HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:34:21
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:36:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.173658.3482@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   In article <RIGG.92Sep30200435@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >In article <1992Sep25.173602.2470@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   >   Of course, most of these points are all obvious.  What does matter to
   >   the deer is the amount and duration of pain.  The range per se or the
   >   amount of sport for the hunter are totally irrelevant to the deer.
   >
   >true.  why does it matter so much to animal rights folks?

   Because at greater ranges, there is a greater chance for a crippling 
   injury.

I do not understand the significance of this.  My rifle has a greater
chance of wounding beyond 75 yards or so.  Other folks use rifles that
are quite accurate out to 200 yards.  The point is that responsible
hunters know and respect the limitations of their weapons.  Do you
propose we hunt with heat seeking, laser quided missles?

   >But jumping the string means one thing:  the deer dropped below the
   >arrow.  I have seen numerous videos of deer jumping the string and the
   >same thing always happens:  the deer drops straight down to store
   >energy is his legs for a coming leap.  

   Benke describes two instances when the deer executed a complete 180
   degree turn and was struck by the arrow in the opposite side of the body
   from the targeted side.  In both cases the range was about 15 yards and,
   from what he says on the preceding page, I assume the arrow speed was
   about 190 feet per second.

I can not believe this.  I am begining to wonder just what agenda
Benke is trying to promote.

   >There is no doubt that a gun is a better weapon for beginners.  A bow 
   >takes much more work to obtain proficiency.  However, both are equally 
   >effective when in the proper hands.  

   Whether or not both are equally effective is the issue here.  The claim
   has been put forth by Benke and others that both are not equally
   effective, and numerous studies have been cited to support the claim.
   Since I don't bowhunt, I have to either take the word of others or go
   out myself and observe.

Please go out and observe.  Many hunters would welcome an interested
observer.  Many of Benke's claims are so far removed from my personal
experiences that I am begining to question their accuracy.

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:28:52 GMT

me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:

`In article <92261.143315DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> <DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
`> Keep up the good work swood!  And good hunting

`Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
`Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?

I am actively involved in war gaming.  Splatball, lazer tag, even full
contact BB gun warring.  I use war gaming to burn up any need that I
have to stalk and kill (of which I have little if not none) and then
hunt to get out in the woods to enjoy a sunrise.  Meat on the table
(though greatly desired) is secondary and is not necessary for me to
enjoy hunting.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:13:42 GMT

From article <1992Sep30.212719.4501@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> There has been no recorded instance where an animal activist 
mh> refused a life-saving medical treatment that was developed, 
mh> partially or wholly, using animals.  As I stated earlier, animal 
mh> activists like yourself criticize animal research/testing while 
mh> enjoying its benefits.  It's akin to biting the hand that feeds 
mh> you.  

You've stated in the past that you wouldn't refuse medical 
treatment that had been developed in conjunction with involuntary 
experiments on human beings.  Do you favor the use of humans as 
involuntary subjects in medical experiments?  If not, are you 
"biting the hand that feeds you" by opposing involuntary human 
experimentation?  

Has there been a single recorded case wherein someone who favors 
animal experimentation has refused medical treatment developed, 
in whole or in part, through involuntary human studies?   If not,
would it be reasonable to conclude that animal experimenters favor
the continuing use of humans as involuntary research subjects?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:39:28
	<viking.718345946@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<1992Oct6.150328.1149@spdc.ti.com>
In-reply-to: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.150328.1149@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

   Just a note to let you know that baiting is legal in Texas, and practiced
   by the majority of hunters. Many of us immigrants feel it's unsporting and
   refuse to do it. I'm out there to hunt, and if I'm lucky and good I'll kill
   a deer. But I've got to earn it.

Baiting is also legal in Wisconsin and Michigan.  But like in Texas,
most "real" hunters frown on the practice.

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:23:44 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What's the difference between "mindless acceptance" and "faith", Mike?

From article <1aq37pINNr7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> What's the difference between you and a fool Russell?   You obviously 
ml> feel that any type of faith is mindless acceptance.  I obviously feel
ml> that is foolish but, that doesn't make either true.  I also never
ml> described my faith as mindless acceptance as you I admire mindless ac-
ml> ceptance as you say I did.  You have a habit of saying people said 
ml> things to you that they never did.  Would this be enough to label you
ml> a liar?  Or just deceitful?

Let's get back to one of the statements made by your "god" that I
cited previously:  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   

Is this the sort of command that ought to be taken on faith?  Or, 
would it not be wise for us to ask ourselves if a "god" really 
gave such a command, and if so, should we obey.   Would you be inclined
to say that a person who mindlessly accepts such a commandment is
an "idiot"?    

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:32:28 GMT

>jh> Russell, why so insulting?  How do you know that Mike's
>jh> religious belief is "mindless acceptance."
>
>He told me so.  Ask him to explain the difference between faith
>and reason.  He'll tell you that he admires faith (ie mindless
>acceptance) far more than reason, and considers me to be a "fool"
>because I prefer empirical evidence and rational arguments.
>
>jh> Sure, he may be what's termed a "literalist" but, nevertheless,
>jh> there is something going on in his mind that has made him choose
>jh> his faith.  You may not like fundamentalism any more than me;  I
>jh> however do not ridicule his belief just as I do not ridicule your
>jh> point-of-view and the intense energy and countless hours you
>jh> devote of your life to your concern for animals.
>
>It's not my intention to ridicule his religion.  However, I would
>like to discover how/why a man whose own beliefs are based on
>"faith" can reasonably label another man's comments as "idiotic".
>Can you explain it to me?
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Along with
Mike's faith in God undoubtedly comes his understanding that his
God will not ask him to kill a witch, and will watch over and protect
him, as well as prevent you from traveling to the Bay Area to meet him!
Of course you are ridiculing his religious beliefs.  And you are taking
evident considerable humorless glee in doing so.  Is there any better
example than your above conjoining of the idea that Mike's "faith"
excludes him from the right to offer the opinion that the thoughts
of another are "idiotic"?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:26:15 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> ======================================================================
ry> Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
ry> or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
ry> dead.  It is a non-functional organism.
ry> ======================================================================
ry
ry> [Russell's tactic #206 (Mary Otto has graciously assigned me the
ry> 200-series): make some officious comment which has nothing to do
ry> with reality and hope that it distracts his opponent.]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Who do you think you're fooling?  

From article <1992Sep30.212654.4154@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> You did, I believe, assert that I had said it was OK to kill the
ry> brain-dead but not the kidney-dead, did you not?  In spite of the
ry> fact that I had never made any such assertion?

Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?  Please clarify your position.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunting vs. Sport Hunting
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:53:07 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

I have noticed a lot of discussion in regards to hunting for food or
the chance to get back to nature and be a predator vs. those that just
hunt for the sport or the trophy.  Wherein I do not agree with hunting
for just the sport, I do not try to take away other's rights to do so.

However, I have been active to both try and convince these hunters to
change their perspective or usage of their game as well as utilize what
they don't need with programs like Hunters for the Hungry in which extra
meat is donated to feed the homeless or poor.

Just my $.02

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer or not, the sunrise
   will still be there, and so will I.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:59:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1adabtINNke0@agate.berkeley.edu> korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes:

>                  Given past experiences I fear for the safety
>of any hunting spokesperson the does take part in the debate.
>
[...]
>
>It's a funny thing, though.  I would not fear for the safety of an
>animal rights activist at a hunting convention.  I guess that says 
>something about the methods each group uses.  Also says which group
>is more tolerant of people with different values than their own.

No, it just says something about your prejudices. Why should we believe
that what you would and wouldn't fear bears any resemblence to reality?
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:53:46 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]
>>  I feel hunters care far more
>>about deer than nonhunters and antihunters.
>
>I'm sure you'll appreciate that I disagree with this statement due the
>inclusion of antihunters.  WRT nonhunters, it might be true in some
>cases but not necessarily universally so. 

Sorry, Bob, but Tim is correct.  You'd have to replace the word "deer"
with "individual deer" in order for antihunters to register on the
scale.  We've been through this before. :-)  I'll agree with you that
some nonhunters care (but not as many as hunters).  Antihunters don't.


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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:07:07 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> Your self-righteous indignation is reminiscent of those who supported
ry> Darrow in the Scopes trial...and for some of the same reasons.  You
ry> just can't accept the fact that you're no better than an amoeba just
ry> because you can think.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your command of the historical facts is somewhat faulty.   Ever heard
rl> of William Jennings Bryan?  
rl> 
rl> Are you better than a cow?

From article <1992Sep30.185707.28698@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> [Sigh] I __KNEW__ I should have looked it up...you're right, of
ry> course, I _did_ mean Bryan.  On the other hand, you clearly knew
ry> what I meant, so the point was adequately made.

Are you better than a cow?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.154237.3398@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <viking.717744244@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>One million times per year US citizens thwart crimes by the use of a
>>firearm ...
>
>Where does this statistic come from? I have seen it variously quoted
>as anything up to "100 million per year" (by the NRA?)

[...]

	I don't know where Dan's "one million" number comes from...although
	he's not the first one I've heard use it, but I can quote from an
	NRA document regarding this statistic:

	"Survey results suggest that about 650,000 Americans every year
	use HANDGUNS [...emphasis added: the remaining 350,000 may be long
	guns...] for protection from [crime]."  No date is given for the
	source(s) of this statement.

	The NRA also claims that 7,200,000 Americans have actually USED
	guns for protection, 4,600,000 of which were handguns (but they
	quote a 1978 source, which is hardly what one might call "current").

	These data are from a 1990 NRA/ILA wallet-sized "Fact Sheet", and I
	hasten to add that more completely referenced information is
	undoubtedly available from the NRA free, upon request.

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:42:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <swood.717781369@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>`Udo writes:
>`u> Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
>`u> Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?
>
>`The vast majority of the hunters I know wouldn't engage in the sport
>`if the game could shoot back.  Yet, they still view the sport as
>`a "manly" endeavor for some reason.
>
>I would not engage in such a sport if the animals could shoot back.  

I'll bet you wouldn't!

Paul
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Animal Research (mouse screens?)
Summary: Has NIH really abandoned antitumor screening?
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:50:32 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <BuovHo.53D@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
    [deleted]

  *>From article <16SEP92.13015986@wums.wustl.edu>, by w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu:
    [deleted]
>
rl>You're still mistaken.  If you check your data carefully, I think 
rl>you'll find that PCRM's director has acknowledge the role that 
rl>live mouse screens played in discovering chemicals that have 
rl>therapeutic value in treating leukemias and lymphomas.  On the 
rl>other hand, officials from PCRM, NIH, the National Cancer 
rl>Institute, and a variety of other organizations, have 
rl>acknowledged the historical fact that the use of such screens had 
rl>failed to identify agents useful in treating tumors.  Be that as 
rl>it may, live mouse screens were abandoned years ago in favor of 
rl>live tissue screens.  

       Just a comment and question -- you mention that the NIH screens
*did* uncover agents active against leukemias and lymphomas. In the
information you have, is there mention of what tumors were used in the
NIH mouse screens? If memory serves, the tumors are P388 and L1210.
L1210 is a leukemia and P388 is either a lymphoma or a leukemia. If this
is indeed true, it would seem, at any rate, that the NIH screens actually
may have been quite useful, and the fault of NCI was to use too few
different types of mouse tumors, ie they should have expanded the panel
of tumors in the screen to include breast, ovarian, colon, and the other
great killers.
       Does the material you have (that quotes the NIH and NCI 
officials) go on to reveal what they think should be the strategy to
identify that one compound out of 10,000 (per year) that may have antitumor
activity? Just curious; I really don't know the answer to this one, and
am no fan of mass screens. I thought the NCI screen was a real wash
until I read your post.

And a question: I am surprised to read your statement that live mouse
screens were abandoned 'years ago'. How many years? I know the NCI screen
was being used when I was a graduate student, and I don't feel that old.
Seriously, are you certain that the screens have been abandoned? This
would be extrordinary.

Bob Straubinger
Dept of Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo          "Above are my opinions, not those of SUNY"
rms@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:40:08 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It's not my intention to ridicule his religion.  However, I would
rl> like to discover how/why a man whose own beliefs are based on
rl> "faith" can reasonably label another man's comments as "idiotic".
rl> Can you explain it to me?

From article <1992Oct3.183228.28366@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
jh> faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 

Proof?

jh> Along with
jh> Mike's faith in God undoubtedly comes his understanding that his
jh> God will not ask him to kill a witch, and will watch over and protect
jh> him, as well as prevent you from traveling to the Bay Area to meet him!
jh> Of course you are ridiculing his religious beliefs.  And you are taking
jh> evident considerable humorless glee in doing so.  Is there any better
jh> example than your above conjoining of the idea that Mike's "faith"
jh> excludes him from the right to offer the opinion that the thoughts
jh> of another are "idiotic"?

Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting 
hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: NCIB view of PETA
Organization: Manitoba Animal Rights Coalition
Distribution: global
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:39:59 GMT

In article <27698@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:

> 
>    People for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA), failed to meet several
> acceptable charity standards, the National Charities Information Bureau
> (NCIB) reports.
>  
>    According to a letter from the Animal Welfare Foundation based in St. Paul,
> PETA spends too much on fundraising and too little on programs.  The report
> says 42% of PETA's organizational expenses are related to fundraising and 
> only 20% goes to research and investigations into animal cruelty.

Ha! ONLY 42% ??? When I worked for Greenpeace, we were up to
almost 70% !!!!

And further-- 20% plus 42% makes 62%. You're leaving out the other 38%,
probably because it is spent on education programs.

Find a real issue. PETA isn't a charity, it's a political organization.

-------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Maintoba Animal Rights Coalition
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: One good thing about the Austin debate
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:54:17 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

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

>One good thing I just discovered about the Austin debates and the corresponding
>AR-head gathering.  No posts from Jennifer till next week!!!!

yeah, but *I'm* not going to Austin, and I certainly intend to post!
(What else do people do for peaceful recreation in St. John's, Newfoundland?!?!)

alka

>swood

********************************************************************************	"The time will come when we will look upon the murder of animals
	 as we now look upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo da Vinci
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals