HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: RE: Animal Research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:15:22 GMT

From article <15SEP92.11304830@wums.wustl.edu>, by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:
jc> There is also a very strong mean streak in many animal rights 
jc> groups.  The attitude I often observe is as follows: if some guy 
jc> develops lung cancer because he smoked for twenty years, it's his 
jc> own fault - let him die rather than kill the animals to save his 
jc> life.  This attitude is profoundly anti-human, and completely 
jc> incompatable with the philosophy of medical practice which has 
jc> existed for the last 5,000 years!  

One of the organizations that's stauchly opposed the AR movement
is the American Medical Association.  In the late 70's the AMA
used it's political muscle to prevent the USDA from alerting food
consumers in the US about the links between meat and dairy foods
and various diseases.   Would you agree with me that such political
interference might signify a "mean streak"?

jc> Yes - prevention is important.  But it's only a part of the whole 
jc> picture.  Animal research is necessary and will continue to be so 
jc> for some time to come.  

Please explain how animal research has been effective in combatting 
lung cancer.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal have no rights
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:18:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Animals have no rights. Only PERSONS have rights. Human beings are
persons because they have the capacity to make moral
distinctions. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral
distinctions; therefore they are not persons.
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:49:32 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

>`BTW - I've heard that Ingrid is a very soft-spoken individual.  I find it hard
>`to believe that she "snarled" anything. Did you hear her snarl yourself? Did 
>`someone else? Or did you make this up? If so, can we then assume that all 
>`other desriptions of what Ingrid said/did are similarly invented/distorted?

>I have never met Ingrid, but I happen to know there is someone reading this
>group who has.

She snarls.  I think, if I'm remembering right, her words as she pointed at
me were: "Murderer!  Killer!  Coward!".  All this, with a distinct snarl.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:51:48 GMT

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

> Human life is more valuable than animal life!

This statement is false.

Don't even think about trying to impose your own value system on me. I'll
make up my own mind on what is valuable, thanks very much.

> [wrt drugs developed on animals] If one out of a hundred works, it is still
> worth countless animals lifes if one human life is saved as a result.

ditto.

> swood

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:31:11 GMT

In article <viking.716093496@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>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?

>	Just food for thought, no reply needed.

---
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: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:22:35 GMT


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:10:48 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) posted these 800 numbers:
` 
`Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-722-6455
` 
`Riverdale Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-762-6374
` 
`1-800-937-PORK
` 
`Write to:
` 
`Mayor Greg Lashutka
`90 West Broadway
`Columbus, OH  43215
` 

In Message-ID: <swood.716092434@vela> (Scott Wood replied):
>I am not sure of the legality of this - but be sure that I will check on it.
>I have heard of such methods, and one campaign in particular that was solely
>responsible for shutting down greenpeace's 800 number - there are two sides
>to each fence remember....  (I chose to stay on the legal side)


In article <1992Sep10.135918.24842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>
>Maybe that's why we never see an 800 number for PETA?  Bet they'd scream
>if they had to pay for phone calls from people who disagree with them.


So?  Are we to conclude from this that the opponents of PETA and Greenpeace
are more likely to abuse 800 numbers than the opponents of fur farms and
pork?

---
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: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Animal Research
Date: 15 SEP 92 08:55:39 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

In a previous article, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>From article <14SEP92.12510596@wums.wustl.edu>, by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:
>> Here at Washington University in St.  Louis, I have been a part 
>> of organizing a group of medical and graduate students into a 
>> group called "Animal Research in Science and Education", or 
>> ARISE.  We aim to teach the public about the true nature of animal 
>> research - how and why it is carried out, and why we feel animal 
>> research must be allowed to continue.  We also devote 
>> considerable effort to address the half-truths and outright lies 
>> concerning animal research which groups like PETA and PCRM spread 
>> on a daily basis.  
> 
>Would you mind posting a few of these "outright lies"/

Certainly.  For example, the director of PCRM has made the claim that no
human has ever benefitted from animal research.  This is an outright lie.

When confronted about this lie, Ingrid Newkirk made the claim that even
the polio vaccine (perhaps the finest example of the need for animal research)
was discovered using cell culture techniques which required no use of animals.
This is an outright lie.

> 
>> Animal Research Saves Lives!!!!!
> 
>-- How much money is spent on animal research in the US each year?
>-- How many americans receive little or no health care because of 
>   financial disabilities?

Currently, our health care system spends less than 2% of its annual budget
on research of ANY type.  For an industry as dependent on high technology
as health care, this figure should be AT LEAST 10%.  And I fail to see the
connection between animal research and those americans who are unable to
afford health care.  I'm as infuriated as anyone that so many americans
go without adequate health care, but whether or not we fund research in this
country has nothing to do with it!

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





_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linda@wpg.com (Linda Guidry)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:39:58 GMT

From article <1992Sep09.184823.29285@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
> Oh, I've come to the conclusion that Linda does exist.  You see, I don't
> just sit here on my hands, waiting for your next heart-rending post.  Now,
> the big question is:  Did you write the post for her?

Thanks for recognizing my existence.  Whatever changed your mind?  

What makes you think that a woman named "Guidry" would need a ghost 
writer to express her own ideas?  

> See, if you wade back to the original deal here, it was a simple post on my
> part stating how *amazingly* simliar your style is to the post that was
> puportedly made by Linda.  How innocuous a beginning, eh?  What was it about
> that observation that put a bug up your butt so badly?  Striking a bit too
> close to the core of the truth?

Your memory is faulty.  Before I had ever posted anything to 
t.p.a., you were claiming that I was a piece of fiction.  Now 
you're saying that similarities in style led you to your original 
conclusion.  What came first, the chicken or the egg?

If it's true that Russell sent you an email message that was 
identical to my posting, please post it.  

> (text deleted) 
> You might as well agree to disagree with me.  You've come out of this looking
> like a dishonest version of Richard Nixon, and I'm starting to look like the
> schoolyard bully.  Considering the audience, I'm not too concerned, image in
> the Usenet isn't a real commodity, anyway.

You mistreated me as a figment of Russell's imagination, not to 
mention the ethnic slurs that you made about my name.  Yet, you 
have the gall to say that Russ is dishonest.  

-- 
Linda Guidry, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
linda@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!linda
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:05:15 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Most of the users at my site take advantage of a paragraph 
>reformatting tool (tform) that wraps lines that exceed precisely 
>65 characters.  I've temporarily misplaced the source, but I'd be 
>happy to share it with anyone who wants it.  By mapping 'tform' 
>onto function keys, it's easy for vi users to generate text with 
>a standard, "formatted" appearance.   

Apparently your pet program is broken.  Some of your (Russell/Linda) lines
exceed 65 characters - some are up to 70 characters long.  Also, some of your
lines are very short, around 55 characters or so, with short words beginning
the very next line.  This would mean that the reformatter would place the 
short words up one line to fill out to as near 65 characters as possible.  As
this isn't happening, either your formatter is not working, or a fake.  I vote
for fake, as you did earlier when the existence of an email message was so
severely questioned.

>th> Honestly, Linda/Russell - keep up the sputtering, it's quite 
>th> amusing.  The simple fact remains, as a forger, you're a failure.  
>th> You've been found out.  

>So you say.

Ah, I finally figured it out - you're just wanting the last word!  Well, here's
your golden opportunity.  I'm off for the weekend to do some hunting, so the
newsgroup is yours, sir.  Have a ball.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:53:13 GMT

>
>	If you cannot understand this, I sincerely hope you are never
>in a position to witness it.  It doesn't make for the easy, clear-cut
>answers you seem to find, and I'd hate to subject you to having to
>make unclear or even painful choices between well-deserving causes.
>

Maybe I've witnessed too many of the failures of modern medicine. I don't know
that it's worth it. The prolonged suffering of patients as well as the
suffering of animal test subjects makes me extremely sad. Although I haven't 
engaged in animal research, I've had friends who did. One did PCP experiments 
on monkeys, the other inserted electrodes in live monkey's and dog's brains
and monitored the effects. I find both horrifying. 
  I eat meat regularly, and I love bowhunting, so killing is not what bothers 
me. Prolonged suffering does. There is, for everyone, a time to die. For some 
of us it will come sooner than for others. Although modern medical science has
worked wonders for some, I'm not sure it's worth the price we pay. I think our
efforts would be far more effective if spent on preventive health care for the 
poor kids who have never seen a dentist, for example. Medical care has become 
expensive beyond reach for many people today, and there are limited funds 
available. I do not subscribe to the belief that human life is priceless. Money
and effort spent on extraordinary means to extend the lives of individuals is 
money not available for many other worthy causes. We've gone way too far in
this regard. Hard choices for sure, but the choices must be made.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:24:14 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <RIGG.92Sep14152131@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.184757.12159@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>0
>   In article <RIGG.92Sep14103509@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >No come on!  This is bull.  Are the exploding deer populations in
>   >Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio also due to hunters
>   >"reintroducing" them to those states?
>
>   I don't know about those states in particular, but Pennsylvania was
>   for all intents and purposes devoid of deer by about 1918. The
>   present population is descended from Michigan deer imported at
>   about that time period. It is one of the great successes of
>   wildlife management that there are now more that a million
>   whitetails in PA, due to the efforts and funding of the
>   Pennsylvania Game Commission and dedicated hunters.
>
>Do you have any more information about this.  I am wondering how many
>Michigan deer would be needed to create a genetically viable
>population.  It also seems likely than many deer "immigrated" from New
>York, New Jersey, and Ohio.
>

Sorry, but no. I read about it in Pennsyvania Game News, probably 20 or more
years ago. It stuck with me all these years because it was rather astounding. I
would guess the Pennsylvania Game Commission would be the best source of info.
Sorry I don't have an address. I haven't lived in PA for the last 10 years.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animal rights...again
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:19:51 GMT

From article <1992Sep14.112151.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, by cotera@woods.ulowell.edu:
> Allow me to reiterate myself: Animals have NO rights.  It appears 
> that there has been some confusion as to what I mean.  I first 
> used the term "animals" in the ordinary sense, meaning 
> non-humans.  Let me rephrase my position so that even an animal 
> activist can understand it.  Only human beings have rights.  In a 
> broader sense, no animals, not even humans, have inherent rights.  
> We only have rights given to us by our governments.  The 
> Declaration of Independence states that all men are created 
> equal, with certain inalienable rights.  "Men" refers to male and 
> female humans, not to animals. 

Not exactly.  The author of the Declaration of Independence owned 
human slaves until his dying day.

You seem to be saying that animals don't have rights because animals
don't have rights.   Please explain _why_ you think human animals should
have rights, but not non-human animals.

> Likewise our Constitution grants rights to the citizens of the 
> United States.  Again, not to animals.  No law that I am aware of 
> has ever given animals rights.  Therefore it is a blatant lie to 
> say otherwise.  Until such a law is passed, I will continue to 
> say that animals have no rights, and I will continue to be right.  

Even here in Louisiana, we have laws that assure many types of
rights for many types of non-human animals.  Therefore, your 
statement is incorrect.   The issue, however, is not whether
or not animals do have rights, but whether or not animals should
have rights.   

> Has anyone noticed that the animal rights activists also tend to 
> be in favor of abortion (the slaughter of human beings) on 
> demand?  However that's another question...  

Please explain why you think it might be perfectly ok to misuse a 
thinking/feeling chimpanzee in any manner of our choosing, but 
wrong for a thinking/feeling woman to rid herself of a 
mindless/senseless embryo.  

One more question:  Do gods have rights?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Hunting in the UK
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 04:20:44 GMT

First, thank you very much, Nick, for a most informative and
thoughtful post. I have always had high regard for the British 
people to take the lead in the humane treatment of animals. Your
post shows that the movement is gaining wider and wider support
everyday. For that I am very grateful.

You also wrote:

>A further even nastier aspect of UK bloodsports is the rise in illegal
>hare coursing. A report on television recently highlighted many
>examples of damage to crops and property, assaults on farmers who have 
>tried to remove such people from their land, and similar attacks on 
>the police. The motivation for these people is both blood and money. 
>Hare coursing attracts much illegal gaming with thousands of pounds 
>sometimes being found in the posession of those arrested.

I do not know what you mean by "hare coursing". I personally have
a profound love of rabbits, and try my best to rescue mistreated
pet rabbits and nurse them back to health.

>A Bill designed 
>to outlaw foxhunting failed in the House of Commons by only a very 
>slim majority last year, and it is to be hoped that a future attempt
>to change the law in this respect will be successful.

I sincerely hope so too.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Animal Research
Date: 15 SEP 92 09:02:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

>Wrong. Alternatives do exist, but they all cost significantly more.
>Worse, "prior results" all involve animals, and there's a tremendous
>inertia and reluctance to switch over to the non-animal alternative,
>because results will be difficult to correlate to prior research data.
>Again, this simply means more effort is necessary initially, hence
>requiring even more money.
> 
Pardon me, here.  But I'm very curious as to what alternatives you're talking
about here.  Generally, computer models and cell culture are the 
"alternatives" to animal research touted by PETA and the like.  These
techniques are actually MUCH LESS expensive than animal research.  However,
they simply do not always adequately replace the complexity of a living 
organism.

Either you have some new "alternative method" I don't know about, or you
REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

JC



_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Testing
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:28:46 GMT
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Sep14.023610.643@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> by unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks):

> >` To use an animal
> >`that is unable to develop full-blown AIDS also appears to be needless.  How 
> >`many potentially life-saving drugs have been discarded as useless because the
> >`animal "model" didn't work?
> 
> Scott Wood writes:
> >How many haven't?  If one out of a hundred works, it is still worth countless
> >animals lifes if one human life is saved as a result.  That is the point.
> >You (and most AR followers) equate human life as equal or lower than that
> >of animals.  I feel that is sick and unlogical regardless of morals or
> >ethics.
> >swood
> 
> According to Ciba-Geigy "of every 20 chemical compounds found safe and
> therapeutically effective in animals tests, only one ever becomes a pre-
> scription drug."  That's 1/20 found safe.  How many were unsafe and never
> tried on humans.  Imuran, myambutol, catapress, moban, meclazine, and coumarin
> all fail the animal tests but work in humans.  How many other drugs get 
> rejected without human trials?  And what of the drugs that are safe in
> animals but are unsafe for humans?  Most don't put humans lower than animals,
> but rank them as equal.  Aren't we animals?  It is sick and illogical to
> think of animals as anything but living, breathing, feeling beings.

What's that got to do with animal testing?  By this token, you can't kill
insect infestations which destroy crops, since they live, breath and respond to
stimulus as a deer does.  Now apparently we are less important than locusts....

> Is it ethical to infect an animal with the AIDS virus, even though it can't
> develop the disease, and keep it locked up for the rest of its life?

Certainly.  Of course now you fudge a bit and forget your previous statement
about "full blown AIDS".  Does the animal HAVE to develop full blown AIDS in
order for something useful to be learned?  Do you even care?


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------