HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Iowa Conference
Date: 9 Sep 1992 20:18:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <BuAFCw.5zB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep8.125555.3963@desire.wright.edu>, by sbishop@desire.wright.edu:
>sb> One thing people tend to forget is, that water is not lost 
>sb> forever.  It's recycled as soon as the cattle eliminate it, soaks 
>sb> into the ground and back into the aquafer.  And thirty gallons is 
>sb> an outrageous amount, my horses need five to seven gallons (or 
>sb> less) a day.  Cows aren't quite as big as horses.  

>People tend to forget the water that's required to grow fodder and
>grain.   

>sb> Most of the grain crops in the midwest are produced WITHOUT 
>sb> irrigation.

>WorldWatch Institute calculates that approximately 380 liters of
>water are required each day to produce meat, milk, and eggs for 
>the typical american.  


Boring, repetative and monotonous.  Have you nothing to say Russell? 
These are the same old stats you've posted over and over again.  Your
entertainment value is slipping Russell ol buddy.  Hasn't Dan already
pointed out that perhaps your beloved WorldWatch Institute should be
questioned on some of it's statistics and "findings"?  I believe so.

Also, water is not yours and yours alone Russell.  Did you know that?  
I believe it belongs to those who will pay for it.  Isn't that correct?
I believe so.

Another point.  What others eat and how it effects their health is 
absolutely none of your business.  Wouldn't a critical thinker agree?
I believe so.  Therefore, if you reflect upon your current position, I'm
sure you will conclude that you are accomplishing nothing by feeding us
the same old dreary stats concerning the health of others, what others
choose to eat and how you don't like the amounts of water used to feed
the livestock that MOST Americans WANT to eat.  

Not too long ago you and I were engaged in a e-mail debate and you stated
that your business was not doing so well for the last few years.  I was
just curious as to how long you have been subscribing to t.p.a.  Perhaps
if you spent more time managing your business and less time on t.p.a. you
might find yourself in the black.  Just some friendly advice old pal. :-)
 

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


Mike Linan







Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:53:37 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>>
>>>Though I have never personally eyewitnessed such a stirring and stark 
>>>drama as you describe, I have no problem accepting your interpretation
>>>of what the ram was experiencing.  But how you do answer those who would
>>>dismiss your words as idle projections of human feelings onto animals,
>>>that is, as sentimental unscientific anthropomorphizing?
>>
>>	I ask this only because of my rather warped sense of irony and
>>sarcasm, but...  Russell, how *would* you answer this?
>>

>Apparently the point or joke or whatever went over my head.  What sort
>of answer would you expect from Russell on this?

	That's just it, I don't know how he would respond.  Russell is
one who carries on the sentience and sapience dabate while replying on
at least published information.  He is fairly quick, as I see it, to
point out that we don't know what an animal can think or feel, but is
also quick to point out that there's evidence that these animals do have
emotions and display them.  In addition, he was the one who picked up
on the "mother nature" anthropomorphizing just a few days ago, and thus
I found it somewhat ironic that his position allows for both attack and
defense with the same information, depending on who he is sparring with.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:30:35 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>   The following is taken from the September 1992 issue of American Rifleman
>   magazine :
>	   "Fund for Animals national director Wayne Pacelle, while advocating
>	a ban on black bear hunting in Florida, recently admitted his
>	organization's real goal is to ban all hunting nationwide.

I thought this was the main goal all along.......

>	Hammer reported the gist of the heated exchange with
>	Pacelle as follows:
>	HAMMER: Since we know that black bears are not endangered in Florida,
>		and the Florida Game and Fish Commission reports that they
>		are not even threatened, where in the state would Fund for
>		Animals support hunting of black bear?

I was under the impression that the paperwork to list them as endangered
by the federal government is currently being held up by a backlog of other
species also being considered for the list.  I am also not aware of any
numbers ever being reported by Florida Game.  I have seen estimates that put
the species in the endangered or threatened categories.......

>	HAMMER: Where would your organization support black bear hunting --
>		anywhere in the U.S.?
>	PACELLE: Nowhere.

Are black bears a threat to humans or just something fun to shoot at?

>	HAMMER: So the real agenda and goal of your organization is a total
>		ban on all hunting everywhere?
>	PACELLE: Yes.
>	HAMMER: So all this debate about whether or not the black bear is
>		threatened or endangered and the actual number of black
>		bear we have in Florida is irrelevant, since the goal of 
>		your organization is to ban all hunting everywhere?
>	PACELLE: Yes, but we also oppose dog fights and cock fights.
>	HAMMER: Wait a minute.  We're not talking about dog fights or cock
>		fights.  We're talking about hunting, and I want everybody
>		to pay attention and understand that all this emotional
>		debate and rhetoric has nothing to do with black bears -- it
>		is designed to help achieve a total ban of all hunting,
>		period.

You win the small battles and then move to the tougher ones as your support
base grows......

Rob U, is pheasant hunting done for population control?
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:42:21 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) gets his undies in a wad and writes:

>w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu writes:

>> We aim to teach the public about the
>> true nature of animal research 

>Nope.  You're just organizing another attempt at
>whitewashing.  The true facts would repulse the public.

	I'm a member of the public, and it doesn't repulse me.  Strike one.

>> ....and why we feel animal research must be allowed to continue.  

>Well, there's two possible reasons for that.

>Is it simply the money, or are you actually brainwashed?
>Actually, brainwashed is a little strong, so I'll retract
>that.  Co-opted fits about right.

	It could be that we simply believe animals to be quite good as
research subjects.  If you can name, and exhibit, a better specimen
you will be a *very* rich person in spite of saving animals.  Strike two.

>> We have been quite successful over the last year, and we would be 
>> more than happy to speak to anyone interested in setting up a 
>> similar orginazation.

>Of course you've been successful.  If there's one thing
>the animal testing community is good at it's closing 
>ranks.  Too bad they've forgotten how to be scientists.

	And you kindly forgot that the AT community is not who he is
talking to.  It's the public.  Strike three.

>w95_cook, you and others like you simply don't have the guts to 
>admit that animal testing is, in fact, inhumanity on a gross scale.
>You know it.  But you won't say it. 

	I've got the guts to say that I believe you are wrong, and
that you're way out of your depth.  Judging from all the evidence
you've supplied here, you'd be out of your depth anywhere the sidewalk
was wet.  Get this, pal, I don't believe what you believe.  Live with it.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: wbogue@cwis.unomaha.edu (Leslie Schriber Bogue)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:07:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

Also, rights are a human concept. You seem to be arguing that they 
are something that either is or is not intrinsic in living beings
humans developed the concept and choose to apply it to whatever
organisms they wish.

One last point: If humans truly are the only ones who can distinguish
right from wrong, then doesn't the responsibility rest on US
to apply it to other beings? If we are the morally superior ones,
shouldn't we use those supposedly superior morals to determine that
killing and maiming others might be wrong?

Well, that's my sputtering for today,

Willie Bogue
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:41:07 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

`In article <1992Sep10.054217.13548@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, 
`swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

`>     How is "liberating" dogs any different from releasing lab rats or
`> farm animals to starvation, dehydration, predation, disease and
`> cannibalism - acts PeTA has expressly endorsed as 'acceptable
`> crimes?"
` 
`Did PETA really endorse "releasing ... animals to starvation, etc."? In the 
`actions I've heard of them supporting, the liberated animals were reported to 
`have been placed in foster homes, which is quite a different story indeed. 
`Perhaps you can give us the complete, in context, PETA quote from which this 
`is drawn? 

I will have to hunt through some stuff.  I did post some quotes a while
back that specifically quoted Alex Pacheco of PeTA as endorsing many
crimes in the name of animals:

	 Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable
	 crimes" when used for the animals' cause.
			-Alex Pacheco (PETA)
			 (_Charleston,_W._VA_Gazette-Mail_, Jan 15, 1989)

I will also try to see if I can hunt up an article that I saw about a
year ago in which two different cases of AR "liberating" animals to
foster homes (one I am sure was PeTA affiliated) led to them being
malnourished and poorly cared for and the "liberators" were ultimately
unable to find homes for them, and many animals died.  This, even though
these organizations pull in money in excess of millions of dollars
every year.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:37:17 GMT

+ The following are 1-800 numbers.  If you call, make them polite ones:
 
Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-722-6455
 
Riverdale Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-762-6374
 
1-800-937-PORK

Thanks for the phone numbers.  I personally called all three of these
numbers this morning to advise them that PeTA had targeted them for 
possible telephone harassment, Ferrell's disclaimer about "being polite"
notwithstanding.  Businesses pay for WATTS (800) lines in order to make
it easier for their customers to do business with them, not to make it
easier for ARFs to target them.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:42:55 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bu2K2A.7Gp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep4.171400.9514@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> How about if you were a barnyard pig who lived only at all by 
>jh> virtue of the fact that humans allowed your pig ancestors to 
>jh> breed so they could raise, kill and eat you.  Which would you 
>jh> prefer: having lived and been eaten, or not having existed at 
>jh> all?  

>I've heard this same argument applied to fertilized human eggs
>whose mothers were thirteen year old girls from the poorest of
>all neighborhoods.  It's far too speculative for me.


No more speculative than your Cosmic being coming to earth to kill
humans.  Are you afraid to answer the question Russell?


>jh> Second question;  can you imagine the death of a deer, or any 
>jh> other animal including humans, in which fear and pain does not 
>jh> enter into the death experience?  

>Of course.  We both agree that a quick death may be a "good death",
>but this wouldn't necessarily mean that we're not depriving animals
>by choosing death on their behalf... especially when our choices
>are motivated by self-serving ends rather than our concerns for the
>animal's own existence.


Apparantly you just plainly cannot understand that hunters "choosing" 
death for the deer is every bit as natural as you eating your beans or
the wolf that kills the rabbit or deer in order to eat.  You just can't 
stomach it and want other to stop because you don't want to think of it.
Ain't gonna happen Russell.


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


Mike Linan
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Lies about PETA
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:26:04 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <18r7msINN4ic@agate.berkeley.edu>, linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike 
Linan) writes:

>Do you have proof that these acts were purely fiction or that if they were
>not, that no one affiliated with PETA were involved.  (stuff deleted>  As 
>far as I am concerned, I believe the stories are true.  Prove otherwise and 
>I will discount the stories.
 
I think this is a wonderful summary of this whole "scandal". With virtually 
no proof supporting the allegations, and apparent refutation of them by the 
AKC, Mike believes them nonetheless (of course, he'll rescind his belief if 
others can disprove the stories - but insufficient data is provided for a 
"disproof" to be possible). 

The fuel for such "scandals" is the desire of the listener for them to be 
true.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:00:17 GMT

powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:


`What the hell is so profound about this!?

`We all know the AR-types want to ban animal utilization in all
`its forms and turn us into the over-urbanized, vegetarian,
`middle-class idiots they are.

Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.  And many people
who don't know any better send their money to these groups thinking they
are looking out for the interest of animals everywhere.

When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
animals.  Over population of deer for example can do more harm than to
just damage deer.  Over use of resources (food, habitat, etc.) can cause
damage to deer populations (starvation and disease) as well as effect
other plants and animals in their environment that depend on the same
resources.

I think of an example of a club which I belong to that openly welcomes
Elk hunters as an elk will eat 3-4 times what a deer eats and can reach
higher in the trees to get it (but would rather start eating lower as it
is much easier).  Thus mw{uch of the food that could be eaten by deer
and rabbit and such is gone due to a large localized population of elk.

Since the elk hunting however, they have greatly decreased this problem,
and in fact helped more even distribute the population of the animals
as they do not stay in the area as much now that it is no longer a safe
haven.

swood

-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:34:56 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>young@serum.kodak.com writes:

>I thought this was the main goal all along.......

>>	HAMMER: Since we know that black bears are not endangered in Florida,
>>		and the Florida Game and Fish Commission reports that they
>>		are not even threatened, where in the state would Fund for
>>		Animals support hunting of black bear?

>I was under the impression that the paperwork to list them as endangered
>by the federal government is currently being held up by a backlog of other
>species also being considered for the list.  I am also not aware of any
>numbers ever being reported by Florida Game.  I have seen estimates that put
>the species in the endangered or threatened categories.......

	If this is actually the case, somebody has the wrong information.
What are the latest stats, and from whom?  Also, how many are allowed to
be harvested, or is it an unregulated hunt? Such differences seem to be
ignored when the goal is to eliminate hunting and not to maintain the
animal population and health.

>>	HAMMER: Where would your organization support black bear hunting --
>>		anywhere in the U.S.?
>>	PACELLE: Nowhere.

>Are black bears a threat to humans or just something fun to shoot at?

	I didn't think it mattered to AR types.  They are a threat to
humans, by the way, but generally not in residential areas.  As for
fun to shoot at, the shooter had better be a damn good shot -- bears
are notorious for being tough to kill and quite able to shred their
hunters with relative ease.

>You win the small battles and then move to the tougher ones as your support
>base grows......

	Or, you just remove one small portion of a right at a time and
hope your opposition don't notice until it's too late.  Is the bill in
the House of Representatives that seeks a Constitutional Convention for the
repealing of the Second Amendment a small battle, or would you classify the
crime bill provisions that relax the exclusionary rules and hence gut the
fourth amendment as a small battle?  Didn't know about these?  They certainly
must be small battles and not worthy of ink since the major press has
not bothered to report them.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:55:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <1992Sep12.012322.21429@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> by unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks):

> Scott Wood writes:
> >powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
> >`What the hell is so profound about this!?
> >`We all know the AR-types want to ban animal utilization in all
> >`its forms and turn us into the over-urbanized, vegetarian,
> >`middle-class idiots they are.
> 
> >Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.  And many people
> >who don't know any better send their money to these groups thinking they
> >are looking out for the interest of animals everywhere.
> 
> If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
> what is?

Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
disagree.

> >When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
> >animals.  
> 
> Why is hunting the only option?  What are the different "types of hunting" ?

Why is hunting NOT an option?

> >Over population of deer for example can do more harm than to
> >just damage deer.  Over use of resources (food, habitat, etc.) can cause
> >damage to deer populations (starvation and disease) as well as effect
> >other plants and animals in their environment that depend on the same
> >resources.
> 
> If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
> decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
> some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....

Expanding available habitat WHERE?  Are you willing to have your home or 
apartment bulldozed to make room for deer habitat?

> >Since the elk hunting however, they have greatly decreased this problem,
> >and in fact helped more even distribute the population of the animals
> >as they do not stay in the area as much now that it is no longer a safe
> >haven.
> >swood
> 
> Well, at least the animals appear to be smart.  Isn't the overabundance of
> elk an indication of a problem with the local ecosystem?

Yes, not enough predators.  Since man is also a predator the situation is being
rectified.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals