HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:24:37 GMT

From article <1993Jan27.171517.4807@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C1H8p0.2Iy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1k3me1$la8@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>>
>>> It would
>>> also seem that even if 60 minutes was found to be a "tabloid that's uncon-
>>> cerned about the factual basis of it's coverage", they would be no worse 
>>> than what I have seen of PETA!  Certainly 60 minutes at least has shown
>>> how PETA and other ARFs distort and actually tell bold face lies to further
>>> their "causes" and agendas.  
>>
>>Is this true?
>>
>>Did PETA and/or PCRM write the letter that was apparently based on 
>>heresay? 
> 
> Yes.

Hmm.  I was under the impression that the source of the Sixty Minutes
controversy was a letter written by an LSU employee, rather than a PETA 
or PCRM employee.  Was I mistaken?   

>> Would it be fair to say that the woman who did write the
>>letter was telling a "bold face lie"? 
> 
> Yes.

If it turns out that the letter was based on first-hand experience
rather than heresay, would it be fair for me to say that the
statements you've just made are "bold face" lies?  Or, would it
be more truthful to say that they were simply false?

>>  Several months ago, you (Mike) 
>>posted a series of articles claiming that I was a "pervert".  Would
>>it be truthful for me to say that your statements were a set of "bold 
>>face lies" since I know for a fact that I'm not a "pervert"?
> 
> Ahh, Russell.  Your just saying that.  Please don't disillusion me.  You
> know know how I feel about you.

You're free to dream, Greg.

> Several post ago you acussed me of misrepresenting information.  Since you
> have posted no proof of this I feel that I can call you a "boldfaced" lier
> (That is if I were the kind of person to make a personal attack on you)
> If you can prove this claim of yours, then a retraction of the statement,
> if I were to make such a statement, would be in order. >

Please specify the statement that you found objectionable. 

-- 
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: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:00:37 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.142045.29209@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
> In article <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>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?   
> 
> I've been sort of following this thread, and I've got a question 
> for those involved, particularly Russell.  What's your point?  
> This argument has strayed so far from the original, which was 
> something to do, I think, with the rights of cattle, or the 
> ethics of hunting, that it's no longer apparent what the original 
> topic of debate was.  

The arguments against animal agriculture involve three separate 
concerns:

1) ethical arguments regarding the rights and/or suffering of 
   animals;
2) public health issues stemming from the role of animal fats and
   proteins in fostering disease; and
3) environmental arguments.

Vis-a-vis the last issue, opponents of reform often muddy the water
by arguing that water and energy conservationists should focus
on non-livestock use of water and energy rather than livestock use.
The problem with this allegation is that there's no unifying theme
that ties together these diverse areas of agriculture... apart from
the fact that they don't involve animals.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:17:28 GMT

In <1993Jan21.212732.19869@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:
>	If some
>	animal research is to be allowed, then certainly there must be a
>	past example which illustrates this: please name it.  Give us an
>	example of an animal research project which was beneficial to humans.
>	If you cannot, you're waffling.

Insulin.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:14:14 GMT

From article <viking.728202284@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> 	BTW: it takes roughly 40 liters of water pumped and normal
> rainfall to produce whatever the cow will gain each day.

Does this include irrigation water in the many areas of the country
where normal rainfall won't sustain grain and fodder crops?  [no]

-- 
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: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:04:10 GMT

From article <lm87kbINNik2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C19zpp.9Bq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> Give it some more explanation, Russ.  I pointed out to you that the
>>> figures you quoted were, let's see, "ludicrous and misleading."  I
>>> even challenged you to make it right.  You haven't, just as you
>>> haven't mended any of your errors that may look bad for your cause.
>>
>>Your assumption about the amount of water used to produce the grain
>>is faulty.
> 
> It wasn't my argument Russ.  

Yet, you were defending it.

> The only point I was going to make was
> your figures concerning where California water goes are ridiculous.  

Not to Californians and/or US taxpayers who're concerned about the
cost of California water subsidies.

> Here's your little tip: not everyplace that has *anything* to do with
> *even one* head of cattle uses 100% of their water on livestock.  This
> is obvious to most people.

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?

> Your "fact" isn't factual.

If I've presented false facts, why don't you present the truthful
ones?   For example, if it doesn't take 3000 liters of water to
produce one kilo of US beef, how much water does it take? 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
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 21:35:24 GMT

In article <C1FB0G.DK3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1k0a79INNl54@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.
edu (Alex L. Pace):
>
>> To top it all off, an
>> all-star team of research doctors was commissioned to look into the good
>> doctor's work and they found it excellent and, in a report to congress,
>> recommened that the work continue. PeTA continued to pester the congressman
>> that represented the good doctor's district and released the lying letter
>> to the public, soon the funding was cut off.
>
>Two years ago, Sixty Minutes reported some "excellent" research which
>showed that amalgam fillings cause MS and that the removal of amalgam
>fillings can cure MS within a matter of days, if not hours.   Within
>days of the broadcast, dental researchers all around the country were
>screaming, "bullshit", at the top of their lungs.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ



Russell,  Would this be an example of your recent views on
the meaning of "retraction," and "correction and clarification?"

If there is a sample of, say, 10 research programs generally
regarded to be excellent and number 10 is subsequently found
to be less than excellent, numbers 1 through 9 must be less
than excellent too?




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:40:09 GMT

In article <C1H43p.1t9@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> The truth is that LSU was attempting to gain the passage of 
> legislation that would have allowed researchers like Carey to 
> seize animals from local shelters and pounds, including 
> privatedly funded ones.  Would it be reasonable for a privately 
> funded shelter, perhaps a shelter with a no-kill policy, to be 
> forced by law to surrender lost or abandoned pets to men like 
> Carey?  

I thought that it would never happen, but I *partially* agree with you on
this point.  I resent the notion of anyone "seizing" animals from shelters
that might subsequently be adopted and given a good home.  If a shelter
truly had a "no-kill" policy, I would not support using any animals therein
for research.

However, I deeply regret the wasteful practice of euthanizing unadopted
animals when animal researchers can utilize them to gain information that
could enrich human and animal lives.  The euthanization of "liberated"
animals at Aspin Hill by PETA was absolute hypocrisy.

You and your colleagues claim to be concerned about wasting the taxpayer's
money in research.  Why, therefore, do you want to force taxpayer-funded
researchers  to pay exorbitant prices for purpose-bred animals while more
taxpayer dollars are being utilized down the street to euthanize others? 
It is a huge waste of resources, and suggests that the true intention of
the animal "rights" movement is to make animal research prohibitively
expensive.

The animal "rights" opposition to so-called pound seizures cannot possibly
be based on a concern to save the lives of animals because this practice
results in the death of more animals (the one euthanized in the shelter and
the one subsequently purchased to replace it).  This is another example of
how animal welfare is sacrificed for the sake of animal "rights."

I would be in favor of guidelines that would force shelter operators
(including PETA) to determine if an animal could be employed in bona fide
research or education before euthanizing them.  I would also insist that
researchers pay a substantial fee ($50-$100 US, depending on the species)
for each animal.  This badly-needed income could support other activities
by the shelters that could save many more animals.

I am pleased that the animal "rights" movement has FINALLY addressed the
real root of the problem - that people don't control the reproduction of
their animals.  Then again, if animals truly have "rights," how can we
justify such reproductive meddling?  If animals truly have "rights," how
can we justify imprisoning them in "shelters?"

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:15 GMT

From article <1993Jan26.144317.11319@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>In article <C1G3Ht.H36@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 
>>   "Livestock account for 15% to 20% of global methane emissions ---
>>    about 3% of global warming from all gases."
>> 
>> From Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
>> and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991.  BTW, 
>> the source of info for this statement was a joint report from the Japan
>> Environment Agency and the EPA.  
>
>Perhaps it has escaped the residents of Louisiana, but cattle are
>not the only creature included in the category of "livestock,"
>which means that, if "livestock" produce 15% to 20% of global
>methane, cattle must produce some fraction of that.  The rest
>belongs to goats, sheep, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc.  

Again, the issue at stake is the relationship between livestock 
agriculture and environmental decay.  It wouldn't matter if the 
livestock happened to be ostriches or llamas or yaks or whatever.  

>> You're free to wave your arms around and point in different directions 
>> in an attempt to distract attention, but it won't change the fact that 
>> livestock agriculture imposes heavy environmental burdens in terms of 
>> water and energy resources as well as pollution.  
>
>What happened to the methane, Russell?  You're free to wave your
>arms around and point in different directions in an attempt to 
>distract attention, but it won't change the fact that your methane 
>argument has pretty well gone up in the proverbial smoke.

No they haven't.  If you really think the EPA and WorldWatch data
is erroneous, please post the the correct data.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Summary: Name Dropper!
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:08:43 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics

In article <1992Dec30.183024.21385@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com
   (Robert Black (x37236)) writes, responding to Martin Hulsey:
   >In article <mhulsey-211292164750@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>
            mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
     [much deleted in this dusty old thread ...]
 MH>> Issue 4: Public input to the approval process
   >> 
   >> James Hoskins recently created a hypothetical scenario whereby usenet
   >> participants sat on a "Lawrence Review Board" to consider a hypothetical
   >> experiment. After several weeks, the LRB has been unable render a decision
   >> on ONE experiment.  Considering this example, and considering that ACUC
   >> committees often consider DOZENS of proposals at one sitting, do you agree
   >> that greater input from the public on ACUC panels might result in
   >> unnecessary delays in the approval process?  Would it serve any purpose,
   >> other than an obstructive one, to have animal "rights" activists on such
   >> committees?

RB>I believe that it would serve a purpose, if the activists chosen were
  >qualified professionals.  I'm thinking of people like Neal Barnard,
  >Stephen Kaufman, Irwin Bross, Eric Dunayer, Donald Barnes, Christopher
  >D. Smith, Brandon Reines, etc.  There are many others. 

Many of these names I can't place. Would you mind running thru the
list, giving their principal accomplishment or activity, and the
qualification that make them exemplary as Animal Use Review Board
members? I'm not looking for anything particularly elaborate, just
a context into which to put the names. A word or three on each would
suffice, probably.

Thanks-
Bob Straubinger
Pharmaceutics
SUNY/Buffalo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:16:47 GMT

From article <swood.727931253@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
>> fountains and swimming pools?
> 
> And once filled, would you be willing to fathom a guess on how much
> is needed to KEEP it filled.  I would not say much, when rain is
> added to the equation.

Thanks for disputing Rich's handwaving notion that swimming pools 
and fountains warrant our attention, as water conservationists,
more than livestock agriculture.   Frankly, I don't agree with your
rationale, because the evaporation rates in arid climates are 
far greater than you seem to realize.  Be that as it may, I doubt 
that the volume of water used for swimming pools comes anywhere near 
the volume used for dairy and meat production.

> ...
>> By contrast, all the at-home uses of water for bathing, 
>> cooking, washing clothes, etc is roughly 380 liters per person 
>> per day, on the average.  Gee, that's a lot of water for one 
>> burger, eh Rich?  
> 
> What do your statistics show as the amount of water needed to feed one
> rice or wheat or corn plant?  I know that in my house, I put less water
> a day in my dogs dish than I do in plant pots.  (considering the amount
> of plants that it would take to equal that weight of my dogs.)

Good question.  Livestock consumed 70% of the US grain crop in 1990,
so it's clear that water expenditures on rice, wheat, and corn plants,
whatever they happen to be, would be substantially less if we fed grain
directly to humans instead of using it to produce meat.  

> This H2O conservation arguement does not 'hold water'!

So you say.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:25:21 GMT

In article <C1HvxK.8MH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[I've directed followups to talk.politics.animals, where this thread
> now belongs]
>
>From article <1993Jan26.210557.18376@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> Alka, do you feel it is correct for people to disregard the
>> rights of others to promote their cause.  What if I believed yeast were
>> being cruelly treated in bakeries or breweries.  Does that legitimize my
>> burning the place down and attempting to take tha lives of the bakers?
>
>-- Do yeast organisms have thoughts and feelings?

Well, I believe they do.  You may disagree with me, as the majority of the
nation would.  But, I feel these yeast are being victimized.  Does that
justify my criminal activity?

>   If yeast organisms
>   are incapable of experiencing their own existence, why would they
>   care how we treat them, anymore than a car would care whether or
>   not we run the engine without oil?

Do you know that they don't.

>
>-- You've stated in the past that the thoughts and feelings of animals
>   don't count in your assessment of cruelty if/when their torment is
>   "necessary" or "useful".   Since women in Miami don't "need" to
>   wear mink coats and most US sport hunters don't really "need" to hunt 
>   deer, how do you justify the suffering that may be experienced by mink 
>   and deer in these two circumstances?

Russell, why do you persistantly attempt to redirect the issue.  My
purpose here is to disseminate the truth about animal research.  (Since we
can't rely on the AR press to do so.)  
I do not own mink coats.
I do not hunt.
That's my position.
>
>Thanks in advance for helping me to understand your position.  
>
What can I say!  Was it good for you?

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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Trapping
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:45:46 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <C1Ft45.7oJ@moscow.uidaho.edu> gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
>: In article <1993Jan17.204907.3513@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>: >Well I just finished up another successful trapping season.  As someone  
>: >who actually sees what happens first hand I would like to state for the  
>: >record that I believe the animals do not experienced prolonged suffering.  
>: >
>: >Just thought I'd bring an actual report from the field.  I am a licensed
>: >trapper and nuisance control agent.  I wonder if any AR people out there  
>: >can share their views, while backing them up with hands on field  
>: >experience?
>: >
>: >Karl Rominger
>: >romingk@alleg.edu
>
>So what is the point here?  That if animals do not "experience prolonged
>suffering" that trapping is okay?  What is the moral basis for
>engaging in unneccessary killing?  Death is death whether painful or
>not.  And what of the non-target species?  What is their particular
>crime...oops...wrong place at the wrong time...sorry! Clamp!

Assuming you may well be ignorant of the point. All the antitrapping literature
I have seen from AR organizations (and there's been a lot of it) dwelled on
the supposed excruciating, prolonged suffering of the trapped animal. If
AR organizations (as opposed to individuals, many of whom I have far more
respect for) would stick to their real agenda rather than smokescreening
with the more sensationalistic bullshit, there would be no need to refute
said bullshit. Your reply, I believe, gets right to the real point. That is
that ARs are in general against the killing of animals, period. The fact that
the vast majority of the inactive (in this debate) population is not, but 
is opposed to needless suffering (they do perceive a need to kill animals,
but would prefer it be done by methods that they perceive to be humane)
causes the AR machine to dwell on side issues rather than going to the heart
of the matter, as you have done.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Scabies experiments at Wright State University
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:13:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Rich Young?:
>>	How many would have been euthanized at the pounds due to overcrowding
>>	had they not been used for lab experiments?

Paul Roberts:
>Maybe all of them. At least they wouldn't have been subject to the
>considerable distress that Rosemary describes.

They also would have died in vain without doing anything for our scientific
knowledge.  If they were going to die anyway, might as well help out along
the way, especially considering how eager dogs are to please.  Also
consider the pathetic conditions in most of our nation's pounds where
animals ofter suffer from malnutrition, disease, mange, and neglect.  All
in all I enthusiastically support the use of animals that are going to be
put to death anyway.

I believe it was Jules Feiffer that said "Christ died for our sins.  Dare
we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"  If it makes you
feel better you can think of lab animals as martyrs for mankind.

alex the omnivore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals