HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:49:00 GMT

In article <C1FB0G.DK3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>In 1989, prior to the cancellation of Carey's project,
>Representative Alphonse Jackson of Shreveport, Louisiana, submitted
>a bill to the LA House of Representatives, at the specific request
>of LSU, which would have allowed researchers to seize cats and dogs
>from shelters that remained unclaimed after 5 days.  The
>aforementioned "cat shooting" experiments, BTW, were conducted at
>the LSU Medical Center.
>
>Did "60 Minutes" mention the Jackson bill?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ




As I recollect, no.

Russell, could you explain the connection you are making here?
Most shelters around the country accept any dog or cat brought in,
give owners three to five days to reclaim their animals, and then
unfortunately must separate animals with "adoption potential" from 
the overall population.  About 70-80% of the animals brought in are
euthanized, higher in some areas.







:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:29:45 GMT

From article <C171K5.M03@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <viking.727504706@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 
>>In <C14D1w.Jx5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>--- "In California, it takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce 
>>>	 one edible pound of beef, as compared to 23 gallons for the
>>>	 same amount of tomatoes."
> 
>>	As if tomatoes are worth eating for all their nutritional
>>value.  Again, all the beef take is roughly five to ten gallons
>>per head per day.  That means, over a year, 3650/650 = ~5.6 gallons
>>per pound for a 1000 pound steer dressing out to 650lbs.  At
>>650*5 pounds of grain, that's 3250 lbs of grain.  Thus, the grain
>>took (5214-6)= 5208 gallons, or 5208/3250 = 1.6 gallons/lbs to grow
>>in California, yet the tomatoes take 23?  Somebody is lying, Russ.
>>Using the figures posted here, it doesn't add up, and I can
>>personally vouch for the ten-gallon/day consumption of cattle.
> 
> A quibble about your math. Taking your 5.6 gal/lb-beef consumed
> directly, and assuming 5 lb-grain/lb-beef. Then if it takes 5214
> gal/lb-beef total, nearly all of the water (5208 gal)is needed to grow
> the 5 lb of grain. That comes to about 1000 gal/lb-grain. If tomatoes
> take only 23, it seems highly unethical to eat grain.

Give it some more thought, Werner.

-- 
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: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:41:43 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>Do obligations or being social require an appointment book? Jumping Jehosofat
>>man,man in pre-written communication days must have been lower than baboons by
>>your reasoning, eh?  I think a baboons life is to eat, fuck, rear its young,
>>live in social groups, interact with each other, form relationships amongst
>>others in the groups.  

242 lbs before cooking writes:
>You forgot "die."  Animals die, Rob.  Don't forget it.

And so do humans.  Seems they aren't much different than us after all.... :-)

>Any baboons I've seen interact entirely by picking nits and fleas 
>from each other and eating them.  That falls under "eat."

From what I've videed of baboons, they also play, are inquisitive, territorial,
and react when a member of their group is lost.  Much like man.

>And since this "discussion" has it's roots on what's lazy and what
>isn't, I'll just ask this: If a baboon has as many commitments to
>society as you, why is it lazy for a baboon to beg for food but not
>for you to go buy food?

If a baboon is lazy because it begs food, there's nothing wrong with that.  It
does, however, point out that they ain't that different from man.

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:20:43 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.145112.6131@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <C16G3p.5nw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Someone's misinformed.
>>
>>From World Watch Paper #103, "Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the
>>Environment", by Alan Durning and Holly Brough:
>>
>>"In addition, livestock are a source of the second-most important
>>greenhouse gas, methane.  Ruminant animals release perhaps 80 million
>>tons of the gas each year in belches and flatulence, while animal
>>wastes at feedlots and factory-style farms emit another 35 million 
>>tons.  In such operations, waste is commonly stored in the oxygen-
>>short environments of sewage lagoons and manure piles, where methane
>>forms during decomposition.  Manure that falls in the fields, by
>>contrast, decomposes without releasing methane because oxygen is
>>present.  Livestock account for 15 to 20 percent of global methane
>>emissions --- about 3 percent of global warming from all gases."
> 
> Point: TUFTS said: "...twice as much methane as __CATTLE__."

Right.  The Tufts article claimed that rice paddies and termites
alone produce twice as much methane as cattle.   I presume that
this would involve a quantity that's roughly in the vicinity
of 230 million tons per year, or, 30-40% of global methane
emissions.  Just from termites and rice paddies.  Go figure.

> Russell quotes: "__LIVESTOCK__ account for 15 to 20 percent..."
> 
> Point: "Twice as much" even using Russell's numbers is another 40
> percent, so livestock, rice paddies, AND termites would
> produce only 60 percent of total global methane emission.
> 
> Conclusion: The two pieces of data are not mutually exclusive, and
> the only one misinformed is poor Russell.

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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:14:34 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Alka Chandna) writes:
>What do you mean by
>"unbiased" anyways?  Am I biased about the animal rights movement because I
>support it?  Are you unbiased because you directly or indirectly require that
>animals be made to suffer unspeakably (& killed) just so that you can eat their
>muscle tissue?  

I don't rememeber saying I was unbiased.  Of course any review I gave
the book would trash it.  But I'm not so pretentious that I'd try.  A
review by an unbiased source might be interesting.  Your review, on
the other hand, was the type of saccharine spew I'd expect to see on
alt.romance.chat. 

>The notion that the status quo
>defines an unbiased perspective just doesn't cut it with me.  

Did you read an additional three paragraphs that I didn't write?  How
about someone who doesn't devote some non-trivial amount of their life
to cheering on PETA.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:40:31 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <C1H4p9.1x6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Orangs and gorillas also have canine teeth?  Were they "born" to
>eat meat?

	They do.  Not incredibly often, but they do.  It's rather
amazing to watch the hunt of a smaller monkey, with the apes in a
sort of skirmish line, driving the monkey towards the waiting apes
at the end of the valley or whatever.

	Every member, from the largest male to the smallest child,
gets a piece of meat.  It's doled out by the hunter who killed the
monkey.  Watching it on film (it has been documented, check the
Discovery channel for the next airing; I saw it in a warfare class
prior to DSC viewing) is rather unnerving.

>They do, indeed, bear a close resemblance to the teeth of frugivores
>like orangs and herbivores like gorillas.  

	Fruigivores?  Oh, you mean those who eat meat only on occassion.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: nolan@lurch.twg.com (Nolan Hinshaw)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Reply-To: nolan@twg.com
Organization: Somewhere West of Nowhere
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:23:15 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.183148.213@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca 
(Alka Chandna) assumes the mantle of AR Apologist Extraordinaire:
========================================================================
                  STANDARD USENET REPLY FORM
To  :ac@riemann.math.mun.ca______
From:nolan@twg.com_______________

I have read your recent post concerning eating habits________________
posted to alt.peeves and others.   I regret that due to severe time
constraints I am unable to respond to your posting directly.  However,
I would like to advise you that I believe that your posting:

_X_contains an unacceptable   _X__logic
  number of errors in:        _X__fact
                              _X__spelling/grammar/punctuation

__is based on stereotypes of: ____race, ethnic, national origin
                              ____gender differences
                              ____sexual orientation / preferences
                              ____regionalisms
                              ____employer and/or school affiliations
                              ____religious affiliation/non-affiliation

_X_violates commonly-accepted ____.signature size
  net standards concerning:   ____posting to world distribution subjects
                                  not of general interest
                              ____posting elementary technical questions
                                  which should be resolved at local site
                              __X_limiting postings to appropriate groups
                                  only
                              ____editing of quoted material
                              ____posting of copyrighted material

_X_is uninteresting because it_X__contains hackneyed expressions
                              ____contains outright stupidities
                              ____is inherently self-contradictory
                              ____reflects inadequate intellectual
                                  development or maturity
                              _X__reiterates points made better by others
                              ____is a gratuitous attack on an obvious
                                  provocateur

__contains inane offers to    ____SAT scores
  make comparisons with other ____genital size
  readers concerning:         ____frequency of sexual activity
                              ____age at first exposure to computers
                              ____knowledge of obscure technical
                                  information not of general interest

X__reflects serious mis-      ____the basic functioning of USENET
  understandings concerning:  _X__your role in the functioning of USENET
                              _X__other's interest in what you do or don't do
                              _X__the nature of sarcasm or satire
                                  or humor in general

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:39:29 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>There is more than the water reason to not eat meat, e.g., health, ethics,
>>and/or environment.  Also, you wouldn't have to increase non-meat agriculture,
>>because the reported number of people who can be fed by grains and soybeans
>>US cattle eat is 1.3billion (US population is about 250 million).  Even if the
>>reported number is off by a factor of 5 [one monumental error] we could still
>>feed all americans.

Dan Sorenson writes:
>	We already do.  

The point is, we could still feed all americans without the meat thing quite
well without increasing production.

>Farmland isn't being lost to cattle, it's being lost to suburbs.  

In the US.

>	Why else do you think Somolia is starving?  Did you think the
>farmers of the world organized a boycott, or did you think they just
>give away their grain to needy causes?

Somalia's problems are mostly political. Because the gangs prevented farmers
from planting again this year, their problem will be continuing, unfortunately.

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: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:41:31 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <C16qxt.AxB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   >From article <1993Jan20.231214.16234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
        by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
     [Discussion of researcher whose funding from NIH (National Institutes
       of Health) was suspended, and possibly not restored after the
       legal action was over]
 JH>Given the occurrence of a trial, a controversial, ambiguous verdict, and the
 JH> way the incident provided central focus to PETA's publicity during
 JH> the next decade--these factors create a context in which it is perfectly
 JH> clear to me why Taub was not subsequently funded.  I'm surprised that
 JH> you (maybe not Russell) continue to advance this argument.
 JH
 JH> It's a question, not an argument, and it remains unanswered.
>
RL>Your notion that NIH is a political organ that's influenced by 
  >arguments that aren't strictly scientific is a sword with two 
  >edges.  If it's true that NIH is responsive to folks who are 
  >sympathetic to PETA, think how much more responsive NIH would be 
  >to the men and women who belong to the AMA or the NABR.  
  >
Perhaps you could elaborate on what a 'responsive' NIH could do for
organizations like the AMA or NABR. I'm not sure what inducement
there would be for NIH to 'be responsive', at least in the case of
the AMA. The principle reason for my skepticism is that NIH is a
well-honed federal bureaucracy -- it's no DOD (Defence) or DOE
(Energy), but my bet is that the AMA or NABR are penny-ante
groups, by comparison. My understanding is that physicians are the main
constituency of the AMA; I doubt they are the main, or at least
most powerful, constituency of NIH.
  In my opinion, PETA's impact would derive from the ability to mobilize 
public opinion, the one currency that federal bureaucracies
have in common. *If* the AMA or NABR were able to inspire the
public to a similar froth, I would believe those organizations 
might have impact on the NIH.
  Why do you think the AMA or NABR might have some sway?

Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY Buffalo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:06:24 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`It covers "at home" use.

The misconception here is that tall this water "usage" is actually water
re-usage or more like re*10^30 or so usage.  When "used", water is not
"used up".

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: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:48:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1G8n8.Hqw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>-- Are you certain that the allegation re: cat screaming was based solely
>   on a single letter?  If it is, then I would agree that apologies are
>   in order, but I suspect that the Times-Picayune newspaper will play
>   one or two more cards before the game is officially closed.  They, too,
>   made these same claims.

Am I certain? No.  My review of the 60 minutes segment was just that, a
review.  I do have faith in that program as a reputable source of
information although you may not...I'll be sure to watch next week and will
update the review if they air a retraction.  The program pointed to the
letter as the sole source of the accusation of cat screams and didnt
mention the anonymous interview in your newspaper.

>-- Are you certain that PETA members were responsible for the alleged
>   threats and phone calls?

Am I certain? No.  As before my review was of the program.  In the show the
doctor and his wife said that the callers identified themselves as members
of the group.

>-- Criticism of the doctor's work went far beyond the issue of cat 
>   screams.  Congressman Livingston, for instance, was concerned that
>   the project was a waste of government resources.    ^^^^^^^^^

The program portrayed Livingston as concerned with re-election, evidently
the animal rights PACs give heavily to Livingston.

Although some of you AR people think that I am using the 60 minutes segment
to beat your beliefs over the head but I assure you that is not my
intention.  The main reason I posted it was that it was part of pop media
and seemed to relate directly to this group.  The other reason is that I am
personally appalled by the terroristic tactics of extremist groups that
choose disception over more legit means of forwarding their agenda.  This
not only applies to PeTA but to other radicles such as Earth First! and
Operation Rescue.  After looking over my post it is evident that the tone
of my review was perhaps chiding, but reading the language in the rest of
this newsgroup makes it seem less condemnable.

alex the omnivore
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11789 alt.activism:21474 rec.food.veg:12627
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:43:23 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1993Jan25.143544.26101@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>To begin with, I don't feel that my statements reflect a smug sense of moral
>superiority; I was only addressing the smug manner in which 242 had slagged
>my review (i.e., I was somehow "biased" - I was only pointing out the relative
>nature of the term:  242 can in no way say that *I* am biased; 
>in fact, *he's* 
>much more biased than I am on the issue, simply by the sort of lifestyle he
>leads - there are *actions* that make his position solid [eating animals, etc]
>-- in my case, one could argue there are no such comparable actions, so I'm
>less biased than he would be).  

No, you have a moral or ethical cause. You believe eating meat or
using animals is wrong.  Omnivores do not have a moral cause. They don't
think it's wrong _not_ to eat meat. 

In any case, if a book is written by someone from a small minority
special interest group, with the purpose of promoting the special
interest, the general public is hardly served by a review written by
someone already entirely sympathetic with the special interest.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:43:12 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <31863@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
> I am continually amazed about the differences in coverage of an issue or
> event by the mainstream press and what little I see of the AR press 
> (including what I read from the AR folks here in t.p.a).  When a little
> digging is done, many times it seems that the AR press leaves out some
> essential, but damaging, facts.

As I pointed out previously, many members and employees of the 
American Dental Association were flabbergasted when Sixty Minutes 
did a report on the alleged relationship between multiple 
sclerosis and amalgam fillings two years ago.  On the surface, 
the report aired "some essential but damaging facts", as you 
would say, that were allegedly being hidden from the american 
public by the dental profession.  In truth, however, the 
the report was a one-sided and distorted commentary that grossly 
misinformed the american public.  

I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
public statements.

-- 
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: Hypothetical case (was Re: Silver Spring monkeys)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:46:35 GMT

From article <C16suE.DDn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
>    With that clarification, would it be your contention that
> LACC's are rubber-stamp committees, and that professional veterinary
> care, by individuals not beholden to the project investigators,
> does not add some level of confidence that the researcher "who enjoys
> inflicting pain on animals just for the hell of it" would be greatly
> restricted in the kinds of gratification (s)he could derive?

Again, I could introduce you to dozens of physicians 
and dentists who would tell you privately, but not publicly, 
about doctors who are grossly incompetent and/or sadistic, yet 
serving as clinicians on the staffs of major institutions.  If 
academicians and licensed professionals are reluctant to blow the 
whistle on malefactors who harm human animals, I don't understand 
how/why they'd be willing to blow the whistle on individuals who 
harm non-human individuals.   As I mentioned previously, I've
seen no evidence to support the notion that biomed researchers
have a higher standard of ethics than physicians and dentists;
to the contrary, some of the normative arguments that we see
here on a regular basis (ie, "It's right if we think it's right)
are precisely the sort of commentary that I typically hear from
doctors who're involved in the provision or condonement of dubious 
and/or fraudulent care.

BTW, I'm sure that you have high ethical standards, and I can 
point to many physicians and dentists who also have high standards,
but I consider it unwise to regard high standards as some sort 
of universal norm.  In a hundred years, maybe, but not now.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals