HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:50:23 GMT

My brother made an interesting point to me the other day.  I was talking
to him about how I was bothered about the Animal Rights propaganda that is
occasionally slipped in movies like "Doc Hollywood" and "Lethal Weapon 3".

He told me that when he went to see LW3 and saw the animal rights bumper
stickers, he got up from his seat and walked to the lobby to ask for his
money back claiming, "I came to see a comedy, not an AR propaganda movie"

He supposedly has encouraged his friends to do so as well, and he commented
on another file (forget the title) that they did this enough on that the
manager removed it from the theater.  (ie I guess some of his friends made
intential exodus trips to see the film)

swood

-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:35:01 GMT

amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Andrew McMichael) writes:

>You had me until you started with the NRA drivel.  While I agree
>that it is mainly <poachers> vs. <hunters>  that are responsible
>for the population losses of rare game in the last 10-20 years,
>saying that 'Take away guns and only outlaws will have guns' is 
>nonsense.  Every time you catch someone with a weapon, take it
>away and destroy it.  Viola. One less killing machine.

	As I've noted before, I'm the most tolerant person on the face
of this entire planet.  That being said, I have a question.  Had your
mother properly attached her colostomy bag, would you now grace this Earth?
You're out of your depth here, but judging from the logic you've shown
here you'd be out of your depth anywhere the sidewalk was wet.

	If the logic still fails to be noted by you, perhaps you could
summarize why I've been shooting since age 5, and have yet to kill
anybody.  Sounds to me like you just have a fear of guns, not to mention
anybody with the intestinal fortitude and testicular mass to handle
a dangerous item responsibly.

	Now run along and have a wank -- we've matters of great import
to discuss here and you'd only become frightfully confused.  If you wish
to debate the issue further, mail me or post this drivel on
talk.politics.guns; it certainly doesn't belong in rec.food.veg, and
only in talk.politics.animals as a tangent to the issue.

	*sigh!*  I feel better, but was it the moral thing to do?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:52:10 GMT

In <BxBpGr.D0C@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>You're asking me to "grade" individuals as though we have the 
>mental prowess to say that Mr. C is better than Mr. B, and that
>Mr. A is better than Mr. B.  However, we could only make such a 
>determination by analyzing each and every decision in a man's 
>life and somehow, by some miraculous means, adding and 
>subtracting them to form some sort of grand score.  Since we're not 
>omniscient, such an endeavor seems kinda farfetched to me.

>On the other hand, it's not beyond our ken to analyze a single 
>experience and evaluate a choice of alternative actions.  Given a 
>choice of entrees, one consisting of beans and rice, and the 
>other consisting of Rich Young's heart, isn't it well within our 
>mental abilities to evaluate the full impact of our actions 
>in choosing heart rather than beans and rice?  

	Only if you're omniscient with regards to plants and not
at all towards animals.  You just said you can't make such a
detemination "by analyzing each and ever decision in a man's life"
and yet you are so sure beans and rice are capable of being fully
analyzed by your mental abilities?

	Either you have created a double-standard, which I won't
particularly mind, or else you must claim ignorance towards the
plants.  In the latter, I note that there are ugly parallele
towards justifying genocide (among other acts) in this rationale.

	It's rare that you slip like this, Russ.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Scott Wood's tactlessness
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:53:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.204322.17315@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L.
 Johnson) writes:

>Has anybody else noticed that in Scott's posts, he always refers to
>animal-rights activists as "AR-heads"?

Yes.

>In doing so, he demonstrates that his true objective is not to participate in
>a discussion, but simply to deride his opponents.

If a person is so set in his/her point of view then they don't come here
to from time-to-time learn something new.  What else is there to do
but work for the big insult?

What about the Texas Debate?  Did you ever give your promised synopsis
of what you experienced out at the big Texas Debate?  I don't recall
seeing it.

**
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:25:44 GMT


Greg Popken writes to Rosemary Waigh:
gp> I must say your stance on the issue sounds to be based on a absolute
gp> ethical basis.  I admire your conviction.  Though I disagree with your
gp> conclusions.  At least someone here will stand be their beleifs instead of
gp> wavering back and for "depending on the situation" (This means you
gp> Russell).

Russell Lawrence responds:
rl> I can't help wondering if your views "waver" back and forth in 
rl> accordance with the situation.  For example, is it always wrong
rl> to kill human beings?  Or would the rightness or wrongness of
rl> such an activity depend on the situation?

From article <1992Nov10.170129.25288@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Russell let's stick to the issue shall we.  If you want to 
gp> talk ethics of the death penalty take it somewhere else.  You 
gp> believe animals have rights...  

The issue is your concept of ethical absolutism and how you think
it ought to apply to people like myself who don't share your views.

Yes, I believe that both human and non-human animals should have 
some rights, but it seems kinda farfetched to argue that rights 
are somehow "absolute" in scope.  Now please answer my previous 
question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
etc?  

gp> Animals have no rights!  

Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

gp> Rights are a human contraption and should only be applied to humans.

Why?

-- 
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: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:53:02 GMT

From article <swood.721018223@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> My brother made an interesting point to me the other day.  I was talking
sw> to him about how I was bothered about the Animal Rights propaganda that is
sw> occasionally slipped in movies like "Doc Hollywood" and "Lethal Weapon 3".
sw> 
sw> He told me that when he went to see LW3 and saw the animal rights bumper
sw> stickers, he got up from his seat and walked to the lobby to ask for his
sw> money back claiming, "I came to see a comedy, not an AR propaganda movie"
sw> 
sw> He supposedly has encouraged his friends to do so as well, and he commented
sw> on another file (forget the title) that they did this enough on that the
sw> manager removed it from the theater.  (ie I guess some of his friends made
sw> intential exodus trips to see the film)

Why don't you write a letter to the producers of such films and let
them know where you stand?  Be sure to give them a complete whiff of 
your aroma by letting them know your opinion:

-- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
-- that you disapprove of government support for health care
-- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 

In response, perhaps they'll include a scene in Lethal Weapon IV that
depicts someone like yourself in full glory. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:47:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxKt7t.I5s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In <BxGzK0.Enp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.721384203@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):

>ds> Yes, and Yes.  While I don't particularly like the tactic,
>ds> what are the chances of them getting their money back?  The implied
>ds> contract in the purchase of a ticket is that a movie will be shown
>ds> and they will be admitted.  The content of the movie is not in the
>ds> contract, as it is implied that it will be the movie you elected
>ds> to watch.  Demanding your money back on breach of contract can only
>ds> be done if the owner has failed to provide an environment to watch
>ds> the movie in, or the movie.  They don't have a case, they're just
>ds> trying to bully the owner.

>Perhaps.  I have no objection to an individual who buys a ticket
>in good faith, but demands his money back if/when he discovers that
>the film depicts material that he finds objectionable.   It seems
>dishonest, however, to stage what Scott called "intentional
>exodus trips" to protest the "animal rights propaganda" that Scott
>and his friends apparently perceived in Lethal Weapon.


I think I would have to agree here.  But, wouldn't you agree that the
ARFs who are not customers and yet still use companies 800 numbers are
dishonest?  Especially when it seems apparant that they are intentionally
trying to disrupt the business and livelihood of the business owners 
simply because they do not agree with their views?  It looks just as
objectionable and dishonest as going to the movies with the intent purpose
of demanding your money back to me.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Using lab animals for flea-breeding
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:59:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1df10vINNis@agate.berkeley.edu>, by spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope):
> Here's another disgusting thing the animal researchers
> are doing.
> 
> It turns out that there is a great demand for fleas
> for use in research.  There isn't any really good way of
> breeding fleas other than on a host.
> 
> So what these guys do is raise them on, typically, cats.
> These host cats have no other function than to sit in some 
> cage and live out their normal lifespan while being miserably
> flea-ridden.
> 
> What I want to know is, just why do these researchers
> need fleas in the first place?  Would the world come to
> any great harm if research fleas were unavailable?
> 

What I want to know is: would it matter to you if the world
came to great harm due to the unavailability of "research
fleas"?  How about if it came to just a moderate amount of
harm?  An honest question, Steve.

> If there's any flea-researchers out there on the net, I'd like
> to hear why you think you should be allowed to exist.
> 
> 
> Steve

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: More violence
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:06:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <BxJ3J8.6uq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Greg Popken writes:
>gp> Animals have no rights!  

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

>From article <1dpdq0INNnj0@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> No!  They don't enjoy such a right.  Will a pack of coyotes never 
>ml> torture a cat or dog?  

>This doesn't make much sense, Mike.


The point is there is no recourse against the coyotes.  Why is that.
Could it be that humans don't have the right to torture animals but
the laws of conduct do not apply to other animals.  You say this trans-
lates into rights for dogs and cats, I say it's more a matter of what
is considered lawful conduct for humans.


>ml> What "right" will have been violated other than in your own mind?  
>ml> You may say that a human can be lawfully prosecuted for torturing 
>ml> a cat or dog but, is that because of some "right" for the animal 
>ml> or that the powers that be have determined that humans do not 
>ml> have the "right" to do so?  

>What's the difference?


The difference is that animal control officers kill cats and dogs every
day.  What becomes of their "rights" at that point.  True, they may not
torture them but, if the powers that be authorized someone to test pellet
guns on cats and dogs, they would.  I believe you are aware of such sit-
uations.  Maybe animals do have limited rights but, the laws can also be
interpreted as prohibited behavior concerning humans rather than animal
rights.


>ml> You would be prosecuted for destroying Mount Rushmore.  Does that 
>ml> mean you don't have the "right" to do that or that rocks have 
>ml> "rights"?  

>Mount Rushmore is public property.  If you privately owned a large
>granite boulder elsewhere in South Dakota, do you think you'd be
>prosecuted for blasting it to gravel?

>If you privately owned a small kitten, could you be prosecuted for
>burning it alive?


I suppose but, would I be prosecuted because I violated some right of 
the kitten or because the laws define such activities as illegal?  Maybe
there is no difference.  I don't know.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:43:02 GMT

>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>Apparently we agree - poacher's aren't hunters, and arsonists are ARs.

I don't agree with this.  People are burning buildings etc.. in the name
of animal rights
They are animal rights activist.

                                       GregPopken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov09.160447.12222@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[...]

>>There is however the case of Fran Trutt, who was encouraged to violence
>>by an anti-AR person trying to discredit the AR movement (I'll go to the
>>library and get references if you're interested).
>
>I've seen the references, and they're all AR propaganda.  She *claims* that
>she was pushed into it by these people, when in actuality, Pricilla Feral
>and the group known as Friends of Animals FUNDED the bombing.  If your above
>definition was indeed a definition, then there's a few groups labelling 
>themselves as AR who don't quite fit.

Are you saying that, for example, Marc Mead and Mary Lou Sapone were not
on the US Surgical payroll but instead received money from Friends of
Animals (FOA)?

Please be specific.  What are you claiming and what is your source?

Will you stand behind your statements to the extent that you will
authorize me to send copies to FOA for their response?

>
>Hey, while we're at it, perhaps you can explain why the National Anti-
>Viviseciton Society is investing so heavily in US Surgical and several other
>"animal abusing" companies?  If it's to be able to get a measure onto the
>agenda in a stockholder's meeting, then you're wrong, because they've bought
>QUITE a bit more than they'd need to to get that done.  Actually, it looks to
>me like savvy investing, because so far they've really cleaned up from the
>rise in the "abusers" stock prices rising.  So much for that definition -
>even the LEADERS in your movement are lying to you.

You're the first one I've heard refer to NAVS as LEADERS in the
movement.  I don't know much about them, except that Animals' Agenda has
in the past reported on some alleged irregularities in their finances. 
Are you trying to discredit the entire AR movement by repeating some
*big secret* which was reported many months ago in a prominent AR journal.
If so, you'll have to do better.

>>Ro
>>rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
>
>
>-- 
>Todd++;

---
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:36:34 GMT

In <30132@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:

> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>|> 3. The fire department is notified of item 1, so they don't take any risks to 
>|> try to save a life.

>But they still have to BE there to put out the fire.
> [...]  Why should they believe the activists?  Not to
>mention the fact that the owner of the burned business will probably make
>an insurance claim, which may cause his rates to go up and indirectly cause
>the premiums of other policy holders to go up.

	Just a note: fire departments are hardly going to believe arsonists
and will attempt to enter the building if at all possible to ascertain
for themselves if anybody lives inside the now-flaming structure.  Arson
endangers the firemen even if you warn them simply because they have no
reason to believe an anonymous tip that there will be no casualties.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:ALF
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.214442.20251@shearson.com> jjozwiak@shearson.com writes:

>I am trying to get in touch with the Animal Liberation Front.  I live in New 
>York, and I do not know where they are located.  Please email me if you have 
>any info as I would like to join them.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Radical Animal Lover and Vegitarian,
>
>Jenny
>

Oh, boy, another "dreamer"!  Let's rock and roll!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research. 
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.235142.321@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.210634.755@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org   
>(Udo_Meyer) writes:
>> 
>> Animals died without any reason again. And many humans died also. :-(
>> 
>
>Oh Oh. Bad news again. Just seen a TV-report about a new scandal
>with medical drugs:-( The drug injected to immunize against
>allergic reactions due to normal (home) dust IS normal (home) dust
>out of normal (home) vacuum cleaners! They inject that directly in the vein!
>They spoke (if I remember correct) of about 20 known deaths due to a shock
>after injection of that drug(???) and a estimated number that is three
>times higher. Again: what for are animals dying in research ?
>And how much can you believe any medical treatment ?
>
>Udo.
>

Udo, let's see some references lets see some numbers. This is twice you've
been on here without hard evidence to back up your allegations.  I will be
happy to address you concerns on animal research.  But don't bother with
the allegations unless you have hard evidence to back it up.

What medical treatments have your undergone in your life?  They seemed to
have worked.(I won't install a sarcastic remark here. Please fill in your
own.)
What training do you have in the biological sciences that qualifies you to
decide that animal research is worthless. 
Do you have any idea of the parameters that need to be controled?   
Do you know what a control is?
Do you understand statistics and the concept of confidence intervals?
Do you have any idea of the hundreds of thousands of times that animals
research predicted correctly the outcome of human studies?
How do you propose we develope new treatments for patients?
Do you bother to read and primary data or does all you information come
second hand?
                                     Greg Popken   

>-- 
>Angel dust


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expessed here are my own.   *   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       *   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  *   end of the page. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:20:53 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So you say.  Let's not forget that medieval and renaissance clerics 
rl> also proved that witch-killing was also mandated by the christian
rl> faith.   Or maybe not.

From article <1dmujcINNaod@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Yeah, maybe not.  You can bring up all the nasty deeds throughout 
ml> time that you care to Russell but, I *dare* you to prove that 
ml> what they *claimed* was mandated by the Christian faith actually 
ml> was.  If isn't in the Bible you can claim whatever you like but, 
ml> that don't make it so.  

      "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  Exodus 22:18

ml> Then, in Matthew, chapter 26 Jesus is quoted when instructing 
ml> the disciples to prepare the passover and that he and they would 
ml> eat the passover (lamb)

rl> Does it really say this?

ml> Of course it does.  What, do you think I'd lie?  Don't worry 
ml> Russell, I can't really gloat too much since as I said I really 
ml> don't consider it to be of great importance since hunting and 
ml> meat eating is *clearly* moral throughout the Bible.  

So is witch killing.

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