HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: protein content of soybeans and corn
Summary: I dug out the information
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:50:05 GMT

	A few weeks ago I mentioned that I would try to find the
protein content of soybeans, along with the oil content.  At the
lab I work for, we have a protein, oil, and starch test for both
soybeans and corn.  I have taken the averages from the datebase.

	Taken from our databases, corn averages 8.3% protein, 4.78%
oil, and 57.83% starch.  In contrast, soybeans are 35.01% protein
and 17.97% oil on the average.  The sample sizes for these tests are
not statistically significant, but should be a fairly good
indicator of what the average batch of seed might put out.  By some
protocol or other, soybeans are not tested for starch content.

	Anyway, consider this food for thought.

<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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:52:32 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug13.184316.7193@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
> In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the human
> got medal and money, what did horse get?
> --Zhigang

I don't know exactly what kind of a point you are making.  Do you ride?  
Have you ever owned/lived around/ridden/trained/raised horses?  
In other words, are you talking from experience or ignorance?

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:39:44 GMT

In article <Bt5B9F.K3w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Aug17.183521.674@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
 (Jeff Achenbach):
>>>
>>>If wildlife populations could be maintained either naturally without
>>>excessive suffering or with intervention through non-hunting techniques,
>>>what percentage of hunters would voluntarily and willingly forego
>>>hunting entirely?
>>
>> Populations maintained naturally without excessive suffering?
>> Dream on!  Have you been watching Bambi again?  Mother Nature is
>> a cruel, harsh mistress.  The only animal that gives a damn about
>> another species suffering is man.  Kill or be killed, eat or be
>> eaten, is nature's way.
>
>You seem to know quite a bit about nature.
>
>Would you mind explaining the role that adipose tissue plays in
>regulating mammalian fertility?  What's the minimum level of body
>fat that a female deer must have in order to ovulate?
>
>When the population of a herd reaches the maximum sustainable
>population level, what happens to adipose tissue in females as
>the caloric intake/capita begins to drop, and, what effect would
>this have on additional population growth?
>
>Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
>diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?


I don't know about the first two questions;  fill us in!   As to
the final question, no, natural predators do not prey exclusively on diseased
and sick animals rather than healthy ones.  Prey animals are completely
opportunistic.  If they can separate from a fleeing herd a healthy specimen,
they will kill and eat it.  You view prey animals too much as scavengers.

Additionally, very often healthy young are prey.  Do they fit your definition
of diseased and sick?

Finally, to my observation the writer was not attempting to show how
learned he was in wildlife biology.  He was offering his view of processes
of nature.  What is your thought on the question he raised:  is nature
a cruel, harsh mistress?   Do you know what a wolf thinks when it dismembers
a deer; for that matter do you know what the starving deer in a metro park
near where I live are thinking?


**
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:14:43 GMT

Todd Hedenstrom writes:

>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>
>>My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
>>lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
>>be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
>>what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
>>personally.  This is incorrect thinking.
>
>Gee, and when someone else does so, you go into orbit.  Nice job, DAC.  You've
>done a fine job of convincing me you're on the straight and narrow this time,
>how bout the rest of y'all, gang?
>
>Let me point out a sobering item:  When you're an AR whacko, and even Russell
>Lawrence doesn't come to your rescue with a 12,000 line quoted article, I'd say
>your own side doesn't care for your tactics.

OK, time for the old mountain man from New York to throw my two cents
in, w.r.t. all this recent "Dreamer Bashing."  Now everybody is
entitled to their opinion on the issue, but I'd like to say a word in
David's behalf.  Despite what I perceive to be a good deal of naivety
about the subject, at least the young fellow is willing to admit that
he hates what we do and he doesn't like us for it.  And I respect him
for that.  I'd rather be stabbed in the chest 20 times than stabbed in
the back once.  Just a little food for thought for some of you folk.
(Note -- I'm not saying anyone is wrong for what they've said about
David -- but give him a little credit that at least he's honest enough
to express his true feelings about hunters -- I wish everyone would.
;-)

Now back to the show, already in progress...


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: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Putting People First group forming
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 12:54:23 GMT

In article <swood.714244703@vela> 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.
>
>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...
>
>
>National Headquarters:
>
>	Kathleen Marquandt, President
>	4401 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
>	Suite 310-A
>	Washington, D.C.  20008-2322
>	1 (202) 364-7277
>
>or locally in the Detroit, Pontiac and Flint area call:
>
>	Scott W. Wood  (313) 394-0351
>
>This number has caller I.D. - ANY and ALL pranks or hostile calls
>WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW!
>
>Thanks
>
>swood
>-- 
>+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
>| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
>|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
>+========================+            viv          +=========================+

Caller ID does absolutely no good from someone using various pay phones
who wished to make prank or hostile calls. Just wanted to point this 
out.

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 |
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA and AIDS
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:07:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>What is the position of 'the AR movement' on "experimentation on animals to
>find a cure for AIDS" ?

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>There are many voices to the "movement", thus no one position.  The one I
>>take is to invest heavily in education so that transmission can be prevented.

>Can you (or anyone else) answer the question that was asked? Both
>times this question was posed (the first time not by me) the answers
>have not addressed the question.
>
>Bob Straubinger, Pharmaceutics

And as was said, there is no one answer.  One group I know of is opposed to
using animals.  Another group says it is ok provided a master plan is enacted
so duplication is not done.  Another group is opposed to primate research.
Another group advocates alternate methods......

So which answer are you looking for?

Rob U, there is no one voice speaking in the "movement"

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:46:27 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug17.234421.24687@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.205232.3499@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.184316.7193@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>> In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the human
>>> got medal and money, what did horse get?
>>> --Zhigang
>>
>>I don't know exactly what kind of a point you are making.  Do you ride?  
>>Have you ever owned/lived around/ridden/trained/raised horses?  
>>In other words, are you talking from experience or ignorance?
>>
>>Sue
> 
> Here we go again. Tell me Sue, was it only the slave owners who had
> "experience" on the subject of slavery, and the rights and wrongs
> thereof? The Abolitionists were just "ignorant" wreen't they? I mean
> they must have been, they didn't personally own any slaves.
> 
> Paul

Are you referring to horse owners as the same as slave owners?  The reason 
I was asking is because often people in this group start ranting about
'neglect' and they really don't know anything about the particulars.  
I've spent lots of my life around horses.  I have seen lots of them being
used in various sports.  And the vast majority of neglected horses are the
ones who are standing in some dirty stall, with no care, no food.  For
the most part, show horses, such as the ones in the Olympics are pampered,
groomed, and get better medical care than the majority of Americans. 

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:04:34 GMT


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

From article <BtA3y2.JsE@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
js> Obviously (dangerous statement, eh?) it's to avoid wasting effort on
js> abortive attacks, thereby improving the success rate.

There's another reason as well.  On the whole, wolves don't like being
kicked in the head or ribcage with hard, pointy hooves.   At least one
wolf expert says that wolves that don't test their prey are likely
to be shortlived.  See Stanwell-Fletcher, John F. and Theodora C. "Three
Years in the Wolves Wilderness".  _Natural History_, 1941, v49, n3,
pp 136-147.   Mowat and Mech (I believe) make similar observations.

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.

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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:35:21 GMT

>
>If wildlife populations could be maintained either naturally without
>excessive suffering or with intervention through non-hunting techniques,
>what percentage of hunters would voluntarily and willingly forego
>hunting entirely?

Populations maintained naturally without excessive suffering? Dream on! Have
you been watching Bambi again? Mother Nature is a cruel, harsh mistress. The
only animal that gives a damn about another species suffering is man. Kill or
be killed, eat or be eaten, is nature's way. Only in cartoons does the lion
lay down with the lamb. Man is an efficient predator, and need not apologize
for eating. 
   Hunters are the only group that can be counted on to fund wildlife manage-
ment (self interest at work). When they get tired of their newfound cause, or
when family and work begin to interfere, or when they find a new cause, the 
AR loonies will have left a mess and wildlife will pay the price.

>
>If the percentage is high, then I would be more likely to believe that 
>hunters are genuinely interested in the animals' interest.  If that
>percentage is low, then I would question it.
>

   I think the main problem with arguments between hunters and ARs is that 
hunters speak in terms of animal populations, whereas ARs are concerned with
individuals of a species. Hunters are concerned with maintaining viable 
populations of healthy animals (for hunting and viewing). Individuals will 
continue to die and be born in any event. I feel no more guilt when I kill
and eat a deer than does a mountain lion. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:40:15 GMT

Jim B. Powlesland writes:
jp> Yup. A typical AR type - prone to violence. It's no wonder they
jp> blow experimental labs, etc.

From article <0hay5s=@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> But Jim, you're forgetting that violence against mean-old-nasty
jve> hunters and blowing up labs is *ethical*. 

No it's not ethical.  PETA has adopted the notion that violence 
in defense of animal rights is reasonable, just as some 
abolitionists (notably John Brown) viewed violence in defense of 
human rights to be reasonable.  In practice, acts of violence are 
rarely (if ever) useful in winning hearts and minds, and often 
end up creating all sorts of backlash.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:17:14 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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.
> 
> Can we conclude that culling constitutes only a small fraction of hunting 
> kills and hence serves as a weak justification of hunting?

No.  Rather we can conclude that your questions, by the nature of their 
breadth and generality, are unanswerable with any degree of certitude.  
More over, we can conclude that no one here has even the foggiest idea of 
how to answer them.  Every state and province regulates game differently.  
To answer your questions one would need all of the data from all of the 
wildlife offices and then more data (that they probably don't have) 
besides.  Even then one could only claim to have made an educated guess, 
and a weak one at that.

> 
> Ted Robinson
> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
> These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:38:23 GMT

In <Bt5Cn5.KJA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Consider, for example, the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 
>that were exposed by the NY Times in 1972.  As I recall, the 
>Tuskegee experimenters had been studying the progressive effect 
>of syphilis, from 1932 onward, among a group of black men 
>who had been mislead into believing that they were getting 
>effective medical treatment from the researchers, whereas in 
>truth, they were getting an opportunity to serve as tools in a 
>hideous experiment.  Would you say that anyone who's reluctant to 
>misuse other individuals in such a way would be engaging in a
>a kind of "self-imposed ignorance"?

	I admit to being ignorant of this particular incident.  Two
questions do come to mind that we might do well to ponder.

	1) Cancer patients who are terminally ill often partake in
experimental treatments.  Sometimes these experimental treatments
consist of placebo's or standard treatments extended to serve as a
control group for the real experimental treatment.  Is it any less
right to do this than to give everybody the experimental treatment
and not have a control group to make the results verifiable?

	2) We all know of the various medical experiments performed
on prisoners, Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" under the Nazi
regime in Germany from 1938-1945.  Is it ethical to use the results
of these studies today, or does the method by which they were
obtained automatically make them immoral to use?

	My answers: 1) No.  The control group is necessary, and hence
I feel a placebo no less moral than the tretment.  Even if the treatment
is a cure, the deaths of the control group would permit verification
shortly, and hence save many more lives.  Thus, I do admit killing can
serve a purpose, even if they are humans.

	2) No.  The data exists, irrespective of the methods used, and
we might as well make use of it.  A flyer shot down in the north
Atlantic might be saved due to one of these experiments, and his life
would give some measure of utility to the deaths of those thousands.
To not use it not only doesn't honor the dead, it kills the living
for no good reason other than misplaced "respect" for those who died.
I don't condone the experiments, but I cna see no good reason that
the dead shall have died in vein because of our abhorrence of the
methods used, despite not being able to do nothing about it.

<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. >
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: New Wave in Zoos
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:37:36 GMT


New Wave in Zoos

According to a blurb in the Chicago Tribune:
 
Britain is planning to develop a unique type of zoo where the only
living creatures present will be humans.  Visitors would see animals
in their natural habitats through satellite transmission.  According
to the chairman of Worldlife Center, William Travers, "Three o'clock
feeding time at the zoo will be replaced by a satellite link with
the Amazonian rain forest, the Great Barrier Reef, Antarctica or
Africa and allow people to interact with that environment through
our guide on the spot."
 
 



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: PUBLIC APOLOGY to David A. Caruso
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:22:35 GMT


Yesterday I posted a message here to David A. Caruso (David Caruso II ~~~
<DREAMER@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> that I have come to think twice about since I
posted it.

In an exchange of flames following an especially provocative challenge put
forth by Caruso to me, I did something that was immature and inexcusable.
He challenged me to "look him up, I'm in the book."  I posted his address
and phone number to show him that I knew he was. 

I got the address from somebody else on the net who saw our flame war and
took enough of an interest to look up the info and pass it on to me, just in
case I wanted to take David up on his challenge.  I declined, and I should 
have deleted the address, since I had no intention of contacting Caruso
over any medium other then this newsgroup or via e-mail.

However, in an angry response to his flames, I posted it.  I truly, and
profoundly publicly apologize to Caruso for having done so.  I will attempt
to have the message deleted.

Ken Whitehead
kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)