HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Public Apology
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:41:46 GMT

JJ has brought to light a poorly worded paraphrased that I added as a portion
of a list of her quotes in a previous post.  It is not my practice to
extract information from peoples personal correspondence, but I was interested
in expanding on the specific point in my post and was under the presumption
that Jennifer had nothing to hide in our discussions on the issue.
I would like to offer my apologies for any offense that she took at my use
of her ideas to make my point and will refrain from doing so in further
discussion (where it applies to email text) without first getting the
original authors permission and without having the "exact wording" of the
said quote on hand.

I do so however hope that the rest of the collection of quotes still stands
up as a true bearing of what Jennifer truely stands for on these issues.
I unfortunately do not have the original post in front of me and request
that any of you that still have the file active on this post, that they
please forward it to me.

I say once again, it was not my intention to comprimise net policy or to
offend the opposition.  Merely to produce my own observations based on the
arguements at hand.  If any offense or damage was done, I do hereby
sincerely apologize.

Scott W. Wood

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, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: North Carolina State University 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:31:03 GMT

In article <BvsG9x.8xz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

> Does a cow care if you kill it?  [yes]
> Does a cabbage care if you kill it?  [probably not]

I don't see how your conclusion follows.  A cow may want
to avoid the pain of being slaughtered, but this doesn't 
necessarily mean that the cow "cares" whether it dies or
not. A cow may not be able to understand the concept
of death. 

Would a cow "care" if it were killed painlessly? Probably 
not. 

> Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:38:02 GMT

In <BvxoM0.9Cv@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I don't understand why a man like yourself who publicly claims to 
rl> have intelligence that's vastly superior to the common man can be 
rl> so willing to believe that he can demonstrate the truth or 
rl> falsity of an idea by appealing to an authority.  What's worse, 
rl> many of your appeals are particularly ludicrous because they've 
rl> involved abstract entities: like the opinions of "cosmoses" 
rl> and "collective lives" and such.  Were you under the impression 
rl> that fallacious appeals would be more convincing if they involved 
rl> such grand designs?

From article <1992Oct12.185656.4270@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> What is your purpose here?  You've already been told a number of
ry> times that my use of such terms is a literary convenience, not a
ry> statement of theological significance.  In addition, you have
ry> assumed, without basis, that cessation in the use of these terms
ry> constitutes an abandonment of principles: yet another egregious
ry> error which has been corrected.

Without referring to "cosmoses", collective lives, giraffes, etc,
please explain how/why you consider sentience and sapience to be
"arbitrary" criteria in determining the goodness or badness of
actions involving other beings.

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:18:36 GMT

From article <1b4hfpINN2j8@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Again you are confused.  If "witchs" were killed a few short centuries
ml> ago, those who killed them either wrongly claimed to do so in the name
ml> of God or they misinterpreted the word of God since you will not find
ml> God saying witches should be killed in the New Testament.

Is there a passage in the New Testament where God says that it's
ok for you to hunt deer with high-powered rifles?  Or raise chickens
in tiny, tiny coops?  Or use chimps in medical experiments?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:55:42 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>If the majority of fur sold is ranched, it's not helping the aboriginal
>trappers in the North, is it?  Perhaps the fur ranchers should explain to
>the people of the north why it is okay for them to compete for the already
>small fur market.

	On the other hand, perhaps the aboriginal trappers up north are
sensible people and wish to suppliment their own income by trapping, perhaps
they have an aversion to store-bought fur, or perhaps they just see the
furbearers as another natural resource they are free to use.  If they
really wanted to compete for the fur market, wouldn't they have banned
together and organized a cooperative fur ranch?

>P.S.  t.p.a readers might also be interested in learning more about Native/
>      Animal Brotherhood, an anti-fur organization whose membership is 
>      restricted to aboriginal people.

	Why, that's *discrimination!*  Damn Indians and Eskimos aren't
happy taking your damn beads and bullets for their land...  No, they
have to exclude you from their clubs too!  I'm so mad...

	It's sort of fun to turn this stuff around and see what happens.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: ReHowdy
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:48:50 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

Been away from this newsgroup for several months now...I think the
last thread I was active in was the "boiling lobsters thread.

I'm glad to see so many familiar and new names here on this newsgroup.
I won't go through and respond to stuff that's accumulated...I'm
starting over here from z.

--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:34:41 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <92Oct08.202025.15338@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ writes: 
>
>>...by the growing debate over animal rights.
>
>Please! The debate over animal rights is not growing. I think you
>are confusing it with media atttention which has SEEMED to grow

Clearly it IS growing. Witness the recent birth of this newsgroup!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:13:18 GMT

ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

....
`during the presentation.  He was further told that he could remove his hand
`at any time if we wanted to.  A mere 40 minutes later, the man's hand was a
`deep purple.

`Now imagine if instead of that man's hand, an animal's paw was trapped in the
`"humane" device.

No imagine that the trap was a size too small for an object the size
of a human hand.  And imagine that an animal is going to not be aware of
the trap and thus get his leg positioned differently than a human that was
volunteering.  These "humane" traps were used in the state of Michigan
by the conservations department to catch and study the newly re-introduced
Timber wolf in the U.P.  The traps were left out, and one animal was trapped
and tagged.
The animal had been trapped and tagged with a radio collar.  The trap had
been left overnight, and the animal had in fact spend some time in the trap.
The animal had been trapped only by a couple of toes, and the only physical
harm that had come to the animal during the ordeal was that of some very minor
abrasions the animal had apparently caused while chewing at the trap itself.

The animal was weighed, measured, tagged and released much to the glee of
the conservationists that are interested in furthering the reintroduction
of the Wolf in Michigan....

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, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:14:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.221259.22469@ncar.ucar.edu> chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu writes:

>Rich Young maintains that sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria
>for ethical determinations (if that is not a precise statement of your
>position, please clarify).

	Those aren't the exact words I've been using, but it seems close
	enough at first glance to suffice for any discussion you and I
	might have.

>  He recently posted several alternative biological
>classifications as examples of other possible arbitrary criteria.  I did not
>save the article, but I believe all of the examples differ in that only
>the presence or absence of sentience and sapience determine whether or not
>an organism is capable of suffering and of caring about what happens to
>itself.

	I'm not quite certain of your point, but I'll take a stab at it, and
	you can correct me if I've misinterpreted you.

	First, the list:

	   1. Exothermic vs. endothermic
	   2. Placental vs. non-placental
	   3. Live-bearing vs. egg-laying
	   4. Sexually reproductive vs. asexually reproductive
	   5. Animal vs. plant
	   6. Single-celled vs. multi-celled
	   7. Eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic
	   8. Aerobic vs. anaerobic
	   9. Terrestrial vs. aquatic
	  10. Carnivorous vs. herbivorous

	OK, now if I read you correctly, you equate the presence of
	sentience and sapience with the ability of a living thing to "care"
	what happens to it.  [I apologize if I'm misreading you, but it's
	late, and I'm tired.]  How, then do we judge an amoeba's retreat
	from potentially life-threatening heat and light?  Does it "care"?
	Shall we, therefore, protect it from human predation?

	It would seem that your argument here is similar to that of Russell's
	when he claims that the life of a sentient/sapient creature has
	"meaning".  Russell has, thus far, declined to tell us exactly what
	it is that constitutes "meaning", so that we might apply these
	principles to all non-human species and effect judgement.  Perhaps
	you can help.

	We will assume for the moment that the above premise is correct:
	that a life must have "meaning" to be worthy of human ethical concern.
	Can you tell us what this "meaning" IS, so that we may follow your
	lead and know exactly which lives possess it and which do not?

>Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and conscious
>self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?

	From the standpoint of any non-human species you would care to
	name, sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria for humans to
	use when assigning ethical value to the death of one non-human
	species as opposed to another.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,sci.med.nutrition
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:13:23
	<RIGG.92Oct7165438@osnome.che.wisc.edu> <mhtzdnp@rpi.edu>
In-reply-to: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:16:56 GMT

In article <mhtzdnp@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

   Tim Rigg writes:

   >3)  A bow requires much more dedication and effort which results in a
   >better class of hunters.  ...

   Not a flame, Tim, but I think this would be truer if one said simply
   that *percentage-wise*, bow hunters are more likely to know and
   understand their prey better than gun hunters.  ...

Agreed.  Sorry for the misstatment.

   >There are also benefits to nonhunters:

   [stuff deleted]
   >3) It gives the gun grabbers one less reason to allow guns. (This may
   >not count since a constitutional amendment means so little to them.
   >But that is a debate for another group)

   I'm confused as to what you mean by this, Tim.  I would think that gun
   hunting would be better than bow hunting at *defending* RKBA, since it
   seems to be one of the few "sporting purposes" that remains PC enough
   to preserve what little freedom we have left.  ...

That is my point.  Nearly all of the AR folks that I have met are also
anti-gun folks.  By eliminating hunting with guns, their is one less
reason to allow guns; something most AR folks would like.

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
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:59:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvvHqF.IMG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>"... Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
NIV translation:Matthew 5:21 - "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will
be in danger of the fire of hell."  The context in Matthew was the
discussion of harboring anger so that the phrase would be the equivalent
of the modern perjorative "You asshole!".  The use of "You fool!" today
is much different today, used more descriptively than violently.  Therefore,
the insult is different; i.e. disdain rather than anger is conveyed.
Further, the preceeding verse clarifies it to "anger without cause".
Russell, this simply doesn't apply.
>
>Are you in danger of hell fire, Mike?    Or does "god" make a special
>exception for folks like you who use the term fool "subjectively"?
>
Quite the contrary, Russell.  Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when
people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil
against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is
your reward in heaven ..."

Mary Otto
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:25:37 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct9.165010.18739@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com 
writes:

Ted Robinson writes:
>>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

Rich writes:
> 	You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
> 	the statement above. 

Depends on what you mean by "absolute truth". I believe the statement to be 
true. I believe the vast majority of people in the U.S. believe it to be 
true.  (I'd include all of humanity, but that would be too presumptious for 
one as parochial as I.) Perhaps the phrase "universally recognized truth" 
would be more fitting (a phrase that I stole from the definition of "axiom"). 
 

>  There may well be thousands of people who
> 	do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
> 	inappropriate.
 
Certainly. That's why I first posted the postulate and asked for 
disagreement. I'm searching for common ground here. From your post, I suspect 
you missed the first thread and are coming in on the middle of things. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:28:30 GMT

In <BvvGCx.I12@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Would you object if someone were to inflict unwanted pain on you?

	If it were you, Russ, I would object in the most forceful,
determined, and effective methods possible.  If you had the two letters
"M.D." after your name, my reaction would be fairly benign.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:51:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvpvGF.4Jt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
>rl> be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting 
>rl> hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
>rl> claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.

>From article <1aq3a6INNrp@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
>ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
>ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

>In this case, I suppose you won't have any objection if we expand the
>scope of rights to protect the deer that you wish to kill, as well as
>the witches that you might otherwise wish to kill.    

What an idiot. :-)  Look Russell, I've tired of you and your drivel.  If
you have something interesting to discuss I'll be happy to do so.  But, for
now you have bored me to pieces and I don't feel like wasting any more of
my time responding to stupid questions.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan











Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Halloween
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:26:22 GMT



All this talk about witches brings to mind reported violence against
animals perpetrated around Halloween.

Russell and Alka have said that they know "witches" -- do any of
these witches use animal sacrifice?

I've read newspaper reports that people should be especially careful
to safeguard their cats (especially black cats) around the Halloween
season.  Is there any need for true concern?

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:49:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.143946.26057@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <Bvpwxo.4qv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>
>>Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
>>of the conversation.
>Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.  (Russell can talk about Mike, but
>                     I can't talk about Russell.)
>
>Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
>                     to the point of absurdity.  (The subject was
>                     the use of unfair tactics and the stifling of
>                     debate in a open forum.)
>
>Russell tactic 128:  Assumption based on Russell's self-importance.
>                     (He really thinks this is about him.)
>>
>>Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
>>disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.
>>
>>-- 
>>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
>
>THANKS RUSSELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>YOU JUST DEFINED WHAT YOU WERE DOING TO MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Mary Otto
>
>

This looks like fun. Let's see if I can answer as I expect Russell to, although
probably not as eloquently:

   On the contrary, I was merely trying to understand the basis of Mike's 
belief system. His inability to validate it leads to the inevitable conclusion
that his logic is flawed. 
   The question stands.

Now I'm going to look forward to Russell's response and see if I win anything.

Jeff Achenbach
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fur Insert in New York Times Magazine
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:54:04 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

xx> ...  businesses that sell fur (the majority of which
xx> is ranched) to a market that demands it.

PR> Decreasingly so, thank god. Furriers are going out of business in droves.

SW> Not in my area - THANK GOD!

`` Jindo, whose chairman once declared his intention to make his company
   the `McDonald's of fur', has closed the last of its 40 US stores [...]
   Macy's has also decided to close all fur salons in the east 
   and Evans closed more than 30 locations last year. Other closings
   include Koslow's of Ft. Worth, Leppert Roos of St. Louis [...]
   and the furs salons at Burdine's of Miami. Seattle is nearly
   a fur-free zone since the closing of Alaska Arctic Furs and
   Bon Marche's fur salons left only one fur retailer in town.
   Fabulous furs, a Montreal manufacturer, and Karabelas Furs of
   Manhatten both went bankrupt ... Shelstad Farms of New Effington,
   S.D., called it quits after half a century in the [mink] 
   `ranching' business. ''

- from PETA News, volume 7 number 3. The article also quotes:

     ``Tell any woman that you are a furrier and
       she will blink, take a step backward, and 
       perhaps walk away. We no longer belong to
       the human race.''

          - A furrier in a letter to the "Fur Age Weekly"

[reproduced without permission, but I don't imagine that the publishers
 will mind.]