HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:45:21 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <f0XM02L023ff01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com 
(Ted Robinson) writes:
> Sometime in the last week I read an article about a line of clothing using 
> organic cotton that's going to be distributed through Macy's and Penney's. 
> The main point made was that no dyes are used, but I believe they also said 
> the cotton was organically grown. I may be mistaken on this last point and, 
> unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it.
 
Last night I picked up a magazine and turned to an article on just this 
subject, though not the one I referred to above. In "In Business", ("The 
magazine for environmental entrepreuners"), there's an article about a 
company called Green Cotton Environment. They make clothes using organically 
grown cotton, spin and knit them without "traditional chemicals", sew them 
with organic thread, and print them with soybean inks dyed with nontoxic 
vegetable dyes. 
 
Actually, the company is now called O Wear after being purchased by Vanity 
Fair last January. They project sales of $10 million this year, and will buy 
more than 3 million pounds of organic cotton at almost twice the price of 
cotton grown with standard methods. The article does mention that obtaining 
organic cotton is a bit of a bottleneck, but they've negotiated contracts 
with many growers so that future production should be greater. To further aid 
the bottleneck they're allowing some growers that are new to the business to 
be labeled "transitional organic", meaning they aren't currently using 
unapproved chemicals, but that the standard 3 year waiting period hasn't 
elapsed.
 
The article also mentions that, in terms of acreage under contract, Eco-Sport 
and Esprit each have about as much as O Wear. 

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: Kudo's! (was Don't tell the Anti-Hunters)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:23:58 GMT

motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>Russell uses a set of tactics to wage verbal warfare over the net.
>Currently, he is hunting hunters.  He sets traps.  He tosses little
>bombs (loaded questions).  He impales his victims on sharp insults,
>pointed remarks, and the razor edge of inuendo.  He is vicious.
>He searches for a weakness, a mistake, and pounces.  He wears down
>his quarry until they are driven over the cliff in exhaustion and
>are forced into oblivion.

	Best damn use of metaphor I've seen in years!  If Mary hasn't
yet considered journalistic endeavors, the field of science writing
has many openings for people with such abilities.

	Hey, I'm not making a statement one way or the other on the
validity of the post.  I just thought it very fine prose.

<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: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Diets
Date: 24 Sep 92 03:01:36 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep23.002354.2037@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

> If I "play ball" with you, and agree that animal activists could 
> ethically receive medical treatments that were PARTIALLY developed using 
> animals (analogous to your syphilis example), would you THEN acknowledge 
> that they must refuse those which were developed ENTIRELY using animals?
> 
> Getting back to your unanswered question, I would not refuse such life-
> saving treatment, but I would subsequently forfeit any right to complain 
> about non-consenting human studies.
> 
  
How do you reach these conclusions?  You must use some underlying ethical 
system that's very different from my own.  Can you explain yourself? 


Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: hunters and the Austin debate (one more time)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:24:22 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center


   Don't know why I started thinking about this, but it dawned on me that 
there may be less cohesiveness and general agreement on related issues 
among hunters than among ARs. Some hunt only small game, some large. Some
use only a bow, others rifles and shotguns. Some are trappers. Within this
group there are large differences of opinion as to what is ethical or sporting
behavior. I don't know of a single national group or sportsman who can lay
claim to representing them all, or even a minority. 
   The ARs, on the other hand, appear to be well organized, with nationally
known spokespeople. Is this true or just my perception? 
   It's only in the last year or two that hunters have perceived a threat to
their way of life. Organizing them has just begun. I feel qualified to speak
my own thoughts in this forum, but would not be so confident in presenting 
them as representative of the entire hunting fraternity. 
   Oh well, time to go.

Jeff Achenbach
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:20:38 GMT

From article <1992Sep28.215201.17869@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:45:14 GMT

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

>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.  

	Really, Alka, you don't have to attribute your own text -- I have
a newsreader that takes care of that for me, and if all else fails I can
look at who posted the article.  Given the long threads and many attributes
in most messages on here, it's bound to confuse somebody.

	I note that all the words you use to describe "macho" above are
quite well suited to describing lawyers better than hunters.  If you
can explain this coincidence, I'd like to hear it.  In addition, women
are by far the greatest number who ride horses for pleasure and recreation.
Funny, I always thought dominating and controlling an animal to be quite
a macho thing, especially given your choice of words above.  It looks
as if hunting is no more "manly," given your views, than being a lawyer.

	And no, I won't post a lawyer joke here.

<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: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunters Needed
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:36:26 GMT



Reposted from GEnie with the poster's permission (Jorge Bartow):
 
! NOTICE !    ! NOTICE !    ! NOTICE !    ! NOTICE !    ! NOTICE !
 
 
              HUNTERS and ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTISTS
 
 
      The Fund For Animals invites YOU to the third Bi-Annual
 
 
              TEXAS CONFERENCE FOR THE ANIMALS
 
 
Perhaps your fondest dream:  Get Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle in the
crosshairs for a debate!
 
               SUBJECT:  Sport Hunting
 
 
When:   Friday evening, October 2 at 8:00 P.M.  (Kicking off the
                                                    Conference)
 Where:  Austin, Texas at Red Lion Hotel
 
 
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.
 
If you, or someone you know, would like to take this opportunity to refute
Ingrid and Wayne, please call the South Central Regional Office for the Fund
for Animals at 713-978-6346.
 
 
INTERESTED IN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS EVENT?
 
 
Dates:  October 2, 3, 4
 
Speakers:       Wayne Pacelle, Nat'l Dir, Fund for Animals
                Ingrid Newkirk, Dir., PETA
                Cleveland Amory, President, Fund for Animals
                Jim Mason, author, _Animal_Factories_
                Howard Lyman, Exec. Dir., Beyond Beef Campaign
                Don Barnes, Wash. D.C. Dir., Anti-Vivisection Society
                Paul Watson, Pres., Sea Shepherd
                Kim Sturla, Western Dir., Fund for Animals, and
                        architect, San Mateo Spay/Neuter Ordinance
                Chris DeRose, Pres., Last Chance for Animals
                Carol Adams, author, _The_Sexual_Politics_of_Meat_
                Holly Chever, DVM, veterinarian
                Louise Holton, Alley Cat Allies
                Roger Galvin, Animal Legal Defense Fund
 
MORE INFO?
 
Cost before 9/30 $72.50;  after 9/30 $80
 
This is your opportunity to meet with leaders of the animal rights movement,
network with other advocates and gain knowledge on strategies for success.
Receive critical information on issues including sport hunting; animal
experimentation; farm animals; animals in entertainment; companion animals;
the role of veterinarians and physicians; how gender & racial issues impact
the movement; the feral cat debate; marine mammal issues & the status of
whaling; health & the environment; animals and the law; and more.
 
Meals are absolutely animal-free.
 
Questions:  713-978-6346
 
 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:48:10 GMT

In <BvF1yw.52L@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>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.

>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.

	Are you *sure* it was him, Russ?  I know I made the claim, but
I've not seen the claim made by others.  I'll trust your archives, but
you might want to double-check.

>  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?  

	For the record: Yes, irrellevant.  Hey, we have to have
a control group, don't we?  <sly chuckle>

>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?

	I don't know.  Let's assume no...

>   If not,
>would it be reasonable to conclude that animal experimenters favor
>the continuing use of humans as involuntary research subjects?

	Yes.  See "control group" above.  For more lethal versions,
visit any hospital and ask to see those undergoing experimental
treatment.  It's certain they are not doing it voluntarially, but
rather under the duress of certain death.  It's amazing how noble
people get when they find out they're terminal.

<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: Hunters needed
Date: 5 Oct 1992 14:40:57 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvIK5w.CB4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Mike Linan writes:
>ml> This may be true to some degree in some people but, you could 
>ml> just as easily say that the only way little insecure wimps can 
>ml> attack those "macho" men is to question their motives.  It's 
>ml> pretty sad I think.  Obviously many of you ARFs don't really have 
>ml> a clear understanding of what being a man is all about and feel 
>ml> threatened by those who look and do what men have traditionally 
>ml> done...  

>In article <BvGq1s.Jww@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> You're definitely making progress, Mike.  A few months ago you would have 
>rl> used the label, "perverts", rather than "little insecure wimps". 

>From article <1aiacfINNlk1@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> I am *so* glad I am meeting your approval Russell.  I just can't wait
>ml> for your praise much like the dogs that live with you and love you so.
>ml> I do wonder though, why you are the one most bothered by this "macho"
>ml> "manly" label that you view as some sort of stigma.  You should be more
>ml> at ease with yourself.  If you feel you are not quite as "manly" as you 
>ml> perceive hunters to be, don't let it bother you.  Admit your limitations
>ml> and accept yourself for who and what you are.

>Your advice is excellent, but it's tough for some guys to accept 
>themselves for what they are.  Surely it would be quite an ordeal 
>for a pervert-name-calling, "manly" guy to wake up one day and 
>realize that he's been covering up his biggest fears.  


I really didn't expect you to take my advice no matter how much it
applied to you Russell.   Concerning your perception of my "fears" 
you don't have to worry since you are way off base.  As usual.



>PS.  Don't forget to renew your subscription to those 
>body-building magazines, Mike.  You wouldn't want to miss any of 
>the photos.  


Where do you come up with this stuff Russell.   I think you are just
displaying to the usenet world how twisted and perverted you imagination
is.  Good job Russell old boy.


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



Mike Linan
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:32:10 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.031003.26189@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>about lusting after "brothers and sisters" and about your "non-human
>animals" in your family conjoured up some pretty funny (to me and to
>anybody else who finds a "professor" so full of herself writing so
>sloppily) images of you doing some (in my opinion) unnatural acts of
>"lust" with the "family" (combo bestiality-incest?).

Let me catch you interacting with your companion animal, if you have
one, and most of your actions will look quite funny and unnatural to
me too. Remember, the person doing the cuddling wiht the animal is
always the last one to see how lacking in social grace that action
actually is. By the time she/he notices, it usually is too late.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:50:21 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>But has enough long term, global information been counted to make a truly
>>accurate assessment of game over say, the next decade?  If you look at short-
>>term, small area predictions, even the weatherman can do good.  But if he
>>tries to extrapolate a few months along, he will probably fail.

John S. Van Etten writes:
>The point here is that game management doesn't need to assess things
>in the long term.  A year-to-year basis works fine.  If the target
>population for a given track of land is, say, 1000 deer and the
>wildlife people count 3127 deer on it during the Spring, they can
>issue enough permits to cull the 2127 surplus (statistically, with the
>corresponding errors).  If they go out and count 49 deer, there will
>be no season until the population builds up.  Note -- we're all well
>aware that these counts are estimates taken from smaller samples, and
>all that, but they are quite accurate (I believe the NYS DEC brags
>about being +/-7% in each Deer Management Unit while estimating
>required and actual doe takes to maintain a given population).

Let's take a look at your hypothetical case of 49 deer.  What happened to
decrease the population to that level?  More than likely a harsh winter,
or poor summer, causing starvation along with a population held as closely
to 1000 as the DNR specified.  We are now down to 49.  Suppose the harsh
conditions prevail for a second year?  How many of the 49 are left now?
And if the droughts continue through a third year?

Perhaps an overpopulation of animals during years of abundant vegetation
guarantees plenty of the healthiest animals will survive the lean years.
I don't know for sure.  

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunters needed
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:10:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu



Subject: Re: Hunters Needed

In article <BvGq1s.Jww@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1afkduINN7d7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> This may be true to some degree in some people but, you could 
>ml> just as easily say that the only way little insecure wimps can 
>ml> attack those "macho" men is to question their motives.  It's 
>ml> pretty sad I think.  Obviously many of you ARFs don't really have 
>ml> a clear understanding of what being a man is all about and feel 
>ml> threatened by those who look and do what men have traditionally 
>ml> done...  

>You're definitely making progress, Mike.  A few months ago you would have 
>used the label, "perverts", rather than "little insecure wimps". 


I am *so* glad I am meeting your approval Russell.  I just can't wait
for your praise much like the dogs that live with you and love you so.
I do wonder though, why you are the one most bothered by this "macho"
"manly" label that you view as some sort of stigma.  You should be more
at ease with yourself.  If you feel you are not quite as "manly" as you 
perceive hunters to be, don't let it bother you.  Admit your limitations
and accept yourself for who and what you are.


>How's that body-building program coming along, BTW?   

Now Russell, are you really concerned or is there some other point to 
the question.  Well to be honest, it's going quite well.  Are there 
any other aspects of my life you feel compelled to ask about in this
public forum?  Oh don't worry Russell, I have nothing to be ashamed of
and you certainly don't think I am ashamed of my bodybuilding do you?
Just remember that I make no promises to answer any of you questions.
It's a personal thing.  You understand.


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


Mike Linan



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:28:31 GMT

motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>Alka, you may not like my sense of humor but I really cracked up when I
>read your posts.  This one as well as the last one.  Your comments above
>about lusting after "brothers and sisters" and about your "non-human
>animals" in your family conjoured up some pretty funny (to me and to
>anybody else who finds a "professor" so full of herself writing so
>sloppily) images of you doing some (in my opinion) unnatural acts of
>"lust" with the "family" (combo bestiality-incest?).  Keep posting, Doc.
>You're funnier than reruns of Sledge Hammer.

>Mary Otto

Always picking up on the salient points of the discussion, Mary.  Keep it up.
Let me humor you a little more:  what the hell is Sledge Hammer?  ("Naturally, I
don't own a television set", she added, with the smug enjoyment of being full ofherself).  If I have a future as a comedienne, I want to know what my com-
petition is.  And more:  I may be a sloppy writer, but I'm certainly not into
bestiality.  Is bisexuality a problem for you? 

alka

alka 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:20:20 GMT

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?  

Are you better than a cow?

> ...
ry> Am I not simply another creature with an atavistic instinct
ry> to survive?  ...

rl> Not really.  You don't need to eat cows to survive.

ry> What kind of an answer is that?  It's a complete non-sequitur!  I
ry> ask whether I'm just another creature and you respond with, "You
ry> don't need cows to survive?!?"

Does the term "reductionism" mean anything to you?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Animal Testing
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:26:42 GMT

In article <viking.717312901@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
Sorenson) writes:
> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> 
> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 
> >>	Ballistics, specifically with wound channel measurements taken
...

Impressive.
It is to hope that some day we have an equivalent knowledge of
how to save lifes.
Yes, this knowlegde may help victims to die with less pain.
But most of them are killed by a bad shot.
And as always. I suppose, nobody tried to test with dummies.

>	Golly, none of this could apply to humans, could it?  I suppose
>you see a dog get run over by a car and determine that it's not relevant
>to you until you see a human run over by a car too?

A dog is eg. smaller than a human. The impact is of another quality.
To find out more reliable results I think you should study accidents with
humans and test with dummies. And as the first step, limit speed.
Then design better/safer cars. There is no reason for tests with dogs.

With regards,
Udo.