HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ingrid's lies.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:26:42 GMT

From article <swood.727732362@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
> I like a quote that came out on the local Company broadcast this week.
> Kathleen Marquardt, national chairperson for Putting People First commented
> that (paraphrased) "There are bad mothers, that does not mean that we
> abolish motherhood..."  If the AR groups would specifically target the
> irresponsible animal usage and abuse, I for one would love to help them
> out.  But all I see is a lot of emotionally charged idiots running around
> spending donated funds and costly personal time on projects that will do
> nothing to directly or ultimately benefit animals (ie following hunters
> into the wood, buy full page adds in the Des Moines Register, destroying
> research labs, protesting dog shows and releasing animals, etc.)

Learning how to be truthful, and compassionate, would certainly 
be beneficial to most humans.  Perhaps you're seeing only what 
you want to see.  And even then, your eyesight may be faulty.  

BTW, I had a conversation earlier this week with a PR person from
the American Kennel Club.  She said that the rumors about AR persons
releasing animals at dog shows were unsubstantiated.   

-- 
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: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:44:41 GMT

From article <lltj2lINN43b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>The ratios still hold, though.  It takes 5 to 20 calories of Fossil Fuel
>>> 
>>> 	Would you and Russel get together and compare notes?  Somebody
>>> is not using the Second Edition of the text.
>>
>>Right.  I'm not using the almanac.
>>
>>According to the sources I mentioned in the previous article, it 
>>takes 17,000 kilocalories to produce one kilo of raw, trimmed 
> 
> Shit.  Is this the Spastic's Sleight-of-Hand contest?
> 
> 17,000 kcalories of *WHAT*, Russell?  Not fossil fuel.  OF GRAIN and
> grass!  That gives us the 8.47 ratio that probably boils down to the
> 4.8 pounds of grain to 1 pound of beef that hasn't been disputed,
> pinhead.

According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.
Got it straight now, banta?

-- 
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: LSU Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:29:28 GMT

From article <1k328bINNid2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> I think that sports hunting is not cruel because the animals are put 
> to use and are killed swiftly, same with coats.

What if the animals weren't killed swiftly, and their bodies were
left to rot on the ground?   Would you then argue that sport hunting
is cruel?   How about amusement sports like bullfighting, cockfighting,
and dogfighting?  In view of the fact that the human observers enjoy
such activities, would this lead you to say that such sports are
not cruel?

Getting back to the LSU cat shooting experiments, you seem to think
that these two-million dollar experiments would have been justifiable 
if they had saved just one human life.   Just a block away from the 
LSU complex is a large, publicly supported institution called
Charity Hospital where poor men and women and children from the
inner-city housing projects of New Orleans typically go when they
require (substandard) medical care.  If it could be established that 
a two million dollar investment would have saved the lives of one
hundred of these people, would you be in favor of the expenditure?
Or opposed?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:14:02 GMT

In article <C1J52z.HI6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[...]
>I'm in favor of spay and neuter laws that would greatly reduce
>the number of homeless animals, and I'm in also favor of regulations
>and restrictions that would reduce unnecessary animal
>experimentation.  Both of these would reduce waste substantially
>more than proposed pound seizure laws.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, you have challenged your "opponents" to define
"necessary" and "justifiable" in relation to Miami socialites
who wear mink and hunters who can buy hamburger but choose to
kill deer.  Fair enough, all one can do is ask.

Above you use the phrase "unnecessary animal experimentation."
Perhaps it is incumbent upon you to define "unnecessary."  The
idea here isn't to trap you or dig for information which will
subsequently be used against you in perfidious ways; it's just
that as I examine what I understand about your philosophy I don't
understand the parameters of your use of "unnecessary."  You'll
discuss certain cases--cat-shooting, beagle drowning, monkey abuse--
as they appear on your agenda.  Yet, I have no sense of whether these
examples are proxy for all of animal experimentation, some of it,
which of it etc.  Could you impart some greater texture to your
use of the word "unnecessary?"   Merci bien.




:
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:41:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA

In article <C1H6wK.299@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> Please tell us your stand on sport hunting and fur trapping, so that
> we can determine the role that humane compassion plays in your ethical
> decision-making.

I don't believe that my opinions on these topics are pertinent to
discussions of animal research.  You are simply grasping at straws in a
feeble attempt to discredit me.  I will, however, give you the benefit of
the doubt, and post my opinions on these topics of you will answer two
questions:

1) given your non-absolutist position on animal research, what kinds of
animal research would you consider to be ethical?

2) given your belief that animals possess "rights," how can you justify
your non-absolutist position on animal research?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:43:35 GMT

In <C183G1.J8z@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Are you saying that governments should reimburse all parties who are tried 
>on criminal charges and found innocent?

	Yes.  If they are innocent, it was a frivolous waste of time and
they should be compensated for such.  This applies both ways.

< 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.                   >
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11419 alt.peeves:19413
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:00:47 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <llr5beINNfd0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, Banta writes:
>ab> That's Andy, windbag.  And you're right, I'm not dead yet.
>
>In that case, Andy Windbag, the baboon is two up on you.  The 

It's been clear for a while that you don't use punctuation properly.
That you don't *understand* it is news.

>baboon wouldn't think of his own fists as sex partners whereas 
>you seem to consider you and you and you to be a bawdy, 
>adventuresome "menage a trois".  Different strokes for different 
>folks, but still, I wouldn't brag about my sexual conquests if 
>I were you.  The fact that your paws don't run the other way when 
>you breath on them doesn't mean much.  
>
>BTW, what's the first image that pops into your mind when you
>hear the word "foreplay"?   Hand lotion, perhaps?

Have you just finished a cover-to-cover reading of the Masturbation
Primer?  Sheesh.  I didn't think you'd have time, what, with your
furrowed brow buried in the protein complementarity literature.

You know, I normally just don't spend as much time thinking about
masturbation as you do.

When I get into a discussion on animals, it always seems wise to
bicker over the issues.  That's something you haven't been able to do
in your past three articles to me.  Just don't think I'm the only one
that's noticed this.

>The fact that your paws don't run the other way when 
>you breath on them doesn't mean much.  

By the way, this sentence doesn't mean much.  Why don't you take a
writing-clarity pill and try again.

andbanta@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: Tsk tsk Russell (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:22:15 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <swood.727730197@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
`> In article <C0v599.62x@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
`>>Next time our "Putting People First" ranter from Michigan shows up,
`> 
`> As far as MY opinions on health care, they don't belong in this 
`> group, nor under the banner of Putting People First.  I am and 
`> have been very clear to seperate my opinions from those of the 
`> organizations I support and speak for.  

`You're not the only PPF member I've come across who's displayed a 
`ranting dislike for many of his fellow human beings.  Perhaps a more
`honest name for your organization would be, "Putting Some People 
`First".   Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?

READ MY LIPS.  My specific personal opinions DO NOT reflect PPF's position as
an organisation - at least not all of them.  I just finished saying that.  I
am not against fellow human beings.  I am against hand-outs to lazy idiots.
If anything the AR-crowd is anti-human, as if they had their way, we would
all be living in huts eating tofu - or better yet, extinct!

`> In fact if you recall Russell, that was why I sent you my personal opinions
`> in email (both to keep them off an innapropriate news group and to make
`> sure that my public opinion as a PPF member did not conflict with my personal
`> opinions as a US Citizen) and in fact is was you that jumped accrossed
`> net etiquette and blatantly posted them accrossed the world.

`If you want your opinions to remain private, why don't you just 
`keep them private?  With the exception of your obscenities, your 
`email messages weren't much different in substance or scope from 
`your public postings.   

BS!  This is america and I can say/do what I want.  But this is also
an international network governed by rules, same as any other organized
structure, and YOU were the one that crossed them.  I am not going to rehash
this again, so stop bringing my personal opinions into a public forum
into which they do not belong.  This is my last post on the matter lest
you persist in trying to make me or PPF look bad because I don't like
loafers!

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: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:32:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw

In article <viking.727511357@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan S
>>How many pounds of beef do you have?  Somewhere around 540 to 600 pounds.

>>Seems a bit wasteful to me 
>>seeing how the water level dropped in California lakes by about 13 million
>>acre-feet from 1986 to 1990.

>	You mean, during the longest drought the region had ever seen?
Hey Dan.  Ask him how wasteful he feels it is when he finds that the lakes
and reservoirs of California are doubling and tripling their volume in the
last few months.  We've gone from drought to floods.  We've got so much water
that there are mud slides, avalanches, floods and about a 12-14' snow pack in
the mountains.  We are in the S.F. Bay area on average at about 140-170% of
our normal rainfall.  Still, can't "waste" that water on livestock you know.
The water officials are saying that no matter how much water we get it still
won't be enough to support the number of PEOPLE in California!  It's all the
PEOPLE coming here for jobs or welfare that are causing the problem.  


>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >


Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat. (so were squirrels)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:11:59 GMT

In article <1k2fnvINNdrk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
>I was born to eat meat and so were you.  Take a look at your own 
>dentistry!  These nice sharp "canine" teeth I have are just great for
>ripping the tasty flesh of my animal meal.  My teeth don't look anything
>like that of a horse or other herbavore, neither do yours.  Come to think
>of it my digestive system agrees with a hamburger a lot more than it does
>with a bowl of beans.
>
>alex the omnivore

Anyone else subscribe to Natural History? It had a surprising (to me) 
article this month on arctic hares. Some info on the mysterious population
fluctuations, but the surprising aspect was the finding by the researchers
that the single most dangerous predator to the young hares is the red 
squirrel. I had no idea that squirrels are omnivorous. 

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:17:13 GMT

gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:

`Death is death whether painful or not.

I want a bumper sticker.  Have it say...

*** Death Happens!!! ***

Things die everyday.  Go out in the woods, you will see I'm right.  Just
because man is the only animal that kills animals for clothing does not
make killing for clothing wrong.  Your ideology is what is saying that.

swood

BTW:  for any of you that have worn fur, it is more than just vanity.
	it is also big time warmth.  As for leather, especially to bike
	riders, it can be armor.  And for many it is a matter of heritage
	and ethnic pride.

-- 
 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: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:34:05 GMT

In <C14GGz.L0B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I'm going to continue to use the word "wrong" to designate activities
>that I consider unethical, Rich. 

You're conforming gradually. I believe this is the common usage of the
terms. We all use 'wrong' for _what_we_consider_ unethical, not for
_what_is_ unethical by some universal independent standard.

> And I'll continue to point to facts
>and reasons to support my judgments of "wrongfulness".

You have to start something before you can continue it.

>[...]  The fact that 
>you and I can't point to a "cosmic" law that outlaws slavery 

You're really coming 'round now.

>won't diminish our realization that the embrace of slavery, as an 
>institution, depended on some "facts" that were erroneous (ie 
>wrong), as well as some arguments that were irrational (ie 
>wrong).  

Assuming by wrong facts you mean inferiority of some race, I would
point out that not all slavery involved different races. And that even
the bible condoned slavery while maintaining all humans are created
equal. (Whether or not one is religious, it must be admitted that the
biblical authors were attempting to prescribe behaviour that they
considered ethically right.)  Our society has gradually evolved to a
more and more egalitarian society, but in the process, many other
social structures have existed. Slavery is an extreme example of
inequality of opportunity, but feudalism wasn't very different, and
even now there is a hierarchy (largely economic) in society and
factory workers (especially as they get old) are in a sense
economically subject to the factory owners. And children born into
poverty do not have equal opportunity, or if they do, the statistics
suggest they are significantly inferior.  The degree of inequality
that society considers unethical has been changing in time; perhaps in
the future, humans working in a coal mine will be considered
unethical, just as children working as chimney sweeps is now.  Perhaps
not.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:58:19 GMT

In article <C185pq.KIt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan21.143308.5541@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

[...]

>> Is the growing of cotton, roses, potato skins, and grain for human
>> consumption "non-livestock agriculture?"  That is, after all, the
>> real question here...not whether I wear potato skins.
>
>It's an irrelevant question, Rich.  As the WorldWatch paper observed,
>it takes as much water to supply the average american with meat,
>milk, and eggs as the average american typically uses at home 
>(roughly 380 liters per day).

	So what?  According to your numbers it takes twice that much to keep
	the average american (living in California anyway) in clothes and
	fruit and vegetables.

>It seems rather obvious that cutting
>back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
>quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.

	It seems to ME that a nearly equivalent benefit could be realized
	in drought-striken California by cutting back on lawns, fountains,
	and swimming pools.

>As an alternative,
>would you have us cut back on "non-livestock agriculture"?

	I never said this.  I merely pointed out that livestock-based
	agriculture is not the largest consumer of water in California.

	Frankly, I think growing cotton, lettuce, and oranges (not to
	mention grass, fountains, and swimming pools) in the middle of
	a desert is incredibly stupid, and would rather see such crops
	grown elsewhere.

>> Is "cotton production, flower production, fruit production, vegetable
>> production, etc., etc." properly called "agriculture?" [yes]  Is
>> it agriculture which is related to livestock production? [no]
>> 
>> Voila!  What we have here is "non-livestock-related agriculture,"
>> a "single category of [water] use!"
>
>It's not a "single use", Rich.   It's a wide range of diverse uses 
>that you've lumped together in an effort to divert attention.

	OK, then cattle farming, sheep farming, chicken farming, dairy
	farming, and hog farming are not a "single use," either.  It's
	clear that you've used the phrase "livestock agriculture" in an
	effort to divert attention.  It's really a "wide range of diverse
	uses that you've lumped together."

>> You're dead in this one, Russell; admit it and go lick your wounds.
>> The embarrassment will go away after a while.  In your case, I
>> suspect that it will be a very short while, since you seem to have
>> no shame.
>
>You're dreaming, Rich, but what else is new.   

	At least I have the mental wherewithal to engage in such a process.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11565 alt.peeves:19540
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:20:22 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1jq8osINNclm@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
writes:
>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.

Personally, I think there's good reason to do just that.  In fact, I also
think that would be a good way to finally put an end to the Operation
Rescue loonies, though we haven't heard much from them since my homeys in
Buffalo showed them the door.

Actually, while I can't but think that an idjit who fucks with an armed
hunter has clearly failed Father Darwin's little test and maybe should be
removed from the gene pool, I wouldn't want to give hunters a bad name by
suggesting they could be assasins as well.  On the other hand, as Dan has
pointed out, the ARFs rarely wear ear protection...and a .30-06 is pretty
damn loud!

I do think that one can figure out what the ARFs are about by looking
at some of their tactics.  For example, the people who feed dog food
laced with ground glass to hunting dogs are clearly petulant children
trying to foist off their agenda on others, instead of real animal lovers.

>them.  Mandatory invasive body-cavity searches would be one potential
>technique that would undoubtedly leave a fairly strong psychological
>impression on the hooligans.  Hell, I'd even be willing to contribute
>a few dollars to the cause, as long as I was allowed to toss out the
>ceremonial first box of latex gloves at the beginning of hunting
>season.

And I'm sure that we could find plenty of greasy older guys in raincoats
at adult movie shows, willing to perform the searches.  Eager, even.

     don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals