HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:19:12 GMT

From article <1992Sep3.024823.14153@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
> 
> Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
> replace the chemicals.

How much fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel is required to produce
animal manure?

How much manure is produced each year in the US?  And how much of it
is reused in agriculture?

-- 
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 03:41:18 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

linda@wpg.com (Linda Guidry) writes:

>I don't understand why an intelligent person would expect usenet 
>readers to vote on whether or not they wish to see postings from 
>a particular person, but since the opinions have been tabulated 
>let's all just agree that the pro-Ferrell side won by 6-3, not 
>5-3.  

Why don't you ask Ferrell?  He's the one that started the 'voting' kicks.  I 
was of the opinion that he just oughta quit it.

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

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

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:04:49 GMT
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Linda Guidry writes:

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

Here I agree with you, since you are indeed entitled to your vote,
even if sent in the same message as Russell's.  I've no problem with
that.


>In article <qdnybxc@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
>> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.
>> [...]
>> --
>>                John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
>>        Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
>>        --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
>
>I've been employed at this site since 1985 and I've been involved 
>with usenet in various capacities since 1987, primarily as a 
>system administrator.

Please don't miscontrue my words above to imply that you shouldn't be
entitled to your vote, since you most definitely are, and I never said
otherwise.


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

Linda, I have two comments here.  The first is that you seem to share
Russell's lack of a sense of humour, which is too bad -- I genuinely
feel sorry for you about that.  The second is that you seem to share
his propensity for unfounded attacks on another person's character
(which saddens me as well).  Do you honestly feel that my remarks were
sexist?  Do you think that they for some reason would not have
correspondingly read "boyfriends (or husbands or fathers" if Russell
were female and you were male?  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

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
From: bgunzy@iastate.edu (Robert A Gunzenhauser)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:11:19 GMT

In article <Btzo82.4F0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep3.024823.14153@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
>>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
>> 
>> Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
>> replace the chemicals.
>
>How much fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel is required to produce
>animal manure?
>

Nothing, really.  Just let ol' Bossy graze a pasture.

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.

>How much manure is produced each year in the US?  And how much of it
>is reused in agriculture?
>

I would say a lot of it is used again.  Ever heard of manure spreaders, Russ?
There are quite a few of them sold out here in the country.  Sometimes I 
wonder if they should also be sold in the cities, especially now around
election time.  :)

>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Bob Gunzenhauser
Ag Systems Technology
Iowa State University
bgunzy@iastate.edu

	-Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and shitfights-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:26:43 GMT

In <Btytr3.Iqy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>It seemed to me that Dan was suggesting that "evolution" --- that 
>great "deus ex machina" for folks who can't back up their assumptions
>about animal behavior --- could somehow "prepare" an organism to make 
>esoteric distinctions between thunder and gunfire.  

	There's nothing esoteric about it.  Gunfire and thunder sound
different, and once thunder is shown to not be a threat there is no
reason a different sound needs to be thought of as unthreatening.  That
other members are killed during this sound is merely reinforcement.

>So you say.  I suppose we could test your theory by playing back 
>sounds of thunder, firecrackers, loud music, and so on, to see if 
>deer really do understand the significance of gunfire.  It may be 
>the case that they do understand the significance, but I haven't 
>seen any convincing evidence to support the claim.

	I suspect your needs for proof here are slighly greater than they
would be for other aspects of animal behavior.  Tell me, do your dogs
salivate at the sound of the dog food bag being rustled?  If so, do they
salivate (or come running, take your pick) when you fold the newspaper?
It's the same sound of paper rustling, yet you cannot use this as proof
that animals can distinguish between similar sounds and determine the
ramifications of each based on default survival instinct and experience?

>  Moreover, the 
>class of individuals who make such claims often turn out to be 
>advocates of the notion that the "stupid" deer who don't 
>understand the significance somehow deserve to die.  Perhaps the 
>assumptions are self-serving.  

	I don't remember claiming they "deserved" to die, but certainly
evolution is not helped with their genes polluting the pool, so to speak,
given the threats they live under.  Culling the stupid has not been shown
to have a negative impact on the prey species we hunt.  The assumptions
may be self-serving, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.  If such
an impact could be shown, I've no doubt that they would have been given
minds such as yours on the job.

	Oh, you mentioned just a couple messages ago that I think a lot
about guns.  It's true, I do.  I enjoy the shooting sports, and take an
interest in regulations and laws that may infringe on that right I hold,
as well as how I can become a better marksman.  However, I trust you'll
get the irony of this: According to all evidence collected, my gun is
safer than Senator Ted Kennedy's car.  Think about that when you
evaluate your standards of proof with regards to evidence.

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:07:38 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
rl> be smart to be afraid of thunder?

From article <viking.715388651@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
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.  

It's even more foolish to assume that deer mysteriously 
understand the difference in significance between the two.  
Another poster has pointed out that missed shots kick up dust and 
debris, and this is supposed to "teach" the deer that his life is 
in danger.  Storm breezes also kick up dust and debris, yet no 
one's suggested that deer ought to be afraid of stormy thunder.  

ds> ...  Herbivores in Africa will keep a greater distance between 
ds> themselves and a cheeta than they will a lion, if Marlin Perkins 
ds> is to be believed.  I'd say this says something about their 
ds> ability to evaluate a potential threat. 

You're describing a threat that's far more tangible and observable
than the once a year occurance of invisible bullets flying through
the air.  Moreover, you're describing herbivores that still live
in social groups with young members, old members, and various ages
in between.   By contrast, our discussions of deer involve 
"herds" that are fragmented at best, and comprised for the most
part of adolescent animals.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:36:51 GMT

In <BtxM3K.9Dr@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
rl> acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
rl> the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
rl> rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?

From article <viking.715408788@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Wouldn't that depend entirely upon who you asked?

Perhaps.  And the accuracy of the answers would depend on the 
validity of the facts at the disposal of the respondent as well 
as his/her ability to logically assimilate the information.  

As an example, I've personally met people who still believe that 
diseases are caused by spirit demons, rather than the physical 
complications of infection, physical injury, metabolic disorders, 
and so on.  Such people may believe that burning witches is a 
"good" thing because it rids the body of demons, but mere belief
doesn't make it so.  The fact of the matter is that witch-burning
is an extremely painful ordeal for the victims and is socially
disruptive and is totally useful in treating "demonic infestations",
ie disease.

ds> If there's anything that needs to be in a FAQ list, this
ds> is it.  Russ, you know my views so I'm staying out of it this 
ds> time.

Please read the article on "Ethical Relativism" from 
_Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.  McMillen and Company.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 12:12:18 GMT

In article <Btz9JH.CC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep2.205525.7049@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
>ms> - Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
>ms>   and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
>ms>   Matt Smith
>
>The notion that "Nature" is a person who has some ideas but not others,
>is Matt Smith's idea.  There's no evidence to suggest that "Nature"
>is familiar with this notion.

	On the other hand, almost everyone ELSE probably realizes that
	the personification of "Nature" in the disputed quote is merely
	a literary device and is not intended to imply that "Nature" is
	capable of cognition.

	Lighten up, Russell.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:55:51 GMT

In <lbqy_5m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>Dan Sorenson writes:

>>	Didn't we agree previously that the vote was irrellevant, that
>>it amounted to censorship, and that a killfile was the way to go?  Certainly
>>we don't need to take a vote to make the individual choice of whom to put
>>in our killfiles?
>>
>>	Geez!

><sigh.>  How many times do I have to remind you folks that my
>suggestion that Ferrell distribute his info via a mailing list or anon
>ftp (where it belongs) is in *no way* censorship, any more than it is
>censorship for the NYC Transit Authority to stop kids from writing on
>the sides of subways with spraypaint?  A resource is being abused
>(IMO -- apparently not in that of the uninformed t.p.a masses), and
>there are far better ways for Ferrell to get his info out to those who
>want it.  Proof once again that no matter what is said, somebody out
>there in net-land just won't get it (although I'm truly surprized at
>who, in this case -- no offense intended by what I've written, Dan).

	Hey, I don't have the time to read each message on here.  I
usually select them all, and check the attributes to see if my name is
in there.  If it isn't, I scan the first few paragraphs and if I'm not
really interested in the debate I hit the next message.  Probably quite
a bit like you, I suspect.  I'm doing this from home at 2400 baud, and
I've at least twenty different groups that I read.  These range from
talk.politics.animals which is for fun and thought, to comp.sys.novell,
comp.databases, the bit.listserv versions, and even comp.privacy and
comp.risks; the latter groups are work-related, but I often read them
at home for convienence despite the slow speed.  If Ferrel can't read
the group, but can post to it, I submit that he may have problem with
posting his articles for FTP?  Mailing list?  If I do get on his
mailing list because I am occassionally interested, what does it cost
me in terms of time and resources?  The posting seems to be the best
compromise, and it is apparently my mistake that I thought this the
general concensus when the debate sort of fizzled out.

>     One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
>list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
>disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
>of their vote, as well.

	Perhaps, like me, they didn't know to cc a message to you?  I
like Uhlman's Razor: "When stupidity is sufficient explanation, there is
no need to have recourse to any other."   WRT Ferrel's honesty, hear hear!

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:04:05 GMT


Mark Pleis writes:
mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers
mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast
mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit
mp> straight
mp>
mp> Beef Real food for REAL people

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a
rl> high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?
rl>
rl> Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation
rl> between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
rl> diabetes?

mp> No public health organization has said that eating meat is bad.

rl> Would you mind answering the questions I asked previously?

From article <1992Sep3.212437.2034@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Don't hold your breath waiting for your answer from Cowboy.

I'm not holding my breath, but in view of Mark's desire to help 
people like myself "get our shit straight", it seemed to me that 
he might be willing to share some facts with us.  

_National Cattlemen_ magazine recently awarded a "black hat" 
award to the chief researcher in the Boston Cooperative Nurses 
Study while awarding a "white hat" to McDonald's and Hardee's 
restaurants.  I wonder if Mark shares their lack of respect for
unbiased scientific discovery.

jh> Will you answer a question?  Would the Chinese people who eat 
jh> limited amounts of beef, pork, chicken, and fish be healthier if 
jh> they ate none of these substances?  

The China Health Study found that disease increased in linear 
proportion with meat consumption, not as a step function.  As I 
recall, the Boston Cooperative Nurses study found that women who 
consumed meat just once a day were 2.49 times as likely to 
develop breast cancer as near-vegetarians.  The term, 
"near-vegetarian" was defined as an individual who consumes meat 
less than once/month.  

jh> Would the sub-Saharan nomadic herding peoples be healthier if 
jh> they eliminated milk from their daily diet and the beef, goat, 
jh> and mutton they eat on average monthly?  

I'm unfamiliar with their diet as well as the alternative foods
available to them.

jh> How much healthier would Tim Rigg of Wisconsin be if he 
jh> eliminated the venison he consumes from his diet?  

What were you proposing as a substitute for the deer meat?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug21.142344.18564@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com 
(Jeff Achenbach) writes:
> I would argue that because you are bringing this dog into this environment,
> you are responsible for determining what is ethical behavior.
 
In the scenario under discussion, the human did NOT bring the dog into this 
environment, the dog was already there. And from the larger perspective, this 
has always been the natural environment from dogs. Humans have scarcely 
introduced dogs into the environment; quite the opposite, we've (partially) 
taken them out of it. 

I do agree in one way. To the extent that we breed/train dogs to attack other 
animals, we're responsible for the resultant behaviors. That is, we're 
introducing these new behaviors into the environment, so the onus is on us. 
To the extent that these behaviors are atavisms, to which humans haven't 
contributed, then humans don't need to assume responsiblity. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:10:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

I've just read the July 13 Newsweek article on the Ducks Unilimited
headquarters in Canada "Unkind to Feathered Friends? Ducks Unlimited
builds an office in the wetlands" and the response by Rick Wishart DU
Canada in the letters section of the Aug 10 edition.

Has the DU Canada headquarters issue been covered in other national
print media and, if so, where and when? I would also like to contact
DU directly and see if I can get info on this as well as a copy of the
Environmental Impact Assessment done on the development. Do they
(either the US or Canada offices) have an Internet address?

Jim Powlesland
Academic Computing Services
University of Calgary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:52:35 GMT

In <crbn1-b@dixie.com> refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom) writes:

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

	Didn't we agree previously that the vote was irrellevant, that
it amounted to censorship, and that a killfile was the way to go?  Certainly
we don't need to take a vote to make the individual choice of whom to put
in our killfiles?

	Geez!

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:04:44 GMT


In article <BtxK49.8zn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Would it be safe for me to presume that you would not be opposed
rl> to practices that would naturally lower deer fertility, even though
rl> such practices would lower the available "crop"?

From article <RIGG.92Sep2070139@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Such as...?

One obvious possibility is to reverse the forest management policies 
that were intended to create bumper "crops" of fawns.

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