HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:20:15 GMT

Paul Roberts writes:

>I haven't done a careful survey of this, but I have noticed several
>times now how hunters seem to think that anti-hunters are not "real
>men" or somesuch ... just before he disappeared into killfile limbo,
>Mike Linan was speculating about Russell's sexual orientation.

Paul, I'd think this notion of anti-hunters being wimps would come
about from the widely publicized actions of groups such as ALF, which
go around commiting spineless acts of one-sided violence.  Also, I'm
sure the "bunny-hugger" stereotype contributes to it as well. :-)


>When we ask the hunters directly they deny that they think hunting
>is "macho", and they start telling us that just thousands of the
>sweetest girls are out there too, looking for things to shoot at.

Are you trying to imply that girls that hunt are not sweet?  I'm sure
my girlfriend would take exception with such words, just as you've
taken exception with Ken's words, which were at least said in humour.
Perhaps it is *you* that perpetuates the stereotype that hunters are
only men, and hence hunting is a "macho" thing? :-)


>But comments like the one above (yes, I know it is meant to be humour)
>suggest to me that many hunters do indeed feel that deep down,
>hunting is something to do with "manliness".

I don't think that is a logical conclusion.  Just because some hunters
stereotype ARs as "effeminate bunny-huggers" doesn't not imply that
they feel they are above average in "manliness."  It merely means that
these hunters find you folk below average.  Clearly such stereotypes
are meaningless either way.


>Could I make a suggestion? Let's put the words "moronic name calling"
>in the header of all messages which consist mainly of moronic name
>calling. Then my killfile can find them.

Nah.  "Moronic name calling" is too long.  I vote for "MNC," even
though I don't believe in kill files. ;-)


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"--
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: MAN-TV Artists' Auction
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:25:00 GMT


MAN-TV Artists' Auction

                 PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
                 ===========================
 
                          M.A.N. - TV
                 Modern Animal News Television
 
                     Post Office Box 477219
                 Chicago, Illinois  60647-7219
                     Phone:  (312) 278-9011
                      Fax:  (708) 393-2941
 
              ARTISTS' AUCTION WILL BENEFIT ANIMALS
 
The Artists' Auction for the Animals will be held at the BackBurner
Clearinghouse, an art gallery located at 167 North Racine Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois, at 8:00 p.m. on October 10, 1992.  The Auction will be sponsored
by Modern Animal News Television (M.A.N.-TV) and the BackBurner
Clearinghouse; proceeds from the event benefit Animal Rights Mobilization, a
multi-issue, educational Humane Society with headquarters in Chicago.
 
"The art community and the animal welfare community share many common values
and aesthetics," says L.A. Scott, organizer of the gala event. "The artists
we've spoken to welcome this chance to apply their talents to help protect
the animal kingdom and animal protectionists are eager to support these
artists."  The Auction, which will be conducted by Dunnings Auction Service,
will feature live entertainment and is open to the public.
 
Dr. Michael Bello, Director of Education for the National Anti-Vivisection
Society, along with Ms. Barbara Chadwick, Director of Animal Rights
Mobilization, and Mr. L.A. Scott, Executive Producer of Modern Animal News,
will speak at the event.
 
Featured at the Auction will be a multi-media presentation of Modern Animal
News Television, which now can be seen through the Earth Network on Chicago
station WGBO (Channel 66), Saturday mornings at 7:00.  M.A.N.-TV, which
covers topics of endangerment, experimentation, and exploitation of all
animal life is co-hosted by L.A. Scott and film and television star Robyn
Douglas.  Ms. Douglas' credits include "BattleStar Galactica" and "Houston
Knights," films such as "Breaking Away" and "Romantic Comedy," and her
Emmy-nominated performance in "Her Life As A Man."
 
Also appearing at this event will be Modern Animal News Music Director,
Bruce Mak, who will be appearing live and presenting music and video
arrangements specially created for the Artists' Auction for the Animals.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:59:50 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're promoting one half-truth as a substitute for another 
rl> half-truth.  Animal populations are, indeed, self-regulating.  And 
rl> animal populations will, indeed, expand their range if given the 
rl> opportunity to do so.  Your example demonstrates that the 
rl> creation and protection of stable, natural ecosystems isn't an 
rl> easy task when the areas in question are surrounding by man-made 
rl> environments like farms.  

From article <1992Aug21.135523.18172@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> No matter how large an area you establish, there will always be 
ja> fringe areas.  What do you propose be done there?  Fence it?  

This would depend on the specific circumstances, don't you think?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:52:07 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Why do wolves "test" their prey, instead of just diving in 
>rl> willy-nilly? 


>js> Can you tell me why hawks *do* *not* test their quarry and *do* just
>js> dive in willy-nilly, and yet they seem to do pretty well?

>Perhaps because their prey, unlike deer, present no retaliatory threat.

Quite the contrary, a kick from a rabbit's hind foot is a considerable
threat to a lightly feathered hawk. If it gets injured and can't hunt,
it dies. A bite from a squirrel is a very serious threat. For one it
can cut tendons and more dangerously, squirrels mouths carry lethal
bacteria. A stoat or a  mink is a strong, agile and dangerous quarry,
yet I'll seen hawks take them. Redtails take snakes, including
poisonous ones. I know of two redtails that have tackled (and held)
comon red fox, and badger. These are hawks weighing in at 2lbs 8oz,
maybe. No, it isn't because their quarry is easy pickings. I know why
they don't test their quarry, but I'd like to see if you can work it
out for yourself. Can you?

>rl> Human hunters are just as likely to bring down healthy deer
>rl> as sick ones...  perhaps even more likely, since humans are sight 
>rl> hunters and sick deer often remain immobile in secluded, 
>rl> hidden spots. [..]

>js> Yup. And the same goes for hawks, they are sight hunters. Now where has
>js> this line got us? Aha, predators prefer an easy meal if they can manage
>js> it, but if they have to work for their supper, well that's part of the
>js> game of survival, is that it?

>The fact remains that the predation of a wolf in bringing down an 
>aging or diseased animal is quite a bit different from the predation
>of a human in gunning down a healthy animal in the prime of life.  The
>notion that the human and the wolf are "working for their supper" seems 
>simplistic to me.

Yup, and a leopard or cheatah taking a healthy gazelle is a lot
different to me shooting a deformed buck. We've covered this ground
before Russell. (Do you like circles? :-)

--JOnathan
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:25:21 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

Thank you, Kenneth, for your wonderful little story.  It was quite amusing and 
quite stupid.  You certainly establish your credibility when you say my writing 
is second-rate.

But you know, one thing confuses me.  All the adjectives you used to describe 
me ... it would seem you imply that you know me quite well, when, indeed, all 
you know are the things I've posted concerning animals rights ... a topic, no 
doubt, we both feel very passionately about.

But the real me?  Never been to the woods?  Dog-killer?  Sniveling?  Weak?  
Immature?  I'm impressed with your lack of intuition.

You know, if this were a vocal forum, I'm smear your sorry rhetoric all over 
the wall and snap you back so fast you're puny neanderthal head would spin.  
Luckily, you can *read* my words, and interpret the tone of them in any way you 
see fit -- bias or unbiased.  If we were truly debating this, in a spontaneous 
forum, where we could both address each other's points, and cater our offense 
to effectively deal with each other's specific arguments and personality, I 
could stomp on you like you do to the ants that cross your path.  Mentally, 
I believe this to be a fair analogy.  Physically, you may have the strength of 
a gorilla, and the forehead to match, but I'm not exactly a skinny pale-faced
computer nerd with the dexterity of a bowling ball and a fear of the dark.
Heh heh ... not hardly.

If ever you get over your basic cowardice and foolishly decide to challenge me, 
just give me a call.  My number is in the book.  If would give me something to 
do besides sit here trying to find a way to penetrate into the iota of brain
tissue inside the sponge that must fill your skull.
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 21 Aug 92 02:53:55 GMT

In article <d2KS02Wb1eTG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

   More to the point: lacking an enclosure to contain the deer (which would've 
   forced them to live off their "own" land), Russell's self-regulation  
   mechanism wouldn't have been invoked, so the situation provides no
   insight as to the validity of this mechanism.   

I think it provides significant insight.  It is reasonable to assume
that the League Against Cruel Sports is adamantly against hunting or
culling with guns.  Thus _if_ a fence would have caused invoked
"Russell's self-regulation mechanism", wouldn't the LACS have chosen
this alternative?

When a clearly anti-hunting organization resorts to hunting or similar
culling, the only logical conclusion is that culling is the only
feasible mechanism to control populations without other natural
predators.

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: ou.politics,det.politcs,talk.politics.animals
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: Putting People First group forming
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:36:19 GMT

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

>	There is a Putting People First group now forming in the
>Pontiac area.  This group is essentially geared to help counter some
>of the hype and hysteria being set forth by the animal rights extremists.

Countering hype with more hype...cool.

>If you believe in humanitarian treatment of animals and common sense
>treatment of the environment, but also feel that you and those people
>close to you ultimately take precedence over animals and plants, then
>please call for more information...

...and please just join a majority of apathetic folks.  Humans first is
a nice concept...but it's far too EASY to subscribe to.  You don't need
to form a group for it, just join the masses.  Evolution comes through
self-centeredness, of course...and being the most evolved...humans are
the most self-centered.  Be careful not to throw the fetus out with the
recycled bathwater, though.  You can't evolve without an environment.


>This number has caller I.D. - ANY and ALL pranks or hostile calls
>WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW!

Good luck with that.  You'll lose all money in court costs and trying to
find out who used that pay-phone on 34th street to tell you they
disagreed with you.
 
Interesting idea, though.
 
...e

--
Ed Stastny           *  SOUND News and Arts magazine available now via
ed@cwis.unomaha.edu  *  anon. FTP: quartz.rutgers.edu (/pub/journals)
                     *  or email from me here at cwis.  Soon to return 
(Imagery is reality) *  to the GOPHER server.  Art and writing welcome.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Summary: Culling = Killing
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:43:51 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC

In article <34cM02bT1e3G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>A few weeks ago I posted the following:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A common claim made by hunters is that, by culling herds to supportable 
>levels, they're actually reducing the suffering and death incurred by the 
>herd as a whole. I have some questions about this claim:
> 
>1. How many total species of animals are hunted in the US, and to which ones 
>does the above claim apply?
> 
>2. Within those targeted species, what percentage of the hunting (measured by 
>kills) is done in geographic areas where the claim applies?
> 
>3. If we combine these two criteria and only count kills of species that need 
>culling done in areas where culling is needed, what percentage is this of all 
>hunting kills? 
> 
>I know these are tough questions for which precise data may be unavailable, 
>so I'd also be interested in educated guesses, especially if they're labeled 
>as such.  
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>Unfortunately, nobody answered any of the questions. This is most 
>disappointing. These questions would seem to be quite fundamental to the 
>claim that the "culling" aspect of hunting is "good" for animals, a claim 
>that has consumed a significant amount of bandwidth on this newsgroup.
>

  These questions are answered by each and every states' wildlife dept.
They set quota's and limits for each game species every year. They base
these numbers on head counts of species, previous season harvest numbers,
estimates of annual loss of each species to predator, disease, drought,
severe winter, road kills,  etc.....   I cannot say if these numbers are 
ever tallied up at the federal level so that overall harvest total numbers
are available for each game species. It would be quite a task for a person
to call and ask for these figures from every state wildlife dept. Since
you asked Ted, why don't you volunteer to do it?? This is a bit like an
earlier post I made about the "hunters are/arenot macho" thread and stated 
that there were alot of female hunters. You immediately asked for numbers
of female hunters. I don't have time to call every state and ask them 
for the male/female breakdown of hunting licenses sold.  Do you??



>Can we conclude that culling constitutes only a small fraction of hunting 
>kills and hence serves as a weak justification of hunting?
> 
>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:30:32 GMT


Eric J. Korpela writes:
ek> A hunter understands the death he is causing.  He is there to 
ek> experience it.  And maybe the hunter comes away with a larger 
ek> understanding of the death and the life that is going on around 
ek> him.  And a chance at understanding is much better than 
ek> self-imposed ignorance any day.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This doesn't make much sense to me.  Are you saying that any action
rl> is ethically justifiable if it results in a greater sense of 
rl> understanding on the part of the perpetrator? 

From article <16rq30INN8i5@agate.berkeley.edu>, by korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela):
ek> I certainly did not mean to give that impression, and find it 
ek> difficult to believe that anyone would get that impression from 
ek> my posts.  

Thanks for clarifying your position.  I suppose we can both agree 
that self-imposed ignorance can (indeed) be better than a chance 
at understanding in some cases, and that our thirst for knowledge 
doesn't necessarily grant us a license to ignore the impact that 
our actions may have on other beings.  

ek> The point of my posts was that we should accept personal 
ek> responsibility for the damage we do.  And to do this, one must 
ek> understand the role that he plays in nature.  In so many posts I 
ek> see people describing a world that is either man against nature, 
ek> or man apart from nature.  It's not that way at all.  Man is 
ek> quite intertwined with nature;  a part of it.  We must understand 
ek> how our actions affect the global ecosystem and take 
ek> responsibility for the consequences, both personally and as a 
ek> species.  

If I understand you correctly, I'm in total agreement.

ek> A hunter is present at the killing, and can directly see the 
ek> consequences of his actions.  The person drinking out of a 
ek> styrofoam cup does not see the consequences of his actions, and 
ek> thereby ignores the damage.  Which of these actions is morally 
ek> repulsive to you?  

Both, and neither.  I can envision circumstances in which both
hunting and styrofoam-cup-drinking might be "good", but on the
whole, I see problems with both activities.  Since one isn't
a substitute for the other, I don't see how we could ameliorate
the "badness" of the one by pointing out the greater "badness"
of the other. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:37:48 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

> I've been hooked up to this network for about 6 months now, and this is the
> first time I've seen offered a challenge to another to a physical fight!

	Are you people really that stupid, or do you just see violence in 
everything?  Or is it both?  Of course, I believe physical fighting solves
nothing.  But as I "hinted" (note: this word is used sarcasticly) at, in the
paragraph above my "challenge," I would much prefer to vocally *debate* this
issue rather than by postings.

	Man ... unbelievable.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:52:18 GMT

 proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>I suspect that what some people find annoying about Ferrell is that they can't
>draw him into a flame war.

	I don't find it annoying, but I do find it somewhat annoying that he
cannot read this group, and hence any discussion with him has to be through
e-mail, or the posting of e-mail, before others can benefit from it.

>Also curious is the idea (which is at leastly partly his own) that he should
>accept some kind of majority vote about whether to shut up or not. Is there
>anything in the netnews charter about this? Can we ask anyone to shut up if
>we can muster 51% votes in favour? 

	No chance in hell.  That's censorship.  You are free to construct a
killfile that will handle this for you, as is everybody else.  I often dislike
what he has to say, but he's free to say it if my opinion carries any weight
in the matter.

<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: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:37:55 GMT

Kenneth D. Whitehead writes:

>To you folks out there calling for an end to Ferris's AR propaganda
>postings;  let's not try to censor this guy.  He's just putting info
>up on the board for anybody that wants to read it.

Ken, I've never said I wanted to censor Ferrell.  I've merely
questioned whether or not this is the proper forum for him to use in
disseminating his information (he is merely crossposting clips from
the AmNet to this group and not participating in any discussion -- as
such, I feel that his AmNet stuff would be better distributed through
a private mailing list or ftp archive, since not all members of t.p.a
care to get it).  However, since I am alone (other than Todd, whom I
currently can't reach on e-mail -- any other addresses?) in my
thoughts that the group's bandwidth can be better spent on other
things, then I shall henceforth remain silent on the issue and forever
hold my peace.  I've expressed my view and others feel differently --
so be it, the majority shall rule (as it should be).


>If you don't want to read it (I personally don't), use your Author
>Kill on a daily basis.  It flushes all the crap real effectively.

As I've said before, for me the problem is more in losing other
people's information due to the clutter.  But the point is now moot. 


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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: hunting phenomenology
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:05:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.171205.8773@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <altar.713550342@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writ
>es:
>>
>>Yes, we have been through them before.  Hunting out of necessity is
>>one thing, but merely to supplement the table with venison is not
>>a situation of necessity.  You won't starve if no deer meat is
>>brought home, hence to justify this practice as "killing for
>>food" doen't wash.   Take for example the practice of a "can-hunt".
>>Here we have a situation where the "real" motivations for killing
>>animals are ineluctably transparent.  Calling this "sport" is
>>an over-generous euphemism, to say the least.
>>                                                 ted
>

You're right about the canned hunt. I too find this practice revolting. 
There are many legal, locally accepted hunting practices that I and other
hunters may consider unethical. I choose not to use those methods, but I
don't feel I can force my choice on others.

Jeff Achenbach

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals