HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: none
	<LAMBERT.92Oct1021348@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Oct5.030244.17339@mtu.edu> <1992Oct7.213803.25475@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:19:53 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:38:03 GMT, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) said:

> I recall from my Numerical Analysis days that the least-squares
> equations are ill-conditioned, and their condition gets rapidly worse as
> the number of parameters increases.  "Ill-conditioned" means that the
> inverse matrix maps small changes in the problem into large changes in
> the solution.  How do we know that Tim's results are not entirely due to
> this amplification of floating point representation error in his data?

The two parameters are:
a = (homicide rate before gun control)
b = (homicide rate after gun control)

and the least-squares equations are:
11*a = 25.6
10*b = 14.9

doesn't look ill-conditioned to me.

Tim
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Supreme Court allows New Jersey gun seizure law
Keywords: supreme court, legal, gun control, social issues, state  government, government
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:02:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.144847.12153@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>Question:
>If the Florida man had been on a trip "through" New Jersey to another state
>where his loaded handguns would have been legal in the vehicle, wouldn't tha
>change the outcome of this case? In other words, I assume NJ was the mans 
>destination right?

McClure-Volkmer "safe passage law" protects firearms only if they are
unloaded, and stored away from the passenger compartment.

Even if they were unloaded, NJ thinks their laws supersede federal
law here and they'd confiscate the guns anyway.

Flip a coin to decide the outcome.  I can't make any logic out of gun
control laws, except one, assume the worst.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:13:03 GMT


Todd H. writes:
th> Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
th> Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?

Ted Robinson
tr> What a silly post!

From article <1av5auINNt1d@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> You think so Ted?  Perhaps you would find many, many more on 
ml> t.p.a.  who feel the same way Todd does about Russell.  I know at 
ml> least a few who feel the same.  Care to take a poll to find out 
ml> what others think of Russell?  

Argumentum ad populum:  The notion that the truth or falsity of a
position can be ascertained by appealing to the beliefs of the 
multitude.  

Perhaps we should poll logicians, philosophers, and scientists to
see what they think of a statement that was quite popular once
upon a time in both Europe and America:

   "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ReHowdy
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:53:03 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <AWERLING.92Oct16164850@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

> Been away from this newsgroup for several months now...I think the
> last thread I was active in was the "boiling lobsters thread.

> I'm glad to see so many familiar and new names here on this newsgroup.
> I won't go through and respond to stuff that's accumulated...I'm
> starting over here from z.
                          ^
                          |
            that's supposed to say "from scratch," but
		I messed up.......
--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:09:33 GMT

>>
>> If you're to make your argument effective that Mike is erroniously
>> basing his hunting on biblical "permission" don't you have a duty
>> to show that the bible does not grant this permission?
>
>Where does the bible say, "Thou shalt not kill witches"?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

So, you are a biblical literalist after all.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:41:36 GMT


From article <1992Oct10.001403.2674@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> It would seem that your argument here is similar to that of Russell's
ry> when he claims that the life of a sentient/sapient creature has
ry> "meaning".  Russell has, thus far, declined to tell us exactly what
ry> it is that constitutes "meaning", so that we might apply these
ry> principles to all non-human species and effect judgement.  Perhaps
ry> you can help.

From Message-ID: <Bu2Jno.7Bx@wpg.com>, dated September 4 and reposted 
many times in response to redundant questioning:

=====================================================================
These terms are defined in the dictionary, Rich.  "Sentience" 
designates sensory abilities, namely the ability of an entity to 
gather information about its own being as well as its 
environment.  "Sapience" designates the cognitive abilities that 
permit an entity to process and analyze information.  The word,
"meaningful", is a catch-all term that designates significance 
or purpose.

Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence. 
Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, existence would 
be perceptually and cognitively meaningless to a ball-bearing, 
and hence it would be impossible to deprive it in any way.  We 
could do it no harm if we whack it with hammers, or melt it down, 
or deal with it as we choose.  On the otherhand, existence is 
meaningful to a healthy chimpanzee, who possesses the ability to 
perceive his own being as well as the world around him.  Hence, 
we ought to think about the impact that our actions may have on 
him or her.  
=====================================================================

ry> We will assume for the moment that the above premise is correct:
ry> that a life must have "meaning" to be worthy of human ethical concern.
ry> Can you tell us what this "meaning" IS, so that we may follow your
ry> lead and know exactly which lives possess it and which do not?

Is "exactitude" a criterion that you apply to your opponents alone?
Or, do you apply it to your own ideas as well?   As an example, do you 
know for certain that other human minds truly exist, and aren't
simply illusions planted in your mind by god? 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:08:17 GMT

In article <BvvGCx.I12@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Ted Robinson writes:
>tr>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.
>
>From article <1992Oct9.165010.18739@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
>ry> the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
>ry> do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
>ry> inappropriate.
>
>Would you object if someone were to inflict unwanted pain on you?

	Say, Ted, I didn't know you'd found a job in Louisiana at Russell's
	company.  When did THAT happen?  Did you get a raise in pay and
	moving expenses?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:44:48 GMT

In article <Bw0wCK.4C9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Can you explain or prove to me that a "god" truly said:  "Thou shalt
>not suffer a witch to live".   Such statements would seem cruel to
>me, even if they were spoken by a "god".
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Russell, a "god" truly is reported as having said "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live;" as to whether God said it rests on the
issue of whether one has FAITH that the bible is the word of God.
Not being much of a bible reader myself I nevertheless understand
that even in past times literary touches such as allegory and
metaphor were used.  Can you prove or imagine the possibility that
the witches quotation you cite so frequently had such intent, or are
you a biblical literalist?
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:43:29 GMT

In article <viking.718951917@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>It may well be that there are thousands of people who reject Ted's
>>postulate.  But has anyone actually done so? 
>
>	I did.
        I'm with Dan.  I disagree with the proposed ethic.
>
>>Secondly, assuming that there will be objections, then I would further
>>suggest that we request these objectors to demonstrate their good faith
>>by voluntarily submitting to lots of unwanted pain.  In this way we can
>>weed out frivolous objections and test the seriousness of the objector. 
>
>	I have.  In reverse chronological order: planned hernia surgery
        (Dan's litany of pain respectfully deleted)
        So have I.  For example, the natural childbirth of my two children.

>
>	Now then, what's so bad about the word "unwarranted?"  If you
>don't mind, I won't tell the surgeon this December that he's being
>unethical in inflicting pain upon me - pain which will last for at
>least two weeks - until well after the surgery.
>
>

This brings to mind the fact that Dan and I as humans can actually
choose to have beneficial but painful things (like dentistry or
immunizations) done to us because we have the mental capacity to
look beyond the immediate to a large scheme of things.  This is
something that non-human animals do not have the ability to do.

Mary Otto




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 20:20:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ writes: 

>...by the growing debate over animal rights.

Please! The debate over animal rights is not growing. I think you
are confusing it with media atttention which has SEEMED to grow
over the years. However the bottom line is, the vast majority of
humanity could care less what AR-types think or whether animals
have rights or not.
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:06:53 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Oct6115201@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   Okay, let me quote Benke directly, rather than rely on my less-than-perfect 
>   memory and imprecise terminology:
>
>      "While collecting deer in my research, I tied baiting and had an unusual
>      experience - twice.  On two occasions spiked buck came in to my shelled
>      corn at a distance of 15 yards.  In both instances I shot while the deer
>      were broadside, with their heads lowered.  Both times the abdomen was my
>      intended target, but that wasn't where I hit them.  At the sound of the
>      shot, these deer turned 180 degrees and were struck in the back leg that
>      had been opposite me. 
>
>There is another point about baiting that I'd like to mention.  Deer
>are very nervous at bait piles.  They instinctively know that they are
>vulnerable while eating.  They aren't looking around and their ears
>are filled with chewing noise.  So they eat very quickly, go someplace
>safer and rechew their food as cud from their first stomach.  So this
>is another reason not to hunt over bait.
>
>However, I just noticed something.  Benke says 'while collecting deer
>in my research...'  So I don't think he was really hunting.  

Yes, you're absolutely correct.  Benke is a hunter, but in this specific
case he was doing research.

>He also
>was aiming for the gut which no one would do while hunting.

I would quibble a little with the literal text of your statement, since
I think you meant that no true "ethical" hunter would intentionally do it.
However it does sometimes happen (I won't presume know how often, if ever,
it's intentional).  Benke's purpose was to study the effects on the animal
when it does happen.

>  Perhaps
>he had a special permit to collect data on the efficiency of archery
>equipment.  I just can't figure out why his results were so different
>from my experience.

Remember it's not just his results.  I've been quoting him because I
have his book, but I have posted names of other studies performed by
wildlife management agencies which also claim to show about 50% wounding
rate. 

>
>tim

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:20:38 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Oct8.173104.5757@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.141835.13810@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct2.165521.3131@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>   In article <RIGG.92Sep30190220@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>Okay, but there are always the unpredictable movements of the animals
>>>and the less forgiving nature of arrow inflicted wounds.  (i.e.  less
>>>forgiving than bullet or drug-tipped arrow)
>>>
>>
>>I think maybe you overestimate the effectiveness of a bullet. A gut shot
>>deer will probably not be found whether shot with a bullet or an arrow. 
>
>It may have sounded that way, but I don't think I am.  I wasn't claiming 
>that gunhunting produced no wounding - just that it's more forgiving of
>poorly placed shots and thus more likely to result in a lower wounding
>rate than bowhunting (7% versus 50%, according to studies).  Gut shots
>are bad news in either case.
>
>>Same with a leg shot. I don't know how quickly these drugs work, ...
>
>The quickness depends on the dosage (which varies from species to species)
>and the dispensing mechanism.  A study by Dr. Keith Causey of Auburn
>University found an average knockdown time of 13 seconds.
>
>>and suspect that may also be dependent on shot location.
>
>Shot location is important only to the extent that it affects entry of
>the drug into the circulatory system ... where the drug must go in order
>to be effective.
>

So am I correct in assuming that heart, lung, muscle shots would be most 
effective, and gut shots comparatively slow acting? If that is the case, 
the only benefit I can see here would be in the case of a leg shot, from 
which I expect the deer would recover. This may, I admit, be a biased view
based on my revulsion by the gut shot.


>>   IMO, the compound bow has brought more people into bowhunting than is
>>desireable. It is much easier to become proficient, and I have no objection
>>to people using them. What bothers me is that many people use it only to 
>>extend the deer season, and don't practice enough or take the time to 
>>learn the difference between shooting a deer with a bow and a rifle. I 
>>wonder if wounding rates would show an increase that correlates with the
>>virtual explosion of bowhunting's popularity?
>
>The studies on my list were conducted from 1963 through 1989 and the
>wounding rate does not seem to steadily increase, which is what I would
>expect if that were the case.  Rather the rates seem to oscillate around
>50%. 
>

Thanks for checking.

Jeff Achenbach
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <Bvu8LA.6n8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Oct8.224257.21640@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> Russell, in order to draw tight the logical connection you are hoping
>jh> to make between "suffer not a witch to live" and a hunter calling the
>jh> assertion that "hunters hunting hunters" is "idiotic," would it not be
>jh> incumbent upon you to offer evidence that modern-day Christian hunters
>jh> with faith (let's be totally specific, i.e., Mike Linan) either
>jh> kill or advocate the killing of witches?

>Not really.  We've established that Linan's "god" apparently 
>advocated the killing of witches in the very same book in which 
>he allegedly gave Linan permission to (mis)use animals.  If it's 
>reasonable for Linan to say that someone is an idiot because he 
>asked a question, "Why don't hunters hunt hunters?", it doesn't 
>make much sense for Linan to disregard the obvious implications of a 
>statement like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  


You are confused Russell.  I acknowledge the implications but, appear to
know more about it and understand it better than you.  Your ignorance of
the subject and disbelief in God has swayed your judgement.


>Another point that concerns me is the possibility that "god" 
>apparently changes his mind.  According to protestant and 
>catholic leaders alike, it was ok to kill witches even a few 
>short centuries ago because god said so.  Since this sort of 


Again you are confused.  If "witchs" were killed a few short centuries
ago, those who killed them either wrongly claimed to do so in the name
of God or they misinterpreted the word of God since you will not find
God saying witches should be killed in the New Testament.


>opinion is hard to come by in modern times, I can't help 
>wondering whether "god" changed his mind, or perhaps, "god" was 
>simply misrepresented all along.  Either way, this casts doubt on 
>Linan's claim that "god" gave him permission to (mis)use animals.  
>Do you disagree?  


In your mind Russell.  But, that's ok with me since your approval of my 
views or beliefs was never a concern of mine.

*Now, as this subject really isn't of concern to most here on t.p.a. and
since I don't really care to carry on with you on e-mail, I suggest it
is dropped.  I really don't expect you to drop it without having the last
word as you normally must have however.


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


Mike Linan





Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:15:09 GMT

In <BvuBCF.8D0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.718595549@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
>ds> the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
>ds> even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
>ds> almost solely on power...

>I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
>limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".

	That God did not exist as a human concept until about 2000
years ago, and you'll kindly note that power is what kept the other
gods alive for several hundred years thereafter.  The Scandanavian
countries were openly worshipping Thor and Odin nearly a millenia
after Jesus Christ died, and this despite heavy targeting by
priests in both Scandanavia and in Constantinople, where such
notable Scandanavians as Harald Hadrada (Harold the Tyrant) were
given serious military experience.  The Varangian Guardsmen were
not Christian or Muslim despite the influences of the region.

>Yet, the philosophers who pioneered the development of the concept of
>rights (ie Locke, Jefferson, Paine, etc) from the late 17th century
>onward faced stiff opposition from clerics who claimed to represent 
>the christian deity.  How come?

	Would you like theories or facts?  That the poeple you mention
above rendered a Church a mute political force certainly would have
caused alarm in the churches of the day.  Why, just imagine no
state religion!  The pilgrims weren't here to gain religous freedom;
they came here to escape religous persecution.  The same can be said
of Brigham Young and his tribe of merry Mormons settling in what is
now Salt Lake City, Utah several centuries later.  You will kindly
note that some of the Founders were athiests, and many belonged to
no organized religion.  Thus it makes perfect sense, in my theory,
for their views of individual liberties to have been opposed by the
organized religions of the time.  Really, though, this isn't relevant.

>Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
>   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

	No more a shame than, "Sodomy shall be a felony offense within
the borders of the state of Mississippi."  This is not a quote,
just a plausible example.

>Instead of saying something like:
>   "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

	"Judge not, lest ye be judged", "let he who is without sin cast
the first stone," and "do unto others and you would have them do unto you"
seem to convey the same message.

<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