HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:Trapping
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:02:59 GMT


>>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>Do I have a right to view the animals that this bozo is trying to murder?

>>Mike Linan writes:
>Yes you do.



Hmmm...  I've studied the Constitution pretty carefully, and I've never seen
that one...



ru>>Only one trapper can trap one animal.  Many people can view one animal.

ml>The point?  Just because you may view the animals that are possibly to be
ml>trapped does not give you the right to prevent legal trapping regardless
ml>to whether you agree with it or not.

ru>>By trapping the animal, doesn't the trapper take away my legal right?



No. If the trapper is legally licensed by the state to trap, you have no right
at all to interfere with his trapping.  His specifically-granted right to trap
overrides your supposed, and actually quite non-existant, "right" to see the
animal alive.  If you don't believe me, ask a game warden.

Is trapping illegal in this park where you sprung the traps?  If so, then
you were perfectly justified in springing them, and you should have notified
the authorities as well so the poacher could be apprehended.  But if it's
legal in the park, and he's doing it legally, you have probably broken
the law;  furthermore, if there had been an animal in the trap and you'd
turned it loose, you would have been guilty of wrongful misappropriation
of property.  But just so this doesn't turn into a purely speculative excercise,
perhaps some sportsmen from Indiana can give us the lowdown on what the law says.
Then we'll be in a better position to determine if you had any "right" to spring
the traps.




ru>>Was it breaking the law or self-defense?  Was I springing a trap or throwing
ru>>a stick on the ground?  Hmmmmmmm........


Sounds to me like a real juvenile excuse for disregarding the law, Bob.  I assure
you that if it is against the law and you get caught doing it, that defense won't
get you anything besides a pissed-off judge who's just itching to adjust the 
attitude of some wise guy.



ru>Now you hit upon a real problem.  How do you think an AR'er feels when his/her
ru>position is always referred to as "fanatic" or "radical"?  How do you think
ru>they feel when their positions are "being attacked for what they view as
ru>moral and their right"?  It cuts both ways.


Coming on the heels of you telling us the story about springing somebody's
traps repeatedly, in possible violation of the law and with utter disregard for
his rights, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for you on this.  Sounds like, by
your actions, you're just LOOKING to get tagged with those labels.  It sounds
like in your fanaticism, you care so little about the law that you don't even
know what it says, and couldn't care less about the rights of those with whom
you disagree.

Let me ask you something.  How would you like it if we started playing dirty
tricks on you guys?  We certainly have had adequate provocation.  Like you said...
It cuts both ways; and you really seem to be asking for it.
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 21:46:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.030202.11784@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.191430.28933@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>The human here (presumably of libertarian bent) believes that you should
>>not be allowed to block any action of his unless that action infringes
>>on the rights of another.  If the target of his behavior has no rights,
>>then why should you be interested in restricting his actions and
>>imposing your personal beliefs on him?
>Regardless of the political bend of the person in question there are a
>mirade of laws that block one citizens actions that do not infringe on the
>rights of other citizens.  (i.e. gambleing, prostitution, drugs etc...). 
>Some of these laws I agree with support and abide.  Some of these laws I
>do not agree with or support but I ibide to them.
>
>>  What gives you the right to  impose on him in this way? 
>
>Norms of society establish what is and what is not acceptable behavior
>concerning these situations, which i concider "victimless crime "
>And as a society we must have laws in order to function.
>That's were the right to impose on him comes from.

These norms simply represent the composite view of the society.  You,
as one individual, can favor or oppose these norms.  At least in some
cases of animal cruelty, your views harmonize with the societal norms.
If this were not the case, I was trying to find out what line of logic
you would use to effect a change without resorting to some invocation 
of rights or their equivalent.

>
>>What I'm leading up to, of course is this: Even though most people deny
>>that animals have or should have rights, these people still act as
>>though they believe animals have or should have some basic rights.
>
>I treat animals very nicely.  Is this an admission that they have rights? 
>Or is it merely consideration for their welfare? >

Your kind treatment of animals suggests that you believe they have
certain qualities which make this kind treatment important.  But when
you support laws requiring kind treatment (or outlawing cruel treatment),
then it seems like you're supporting rights. 

>
>
>                                            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: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Poem about animal rescue
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:09:12 GMT

[from _The_Animals'_Voice_, Vol. 3, No. 5.]
 
White Coats, Black Masks
 
The dog was old.
He'd lived his life 
in nothing but a cage.
The white coats came,
and he stood still
to not incite their rage.
 
He tried so hard to be so good,
but nothing made them smile.
He wagged his tail.
They laughed at him.
Dead bodies in a pile.
 
And so he slept 
on concrete bed,
curled up the best he could.
He though perhaps if he'd 
lie quiet
they might think him good.
 
He wondered why 
they so enjoyed 
the pain they did bestow.
And next time, oh,
perhaps this time, 
they wouldn't hurt him so.
 
But white is good and
black is bad,
or so the story goes.
One snowy night three 
men in black
left footprints in the snow.
 
They picked him up so gently,
then he saw 
the face and mask.
But black is bad and
he was scared.
The cage bars faded fast.
 
He cowered in the corner
with seven beagle pups.
The gently patted his 
old head.
His clouded eyes looked up.
 
Who were these men who 
hugged him?
And gently called his name?
They gathered him in
heroes' arms.
They stole him
without shame.
 
Black masks they wore to give
him life.
They'd found for him a home.
His eye closed as he
dreamed of things
that he had never known.
 
His pain fled as they held him.
Old fear were laid to rest:
For black was good and
although cold,
he liked the snow the best.
 
-- Amy R. Klamka
   March 1989

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Rights?
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:32:05 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>Todd, as the originator of this anecdote, could you please come forward
>and confirm or deny the claim that the goat owner had been repeatedly
>abusive to the goat over a period of time.  The absence of a denial will
>be interpreted as confirmation.

First of all, the last line in the above quote is the most ARROGANT bit of
BULLSHIT I've had the pleasure to see here, *INCLUDING* Russell Lawrence's
generous doses.  I've been out of town for the past 5 days, so by now you've
probably determined that you're right, and I'm wrong, about whatever you felt
like screwing with today.

Tell ya what - follow up to this message in the next 25 minutes, or I'll
assume you do molest little boys.  Nice tactic, eh?

Now, as for the goat story, it's your usual "who knows" story.  The Animal
Rights Whackos claimed that the animal was abused, but the wife of the man
who was killed claims it wasn't.  Now, unless those ARWs had been living with
the guy, I'd think the wife is a slightly more expert witness, don't you?

It also seems kinda strange to me that a goat that the ARWs claimed was beaten
until it couldn't walk could still stand up and kill a man.  Most goats don't
go over about 70 pounds, so it takes a pretty healthy goat to do any damage
to a full-grown human.  The ARWs also admitted that the goat showed no
*physical* signs of abuse at the time that they took charge of it, but they
were *sure* it had been abused.  I guess they all speak goat down there.

I'm also pretty amused at how much energy y'all spend chasing down TOTALLY
insignificant triviata.  The place that has the goat also has two pit bull
terriers that attacked and seriously maimed a child.  No, the child was not
killed, but he was terribly injured, perhaps for life.  And no, I don't think
the four-year-old child was abusing the two dogs.  As a matter of fact, 
neither do the ARWs, but they 'rescued' the dogs nonetheless, and blame 
our society for breeding them to be nasty.  (excuse number 12)

>Only Todd knows for sure what case he was referring to.  But if it's the
>case I suspect, then he has "forgotten" to disclose some very relevant
>facts which may be needed in order to reach a just verdict.  Todd, could
>you approach the stand to be sworn in, please?

It's obvious from your attitude and statements that you don't think it's any
big problem to make offhand statements about killing people, yet you're all
concerned about a goat.  What an odd set of values you ARWs have.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: Animalearn
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.163034.22089@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S.  
Wheeler) writes:
> 
>  Animalearn
>  Suite 204 Noble Plaza
>  801 Old York Road
>  Jenkintown, PA  19046
>  (215) 887-0816
>  
>                   ANIMALEARN SUMMER PROGRAM
>  
>  The ANIMALEARN SUMMER PROGRAM is offered for 8-12th grade students
>  who wish to spend one week with other interested young people
>  learning about and working on behalf of animals.  The program is
>  fun, active and educational and includes:
>  
>  - FIELD TRIPS to animal sanctuaries and refuges, as well as to
>    sites and locations where animal exploitation occurs.
>  
>  - ACTIVISM on behalf of animals, including t-shirt and poster
>    design, campaign development, leafletting and letter-writing.
>  
>  - ROLE-PLAYING, drama, and the development of communication skills.
>  
>  - FILMS.
>  
>  - EXPERT SPEAKERS.
>  
>  - MEETING with a local legislator.
>  
>  - DISCUSSIONS on vegetarian nutrition and cooking, alternatives to
>    dissection, school events and other topics of concern to
>    participants.

>  - BRAINWASHING and initiation into the mixed up world of the animal  
rights movement.


Hmmm seems to me the purpose of this summer camp is pretty transparent.

Karl
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:23:04 GMT

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

There's nothing mysterious about my reluctance to share details 
about my personal life with the readers of this particular 
newsgroup.  

While you and Bob Straubinger might contemplate personal 
information in order to understand how political and ethical 
philosophies coincide with a person's private life [a reasonable 
undertaking], there are quite a few folks in the tpa forum who 
would use such information to launch irrelevant personal attacks 
that have nothing to do with the important topics at hand.  

-- 
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: animals in research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:24:28 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:

> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>Meanwhile, let's not forget that Barnard, Spock, and Oski all 
>>have MD degrees.  And both Spock and Oski are prominent experts 
>>in the field of pediatrics.  

>	Sure, they all have M.D. degrees.  Would you like Dr. Spock to
>	repair your faulty mitral valve simply because he has an M.D.?
>	Or perhaps Dr. Barnard could give you a liver transplant?

	I had a professor that I'm sure Russell would like to meat.  A
Ph.D in industrial technology (manufacturing engineering), and fairly
impressive publication record given the short time he has been doing
research, and an all-round brilliant guy.  Also one of the most
incompetent people I've ever seen around machinery.  I'm sure others
have seen similar cases of degrees without the benefit of intelligence,
so perhaps we could give the TLA argument a rest and get back to the
issues?  When a doctor of engineering can't figure out how to turn on a
damn lathe, let alone set the rotational speed, belief in a degree and
publication record as an indication of competence and qualification
must take a minor dive in credibility.

	I've also lost a full navy scholarship, partial mobility, and
spent three weeks in a wheelchair because an MD, head of an ER actually,
couldn't figure out the proper way to put a broken tibia in a cast.  I,
a lowly freshman engineer, argued the finer points of immobilizing
sections of a structure with him, but bowed to his credentials.  When
it gets cold and that stainless steel screw in my ankle starts making
its presence known, I vow to never again trust a few letters.

	In e-mail Russell mentioned a problem he had with a dentist.
I will not elaborate, except to mention that said dentist probably
had D.D.S. appended to his name, and seems to be just as fallable as
any other being on the planet.  Comments, Russell?

	While we're all certain that few idiots get to be doctors, the
point here is that this is not a 100% certain method of ensuring the
person is, in fact, correct on any position, and hence these appeals
to authority should likely be supplimented with other methods of proof.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.180310.10248@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.152146.13321@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.180934.3131@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>
>>>It may be useful here to address a recurring misunderstanding.  I doubt
>>>that this example of a disease-spreading rat is a valid example of
>>>speciesism. 
>>>
>>>Killing rats strictly because they're rats would be speciesism.  But
>>>killing rats in self-defense to ward off disease would not be speciesism
>>>(as I understand it).
>>
>>Robert, what do you think biomedical research is?
>
>I had no idea that rats were invading these labs and attacking the
>researchers.  What sort of stategy and tactics do they use? How well
>armed are they?   Is there some way we could marshall the talents of
>out-of-work defense workers and develop some new defensive weapons to
>help you guys out?  :-)

(spoken with celtic accent)
You should see them!  There're hundreds of them.  And they've sharp pointy
teeth.

And now for something completely different.

Robert, recently I mentioned a book to you called They Threaten Your Health.
The author of this book makes the point (much more eloquently than I can)
that we are all (e.g. human and non-human life forms) in a contant stuggle
to survive.  To fend off hunger, enemies, find shelter ,develope and
exploit our niche in the environment,  each organism utilizes whatever
it can.  Mutation, adaption,** other species**, intellect are all
exploited to benifit the survival of the individual and the species.
By using my intellectual ability to carry out scientific research I am
attempting to fend off those things which threaten my survival and the
survival of my species (i.e. viral, bacterial, cancerous, tramatic
gentitic threats to my health).  Scientific analysis of the cause,
prevention and cure of disease (or anything that threatens human
existance) is the key evolutionary adaption that we posses.

(I just love Darwin)
                                   Greg Popken

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:41:59 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <mhulsey-161292141424@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz9p2L.AwD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> From article <mhulsey-141292084954@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Suits me, Martin.  
>> 
>> In the future, I hope that you'll focus on the facts and arguments 
>> presented by men and women like Neil Barnard (MD) in lieu of demeaning
>> yourself by appeals to their authority.
> 
> Barnard has no credentials in science or nutrition.  I was not "appealing
> to his authority." He has none.

Does he have an MD degree?  If so, is he entitled to share his opinions
on medical matters with the public-at-large?

>> > 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.
>> 
>> Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?  
> 
> I haven't yet been successful in locating the post.  Are you hereby denying
> that you ever claimed to attend an "ivy-league" institution?

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a posting wherein I've made
"boasts" about my academic background.  And why???  Because such posts
don't exist.

-- 
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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:18:41 GMT

In article <BzFFD6.9DB@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > 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.
> 
> It wasn't me, Martin.

Thanks, Russell.  See.  That wasn't so hard was it?

--
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: Lawsuit Victory
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:41:09 GMT

LITIGATION; LAWSUIT; ACTIVISTS; FUR

 
 
The Concerned Citizens for Animals, based in Springfield, MA, has 
won its three year legal fight with Max Zeller Furs via summary 
judgement.  Superior Court Judge George C. Keady, Jr.,  rendered a 
15-page decision in the $10 million lawsuit on June 19.
 
The suit grew out of an anti-fur demonstration held in 1989 in 
downtown Springfield. Max Zeller Furs alleged libel, slander, 
interference with contractual and advantageous relations, 
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.  CCA counter claimed, alleging 
a violation of their federal and state civil rights and abuse of process.
 
Springfield police officer Whitney  testified that the protesters 
had not responded, reacted or argued when Eugene Zeller screamed 
that they were "stupid" and "communists."  Judge Keady granted 
summary judgement on each allegation.
 
 =================================================================
 : 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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:46:59 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Fine.  If you're going to portray yourself as the "voice of reason" 
rl> to readers of the vegetarian newsgroup, then perhaps we should continue
rl> to question your qualifications.   

From article <1992Dec17.233110.18678@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> You still don't get it, do you?  Whatever I might have said in r.f.v.
ry> was said in a forum of opinions and not as an expert in the field.
ry> Barnard presents his opinions as fact and trades on his M.D. to lend
ry> them credibility, as if spoken by an expert in the field.  There is
ry> a substantive difference.

The next time you portray yourself as the "voice of reason", 
perhaps you should advise readers that you're not an expert and 
that your statements are merely opinions...  rather than facts.  
Meanwhile, let's not forget that Barnard, Spock, and Oski all 
have MD degrees.  And both Spock and Oski are prominent experts 
in the field of pediatrics.  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals