HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:39:25 GMT

In article <viking.717355193@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
Sorenson) writes:
> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:
... 
> 	Please, go play with a bull, boar, alligator, polecat, badger, bear,
> or practically any other wild animal.  The posting describing your hospital
> stay should be most amusing, assumming you didn't pick a large animal like
> a bear.
> Animals can defend themselves.

At once, if they are attacked.
But, asthonished I've seen a TV report about tourists observing
grizzly bears fishing salmon only some inches apart.
Then you can hear that all this stories about bad wolfs, sharks etc.
aren't true (except for Hollywood). You see (on TV) people catching
crocodiles with bare hands and without killing them (in australia).
Yes, I may have not the heart doing such things. I have not tried this.
Also you can see mastinos (combat dogs???, sorry I did not find the word)
attacking people. But on the other hand you see other mastinos playing with
children. And I have seen the hunting-dog of my neighbor (also a hunter)
raising a deer. But on the other hand there is the killing of lion babies
after the crowds pasha has changed.
My opinion is, real hunters are only those who need it for survival.
But in case of self-defence you are allowed to kill the aggressor.
The thing I can't understand is the so called sports hunting, just for fun.
I think, it makes man a beast.

> 
> 	I notice you're from Germany. 
Yes I am from Germany.
(My postings sometimes go below the belt. I try to fix it.
 Maybe it is of my bad knowledge of english/american language and culture.
 But if one does not speak with the others, he will never become
 acquainted with them.)

> Given the recent strife there, I
> could ask why the government doesn't give arms to the new immigrants
> who are under attack.  It's the same principle, only animals are born
> with their weapons.
Not all animals are born with weapons. And many of them used as
game animal (is my dictionary correct???) only can run or fly away
(rabbits, deers, ducks ...).

With regards, Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:01:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I know several people with dysfunctional kidneys who would take 
rl> issue with Rich's claim that they're "effectively dead".   They still
rl> lead full and rewarding lives and might resent the notion that
rl> human existence is defined by limbs and organs, rather than by
rl> thinking and feeling abilities.
rl> 
rl> Perhaps Rich will surprise both of us by telling the world that it's
rl> really ok to kill kidney patients, but I doubt it.    

From article <1992Sep30.190508.29104@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> What does the following statement mean to you, Russell:
ry>  
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry> From <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>:
ry> 
ry> ...the fatal flaw...makes the organism irrelevant to the discussion.
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry>  
ry> Not "irrelevant," Russell, "irrelevant to the discussion."

So you say.   

Is it ok to kill kidney-dead humans?  [They're sentient and sapient]
Is it ok to kill brain-dead humans?  [They're not sentient and sapient]

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:59:20 GMT

In article <BvF1FA.4tD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Is it ok to kill kidney-dead humans?  [They're sentient and sapient]
rl> Is it ok to kill brain-dead humans?  [They're not sentient and sapient]

From article <1992Oct1.164234.12240@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> What do these questions, which have already been addressed way
ry> back in August, have to do with the assigning of status to non-
ry> human species by humans?

Your answers will highlight the hypocrisy in your former arguments
about the importance of sentience and sapience in ethical decision
making.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:59:25 GMT

From article <1a7ndjINNk4u@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I don't know about all of you (out in t.p.a.  netland) but, to my 
ml> knowledge not one single hunter has associated the word "manly" 
ml> with hunting.  I am a hunter and have no insecurities with my 
ml> "manhood".  Although if I didn't hunt I still wouldn't have any 
ml> insecurities concerning my manhood.  I think you will find that 
ml> our old friend Russell is the one who labeled hunter as 
ml> considering themselves "manly" for hunting and it is HIS label 
ml> not ours.  Perhaps Russell is the one who doubts his manhood and 
ml> therefore has some sort of problems with hunters that HE 
ml> perceives threaten his manhood.  

You're fantasizing again, Mike.  Why don't you tell us again how
"manly" you feel knowing that your hunting skills allow you to
provide food for your family?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: an observation
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:28:09 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:54:00 GMT

Tell you what, seeing as how it is so late in the game, and you are so short
on hunter volunteers to be led to the slaughter, why don't you get the group
to take some of those $80 admissions to pay for a one way ticket on peidmont
from Bishop in Flint to Austin for tomorrow.

Hell, if you don't want to be with hunters because you think that hunting is
the same as murder, thus all hunters are murderers (and don't even want to
accept my invitation to just go out in the woods and let me show you what
hunting really is about) then why should I go to your debate?  I think that
all Animal Rights activists are people that are out of touch with reality
in that they can not see the vast differences between animal and human life
and that humans hunting is as natural as a wolf or a lion hunting, thus
placing activists in a category with insane people (whackos) that are out
of touch with the real world.  I don't want to spend my day in an insane
asylum.  Ever try to argue with an insane person?  That is the way I feel
talking to an AR-head.

So take your petty threats, and you childish name calling and get back
to your basket weaving class - the rest of us are trying to debate real
issues here, and not whether or not to go to your groups little shouting
match....

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:50:57 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.121240.7890@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>Yes, I have noticed.  I find it very akin to other group hatreds.  It is
>>generally best described as an intense bigotry.  The hater's mind is made
>>up.
>>

>You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
>about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.

Paul, you're right.  I agree with you that Jennifer and Russell and the
rest of you animal rights types have appalling personality defects.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:13:49 GMT

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

`You need to realize that if you want to convince people you're right, you
`must subject your views to microscopic scrutiny.  Imagine a presidential
`candidate taking this stand.  "Very well, Mr. Bush.  Mr. Clinton, would you
`care to share _your_ views with us...."

BS - AR people turn and cover and dodge and weave and name call and etc.
when ever their views go under microscopic scrutiny.

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

Get real.  If I were to decide to hold a debate tomorrow (regardless of
the issue) there is nothing to say or require people from either side
to show up.  Especially with someone like you poking and proding trying
to get people to show.  Why go?  I have other arenas I am already using
very efficiently and effectively to speak on behalf of hunters.

Going in front of a bunch of fanatics is not my idea of a necessity.

`>>same thing to me.  Charlie, Ingrid and Wayne are all nuts IMO.

`Save the juvenile rantings for your buddies, please.  

But yet those of us who would rather spend the day in the woods than
waste our time and money going to be put down by a lot of liberal
vegetarian name callers like yourself are sumehow lacking in 
'testicular fortitude?'  I would have to say you classify as
feminazi to.  Am I correct in assuming so?

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

So why do you want to stop me.  I know.  I don't enjoy killing.  I enjoy
hunting.  I enjoy being one with nature.  I enjoy eating meat, and I
enjoy the feeling that I was personally responsible for killing my own.
I always hit my knees after taking an animals life, and I always use
every possible useable portion of the animal.  I spend tons of money
and time to assure I can kill the animal effectively and I spend even
more money and time to be sure that the species I hunt thrive and
survive - and yes I do so partly because I wish to continue being
able to hunt them.

I don't understand why people desire to give up eating me, but I am not
trying to sway vegetarians to get the taste!  Why must you people try
to take my hunting away?  (of all the AR anti-hunters I have asked that
question, none have had the balls to give me an answer - why not be
the first)  What gives you the right?

swood












`-- 
` Jennifer L. Johnson | "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
` jjohnson@convex.com |  		--George Bernard Shaw
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:15:36 GMT

In article <BvIw6F.F4n@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Is it ok to kill a brain-dead human?
rl> Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?
rl> 
rl> You pretended previously that you had answered these questions, yet 
rl> now you're claiming that I don't have any evidence concerning 
rl> your position.

From article <1992Oct3.155322.9557@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> I pretended no such thing; I have ADDRESSED these questions and
ry> found them to be irrelevant to the discussion, which dealt with
ry> assignment of status by humans to non-human species.

Are you saying that arguments and facts can be dismissed, without
further argument on your part, simply because you've declared them 
to be irrelevant?   

rl> What's with all the secrecy?  Is there some reason why you're unwilling
rl> to reveal the role that sentience and sapience, not to mention structural
rl> similarity, plays in your "assignment of status"?

ry> Is this the best you can do?  

You ought to be looking in the mirror when you ask a question like 
this.  It doesn't take much genius to conjure up double standards.

ry> I've not held anything within the confines of secrecy.  In fact, 
ry> I've been quite straightforward with my comments and evaluations.  

Not really.  Why didn't you declare, right from the beginning, 
that your opponents were wrong simply because you've declared 
them to be wrong.  By insisting that abilities like sensitivity 
to pain are relevant to human-animal discussions but irrelevant 
to non-human-animal discussions, you've defined your 
conclusions...  not proved them.  

ry> If you'd like to start another thread with your two questions,
ry> feel free, but within THIS thread, the questions are irrelevant.

I disagree that the questions are irrelevant, but if you're afraid
to answer them, that's fine with me.

> ...
ry> I suggest that further conversation of this nature be done in
ry> e-mail: there is no need to waste bandwidth and money with what
ry> is clearly a "who-said-what-and-when" dispute.

I don't want to embarrass you, Rich.  Relax.

ry> Now, as I recall, there are a number of questions which DO pertain
ry> to the discussion which you have not answered......your "public"
ry> awaits.

Cut the crap, Rich.  You're wasting my time and everyone else's.  I
suspect there isn't a single reader out there who hasn't seen my
answers to your "unaswered" questions at least two or three times.  
Again, who do you think you're fooling?

-- 
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: Hunters Needed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:14:05 GMT

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

>2)  in spite of the almost unanimous good sense and tolerance
>exhibited by the hunters in this group with their lofty goals of only
>hunting what they eat and aiming for a quick kill there are slob hunters
>out there who a) enjoy killing and b) could care less if the animals
>suffers when they kill;

	"Suffer not a slob to hunt." -- 1st Sorensons, chapter 1, verse 1.

>3)  I have such a fellow who hunts on the farmland I rent.

	And you still let him hunt!??!?  You're the renter, you have the
authority to say who does and doesn't hunt it (except for the owner).

>  I suspect
>he is up in his deer stand drinking beer while he waits for his deer.

	A video camera and a telephoto lens will provide hours of
amusement for your local DNR agent when he sees it.

>I am not saying that he is drunk; he probably puts down a 12 pack per
>day regardless of whether he is hunting or not.  Because I am not a
>hunter I want to know if among hunters drinking beer while hunting is
>just considered "slob hunting" or in fact is illegal in certain states?

	Slob hunting, unsafe, and illegal.  If the hunting laws don't
show it, the gun laws already do.  Contact your DNR agent for details.

<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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:56:13 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <BvB6F2.BFq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1a7ndjINNk4u@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> I don't know about all of you (out in t.p.a.  netland) but, to my 
>ml> knowledge not one single hunter has associated the word "manly" 
>ml> with hunting.  I am a hunter and have no insecurities with my 
>ml> "manhood".  Although if I didn't hunt I still wouldn't have any 
>ml> insecurities concerning my manhood.  I think you will find that 
>ml> our old friend Russell is the one who labeled hunter as 
>ml> considering themselves "manly" for hunting and it is HIS label 
>ml> not ours.  Perhaps Russell is the one who doubts his manhood and 
>ml> therefore has some sort of problems with hunters that HE 
>ml> perceives threaten his manhood.  
>
>You're fantasizing again, Mike.  Why don't you tell us again how
>"manly" you feel knowing that your hunting skills allow you to
>provide food for your family?
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000

I think that both my sisters in law (quite pretty and feminine) who hunt 
would take exception to this. 

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
From: tara@socrates.umd.edu (Tara McDermott)
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:44:14 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>>I thought vegan was shorthand for vegetarian. Would someone be so kind as
>>to enlighten me?
>>
>>Jeff Achenbach
>>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

>A Vegan is an alien being, originating from either the third or
>seventh planet orbiting the star Vega.

>(just kidding).

>A "vegan" (pronounced vee-gin) is a person who eats no foods
>derived in any way from animals -- thus, no cheese, milk,
>eggs or gelatin.  "strict vegetarian" is more or less 
>synonymous.

They're synonymous as far as food goes.  Vegan also applies to
lifestyle.  Vegans do not use leather, fur, and usually avoid wool.
Some vegans use honey, others do not.

>Whereas a vegetarian who will eat eggs and dairy products, 
>but no meat or fish, is an "ovo-lacto vegetarian", or
>simply an "ovo-lactoid".  

The term vegan was coined in the 1940's in England.

>Steve

Tara
-- 
Tara McDermott                     You've got a friend in Pennsylvania,
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:55:09 GMT

From article <q-mz8bc@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Russell, I'm curious now about something.  Like Keith, I too have 
jve> had the impression from you that you think hunters are trying to 
jve> be macho.  Also, in the past you've mentioned that you used to 
jve> hunt.  What was *your* motivation for hunting?  

Training.  My parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents all came
from parts of appalachia where hunting was universally practiced but
never discussed or analyzed from an ethical point-of-view.      

jve> The bloodiest wars throughout history have been fought in the 
jve> name of religion, old friend.  I can't blame any hunter for being 
jve> leary of standing up in front of AR folk en masse.  

This doesn't make sense.  To the best of my knowledge, the proposed
debates were sponsored by a secular organisation, not a religious
group.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:33:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep28.223431.4626@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>>Perhaps your fondest dream:  Get Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle in the
>>crosshairs for a debate!
>> 
>So what`s the real reason we can't find even two hunters out of the bunch who
>are willing to test their views against two members of the opposition?  If the
>leaders of the AR movement are simply disseminators of misinformation,
>wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity for those level-headed hunters to
>give us the facts?  Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?

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

Well, I faced-off with Ingrid at her public appearance in Oakbrook on 9/3/92.
Afraid?  Nah.

Unlike Ingrid, however, I don't have a stream of contributions flowing in
that I can use for "fundraising" trips to Austin  -- NICA data says PETA
is using 40% of the "take" for this kind of thing.  So, I can't just
jet off to Austin to take her on again.  But it sure isn't fear that is
stopping me.

Mary Otto
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:51:20 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

On further thought, how about if I amend the original ethic to read:
 
  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
This would take care of the masochist example, though at the price of 
burdening the ethic with an additional, albeit minor, qualification. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:06:08 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> What an idiot.

From article <1992Sep28.205533.2578@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> [99 lines deleted]
mo> Russell tactic 101:  Be a bully; shout down the opposition.

You were so busy trying to bully me that you failed to answer my
questions:

Please explain the nature of the "content" displayed by the 
statement, "What an idiot." 

What sort of "issues" were addressed by the statement, "What an 
idiot"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com>, todd@refrig.dixie.com 
(Todd H.) writes:
> Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
> Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?
 
What a silly post!

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals