HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Cancer (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:30:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

tara@starburst.umd.edu (Tara McDermott) writes:
>
>First of all a vegan diet is not just vegetables.  It includes food
>from four catagories - grains, legumes (beans and peas, and lentils),
>fruits and vegetables.  Nuts and seeds are also included.

Don't forget fungi (mushrooms, yeast) and a few animals that simply
cannot be avoided like various mites and protozoa.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Experts Speak Out Against Ballistics Research on Cats at LSU
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:03:32 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1993Jan27.192525.6730@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>[There may be a few typos in the following - PR]

Where did you get this list of quotes?

>
>   Experts Speak Out Against Ballistics Research on Cats at LSU
_______________________________________________________________________
List deleted....

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.                                *******************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11498 alt.peeves:19487
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:00:28 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1jn7jhINN9lm@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
writes:
>Also, being more emotional creatures than males are, it
>naturally follows that they tend to get swept up in sentimental and 
>fundamentally irrational causes in far greater numbers than men do.

Actually, you seem to be onto something there.  It goes a long way towards
explaining why Gillian made an honest man by marrying me, instead of using
me and then throwing me on the scrap heap...

>Given the above, it's easy to understand how the relatively few men in
>the animal rights movement are often looked upon as wimps and sissies.
>As children, most of them were probably the sort of kids who often got
>pantsed by the schoolyard bully during recess.  

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.

     don "red of tooth and claw" baldwin
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:37:06 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <C1J3uu.GwA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <mhulsey-270193073208@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.
uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
[...]
>>
>> 1) given your non-absolutist position on animal research, what kinds of
>> animal research would you consider to be ethical?

>
>You're asking me for some sort of blanket formula, yet, I've
>told you many times that I'm not omniscient and hence must
>examine the research on a case by case basis.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, you are very knowledgeable of the history of vivisection
and recent biomedical research employing laboratory animals.  Could
you cite one animal research project from the past and preface your
comments about the research with something along the lines of "Given
my non-omniscient understanding of this research, and my knowledge and
examination of this case, this stands as an example where I probably
would have given the go-ahead for sacrificing these laboratory animals..."

You will no doubt be surprised at the extent to which your readers will
not use your statement to discredit or dishonor you.




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:23:41 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.175235.13426@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C184F5.JAv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>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.
> 
> No they don't.  where do you get your information?

Yes they do.  What sort of individuals do you think serve on the 
animal use committees at LSU Medical School or LSU Dental school?  
And, do you think they would report negative information, such as 
the allegations of sub-standard anesthesia in the "cat shooting" 
experiments?  

> ...
> The sole function of this group is to assure that the animal care
> facilities meet with gov. standards.  If they do not, then the director of
> the facility is held responsible.  If they neglect their duties and the
> federal agents that visit the facility note violations they are also
> held responsible.  

How often do these visits occur?  And, can we assume that they're
conducted with greater diligence than the USDA's daily, on-site 
inspections of US packing plants?

> This committee, composed of scientist vets and laymen
> have no reason not to report violations.

Yes, they do.  If you were an employee of LSU Medical School, your
butt would be in a sling if you caused waves that might inconvenience
a researcher with political connections.

Incidently, can a single member of such committees report violations?
Or do such reports require committee approval?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie(s)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:51:22 GMT

Is this the same thread that was going three months ago when I stopped
reading t.p.a and went back to the real world, or is it a regular occurance
as I expect that Russell bends his words to fit his own view of reality?

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: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:53:41 GMT

From article <mhulsey-210193083122@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> The decision of the HHS Departmental Grant Appeals Board contains a clear
> exhonoration of Taub and the treatment that his monkeys received.  The
> Board upheld the NIH's decision on very narrow grounds constituting one
> tenth of the NIH's original criticisms.  These grounds were characterized
> as being "administrative grounds only and not substantive" (NIH Week,
> 4(23):1-3; 1984).  Among these grounds were complaints regarding the
> ventilation system at IBR, which was beyond Taub's control.

In a small way, this supports Gerone's claim, don't you think?  
Apparently, the problems with the ventilation system weren't
heeded prior to the controversy.

Taub moved on to a different institution, if memory serves.  Was 
his funding reinstated when he moved?  

I vaguely recall that Taub was quite successful in winning grants 
prior to the charges.  Has HHS given him any funds to do animal 
research (of any type) since his "exoneration"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11689 alt.activism:21395 rec.food.veg:12571
From: howard@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:38:38 -0600
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1993Jan25.151140.26696@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>In fact, Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself
> a survivor of a Polish concentration camp, 

Isaac Bashevis Singer was not ever in a Polish concentration camp. He
emmigrated from Poland to America in 1935, when he was 32. I posted
an excerpt from his autobiography about his journy to the United 
States last week. For more information, read "Love and Exile", his
autobiography. Don't make up things that aren't true to try to prove
your point. 

-Mary Howard

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
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 06:33:29 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>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%.

Dan Sorenson writes:
>	It deserves noting that this is enough to feed a family of four
>their entire meat intake for a year.  How many carrots is that?  The
>argument of efficiency is hard to work unless we factor into it.

According to my math, that would work out to .4 lbs meat/person/day.  I seem
to remember eating a bit more than that per day when I was a meat type.
It also works out to .4 lbs carrots/person/day which is a lot of carrots.

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: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:15:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.071145.13602@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>>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.

I see.  So you're arguing that water has rights now, too.

I can see it now:
"Your honor, I intend to prove today that THAT (indicates fireman in
handcuffs) man did knowingly spray water over a fire, causing it great
distress and mental anguish..."

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Who is forcing Idealism? (Was: Re: Quote from Clinton?)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:16:05 GMT

ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

`alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

`>How would Clinton feel about those who's ideological bent would seek to
`>limit America's *choice* to eat whatever it wants.

`Look omnivore, who's "limiting your choice" to eat whatever (shit) you want?
`Is someone pointing a gun to your head saying, "if you put that piece of cow
`in your mouth instead of this tofu I'll blow your fucking head off"?
`I didn't think so.  Get it straight:  a suggestion isn't an order.  Stop your
`petty whining.

No, they are following the arian Hitler approach and sneaking propaganda
and lies into the schools.  They are influencing the media and the arts,
the main source of information dispersal in this day and age, with their
sensationalist approaches and unethical tactics.  They are taking away
peoples rights in the woods by destroying hunters chances to successfully
partake in a LEGAL activity.  They are lobbying to pass laws and shut down
medical labs based on falsified information and bogus letters and evidence.
And lastly, they are aiming fear at those involved by both being active in
and actively supporting and being apologists for terrorist assuault on
individuals and institutions.

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: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:26 GMT

In article <C1FEp0.EFA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>As usual, you're assuming that your opponents have a burden of 
>proof, but not you yourself.  Should taxpayers be obliged to fund every 
>experiment unless it can be proven that the experiment is 
>useless?  Or, should the experimenters have the burden of proving 
>that the research has some promise?  

What do you think the review process is, Russell?  Approx. 18% of the
proposed prjects get funded.
 >
>>>    [Quote from Heimlich:]
>>>    "Most animal experimentation is useless...  It had 
>>>    already been proven by humans saved using the technique 
>>>    that the Heimlich maneuver was working.  Why would it 
>>>    be necessary to put dogs through cruel and useless 
>>>    experiments only to come to the same conclusion?" 

Russell, I'm curious were you got this quote.  I'm even more curious why
you left out part of it after "useless".

BTW russell, I'm still waiting for your proof supporting or your
retraction of your statemnet that I have misrepresented information.

Also in a prevous post you asked me who I worked for.  I replied.  Yet,
you ingnored my request for the same information from you.  What's good
for the goose...

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
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Hunting is Ethical
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:12:43 GMT

In article <C12uxJ.3JF@ccu.umanitoba.ca> chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
>In <1993Jan16.001900.23843@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:
>
>>I think that ethics is relevant to every sentient being: every conscious, sentient
>>being must respect the interests of of every other sentient being, to the extent
>>of its abilities (*).  Now it just so happens that until recently humans have
>>believed (for whatever reason: religion, lack of scientific knowledge, etc.) that
>>they are the only sentient being, so ethics is often thought of as being only
>>relevent to humans.  Now we know better, and should act accordingly.
>
>So as I understand this, humans as sentient beings must respect the
>interests of other sentient beings?  That I agree with, however your
>following statement seems to show that as the lion is non-sentient (it
>kills the deer as it does not have the ability to choose), the deer is
>likewise non-sentient? 
>
Will, while I respect your opinion, I take a harder line on this one
than you.

Human beings respect the interests of others only when forced.

So, what does that mean?  It means murder being illegal only matters
if you can't get away with it.  It means that if the neighbors are
being terrorized by gangs, but are unwilling to take a stand and
press charges, then the gang can do as they please.

[Before you charge in with your altruistic testimony, I want you
to know that even that is forced by religious and philosophical
conventions of society.  The "forcing" may seem subtle, but it
is effective in causing a person to make a serious evaluation of the
consequences -- "If I get caught with 11 items in the express lane,
the clerk might embarass me in front of the other people in line."]

It relates directly to the consensus that Rich Young talked about.
If the neighbors have a concensus that it is too dangerous to stand
up to the gang, then wrong or not, the gang will not be stopped.

No non-human species has been able to force humans into doing what
they want.  The animal rights fanatics (ARFs) are trying to be
human advocates for the animals to change the societal concensus
that humans can do as they please with animals.  Various degrees of
animal welfare and protection laws are the product of that change
in concensus.  But the reality is that humans are the dominant
predatory species on the planet, and have the power to wipe out
any other species as well as ourselves.  That means we get to
make the rules.

And that's what ethics are:  rules.  Rules made by the dominant
to keep the others in line.  Rules based on consensus of the dominant
to be used on the dominated.  And as justification when the dominant
turn on each other in the pecking order.

Have a nice day.  Or else.


Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:12:52 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():

>> If 99% of society said it was right, it would be. Of course such
>> a hypothetical society would be pretty barbaric because such a view would 
>> contradict much of our present underlying social code, arrived at
>> by consensus.

>Consensus based on what, Werner?   You've given me the impression that
>you consider ethical values to be a house of cards with "consensus"
>based on "consensus" based on "consensus" (etc), with no basic 
>underpinnings whatsoever.  Surely you can think of some reason, apart
>from public opinion, to understand why rape isn't a "good" activity.

I don't know why a multi-tiered system needs to be fragile. As you
move down, the consensus becomes stronger; the underpinnings are values
that are held universally (or nearly so), like the one you repeatedly
state: the golden rule, or some derivative of it (inflicting pain is
wrong).

>Once again, you seem to be ignoring the underlying facts, such as
>the bruises and lacerations of the rape victim.  

I have no problem with this simple step of logic: inflicting
pain is evil, therefore rape is evil. It's the underlying
reason for the _premise_ that you are evading.

>> You keep asking your opponents to provide reasons for your arguments.
>> Why don't you give us your reasons for considering it wrong.

>Sure, Werner.  For starters, I'll point to the suffering of the
>victim.  

Starters? You've been saying this for weeks.  Again and again. Sure
it's wrong to cause suffering. I want to hear your facts and reasons
for _why_ it's wrong to cause suffering.

Werner
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:08:27 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C19zpp.9Bq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> Give it some more explanation, Russ.  I pointed out to you that the
>> figures you quoted were, let's see, "ludicrous and misleading."  I
>> even challenged you to make it right.  You haven't, just as you
>> haven't mended any of your errors that may look bad for your cause.
>
>Your assumption about the amount of water used to produce the grain
>is faulty.

It wasn't my argument Russ.  The only point I was going to make was
your figures concerning where California water goes are ridiculous.  
Here's your little tip: not everyplace that has *anything* to do with
*even one* head of cattle uses 100% of their water on livestock.  This
is obvious to most people.

Your "fact" isn't factual.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:44:55 GMT
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <C1G0KK.Gru@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan25.192154.24723@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In <C1DvCC.4Mw@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>
>>>From article <1993Jan24.065052.3877@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>>Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>>>fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
>>>facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
>>>another evasive maneuver?  
>> 
>> 	Already asked and answered.
>
>In other words, you don't know.

	Nor, apparently, do you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: VEGAN: Mushroom & Kale Saute
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:25:33 GMT

mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex) writes:

>There's been some discussion of kale of late, so here's my bit.  This is from
>the Autum issue of Vegetarian Gourmet, where it's in a piece on It's Only
>Natural, a great looking vegan place in Middletown, CO.  I assume this dish
>is meant as a side, but over couscous, millet or bulghur it's a quickie meal.

	FYI: during the Great Depression in the USA, this was a staple
dish for many people.  My grandmother reports eating this for a week or
more until the men could take some game for the pot.  Typically, it was
cooked in 5-gallon batches and kept for most of a week.

	It still makes me nautious, but it is rather good for you.

< 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