HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Robodoc and animal testing
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:55:40 GMT

>Rosemary writes:>
>Besides I meant my comment to apply to non-human animal research
>in general, not just this particular experiment.

Rosemary, do you believe that it is completely unfounded for researcher to
expect similar results in human and non-human animals.  Or do you believe
that results obtained from some animal studies do accurately reflect human
responses?  If so, would you say that the majority or minority of cases animal
studies reflect human responses? 

This is not some sort of set up.  I am interested in your position (i.e.
were you are coming from so to speak).

					 reg opken
					
-- 
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.                                *******************************
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:36:30 GMT
Organization: blank
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

|>Steve Pope replies:
|>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
|>forced sterilization of humans.
|
|>Earlier in the post Steve wrote:
|>Whether they [the deer] are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
|>point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.

( Tim Ikeda) writes:
*I think something is amiss, Steve.

Steve adds:
>You could elaborate on this comment of yours.

I suppose I should:
Contrast "forced sterilization of humans" with "humane."  Besides the
relevant issues of who decides which people should be involuntarily
sterilized and whether this would even have a minimal impact on
global population growth, I suspect that such coercion would hardly
be catagorized as "humane."  Is the ideal of not subjecting animals
(including other people) to our whims congruent with forcing a
largely irreversible surgical procedure upon others?  Is this 
proposal of forced sterilization not done for our convenience?
I react very strongly when others feel they are capable of making
better reproductive judgements than others.

Still, not having heard how your idea of involuntary sterilization
of humans fits into your plan for solving the problems of 
population growth, I cannot judge whether you premise is feasible.
Could you clarify your vision of how a system for selecting and
restraining human candidates for forced sterilization should operate?


Regards, 
Tim Ikeda

PS. Over the weekend I thought about where you might find more
information about the "flea farm" question you raised. Searching
MEDLINE (available to you over the campus network) for "flea"
or "Yersinia pestis" (the plague microbe) pulls up quite a few
references split largely between vet and pathogen journals.
Also, if you are still interested in researching the subject,
I think that the sci.med or sci.bio newsgroups would be more productive 
than t.p.a. (Is there a vet group around?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:52:08 GMT

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

`No.  But if as I assume it is our last, best chance to
`stop population growth then I favor it.

This statement presumes that the current population growth is going to be
destructive to the earth in the short run.  I do not agree with that.  I
do believe that any efforts which can be fairly implemented without violating
public rights or choice to curb the population growth are for the most part
positive.  But I do not see increasing numbers of humans as negative so long
as the process is monitored and technology inspired to deal with the increase.

Humans are not the end of all - I don't care what you say.  If anything, they
will eventually be the answer.

swood

-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: animals in research (repost)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:26:58 GMT

In <By3r5q.IIt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>The notion of "trial by jury" was invented by the vikings and 
>introduced into english and french law via scandinavian 
>influence along the coast of normandy in the early middle ages.  
>And "due process", to the best of my knowledge, is a thoroughly 
>modern term.  Were you assuming that such concepts were etched in 
>primordial stone, perhaps?

	So long as you're invoking my ancestors, please remember that
they also kept slaves, mainly white slaves (prejudice on country, not
color), were known to set pigs on fire and let them run into enemy
ranks, set birds on fire to torch sieged towns, routinely killed and
looted for nothing more than profit or imperialism, and tended to
do this for no reason other than greed.

	Note also that slaves had more rights then than women had in
America just a few short years ago in some areas.

	If you are referring to a "Thing" with your above reference,
it was a governmental act, not judicial.  The huscarl tended to
handle judgement, and he had advisors.  Trial by combat was also
employed to determine who was correct in some disputes.

	We've come a long way, but Nirvanna this will probably never be.

< 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: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:02:46 GMT

In article <1e97smINNckd@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.214216.22259@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>In article <1e90vnINNb20@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>>
>
>In any case, even if the survival rate isn't perfect, it's
>a heluva lot better thatn the survival rate when you
>go out and shoot them all.
>

I didn't get the impression that the intent was to shoot them all. I 
thought the point was to lower the population to within the capacity 
of the area. 

>>  You didn't bother to answer my questions about other less cute and 
>>cuddly pests. 
>
>Because these questions are a flippant attempt to sidetrack the 
>discussion.
>
>Steve

Merely trying to make a point. Deer are beautiful to look at, fun to watch,
great to eat. However, when the population becomes too great and habitat
is in danger of irreversible damage, all species in that particular area
suffer. At this point, the deer, of which I am personally extremely fond,
are vermin. As an aside, I consider human overpopulation no better. There
is, in both (all) cases, a moral dilemma. Individual rights versus the 
overall quality of life for the population. 
   Should sterization of the deer herd be successfully managed, the habitat
will still take a beating until the present deer begin to starve or die of
old age. No telling how long this will take or what will be the toll on said
habitat in the meantime. Damage may, by that time, be irreversible.

Jeff Achenbach   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:53:33 GMT

In article <Bxr20H.7B3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1duo9fINNq33@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (M
ike Linan):
>
>
>rl> I've consumed meat from time to time.  Does this mean that I approve
>rl> of meat consumption?
>
>ml> No it doesn't mean you approve of meat consumption but, then you
>ml> are not Jesus Christ and I don't think you would pretend to be.
>ml> What it does mean is that if you condemn others for eating meat
>ml> that you are a hypocrite.
>
>You seem to have a "black or white" viewpoint that excludes various
>shades of grey.   Has it occurred to you that it's possible for us
>to raise questions about the ethical goodness or badness of an
>action without "condemning" the people who are engaged in such
>actions?   Is it possible for you to love "sinners"?
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Assuming that we all agree with Ted's universal ethic that "the less
[unwanted] pain I inflict, the better" and furthermore assuming that
we all agreed that advocacy toward eliminating certain actions to
which beef cattle are subjected was necessary, then I believe that
Russell Lawrence--who consumes "meat from time to time"--would be far
better placed to sit down, enjoy a steak with the cattle operators,
highlight to them his concerns, and perhaps decrease suffering in
the world than would Ted.  Russell is no hypocrite for eating and wearing
animals while holding the beliefs he does.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: PETA Investigation
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:31:18 GMT

    From J. of NIH Research Nov. 1992 vol 4

      PETA officialas and others say federal authorities are
      asking a federal grand jury in Gran Rapids Mich., to indite one or
      more PETA executives on racketeering charges.  The charges will
      likely allege that PETA supports or acts as a front for the
      underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or other groups that have
      claimed responsibility for attacking animals research facilities and
      releasing laboratory animals in raids acrss the country. 
      In a telephone interview, PETA chairman Alex Pacheco said that the
      MIch. grand jury has supoenaed him and Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's
      national director, to supply photographs of themselves, as well as
      handwriting samples and fingerprints.  Three other PETA staff
      members have been subpoenaed for questioning. 

The articles goes on to explain that if convictions are made PETA could be
financially destroyed, paying fines and restitutions, lossing their tax
exempt status.  In addition the RICO act permits the government to seize
property or other assets.

From National Ass. for Biomed. Res. news letter Vol. 13 number 20 Nov.5 92

    .... , Peta cofounders Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk refused to
    answer a number of questions asked during depositions in Sept. on the
    ground of relevancy or because their answers might incriminate them.



By the way, the break-in at Mich. State Univ. in Feb resulting in approx.
$100,000 in damages destroyed the office of Richard Aulerich and 32 yrs of
data (2 or 3 yrs worth that had not yet been published).  In addition the
fire set by the ALF in the raid spread to the office of Karen Chou
destroying 10 yrs of her research.  One direction of Dr. Chou's research
was investigating the possibility of using sperm in a valid toxicology
test instead of animals.  (Oops!)

					    Greg Popken
-- 
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.                                *******************************
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:35:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

( Tim Ikeda) writes:

|>Steve Pope replies:
|>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
|>forced sterilization of humans.
|
|>Earlier in the post Steve wrote:
|>Whether they [the deer] are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
|>point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.
|
|I think something is amiss, Steve.

You could elaborate on this comment of yours.

/sp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Trutt readings part five
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:41:11 GMT


[apologies if this appears twice, I had problems with the system]

[January/February 1991 _The_Animal's_Agenda_]

"FoA Sues U.S. Surgical"

"Hoping to air the full story behind Fran Trutt's 1988 attempted bombing of
the U.S. Surgical Corp. parking lot, Friends of Animals has sued U.S.
Surgical, its security firm Perceptions International, and Perceptions agent
Mary Lou Sapone for conducting illegal civil espionage, 'including
wiretapping, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress,'
according to the case summary.  FoA seeks damages in an unspecified amount
over $75,000.

"Ths suit alleges that 'In June, 1987, defendant Perceptions Intl., Inc.,
hired defendant Sapone to infiltrate FoA for the purpose of surreptitiously
gathering information of a confidential nature.'  Sapone worked at FoA as a
volunteer throughout the period in which she befriended Trutt and encouraged
her to carry out the attempted bombing (as revealed by tapes aired in pretrial
hearings in April 1990, before Trutt accepted a plea bargain).  During this
time Sapone also allegedly bugged the FoA telephones.  Her apparent goal was to
link the bombing to FoA protest against U.S. Surgical product demonstrations
on live dogs, to discredit the protest campaign and perhaps frame FoA
executives Priscilla Feral and Sarah Seymour for involvement they never had.

"As the suit was filed, another court summarily dismissed a suit filed against
Feral last spring by FoA founder Alice Harrington and Doris Day Animal League
director Holly Hazard, alleging racketeering and mail fraud.  Feral became FoA
president after the FoA board forced Harrington to quit due to erratic
behavior in 1986.  Both Feral and Hazard, who later withdrew from the suit,
were among several potential successors Harrington advanced at various times
before her retirement."
From: am860@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Catherine Michele Usher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Please give me more information on Animal Rights Groups
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:42:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I have been reading some of the articles in this newsgroup and I am
rather new to the net.  I would appreciate it if some people could
send me more information (names and addresses of groups) on Animal
Rights Organizations (PETA, Fund For Animals, Greenpeace, etc.) so
that I may get more information and perhaps contribute.

I appreciate your help, and apologize if this is not the correct place
to ask for such information.

Cathy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:50:16 GMT

In <Bxr0HG.6r6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In <BxKtnM.I96@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> 1) Do you favor the right of individuals to select their own form of
>rl>    government.  If so, do you agree that the US violated the rights
>rl>    of the vietnamese people by subverting the plans for an all-vietnam
>rl>    election, as embodied in the terms of the geneva peace accord that
>rl>    was signed after the french loss at Dien Bien Phu?

>From article <viking.721551673@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Yes, and yes.  However, international law allowed the latter as
>ds> we were supporting the regocognized government of the region.  

>This doesn't make sense to me.  You seem to be saying that it's ok for
>powerful nations to trample on the freedom of smaller nations, as
>long as they begin by setting up a "recognized" puppet in the 
>appropriate region. 

	Yes.  That's the way international law works, Russ.  If there
were another revolution in this country, let's say one to oust our
own government because of the many violations of rights and freedoms
we have seen over the past century, Cuba and Mexico would be perfectly
justified in trying to oppress us revolutionaries in support of the
current, legal, government.  I doubt they would pay much attention to
the writings of the framers which imply that if a revolution starts
the current government is no longer legal.

>ds> Is Afghanistan your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for
>ds> the US to use her military muscle...  etc...?  Works both ways.

>I don't understand your point.   Please explain how/why Soviet
>intervention in Afghanistan excused US intervention in
>Vietnam.  Is it ok for you to rape a woman, if you perceive 
>that one of your enemies has also raped a woman?

	I'm not buying this for a second, Russ -- you simply cannot be
this nieve.  However, the fact remains that international law allows
the supplying of weapons and supplies to foreign governments and
revolutionaries.  See, both can be considered the popular side, and
while the US fought in Vietnam for one side the comunist nations
supplied the VC.  While Soviet troops marched in Afghanistan, we
supplied missiles and weapons to the Mujhadeen rebels.  This is war
by proxy (witness French help in the US Revolutionary war).  The
rape question is hardly relevant, but if one of my enemies raped a
woman I'd be perfectly justified in giving her a handgun and the
training to use it and setting her loose.  *That* is a more
correct analogy of how international law works.

< 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: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:27:49 GMT


From the chapter on crustacea in Ingrid Newkirk's _Save_the_animals!_:

"Write letters of complaint to supermarkets that sell live lobsters.
A Colorado Springs woman delivered information on lobsters and the
cruelty of live lobster displays and cooking methods to a grocery
store manager.  She was thrilled to learn later that the store would
no longer sell live lobsters because 'some lady raised a huge ruckus.'"

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:33:15 GMT

In article <BxzH73.CpF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Please explain how/why an unmodified draize test is superior to the 
>cam test or eytex or [insert list of alternatives].  

From Oct7, 1992 U.S. F.D.A position paper aniamls use in testing FDA
regulated products.

     The Draize eye and skin irritancy tests continue to be amoung the
     most reliable methods currently available for evaluating the safety of
     substances introduced into or around the eye or on the skin.
     Non-animals tests, such as in-vitro tests, may be useful as screening
     tools.... However, the response and results of in-vitro test alone do
     not necessarily demonstrate the safty of a substance.


Is the federal gov ploting against animals too Russell?   Why should their
opinion be slanted?

From the same report.
     Current laws administered by FDA... are intended to ensure product
     safety and effectiveness, thereby protecting the consumers' health.

							  Greg Popken    

-- 
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.                                *******************************
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:41:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <9211170113.AA09212@service> gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
>>From: gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Gregory G. Brown)
>Subject: Hunting (Was: AR support)
>Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
>Organization: University of Idaho
>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:49:07 GMT
>
>The recent thread on whether hunting has impacted wildlife populations has
>been interesting. From the discussion, I would conclude that it has 
>affected some, but not others.  I think a more interesting question is what
>has been the impact of "modern" game management practices?  
>
>But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
>morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
>2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  
>
>Survey research consistently supports the finding that killing of the
>animal is only one part of the total hunting experience.  Being outdoors, being
>with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc. consistently rank above or on par with
>the killing experience.  In other words, there are alternative activities
>that can replace hunting.
>
>Hunting is a blood "sport" that will (hopefully) fade as we as a species
>expand our ethics to include others.
>
>Greg Brown   



You've already posted this once before Greg.  Is there any reason for
you posting it a second time?  I know that at least I responded to your
post which I do not agree with.  Did you not get enough responses so
therefore you felt obligated to post it again?



Mike Linan































Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:46:24 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Nov19.103819.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
welchb@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|
|[...]
|
|1) Is this a normal way of preparing lobsters?

Of course a fox can do a nasty number on a chicken, but that's totally
natural.  And don't forget some perfectly happy vegetables are steamed
to death, too, not to mention, skinned alive and chopped up.

Mark
-- 
   I want to reach that state of condensation of sensations which
constitute a picture.
   -- Henri Matisse
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:16:46 CST
	<1992Nov17.231302.14521@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1ebv3uINNqb0@agate.berkeley.edu>
In-reply-to: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 17 Nov 1992 23:26:54 GMT

In article <1ebv3uINNqb0@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

   Hoskins noted my unwillingness to support the killing of
   deer in order to allow a recreational facility to exist,
   and wishes to know whewther I am similarly unwilling to
   kill rats to prevent a public health problem.

The UW arboretum is a research facility.  It is not a park or
"recreational facility".   

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals