HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Poem about animal rescue
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.145532.14787@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.204507.12217@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>
>>[Cheesy poem gloryfying terrorism deleted]
>>
>So rescuing animals is terrorism now?  What definition of terrorism are you
>using?  Theft, perhaps, but terrorism?
>
>>Rosemary, I get the impression from the last two posting that you support
>>the activities of the ALF.  Is this true?
>>
>I don't know enough about ALF to pass judgement yet, I'm just giving another
>side to balance out the huge number of "ALF are a bunch of terrorists"
>postings which have appeared lately.
>
Let me tell you alittle about the ALF.  They are on the FBI,s list of
terrorist groups located in the U.S.
For fun yhey break into laboratories, cause tens or hundreds of thousands
of dollars in dammages, destroy years of research, and  threat the health of
scientist and and their FAMILIES.

In June of 1990 or 1991 (I forget) this bunch of "fun loving people"
placed a bomb under the car of a veternarian, who was also doing animal
research,  in an attempt to murder him.  The bomb went off prematurely. 
However, a child in a stroller nearby was crippled in the blast.

On Oct. 24 of this year, this organization firebombed the Utah State
Univ.  There was an estimated $100,000 in dammages and 16 coyoyes wer
released.  13 of the coyotes were recaptured, two were hit by cars and
died, and one is still missing 


These people are a bunch of terrorist.
That's why you see so many postings saying that.

                                   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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:26:09 GMT

From article <1992Dec15.013053.19897@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> I can't recall all the times I have read comparisons between what I do and
> what the Nazis did to the Jews.
> Then I mentioned the Nazis anti-vivisection slant.  I clearly stated that I
> was not attempting to implicate the present day AR movement in any way.
> But, everyone goes off on me. Saying things like crying "NAZI" is only
> avoiding the issue on my part.  Comparing the AR movement to the Nazis
> demeans my pro-research cause.

Perhaps you'd be able to make better sense of the debate if you could
understand that your opponents aren't a single person.

Question:  If I criticize the LSU cat shooting experiments, would you
quickly assume that I'm criticising your work?


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:22:12 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca


 Oh God, a seamless segue from Return Of The Gun-control Flamewar
 to Return Of The Veggie Flamewar!   Now, about breaking the
 speed limit ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.190047.23254@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In <1992Dec10.182719.3294@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Re: similarities between plants and animals:
>>
>>Let's assume for a minute that they are not very different.  Does this
>>mean we can free most/all animals from labs and replace them with
>>plants?  In particular, can we eliminate animals from pain experiments,
>>which rely on nervous system responses?  
>
>	You're confused.  The point of the [deleted] reference was to show
>	that there are similarities between plants and animals ...

If you really believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity
to be assigned a rough moral equivalence, how do you propose to redress
the current imbalance which favors animals?  Should we repeal animal
protection laws or rush through plant protection legislation?  Should
it be against the law to saw off a dog's legs? ... to mow the lawn?  Do
you see any ethical difference between these two actions?

>	...which may
>	preclude simple relegation of plants to the category of "unfeeling
>	and therefore ethically irrelevant." ...

You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
relevant?"

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?

>	... No one has argued that plants
>	are MORE similar to humans than animals, and should thus replace
>	animals in scientific research.

That's right.  No one has argued that.  Could the reason be that no one
takes seriously the implications suggested by the previously-posed
leading question?

>    Now, just how different ARE plants from animals?

[...]

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:05:40 GMT

In article <Bz2uuB.GKC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <Bz0LJJ.B2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> It's Martin's game, not mine.  Any competent philsopher would testify
>rl> that the truth or falsity of an idea cannot be ascertained by appealing
>rl> to the credentials of the speaker.
>
>From article <1992Dec11.012307.4744@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> Martin is quite willing to present his credentials as soon as you
>ry> present yours...are we to be treated to yet another of your pagan
>ry> dances?  If you ask for credentials, you must be prepared to be
>ry> asked in return.  
>
>Not really.  I support my arguments with facts and reasons, not
>appeals to my own authority.  

	Oh, please, Russell.  Martin has supplied more references in any
	one posting than you supply in a year's worth of blathering.  I've
	supplied a variety of references myself.  And, of course, you
	haven't really addressed the point, have you?

	If you ask for credentials, you must be prepared to be asked in
	return.

>Don't you think it's kinda hypocritical for folks like you and Martin
>to dismiss your opponents' views on the basis of credentials when your 
>own credentials appear to be sadly lacking?   

	Don't you think it's "kinda hypocritical" for you to make such
	absolutely inaccurate statements as though they were documented
	fact?  As it happens, you do not, as far as I know, have any
	information regarding either my credentials (which are irrelevant
	in a discussion between Russell and Martin) or Martin's, so to call
	them "sadly lacking" is an unfounded assumption, though not
	unexpected in one who is desperately looking for a way to avoid
	revealing his own [apparent lack of] credentials.

	So, at this turn, you choose to appear in harlequin guise to begin
	the pagan dance.....will you also light the midnight fire?

	The pathetic gyrations of such a buffoon do here but briefly amuse.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:22:46 GMT

In article <BzBBuG.L1t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec15.132134.16590@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In the case of Barnard's pronouncements to the press, it is quite
>> reasonable to question his qualifications in the field of human
>> nutrition if he is going to set himself up as an expert to the public.
>
rl>Fine.  If you're going to portray yourself as the "voice of reason" 
rl>to readers of the vegetarian newsgroup, then perhaps we should continue
rl>to question your qualifications.   
>

 Oh, Oh! Me next Russell!  What about me?  Come on, me next huh?
can I play too? 
 
Tell you what.  I would be happy to post my credentials if you will post
yours.
I'll even go first.  What do you say?

                                    Hugs and kisses
                                        Greg

-- 
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:24:19 GMT

From article <1992Dec12.170540.19751@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> If you ask for credentials, you must be prepared to be asked in
ry> return.

In other words, if a speaker bases his arguments on the 
credentials of his opponents, he should be prepared to establish 
his own.  We're still waiting for Martin to reveal the names of the
institutions that granted his degrees in medicine, philosophy, 
history, etc.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:05:30 GMT

In article <BzH901.4nv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <mhulsey-181292092325@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>> > As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:
>>> 
>
>I'd say that your groundless conjectures about my alleged 
>presence at an AR debate in Athens, Georgia, were an excellent 
>example of sheer stupidity.  If you think those conjectures were 
>damaging to my "point of view", as opposed to your credibility as 
>a "scientist", dream on.   If you want to engage in flights of
>fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
>your pretentious suppositions.

You are really paranoid Russell.  Martin, wrote me an e-mail message
about a month ago.  (I know standard practice is not to post exchanges in
e-mail.  But, I don't think Martin will mind.)  In the message he
mentioned that he might have met you before at the debates.  He said
nothing derogatory about the person he met or the debates in general.  He
simply thought that it would have been an interesting twist of fate to
have met you there and then here.  That's all.  
I would be interested to know if that person I met a few years ago was
Ted, Robert, Ro or Martin. Its just a little natural curiosity.
Relax Russell.  Not everyone here is out to get you intellectually.
Just me.  

                                    XXXOOO
                                   Greg             

-- 
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:36:25 GMT

From article <1992Dec18.143848.18138@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> 
>> > As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
>> > that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
>> > degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
>> > too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
>> > evades questions posed here.
>> 
> 
> rl> Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?  
> 
> mh>I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
> mh>that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?
> 
> I saw it too.  I expect that a lot of people saw it.  If Russell attempts to
> deny that he said it, it will only confirm what I observed about him at the
> end of our "Clinton/Fonda" exchange -  to quote from my last posting, 

Here's the passage:

====================================================================
I would agree that such a record of publication might not qualify 
a person for a position at a second-rate university.  On the 
other hand, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him/her for a 
position at a top-rate university.  The ivy league institution 
that I occasionally call "alma mater" has, for the past twenty 
years or so, been turning it's back on the cretinous notion that 
a thinker's qualifications can be judged by the sheer number of 
his publications.  
====================================================================

Now, can you cite a passage where I made "boasts" about my academic
background... without resorting to the sort of pervasive leaps that
are so commonplace here?   

> " I can recognize a bullshit artist when I see one, and you (Russell) are one. 
> You are no longer the enigma you've tried for so long to be.  There is 
> nothing of substance to you."
> 
> I suspect that we can therefore discount many of his unsubstantiated claims,
> among these, the fact that he was once a hunter.

You'd be mistaken.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.153602.14023@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.181329.17635@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>Rosemary, I view biomedical research as a defense in the stuggle for
>survival.  Bacterial and other microbes exploit their ability to mutate to
>survive.  Some species of birds exploit other species by laying eggs in
>their nests.  Some ants exploit other species of ants as slaves. I exploit
>my ability to reason.
>
>                                     Greg Popken
>
Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
killed in vivisection laboratories?

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:14:04 GMT

In article <Bz9p2L.AwD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-141292084954@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > I thank Dr. Hoskins for attempting to end this silly quarrel.  For the
> > benefit of those who are curious, I e-mailed my credentials to Dr. Hoskins
> > twice.  It was Russell who failed to provide his.  It is Russell who
> > persists in this point, for I would have dropped it long ago.  I will drop
> > it now if Russell will let me.
> 
> Suits me, Martin.  
> 
> In the future, I hope that you'll focus on the facts and arguments 
> presented by men and women like Neil Barnard (MD) in lieu of demeaning
> yourself by appeals to their authority.

Barnard has no credentials in science or nutrition.  I was not "appealing
to his authority." He has none.
 
> > As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
> > that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
> > degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
> > too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
> > evades questions posed here.
> 
> Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?  

I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?

--
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: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:17:57 GMT

>>>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>>Do I have a right to view the animals that this bozo is trying to murder?
>
>>>Mike Linan writes:
>>Yes you do.

Kenneth D. Whitehead writes:
>Hmmm...  I've studied the Constitution pretty carefully, and I've never seen
>that one...

Well, while you're doing your Constitutional law thing.... where in the
Constitution does it say trapping is a right?  How about hunting?  It doesn't.


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)  -
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:47:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BzDr0n.408@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <mhulsey-161292155706@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> In article <Bz9q1t.Ayr@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>Why don't you explain it to me, Martin?   Are you saying that discussions
>taking place in the medium of newspapers and television should meet
>a different set of standards than the discussions that take place in
>the medium of usenet?    What gives you the right to set such standards?
>
Russell tactic 112:  Feigned Ignorance.
Russell doesn't really want Martin to explain this to him.  Russell
understands the the news media checks out it's sources of information
and validates it before publishing.  On Usenet, we self-publish our
information and there are therefore no validity checks.  The public
would regard media (newspaper, magazine, radio and television) news
to have high credibility.  The public would regard the self-published
electronic published articles of Usenet to be unverified and hence
far less credible and reliable.  Therefore, someone presented by
the media as an "expert" must be checked out by the media organization
which presents the information (to avoid the awful financial consequences
of becoming a non-credible source of news, such as loss of viewers and
sponsors).  Someone who presents themselves as an "expert" in Usenet
is publishing their own stuff and doesn't have to be recognized by
anyone else in order to do so.

Martin is not setting a standard.  Martin is merely stating what the
defacto standard is.  If you can convince a media member (and their
supervisory staff) that you are an expert, you have gone through another
layer that simply doesn't exist here on Usenet.

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: PETA's compassion?
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:07:34 GMT


Greg,

It sounds like PETA is being more compassionate that the average person.  

The average person feels compassion for Dahmer's victims, but doesn't care 
about the millions of animals who suffer a similar fate in slaughterhouses.

PETA, on the other hand, shows compassion for both groups.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Subject: humans are smarter than ants [was Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?]
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 00:34:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.153602.14023@samba.oit.unc.edu>, itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
|> Rosemary, I view biomedical research as a defense in the stuggle for
|> survival.  Bacterial and other microbes exploit their ability to mutate to
|> survive.  Some species of birds exploit other species by laying eggs in
|> their nests.  Some ants exploit other species of ants as slaves. I exploit
|> my ability to reason.

I'm not her, but I'll comment anyway.

Your statement suggests exactly why human exploitation of animals is wrong.

Ants don't have a choice.  They can't figure out -- "reason" as you say -- a different way to
do whatever it is they do with the ants they enslave.  Birds, same thing.  Bacteria, even
more true.

But this argument patently inapplicable to humans, as you point out by noting that humans can
do sophisticated reasoning.  We CAN figure out alternatives.  We DON'T need to exploit
animals.  And therefore we shouldn't, since it causes them suffering.

-- Nick
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:57:19 GMT

In article <viking.724290520@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
>>killed in vivisection laboratories?
>
>			The Black Death
>
>	Remember, this particular plague wiped out roughly half the
>population of Europe.  In short, it makes smallpox look like a
>walk in the park.  The cure?  Sanitary conditions and rat extermination.
>
This is hardly relevant, the rats who are being killed in laboratories aren't
taken off the street, they are being deliberately bred.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: appendix PETA's Compassion?
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:21:21 GMT

I posted the previous article and forget to mention that as far as I know
the second PETA ad was never run by any of the papers. ( For obvious
reasons.)
                                      Greg
-- 
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