HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: NRA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:40:55 GMT

In article <92355.214359GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>
>    The agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Services will make refuges
>  more accessible for hunters as well as promote educational programs
>  and tours.

Not much of a refuge if it's made more accessable to hunters, I don't
think.
>
>    Richard DeChambeau, director of the NRA's hunter services division,
>  said volunteers from among the NRA's three million members would donate
>  time and labor to improve wildlife habitats.
>
What are they going to do exactly?

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.193158.17734@zooid.guild.org>, Rosemary Waigh
<rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
> 
>[...]
>
> Have you actually read _The_Power_of_Your_Plate_ yet?  Which parts did you
> object to?  (I apologize in advance if I am asking you to repeat yourself.)

I do remember covering this before, but I could be wrong.

I have not (yet) objected to the contents of the book.  I have not yet read
the book, but only glanced at it.  I do intend to read it, but I am
hesitant to purchase it, because I do not support Barnard (as you may have
gathered).

The reviews that I have seen (I forget where, perhaps Animal's Agenda)
indicate that it consists, in part, of interviews between Barnard and
nutrition researchers such as Ornish and Campbell.  Is this correct?

I suspect that when I read it, I will have objections to some points.  I
base this conjecture on the contents of PCRM press releases, to which I
object greatly.  The title suggests ethical decisions regarding diet that
may or may not be in concert with present knowledge about nutrition.  That
is why I put nutrition in quotes.  I did not want to convey the impression
that I considered the book to be a valid source of information about
nutrition.

--
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: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: News Blurbs 8
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:10:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.162825.3901@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>PETA spokespersons stated a Montana woman and West Coast man
>appear to be the grand jury's prime targets, although two top
>PETA officials may also be targets. The group's lawyer
>commented a few PETA members have refused to give testimony
>without promise of immunity

Immunity?  From what?  PETA wouldn't do anything wrong.

                                 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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.154537.29709@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <viking.725276365@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>In <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>>The only way food animals can show their keepers that conditions are
>>>less than tolerable is by having enough of them die.
>>	Ever hear of a database, Michael?  Perhaps you might care to share
>>how a rancher might interpret a few pounds drop in weight gain per ton of
>>feed, or maybe you will wax eloquent on how health can be judged by the
>>coat of the animal?  Might you tell us how many thousands of animals you
>>have raised?  Could you possibly inform us of the affect antibiotics to
>>combat pnuemonia have on profit?
>
>If the only criteria you use to guide you in the proper treatment of
>food animals is by their weight, then by golly you really care very
>little about their welfare. All you want is rapid weight gain. Period.
>Face it, isn't that the whole purpose of your suggestions above?
>-- 
>Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada

If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have 
a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals. Without it,
they wouldn't tolerate the long hours and hard work for little pay. It's a
24 hour a day, 7 day a week job, and damn near any good trade will make 
you a better living with a lot smaller investment and a lot less risk. Maybe
you can get a summer job on a farm, if you're lucky. It would probably be
a real eye opener for you.

Jeff Achenbach
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10542 talk.abortion:52845
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:54:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>> = Mary Otto:
>>>> = Michael Loomis writes:

>>>> I still think the killing of human fetuses is a positive moral 
>>>> good on a planet overpopulated by homo sapiens.

>> Me too. 

>>> If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
>>> your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?

>> Of course, Michael said human fetuses.  Not humans.  

>Human fetuses are by definition humans, i.e. members of the
>species Homo Sapiens. 

Michael was speaking of *fetuses*, which are != all humans, as Otto
insinuated.

Gads, you're slow, boy.  Catch up!

>> I guess you'll apologize now that you see how bitchy you were.

>Why should she apologize?

Of course, I didn't say "should", Liar Doug.  I said I expect it from someone
just proven wrong.

Is English your native language?

>I would think that pro-choicers and pro-lifers would take issue with
>the assertion that 'abortion is a positive moral good'.

Geez Doug, I don't care.  It's my opinion.  And I disagree that
"pro-choicers" in general will take issue; some will, some won't.

A more accurate statement is, most pro-choicers and even pro-lifers "take
issue" with a liar like yourself.  This could be another good subject for a 
poll.

>>Steve ``abortion is a positive moral good'' Novak 

Doug added the description of me, but I don't know why.  I agree with it,
and I already stated it at the top of this posting.

Poor Dougie-poo.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:21:27 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <BzJ4pF.F9w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>ry> Sure.  As soon as you supply Martin, et. al., with references to
>ry> cat shooting and beagle drowning as they've asked repeatedly.
>
Russell:
>As I explained previously, it was my intention to post, not only
>the references, but entire articles... some of which were published
>in the Times-Picayune, New Orleans CitiBusiness, and Gambit, sources
>that are unlikely to be available in your local library.   
>Unfortunately, I just haven't had enough time.  Do you think your
>interests would be better served by the references alone... given
>the fact that your limited resources would prevent you from testing
>the veracity of my interpretations?
i
Trust Us Russell.  Maybe not.  But don't underestimate us. I'm not
interested in your version of the articles.  Post the ref.  If I can't get
my hands on the articles I'll let you know.

>
>Be that as it may, I'm under no obligation to be an "Answer Man"
>of sorts for every question that pops into the heads of my opponents.

Pops into my head!  Russell I've never heard of the experiment.  You
brought it up.

>I've already discussed the "cat shooting" topic at length on several 
>occasions and each time I provided citations to the evidence.   I'll
>be happy to discuss it again, in response to Greg Popken's most
>recent request, but perhaps I won't bother supplying full text
>articles.  


>I am focusing on the issue, Rich.  And the issue is the hypocrisy 
>of folks who would belittle the statements of a medical doctor on 
>a vital nutritional issue, by appeals to his authority, while 
>applauding historical claims about the nazi mindset that were presented 
>in a journal that has *nothing* whatsoever to do with either political
>history or the history of ideas.

Request nuber three.  READ THE BOOK I CITED. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE


                                        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: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:27:37 GMT
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms

In article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have 
>a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals. 

I guess this is a different kind of "love and concern" than I am used to.  I
just hope this isn't the kind of "love and concern" that my husband feels for
me.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:32:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.180253.16876@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>   I can understand an accident wherein a bullet travels through brush and
>injures someone who could not be seen. I've never been able to understand 
>these cases of mistaken identity. The courts have been far too lenient. 
>Responsibility rests with the person holding the rifle and no one else. There
>is absolutely no excuse for shooting anything by mistake. Reminds me of the
>folks who run over motorcyclists in broad daylight because "they just came
>out of nowhere!" Truth is, they just didn't look.
>
>Jeff Achenbach
This shooting is a great tragedy, but from the information given it was an
accident, which could happen to anyone participating in a sport which involves
lethal weapons.  The poor hunter probably already feels terrible about what
happened, he doesn't need people acting like he deliberately killed the
victim.

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:18:12 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1992Dec21.160031.4743@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, by jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson):
> In article <BzJ5A3.FFD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> [snip]
>>As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's 
>>memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the 
>>nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by 
>>professional students of history dealing with nazi political 
>>ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's 
>>were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.  
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Please explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense." 
> Seems rather vague, doesn't it?

Please define the concept of "animal rights" that was allegedly 
advocated by the nazis.    

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: UPC on Turkeys
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:30:03 GMT


                      FOOD FOR THOUGHT
 
Treated with respect, domestic turkeys are friendly birds who
enjoy human companionship.  Like their wild relatives they are
avid foragers who thrive on grass and a healthful outdoor
life.  They are not suited to the harsh turkey confinement
systems in which 15,000 or more sensitive birds are forced to
sit and stand jammed together in filthy litter breathing
burning ammonia fumes and lung-destroying dust.  They develop
respiratory diseases, foot ulcers, breast blisters, and
ammonia burned eyes.  They are dosed with drugs, vaccines and
antibiotics to prop them up till marketing time.
 
These turkeys are bred and fed to become pathologically obese.
Their skeletons are so weak under their bloated muscles
("meat") that many birds collapse, unable to stand.  The
modern turkey muscle is undergoing degenerative changes
reflecting the birds' forced rapid growth and overblown body
weight (Turkey World, 1992).  Oxygen deprived and grossly
overburdened, many turkeys' hearts explode.  Consumers could
eat a diseased turkey or turkey part for dinner:  "Researchers
are looking at ways to keep afflicted birds alive long enough
to get them to market" (Associated Press 1991).
 
Turkeys are brutally debeaked.  As a result, they cannot eat
or preen properly.  Research has shown that the hot debeaking
blade cuts through the sensitive beak tissue causing lifelong
pain and suffering in the mutilated, disfigured bird.
 
Modern turkeys are so heavy and misshapen they must be
artificially inseminated to reproduce.  Obscenely, the males
are "milked" of their semen by phallus manipulating teams who
stick it in the upside down turkey hen's vagina with a
hypodermic syringe or the operator's breath pressure blown
through a tube.  The U.S. does not even provide humane
slaughter protective legislation for turkeys.  For more
information contact United Poultry Concerns, P.O. Box 59367,
Potomac, MD  20859 (301-948-2406).
 
                     + + + + + + + + + +
 
United Poultry Concerns addresses the treatment
of domestic fowl in food production, science,
education, entertainment, and human companionship
situations.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:26:47 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
ml> and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.

Robert Black writes:
rb> Mike, can you please give us some examples of people whose "views often
rb> include pretending that animals should be humans."  I'm looking not just
rb> for names, but statements made by these people.  I realize you don't
rb> archive old posts, so paraphrasing to the best of your recollection
rb> would suffice.  Thank you.

From article <1ht162INNn0c@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Okay Robert.  Making me think are you?  My comment was made from 
ml> what I interpret from situations and comments made relative to 
ml> those situations.  For example, when people complain about 
ml> chickens being confined to small cages.  It seems they feel they 
ml> wouldn't like that done to them and relate that to how they 
ml> imagine the chicken must feel.  Sure it would be great if the 
ml> chicken could roam free and I'm not saying they shouldn't but, 
ml> who knows if being so confined is as miserable as it would be for 
ml> humans?  Many people like to equate animals feeling with our 
ml> feeling.  They may or may not be similar.  Nobody knows for sure 
ml> unless they have been an animal in a prior life...  

Have you ever had a muscle cramp, Mike?  Do you think the pain 
that you experienced arose from some uniquely human aspect of 
your anatomy?  Or, did it arise from structures and mechanisms 
that are common to all birds and mammals?  

Do you think that a scientifically minded investigator could 
answer the questions posed above without resorting to adventures 
like the transmigration of souls, astral body projection, vulcan mind 
melds, etc, etc?  

One final question: Do you think the legislators who voted for the
Animal Welfare Act had confused human animals with non-human 
animals when they mandated the use of cages that would permit a 
range of physical movements?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: WFPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting @ Yellowstone (Was Bowhunting wounding...)
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:53:37 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University

In article <1992Dec21.170854.26500@clpd.kodak.com>
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
 
>In <1992Dec3.201906.10682@icd.ab.com> Ken Whitehead writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> .... (Check out the winter kill of elk in Yellowstone that has occurred
>> every year since the Fund for Animals "saved" them from the hunters if
>> you don't know what I'm talking about;  you'll be appalled, I guarantee
>> it.)  ...
>
>Ken,
>
>I believe that you are seriously misinformed here.  The shooting of elk
>(and other wildlife) in Yellowstone National Park has been outlawed
>since 1894 by an Act of Congress.  The recent "winter kill" is a result
>of the fires of 1988 and the ensuing short-term food scarcity.  It has
>nothing to do with Fund For Animals' efforts.
>
>The Fund For Animals has worked to stop the slaughter of BISON who
>wonder outside the park boundaries.  These animals are killed, not
>because they're starving, but because of an irrational fear that they
>will spread brucellosis to cattle.
>
Hunting of elk @ Yellowstone DOES go on OUTSIDE the boundaries of the park
and because many of the elk that summer in YNP (Yellowstone Nat'l Park)
migrate out during the fall and winter, they are subject to harvest.
It's questionable how much this affects the total elk population inhabiting
YNP.  The brucellosis issue IS largely argued in an irrational context.
Most of the debate rests on myth and almost no data are ever presented.
However, research now ongoing is trying to establish the risk posed
by brucellosis in elk.  Estimated 70% elk are infected, but transmission to
domestic livestock appears likely to be very low because to become infected
an animal must come into contact with reproductive products of an infected
individual (e.g., placental tissue) and these don't persist in the environment
long.  Stay tuned because until the data are in, lobbiests are going to make
this a major issue.
 
Wm Porter
Professor - Wildlife Biology
State Univ. NY - College Environmental Science and Forestry
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:14:44 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec18.213529.3602@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>
>I can't take it any more Russell.  I have tried to be civil.  I have tried
>to be factual. I have intellectually honest. (As I'm sure Martin has). 
>But, I can't not take your unfounded innuendos, your evasion of  the
>issues, and your blatant attempts to ignore the facts.  You sir are the most
>closed minded, intellectually bankrupt, and intentionally deceitful person
>it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

It really sends you into conniptions to come across someone whose
arugments you can't refute, doesn't it?

>Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
>have come to your defense?  

Probably because Russell patently doesn't need anyone to "come to his
defense".  Face it Greg: he runs rings around you.

I used to think that t.p.a was a really pointless forum for debate,
but now I see that it serves an admirable purpose in highlighting
the stupidity, vacuousness, and just plain pig-ignorance of the "we
hate AR" crowd.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:20:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.232737.5656@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.202235.18123@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>
>>If I may add my 2 cents. I've never met a farmer/rancher who didn't have 
>>a genuine love and concern for the welfare of his/her animals. 
>
>I guess this is a different kind of "love and concern" than I am used to.  I
>just hope this isn't the kind of "love and concern" that my husband feels for
>me.
>
>Ro

A rather silly post, IMO. I'll respond anyway. 
I love my family and my dog and cats. However, if I had to choose between 
saving the life of my wife or my dog, I would certainly save my wife. If the
choice were between saving my dog and doing serious bodily harm to a person 
who was harming him, I would opt for the dog. There are many differences in 
type and degree of the emotion we call "love".

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:45:12 GMT

In article <1hpsboINN8av@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>....  Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
>and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.

Mike, can you please give us some examples of people whose "views often
include pretending that animals should be humans."  I'm looking not just
for names, but statements made by these people.  I realize you don't
archive old posts, so paraphrasing to the best of your recollection
would suffice.  Thank you.

>
>Mike Linan

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10605 talk.environment:5292 sci.environment:14062