HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@serum.kodak.com [Rich Young (x37176)]
Subject: Re: DIET AND HEALTH NEWS
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 16:28:23 GMT

In article <9207250201.AA08742@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

Quoting from Animal Agenda:

>     * After a year of additional testing, the USDA and Dept. of
>Health and Human Services have confirmed that the Eating Right
>Pyramid graphic is the most effective illustration of departmental
>dietary recommendations.  Agriculture Secretary Edward Madigan
>withdrew the newly completed graphic in April 1991, after meat and
>dairy interests objected that it would decrease consumption of
>their products.  Whether the graphic will ever be used remains
>unclear.

   This is old news.  The "Eating Right Pyramid" has been re-instated and
   has been blessed by the Cattlemen's Association.  There were only two
   minor changes made to the original:

	1. A plate of spaghetti was substituted for a piece of macaroni
		when it was thought that the macaroni looked too much
		like a hot dog.

	2. Slices of Swiss cheese replaced a wedge of cheese when it was
		thought that the wedge looked too much like a piece of
		cake.

   THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL CHART.  Nor was
   there any change in the recommendations for the number of servings of
   non-meat/non-dairy items vs. fruits, vegetables, and grains in a balanced
   diet from the original pyramid.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Rich Young                             | Phone: (716) 253-7176
Eastman Kodak Company                  | FAX: (716) 253-7254
Clinical Products Division             | Internet: young@serum.kodak.com
100 Carlson Road                       |
Rochester, New York, USA   14653-9122  | These are MY opinions, not Kodak's!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re; Texas AR Conference
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:59:12 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Kenneth D. Whitehead writes:

(Quoting me:)
>>>. Friday evening, Oct. 2: Debate on "sport" hunting.
>>   Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle vs. two hunters.
>>   Tentative hunting spokespersons: rock star bowhunting
>>   cult leader, Ted Nugent, and a representative of the
>>   Lone Star Bowhunters Association.

>Boy, this should be interesting.  These ARFs went out and got Ted Nugent
>to argue for the hunting side.  
  ...
>I wonder who the two "hunters" debating Ingrid Nutburger and Pretty Boy 
>Pacelle are;  I bet *THEY* were well chosen.  I imagine they'll be *REAL* 
>articulate spokesmen for the hunting side.  (Shit, I wouldn't be surprised 
>to find out they're really card-carrying ALF members in hunter drag...)

I guess you were in such a hurry to flame that you forgot to read carefully
what you were flaming.  The "two hunters" are tentatively, "Ted Nugent, and
a representative of the Lone Star Bowhunters Association."

I would guess that these hunters were asked because they'll be in town for the
Parks and Wildlife Red-Neck Fest anyway, and that Nugent was asked in
particular because he's a well-known hunting advocate.  The Lone Star
Bowhunters' Association has been asked to provide _a_ spokesperson; if they
choose an inarticulate yahoo as their representative, it will be because
that's they best they could find among their ranks.

>Oh well, thanks for letting us all know about this, Jennifer.  
    	    	    	    	    ^^^^
"You can lead a horse to water...."


-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson | "If beef is your idea of `real food for real people,'
		    |  you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
jjohnson@convex.com |			-Neal D. Barnard, President, PCRM
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:51:01 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel) writes:

>>(John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>> I
>>>find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
>>>sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
>>>munching on a burger or a steak.  

>   Just to play the devil's advocate, isn't there a diference between killing
>an animal to eat and killing one just because you enjoy killing them? 

Just to play the same game. What difference do you think exists?

>After
>all, a lion or a wolf or a shark or a snake kills animals too, but only to
>eat them.  You don't see lions hunting just for the sake of killing something.

Is that because they recognise that "it is wrong to do so", or just
because they've already eaten, thank you very much, and can't be
bothered? 

>In this sense, killing to eat is natural, killing for the fun of it isn't. 

So why do 'domestic' cats kill for fun? Why do ferrets kill when they
are not hungry? Why do hawks continue to bring food to their young when
neither they nor their young are hungry?

--JOnathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:27:40
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 20 Jul 92 21:11:13 GMT

In article <BrpHIr.AtA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think it might 
   be perfectly ok for you to kill a billion individuals that you've 
   classed together in a group, but a great moral offense against 
   the "species" if you were to kill the last living pair belonging 
   to that particular group.  

Killing a number of animals from a non-endangered species, no harm is
done to the species as a whole.  In fact, such culling often helps the
species.  The result is that everyone that enjoys seeing those animals
and the habitat that supports those animals is better off.  In
contrast, killing enough to cause extinction does irreversible harm to
the ecosystem that depended on that species.  

Perhaps I am missing something.  But the above distinction seems quite
obvious. 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:51:16 GMT

In <BrvMoG.7Jt@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
 (Eric M Chmiel) writes:

>>(John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>> I
>>>find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
>>>sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
>>>munching on a burger or a steak.  


>   Just to play the devil's advocate, isn't there a diference between killing
>an animal to eat and killing one just because you enjoy killing them?  After
>all, a lion or a wolf or a shark or a snake kills animals too, but only to
>eat them.  You don't see lions hunting just for the sake of killing something.
>In this sense, killing to eat is natural, killing for the fun of it isn't.  
>That's why I sometimes wonder if that argument (that to eat meat and be
> opposed to hunting is hypocritial) isn't just a red herring.

	While lions, wolves, sharks, and several other carnivores don't kill
just for the sake of it, documentation exists to show monkeys (of the larger
varieties) do so.  In addition, badgers, coyotes, and mink have been known to
do so.  I'd say this hardly validates your claim.  Besides, I don't enjoy
killing so much as I enjoy a good shot placement which results in a kill.
There is a great deal of difference.  A red herring?  I'll leave it as a
judgement call as to which side makes it a red herring.  Hint: hunters are
most interested in a clean kill, not the kill per se.  Why else return from
a deer hunt empty-handed and not have shot the squirrel you saw?

>   And take it easy.  I'm just playing the devil's advocate, remember?  I
>could never rationally oppose hunting for sport, but whenever I ask a hunter
>this question they fly off into a blind rage and I never end up getting a
>wortwhile answer.

 	Those people ain't as eloquent as we is.  ;-)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunting-Fat-Fertility. Was: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:44:21 GMT

In <Bs4008.H3M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Do you have any empirical evidence to support John's allegation
>that hunting is only allowed in those areas that require it?  
>Your proof-by-rationale isn't very convincing. 

	Empirical: adj; relying or based on experiment or experience.
My experience has been that hunting isn't allowed where it isn't needed.
For the last three years I have avoided hunting rabbit and squirrel on
my land since their populations had dwindled after a particularly nasty
winter and spring.  Those years I hunted tresspassers.  This year they
are in abundant numbers.  This experiment shows that hunting is only
allowed in those areas that require it, or at least can afford it.  You
and quibble over the difference all you want, but I'll leave it to John
to determine if he means "require" or "afford" or both.


	I have deleted, but concede, the point on water weight versus
fat content.  We now resume our argument where it's relevant:

>ds> If ovulation happens at >20% body fat, then it only takes two days 
>ds> of poor feed to negate this effect.  ...  [conjectures based on 
>ds> false assumptions deleted] 

>Are you suggesting that abundant food resources that would allow 
>a deer to put on 20% body fat would suddenly disappear over a two 
>day period, thanks to "poor feed"?  Let me remind you that it's 
>far more difficult for a deer, consuming brush, to add fat that 
>it might be for hogs fed on fatty grains. 

	I wasn't aware that high-lysene corn and soybeans were fatty
grains, and though I admit my error as how it affects the two days
argument, what about two weeks?  How about five weeks?  Will the fetus
abort, will it live?  Will it matter if the food supply runs out shortly
after hunting season is removed?

>ds> So, Russ, how'd I do?

>Your theory needs work.

	It's a fair cop.

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


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: HARES; INTUBATION; ZOOS; FUR
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:13:46 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
fw> The Irish Parliament refuses to act to end Hare Coursing, a 
fw> bloody act in which greyhounds are trained to literally tear 
fw> apart wild- caught hares.  Cats, birds and rabbits are killed by 
fw> the dogs in training sessions.) Parliament insists that coursing 
fw> attracts tourists;  and some members are attempting to have it 
fw> declared a National Sport.  Please write to the following 
fw> individuals and let them know that you will not visit Ireland as 
fw> long as such barbaric events take place.  

From article <viking.712469214@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> How many IRA-backed bombings, random deaths of civilians, police, 
ds> and soldiers alike, and the cry is to end a greyhound killing a 
ds> rabbit?  There is no doubt in my mind that somebody can't see the 
ds> big picture here.  

You're contradicting some of the claims that you made yesterday on
behalf of ethical relativism.  It's funny how your "big picture" 
appears and disappears to suit your purpose, Dan.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:34:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <jy1xhx-@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>In most places they are *illegal*, muchless ethical.  

Just to point out that acts which are illegal are not necessarily unethical,
and acts which are legal are not necessarily ethical.

And less controversially: legal acts may well be ethical, and ethical acts
may well be legal.

In short, "legal" and "ethical" are logically independent terms.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.124725.6620@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.172135.19116@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul17.052521.10939@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul16.161229.20082@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>
>>>>John Robinson wrote to David Caruso II:
>>>>>......  Would you think more highly of hunters if they dragged their 
>>>>>heels as they went into the woods, reluctant to dicharge a distateful 
>>>>>duty?
>>>>
>>>>				YES
>>>
>>>Quite. Conversely, what would you think of a state executioner who
>>>really REALLY enjoyed his job? 
>> 
>> I certainly would not want this executioner to be the one who decided
>> whether a particular individual should be executed or not.
>
>Executioners don't decide.  Others decide.  They're called jurors, judges 
>and govonors.  Executioners just push the button or pull the switch long after 
>the decision has already been made. None of which has the slightest bit to 
>do with the topic of discusion, talk.politics.animals.  Nice attempt at a 
>diversion though. :)

But what Paul was pointing out is that in the case of killing an individual
animal, it's not "others" who decide.  The juror, judge, and executioner
are one and the same.  And those who enjoy the execution are not the ones
who should be the judges.  I don't think there's a great disagreement here,
since all hunters in this forum allegedly don't enjoy killing.

However if I know of a hunter who enjoyed killing animals (and I have
met some), I would not want that individual to be doing hunting any more
than I would want the rabid executioner to be a judge or juror.  Of
course most hunters aren't likely to admit it these days, given the
attention focused on their activities.  So one needs to watch for more
subtle (and granted, less reliable) indications ...  possible candidates
might be hunters who advocate techniques that cause greater crippling
rates or methods likely to cause more pain and suffering, e.g.  hunters
who would support legalization of, say, use of spears on wild hogs or
who would support shooting at deer 2/3 of a mile away.  There are some
of these types, as you know. 

[...]

---
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: jecome01@vulcan.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer)
Subject: AmNet.News.Service
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:19:12 GMT

Is there any way for me to connect to Amnet.News.Service to read their
articles, or whatever is there.  Thanks for everything else that was 
posted about lab animals.  I just wanted to know a little more about
what was actually going on out there!

		thanks
			Eric

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Audubon Society's bird "rescues"
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:34:44 GMT

	With regards to poisoning the gulls in Main to promote the
term population, I'm saving the post and will let my girlfriend
compose an answer.

	She worked/studied under the Manomet Bird Observatory during
the summer of 1981, mainly doing research on terns.  I suspect she
will have some information to share on this project and the reasons
behind it.

	Anyway, stay tuned for further observations.

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Summerfest '92
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:48:17 GMT

Cool and not so cool.  I'm glad it's happening (and thank you F.Wheeler
for all of the informative posts!)...but I can't go.
 
I'm posting to ask if there is anyone here that is going...and if so, if
they'd be willing to write a short report for our local "alternative"
newspaper "SOUND, News and Arts"?  
 
No pay...but you get published and you spread the word.
 
...e   
--
| Ed Stastny                   | SOUND Now available via: email (from me), |
| ed@odin.unomaha.edu          | gopher (odin.unomaha.edu), and snailmail. |
| edsty@ids.net                |===========================================|
| SOUND newspaper and netzine  | Death has far too short a fuse...live.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Release of Corky the Orca
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:59:54 GMT



Original From: The Animals' Voice Magazine
Original To:   Our Readers and Friends
Re:            The Release of Corky the Orca

1-800-82-VOICE
June 1992

Corky, a young 26-year-old orca, kidnapped from her family in the ocean,
is now dying at Sea World San Diego from kidney failure. She is believed
not to live beyond the fall. Corky is being held in a small holding
tank, out of site, waiting to die. Animal rights activists want Corky
released from her cement tank and reunited with her family to live out
her last days (Dr. Paul Spong has been studying Corky's family in the
wild - the "A-5" pod - and believes he has identified Corky's mother).

There is no risk here. Will we let Corky die in loneliness and sink to
the bottom of the Sea World tank, or make an effort to return her to
natural surroundings and her family? Please write:

  Mr. August Busch III, Chairman
  Anheuser-Busch     (owner of Sea World parks)
  Grants Farm
  10501 Gravois Rd
  St. Louis, MO 63123

Ask him to send Corky home. Tell him you will boycott Anheuser-Busch
products (Budweiser, Eagle Brand snacks, for example) until Corky is
set free. In the wild, orcas live to be about 70 years old. In marine
parks, they're lucky to survive a decade.

Corky deserves better. For more information, contact:
 
  Lisa at the Animals' Voice Magazine by calling (310) 204-2323
 

      BUD IS OUT TILL CORKY'S OUT!

      PLEASE PASS THIS ON

========================================================================
End of message from Animals' Voice
========================================================================
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: HUMANE SOCIETY NEWS; ANIMAL CONTROL
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:57:04 GMT



 HUMANE SOCIETY NEWS; ANIMAL CONTROL

     In Louisiana, Legislation In Support of Animals sought a
permanent injunction to close the Vermilion Parish Rabies Control
Center.  "The facility's 1991 budget exceeded $47,000, yet only
$191 was listed for animal food," LISA director Jeff Dorson noted. 
"Recently we received a tip that the parish had stopped feeding
impounded animals altogether, citing budgetary constraints." 
Animals who don't starve, Dorson said, are gassed with exhaust
fumes, often taking 15 to 20 minutes to die.
 
     Backing up the legal action, LISA planned to distribute 10,000
door hangers asking that letters of protest be sent to Vermilion
Parish mayor Harris Vallo, P.O. Box 430, Abbeyville, LA, 70511.
 
     The Vermilion case is only the latest of many that LISA has
taken on since beginning a campaign to reform Louisiana pounds
three years ago.  Along the way, the small but increasingly well
respected group took over animal control duties for the city of New
Orleans on a volunteer basis for much of 1991, after the city
council ceased funding the local humane society to do the job. Nor
has LISA ignored its initial purpose, securing improved legislation
for animals.  Having already persuaded the Louisiana legislature to
officially investigate the state's pound situation, LISA now seeks
bills to ban the use of carbon monoxide to kill animals; a ban on
bear-wrestling; and a stronger ban on dogfighting.  LISA also wants
to give Louisiana students opposed to dissection the legal right to
demand an alternative, and wants to start a lottery to support
protection of the threatened Louisiana black bear.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals