HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:28:06 GMT

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>Thanks for this advice; I now know I need to take this problem more seriously.
>The guy was back yesterday, both he and his hunting buddy had open "Bud
>Light" beer containers in the truck as they stopped briefly at the house

	Alright, stone-cold serious time here.  WARNING: DO NOT accept my
word here as fact in your jurisdiction, and seek legal counsel before
attempting to follow any advice I give.  I am not, and will not be held,
responsible for the events that may transpire should you follow my advice.

	This legalistic BS said, driving with an open container is illegal
in all but one state (TX) that I know of.  Talk to your sheriff and DNR
agent.  If they have weapons out and a beer open, the DNR can bust them.
Once they hit the public road, the sheriff can bust them.  There's
nothing you can do if they're driving on private property with open
containers, but if they have guns out or are on public roads, they're
toast.  Video-tape of any of the above is generally considered de-facto
evidence in a court of law, and you may file and press charges using
that video as evidence.  Check renter laws in your state; it is quite
possible you have jurisdiction over your landlord unless he presents
information prior to the act to you, and even then you may still be
able to over-rule him on this matter.

	Above all, stay safe.  You have armed slobs on your property.
I suggest a proficient marksman be present, and armed, during any
confrontation.  Better yet, a small band of local bikers and other
bad-asses; Marines tend to work the best, as they know weapon safety
and are willing to trounce slobs for fun and perhaps a beer afterwords.
Involve the law as often as possible.  Call in DWI reports on them
as they leave -- cops will be hot and heavy to bust them.  Let your
DNR agent know and he can stake out their site for a bust.  You have
no reason to put up with this crap, and the law will only help.  If
it doesn't, I've no problem with an object lesson in manners being
administered to these jerks, and the law usually doesn't either.

	Remember, though, they know where you live, and may try
some sort of retaliation.  Therefore, let the law do it for you
if possible.  Bikers, marines, and the like are effective, but
can't be around when the slobs have liquid courage in them next time.

<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.>
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 30 Sep 1992 19:44:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu




In article <BvD8KC.2qn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.205112.3203@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>mo> Russell tactic 117:  Creative editting - removal of damaging context.
>mo>                      [Context is question is Russell's diversion from
>mo>                       the issue of "hunting hunters" to a discussion
>mo>                       of Mike's remark "what an idiot", which does not
>mo>                       address the issue.]

>Did the comment, "What an idiot", address the issue?  


Did it need to?  Wouldn't any reasonable person have immediately identified
the comment as an opinion and not an argument.  You want to see what you 
want to see so bad that it blinds you to the obvious.


>mo> {Russell - this is for you, *just in case* you really didn't understand
>mo> it: The content of the comment "What an idiot" was that Mike thinks
>mo> people who consider hunting hunters a legitimate option are idiots.
>mo> Mike was quite succinct in sharing his opinion.}

>I realize that's his opinion.  What I don't understand is how/why
>a man who considers the killing of witches to be perfectly 
>reasonable would turn around and declare the hunting of hunters to
>be "idiotic".


Perhaps Russell will be nice and honest enough to explain why he feels I
consider the killing of witches reasonable and why he is so hung up on
this.

Russell has misrepresented my views before.  He has lied about me before
and generally displayed a penchant for misleading, dishonest posts IMO.
Therefore, it does not surprise me to see his try to discredit me with
the kind of crap you see above.  


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



Mike Linan
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Downed Animal Legislation
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:01:12 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

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

>Scheesh!  Why so hostile, Todd?  As a Canadian, I can give you a sense of what
>the "Downed Animal Protection Act of 1992" is all about.  Perhaps, some of the
>Americans can give you more specific information, but I'll tell you what I
>know.

Well, that's mighty nice of you, and yes, it did help ever so much.  Now, if 
you'd really read my messages, you'd have found that what pissed me off wasn't
that such an act exists, it's that we're still enduring blind posting of simple
propaganda.  Where in Ferrell's original post was any information that might
further his hopeless cause?

>I hope this info helps, Todd, but I must add - ever so politely - that I worry
>that the tone of your post is quite indicative of the attitude that many 
>anti-animal rights posters exude on this network.  You see, most animal rights
>people *know* what the downed animal issue is all about.

If the Animal Rights community is so well informed, then why blather to the 
net?  Why do it blindly, without so much as the ability to defend your 
position? 

>interested in animal rights would see a post such as Ferrell's and ask the
>question, "What is a downed animal?".  But you have chosen to play judge,
>jury and hangman on Ferrell's post with references to blind AR followers.  I

Again, you misunderstand my post.  FERRELL is the blind poster - that means
that he spits stuff out over Email to this newsgroup, unable to tell if it
even gets here.  If you've ever read any of the stuff over on the news
heirarchy, you'd know just how rude and inconsiderate that is.  To have a post
such as the one referenced, totally devoid of any information other than an
entreat to call and say 'atta-boy' without even telling us what the issue is
is a truly arrogant waste of resources.


>I, for one, very much appreciate Ferrell's contributions to the net.

Contributions?  He'd contribute if he did as well as you, and actually READ
the damn net, and then might be able to respond in defense of his propaganda
barrage.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:08:34 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:

>JSVE wrote:
>>I think the track record of game management proves it.  Have you
>>noticed just how many orders of magnitude of difference there are
>>between the two problems you're talking about modelling??
>
>But has enough long term, global information been counted to make a truly
>accurate assessment of game over say, the next decade?  If you look at short-
>term, small area predictions, even the weatherman can do good.  But if he
>tries to extrapolate a few months along, he will probably fail.

Rob, I've deleted your stuff about chaos theory, since it is of little
use in the "real world," where we must make decisions based on what
information and models we have available (however crude they may be).
The point here is that game management doesn't need to assess things
in the long term.  A year-to-year basis works fine.  If the target
population for a given track of land is, say, 1000 deer and the
wildlife people count 3127 deer on it during the Spring, they can
issue enough permits to cull the 2127 surplus (statistically, with the
corresponding errors).  If they go out and count 49 deer, there will
be no season until the population builds up.  Note -- we're all well
aware that these counts are estimates taken from smaller samples, and
all that, but they are quite accurate (I believe the NYS DEC brags
about being +/-7% in each Deer Management Unit while estimating
required and actual doe takes to maintain a given population).


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:11:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.172554.13378@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.203924.13710@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> other points of discussion deleted
>
>>Does anyone know why Nugent backed out?  With his more extensive experience
>>performing before crowds, he would be a worthy opponent for Pacelle.  How
>>about President Bush himself stepping forth?  He could hone his debating
>>skills for a possible Clinton debate!
>Supposition:  Given the chance to appear at a hunter-friendly event
>with the President (and Nolan Ryan) vs. a hunter-hating event with
>Ingrid, Ted made a logical choice.

Then I take it that your answer to my question "Does anyone know why
...?" is a "No" you don't know but are willing to engage in speculation
about it.

But why isn't it possible for Mr. Nugent to do both.  The debate was
scheduled for Friday night, PRIOR to most of the other activities.  
Was President Bush scheduled to be there Friday night and only then?  
If not, then couldn't Mr. Nugent have participated in the debate and then 
joined the president and others for the remaining festivities slated
for the ensuing days?

And since the debate is free and open to the public, Mr. Nugent could
have dragged along hundreds of his cronies to pack the audience with
supporters and benefited from safety in the numbers.

From what I've heard, Mr. Pacelle is well-informed, an outstanding
speaker and a skilled debater, so I can understand why there would be
reluctance on the part of many hunters to directly confront him.  This
doesn't make him right or his opponents right.  But in Mr. Nugent,
there would be a rough equivalence in speaking and debating skills and
this may have permitted a genuine and thoughtful debate on issues.  We
see from this newsgroup that hunters are a voluble lot who seem to enjoy
debates on hunting-related topics, so I've been puzzled by the apparent
unwillingness on the part of qualified hunters to participate. 

>  Guess whose media event will
>get more coverage?

Since when did media coverage become the acid test of an event's value?

Or are you suggesting that Mr. Nugent is so publicity crazed that the
prospect for media coverage controls his schedule? (I note that you're
probably not suggesting this, but then what was the point?  It went over
my head apparently.)

>
>Mary Otto

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:55:21 GMT

Rich Young writes:
ry> I've been quite straightforward with my comments and evaluations.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Not really.  Why didn't you declare, right from the beginning, 
rl> that your opponents were wrong simply because you've declared 
rl> them to be wrong.

From article <1992Oct5.214315.16613@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  Was it not YOU who
ry> claimed from the beginning that the killing of animals for food is
ry> wrong (on some absolute scale you refuse to provide) and that those
ry> who might believe otherwise are mistaken?  Yes, yes, I know, "Not
ry> really."  If this ISN'T what you believe, then please clarify for
ry> us.  Without some absolute standard, you've done precisely that of
ry> which you have accused me: declared your opponents wrong simply 
ry> because you believe them to be so.

Please explain why you think sapience and sentience are irrelevant
to a discussion dealing with ethical decisions involving animals
that are not exactly like you.

rl> By insisting that abilities like sensitivity 
rl> to pain are relevant to human-animal discussions but irrelevant 
rl> to non-human-animal discussions, you've defined your 
rl> conclusions...  not proved them.  

ry> You've misquoted me yet again.  I have never said that sensitivity
ry> to pain was "irrelevant."  I have said that using the presence or
ry> absence of such characteristics as the criteria to determine whether
ry> non-human species are worthy of human concern is arbitrary and a 
ry> retreat to truth-by-similarity-of-structure.

Without pointing to the "cosmos" or the "Great Oz" or some other
entity, please explain why sapience and sentience are arbitrary 
concerns.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:34:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <19vmpuINN7kn@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.173657.13529@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.154036.21603@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.034059.2458@athena.cs.uga.edu> hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>>>>Your "activity" on the net makes you, by definition, an activist.
>
>>>Tell me, are you an "activist" too, since since you are "active"
>>>on the net? Or do you reserve this particular epithet for those whose
>>>views you find distasteful? I'd just like to get to the root of this ...
>
>>Paul, I have to agree with Martin on this one.  The net is a Public Forum.
>>Writing our opinions here is a public statement.  Net articles are
>>electronic publications.  Writing, publishing, and publicly stating
>>opinions and informations IS activism.
>>
>>Mary Otto
>
>Well Mary, I'll have to jump in since I was the alleged
>"activist" in the first place.  What you say about publicly
>stating positions being activism is of course true,
>but it is besides the point.
>
>Martin's very tenuous chain of logic is the following:
>(1) I am an "activist" since  I'm stating opinions to the
>net; (2) The views of "activists" should not be taken
>into consideration when determining the propriety of
>using animals in research.
>
>What I mostly object to is (2).  (Why should I object to 
>(1), after all I am a Berkeley type....) (2) goes to the root 
>of Martin's failure to be a conscientious scientist: an 
>inability to allow one's work to be reviewed, an inability 
>to connect the goals and results of one's work with a 
>well-defined public need, and a tendency to attack the
>person who points out the flaws in the activity rather
>than address those flaws.
>
>So while you are technically correct that Martin is justified
>calling me an "activist", the implication that this
>somehow reduces my credibility is groundless.  Which is
>what Paul pointed out.   If however you agree with Martin on this
>last I'll be happy to continue the debate.
>
>Steve

I guess my point is that the usual meaning of the word "activist"
as used by the anti-AR people is "hysterical lunatic whose views
have no credibility whatsoever".

Now of course if someone wants to use it to mean "anyone who is
active in anyway whatsoever" then that is fine. What I thought I
saw in Martin's post was an attempt to slide from one definition
to the other, a logical fallacy whose name temporarily escapes me.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:38:10 GMT


>But don't you want to go to "hunt" the guy with the knife with a knife?

That would be illegal and contrary to my personal morality and code of
ethics.

>
>This is it what I think man can avoid!
>Killing of any form of life just for fun or lust!
>If somebody hunts for his survival then he is a hunter.
>The others are, in my opinion, killers.
>Harsh words, I know.
>In real animal world hunting is a daily task. 
>There also exists strange behavior at the first glance,
>like the killing of the own babies (eg. apes and lions).
>Although we have not the right to kill any animal or man.
>So you should better take a sixpack and throw away your knifes.
>Try to reduce your aggressions with sports like free climbing.
>
>Udo.

And I think here we finally get to your particular misconception, that 
hunting is used to vent aggression. Although it can be argued that the 
final outcome (killing) is aggressive in the extreme, I honestly don't 
have a clue how to convince you just how wrong you are. To work off 
frustration (aggression) I'll take weight lifting or wood splitting, running,
or a good drunk. Hunting while in such an emotional state could be dangerous
and most certainly unsuccessful. I go hunting to relax and clear my mind.
Deer hunting is literally the only time I have one thing only on my mind.
The focus allows problems to be forgotten for the day.

Jeff Achenbach

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: [repost]Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: 27 Sep 92 03:51:56 GMT
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Back to the basic point I was trying to make: we're really living with
a set of fundamentally contradictory cultural values.

We believe in the "family values" of giving virtually all of the control
over forces shaping a child's future to his parents, plus the right to 
give birth whenever they want.

On the other hand we believe everyone should be given an "equal deck of
cards" to play with.  However, the first belief guarantees inequality
because parents are not equal.

We play with all kinds of superficial arrangements to make it APPEAR
that we can satisfy both demands, like affirmative action, minority
business incentives, social welfare, etc.  What we end up doing is slowly
chipping away at our meritocratic traditions and other basic
structures which are mostly responsible for giving us everything, and
still not solving the problem.  The reason is that we can't manage the
amount of chaos generated by this fundamental contradiction.

In fact, not only have we not solved the problem, the underclass has
already exploded in our face a few times during the past 30 years.

I think the underclass problem cannot be solved until we debate and find
solutions at the fundamental level: "what do we want as basic values?".  We
must change them one way or another.  We can't clean up the country until
our logic is cleaned up.  Without realizing this we will only be going in
circles in our debates.

[Reposting, not sure if last attempt to post was successful.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:36:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct2.174315.4774@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>  tainty.   Where does that leave room for free will?   This IS the
>>  substance of the discussion.
>
>While it is somewhat foolish to deny the effect of genes+environment,
>it is also somewhat foolish to deny the possibility of free will, or
>some such equivalent.  Humans do have the capacity for self-reflection,
>to examine what they have become, and therefore have the ability
>to compensate, by making their own environment, if you will.

  But a Burmese peasant, a Louisiana KKK member and a Massachusetts
  college professer, all reflecting on and contemplating the world
  will likely reach different conclusions.   

  And, a totally automated weather station in those three locales
  will also likely produce different results.   But this is not
  evidence of free will.  Why is the fact of "reflection" or
  "contemplation" considered an instance of free will?   How
  do you know you even chose freely to reflect?  How do you know
  the conclusions you reached were reached freely?   

  Human beings may be "wired up" to reflect, or it might be learned
  behavior.  Likewise the mental state that produces "reflection"
  or the one that occurs during reflection still has to map to
  the state of the brain.  

  To all you people who advocate free-will: how do you square this
  with a biological brain?   


---peter