HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animal Testing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:50:20 GMT

me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>Impressive.
>It is to hope that some day we have an equivalent knowledge of
>how to save lifes.
>Yes, this knowlegde may help victims to die with less pain.
>But most of them are killed by a bad shot.
>And as always. I suppose, nobody tried to test with dummies.

	Sorry, but melons and even the fabled ballistic putty are no
substitute for flesh, and especially not when the object is to kill 100%
of the time.  BTW: the statistical numbers show a .357Mag pistol bullet
has the greatest possibility of a one-shot stop on a human.  Compare
that to a .454 Casull, which is easily capable of removing *limbs* with
the proper bullet, load, and placement, and I just have to wonder at how
some of these statistics are created.  In any event, I suppose you can
find a statistic to say that most animals are killed by a bad shot?  If
it kills quickly, it sounds like a good shot to me.

>>	Golly, none of this could apply to humans, could it?  I suppose
>>you see a dog get run over by a car and determine that it's not relevant
>>to you until you see a human run over by a car too?

>A dog is eg. smaller than a human. The impact is of another quality.
>To find out more reliable results I think you should study accidents with
>humans and test with dummies. And as the first step, limit speed.
>Then design better/safer cars. There is no reason for tests with dogs.

	Precisely as I supposed above.  BTW: some studies have shown an
increase in deaths among motorcycle riders wearing helmets compared
to those that do not.  I'll let you go with the evidence on that study,
but I'm wearing a brain bucket.  The same goes for animal testing.  You
can be the human statistic, but I'll use the research that's available
today to better my chances, thank you.

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:02:20
	<1992Sep29.144003.9175@spdc.ti.com>
	<1992Sep30.201821.13318@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.201821.13318@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Apparently this is someone else's reply which I never saw, due to a
   three and a half day network outage here from last Friday afternoon
   until early Tuesday morning.  Any other replies or posts during that
   entire time never arrived here.  So if further responses from me are
   expected, then those messages will have to be emailed.

I have emailed the post of mine which contained the above comments and
some others.  I was wondering why you didn't answer my post.

   But to whoever posted this 1 in 10 statement, I address these questions:
   by 10 shots, do you mean 10 hits?  So 10 deer were hit and 9 were killed
   quickly with a single shot and retrieved dead?  And one wounded deer
   escaped?  We need to clarify exactly what the claim is here. 

The were 5 deer shot and recovered very quickly.  One was wounded and
probably died.  The other four shots were misses for one reason or
another.

Of the five deer that died quickly, here is a summary:

1)  Shot through the lungs and the center of the heart.  Ran 40 yards
and fell over.

2)  Shot though rear thigh and the gut.  Ran 50 yards, lied (sp?) down
and died.

3)  Shot in the heart and both lungs.  Ran 40 yards and fell.

4)  Shot in the spine and fell on the spot.

5)  Shot though both lungs and perhaps the main artery going to the
head.  Ran 50 yards and fell over (this is the deer mentioned in my
trip report posted to rec.hunting).


The deer that was not recovered was shot too far back which hit the
stomach, a bit of the lung, and the far shoulder bone.  The vone
prevented the arrow from passing though which made recovery less
likely.  I'll concede that this deer probably died without beng
recovered.  I'd like to add that we followed the deer for about 8
hours, over about 2 miles, and though 6 creek crossings.  Eventually
the blood stopped.  I was able to follow the hoof tracks for another
hundred yards or so until they joined with some more tracks and I lost
them.

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com (Chris Hudson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Reply-To: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:46:47 GMT

In article <1a828uINNn5n@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>> Included in those 700 are Ted Nugent, self-proclaimed hunting 
>> advocate [who will do a ] 30-minute mini-concert to attract 
>> attention to his anti-drug, pro-hunting message directed at kids, 
>> and quoted Nugent as saying, "The kids listen to me because I play 
>> rock n' roll, and I speak the truth with great passion.  It works 
>> like magic."
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
>among those rock musicians who would, while up on stage,
>stomp small animals to death.  I may be mistaken about this;
>a number of rock stars engaged in this practice, and I
>*think* Nugent was one, but I could be wrong.  (Can anybody
>confirm this?)
>

I find this hard to believe.  Ted Nugent is a hunter, but everything I've read
about him and his hunting has mentioned that he attempts make use of as much of 
the animal as he possibly can and soes not believe in the indescriminate 
slaughter of animals.  

Chris Hudson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did *what*?  Sorry, but I think you've got the wrong guy...
                   
Save the Sharks!   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:02:34 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Jeff Achenbach writes:

(quoting me)
>>My guess is that the hunters will prove
>>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.

>Well, dammit, woman, you've insulted my manhood! I'm so offended I should
>just cancel my plans for the weekend and ride to Austin. 

Great!  My intent, of course, was to get some 'nad-brained good ole boy so
fired up he'd just have to show up and participate.

>Challenge you to a duel or somesuch. 

You're on.  And since you challenged me, I get to choose the manner.  So,
how 'bout left-handed arm-wrestling??

>  Is this the kind of crap the AR leaders are feeding you? That hunters are
>cowardly weasels taking out their fears of inadequacy on poor helpless little
>fuzzy cute animals? Get a grip, lady.

I hated hunters long before there _was_ an AR movement.  Nobody convinced me
to view hunters as cowardly scum, and no hunter has ever given me reason to
doubt that assessment.

>  With longer notice, I may have been tempted. Rationally, however, I know
>it would be stupid. I have no experience with public debates or the media.
>The only thing I would be afraid of is doing damage through my ineptitude.
>The hunting community has far better spokespeople than myself. Or is that 
>the point? Are those cowardly AR people looking for some palookas so that 
>their professionals can score an easy knockout?

FoA issued an open invitation for hunting spokepersons.  If what we get are
palookas, it'll be because that's the best the hunters could find among their
ranks.  

You hunters keep talking about how this debate is stacked against you, how
we want subhuman debris to represent the pro-hunting side, etc., but evidently
not one hunter has the fortitude to just show up and make sure their side is
fairly represented.  If you're unwilling to even try to make this a fair
debate, you forfeit the right to bitch about its unfairness.
-- 
 Jennifer L. Johnson | "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
 jjohnson@convex.com |  		--George Bernard Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.141819.17928@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

> ... (even good ol' Farley Mowat isn't permitted entry into your country),

When did this happen?  Do you know what reasons were given for refusing
entry to him?

[...]

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:19:04 GMT

From article <1992Sep30.131834.21101@brtph560.bnr.ca>, by cboeker@batph78.bnr.ca (Craig Boeker):
cb> I believe the statement was something like "Why is it OK for Rich Young to
cb> kill a brain-dead human but not a kidney-dead human."  Leaving the issue
cb> of whether that is actually a statement of Rich's position I'll address a
cb> modified version of the question, "Would it be (not Why is it) OK for 
cb> Craig Boeker to kill a brain-dead human but not a kidney-dead human?"
cb> 
cb> The short answer is "maybe".  It depends on how you define the word "kill"
cb> in relation to life-support equipment (which depends on how you define
cb> "life" in relation to that same equipment).
cb> 
cb> Scenario #1:  Kidney dead patient, not brain-dead.  This person has to make
cb>   his/her own choices regarding life-support.  I would in no way be involved.
cb>   If asked (ie family member) I would strongly recommend taking all measures
cb>   to continue/extend life.
cb> 
cb> Scenario #2:  Brain-dead person, autonomic functions may or may not work,
cb>   requires some life support even if just feeding.  The only way I could
cb>   see myself involved is if it were a member of my family.  If they left
cb>   no instructions (living will) then I would probably discontinue life
cb>   support after some time.  How much?  I don't know.  I have not been
cb>   exposed to or studied this situation.
cb> 
cb> Basically, I think the decision on this type of thing should occur in the
cb> following manner:
cb> 
cb> 1) the individual.  Either through concious decision (sound mind and body,
cb>    etc.) or living will.
cb> 
cb> 2) the family of the individual.
cb> 
cb> 3) if no family exists then the state must have some policy regarding
cb>    how long to provided life support.

All three of these decision-making routines depend on sapience, 
but Rich has argued repeatedly that sentience and sapience are 
"arbitrary" criteria.  

I suspect that Rich had the right idea when he wrote the following:

======================================================================
The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
ceased to function.   
======================================================================

However, he back-tracked when he realized that he had inadvertently
acknowledged the importance of sentience (sensory ability) and 
sapience (cognitive ability).

-- 
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: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:58:36 GMT


From article <1992Oct6.033456.7954@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell Tactic 121:  Refer to self by full name to increase 
mo> self-importance.
mo> [many insults deleted]

Uh, huh.

Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
of the conversation.

Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.

-- 
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: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:35:41 GMT

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

>Because at greater ranges, there is a greater chance for a crippling 
>injury.

	That's why a competent hunter won't shoot at ranges he's not certain
of a kill at.  This distance is a function of weapon, skill, and conditions.
A good hunter is familiar with his tools and uses them within their limits.

>Benke describes two instances when the deer executed a complete 180
>degree turn and was struck by the arrow in the opposite side of the body
>from the targeted side.  In both cases the range was about 15 yards and,
>from what he says on the preceding page, I assume the arrow speed was
>about 190 feet per second.

	That means a complete 180 in .23 seconds, so let's call it 1/4
second due to frictional losses in flight.  Huh?  To do this, that
deer was ready to bolt and had already dropped on his forelegs.  He
then would have pushed to one side, pivoted on the rear hooves, and
started running.  I find it nearly impossible to believe that in
doing this the deer was still hit by the arrow, as he'd be one deer
length behind his former position.  It's either a missed shot that was
turned into a hit by luck, or a deer that rotated and not pivoted about.
Doing this in 1/4 second on four legs is damn near impossible given the
size of your average deer.  Something is quite possibly not being told.

>Whether or not both are equally effective is the issue here.  The claim
>has been put forth by Benke and others that both are not equally
>effective, and numerous studies have been cited to support the claim.
>Since I don't bowhunt, I have to either take the word of others or go
>out myself and observe.

	I suggest the latter.  I don't hunt with a bow because there is
simply not enough time for me to become proficient with it to the extent
that I am proficient with a rifle.  Both have inherent weaknesses that
only practice will overcome.  As we learned in the Indian wars, arrows
are just as deadly as bullets, but require more skill to place on target
at the same range.  I have found that only doing each activity will
give proper insight to just how difficult it is to master.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:04:46 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <BvBF2A.Jux@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Mike Linan writes:
>ml> What an idiot.
>
>From article <1992Sep28.205533.2578@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att
.com (mary.rita.otto):
>mo> [99 lines deleted]
>mo> Russell tactic 101:  Be a bully; shout down the opposition.
>
>You were so busy trying to bully me that you failed to answer my
>questions:
>
>Please explain the nature of the "content" displayed by the
>statement, "What an idiot."
>
>What sort of "issues" were addressed by the statement, "What an
>idiot"?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

I'm still waiting too Russell:  what sorts of issues were raised
by the statement that the rightful progression of a hunter in
his/her hunting endeavor would be toward the hunting of another
hunter (because hunting a similarly armed entity would offer the
"ultimate" in challenge)?
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:36:22 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

`>This is it what I think man can avoid!
`>Killing of any form of life just for fun or lust!
`....
`>Try to reduce your aggressions with sports like free climbing.

`>Udo.

`And I think here we finally get to your particular misconception, that 
`hunting is used to vent aggression. Although it can be argued that the 
`final outcome (killing) is aggressive in the extreme, I honestly don't 
`have a clue how to convince you just how wrong you are.

I do.  Let him go hunting with me - just once.  As I have said before,
the majority of concerned anti-hunters only have their own fantasies about
what the sport is, as they have never experienced anything of it.  Let
them go out in the woods with a real, live, concerned hunter.  Let them
know the truth.

I have taken people hunting with me many times before just to show them
what it is all about.  For me, it is mostly about going to the woods, and
it does not stop for me when the season is over - just the harvesting of
game does.  If I happen to have someone with me who is offended by watching
animals die (and they are a welcome member of the party) I refrain from
killing out of courtesy to them.  But I will still be sure to let them know
what it is all about (read my sig!)

swood
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer or not, the sunrise
   will still be there, and so will I.
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: INVITTOX
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:43:28 GMT



This MEDLINE citation may be of interest to AREN/t.p.a subscribers.

 UI  - 92313672
 EM  - 9210
 AU  - Ungar K
 TI  - The INVITTOX Data Bank of in-vitro techniques in toxicology.
 AB  - The dissemination of information about methods in in-vitro
       toxicology is subject to a number of constraints which are
       identified and discussed, as are the ways in which INVITTOX seeks
       to address these problems. The continued interest of scientists
       in INVITTOX suggests that a real gap in information provision is
       being filled.
 MH  - Animal ; *Databases, Factual ; Human ; In Vitro ; Registries ;
       Toxicology/*METHODS
 AD  - INVITTOX, Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical
       Experiments, Nottingham, UK.
 SO  - Hum Exp Toxicol 1992 May;11(3):151-4
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:47:33 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC

In article <1992Oct2.045404.9699@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

>
>Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
>"manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
>lagging self-concepts.
>
>Russell, how does this apply to me?
>
>Mary Otto
>

Don't bother asking Russell this question, Mary. I already pointed out
to him that there are quite a number of female hunters around today.
His only response was to ask how many. A tactic to avoid the subject,
no doubt. They (AR types) can call male hunters cowards all day long,
but when a female admits to enjoy hunting, they are clueless for a 
comeback to the "macho" issue. It just blows their argument out of the
water, but they will not admit it. One of the main reasons for hunting
is to experience the elements. The success of a kill only adds to that
experience, like the icing on a cake. Do you think they will ever accept
this??  I don't.                                                       

Keith

Gun season opens next Monday. I am off all week. YEEE-HAAAHH!!!


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith |
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:12:12 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Oct1.121240.7890@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>Yes, I have noticed.  I find it very akin to other group hatreds.  It is
>generally best described as an intense bigotry.  The hater's mind is made
>up.
>

You guys are really just too funny, all gravely agreeing with each other
about the appalling personality defects of those who disagree with you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:49:16 EST
 <1992Sep30.000234.29469@convex.com> <1992Sep30.152031.22902@spdc.ti.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep30.152031.22902@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.000234.29469@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>>
>>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>>
>>(quoting me)
>>>>My guess is that the hunters will prove
>>>>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.
>>
>>>Well, dammit, woman, you've insulted my manhood! I'm so offended I should
>>>just cancel my plans for the weekend and ride to Austin. 
>>
>>Great!  My intent, of course, was to get some 'nad-brained good ole boy so
>>fired up he'd just have to show up and participate.
>>
> 
> Surely you can recognize sarcasm?
> 
>>>  Is this the kind of crap the AR leaders are feeding you? That hunters are
>>>cowardly weasels taking out their fears of inadequacy on poor helpless little
>>>fuzzy cute animals? Get a grip, lady.
>>
>>I hated hunters long before there _was_ an AR movement.  Nobody convinced me
>>to view hunters as cowardly scum, and no hunter has ever given me reason to
>>doubt that assessment.
>>

It's radical and hostile remarks like this that get AR people the reputation
for being crack-brained.  Keep talking, you are doing the AR movement a
world of good!  (Sarcasm intended.)


> 
> Hate is a pretty strong word. Can't recall having experienced it more than 
> once or twice in my life. Amazing to me that you can have such an opinion 
> of such a large group of people. Personally, I tend to like/dislike people
> as individuals, not as a group. Given your stated view here, which I gather
> is not atypical, do you wonder why hunters would chose to avoid you? 
> 
>>
>>You hunters keep talking about how this debate is stacked against you, how
>>we want subhuman debris to represent the pro-hunting side, etc., but evidently
>>not one hunter has the fortitude to just show up and make sure their side is
>>fairly represented.  If you're unwilling to even try to make this a fair
>>debate, you forfeit the right to bitch about its unfairness.
> 
> If no hunters show up, there will be no debate, therefore no victory either
> real or perceived by your radical friends. 
> 
> Jeff Achenbach
> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals