HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:18:30 GMT

In <1993Jan25.145803.26460@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>  You see, I think 
>that animal experimenters are terrorists, nothing more than the sort of
>people that set their dog on fire or put their cat in the microwave oven to
>see what will happen .. except they get published & paid for doing that.
>Our ethics are very different.  I wasn't brought up to think of animals as
>being some lesser form of life.  

Yes you were. Faced with the alternative of starvation, would you
sooner kill and eat a human or a pig or a clam? Do you kill insects?
If your grocer started selling human meat from a slaughterhouse
nearby, would the extent of your protest be to shun the meat and write
the odd post for usenet. Do you attend funerals for dead animals?  Are
you opposed to the euthanasia performed by the humane society on
abandoned pets? 

You can argue animals deserve more compassion, but to deny they are
a lesser form of life, destroys your credibility with this audience.

>I wasn't made to believe that humans have 
>souls while animals don't.  It is part of the way that I was brought up, and
>indeed, part of my cultural heritage to INCLUDE ANIMALS IN MY MORAL UNIVERSE.

Me too. Once a day, medium rare.

Werner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11798 alt.peeves:19675
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:38:44 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C1HwG6.8ns@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Of course not.  It did, however, refute your statements about the
>"26 essential amino acids" [sic] in hamburger.

Take a course in debating, Russell.  You haven't a clue.

You pointed out I posted incorrect information.  At this point, our
techniques are entirely divergent.  I admitted that I was wrong and
proceeded to followup with the correct information.  Your arguments
have been repeatedly shredded, and you haven't been able to even
make the first honest step of admitting you're incorrect.

You method of refutation has been to write three paragraph essays
about me masturbating.  Terribly convincing, no?

>It's amazing, I suppose, that a "chowder-head" like myself was able
>to lay his hands on the USDA's Handbook-8 data, whereas a rocket-

I don't spend my life collecting tomes of propaganda that are the
results of sifting the aggregate of research.  Quite honestly, it
isn't an interest.

>If there's a particular claim that you still dispute, let's hear it.

The validity of the California water supply data.
That 1/3 of the fossil fuels are used to produce livestock.
Exactly how much fossil fuel is used to produce a pound/kilo of
   beef.
That you are arguing animal rights and no environmental
   conservation.
That ethics are an absolute.
That *your* take on ethics is an aboslute.

(That takes us back just about a week.  I can go back further if you
want.)

Don't even bother, though, Russ.  I may stop in from time to time to
make sure other new readers understand just how much cat chow drools off
your chin, but I have other, more interesting things than pick
through reference material to dispute the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
poster child.  I'm gone for now.

Later.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:27:41 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C183pM.J9y@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> A quibble about your math. Taking your 5.6 gal/lb-beef consumed
>> directly, and assuming 5 lb-grain/lb-beef. Then if it takes 5214
>> gal/lb-beef total, nearly all of the water (5208 gal)is needed to grow
>> the 5 lb of grain. That comes to about 1000 gal/lb-grain. If tomatoes
>> take only 23, it seems highly unethical to eat grain.
>
>Give it some more thought, Werner.

Give it some more explanation, Russ.  I pointed out to you that the
figures you quoted were, let's see, "ludicrous and misleading."  I
even challenged you to make it right.  You haven't, just as you
haven't mended any of your errors that may look bad for your cause.

You're building your argument on a pyramid of lies.  You're not
gaining support.  At some point, maybe you'll rub two neurons together
and see the connection.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:07:33 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
`Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
`fountains and swimming pools?

And once filled, would you be willing to fathom a guess on how much
is needed to KEEP it filled.  I would not say much, when rain is
added to the equation.

`You say that my arguments are weak.  However, I'm certain that 
`most critical readers understand by now that the meat-component 
`of a 1/4 pounder requires roughly 340 liters of water to produce 
`in the US. 

Most critical readers know not to take you arguements or your 'statistical
facts' at face value.  Or even better yet, they just use the 'k' or 'n'
keys as soon as they see your name.

Me?  I just like to make you work for you satisfaction!

`By contrast, all the at-home uses of water for bathing, 
`cooking, washing clothes, etc is roughly 380 liters per person 
`per day, on the average.  Gee, that's a lot of water for one 
`burger, eh Rich?  

What do your statistics show as the amount of water needed to feed one
rice or wheat or corn plant?  I know that in my house, I put less water
a day in my dogs dish than I do in plant pots.  (considering the amount
of plants that it would take to equal that weight of my dogs.)

This H2O conservation arguement does not 'hold water'!
(sorry, I couldn't resist!!!)

Cha!

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Cancer (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:02:35 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>
>>I saw some enemic looking dark haired lady (cute but very very pale looking)
>>trying to claim that proper diet (ie vegan) training at an early age will
>>"prevent" cancer.  Can anyone lay claim to validate this?

	Sure.  See if anybody has died of melanoma, which is entirely
independent of diet.

>Can anyone on r.f.v give Scott a pointer toward the evidence
>that a vegan diet reduces the risk of cancer?

	Reduces? Some kinds, according to the AMA.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:08:53 GMT

Alex L. Pace writes:
>Did it ever occur to any of you cattle doomsdayers that this country was
>once blanketed in cattle, buffalo!  Hundreds of millions of buffalo, which
>are bigger than modern cows, ate, drank, and farted all over this land for
>thousands and thousands of years!  Boom!

Yes, but they didn't have feed grown for them by another species, they
weren't artificially inseminated, dehorned, castrated, raised in fenced in
areas, confined to feedlots, milked by another species, branded, tagged,
and systematically disassembled by powered cutlery either.

BTW, where do you get your "hundreds of millions" number from?

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:18:00 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
`>What happened to the methane, Russell?  You're free to wave your
`>arms around and point in different directions in an attempt to 
`>distract attention, but it won't change the fact that your methane 
`>argument has pretty well gone up in the proverbial smoke.

`No they haven't.  If you really think the EPA and WorldWatch data
`is erroneous, please post the the correct data.

More so than we think of yours?  Or PeTA's? Or....

Seems to me that Russell was the only one blowing gas on this one,
and when some one light a match to shine light on it, he got burnt!

BLUE FLAMER!!!!

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Russell's lie
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:46:06 GMT

In article <C16K3H.82I@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > If you read the title of the er, ah... piece (_Washingtonian_, Dec,
> > 1991:35-36), you can see that it is entitled "Correction and Clarification"
> > and not "Retraction."  Furthermore, the word retraction appears *nowhere*
> > within the article.
> 
> Does it matter?  A retraction by any other name is still a retraction.

Yes.  After repeated notification, you continue to falsely imply that the
entire article was "retracted."  In fact, only a few points were "corrected
and clarified."  You are being intentionally deceptive.

> > Please recheck the reference before persisting in this falsehood.
> 
> Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
> the original article without circulating the retraction, Martin?

Yes.  It would be dishonest to circulate the article without also
circulating the correction and clarification, provided that one knew of its
existence.  It is possible that the agency is unaware of the correction and
clarification.

I think that it is equally dishonest to persist, as you have, in calling
the "correction and clarification" a retraction.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:26:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

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

>In article <C1FG81.EyF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
>>and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
>>public statements.

>Russell, I certainly hope that you would never be present outside
>of my door on those occasions I am tempting my cat into her cage
>for a trip to the vet.  You might assume I was a cat torturer.

More flawless logic from James M Hoskins.

	John Hoag (loca@netcom.com) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Speechless Ingrid
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:31:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.205954.1831@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca
(Alka Chandna) writes:
>result from said experimentation for human patients.  Her concern is the 
>tyranny which is exercised as a result against other forms of animal life.

Not to mention our tyranny over other members of the mineral kingdom.

Roads of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but your Hondas!

     don


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:00:13 GMT

From article <mhulsey-260193072703@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> You have consistently argued that Gerone was not condemning Taub, but was
> merely making a statement about the "benefits" of the animal "rights"
> movement for lab animals.
> 
> The Gerone letter indicates that he objected to the implications
> surrounding the quote "Today, you'd never see conditions like the Silver
> Spring Monkeys..." 

You're referring, of course, to the assumptions that you, 
yourself, were circulating...  after you jumped to conclusions.  
As I pointed out previously, perhaps you should try to read more 
carefully, insteading of banging and hammering on every statement 
in order to make it fit the predetermined shape inside your 
head.  

BTW, would you like for me to repost some more fragments of the
posts in which I told you, right up front, that Gerone was no
fan of PETA and that you were misrepresenting him?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:51:26 GMT
Organization: russ at home in Albuquerque New Mexico

In article <1jq8osINNclm@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
[about AR whackos]
>Now wouldn't *that* be a hoot?  I've read about instances in which
>some of these wackos go into the forest and create a disturbance
>so as to scare away the fuzzy widdle animals and thereby disrupt a
>hunt, and it's always surprised me that no hunters have taken near-
>miss potshots at the idiots on general principles, just to raise
>the ante a little and scare off the less dedicated among them.

Well, Geoff, hunters have taken to assigning one of their own to
attract these BDIs and to use the ARs as a free beater team.  The real
hunters setup on the other side of the woods with their camo on, send
the sacrifical hunter to the other side of the woods as a ARBDI
attractant, and have him enter the woods.  The sacrifical hunter and
his entourage enter the woods with the ARists beating pots, ringing
bells and blowing whistles.  Game in profusion comes out the other
side to be taken by all of the hunters in wait.

Works pretty well, and cheap too - do you have any idea how much it
costs to hire a bunch of motivated beaters?

Now, if I could just convince some of them to emigrate to South
Africa...

-- 
Russ Kepler, posting from home   russ@bbx.basis.com, bbxrbk!russ@bbx.basis.com
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest" - Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Martin Hulsey's lies  Was: Ingrid's lies.
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:45:37 GMT

In article <mhulsey-210193093352@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.222249.18888@clpd.kodak.com>,
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> I've never seen any material from FBR or FACTS, but I do have CFAAR's
>> Summer/Fall 1991 Vol 4 Number 2 Newsletter.  Many articles from the
>> newsletter were posted here last year and they did not stand up well
>> under close scrutiny.
>> 
>> In particular, the cover story by Jon Franklin discusses a debate
>> (bottom of page 5) in which Gary Francione participated.  When shown a
>> copy of this article, Mr.  Francione submitted a post to this newsgroup
>> in which he explicitly called Franklin a liar. 
>
>Bob, could you repost or e-mail me the exchange you refer to here?

This "exchange" consisted of a long pair of posts submitted by Michael
Holloway followed by a brief one paragraph response from Gary Francione. 
The Holloway posts contained the Franklin article.  The Francione
post denied that Mr. Francione had said what was attributed to him and
accused Franklin of being a liar. 

I saved these posts for a while, but I no longer have them.  Francione's
post appeared in the first week of May 1992.  If someone else has an
archive of the posts from that period, then he/she might be willing and
able to do the retrieval. 

---
Robert Black 		|  Replies may be slow.
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: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Ferngully - Ack! Real Rainforest data wanted
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:21:04 GMT

Just saw Ferngully.  Still trying to get my blood-sugar level back to
normal.  Does anyone out there have any 'real' data on Rainforests?  No
PeTA figures PLEEZ!

swood

-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:58:19 GMT

From article <1993Jan27.172149.13748@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <C1Hu3B.8Cn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>Almost everyone I know prefers truth to falsity and pleasure to
>>pain.   Do you know many individuals who persistently prefer pain
>>to pleasure and lies to truths?
> 
> 	Only you and a couple of others like you.

Not me.  I prefer truth and pleasure to falsity and pain.

>>Question: Would you say that it's ethically good for you, yourself,
>>          to present lies in this forum if/when it suits your 
>>          convenience? 
> 
> 	Would you say that it's ethically justifiable for you to make
> 	unsubstantiated implications like that?

If the truth doesn't matter to you, why should you care?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:01:28 GMT

From article <mhulsey-250193163659@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C1FFC8.ELp@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> > [lots and lots of Sixty Minutes stuff deleted]
> 
> I don't blame you; I imagine that it is very painful to read.  When I first
> heard of the segment, I thought of you, boo-hooing in your beer.

You don't know me very well, Martin. 

> It appears that your arguments have been shot (pun intended) to hell.  I
> can't wait to see how you weasel out of this predicament.

I'm not in any predicament.  I base my opinions on the facts, and wouldn't
hesitate to change my opinions if new facts come to light.   

>> I'm going to address your comments in detail, but not without additional
>> investigation.  In particular, I want to have a chat with James Gill
>> at the Times-Picayune, who allegedly interviewed some of the LSU 
>> employees who had complained about the cat screams.  
> 
> Allegedly is the key word here.  You are not seriously going to persist
> with this argument are you?

I'm responding to a factual dispute.  You, on the other hand, are 
pressing an ideological stance.  How would you respond if/when the
Times-Picayune persuades LSU employees to come out of the closet
and testify openly re: the cat screams?   

>> Meanwhile, please call Enid Neidle at the American Dental Association
>> and ask her whether or not the ADA would consider Sixty Minutes to be:
>> 
>> a) a purveyor of reliable information; or
>> b) a television tabloid that's unconcerned about the factual
>>    basis of its coverage.
> 
> When it suits your purpose, newspapers and television are perfectly
> reliable sources of information (the Gerone fiasco that you perpetrated is
> a keen example).  Your blatant double standard is again showing.

I don't consider any source to be perfectly reliable;  I'm 
generally skeptical about newspaper accounts and I'm doubly 
skeptical about most television presentations.  However, I'd 
certainly consider both Sixty Minutes and the Washington Post to 
be more reliable than you.  The reason for my negative judgment 
of your reliability is that you appear to accept or discard 
information in accordance with your political opinions.  By 
contrast, I accept or discard political opinions in accordance 
with information.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11516 alt.peeves:19503
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 23 Jan 93 15:07:26 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) in article <1993Jan20.183148.213@cs.mun.ca>:
>Do you think you might want to grow up today or preferably, yesterday?  Or 
>would you like me to give you details on how disgusting meat-eating males can
>taste?  

I don't know.  They *say* they're vegetarians, but under the right
circumstances they're as enthusiastic to get some meat down their throat
as ever.

(and no, it isn't true.  Stop worrying.)
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:05:19 GMT

In <1993Jan20.221512.18770@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com
(Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:

>[...]
>>> > Untrue.  Article 59 would exempt only the pain and suffering that is
>>> > "necessary and justifiable" during the course of bona fide biomedical
>>> > research such as that which Taub was conducting.
>>> 
>>> As determined by whom?
>>
>>The Appeals Court of Maryland.
>
>[...]
>
>Martin, I'm puzzled here.  You were kind enough to fax me a copy of the
>Appeals Court ruling.  I was and remain grateful for the consideration. 
>Last week I quoted a sentence from it that was far more favorable to
>Taub's viewpoint than several other more prominent statements at the
>beginning and conclusion of the same document.  Yet you were all over me
>like a cheap suit for selectively citing from the ruling.

You deserved it.

>Now you're
>reading all sorts of interpretations into the verdict and presenting
>them as facts.  What gives here?

Ok.  I should have added something like "...as I read section 59..." or
something to that effect.  Having conceded that, please tell me how my
interpretation of the opinion differs from yours and why.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO