HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:10:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <192lfpINN8m1@agate.berkeley.edu> by spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope):

> w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu writes:
> 
> > We aim to teach the public about the
> > true nature of animal research 
> 
> Nope.  You're just organizing another attempt at
> whitewashing.  The true facts would repulse the public.
> (And you knew that too.)

I think rather the true facts of the positions of organizations such as PETA
and ALF repulse the public, which they in fact almost invariably do.  That's
why the smarter public spokesmen conceal their real agenda.

> > ....and why we feel animal research must be allowed to continue.  
> 
> Well, there's two possible reasons for that.
> 
> Is it simply the money, or are you actually brainwashed?

You left out one.  They've empirically arrived at that conclusion and feel
that it's been proven to their satisfaction.  Looked at in another way,
Who's paying YOU?

> Actually, brainwashed is a little strong, so I'll retract
> that.  Co-opted fits about right.

Who co-opted YOU?

> > We have been quite successful over the last year, and we would be 
> > more than happy to speak to anyone interested in setting up a 
> > similar orginazation.
> 
> Of course you've been successful.  If there's one thing
> the animal testing community is good at it's closing 
> ranks.  Too bad they've forgotten how to be scientists.

No, they've never learned to be anti-rational idealogues.  They could BECOME
anti-rational idealogues, but then they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be Nazis
Maoists or animal rights activists.

> If there's anything more reprehensible than wanton unnecessary
> animal testing, it's organizing to ramp it up to even
> more unnecessary levels.  And if there's anything more
> reprehensible than *that*, it's gloating over the "success" 
> of said activity.

Define "wanton, unecessary".  The MOST reprehensible thing of all is the 
pathological anti-humanity of the AR industry.

> w95_cook, you and others like you simply don't have the guts to 
> admit that animal testing is, in fact, inhumanity on a gross scale.
> You know it.  But you won't say it. 

No, rather they refuse to be "saved" by the healing power of AR mummery.  Good
for them.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:57:44 GMT

In <Bu2EwK.4pH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> *Two* sources?  That's it?  I can't even write a 200-level
>ds> speech without including more sources than that.  Right!  I'm
>ds> becoming an academic!  Seriously, I can prove that Washington, D.C.
>ds> is the safest place on earth by using only two sources.  I'll have
>ds> to look for these next time I'm in the library.

>Count 'em again.  While you're counting the secondary sources, be 
>sure to include the primary sources listed in the three citations 
>above.  I think you'll discover that they're quite extensive.  

	My mistake, three sources.  If the secondary sources were taken into
original account, they would list in the primary sources.  That they do not
appear there indicates to me that they were not reviewed in any detail.

>ds> I remember a claim of each cow drinking something like thirty
>ds> gallons of water per day.  My experience has shown ten or less is more
>ds> the correct figure, but if you take all the water used by the garden,
>ds> the washing machine, the shower, and the cattle, then divide by the
>ds> number of cattle, you can see where your average will be scewed. 

>As I recall, we've discussed the amount of water required to produce
>a pound of edible meat, but not the amount of water that a cow drinks
>every day.   Were you assuming that the irrigation water required to
>produce fodder and feed grain should not be counted in the consumption
>figures?

	We discussed both, and you can count all the irrigation you want.
In (suprise!) the vast majority of places, it isn't used, nor is it
economically feasable to do so.  The typical suburban neighborhood of
just a few square blocks probably uses more water on the lawn and garden
than what a farmer can afford to pump on his fields, but quite a few
people seem to forget this sort of usage.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.214535.27940@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
[ ... ]
>   The philosophy that human life is infinitely valuable and everything else
>expendable in pursuit of extending it is beyond my grasp. Maybe because I have
>no fear of death.
>   I'm afraid I've really taken this thread off track. My argument is against 
>the entire medical system, not animal research in particular. Sorry about that.

Interesting post, and I can support most of it. If you'll allow me
to now take it even more off track, into an important topic:

The USA treats "Americans' lifes" as infinitely valuable. Fine -- noble
goal -- if it's not carried out to an absurd level, like killing mass
numbers of humans and animals, let alone causing untold suffering of same,
to save just that one life.

But how does the USA treats human lifes of those who are not Americans?
Diddly squat, as hundreds and thousands of Iraqi infantrymen, who were
FORCED at gunpoint to go to the front lines, and then left there by their
commanders, were buried live in the sand or blown to bits with cluster
bombs. Even your cold blooded sadistic hunter/butcher/meat eater would
have been repulsed if he/she had been there on the ground with them.

Humans killed on a mass scale comparable to a few day's worth of
"processing" at a poultry slaughter house. Make the comparison, make
the linkage, and suddenly the Animal Rights advocates would seem quite
justified in some of their outrage.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:40:29 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

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

>In article <1992Sep10.135918.24842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>>
>>Maybe that's why we never see an 800 number for PETA?  Bet they'd scream
>>if they had to pay for phone calls from people who disagree with them.

>So?  Are we to conclude from this that the opponents of PETA and Greenpeace
>are more likely to abuse 800 numbers than the opponents of fur farms and
>pork?

I would conclude that PETA and Greenpeace know just the damage that can be
done to a business with an 800 number, as they have had thier own people
condone just such tactics.  Therefore, in a move of self-defence against
having thier own procedures turned against them, they choose not to have
the 800 numbers.  Now, in case you want an example, there was a post on
CompuServe some months ago from one Debbie Leahy, PETA apologist, asking all
Animal rights people to call 'Jo Jo the dog man' at his 800 number as many
times as possible to run him out of business with high phone bills.

Of course, it could be that these organizations that depend on contributions
to stay around have better places to spend thier money than on 800 numbers.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:31:20 GMT

In article <BuBvFM.I35@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Several posters have commented that some deer appear to be perfectly
>rl> friendly to humans when/where hunting is not allowed, yet nowhere
>rl> to be seen by the close of hunting season.
>
>From article <1992Sep09.154955.5583@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
>kb> Can you provide quotes from those articles, Russell? Apparently
>kb> I missed them.
>
>Sure.
>
>From article <1992Aug28.221345.15367@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>======================================================================
>ja> Because he may win in a confrontation with a wolf.  He will most 
>ja> likely lose to a hunter.  This is probably learned behavior.  In 
>ja> a park with no hunting, a deer may walk right into your camp.  
>ja> They don't do that where I hunt.  I'd be glad to take you to both 
>ja> areas if you don't believe it.  Different situations call for 
>ja> different responses...  
>======================================================================
>
>kb> ... What is your definition of friendly, btw?  Do you mean get 
>kb> within a few feet of the deer and it not run or even feed it 
>kb> by hand? This is what I would consider friendly.
>
>Perhaps I shouldn't speak for Jeff, but I don't think that's the 
>definition that he had in mind.  
>

I mean friendly as a relative term. I have had deer walking past my motorcycle
about 20 feet away while I was drinking beer and talking with friends. I know
better than to approach a wild animal and try to hand feed it. It'd dangerous
to me and possibly harmful to the animal. The place I remember most clearly 
having these relatively tame deer is Enchanted Rock State Park in the Texas
hill country. Last year Parks and Wildlife started having limited hunting to 
try to lower the population. It would be interesting to go back (I haven't been
there since then) and see if the deer's behavior has changed. Would they
suddenly become more wary during hunting season, but return to their unwary
state shortly after? Could be an interesting study for someone living in the 
area.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:35:09
In-reply-to: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 14 Sep 92 03:20:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.032028.1407@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

   [Lots deleted]
   In Indiana, there is a problem with an overabundance of deer in the
   State Parks (no hunting allowed, hunters reintroduced deer to the
   state in the 30's).

No come on!  This is bull.  Are the exploding deer populations in
Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio also due to hunters
"reintroducing" them to those states?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:11:45 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>Then explain why the aquifers are drying up in some places.  There is a limited
>supply of fresh water in the world and we are doing our best to use it up
>quickly......

	How about cities pumping water from the aquifer, using it, then
dropping it into the storm sewers where it can head down the river and
pollute the Gulf Stream?  Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to indicate that
major seaboard municipalities have a problem with this happening.

>Then explain those long pipe thingies that rotate about a center pivot 
>point that seem to be growing all over Nebraska..... they usually only
>grow where crops are.  Maybe it's modern art.... from the air those
>green circles are really neat lookin'    :-)

	Whenever you come down from the air, you might have a look at
wht passes for soil in Nebraska.  Many of us call it "sand," and some
have even gone so far as to call it "parking lot foundation."  Really,
Nebraska is generally far too dry and sandy for serious crop growth.
Hence, they need to irrigate.  The same can be said of much of California.
Take a look around your state and note how few farms are irrigated.  Now
note that even fewer in Iowa are irrigated.  If you don't need it, it
doesn't make economic sense to use it.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:51:36 GMT

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

>Though I have never personally eyewitnessed such a stirring and stark 
>drama as you describe, I have no problem accepting your interpretation
>of what the ram was experiencing.  But how you do answer those who would
>dismiss your words as idle projections of human feelings onto animals,
>that is, as sentimental unscientific anthropomorphizing?

	I ask this only because of my rather warped sense of irony and
sarcasm, but...  Russell, how *would* you answer this?

	Just food for thought, no reply needed.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:51:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.203237.13105@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.154150.11709@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
>bert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>If you're saying that ARs fail to appreciate that there is incredible
>>suffering within the natural world, then you're probably wrong.  ARs do
>>realize this and they also realize that a certain amount of cruelty is
>>human-caused and preventable.
>>
>>Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
>>agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
>>difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
>>the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
>>are probably very important to you.
>
>Yes. I once lived in a place where animals were slaughtered in the presence
>of other animals.  In particular, one beautiful prize ram was being
>kept around and fed choice food to be fattened up for his ultimate
>demise.  He witnessed a succession of smaller and less impressive
>animals have their throats cut, gasp for breath, twitch and expire--
>right in front of him.  To the extent that I'm using the right word, the
>animal clearly went "insane" from his experiences.   I was there when
>he was killed; he knew it was coming, I felt the animals's panic and
>sensed its level of comprehension of what was happening to it.

Though I have never personally eyewitnessed such a stirring and stark 
drama as you describe, I have no problem accepting your interpretation
of what the ram was experiencing.  But how you do answer those who would
dismiss your words as idle projections of human feelings onto animals,
that is, as sentimental unscientific anthropomorphizing?

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Youth Empowerment Workshop
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:11:56 GMT



Animals, the Earth and Ourselves:
         A Youth Empowerment Workshop


   Zoe Weil, director of the AAVS educational program ANIMALEARN,
and Sally Clinton, director of the Vegetarian Education Network, will
be hosting "Animals, the Earth and Ourselves: A Youth Empowerment
Workshop," September 19-20, 1992.
   The workshop is designed for 13-20 year olds who are active in the
animal rights and environmental movements.  Its purpose is to promote
empowerment, energy and commitment among youth who are working on
behalf of the planet.
   During the course of the weekend participants will enjoy a variety of
exercises designed to deepen their connection to nature, foster their
self-esteem, and bring them together towards a common goal -- helping
animals and the earth.
   The workshop will be held at the home of Sally Clinton, located in a
beautiful farm setting in Lancaster County, Pa.  For more information,
please contact Zoe Weil at the AAVS, (215) 887-0816.


* From the September 1992 issue of "The AV," the journal of the
  American Anti-Vivisection Society.
From: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: Animal rights...again
Date: 15 SEP 92 12:47:51 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

In a previous article, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) wrote:
>> No law that I am aware of has ever given animals rights.  Therefore
>>it is a blatant lie to say otherwise.  Until such a law is passed, I will
>>continue to say that animals have no rights, and I will continue to be right.
> 
>I don't know why it is a "blatant lie" to say animals don't have rights.!?
>Is it right to torture an animal to death?  If you don't think so, then you
>have just given it a natural right.  Some may think it is perfectly ok to
>torture an animal, but some people also feel that certain members of the human
>race are not deserving of human rights.......

Certainly, no rational being supports torturing an animal to death.  In that
sense, yes, every living creature is entitled to certain "rights."  However,
this is generally not what is meant by the phrase "animal rights".  Most
AR groups are advancing the position that humans and animals are morally
equivalent and that all animals are therefore entitled to all rights
enjoyed by humans.  This is an important distinction.




_______________________________________________________________

Jim Cook
W95_COOK@wums.wustl.edu

_______________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 06:40:18 GMT

Just now, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) eloquently quotes:

>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -

Robert, I admire your tenacity and even temperedness in this whole
debate.  To those on the other side of this debate, the animal
exploiters and sadists, just carefully consider Einstein's quote
above.  He's already made it as simple as possible for you all to grasp
his meaning, and he's also warned us that it should not be made any
simpler. Those on the other side have often violated this simple rule:
they try to make it too simple, and therefore fail to see the inherent
fragility of their positions.

The phrase "Family Values" is very simple too.
Unfortunately, it's too simple. Hence it fails.
That's why the Republicans don't bring it up anymore.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 16:01:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


What the hell is so profound about this!?

We all know the AR-types want to ban animal utilization in all
its forms and turn us into the over-urbanized, vegetarian,
middle-class idiots they are.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Serial Killer Stalking Sportsmen II
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:59:54 GMT


Back a few weeks ago, I posted an article about a sniper that is stalking
sporstmen in Ohio.  At that time, I indicated that I would post any further
developments wrt this matter on this newsgroup.

Whereas I was pretty quick to point an accusatory finger at ARs, in fairness
it should be noted that nobody in a position of authority is doing so, at
least not publicly.  

Nonetheless, it appears that somebody is out to murder sportsmen, and as he 
previously boasted, his activities appear to have spread into neighboring 
states, as well.
*****************************************************************************


From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Monday, Sept. 14, 1992

SNIPER PROBE GROWS - 3 hunters' deaths fit Ohio shootings

AP/Columbus  -  Three hunters killed in Michigan and Indiana may have been 
slain by the person believed to be responsible for the deaths of 5 outdoorsmen 
in Eastern Ohio, authorities say.

"Basically, these are homicides of unknown motives," said Dave Hanna, senior
supervisor in the FBI's Columbus office.  "We are looking at them but are not
ready to say they are connected.  They fit the general parameters."

The fatal shootings under review were in Kalamazoo County in southern Michigan
in 1990, and Steuben County in northeastern Indiana in 1989.

James Bennett, 37, of Leonidas, Mich., and Douglas Estes, 33, of Kalamazoo, 
Mich., were found shot to death Nov. 17, 1990, during the Michigan firearms 
deer season, in the Fulton County State Game Area in Kalamazoo County.

Capt. James Van Dyken of the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department said the two
were hunting seperately.  The guns the two hunters used were found, but neither 
is believed to have been fired, he said.

About 80 miles away, Vern Eichner, 21 of Grabill, Indiana was shot to death 
Nov. 16, 1991 while hunting on a family farm in Southern Steuben County.  He 
was killed with a rifle, the Sheriff's Department said.

An Indiana detective investigating Eichner's death was in Coshocton Friday to
discuss similarities to the Ohio deaths.

Michigan authorities, who learned of the rural Ohio deaths through an FBI
database, plan to meet with an Ohio task force soon and then stop in Indiana 
to discuss the death there.

"We can't dismiss the fact that they are all related," Van Dyken said.

A recent newspaper article about the Ohio deaths caught the attention of the
Indiana authorities, said Chief Deputy Dennis Lipely of the Steuben County
Sheriff's Department.

"If all the slayings are related, we want to catch this guy badly," he said.

The Ohio slayings occurred between April 1, 1989 and April 1 of this year..

The victims were Jamie Paxton, 21, of Bannock, found in Belmont County;  Kevin
Loring, 30, of Duxbury, Mass., found in Muskingum County;  Donald Welling, 35,
of Strasburg, found in Tuscarawas County;  Gary Bradley, 44, of Williamstown, 
W. Va., found in Noble County; and Claude Hawkins, 48, of Mansfield, found in
Coshocton County.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals