HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:32:40 GMT

In article <1gnq55INNqjv@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) wrote:
> 
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> 
> >It is also noteworthy that Taub was also unanimously exhonorated by the
> >Ethics Committee of the Americal Physiological Society
> 
> Big deal.  The APS and its so-called "Ethics Committee" hardly
> constitute an objective unbiased fountain of wisdom on
> animal testing ethics.

Who would you consider unbiased?  APS owed Taub nothing, and it would have
served their purpose equally well if they had condemned him.

BTW, this was not a case of animal "testing" ethics.  I previously taught
you the difference between animal testing & research.  Did you forget?
 
> If you consider this "noteworthy" it doesn't say much
> for the rest of your arguments.

Why is that?  I provided references to support my arguments.  Check them
out yourself.

> But you could sway me a bit on this if you can cite
> any cases where the APS Ethics Committee actually sided
> against an animal research on an ethics charge.

I do not think that any evidence could sway you Steve.  You would cry
"foul!" whether or not scientists attempted to police their own.  I
seriously doubt if anything short of total abolition would please you.

Would you attempt to answer a question that Russell continues to evade?

How would you change the _status quo_ to provide for the interests of human
and non-human animals?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:54:41 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> As an example, I will permit you to again evade a list of my questions:

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're confused.  There's quite a difference between the desire of a
rl> man to evade questions that he cannot answer, and the desire of a 
rl> man who doesn't wish to waste his time answering stupid questions
rl> or time-consuming questions that he considers uninteresting at the 
rl> moment.

Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> I believe that I am asking pertinent questions.  If you feel that 
mh> my questions are "stupid" or "uninteresting," rather than simply 
mh> damaging to your point of view, please indicate which ones and 
mh> why.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'd say that your groundless conjectures about my alleged 
rl> presence at an AR debate in Athens, Georgia, were an excellent 
rl> example of sheer stupidity.  If you think those conjectures were 
rl> damaging to my "point of view", as opposed to your credibility as 
rl> a "scientist", dream on.   If you want to engage in flights of
rl> fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
rl> your pretentious suppositions.

From article <1992Dec19.180530.14926@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> You are really paranoid Russell.  

Not really.  

gp> Martin, wrote me an e-mail message about a month ago.  (I know 
gp> standard practice is not to post exchanges in e-mail.  But, I 
gp> don't think Martin will mind.) In the message he mentioned that 
gp> he might have met you before at the debates.  He said nothing 
gp> derogatory about the person he met or the debates in general.  He 
gp> simply thought that it would have been an interesting twist of 
gp> fate to have met you there and then here.  That's all.  I would 
gp> be interested to know if that person I met a few years ago was 
gp> Ted, Robert, Ro or Martin.  Its just a little natural curiosity.  
gp> Relax Russell.  Not everyone here is out to get you 
gp> intellectually.  Just me.  

Did you bother to read Martin's comment above?  To wit: "I 
believe that I am asking pertinent questions." Martin obviously 
considered his conjecture to be "pertinent" to the major issues, 
yet you're now claiming that his interest was merely idle 
curiosity.  You're right, of course, yet Martin saw fit to include 
the "Athens" question on his list of "pertinent" questions that 
I've allegedly "evaded".   

As I said, if you and Martin wish to waste your time engaging in 
fanciful conjectures about whether I was or wasn't in Athens, 
Georgia, it's fine with me, but it's kinda stupid for you to 
accuse me of evasiveness simply because I choose not to reply to 
such silliness.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.220200.21643@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) wrote:
> 
> 
> There is a usenet convention of not publishing received email.
> An exception to this courtesy arises when the sender has foreknowledge
> that the sendee will make email public.
> 
> 1)  I will post at my discretion email received by me from
> Martin Hulsey or Russell Lawrence to t.p.a.
> 
> 2)  However, should I receive from either gentleman email strictly
> limited to the following information:
> 
> a)  Undergraduate Degree(s), Institution(s), Concentration(s) of Study
> b)  Graduate Degree(s), Institution(s), Concentration(s) of Study
> 
> under no condition will said information be posted to t.p.a until
> such time that I am in receipt of said confidential information from
> both gentlemen.  Any information extraneous to point #2 a) and b)
> included in email listing credentials will be posted to t.p.a as per
> point #1 above.
> 
> Under no condition will I communicate via email or any other form with
> Martin Hulsey or Russell Lawrence.
> 
> Furthermore, and most important, should I not be in receipt of
> aforementioned confidential information from one or both of the
> gentlemen by Friday, December 11, 1992 at 15 hundred hours GMT my
> participation in this matter is closed.  Under no circumstances will
> I ever divulge whether one gentleman responded, or neither.  Finally,
> should only one gentleman respond to point #2 a) and b), his credentials
> remain irrevocably confidential.
> 
> 
> :

I thank Dr. Hoskins for attempting to end this silly quarrel.  For the
benefit of those who are curious, I e-mailed my credentials to Dr. Hoskins
twice.  It was Russell who failed to provide his.  It is Russell who
persists in this point, for I would have dropped it long ago.  I will drop
it now if Russell will let me.

As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
evades questions posed here.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.041043.14450@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.192744.29056@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>Is it because the consequences of actions can effect others the reasons
>rights and laws were developed?

Sounds reasonable to me.

>>> rb>Rights derive from one's ability to be affected by the actions of
>>> rb>others.  
>>> 
>gp>> Because of one's ability to be affected by the actions of others, rights
>gp>> were invented.
>gp>> Rights are derived from a set of moral and legal codes.
>>
>rb>But since rights originate from one's ability to be affected by the
>rb>actions of others, shouldn't we make these legal codes apply to other
>rb>creatures who can be affected in the ways we humans can be affected?
>
>But then how do we hold these animals accountable for the infringement on
>our rights?  ...

We don't hold these animals accountable because they don't meet the 
criteria for having responsibilities (i.e. they're not moral agents).

>...You state above and below that responsibilities are
>intimately
>involved with one ablity to understand the consquences of actions.  
>How can we give rights to animals when they can not be responsible for
>their own actions?    

We can give them (some) rights because they pass the criteria for having
rights (i.e. they're moral objects, like children and retarded humans).

>>> 
>>> rb>Responsibilities derive from one's ability to affect others by one's
>>> rb>actions and to understand the consequences on others of these actions. 
>
>                                      Greg
>
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:08:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.214746.4074@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

[...]

>First, of all discussion of diluting the gene pool as a result of
>increased health do to medical research is irrelivant in cases other than
>genetically transmitted diseases.
>It is possible that increases in a maladaptive gene could weaken the gene
>pool.  however, as long as the technolog,y that permitted the
>first generation to pass the gene to the second generation, persisted the
>effects of the "bad gene" on the gene pool would be neglegable.  As
>technology would would still be able to correct the defect.

	Hm-m-m-m.  I wonder about this.  You certainly make a good point,
	and one I hadn't previously considered, but what about things like
	myopia, or allergies?  Sure, we have the technology to correct
	these "flaws," but is it not true that these traits, without our
	technology, are maladaptive?  Are we to become a species dependent
	on our ability to correct genetic defects for the survival of every 
	individual?  Don't get me wrong, I run to the local MD whenever I
	get bronchitis just like the next guy, rather than test my genetic
	strength against that of the pathogen, but I do wonder, sometimes,
	whether, in the long run, we've actually done ourselves any favors,
	evolutionarily speaking.

	If we continue this, we might want to go to e-mail or move to 
	sci.med, since it has little to do with animal rights.  I don't
	much care whether you leave it here or not, so I'll leave it up
	to you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:11:09 GMT

From article <viking.724569756@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> In <BzDFEo.Mu@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>Pagan dancer???  Please define the meaning of this term, and 
>>explain why you think it's relevant to an intellectual discussion.  
> 
> 	Reprinted in my .sig, with permission, is the quote.  Its
> relevance and definition is all too clear to those who remember it
> was made in reply to you.

Hmm.  It's not quite as clear as the phrase "numb-nuts" that 
someone used to label you the other day, after you told a guy 
from Japan to go read "his" US Constitution.  What exactly is 
a "pagan dancer"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Give Animals Voting Rights
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:30:39 GMT


Yep thats right, give animals the right to vote.
They could have done a better job than the American public did in  
November.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:20:25 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?

Mike Linan writes:
ml> You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
ml> mention above would you Russell?  ...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do you truly agree with Rich's claim that _all_ behavior is 
rl> selfishly motivated?

From article <1gtbfuINN83j@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Answer my question Russell.  I will not continue in a discussion with you
ml> while you ignore my questions and answer them with your own questions.  
ml> Play by the rules Russell.

Yes, I'd probably put Jesus in that category, but he's certainly 
not alone.  Your bible recounts the adventures of a number of 
individuals who suffered tremendously while pursuing goals that 
I would describe as altruistic.   Would you agree with Rich that
the behavior of every single one of them was selfishly motivated?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: AHA Abuse Studies
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:39:11 GMT

ANIMAL CRUELTY; CHILD ABUSE
 
 
A newly published resume of research on the correlation between child and
animal abuse, compiled by the American Humane Association, confirms the
long suspected relationship between abuse of animals and violence toward
humans.  Among the major findings: 
 
   152 criminals studied by Alan Felthous and Stephen
   Kellert reported having committed 373 atrocities to animals
   during childhood.  Most of the criminals came from violent homes.
 
Researchers Elizabeth Deviney, Jeffrey Dickert, and Randall Lockwood
discovered that among 57 families being treated by the New Jersey Division
of Youth and Family Service in connection with child abuse, 88% of those
in which children had been physically abused had also been involved in
animal abuse.  Two-thirds of the time, an abusive parent killed or injured
an animal to discipline a child.  One third of the time, a child took out
hostility by abusing an animal.
 
Researcher Michael Robin and three colleagues found that "a high
proportion of delinquent adolescents (34%) had owned pets to which they
were closely attached, but which had been killed by a parent or guardian."
The investigators also found that parents had killed the pets of 12% of
the non-delinquent youths in their study.  The parental animal-killing was
deliberate in 20% of the cases involving delinquent youths; 10% of the
cases involving non-delinquents. Robin et al further discovered that 17%
of the delinquents reported having abused their pets themselves, compared
with only 10% of the non-delinquents.
 
Other studies cited by the AHA reported that "Adult sexual homicide
perpetrators who report being sexually abused as children report higher
rates of childhood animal cruelty (58%) than perpetrators not reporting
animal abuse (15%)"; that "in 60% to 80% of families where the male hits
the female there will also be abuse of children"; and that "A study of 37
adults diagnosed with disassociation disorders noted that all of them
reported witnessing animal mutilations or killing as part of their own
childhood abuse experiences."
 
     Copies of the AHA resume are available from Cathy Rosenthal or Carol
Moulton, c/o the AHA, 63 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112.
 
 =================================================================
 : AmNet News Service, HQ....BBS/FAX 303/680-7791 FIDO 1:104/539 :
 : AmNet Denver Node.............BBS.303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 :
 : AmNet New York City Node......BBS.212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 :
 : 16056 E. Columbia Pl. * Aurora, CO * 80013 Voice 303/680-9011 :
 :             james.cherry@f536.n104.z1.fidonet.org             :
 =================================================================
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:33:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.172214.2797@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Rob
erts) writes:
>
>But springing the traps *is* constructive action. The most "weenie" thing
>I have yet seen on this newsgroup is Karl saying "I am forwarding your
>posts to the authorities".

Agreement there.

>Sure, campaigning to have trapping made illegal is a better long-term
>solution. In them meantime, springing the traps is the right thing to
>do, even if it is against the law.

Karl also said that the animals caught in his traps are usually sleeping
when he arrives on the scene.  He made trapping sound pretty benign.
Why not question him on that, or present counter evidence that trapping
is no good.  I know practically nothing about trapping--do you know
more than I do?

1) If you are advocating illegally springing the traps, why are you not
advocating just plain stealing the traps.  The trapper will just reset
the trap, n'est-ce pas, if found in the woods sprung?

2)  Suppose you are in the Yukon territory of Canada on vacation.  While
hiking you come across a trapper's traps.  You have a general sense that
the people indiginous to this area and this person in particular may base
his/her livlihood on the animals caught and killed in these traps.  Would
you steal the traps?



:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:55:14 GMT

In article <BzDq03.3qy@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> mh> Is it fallacious to deny that a given speaker supports animal "rights" 
> mh> when they have proclaimed that they do?
> 
> It's fallacious to use equivocal definitions of the term "animal rights"
> in order to mislead an argument, Martin.

Would you mind answering my question?  Should I add it to "the list?"
  
> Would you mind specifying the precise german term that was used in order
> to proclaim such support?

This will be forthcoming upon translation.  I, too, am keenly interested in
this point.
> 
> mh> Also, the Nazis were not "allegedly" opposed to vivisection.  They
> mh> *outlawed* vivisection.  Why don't you check out the Arluke & Sax article
> mh> that I cited?
> 
> "Vivisection", as practiced in the 30's, has also been outlawed here
> in the United States.   Surely you're not a proponent of such practices?

I never implied such.  Please examine the Arluke & Sax article.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Subject: Shedd/Dolphin Alert
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:38:38 GMT

Shedd/Dolphin Alert

Dolphin Project
Joy Pote-Stanford, Director/Midwest Chapter
P.O. Box 623
Orland Park, IL  60462
Voice: 708/403-1462
Fax:   708/403-5510
 
URGENT!   URGENT!     ACTION ALERT!    URGENT!   URGENT!
 
Informed, reliable sources tell us the Shedd Aquarium plans to
capture the three additional Pacific white-sided dolphins
under Permit #643 issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, which is to expire December, 1993.
 
In September 1992 the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration designated the area where the captures are to
occur a national marine sanctuary, the area being Monterey
Bay, California.  In expressing his pleasure at the
designation, 18th District Representative Leon E. Panetta
says:  "It is my hope that the Monterey sanctuary designation
will provide the Bay's marine mammals with a healthy refuge."
 
Since the captures are scheduled to begin _any day_, it is
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that we express our outrage and demand the
revocation of the Shedd's permit to capture in a designated
refuge for marine mammals.  Claiming to be conservationists,
the Shedd Aquarium should voluntarily surrender this Permit to
NMFS for revocation.
 
PLEASE WRITE AND FAX AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO:
 
Mr. Michael F. Tillman, Ph.D.
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA
1335 East-West Highway, Room #7324
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Fax #301/713-2313
 
Please carbon copy Ms. Ann Terbush, same number; and also Mr.
John Twiss, Executive Director, Marine Mammal Commission, Fax
#202/606-5510.
 
Also, if you know of _anyone_ who would be interested in
getting this permit revoked, please forward this ACTION ALERT
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.154508.20261@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) wrote:
>
>[...]
> 
> What is so interesting, however, about Russell is the extent to which
> he seems to need to shroud himself in mystery.  It, and he, is
> intriguing!

Russell has picked up little personal tidbits about me here & there such as
where I got my degree and my area of study.  He has attempted to use this
information against me in his arguments.  My guess is that he fears the
same treatment.

It is most curious to me that he *so afraid* to admit whether or not he
visited Athens, Georgia last April for a PETA debate.  What possible harm
could come from that?  Perhaps he has something to hide.

Following the debate, I discussed animal "rights" issues with a bright
young fellow, approximately 25 years of age, with slim build, fair
complexion and dark hair.

This fellow argued vociferously about the NCI abandoning animal screens. 
He brought up the tragedy that occurred with Thalidomide.  A few months
later, after I became a usenet participant, I see Russell giving identical
lines of argument to Bob Straubinger.  It was more than identical lines of
argument; the wording this mysterious fellow used sounded uncannily like
Russell's syntax.

Later, when I suggested that few, if any, scientists supported animal
"rights," the mysterious fellow gave Neal Barnard as a counterexample. 
Deja vu.

I am so sorry that I did not ask this mysterious stranger his name.  I
suppose I must remain forever puzzled about whether this mysterious
stranger was Russell Lawrence, because the equally mysterious Russell will
probably never provide the answer.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals