HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:54:55 GMT

banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:

>(Alka Chandna) writes:
>>I'm not a writer, but I very much enjoyed this book by Newkirk & thought I'd
>>take a shot at writing a review.  

>A worship service.  It wasn't a review, Alka, it was a little prayer to
>your diety.  An unbiased review might bne much more informative.

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


>						--Ernest Hemingway


I think you forgot to capitalize the "d" in diety, 242.  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?  From your signature quotation, you obviously don't have any
problem with abusing, tormenting & killing animals for the fun of it either -
I guess that makes you even more unbiased.  The notion that the status quo
defines an unbiased perspective just doesn't cut it with me.  Can you do better,
please?
alka
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:16:21 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>The ratios still hold, though.  It takes 5 to 20 calories of Fossil Fuel
>> 
>> 	Would you and Russel get together and compare notes?  Somebody
>> is not using the Second Edition of the text.
>
>Right.  I'm not using the almanac.
>
>According to the sources I mentioned in the previous article, it 
>takes 17,000 kilocalories to produce one kilo of raw, trimmed 

Shit.  Is this the Spastic's Sleight-of-Hand contest?

17,000 kcalories of *WHAT*, Russell?  Not fossil fuel.  OF GRAIN and
grass!  That gives us the 8.47 ratio that probably boils down to the
4.8 pounds of grain to 1 pound of beef that hasn't been disputed,
pinhead.

>Incidently, it's worth mentioned that all of the calories in
>the hamburger come from fats and proteins

Thank you, Mr. Science.  Most of us are aware that the carbohydrate
calories come from the potato sitting next to the steak.  Are you
shooting for a position as a public service announcer at the local TV
station?

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

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:24:08 GMT


From article <1993Jan25.161122.9344@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> [lots and lots of Sixty Minutes stuff deleted]

I'm going to address your comments in detail, but not without additional
investigation.  In particular, I want to have a chat with James Gill
at the Times-Picayune, who allegedly interviewed some of the LSU 
employees who had complained about the cat screams.  

Meanwhile, please call Enid Neidle at the American Dental Association 
and ask her whether or not the ADA would consider Sixty Minutes to be:

a) a purveyor of reliable information; or
b) a television tabloid that's unconcerned about the factual
   basis of its coverage.

-- 
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: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:16:36 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.214900.16982@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
> 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?
> 
> As I recollect, no.
> 
> Russell, could you explain the connection you are making here?

Try to stay on top of the threads instead of asking me to explain
fragments that you read at random.

> 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.

Alex Pace had written:
=================================================================
ap> 60 minutes really pegged these PeTA freaks for what they are and 
ap> exposed their technique of trying to use imagery of household 
ap> pets to stir the public into thinking that the doctor is somehow 
ap> hurting poor little fluffy.  The fact is that these animals are 
ap> usually raised in the lab with the sole purpose of being 
ap> experimented on.  
=================================================================

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?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:56:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

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):
>> Actually what Mr. Neidle's opinion of 60 minutes really doesn't matter
>> or have any relevance on the facts of the cat shooting research.  

>That's Dr. Neidle, Mike.  And Dr. Neidle is a woman.  The prior story
>on dental amalgam is certainly relevant because it demonstrates that
>"Sixty Minutes" coverage can be sensational, rather than reliable.

Oh, excuse me.  Russell, do you know of *any* publication that has *never*
published something that was claimed to be false by someone?  How is this
one alleged misrepresentation out of the hundreds upon hundreds of segments
60 minutes has broadcast supposed help your case or influence us?  Did you
think everybody felt 60 minutes (or any form of publication) is infallable?


>> 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?


From what I've seen.  


>Did PETA and/or PCRM write the letter that was apparently based on 
>heresay?  Would it be fair to say that the woman who did write the
>letter was telling a "bold face lie"?   Several months ago, you 
>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"?


So you say.  However, I am not sure I am convinced you aren't a pervert
considering your propensity at making off-color sexual remarks about 
those with who you don't agree.  We have already dealt with the fact
that you've lied before, let's not get into it again.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000



Mike Linan




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: LSU Cat Shooting
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:11:03 GMT

In article <C1H7H5.2AM@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> Getting back to the LSU cat shooting experiments, you seem to think
> that these two-million dollar experiments would have been justifiable 
> if they had saved just one human life.   Just a block away from the 
> LSU complex is a large, publicly supported institution called
> Charity Hospital where poor men and women and children from the
> inner-city housing projects of New Orleans typically go when they
> require (substandard) medical care.  If it could be established that 
> a two million dollar investment would have saved the lives of one
> hundred of these people, would you be in favor of the expenditure?
> Or opposed?

Animal "rights" activists frequently argue that money spent on animal
research could be more effectively spent elsewhere.  In fact, we Americans
spend only 40 cent on biomedical research (animal and non-animal) for every
100 dollars spent on health care (FASEB J. 6:2492; 1992).  If all of the
money spent on animal research were diverted to any other aspect of health
care, including prevention, it would scarcely be noticed.

So please refrain from suggesting that animal research is depriving
indigent citizens of health care.  It is simply not true.

--
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: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:11:12 GMT

From article <1k6tco$cpu@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>>I was citing a statement from American Dental Association.
> 
> Does that automatically mean the ADA was telling the truth?  Who are we
> to believe?  Perhaps 60 minutes did make some errors on this story but,
> are we to accept as the truth that they did because the ADA complained?

Not at all.  On the other hand, those of us who were familiar 
with the scientific literature and historical background of 
amalgam toxicity claims were shocked when Sixty Minutes presented 
a one-sided, sensationalist story that was unsupported by the 
evidence and reflective of a body of opinions that many of us 
regard as outright quackery.  There was a time when I truly 
respected the quality of Sixty Minutes' investigative reports.  
After the toxic amalgam story aired, I realized that Sixty 
Minutes has quite a bit in common with supermarket tabloids.  

> ...
>>The truth usually comes out in the end, Mike.
> 
> My point is that having heard you side of the cat shooting research and
> 60 minutes side I still am not sure what the truth is.  Do you?  I do 
> know that your version was less than complete it would appear.  Was that
> by design or were you ignorant of all the facts?

I've been reluctant to discuss the "cat shooting" experiment for a
number of reasons. 

> ...  With so many vested interests involved I'm not sure who is lying
> or who to believe.

You're learning to be skeptical.   In this situation, given the lack
of information at your disposal, skepticism is the only honest position.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: This Russell fellow seems rude...
Date: 25 Jan 1993 09:56:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1E2s8.71J@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>> First".   Are you a member of the Klan by any chance?

And he also wrote:

>I'm free to point out that you appear to be something of a racist 
>bigot.  The fact that you asked me, after the fact, not to discuss
>your attitudes and behavior doesn't obligate me in any way.

I'm usually not one to comment on one's personal actions but:

It seems really clear that this Russ character is devoid of any tact
whatsoever and will sink to the lowest of lows when his doomsday
pseudoscience is defeated with superior reason.  Why does he feel so
threatened by all of this that he feels as if he must call someone a Nazi
in order to discredit their opinions?  Is it because his own opinions have
failed to be convincing?  What a shame.

alex the omnivore

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:45:39 GMT

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.

Werner
From: jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Russel Lawrence Disputes Himself (Was Re: California/Desert)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:42:59 GMT
Organization: The Electoral Collage
Bcc: banta@abingdon.eng.sun.com jpoller@novell.com

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
     According to USDA data (cited in the WorldWatch paper mentioned 
     previously), 70% of the 1990 US grain crop was consumed by 
     livestock.

(242 lbs before cooking) writes:
     This is the flip side of your "single use" argument.  What Dan
     Sorenson pointed out is that 30% of the grain produced is suitable for
     human consumption.

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
   Are you sure it's not 30% or 40% or 50% or 60%???   Let's see
   some data.

Need We Say More?
---
Jack Noze -- jpoller@novell.com

	"Its not the size, its the sensitivity that counts" -- JennyG
	
	"Your battery is dead.  I couldn't have come up with a more suitable
	    analogy, myself." -- andy banta@abingdon.sun.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Russell's lie
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:30:52 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.161737.9661@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C186AD.Ko9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>No, I'm not.  If I were to make ten statements about Martin
>>Hulsey and retract nine of them, my retraction is still a retraction...
>>irregardless of the fact that I didn't retract every single statement.
> 
> Would your retraction of the one statemnt reflect on the validity of the
> other nine?

Of course not.  However, it would be silly to argue that my retraction
isn't a retraction on the grounds that it didn't include every single
statement in the article.
 
>>> Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
>>> the original article without circulating the retraction, Martin?
>>> 
> When did you recieve this information from F.A.C.T.S?  CFARR got a letter
> from PETA's lawyers threatening suit if they persisted in distributing the
> article.  But, this was before the case was settled, and corrections were
> printed. 

You didn't answer my question:  

Don't you think it's dishonest for an organization to circulate
the original article without circulating the retraction?

-- 
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: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:26:56 GMT

Russell Lawrence, who is already having a bad day as a result of last
night's episode of "60 Minutes," recently posted a quote by Peter Gerone
concerning the conditions in Ed Taub's lab as "evidence" of Taub's alleged
"cruelty" toward his monkeys.

I thought that TPA participants would be interested in seeing this letter
that Gerone wrote.  The letter was provided to me by Taub after I sent him
a copy of Russell's post.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tulane
Delta Regional Primate Center
Three Rivers Road
Covington, Louisiana 70433
(504) 892-2040

                                                    February 28, 1991

Bob Thompson, Editor
_The Washington Post Magazine_
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20071

Dear Mr. Thompson,

     The article on the Silver Spring monkeys written by Peter Carlson was
well written.  I believe that he made an honest attempt to present all
sides of the story as fairly as possible.  His coverage of what has taken
place since the monkeys came to Tulane was accurate.

     He correctly quoted me as saying that "today you'd never see
conditions like the Silver Spring monkeys".  That may sound like I
disapproved of the conditions in Dr. Taub's laboratory.  On the contrary,
the "conditions" I was referring to were those shown in the PETA tape, made
by Mr. Pacheco, at a time and under circumstances that would suit his
ulterior motive of discrediting animal research.  I want to make it clear
that, based on the testimony of people who inspected Dr. Taub's laboratory,
I feel the tape misrepresented the true conditions.  I have seen no
credible evidence to the contrary.

Sincerely,


Peter J. Gerone

bcc: D. Grant, PR, TMC
     Dr. Taub
     Dr. E. Brenner
     Dr. L. Sibal
     Dr. J. Brady
     Dr. T. Pons
     NABR

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Therefore, it is obvious that Gerone was one of many reasonable people who
was falsely convinced of Taub's guilt by PETA's hyperbolic propaganda.  How
many others are out there?   

Perhaps this and other similar antics by PETA are the reason why Gerone is
now such an outspoken critic.

I have not yet obtained a copy of the PETA tape regarding the Silver Spring
Monkeys, but Taub maintains that there are a multitude (~50) of
inaccuracies and distortions therein.  When Taub and I have more time, we
will document these inaccuracies and distortions.  Stay tuned.

As for Russell's quote, he should now be aware that:

He who lives by the newspaper account, dies by the newspaper account.

I sincerely hope that this Gerone nonsense will now be put to rest.

--
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: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:44:10 GMT

From article <1jsgmbINNjam@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article <C1BtED.JEo@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> If you really believe that it takes more plants to feed 
>> vegetarians than [meat-eating] humans, please explain why the 
>> governments in starving countries m don't resolve their problems 
>> by simply growing more cattle.  
> 
> Simple, the reason that people in africa have been starving for 
> the past 10 years is that the land they live on is now a desert.  
> Some will try to claim that it is a desert because of overgrazing 
> but that theory is easily discounted by countless geological 
> surveys that reveal that the desert has been expanding and 
> receeding cyclically for eons.  

[I'm going to pass over your comments about the cause of 
desertification.]

How about food production in countries that have ample water 
resources, Bangladesh, for example?  Do you think they could 
resolve their food supply problems by eating cattle rather than 
plants?  

> Even if they didnt live in a desert then the reason that starving 
> people would want to grow grain is that starvation is an 
> immediate problem that causes a noticable reduction in the work 
> force.  It only takes a few months to grow a grain from seed to 
> flour but to build up a herd takes years.  Its not that these 
> governments agree with you Russ, its that they want to end their 
> problem as quickly as possible...  

What are the livestock going to eat in such countries, apart from 
plants?  It seems clear that your equation doesn't include the 
plants that must be consumed by animals in order to grow and 
reproduce.  

In 1985, the world harvest included app. 506 million metric tons
of wheat, 474 million metric tons of rice, and 488 million metric
tons of corn.  In that same year, the world produced roughly
115 million tons of meat (carcass weight --- not trimmed weight).
These figures ought to give you some insights into the global
importance of grain as opposed to meat.

Most people I know think of the food chain as a pyramid, with 
lots and lots of plants near the bottom, a much smaller number of 
plant-consuming animals in the middle, and an even smaller number 
of scavengers and carnivores at the top.  You seem to be saying 
that the world could support a greater population if the pyramid 
were inverted: lots and lots of carnivores at the top, a smaller 
number of plant-eating animals in the middle, and a small number 
of plants at the bottom.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: nfs@volkl.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Reply-To: nfs@volkl.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:12:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.071145.13602@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

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

Well, now, just how is it going to do that?  We're going to turn 
everyone into vegetarians, so they are going to eat more plant
material, which means we need to grow MORE plants for people.
And we're not going to slaughter any more animals, so they're still
going to be fed and watered too, so we'll need just as many plants
and just as much water for them as now.  Maybe more, since it appears
that castration is out if your agenda becomes policy.

Looks like reservoirs are going to be even more depleted.

Norbert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton