wouldn't *that* be a hoot?  I've read about instances in which
some of these wackos go into the forest and create a disturbance
so as to scare away the fuzzy widdle animals and thereby disrupt a
hunt, and it's always surprised me that no hunters have taken near-
miss potshots at the idiots on general principles, just to raise
the ante a little and scare off the less dedicated among them.

Some of these people do get arrested for their activities, of course,
although precisely what they're charged with is unclear to me.  
Felonious stupidity, possibly.  Maybe a worthwhile deterrent to
such foolishness would be to make the arrest experience a bit more
traumatic, so as to prevent recidivism among the less hardened among
them.  Mandatory invasive body-cavity searches would be one potential
technique that would undoubtedly leave a fairly strong psychological
impression on the hooligans.  Hell, I'd even be willing to contribute
a few dollars to the cause, as long as I was allowed to toss out the
ceremonial first box of latex gloves at the beginning of hunting
season.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
        "I caught a lawn dart with my face.  Pulled it out myself!"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: LSU Cat Shooting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:51:38 GMT



Russell, I hope that you will place discussion
of the LSU Cat Shooting research back on your
t.p.a agenda.

The brief newspaper summary you posted a few
weeks ago was at odds with the general tone
and conclusions of the 60 minutes report.

If possible, could you provide your feelings
about why Dr. Carey's research would be
unnecessary and unjustifiable.  The report
left me with the opposite impression.








:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:17:37 GMT

In article <C186AD.Ko9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>No, I'm not.  If I were to make ten statements about Martin
>Hulsey and retract nine of them, my retraction is still a retraction...
>irregardless of the fact that I didn't retract every single statement.

Would your retraction of the one statemnt reflect on the validity of the
other nine?

 >
mh>>> > Please recheck the reference before persisting in this falsehood.
>>> 
rl>>> Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
el>>> the original article without circulating the retraction, Martin?
>> 
When did you recieve this information from F.A.C.T.S?  CFARR got a letter
from PETA's lawyers threatening suit if they persisted in distributing the
article.  But, this was before the case was settled, and corrections were
printed. 

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,rec.food.veg
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Cancer (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:28:27 GMT

young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:

`In article <1993Jan23.015720.20704@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
`>In article <swood.727729822@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
`>>
`>>I saw some enemic looking dark haired lady (cute but very very pale looking)
`>>trying to claim that proper diet (ie vegan) training at an early age will
`>>"prevent" cancer.  Can anyone lay claim to validate this?  Sounds like a
`>>bunch of hog-wash to me.
`>>
`>>swood
`>
`>Can anyone on r.f.v give Scott a pointer toward the evidence
`>that a vegan diet reduces the risk of cancer? I am sure I've
`>seen it discussed here in the past ...

`	Just a small semantic observation: "prevent" and "reduces the risk"
`	are not the same thing at all.

That was my whole point in posting.  I eat meat.  I love meat.  I prefer
lean meat and infact turn down fattier portions or servings.  I feel and
have seen data to the point that THIS reduces my risk of the heart disease
and cancer that supposedly accompanies fatty red meat.

The wording (roughly paraphrased) that the PeTA woman used on Company was
something to the effect of 'If I had been brought up right, learning to
eat the right foods' - vegan that is - then she went on to state that
'I would not be at risk of getting cancer' or something like that.  Her
wording made it sound as though she was blatantly stating that eating
a purely - well rounded - vegan diet would eliminate the risk(s) of getting
cancer.  I think not.

If she had simply said reduce, then I would have never posted in the
first place.  Is there any solid evidence or anything that would point to
any types of cancer that you would not get (with at least reasonable 
certainty) if you ate strictly vegetables.

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:45:04 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.135903.18574@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C171Lo.D9B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <C16suE.DDn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
>>>    With that clarification, would it be your contention that
>>> LACC's are rubber-stamp committees, and that professional veterinary
>>> care, by individuals not beholden to the project investigators,
>>> does not add some level of confidence that the researcher "who enjoys
>>> inflicting pain on animals just for the hell of it" would be greatly
>>> restricted in the kinds of gratification (s)he could derive?
>>
>>Again, I could introduce you to dozens of physicians 
>>and dentists who would tell you privately, but not publicly, 
>>about doctors who are grossly incompetent and/or sadistic, yet 
>>serving as clinicians on the staffs of major institutions. 
> 
> Shouldn't you take this to alt.med.flame.  I know alot (and I mean Alot)
> of lawyers that are incompetent.  But, that doesn't reflect on the
> regulation of biomedical research either.

I agree that lawyers aren't involved in biomed research.   On the
other hand, the folks who belong to the animal use committees at
our local medical and dental schools work side by side, day in and
day out, with individuals who're charged with the protection of
human patients.

HHS has documented case after case after case of situations wherein
state boards have failed to discipline medical and dental practitioners
for malfeasance or incompetency, and the end-result in such situations
is that "bad" doctors continue to harm patients.   I don't understand
how/why you think that the foxes guarding the animal henhouse are
going to perform their duties more deligently than the foxes guarding
the humans.

My recommendation: 

-- The proceedings of state boards as well as animal care committees
   should be open to the public.
-- Both state boards and animal care committees should include a healthy
   proportion of members who have no political or economic stake in 
   the matters at hand.

BTW, do you work for a medical school, Greg?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: freeman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Kevin Freeman)
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat (missing a point?)
Keywords: killing, mass destruction, warm fuzzies, and cute little lint
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:42:12 GMT


  Alex I believe my complete quote was and I quote myself:
  "We have the ability to live now by killing less (ie Lowest trophic level)"

  Now that may not be exact my memory fails me right now (must be lack of
beef in my diet). I did not imply that we should eat babies. What the fuck
does we have the ability to eat babies mean you lost me...
  Gather round children let me explain (very briefly): Trophic levels
basically go up by base ten. Let's take a look at a cow for example. A cow
eats grass I eat that cow :. (therefore) I have just eaten the cow and the
grass to get my nutrients. On the other hand if I just ate the grass would
I not be killing less. Mmmmmm sounds good to me.

  Now let's move on to food groups. Up here in Canada we have four NEW
food groups guess what people meat is nowhere to be seen Grains, Liguines,
Vegtables and I think fruits. It was a banana lying in the sun I think. So
take that meateaters (I have 'urt you I wish to go on 'urting you). This
is kinda digressing into sillyness so maybe I should go.
  
  Cancer there are studies coming out of my butt (don't excuse the pun)
about whether or not eating meat causes cancer, heart disease, bad liver,
ulcers, or causes athletes foot. I don't eat meat because I love animals.
Health reasons aside.


lotsa love
  Kev


****************************************************************************
*  "That which does not kill me *   "I just want to see my girlfriend      *
*   only makes me see crooked"	*     because her hugs are the best        *
*    Hank Garfield (Rollins)	*          I know..."                      *
*				*		Craig Weirdon              *
*				*	from: Shudder to Think             *
****************************************************************************
freeman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: Somg of the Battery Hen
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:10:28 GMT

In article <cassi.1.0@frd.ac.za>  writes:
> 
>  

Nice poetry.  But I doubt chickens could understand it's meanings or  
implications.

Karl
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:38:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: foghorn.cc.utexas.edu


In light of the letter from Mr. Gerone himself I suppose a retraction and
an apology for misquoting him will also be forthcoming...

alex the omnivore


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg