HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:54:01 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.123510.29390@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
>>People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
>>from the PROponent.
>>-- 
>>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>>DOD #0069
> 
> Leave your PROpoganda out of here.
> 

Actually, I didn't post it here.  I considered it, but I decided to simply 
point out to people that it was available else where.  After having done 
that, I had one request to reproduce it here anyway, which I would have 
done if Larry hadn't beaten me to it. :-)

If you don't like my PROpaganda, then I suggest you spend some time 
learning the intracacies of your newsreader.  I'm sure a little time and 
effort on your part will be well rewarded.  Much more so than any attempt 
to suppress those things that *you* dislike.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Traub
> BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:21:01 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

[...]

>What you are doing here, it seems to me, is to de-evaluate these
>"deserters" as being some kind of failures.  Given that young
>kids and octogenarians can hunt, I really don't think this "sport"
>compares with the skill and dedication it takes to be a good
>tennis or even ping-pong player. But let's not argue this one.

   I'd like to jump in here and add a data point: I hunted for a couple of
   years, and enjoyed the taste of fresh pheasant, found duck revolting,
   and discovered that squirrel and rabbit were more than palatable.  But
   what I REALLY discovered was that my enjoyment came from hitting the
   target from afar, not the killing involved, so I quit hunting and started
   to participate in firearms target competition.

   After having shot in "bullseye" competition (locally) for several years
   (I quit THAT for quite a while, too), I can assure the net at large that
   it most assuredly is NOT EASY to be a good shot!!!  It may not take the
   same level of PHYSICAL effort required for tennis, but development of
   the proper mental and hand-eye coordination skills is every bit as
   demanding.  Shooting is an Olympic competition in both winter and
   summer Games.

   In hunting per se, I can heartily agree with the poster
   who said that, if one does not know one's quarry well, the hunt WILL
   be unsuccessful!  Hunting "how-to" tapes are, in large part, natural
   history lessons given so that the prospective hunter has a fighting
   chance of getting within reasonable shooting range of the quarry.

   Hunting is definitely a sport, in the true sense of the word.  I don't
   necessarily condone it [I especially dislike trophy hunting and guaranteed
   game farm kills], but I don't condemn it either...in our local county
   parks, I saw several deer which had died a long, slow, painful death from
   starvation.  I can hardly think that death at a hunter's hand would have
   been more agonizing.

   Just another $0.02 from an interested reader....

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Keywords: Putting People First
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:35:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr7.200213.3919@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>     Putting People First is an organization .....
         [ a bunch of stuff deleted to save space]


Haven't we (humans) been doing this for, oh, a few million years.......

Isn't the PPF the group that is trying to get a reporter from one of
the tabloid TV shows (Hard Copy, I think) off the air?  Seems the reporter
hasn't done an animal rights story.  PPF objects to his off camera, on his
own time, practice of rescuing research animals.......

Isn't the PPF the group circulating a petition that has ten "quotes"
by animal activists listed, but doesn't attribute a single quote to
any individual or group? (I have the petition in front of me now)

Doesn't the PPF CLAIM "Our organization does not represent any industry
or special interest group."? 

Well, to be consistent here are a few addresses I have that some people
may be interested in, hopefully these are all current:

Animal Rights Mobilization (ARM!)
PO Box 1553
Williamsport, PA   17703
(717) 322-3253  (800) CALL ARM

People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
PO Box 42516
Washington, DC   20015
(301) 770-7444

Humane Farming Association
1550 California Street, Suite 6
San Francisco, CA   94190
(415) 485-1495

The Farm Animal, Inc.
PO Box 33086
Cleveland, OH  44133

Farm Animal Reform Movement, Inc.
PO Box 70123
Washington, DC 20088
(301) 530-1737

National Anti-Vivisection Society
53 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 1552
Chicago, IL   60604
(312) 427-6065
(800) 888-NAVS

The Humane Society Of The United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC  20037
(202) 452-1100


Rob U, a "zealot", "extremist", "fanatic", "radical" according to Ms. Marquardt


--
-  Rob Unglenieks           |   "Half of us are dumb,                  -
-  unglenie@ecn.purdue.edu  |    the other half are just stupid."      -
-  (too busy grad student)  |                            - Rob U       -
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:22:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <RJC.92Apr15220141@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> by rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley):

> In article <1992Apr14.162152.12092@NCoast.ORG>, Christopher Morton (cm) writes:
> 
> cm> Not surprising that you'd force your animal slave into becoming a
> cm> participant in the murder of another living being....
> 
> You ever _tried_ to force a cat to eat something it didn't want to
> eat?

No, I generally try to avoid the things.  I don't like them.  By the way, I 
wonder if you noticed that that was sarcasm, parodying the recipient's view
points?

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:10:24 GMT

Andrew Taylor writes:

>About a week ago this was posted to rec.hunting:

>[stuff deleted]

>Now you'd expect an outcry from all these ethical hunters because

>a) The only thing stopping the poster from shooting a protected,
>   species is fear of discovery - hardly ethical.
>b) The poster wants help in illegally trapping a protected species.
>c) The unidentified woodpecker might even be a threatened species.

>[replies deleted]

>Instead the raging debate in rec.hunting was whether it was ethical to shoot
>an Elk that is a kilometre away.

>Andrew Taylor


Andrew,

     Please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.  I
do not wish to start some huge flame war or anything.  But I was
very dissapointed that your post was sent to t.p.a only, and not
cross-posted to rec.hunting.  You are correct that killing a
woodpecker is illegal and should not be done.  However, your
posts in t.p.a have kind of stabbed members of r.h in the back.
Not all of us read t.p.a (myself for one), so we were unaware of
your comments against us until our moderator pointed it out (in
the post where he stopped the thread on woodpeckers).  Thus, we
were unable to defend ourselves.
     Not all contributors to rec.hunting are wild-eyed crazy
psychos bent on killing anything that moves (legally or
otherwise).  Joe Semrad and Tim Rigg (our moderator) have already
posted follow-ups which better reflect the feelings of the group
as a whole and point out that we DO NOT condone illegal actions or
the killing of protected species.  For the sake of brevity, I'll
not add any more.
     Again, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd make your
accusations to us, directly (i.e., post to r.h).  Then we can
quickly set the record straight if we feel that we are (as in
this case) being unjustly stereotyped.

Thanks,
John
--

******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
        Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Wolves vs Men
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:50:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.155808.5040@nlm.nih.gov> young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
>{Excerpts from mail: 7-Apr-92 talk.politics.animals #4859.. 
>young@alw.nih.gov (2920)}
>> Do dogs and deer have the perceptual ability to see speeding bullets?
>> If not, how would a deer/dog know that you've taken a shot at them?
>
>Well, the earth moves as a bullet hits the ground in their general vicinity,
>the bullet makes a loud noise on impact, it changes its trajectory and continues
>on its way, and etc.  If you've ever had someone throw something at you,
>say a snowball or a rock, while your back was turned you've had a similar
>experience.  The object doesn't need to hit you squarely for you to know
>that it was thrown, and from which direction it was thrown.
>
I know calculus, I can figure things like that out.  Sometimes I can
sense where something comes from, sometimes can't.  Do they know, even
with films to look over, where the shot that killed Kennedy came from?
 
>> How is a young deer supposed to know that another deer, elsewhere
>> in the forest, has died at the sound of the bang?  How is a horse 
>> supposed to know that other horses, outside their field of view,
>> are not keeling over everytime a loud noise is heard?  
>
>The same way that you would know that a fellow human had been hit
>by a bullet, you wouldn't.   If that fellow human was walking some
>ten to twenty yards away; you heard a loud noise and your friend 
>fell, you might have an idea that you were in danger.  Deer are social
>animals and often band together, traveling from feeding sight to 
>feeding sight.  Even bucks will travel together outside the mating
>season.  Certainly young animals spend enough time with at least
>one adult to learn what dangers exist in the forest.
>
Do you hunt deer only when more than one is present?  In any
case, nobody knew Reagan was shot until he started coughing up
blood in the limo.   

Does hunting season coincide with seasons when bucks stick together?
Are the young still following the mother by hunting season?
 
>If there is one, I couldn't tell you what it was.  If I had to guess at
>what the deer's keenest sense was, I would guess the sense of smell
>followed, at some distance by the sense of hearing.  I don't believe
>that a deer's vision is much better than human vision (in daylight).

A deer's vision is significantly worse than a human's.  It only gets
better on very dark nights, when there isn't enough light to use
any sort of detail vision.
 
E.S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Wolves vs Men
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:37:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpg.1992Apr6.193729.14884
Organization: WP Group

Jeff Young writes:
jy> 2) Two deer walk into the woods.  The first is more experienced 
jy>    with the sights, sounds and smells of man, the second is not.  As 
jy>    soon as the first detects the presence of man, it freezes, points 
jy>    its ears on high, lifts its neck so as to get a better look 
jy>    around and a better smell of the air.  Seeing this, the second 
jy>    deer imitates the behavior.  If this is a false alarm, the first 
jy>    deer will lower its head and continue to browse, if not, it will 
jy>    bolt.  If it bolts, you can be sure that there is something or 
jy>    someone in the area.  As the first bolts the second will follow.  
jy>    The second has had enough time to take in the same stimuli as the 
jy>    first, and therfore, learns by example what is to be avoided in 
jy>    the woods.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Perhaps, but if the sound of gunfire is the key stimulus, how do 
rl> you account for the claim made by Mike Linan that deer are more 
rl> "fearful" at the conclusion of hunting season than at the beginning.
rl> It seems to me that deer, like horses, would become desensitized to
rl> the sound of gunfire with regular experience.

From article <1992Apr6.151525.3767@nlm.nih.gov>, by young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young):
jy> The difference is "they don't shoot horses."  Deer are the
jy> targets, horses are the transportation.  To illustrate, my
jy> dog will hunt all day for me. He will stand on a bird to
jy> wing and shot.  Were I ever to take a shot at him and he
jy> knew it, he would probably not hunt with me and perhaps
jy> anyone else, again.  

Do dogs and deer have the perceptual ability to see speeding bullets?
If not, how would a deer/dog know that you've taken a shot at him?

Of course, the deer/dog might know, for a brief instant, if you hit him 
squarely in the chest, but in such a case, "learning" is no longer
an issue.

jy> Fear of gunfire is a problem with hunting
jy> dogs, in some cases they need only associate the gunfire
jy> with something unpleasant in a single experience and may 
jy> take years to get over this fear.  

How is a young deer supposed to know that another deer, elsewhere
in the forest, has died at the sound of the bang?  How is a horse 
supposed to know that other horses, outside their field of view,
are not keeling over everytime a loud noise is heard?  

jy> Gunfire is a stimulus, not the key stimulus - I didn't mean
jy> to suggest that it was. 

What's the key stimulus, and how are such key stimuli presented
to deer?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:22:32 GMT

>Since the killing of other animals for self defense is a part of nature,
>the use of animals for crucial medical research could be seen as not
>contradicting biocentrism.  The use of animals for cosmetic research
>or other forms of scientific research would not be biocentric, since killing
>for vanity, fun or other gratuitous reasons is not done in nature.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As someone who hunts with trained hawks and has watched many, many 
wild hawks hunts, I can say that the above statement is not strictly
true.  I have seen peregrines knock down one royal tern after another
along a beach, and leave each broken-winged victim to flop around on
the sand.  Higher predators hunt and kill opportunistically.  If
every goshawk or gyrfalcon waited until it was really hungry
before hunting, or ate only what it needed at the moment, their
kind would have starved to death long ago.  Every cat owner has had
the experience of the mole, shrew, or snake left ont he doorstep
for his owner to find.

Toby

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:43:20 GMT
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:20:43 GMT

robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

> [. . . ]
>There are no analogous hunting courses that I am aware of.  The state run 
>hunter safety courses don't cut it in my book.

>So your contention that people who've taken the hunter saftey course are 
>more serious about hunting is not valid.  Certainly not if the course is 
>*mandatory*, which it is in most places.  At best, this serves to weed out 
>those who wake up one morning and say "gee, I'd like to go hunting today" 
>having never been before.  It does not weed out those who are genuinely 
>interested but haven't really thought about what it would be like to get up 
>and tromp through the woods at 3 am.  Completion of the course does not give 
>one any actual hunting experience.

  John, I didn't say "serious", I said "committed".  To pay money for a course,
buy equipment and go hunting for at least one season shows, I think, that
we have a far more committed bunch of beginners then, say, with ping pong
or even tennis.  If you are going to compare people adopting different
leisure activities, we have to be concerned about how similar those
people might be.  The fact that we are talking about hunting as 
opposed to, say ping pong, already is a good prima facie reason to
suspect a qualtitive difference.  That they take a course and our
ping pong players do not, is behavioural evidence of committment.
Let us, then, compare those tennis players who buy expensive equipment and
take lessions.  Now we have a more comparable comparsion, at least
with respect to committement.  Presumably, tennis players do not have the
high attrition rates of our new hunters that occurs only within five
years of first initiating the activity.  Why?.

  In sum, I don't think you have adequately explained why these hunters
have quit the game.  And you can't do it by citing your own experiences
because you have not quit hunting.  These people are no doubt different
from yourself.  How are they are different?   Well, in order to begin
to answer that one we must start with a serious inspection of the
kinds of data here presented in which have quantified orderings of 
their own stated reasons.
                                         ted
From: johnson@hero.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: A.V day and rights demo
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: johnson@hero.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

I was surprised, yesterday evening, to hear that next Friday is Anti
Vivisection day in U.K.

Why was I surprised ? Because I didn't hear about it before now.

Am I in a minority? I think not. Although I am not actively involved in
organisations that
set up these awareness days, I do take an interest in the news and
what's in different
papers. 

When a day is named for a cause, there are two basic intentions. a) to
raise public
awareness of the plight of the animals, and b) reduce the plight of the
animals. b) is not
possible without a) IMHO

Could someone send me mail about where the demo starts in London next
Saturday (25th)

Rich
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:41:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr15214112
	<altar.703193607@sfu.ca> <RIGG.92Apr14113327@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<altar.703308469@sfu.ca> <RIGG.92Apr15091557@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<altar.703360315@sfu.ca>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca's message of 15 Apr 92 17:51:55 GMT

In article <altar.703360315@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
   rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >       Franky, I must admit to some puzzlement why you might be 
   >   so interest in debating with us AR folk.  Maybe it is just
   >   to pride yourself on resisting/rebuffing our best arguments.
   >   Heck, you can only bring a horse to water, you can never 
   >   force a drinking of even the more informed view and progressive
   >   outlook.

   >I think we could (and in fact _have_) debate which is the "more
   >informed view".   This comment strikes me as a very cheap shot.

   I didn't state what the "more informed view" was, did I?

Your comments 'resisting our best arguments' followed by "even the more
informed view" led me to this conclusion/assumption.  I have mentioned
many times that one of my pet pieves is AR folks saying "If folks
would just think about the issue they would come to the same
conclusions as me."  Such arrogence is extremely disturbing.  I think
it is safe to say that all participants of this group have thought
about the issue quite a bit.

   That you should presume that it might well beu
   the AR position, well, that might well bet
   revealing of your prereflective but supressed
   true understandings of the issue.  Now, this, Tim, is either
   good insight or a properly a "cheap shot" :-)
                   ------------------------

Is something missing in the underlined section?


   >The hostility and hatred is hardly onesided.  You certainly don't
   >believe that all the AR folks are calm rational folks who never
   >partake in a bit of flamethrowing, do you?

   I've been called unprovoked "so ignorant that it is ugly",
   a "fascist", a "commie", etc.  Yes, feelings run high
   on both sides, but on balance it seems to me that 
   the AR folk have been more civil and fair in their
   exchanges.

I disagree.  I quickly abandon threads that diverge into flames but
the flames appear to be quite balanced to me.

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: talk.politics.animals