HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Detroit News/Free Press Quote of the Week
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:41:27 GMT

Taken from last weekends Detroit News/Free Press

[] QUOTE OF THE WEEK:  Clinton campaign manager James Carville, the Ragin'
Cajun, is unapologetic after criticism by animal rights groups of an
inaugural party he threw featuring spicy alligator sausage.  "Eating
alligators is better than being eaten by them," he said.  "If it makes
the PC people mad it makes me happy.  Tell them to meet me at the Palm
(a Washington eatery known for its hearty helping of red meat) for a steak."



swood

-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:30:42 GMT
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL

In article <C1J52z.HI6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[snip]
>I'm in favor of spay and neuter laws that would greatly reduce 
>the number of homeless animals [...]

Doesn't this interfere with the animals' "right" to reproduce?


+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                                     |
| NRA               ILA |      "...to disarm the people (is) the best         |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |      and most effective way to enslave them..."     |
|                       |      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380         |
|                       |                                                     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:26:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1BtED.JEo@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>If you really believe that it takes more plants to feed vegetarians
>than humans, please explain why the governments in starving countries
>don't resolve their problems by simply growing more cattle.

Simple, the reason that people in africa have been starving for the past 10
years is that the land they live on is now a desert.  Some will try to
claim that it is a desert because of overgrazing but that theory is easily
discounted by countless geological surveys that reveal that the desert has
been expanding and receeding cyclically for eons.  

Even if they didnt live in a desert then the reason that starving people
would want to grow grain is that starvation is an immediate problem that
causes a noticable reduction in the work force.  It only takes a few months
to grow a grain from seed to flour but to build up a herd takes years.  Its
not that these governments agree with you Russ, its that they want to end
their problem as quickly as possible.  Most of them would probably rather
eat meat as well as witnessed by the Somalian people's amazment at the
amount of meat in the MREs that the US soldiers carry (A MRE is a poor
freeze dried comparison to the average american meal).

alex



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:37:24 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.161252.14393@csservices.Princeton.EDU>, by nfs@volkl.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker):
> In article <1993Jan21.071145.13602@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
> 
> |> Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
> |> could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.
> 
> Well, now, just how is it going to do that?  We're going to turn 
> everyone into vegetarians, so they are going to eat more plant
> material, which means we need to grow MORE plants for people.

Grains and beans are the staples in vegetarian diets, and roughly 
70% of the grain produced in the US is fed to livestock rather than
humans.

In the US, it takes roughly 6.9 kilos of grain to produce one 
kilo of trimmed pork;  4.8 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of 
beef;  3.0 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of cheese;  2.8 kilos 
of grain to produce a kilo of chicken;  and 2.6 kilos of grain to 
produce a kilo of eggs.  

If you really believe that it takes more plants to feed vegetarians
than humans, please explain why the governments in starving countries
don't resolve their problems by simply growing more cattle.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:55:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


>Alex L. Pace (alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: The question that comes to my mind is: Isnt it worth it even if the animals
>: went through excruciating pain if a man is saved?

Greg Brown writes:
>Hmmm...and I was under the impression that WAR!! was the major cause of
>death in Vietnam, Dr. Carey's opinion notwithstanding.

Look smartass, how do you think that the people Carey operated on in
vietnam recieved their head injuries?  Of course it was war, that was never
argued.  I just claimed that human lives were more important than the lives
of cats.

>   Just another
>classic example of a research "end-case" where the benefit is to a few, 
>and the suffering to many.  Seems to me if we could focus on peace and
>compassion, no animals need suffer.

Hoping for world peace is almost as hopeless as hoping that this nation
will suddenly decide to become a country of vegans.

>Greg Brown

alex the omnivore


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:36:49 GMT

In article <C19u5u.83B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan22.014645.28033@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In article <C1862L.KnA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>Why don't you help "poor Russell" by providing us with the 
>>>evidence that the author of the Tufts article used in reaching
>>>his/her conclusions about the relatively unimportant role
>>>that cattle play in global warming.
>> 
>>Why should I do your homework for you, Russell?  I gave you the
>>quote and the source of the quote.  If you want to know more, then
>>feel free to explore it further with the Tufts Letter.
>
>Since your estimates were kinda vague, I had assumed that you might
>want to refine your argument.
>
>Right off hand, I'd say that there isn't too much that we can do 
>to reduce termite-methane-production, and even if there 
>was, it would have no bearing on our decision to-produce or 
>not-to-produce cattle for consumption.  Vis-a-vis the methane 
>that you say is produced by rice paddies, bear in mind that the 
>global production of rice is 450 million metric tons or 
>thereabouts, whereas global meat production (including non-ruminant
>animals) is roughly 100 million metric tons (carcass weight).
>
>Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>we cut without causing famine?
>

The world needs a good famine Russell. Bring this human critter population
back into line. Then I can go on consuming meat, oil, and all the other 
things that give me pleasure without worrying about environmental side effects.
With fewer of us around, those that are left can live high off the hog. 

(Now how do I make half a smiley?) .-,

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Tsk tsk Russell (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:55:17 GMT

From article <swood.727921335@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> You're not the only PPF member I've come across who's displayed a 
>> ranting dislike for many of his fellow human beings.  Perhaps a more
>> honest name for your organization would be, "Putting Some People 
>> First".   Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?
>
> READ MY LIPS.  My specific personal opinions DO NOT reflect PPF's 
> position as an organisation - at least not all of them.  

They certainly seem to reflect the views of the other PPF members that
I've met over the past year or so.  

> I just finished saying that.  I am not against fellow human 
> beings.  I am against hand-outs to lazy idiots.  If anything the 
> AR-crowd is anti-human, as if they had their way, we would all be 
> living in huts eating tofu - or better yet, extinct!  

Let me get this straight.  You're in favor of using non-human 
primates to find cures for human diseases, even when those 
diseases may be the product of poor lifestyles, yet you're 
opposed to the concept of universal health care because you don't 
like "lazy idiots".  How about the children of "lazy idiots"?  
Where do they fit into your cartoon picture?  

>> If you want your opinions to remain private, why don't you just 
>> keep them private?  With the exception of your obscenities, your 
>> email messages weren't much different in substance or scope from 
>> your public postings.   
> 
> BS!  This is america and I can say/do what I want.  But this is also
> an international network governed by rules, same as any other organized
> structure, and YOU were the one that crossed them...

No, I didn't.  There's no usenet rule that prevents me from 
discussing your behavior, anymore than there's a usenet rule that 
prevents you from discussing Ingrid Newkirk's behavior.  As an 
example, I'm free to discuss your extensive use of profanity in 
the email messages you sent my way;  I'm free to discuss the 
various threats you made to have my usenet access cut off;  and 
I'm free to point out that you appear to be something of a racist 
bigot.  The fact that you asked me, after the fact, not to discuss
your attitudes and behavior doesn't obligate me in any way.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Water   Was(Combine'd' laziness)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:46:11 GMT

I changed the subject: line because the current thread has changed so
dramatically from its origins.


attribution lost along the way writes:
>>>You did all that nice research work, and then threw away all of your
>>>figures.  You've just come to the same general conclusion that Rich
>>>and Russell have been fighting about for months.
>>>Livestock use of water runs roughly one third.  Why is that
>>>wastefull?

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
>>could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.

Don Baldwin writes:
>I see.  So you're arguing that water has rights now, too.

How about what lives in the water?  Shouldn't we be looking out for the
welfare of aquatic life too?

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:33:08 GMT

In article <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan20.145050.10550@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>
>Have you eaten any cotton lately, Rich?  Or chowed down on some
>tasty rose buds?   Do you wear potato skins on your back?  Or
>send grains to your loved ones on holidays?   

	Is the growing of cotton, roses, potato skins, and grain for human
	consumption "non-livestock agriculture?"  That is, after all, the
	real question here...not whether I wear potato skins.

>>Quibbling over the semantics won't change the fact that
>>non-livestock agricultural uses constitute more than 50% of the
>>total water use in the state of California.
>
>Again, you're lumping cotton production, flower production, fruit 
>production, vegetable production, etc, etc, into a "single category
>of use".   

	Is "cotton production, flower production, fruit production, vegetable
	production, etc., etc." properly called "agriculture?" [yes]  Is
	it agriculture which is related to livestock production? [no]

	Voila!  What we have here is "non-livestock-related agriculture,"
	a "single category of [water] use!"

Russell blathered:
>>> You're entitled to your opinion, Rich, but I don't think you'll
>>> find many economists who would agree to consider activities
>>> as diverse as cotton, apricot, lettuce, and corn production to be 
>>> a "single use", simply because they don't involve livestock.
>>
>>On the other hand, I don't think you'd find many who wouldn't get a
>>real belly laugh out of your pathetic attempt to deny that the
>>farming of cotton, apricots, lettuce, and corn constitute a class
>>called "non-livestock agriculture."
>
>Is this class covered by an SIC code, Rich?

	Does it matter?  Does the existence, or lack thereof, of an SIC
	code change where the water gets used? [no]

>I think most people have figured out by now that meat,
>dairy, and egg production is more tightly bound (category-wise) 
>than the production of fibers, flowers, potatoes, leafy vegetables 
>fruits, etc.  

	Actually, I think what most people have figured out by now is that
	you're in it up to your nostrils and are desperately treading the
	intellectual water trying to make us believe that meat, dairy, and
	egg production constitute a class of water use, but fiber, flower,
	fruit, and vegetable production do not.

	You're dead in this one, Russell; admit it and go lick your wounds.
	The embarrassment will go away after a while.  In your case, I
	suspect that it will be a very short while, since you seem to have
	no shame.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:07:54 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <C1FH70.FD1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[arguing water is wasted on livestock...]

>Of course.  Still, California is the largest dairy state in the US.
>And, it falls just behind Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa as a major
>cattle-producing state.   Speaking of Kansas and Nebraska, BTW,
>what will happen to the midwest feedlots when the Ogallala aquifer
>is finally depleted?

This simply indicates that the water consumption could not be a big
problem. If there were a water shortage, or if you think it's
unethical for Californians to use so much water, then argue that they
should import their meat and dairy products. That's a much smaller
change to their lifestyle than for them to stop eating meat.  

If we grew all our own produce in greenhouses in the winter here in
Manitoba, it would be a colossal waste of energy. That wouldn't make
eating vegetables unethical though. It would simply argue that
importing vegetables is smarter.  They actually tried growing
cucumbers hydrophonically in Newfoundland but it was an economical
disaster.  The fact that they still do farm livestock in California is
a decision by the residents that the water resources can support it.
The alternative though does not have to be a change in diet.
 
Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:25:25 GMT

From article <mhulsey-210193094020@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C16K3H.82I@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> Yes.  After repeated notification, you continue to falsely imply that the
> entire article was "retracted."  In fact, only a few points were "corrected
> and clarified."  You are being intentionally deceptive.

No, I'm not.  If I were to make ten statements about Martin
Hulsey and retract nine of them, my retraction is still a retraction...
irregardless of the fact that I didn't retract every single statement.

>> > Please recheck the reference before persisting in this falsehood.
>> 
>> Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
>> the original article without circulating the retraction, Martin?
> 
> Yes.  It would be dishonest to circulate the article without also
> circulating the correction and clarification, provided that one knew of its
> existence.  It is possible that the agency is unaware of the correction and
> clarification.

What can we conclude about the intellectual resources of an organization
like F.A.C.T.S. if they're unaware of the McCabe retraction?  Worthwhile
source of solid data, are they?

> I think that it is equally dishonest to persist, as you have, in calling
> the "correction and clarification" a retraction.

So you say.

-- 
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: Martin Hulsey's lies  Was: Ingrid's lies.
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:30:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.222249.18888@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> I've never seen any material from FBR or FACTS, but I do have CFAAR's
> Summer/Fall 1991 Vol 4 Number 2 Newsletter.  Many articles from the
> newsletter were posted here last year and they did not stand up well
> under close scrutiny.
> 
> In particular, the cover story by Jon Franklin discusses a debate
> (bottom of page 5) in which Gary Francione participated.  When shown a
> copy of this article, Mr.  Francione submitted a post to this newsgroup
> in which he explicitly called Franklin a liar. 

Bob, could you repost or e-mail me the exchange you refer to here?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:05:41 GMT

In <C1876H.KqE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <lltj2lINN43b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
>> 
>> 17,000 kcalories of *WHAT*, Russell?  Not fossil fuel.  OF GRAIN and
>> grass!  That gives us the 8.47 ratio that probably boils down to the
>> 4.8 pounds of grain to 1 pound of beef that hasn't been disputed,
>> pinhead.

>According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
>kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.
>Got it straight now, banta?

That includes the fossil fuel used to produce the grain. It takes
3400 kcal to produce a nutritionally equivalent amt of grain . That's
5:1. Isn't that what he said?  It's getting stale.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:23:00 GMT

From article <viking.727866067@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> 	Farmland isn't being lost to cattle, it's being lost
> to suburbs.  

Are you speaking in US-terms or global terms?  Either way, how about
showing us some facts that would demonstrate both the amount of forest
land and non-livestock farmland that's been converted to livestock use in
recent years, as compared to suburban land developments?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Christians Not Sapient ???
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:26:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: foghorn.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1FBKz.Dpz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Not really.  Heretic-burning christians were obviously sapient 
>beings (ie, thinking beings) but some of their assumptions were 
>faulty.  Can we blame them for their ignorance?  

How can you suppose that they did not know that murder was wrong?  If they
were killing people for "religious" reasons you can be sure they used their
religious  book to show these reasons but the bible doesnt advocated
burning people at the stake, they had to know that was not the thing that
jesus would have done.  Now I suppose before the printing press people had
to take the word of their local priest in which case perhaps only the
priest would know better and only he would be rotting in hell, releasing
methane.  The religious refugees that came to this continent sure had acces
to their own copy of the bible so I cant see any excuse for them.  And this
is all supposing that the bible was their only frame of reference and it
wasnt, there were LAWS agains things like murder, enen back then.


>You're entitled to speculate, but it seems to me that you should
>have figured out by now that methane is produced by anaerobic
>decay.

What kind of decay do you think occurs at the bottom of the lake of fire or
for that matter a rice patty or louisanna swamp?  My household home was on
a lake, a neat trick i used to do to impress my friends was to hold a jar
under water and prod the bottom of the lake with a stick.  Methane bubbles
quickly rose to fill the jar and I would screw the top on while still under
water and bring the jar inside.  We'd go into the dark laundry room and
open the jar and throw a match in and POOOOOFF the methane would ignite in
a dark blue flash.  Cool ehh?  And that was from a man made lake
approximately 10 years old, just think how much rot and decay is taking
place at the bottle of a 50 year old rice patty that has had 2 crops a year
die in it....

Also anaerobic decay, although it means "without oxygen" occurs right here
on the oxygenated surface of the earth because the agents of decay are
hundreds of tiny little microbes that eat the decaying matter and guess
what...their bellies dont have anymore oxygen in them than the belly of a
cow so they still release that methane.

alex the omnivore