HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:41:20 GMT


John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
jve> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.

Linda Guidry writes:
lg> I've been employed at this site since 1985 and I've been involved 
lg> with usenet in various capacities since 1987, primarily as a 
lg> system administrator...
lg> 
lg> Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an individual by making 
lg> demeaning, sexist comments about his coworkers?  

In article <#jsy6mq@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
jve> Linda, I have two comments here.  The first is that you seem to 
jve> share Russell's lack of a sense of humour, which is too bad -- I 
jve> genuinely feel sorry for you about that.  

In drawing such a hasty conclusion, you're ignoring the likely
possibility that your remark was completely witless.  To test my
hypothesis, why don't you share your remarks with some of your
female coworkers to see if they share your hilarious sense of humor.

jve> The second is that you seem to share his propensity for unfounded 
jve> attacks on another person's character (which saddens me as well).  
jve> Do you honestly feel that my remarks were sexist?  Do you think 
jve> that they for some reason would not have correspondingly read 
jve> "boyfriends (or husbands or fathers" if Russell were female and 
jve> you were male?  

Linda didn't attack your character, John.  She pointed out that
your assumptions were both sexist and demeaning.   They would have
been just as sexist and just as demeaning if the sex roles had
been reversed.  

Is it reasonable, or just plain stupid, for someone to assume that
a man and woman who post from the same site must be personally
involved in some way?

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the woman in
such a case is, indeed, the wife or mother or girlfriend of the
man.   Would it be reasonable, or just plain stupid, for someone
to dismiss her opinions on the basis of the perceived sexual
or familial relationship?

jve> I realize that hatred may have blinded you since 
jve> I don't mince my words while dealing with your friend, and you 
jve> are more than welcome to dislike me for that, but calling what I 
jve> said "demeaning" and "sexist" is rather unfounded.  

Your assumption that Linda is "blinded by hatred" is just as 
unwarranted and demeaning as your assumption about Linda's status 
as wife or mother or girlfriend.   Was it reasonable, or just
plain stupid, for you to make such an assumption?
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:58:11 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>Linda Guidry writes:

>>  Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an 
>>individual by making demeaning, sexist comments about his 
>>coworkers?  

>  I realize that hatred may have blinded
>you since I don't mince my words while dealing with your friend, and
>you are more than welcome to dislike me for that, but calling what I
>said "demeaning" and "sexist" is rather unfounded.

John -

Don't worry about being branded 'sexist' by a woman who doesn't like you -
it's the 90's 'Standard Excuse For Why I'm Not Better Off, and Label For
Men I Don't Like'.  An honest woman would have taken you on with the issues,
which in this case would have most certainly been more effective, but the
sexist thing is so easy it probably just slipped out - you know how that
happens some times.

I've got a 'Standard Excuse' on order, but the place I'm getting it from is
so backed up with Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semite, Homophobic, and Speciesist
excuses for the folks fortunate enough not to have been born a well-fed
white male that I may never get mine, at least not while I'm young enough
to use it.

(Boy, if that one don't get me flamed, nothing will.  I'm feeling quite
rowdy tonight anyway - my dog won a first place in a field trial today,
and I'm celebrating.)

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:13:42 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Thunder and gunshots sound entirely different.  Trust me on this, 
ds> I still have a reflex that puts me on the ground whenever I hear 
ds> a gunshot, but I'll sleep through a thunderstorm, and in fact 
ds> rather enjoy the sound of thunder in the evenings.  It is foolish 
ds> to not think deer can distinguish between the two.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It's even more foolish to assume that deer mysteriously 
rl> understand the difference in significance between the two.  

From article <viking.715407469@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I'd wager that it would take very little time for you to 
ds> determine the difference between inbound and outbound fire, so 
ds> why should deer not?  

I'd wager that you and I could learn lots of things in very 
little time, thanks to the fact that we have at our disposal
a sophisticated set of symbols to communicate ideas (aka 
language) as well as a vast cultural storehouse of information.  
It's foolish, however, to ignore the fact that non-human animals 
don't have such resources at their disposal. 

ds> It's not a matter of logical reasoning 
ds> ability.  Remember your hunting days? You've most likely never 
ds> been shot at while in the woods, but deer are.

Without conditioning, I suspect that most humans wouldn't know 
if/when they've been the target of a gunman.  I realize that you 
watch a lot of television, and have actually been shot with a bb 
gun, and spend a lot of time thinking about guns, but surely 
you're not suggesting that your experience has prepared you to 
know what sort of thoughts run through the minds of deer when
they hear the sound of thunder or the sound of gunfire.  

ds> Can you distinguish between gunshots and thunder?  How about a 
ds> 12ga and a .22?  We're not exactly prey animals, either, and 
ds> hence our abilities in this area probably haven't been increased 
ds> through evolution to the same extent that those of deer have.  

Please explain how/why you think evolution would help an animal
distinguish between the explosions produced by 12 gauge shotguns
and the explosions produced by 22 rifles.

ds> I'm not saying a deer hears a shot and thinks, "Hmmmm...  Sounds 
ds> like a 12ga, long-barrel, about 320 yards away," but it's foolish 
ds> to think they cannot associate a gunshot with danger and 
ds> distinguish it from thunder, and it is likewise foolish to think 
ds> that the smell of humans in the forest wouldn't be associated 
ds> with danger by default.  

Why should the smell of humans be associated with danger by default?

Why should deer associate gunshots with danger, but not associate
thunder with danger?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:32:04
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:08:52 GMT

In article <Btyt6t.IoF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   It seems to me that it might be helpful for both of us if someone 
   would coin some new terms to distinguish between hunters who 
   genuinely hunt, and hunters who set out food in the hope that the 
   "game" will find them.

Hunters and shooters are the terms I use.

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: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <1992Sep3.171119.12501@news.iastate.edu> bgunzy@iastate.edu (Robert A Gunzenhauser) writes:

[...]

>How much fertilzer, herbicides, and fossil fuel is required to produce human
>manure?  You complain so much about animals using enormous amounts of 
>petrochemicals that you seem to forget about how much humans use, i.e. 
>hair spray, plastics, gasoline, computers, cars, etc.

[...]

  In this vein, I'll add some interesting data to the mix:

	A related factoid stolen from __SCIENCE NEWS__, Vol. 138, No. 3,
	July 21, 1990, page 47:

	"David H. Wright, an ecologist at the University of Georgia in
	Athens notes that bovines consume more than 2 percent of all the
	photosynthetically derived energy in Earth's land-based environment
	and some 3.3 times more calories than the planet's roughly 5.32
	billion humans consume.  And yet, Wright asserts, cows appropriate
	far less photosynthetically derived energy than humans do.

	The fallacy inherent in comparing bovine and human calorie
	consumption, he argues in the July [1990]__AMBIO__, is that it
	ignores the human tendency to "waste" valuable calories.  For
	example, Wright notes that people don't eat whole cereal grasses or
	whole animals.  Moreover, he says, what the human species discards
	is as likely to be landfilled as returned to the food web and
	shared with other species.

	Wright estimates that human activities tie up between 20 and 30
	percent of the potentially available photosynthetically fixed
	energy in terrestrial ecosystems...And as the global poopulation
	increases to an expected 6.1 billion by the year 2000, its share...
	will likely reach 24 to 37 percent."

	(Please note that the above has been condensed for brevity.)


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Request for more info re: PETA Action Line 1
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:38:47 GMT

In article <9208251455.AA20016@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>>From the PETA Action Line - (301)770-8980:

Since they apparantly don't have an 800 number, I'll ask my questions here.
I don't know if Ferrell has full net.access yet, so I'll mail him a copy,
as well.  Hopefully he will post a followup to fill in a few missing details.
 
>+ Ostrich races and camel and llama rides are all part of the first annual
>ostrich festival in Morgan Hill, CA.  This event is a fundraiser for the
>town and has already created a great deal of controversy. 

How about a summary of both sides of that controversy?

>Trainers from
>Ringling Bros. have been involved in the training of the llamas and can't
>seem to get enough of dominating animals. 

Please define "dominating animals" as it applies here, and give evidence
for the assertion that these "Trainers...can't seem to get enough of [it]".

>The group People for Animal
>Liberation asks that you write to the mayor and ask that this absurd and
>exploitative event be canceled.

In what way is it "absurd and exploitative"?  (Emotional terms, to be sure.)
Evidence, please?
 
>+ Representative James H. Bilbray of Las Vegas, recently came out in favor
>of more funding for the USDA so that they could increase the number of
>inspectors they have checking on America's road side zoos, circuses, rodeos
>and other animal exhibits.  However, this modest proposal for animal welfare
>was more than those exploiting animals could take. Representative Bilbray
>recently came under attack by the rodeo industry for what they believed was
>his attempt to abolish rodeos. What must the rodeo industry be hiding if
>they become so outraged at the thought of even minimal policing by the USDA

If the proposal is for an _increase_, obviously it's more than "minimal".
How much is the rodeo industry currently policed?  How many inspectors
are there, how often on average is each rodeo inspected, and what criteria
are inspected?  How frequently are violations found?  How great of an
increase is proposed, and what is the justification?  What form of "attack"
was Bilbray subjected to by the rodeo industry, and was there anything in
the wording of the proposal that could be construed as an attempt to
abolish rodeos?  Has Bilbray, perhaps, given some indication in the past
that he would favor the abolition of rodeos?  (If so, it is possible that
this could be merely a step in that direction, much as the Brady bill's
"waiting period" is merely a step toward's HCI's ultimate goal of eliminating
all handguns.)


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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:29:39 GMT

In article <BtsEDy.CzB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
>rl> stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
>rl> courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
>rl> human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
>rl> confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
>rl> in confrontations with humans?  
>
>From article <21643@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
>js> Projecting those human qualities on to the deer, eh Russell? 
>
>What makes you think that fear and courage are uniquely human 
>qualities?  
>
>js> Is the deer "stupid" or "courageous" if stays put in a 
>js> confrontation with a wolf and dies anyways?  
>js> 
>js> The obvious answer to your question is that if the deer 
>js> stays put for a human it might get shot.  Of course, for any 
>js> number of reasons, it may not.  If the deer is shot at and 
>js> missed, perhaps it will learn something for next time.  If a 
>js> deer stays put for a wolf it may die, or it may not.  
>
>Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
>explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
>being targeted and missed.

The noise scares the hell out of them and they don't come back. They are much
smarter than you apparently give them credit for.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:14:00 GMT

In article <Bu1F4I.Jy4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:

>
>ms> Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute
>ms> point, because die it will.  It makes no difference if say that
>ms> deer dies quickly by the buulet from a gun, an arrow, predation,
>ms> or by more "natural" means of starvation, disease, parasitism, or
>ms> accident.
>
>Your comments seem irrational to me.  If it's true that deer are
>capable of feeling pain or experiencing emotions, then surely
>it makes a difference to you how they die.   Or, are you one
>of those naive people who thinks that non-human animals are incapable
>of feeling pain and emotion?
>
>You're obviously going to die.  Would it make a difference if you
>were tortured to death, as opposed to dying quietly of old age?
>
>Abraham Lincoln, Darwin, GB Shaw, Gandhi, and Einstein are a few
>of the people who've defended the rights of animals.  Do you
>consider them to be "assholes"?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


How about if you were a barnyard pig who lived only at all by virtue of the
fact that humans allowed your pig ancestors to breed so they could raise,
kill and eat you.  Which would you prefer:  having lived and been eaten, or
not having existed at all?

Second question; can you imagine the death of a deer, or any other animal
including humans, in which fear and pain does not enter into the death
experience?
From: refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:20:57 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>The "Yes" vote won by a 2 to 1 margin.  The totals are:

>   Yes -- 6 votes
>   No  -- 3 votes

>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes

>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>linda@wpg.com -- Yes

Apparently our good pal Russell isn't above a little ballot-stuffing.

Nice job, Russell, though a little thin on originality.

Let's all just agree that it won by 5-3, not 6-3.

-- 
Todd++;
refrig@dixie.com

"Others may hate you ... but they cannot beat you ... unless you hate them.
 Then you destroy yourself."     ----  Richard M. Nixon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:06:34 GMT


Linda Guidry writes:
lg> Let's further agree that Todd Hedenstrom has no right to speak on 
lg> my behalf, and that he doesn't have the authority to determine 
lg> how, why, when, and where I choose to communicate my opinions to 
lg> Ferrell or anybody else.  Todd would be acting responsibly if he 
lg> had decided to withdraw his own opinion from consideration, but 
lg> he wasn't entitled to withdraw mine.  

From article <1992Aug31.034118.5760@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Gee, the amazing thing, really astounding actually, is a note I 
th> got in Email from Russell that read nearly verbatim to the above 
th> statement.  Gee, Russell/Linda - I really do like you.  Are you 
th> soulmates, or just another Usenet Colony Creature?  Hell, if 
th> that's the way we wanna play, how many fake people should I whip 
th> up on my end?  And while I'm pickin' at ya, just remember that in 
th> the FIRST paragraph here you alluded to the anarchist nature of 
th> the net, so my only comment could possibly be: Welcome to the 
th> pool.  

I have two questions:

1) Would you mind posting the email message that you claim I sent you?
   Be sure to include the date and message-id. 
2) Don't you think it's rather moronic for you to challenge, first the
   authority, and later the existence of other participants on usenet?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:09:46 GMT

In <Bto9J4.CFD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Are you referring to simple strands of barbed wire?

	Yes, though the panel fence consisting of wire run so that it
makes an 8" x 8" square and is woven into sections much larger is of
very similar price.

>How many man hours do you think it would take to erect, say, 100
>feet of rock fencing high enough to restrain deer?  Why would we
>be inclined to calculate the price of labor at $0?   

	If you volunteer, which I can assume people willing to donate
the money may either do or donate to fund a labor force, the cost is
zero.  In other words, don't value your time too highly -- you donated
it in leu of doing something else, so it is useless to compare the
two after the fact.  My time here is worth squat, despite my being
perfectly able to do Real Work for money from this same terminal.
The value of this time, in money, is nothing.

>I don't think the barbed wire fences that you're contemplating would
>be effective in restraining deer.  Deer would bound over short ones,
>and get entangled in high ones.

	Or else they'd soon learn not to try bounding over it, and
instead consider it a barrier that cannot be overcome with that method.

	Hey, it was just an interjection!

<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: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.204124.29895@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In article <swood.715232608@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>
>>
>>             What the Animal "Rights" People Are _Really_ Saying?
>
>[...]
>
>>	 A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
>>				-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical
>>				       Treatment of Animals (PETA)
>>				 (_Washingtonian_Magazine_, August 1986)
>>
>
>Oviously this statement is nonsense, if taken literally. 
>
>Did Ms. Newkirk really say this, as a standalone statement?  Or did she
>say this?  
>
>	"When it comes to feelings, like pain, hunger, and thirst, a
>	rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

   Clearly, there is a difference in the words, but, knowing Ms. Newkirk's
   affiliations, I'm not at all convinced that there is a substantive
   difference in implication.

   In the very next quote, which you chose to delete, she is quoted as saying:

	"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a
	human being."

   I'm assuming that, since there was no challenge to it, there must be
   some truth to the attribution of this second set of lines to Ms. Newkirk.
   Given the second quote, then, I see no real distinction between the first
   quote as presented and the expanded quote you've supplied.

   As an aside, I'm astounded that I find myself in agreement with the text
   of the second quote.  Where Ms. Newkirk and I differ, however, is in the
   application of this realization to daily life...and I might extend the
   scope beyond Ms. Newkirk's to include amoebae and algae, violets, and
   oak trees.  It's interesting to note that the smallest form of life with
   which Ms. Newkirk is familiar seems to be the ant or clam.

   We return you, now, to your regularly scheduled arguments.....


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:08:52 GMT

In article <BtxL13.93M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I agree with many of the points in this article, but I have one 
rl> question about a particular point.  You say that some resorts use 
rl> hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not kill.  Wouldn't 
rl> it be more straightforward to say that the hunters on these 
rl> resorts simply kill some deer, without introducing winter as some 
rl> sort of scary figure?  

From article <RIGG.92Sep2071122@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Sure.  It is safe to say that on these resorts, hunters kill some
tr> deer.  The deer are probably healthier and perhaps a few more are
tr> around.  The supplimental feedings just help the herd make it through
tr> the winter a bit less stressed so they have a good start in the
tr> spring.
tr> 
tr> I'd like to note that most often the supplimental feeding is the form
tr> of small plot of planed crops, usually clover.  Below the Mason Dixon,
tr> clover stays green and quite desired all winter.  I do not know what a
tr> northern resort would use so I think it doesn't happen very much.  I
tr> admit this is a bit confusing since the winters are obviously harder
tr> up here.

It seems to me that it might be helpful for both of us if someone 
would coin some new terms to distinguish between hunters who 
genuinely hunt, and hunters who set out food in the hope that the 
"game" will find them.

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