HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:58:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:


>I refuse to recycle.  If I have an empty soda can, and there's a
>garbage can right next to a recycling bin, I'll throw it in
>the garbage can.  Same with newspapers, bottles, plastic jugs,
>you name it.  I say, into the trash with it.

>Friends, acquaintances and strangers alike look at me with dis-
>belief and sometimes contempt when I tell them I refuse to 
>recycle.  They act as if I might have committed some heinous crime
>against humanity.  I haven't; I'm just living in the real world.

I don't blame them. I am also shocked at your attitude! It's people
like you that I wish the lightening would strike... <evil grin>

(lots of stuff deleted to save disk space)


>So I, for one, will not make an effort to "protect the environment"
>by recycling my little aluminum cans, or buying brand X because it's
>packed in recycled cardboard.  Not until I am assured that the oil
>companies are doing their part: working for the planet rather than
>against it for the sake of some pretty serious bucks.

>The above is (c) 1992 by Eric J. Huppertz. 

Gosh, if we waited on doing our part til the next guy does, well
we wouldn't get anywhere. Everyone would be pointing their finger
at the next guy saying "I'm waiting for him/her to change before
I can change." 

The most signifcant thing we can do in life for the earth and 
everything on it is to change ourselves, become healthy and take 
responsibility for our actions and recycle. Every thing we do makes 
a difference. Every choice we make determines the future of this planet. 

I prefer to walk on the ground being aware of every step so that I 
don't crush or bruse the earth anymore if possible. I also try not to
step on the ants. :) I love to hug trees and pet rocks and say
"Hi" to birds too. It's so wonderful to be alive during this time
of love and awakening. 

-lile
-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk) (M i c h a e l ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: seal hunters and green peace
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:05:04 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1992Aug23.092528.7271@news.iastate.edu>, txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling) writes:
|> for those of you who do not question what green peace puts forth here is 
|> some valuable information and miner thought leaps that you have not made.
|> 
|> green peace saposidly filmed seel hunters in action. the film shows them
|> bludgining the seals to death.
|> 
|> 1:bludgining is a messy way to kill somthing-a lot of blood is spred about
|> 2:blood on any thing creates a stain that ethere ruens the iobject or 
|> drasticly reduces the value.
|> 3:furs are almost allways ruened by blood stains.
|> conclusion->the pelts of seals who have been bludgebed to death are horably
|> stained and thusly ruined for any practical use. killing seals by bludgining
|> is incredably counter productive.
|> ??*also,why whould hunters alow green peace to tape them any way?????
|> 

suppose the seals being beaten to death were the mothers/fathers of the required pups? 
suppose the mothers' furs were old and unwanted
then the hunters would be guilty of not only murdering in cold blood the pups for
their furs but also the pups' parents for fun...

and I'd be very surprized if Greenpeace strolled up to the hunters and asked for
permission to film their murder rituals. 


|> seal hunters kill the seal by herding them into a corral and shouting them
|> with a dart contaning uthinnasha-the same thing that is given to pets when
|> it is nessasary to put them to sleep.

How do you know all this information? I admit I have never been on a seal hunt so
please forgive me any incorrect assumptions I may have made.

|> ELF-KIN

Michael (FYI I'm an ex-Greenpeace supporter)
Xref: sparky alt.save.the.earth:1126 alt.activism:15846
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Mr. Magic)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Date: 25 Aug 92 10:28:34 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

Following on from Angela KAY Rolling aka ELF KIN's mailing about Greenpeace being
against all hunting and how they should do more. I'd like to point out that GP *do*
campaign on many more issues - including [anti]nuclear issues, transport, air/water
pollution. Indeed, I was under the impression that their anti-hunting stuff was
nowadays confined to anti-whaling (and then only a bit recently because of the
patheticness of the IWC and countries [threatening to] ignore the IWC.

So what do people think of other organizations? of Friends of the Earth? of Earth
First! or of the ALF?

Michael.
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:12:52
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<JYM.92Aug27090714@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug28.161348.301@news.uit.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sveini@mack.uit.no's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:13:48 GMT

> If you want to know what Greenpeace *really* stands for, then
> you should also try to check out the information, which is
> often pure propaganda, from other sources.

=o= Certainly one should not get all of one's information
about Greenpeace from Greenpeace.  But we were talking about
Greenpeace's statments and positions, which you were making
wildly inaccurate claims about.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:13:48 GMT

In article <JYM.92Aug27090714@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= You seem incapable of saying a single accurate thing about
>Greenpeace.  Folks who want to know what Greenpeace *really
>stands for should read their magazine, and check out the
>misc.activism.progressive, where I repost Greenpeace press
>releases.
>    <_Jym_>

I feel sorry for people like Jym. If you want to know what Greenpeace 
*really* stands for, then you should also try to check out the
information, which is often pure propaganda, from other sources.

I shall admit that Greenpeace also have some good work going on, but
their campaigns against the norwegian sealhunting and scientific
hunting on the MINKE whales (yes, I know that it will probably turn
into commercial hunting) shows a complete lack of ecological and
environmental knowledge. Even the common sence is lost.


Regards, Svein-Ivar

-a whale a day,
 keeps the doctor away
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and other misconseptions
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:05:45 GMT
Organization: University of Tromsoe

In article <JYM.92Aug31100937@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> The Norwegian scientific hunting on the MINKE whales is
>> presented as norwegian WHALE hunting.
>
>=o= The claim that whale hunting is "scientific" is a not
>uncommon dodge, and a pretty transparent one.  At its root
>are loopholes in international whaling agreements that allow
>"scientific" whale hunting.  But in actuality, the "scientific"
>whale hunters of Norway are doing just about as much valid
>research as the "scientific" whale hunters of Japan:  none.

Jym, you are extremely inaccurate here. What do you know about
the Norwegian scientific minke whale program except for what
you have been reading in the Greenpeace literature?

This is a nice example of the Greenpeace way to cover their hot topics.
The scientific program is presented as camouflaged WHALE HUNTING.

BTW, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this topic has been addressed in another
posting a couple of days ago.

And Jym, be a little more critical to what you read as well as
to what you post on the net.


Regards,
Svein-Ivar
From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Date: 01 Sep 92 06:51 PDT
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Nf-ID: #R:1992Aug25.021806.4773@news.iasta:993301480:cdp:1310900019:000:177
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!wafcdc    Sep  1 06:51:00 1992


I suggest you study the facts, before spouting out garbage, which
the world seems to have enough of these days.

For A Green and Peaceful Planet (GREENPEACE MOTTO) Steve Holmer

Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Subject: Greenpeace and other misconseptions
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:01:05 GMT

In article <JYM.92Aug27090446@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> BTW. it was also proven that one of theese films was arranged
>> by Greenpeace (killing seals just to get it taped...)
>
>=o= While I've heard of less-than-wonderful stunts by Greenpeace
>involving cute baby seals to drum up support, none of them comes
>even close to this.  If you have this "proof" (and I'll bet that
>you really actually don't), let's see it.

Frode was a little bit wrong, but not *completely* wrong.

The film he refers to was supposed to expose the "awfull and barbaric"
Norwegian sealhunting to the rest of the world. This was during the
"seal war" a couple of years ago. Included in the movie was some scenes
which showed that the "norwegian" sealhunters were using illegal
hunting and killing techniques. These scenes were from canadian
sealhunting in the early seventies. Quite easy to prove from the
registrations on their boats, their equipment and so on.

By this I do not mean that the Norwegians were any better in the early
seventies. I only want to point out an example of Greenpeace's methods
to influence the minds of people who do not know better.

Another example on how Greenpeace is fooling the people can be given
through their miss-use of "terms". The Norwegian scientific hunting on
the MINKE whales is presented as norwegian WHALE hunting. In their big
demonstration in New Yourk this summer, against the "Norwegian
scientific hunting on the MINKE whales" (my description), they made
use of a big "blowed up" BLUE whale. You see, people tend to know
that the BLUE whale is an endaged specie. It would have been much
harder to cash in the money if people knew that there were approximately
800.000 minke whales swimming around out there, and that this continously
increasing number helps to bring the ecological system a little bit
further out of balance.


Regards, Svein-Ivar

-a whale a day,
 keeps the doctor away
From: bkuo@sal-sun82.usc.edu (Benjamin Kuo)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Keeping ants away
Date: 2 Sep 1992 10:52:37 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun82.usc.edu

Personally, I've tried using cayenne pepper, which does the job if the ants
are coming in from one direction... Apparently, they can't handle the
chemicals which cause its "hotness".

However, there are drawbacks: you can't expect to scatter cayenne everywhere
in your house, and it can stain things red.

(I just dump it in the cracks where the ants hang out...)

Benjamin Kuo
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and other misconseptions
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:09:37
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Aug23.145328.4509@news.uit.no>
	<JYM.92Aug27090446@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug28.160105.27547@news.uit.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sveini@mack.uit.no's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:01:05 GMT

> The Norwegian scientific hunting on the MINKE whales is
> presented as norwegian WHALE hunting.

=o= The claim that whale hunting is "scientific" is a not
uncommon dodge, and a pretty transparent one.  At its root
are loopholes in international whaling agreements that allow
"scientific" whale hunting.  But in actuality, the "scientific"
whale hunters of Norway are doing just about as much valid
research as the "scientific" whale hunters of Japan:  none.

=o= There are other newsgroups for discussing this issue.
Perhaps we should transfer this thread to one of them?
    <_Jym_>
From: lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:22:00 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu



 Uno pollo loco.
 	-Jerry Brown
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and other misconseptions
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.150651.16930@news.uit.no> frode.kileng@tf.tele.no writes:
>  2.
>   - Greenpeace:  The killing methods is barbaric.
>   - Scientists:  Average killing time of 10 seconds and no escape of hurted
>		  animals.			

Oops.... Todays newspapers told that the shells did not explode on six
to seven out of the 94 animals catched. Some of these six seven animals
were instantly killed due to perfect hits, while it did take five-six
minutes at longest to kill the other animals which were exposed to this
failure. Those in charge for the norwegian minke whaling program are not
happy about this. They said that next years program would probably have
to be cancelled unless they managed to eliminate this problem with the
shells. The shells are manufactured by Raufoss Amunition Factory, but
the percussion caps come from a foreign country (maybe Greenpeace is
involved here :):):):)). I guess the only way to fix it is to make use
of all norwegian high quality items....

I thought it would best to inform you before Greenpeace comes with
some reconstructed press note. After all the story also shows that the
minke whale hunting has not been done by some blood thursty barbarians.
They know their responsibilities. Think of that the next time you eat
a chicken which has been forced to eat junk for a couple of weeks before
it get's it head cut of while hanging after it's feet. I do not think
the chicken industry would close down just because they fail on a few
necks.


Regards,
Svein-Ivar

-a whale a day,
 keeps the doctor away

Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Please write for a nuclear test ban
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Aug 92 09:46:40

Here's why I oppose a nuclear test ban.

1. I don't know about the arguments that testing is necessary to make
sure our weapons work.  However, I incline to give the Government the
benefit of the doubt.

2. My more important objection is that nuclear explosions underground
are useful scientifically and may become technologically useful in
the future.  Project Plowshare, which attempted to realize some of
these benefits, was killed for political reasons.  Various scientists
seem to have lied, saying the explosions could have no practical use.

Project Orion, nuclear explosion propulsion of spacecraft, should be
revived.

The one way of getting fusion energy that is sure to work is to mine
the heat from underground thermonuclear explosions.

3. The current proposals for a ban have a purely symbolic significance.
The left has long had the theory that every bit of American armament,
but especially nuclear, increased the likelihood of war.  As we see,
the cold war ended in victory for the ideology of the West for
entirely different reasons.

4. Doing something for purely symbolic reasons is superstition.

Urge President Bush, or Clinton as the case may be, to veto a ban
should it come to him.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: cfhammer@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Sigh ... (was Re: Gore's Radical Ecology)
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:50:10 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

Distribution: na

In article <1310900018@igc.apc.org>, Harel Barzilai <harelb@igc.apc.org>
writes, or rather _reposts_:
 
> /* Written  2:22 pm  Aug 26, 1992 by awhitworth in cdp:elections.usa */
> /* ---------- "Gore's Radical Ecology" ---------- */
> /* Written  2:46 pm  Aug 22, 1992 by cdavidson in cdp:alt.pol.clinto */
> /* ---------- "Gore's Radical Ecology" ---------- */
> Book Review / 2450 Words

[348 lines of drivel from the new GOP ax-man deleted to preserve bandwidth]
 
>    Carl Davidson is director of Networking For Democracy, a
> Chicago cooperative working to enhance the media and
> computer skills of grassroots public interest organizations.

his title makes it sound like he's working for the democrats . . .


read my lips harel,

this ad follows the new republican slander campaign. see your local paper.
if you _have_ to post such obvious propaganda, please summarize. this is
much too long and off the point to belong in alt.save.the.earth. please
leave such propaganda in alt.politics, where they were originally posted.

this goes for the clinton posts also - SUMMARIZE! if we have access
to alt.save.the.earth, then we also have access to alt.politics.

flames go to /dev/null. i am an independent. just my $0.02.

-ming
.sig under destruction

ps. my apologies to carl davidson if he is not 'officially' employed
by the GOP. but then again neither were the guys who started the horton
propaganda, or the guys who got spotted on 60 minutes for harrassing
a deceased girl's family in the interest of the GOP campaign.

pps. if you must vote, i urge you to vote with your brain - read the 
platforms. remember history. verify your sources. note - none of the
above is also an option.
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer 408/929-7601)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Sigh ... (was Re: Gore's Radical Ecology)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:22:46 GMT
Reply-To: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: 3Com Corp

In the above ref'd article, a person who signs his or her name "-ming"
  (cfhammer@guvax.georgetown.edu) berates Harel B. for forwarding a thoughtful
  review of Gore's book to this newsgroup. 

> read my lips harel,
>...this is much too long and off the point to belong in alt.save.the.earth...
> [I]f we have access to alt.save.the.earth, then we also have access to alt.politics.

Sorry, Mr/Ms. "ming," but you are in error.  Many leaf sites only take a few alt groups
because of their cost and high noise level.  My home site takes this group but not
alt.politics, for example.

Thanks, Mr. Barzilai, for passing the review along.  I can think of no place on Usenet
where discussion of Senator Gore's interpretation of Green thinking would be more
appropriate than alt.save.the.earth.
 
> -ming

Cameron Spitzer in Santa Clara  aka  cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
It's not easy being Green.
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: sveini@mack.uit.no (Svein-Ivar Lillehaug)
Subject: Re: greenpeace
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:25:29 GMT

In article <1310900019@igc.apc.org> Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>I suggest you study the facts, before spouting out garbage, which
>the world seems to have enough of these days.
>
>For A Green and Peaceful Planet (GREENPEACE MOTTO) Steve Holmer
>

I asume that this was a responding to one of my postings. Could you
please tell us what is the garbage, and which facts I should study?


Regards,
Svein-Ivar
From: cfhammer@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Institutional Recycling
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:44:37 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1300@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM>,
     camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer) writes:

"As far as I know there is no real market for institutional "mixed" paper.
Too much reclaiming and not enough recycling (reuse of postconsumer
reclaimed material) going on."

no and yes.

mixed paper is one of the four catagories of recycled paper
supported by the market. there is old corrugated cardboard (occ),
old newsprint (onp), high grade, and mixed waste paper. this 
last catagory contains unsorted paper or contaminated paper.
although this catagory brings the lowest price, it is used for
paperboard, building materials, etc. (source: 1992 maryland
recycling directory).

as far as not enough reusing going on, i agree. post-consumer 
percentages are important. not enough folks are realizing that . . .

-ming
.sig under destruction
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: tessmann@cs.ubc.ca (Markus Tessmann)
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 20:51:05 GMT

ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:


>I refuse to recycle.  If I have an empty soda can, and there's a
>garbage can right next to a recycling bin, I'll throw it in
>the garbage can.  Same with newspapers, bottles, plastic jugs,
>you name it.  I say, into the trash with it.

>... lots of misinformation deleted ...

>So I, for one, will not make an effort to "protect the environment"
>by recycling my little aluminum cans, or buying brand X because it's
>packed in recycled cardboard.  Not until I am assured that the oil
>companies are doing their part: working for the planet rather than
>against it for the sake of some pretty serious bucks.
You are obviously an idiot who likes to pick and choose the information you
will believe based on your own agenda.  Why must you be such a sheep and wait
until somebody else does something before making some move on your own.  In
doing this, you are just giving more power to the big players and undermining
the efforts of the general public.

Get your facts straight.  Until then, GO SUCK A TAIL PIPE!

Seriously,
	Markus
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Please write for a nuclear test ban
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Aug 92 10:57:19

I would support a limitation of nuclear explosions to those
in support of scientific or technological objectives and observable
by foreigners and where the device tested was not a bomb, e.g.
was dependent on non-portable control systems, etc.  If it could
be arranged I would support an international program that would
carry out scientific and technological explosions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth