HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:33:04 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:

>>The public is invited to this event.  However, as of this posting, no one has
>>stepped forward to take them on in public - _even_ after a comprehensive
>>search.  Furthermore, several hunting advocates have backed out of the debate
>>after first accepting the invitation.

	I smell a set-up.  What's the catch we're not hearing?

>If Nugent believes his message "works like magic," then why does he refuse to
>participate in the FoA debate?  It's certainly not because he's going to be
>busy bowhunting that day.

	Why don't you ask Ted -- I'm sure he will be more than willing to
give you his opinion with great gusto.

>Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?

	I smell a biased rat.  What's the protocol for the debate, and is
there a moderator?  Open forum?  Prepared questions? 

>I'll be in Austin for the Conference and for the debate, so I can post a
>followup as to whether any of those ~700 noble, level-headed hunters could
>muster the conviction and the courage to stand up to a bunch of gullible,
>Bambi-worshipping vegetarians.

	I'm sure it will be an unbiased report, too.  I'll be waiting to
see your report, and also look in on the media coverage if there is any.

>  My guess is that the hunters will prove
>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.

	I suggest you tell this to Ted's face -- he's sure to ask you if
you have displayed any courage lately.  While there is a fine line between
courage and stupidity, AR folks don't have a lock on the market, and would
furthermore do well to remember the exploits of many couragous people who
also happened to be hunters and meat-eaters.

	Strange, I don't recall a single Medal of Honor recipient who
was a vegetarian, yet all were hunters.  Can you explain this?

<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: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunting Debate Misunderstanding
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:59:08 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:



`I believe there seems to be some misunderstanding about the
`Fund for Animals Conference and the proposed debate between
`Ingrid Newkirk/Wayne Pacelle and any hunting apologists that
`wish to appear.

Apologists?  I don't apologize for something that is legal and
natural.

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.
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep30.212719.4501@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> What about the part you deleted?  This "military standard" is not 
> *really* a counterpart to AWA regulations.  There is no layperson on the 
> committee that approves such development. 

The AWA doesn't require a layperson to approve proposals. It says that one 
committee member should be non-affiliated (with the institution), but doesn't 
prevent stacking the committee with affiliated members. As a result, the non-
affiliated member may vote against every single protocol, with no effect. 
That is, this person need never approve a proposal. Furthermore, the non-
affiliated member is not required to be a "layperson".
   
>There is no requirement to 
>prove that similar work has not been done before.

Theoretically you need to make sure your work doesn't infringe on anyone 
else's patents. In practice this is rarely done, unless you apply for a 
patent yourself. Similarly, an animal researcher theoretically verifies that 
his/her proposal is not redundant. It's difficult for the committee itself to 
verify this, though, so it often relies on the word of the researcher. As a 
result, the level of diligence applied to this search is likely to vary from 
person to person. You'd know better than I how thorough these searches are at 
your institution. 

>The proposals are not 
> made public under FOIA.
> 

If they use public funds and aren't classified, wouldn't they fall under 
FOIA? Similarly, I'd think that privately funded animal protocols would NOT 
be subject to FOIA. Either way, does this really consistute much red tape for 
a researcher?
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Shedd Beluga Update
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:02:11 GMT


Shedd Beluga Update

According to a report on WBBM-TV (CBS) news in Chicago, Dr. Jeff Boehm, the
veterinarian who injected two beluga whales with medication for the
treatment of parasites the day they died, was practicing medicine without a
valid state license.  The 30-year-old veterinarian has been working as the
Shedd's chief veterinarian since April of this year.
 
The Shedd claims the Department of Professional Regulations was notified
when Dr. Boehm came to Illinois from California where he was previously
practicing, and was informed on more than occasion by the agency that he had
until October to file his paperwork.
 
Joe Haughey, a representative from the Department of Professional
Regulations, stated no one from their office ever told Boehm he had until
October to apply for a license. "The statue requires that a person have a
valid state license prior to engaging in the practice of veterinary
medicine."  Haughey said the first time they heard from Boehm was last week,
four days after the whales died.
 
The Illinois Department of Professional Regulations states he's breaking the
law and Boehm could face criminal charges.
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:19:01 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:

>Then show up and set us straight.  I'll bet very few of you hunters have the
>slightest idea of what the animal rights movement is all about 

It's very clear what the animal rights movement is all about.  It's advertised
daily here and on other electronic services, and in all the other propaganda
that the 'movement' distributes.  Very simply put, the Animal Rights Movement
is a systematic effort to force the rest of society to abide by a narrow-
minded world view of a tiny minority of humanity.  This will be achieved by
wresting the few remaining rights away from the people who cherish freedom
most.  The AR movement doesn't give a southbound rat's north end what effect
they may have on the lives of other people, because to them, people are scum,
and should be extinct.  The self-hatred of the animal rights activist is very
clear, and very frightening.

>>>Oh well Jennifer, you hit the nail on the head.  I'm sure I speak for all
>>>hunters when I say we are just terrified at the thought of such a test 
>>>with ol Ingrid and Wayne.  :-)  

>If no hunter shows up at the debate, lots of folks will believe just that,
>that out of all the hunters in the state of Texas (and elsewhere), not one
>has the testicular fortitude to argue for the pro-hunting side.  Pretty sad.

Seeing as the 'lots of folks' who will believe that ALREADY DO BELIEVE IT, 
what's the point?  Tell ya what - someday when you've got nothing better to
do, wander down to the airport, find a Moonie, and try to talk them into a 
life of Born-Again Christianity.  After a few minutes, you'll know just what
it's like to talk to an AR whacko. 

>I honestly don't know how anyone could deliberately and needlessly take the
>life of an animal and "go on."  I know I couldn't.

Then don't.  Don't go into the woods and shoot a deer, into the marsh and
shoot a duck, don't knife a wild boar. 

I honestly don't know how anyone could deliberately and needlessly remove the
rights of another human being and "go on".  I know I couldn't.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:59:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



In article <BvKn6w.1Kz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>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.


Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  
 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan










Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:13:38 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So what you're saying is that your "god" apparently changed his mind
rl> and is now more tolerant of the thoughts and feelings of people who
rl> don't think the way you think.   When did this occur, BTW?  To the
rl> best of my knowledge, christians were burning and hanging witches 
rl> well into the 17th century.   Now if it's true that "god" no longer
rl> encourages witch-killing, is it possible that "god" has also changed
rl> his mind about the ways we (mis)treat animals?

From article <1aia83INNlj2@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> You read the Bible and make your own conclusions Russell.  It is not
ml> up to me to tell you what the Bible says.  Your interpretation may be
ml> different.  However, you are in no position to tell me my interpretations
ml> are incorrect.

Perhaps.  Would you be tolerant of someone who wishes to hang 
protestant heretics or burn witches in the name of "god"?  Would 
you be in a position to say that their interpretations are 
incorrect?  

If "god" changed his mind when he wrote, "Thou shalt not suffer a 
witch to live", isn't it possible that he's changed his mind 
about our callous mistreatment of thinking/feeling animals?  

If there is an afterlife, as you seem to believe, perhaps the 
accomodations set aside for deer hunters-in-the-name-of-god 
aren't that far removed from witch hunters-in-the-name-of-god.  

-- 
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 18:21:07 GMT



This is what I asked.
*******************************

In article <1992Oct2.160107.15018@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>Back to hunters hunting hunters.  I asked if you felt it was an
>"idiotic" assertion:
>
>agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>>jh> I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion: is the assertion
>>jh> that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting
>>jh> challenges to the conclusion of hunting another hunter (due to
>>jh> the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?
>>
>>On the whole, I don't have much respect for labels like "idiotic",
>>especially when they're tossed about by a man who claims that it'd
>>be ok for him to kill humans who don't share his own religious
>>beliefs.
>>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
>
>
>Do you have an opinion on "hunters hunting hunters"?  I'm not asking
>you if it's an "idiotic" assertion (frame your answer as you wish),
>how it relates to ML's religious faith or what color socks he
>wears.  What do you think?  The challenge here is to see if you
>believe you're the reincarnation of Socrates.  You seem  usually to
>answer questions in the form of another question.

This is the response I received:
********************************

In article <BvIE04.A1q@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>jh> Back to hunters hunting hunters.  I asked if you felt it was an
>jh> "idiotic" assertion:

>
>And I explained my contention that the use of labels like "idiotic" is
>usually inappropriate and uninformative.
>
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


This is my final question:
********************************
I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion: is the assertion
that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting
challenges to the conclusion of hunting another hunter (due to
the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?

Do you have an opinion on "hunters hunting hunters"?  I'm not asking
you if it's an "idiotic" assertion (frame your answer as you wish) or
how it relates to ML's religious faith.  What do you think?  If you
don't want to answer the question, fine.  I'll leave you alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:57:07 GMT

In article <BvD4ty.1Ft@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>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.
>
>Your command of the historical facts is somewhat faulty.   Ever heard
>of William Jennings Bryan?  

	[Sigh] I __KNEW__ I should have looked it up...you're right, of
	course, I _did_ mean Bryan.  On the other hand, you clearly knew
	what I meant, so the point was adequately made.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:42:21 GMT

James M Hoskins writes:

>Can you envision a time where public opinion would be so strongly 
>anti-hunting that the notion that hunters have a constitutional
>right to hunt would not be supported?

Just as a point of information, the 2nd Amendment (RKBA) isn't about
hunting -- rather, it's about freedom from oppressive government and
the right to defend oneself against criminals (something the police
aren't required to do).

To answer your other question (which I accidentally deleted), the
second the AR folk can muster 50 + epsilon percent of the vote, they
will take hunters like Grant took Richmond (if they can).  There is no
"gee, we should be nice and just let hunting die out" sentiment on the
part of any that I know (at least the honest ones -- no offense to
anyone in this forum).  And that's to be expected.  They consider
owning animals to be slavery, and hunting to be murder, so getting rid
of it completely would be just like you or me saying Jeffrey Dahmer
should be locked up.  If nothing else, such feelings on their part are
at least consistent.


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"--
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:42:37 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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?)

Does Desert Storm count as "one time" or "500,000 times" for the
purposes of your statistic (somwehere around half a million servicemen
involved, right)?    :-)
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:02:57 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>In <Bv5tGE.Eux@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>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.

>	Since you seem to be asking for information here, let me give
>my biased opinions for the above.  First, hunting is a manly sport
>not because of any actions required therein, but mainly because so
>few women seem to partake in it.  Competetive sewing would be seen as
>a feminine sport for the same reasons, and these are societal, not
>hormonal, based.  The same can be said for automobile racing, tractor
>pulls, mud drags, and even competetive shooting.  None of these
>sports require strength that many women do not have compared to men,
>but for some reason the interest is not there.  This also shows up
>in academia, where female engineers are a notable minority.


ac> I think there's a dichotomy in the understanding of the word "manly" here.
ac> My understanding of the word coincides with Russell's - there's an impli-
ac> cation of "macho", "tough" & perhaps, "aggressive".  We may say that in
ac> academia, engineering is a "male dominated" discipline, but we don't say
ac> that it's a "manly" thing to go into engineering.  The implications are
ac> totally different.  

	alka
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:24:04 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion:  is the assertion
>that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting challenges
>to the conclusion of hunting another hunter
>(due to the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?

	I've not seen Russell's response yet, but I'd like to interject
that it is not stupid, and is in fact quite necessary.  Just what do you
think bounty hunters, police, soldiers, and the like to every day?  They
hunt hunters, though we call the hunters killers as a matter of semantics.
One million times per year US citizens thwart crimes by the use of a
firearm, which is essentially hunting the hunters.  Furthermore, it wasn't
until two of our early government officials (I believe Hamilton was one)
were killed in a duel that dueling became illegal; isn't dueling the
ultimate in hunting the hunter?

	Stupid and idiotic applies as a judgement based upon a risk
analysis by the individual.  If it were based entirely upon the
probability of death, we'd all have reactors in our back yards,
no cars in our driveways, and an assault rifle in every home.

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:30:23 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Did the comment, "What an idiot", address the issue?  

From article <1ad03iINNhtq@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Did it need to?  Wouldn't any reasonable person have immediately 
ml> identified the comment as an opinion and not an argument.  You 
ml> want to see what you want to see so bad that it blinds you to the 
ml> obvious.  

What purpose was served by your comment?     Did the label, "idiot",
have any meaning?  Or, was it just a thoughtless insult?

rl> I realize that's his opinion.  What I don't understand is how/why
rl> a man who considers the killing of witches to be perfectly 
rl> reasonable would turn around and declare the hunting of hunters to
rl> be "idiotic".

ml> Perhaps Russell will be nice and honest enough to explain why he feels I
ml> consider the killing of witches reasonable and why he is so hung up on
ml> this.

In a previous thread, you mentioned that you consider every 
statement in the bible to be the literal word of god.  Doesn't 
the bible say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?  Is it 
ethically ok for you to kill someone if you think "god" has told 
you to do so?  

ml> Russell has misrepresented my views before.  He has lied about me 
ml> before and generally displayed a penchant for misleading, 
ml> dishonest posts IMO.  Therefore, it does not surprise me to see 
ml> his try to discredit me with the kind of crap you see above.  

Please clarify your views if you think I've misrepresented you.

Would you mind if I post a few of your email comments that touch 
on the alleged rights of your "god" versus the rights of 
"godless" human beings who don't share your beliefs?  Perhaps it 
would help clear up some of my "misrepresentations".  

BTW, are you still hoping that "god" will ask you to "bust" my ribs?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:44:00 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <9209281736.AA19442@super.super.org>, wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

> Meals are absolutely animal-free.

No wonder there aren't any hunters going.  :-)
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:44:48 GMT

In article <BvD8As.2It@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
lots deleted
This post also deals with the Russell vs. Mike "witch" issue.
>If you're going to argue that hunting is a "definitive" characteristic
>of our species, don't you think you have an obligation to evaluate
>contrary evidence?

Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.
                     (Example:  opponents have an obligation to evaluate
                      contrary evidence but Russell can maintain from
                      reading 8 words of the Bible that Christians have
                      an obligation to kill witches.)

Challenge for Russell:  Show evidence that a witch is human.

Mary Otto

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals