HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Gun Control
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:16:37 GMT

>>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.

In the same way the National Firearms Act of 1934 eliminated
all criminally owned machine guns, submachine guns and assualt
rifles? Criminals seem to still have fairly good access to such
weapon. The primary sources, according to the LAPD, are smuggling
into the country, illegal manufacture (which is much easier than
you might think) and theft from the police and military. These
are sufficient to make the National Firearms Act (from the
point of view of preventing criminal use of these weapons)
worthless. A ban on handguns would face the same problem
in addition to the over 65 million handguns currently in 
circulation. To remove 65 million guns from circulation in
the "short" time of 100 years would require 650,000 arrests
per year (If memory serves, that's making an arrest in _every_
gun related crime that occurs... I don't think the police 
do even half that well...)

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:50:49 GMT

In article <BxAz7v.7KK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <swood.721056858@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood
 - EVENSONG):
>sw> Gee, I don't think I see the word "hunt" or "hunting" anywhere in
>sw> the Webster definition.  Remind me not to buy American Heritage
>sw> dictionaries.  They must have AR-heads working on the
>sw> definitions.....
>
>from the New World Webster's dictionary in front of me:
>
>     "poach: ... 3b) to hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally,
>      especially by trespassing".
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Russell, should we extrapolate from your "correction" here that
you are in agreement with the logic of the point made by Steve?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:07:03 GMT

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

>>	I have no idea.  I just aimed for the point of greatest swelling
>>and hoped for the best.

>>>Also did
>>>you use a trocare (sp?) type needle, which would be specifically
>>>designed for the purpose? 
>>
>>	Sears Craftsman folding buck-knife.  Get that fancy stuff away!

>Fancy stuff? It's a hollow needle which allows gas to escape through the
>inside while minimizing the perforation in and damage to the stomach. 
>Don't you believe in using the right tool for the job? I thought this
>was an area of your expertise.  How many times have you done this?

	Use the right tool for the job or stab a cow with a buck-knife?
The former?  Many.  The latter?  A couple.  A few times we stuffed a
section of hydraulic hose down the throat of the calf and had enough gas
escape to avoid killing the critter, but I suspect hydraulic hose would
not be sconsidered the right tool for the job by you.  Too bad.  In many
cases, the right tool is the one that works, and I cannot carry a
complete vetrinary office on a motorcycle while checking cattle.  On the
farm, the right tool for the job is whatever gets the job done. 'Nuff said.

< 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: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:34:18 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

`to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
`right here in front of me:

`      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  

`Steve

Well, Seeing as how it is not necessary to resort to a desk top dictionary
these days on the net, let's see what the online Webster Server has to say:

* Shell Process Started *

(vela) /var/tmp 1# webster poacher
No definition for 'poacher'.
(vela) /var/tmp 2# webster poach
1. poach \'po-ch\ vt [ME pochen, fr. MF pocher, fr. OF pochier, lit., to 
   put into]a bag, fr. poche bag, pocket, of Gmc origin; akin to OE pocca bag 
   - more at POKE : to cook in simmering liquid {~ed egg} 
2. poach vb [MF pocher, of Gmc origin; akin to ME poken to poke] 1: to 
   trample or cut up (as sod) with or as if with hoofs  2a: to trespass on  
   2b: to take (game or fish) by illegal methods  1a: to sink into mud or mire 
   while walking  1b: to become soft or muddy and full of holes when trampled 
   on  2: to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take ga me 
   or fish illegally - poach.er n

(vela) /var/tmp 3# exit

Process shell finished

Gee, I don't think I see the word "hunt" or "hunting" anywhere in the Webster
definition.  Remind me not to buy American Heritage dictionaries.  They
must have AR-heads working on the definitions.....

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:58:03 GMT

In article <Bx8AE1.Dvn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> To put it simply, the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer might see nothing
rl> wrong with consuming Rich Young's heart for dinner, wouldn't take
rl> away the pain that Rich might experience during his own
rl> slaughter, nor would it diminish the loss that Rich's friends and
rl> relatives might experience if he were killed for food.

From article <1992Nov5.191321.11000@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Russell, sorry no context.  So if the heart eaters are a bunch of
jh> Jeffrey Dahmers, certainly then the pain felt by Rich--and his
jh> friends--is irrelevant isn't it.  

Not to Rich.   

jh> It's not perceived by the Dahmers, it doesn't exist, the Dahmers 
jh> therefore have no basis to change their behavior.  

If a tree falls in the forest, and Jeffrey Dahmer isn't around to
witness the event, does it still take place?   Jeffrey Dahmer could
put his hands over his ears to block out the cries of his victims,
but his lack of sensitivity wouldn't make the pain of the victims
go away.

Can we excuse ourselves from ethical obligations by simply
ignoring the impact of our actions?

jh> Is that how you perceive us omnivores, as Dahmers?  I see us 
jh> somewhat differently: we perceive Rich's pain, we acknowledge the 
jh> pain of loss felt by his relatives and we eat him anyway.  Are we 
jh> worse or better than Dahmer--in your opinion?  

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.  As 
such, I'm disinclined to judge individuals as individuals.

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?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Interesting analogy on hunting in Webster server
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:27:42 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

Judging by the discussions of hunting on this group, I got curious to look
up the actual webster server entry for the word hunting.  I think this
applies especially well to those of you (analogously) in electronics or
computer fields that hunt....

* Shell Process Started *

vela #1 > webster hunt

hunt.ing n 1: the act of one that hunts; specif : the pursuit of game  2: a
   periodic variation in speed of a synchronous electrical machine from that
   of the true synchronous speed

vela #2 > exit

* Shell Process Complete *

def . 2) Kinda sums up my hunting in a metaphorical sense.  Get working the
daily grind in electronic media and occasionally change speeds to hit the
woods...

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: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research.  Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:00:11 GMT

>>In article <1992Oct27.215622.23702@pixel.kodak.com> black@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com
>
Tim>>However, they realize that the general public is primarly
Tim>>concerned with helping humans.
>
RB>Then, as such, the general public should be very interested in the harm
RB>to humans caused by some animal research. 


Don't you think the general public should be more concernered about the
potential for harm to humans if medical treatments were use on them first
without animal testing?

                                    Greg Popken


The opinins expressed here are mine. That is ....well you know
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:42:59 GMT

In article <BxB7qn.928@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?
[Note, Karleenus Schwartz Davis actually wrote this question, not Russell.
Typical of the distortions Russell is capable of.]
>
>From article <1992Nov6.162559.17209@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>... [ad hominems deleted]
What was deleted was:
Article: 8962 of talk.politics.animals
(Dan Sorensen suggesting that "religious one-upmanship be taken to e-mail".)
Russell retorting:
>And I'd recommend that persons who have an interest in such questions
>continue to discuss them publicly.  
My addition to the discussion:
Russell tactic 102:  Divert the opposition into a debate on religion.
[Notice that now there is greater awareness of this tactic, and the
initial request is to move the discussion to email rather than get
sucked into this one.]

End of deleted material I wanted to restore for context.
Russell renews his attempted diversion:
>Would you mind answering the question?
Russell tactic 102:  Divert the opposition into a debate on religion.
Russell Special Tactic Dedicated to Rich Young:  Reruns.
Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:28:22 GMT


... ad hominems deleted

From article <1992Nov9.210743.8835@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> You would have an ad hominem argument if mary called you an idiot 
jh> or a witch in an unwarranted and undisciplined attempt to slander 
jh> your person.  Here, as elsewhere, she comments (offers her 
jh> opinion) on elements of your writing that she finds misleading, 
jh> untruthful, and disingenuous--without name-calling.   

I'm not sure what the words, "misleading", "untruthful", and
"disingenuous" really mean to you and Mary Otto.   

I'd be pleased if you and/or Mary would point out any factual 
errors and/or fallacious arguments that you perceive in my postings.  
And in reply, I'd be happy to post my sources and/or explain my 
arguments in greater detail.  

However, I don't see much point in responding over and over again
to *ad hominem* tidbits like the following:

=========================================================================
mo> Russell tactic #3:  Evade, evade, evade.
mo> (Rich, you should have known he doesn't have the courage, conviction,
mo> or, most importantly, THE ANSWERS to these questions.)
=========================================================================

jh> That you 
jh> would replace objections she makes to your manner of discourse 
jh> with your phrase "[ad hominems deleted]" shows either a paranoid 
jh> tendency, a misunderstanding of ad hominem argument, or a new [as 
jh> yet unnumbered] tactic in which people who illuminate 
jh> disagreement with your argument are falsely accused of slandering 
jh> your person in a context which you have destroyed through 
jh> editing.  

It doesn't bother me one bit if a poster wishes to spend her time 
voicing opinions concerning the flaws that she perceives in my 
character.  From time to time, I'll point out the false 
assumptions and hypocritical rationales that I perceive in such 
*ad hominem* attacks.  On the whole, however, I'd prefer to stick 
with the pertinent issues, rather than waste time rebutting 
misleading, untruthful, and disingenuous insults.  
-- 
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: (none)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:57:00 GMT

gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:

>But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
>morals and ethics.

	The problem, of course, is to get others to agree to your morals
and ethics.  This will take a while.

>"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
>it treats its animals" -- Ghandi

	Are cows still considered sacred in India?

< 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                    >
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:25:28 GMT

In <BxD8EE.JIp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>In the same year that I initially became a vegetarian, one of my 
>friends took a one year leave of absence from the college that he 
>was attending and joined a monastery run by a group of tibetan 
>buddhist exiles.  Like my friend and I, the monks preferred a 
>vegetarian diet to a meat-based diet for reasons of health, but 
>they also respected the doctrine of 'ahimsa' or non-violence.  
>After spending several months at the monastery, my friend was 
>shocked one afternoon when the head monk gathered up his neophyte 
>students and took them to a fast food restaurant where he urged 
>them to join him in eating hamburgers.  

>How would you interpret this event?

>1) Would you say that the buddhist monk approved of meat consumption?

I think this is an open question so here are my two cents worth:
Yes, the head monk approved of meat consumption.  Why else would he urge
his pupils to partake?  This is based only on the information here.  It
could of course been a test to see if the pupils would indeed eat meat
and perhaps what their justification for doing so was.

>2) Given the fact that the monk advocated vegetarianism, would his
>   hamburger-eating venture be a sign of hypocrisy?

You said that they preferred the vegetarian lifestyle but not enforced it.
I would not see the head monks venture as hypocritical.  The prime reason
being that their lifestyle was against the violence involved in obtaining
meat (as I interpret).  This might be restricted to the violence that they
themselves commit, since someone else has prepared the cow it may be
acceptable for them to eat it.  Just a guess mind you.

NB.  If this thread is followed up it might be appropiate to re-name it if
it continues with the Buddhists.


Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:06:06 GMT

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

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

>>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?

I'm claiming that FOA supported and funded Fran Trutt in an operation against
U.S. Surgical.  This was stated in an FOA newsletter some years back, but
Ms. Feral suggested that when she gave Trutt the money, she wasn't fully 
aware of what she was going to do with it.  Gee, sorta sounds like the old
Ollie North - Ronald Reagan thing, don't it?  "I don't recall".

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

Don't worry, FOA keeps copies of thier newsletters, I'm sure.

>>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.

Oh, it's no secret, and I never represented it as such.  As a matter of fact,
the source I quote is indeed the same you do - Animals Agenda.  I asked 
simply how a group that bills itself as one of the tops in the fight AGAINST
vivisection and other 'cruelties' can get away with such actions and stay
in the AR fold.  I guess just by calling themselves AR, huh?

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
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: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:56:50 GMT

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

>We seek to be ethical according to our ethical system.

	I can describe this by mathematical formula: x^2 + Y^2 = 1

>Within this newsgroup a 
>concensus emerged on the basics of the ethic, though some disagreement 
>persisted on the specifics of the wording. While this disagreement was 
>interesting, I believe it applied to fairly special cases and that for the 
>bulk of real cases, everyone agreed with the ethic (with possibly one 
>exception).

	Who, me?  I disagreed because the ethic was too inflexible to
be worth anything in the real world, not because I disagreed with the
fundamental premise.

>Unlike anti-AR types, I believe there are differences between humans and non-
>humans.  

	And this is an oxymoron -- the anti-AR types believe there are
differences between humans and non-humans in nearly all areas, including
rights and standards of behavior.  Was this a typo?

< 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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:44:56 GMT

In article <1dd22nINNilq@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>I've deleted rec.food.veg.
>
>The bottom line, folks, is that  poachers *are* hunters.  According
>to the "American Heritage" dictionary, that is, which is
>right here in front of me:
>
>      "Poacher: one who hunts or fishes illegally".  
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>
>>>>>"poaching" is also a form of HUNTING. (spp)
>>>>
>>>>Do you honestly believe this? (Van Etten)
>>> 
>>>Yes -- it's obvious isn't it? (spp)
>>
>>No. In fact it's incredibly ignorant and insulting. So I'd better stop
>>this response right here before I get equally insulting.
>
>Achenbach, would it ever occur to you to check your
>facts before spewing drivel about someone being "ignorant"?
>I didn't think so.  
>
>Steve

I suppose that rapists are lovers? Why do you think the word poacher exists,
if not to distinguish these individuals from legal hunters. Fuck you.

Jeff Achenbach 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:44:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov02.162408.827@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
Kk>
>Please give evidence that non-animal rights folks are more inclinded to be
>violent, as you have suggested.

Non-animal rights folks have a strong (though not universal) tendency to
participate in inherently violent activities such as meat-eating, leather-
wearing, etc.  Some of them even are so insensitive to the sufferings of their
fellow beings that they can enjoy killing them for "sport".

On the other hand, by definition AR supporters abhor these violent activities.

>Give me an example of this type of personal violence by the 'anti' side.

The 'anti' side so far is not very active solely because cruelty to animals
is the norm, so they have nothing to fight for.

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).

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals