HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:09:56 GMT

From article <viking.727865386@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> In <C183B3.J82@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> 	Grep for "Flavin" in your worldwatch index, and read his paper
>>> on Chernobyl.  Then compare his description with what is possible as
>>> described in any decent physics textbook...
> 
>>This makes no sense to me whatsoever.   Is there some connection
>>between Flavin's account of Chernobyl and the findings of a 
>>joint Japanese/American study on the sources of greenhouse gas,
>>as reported by the authors of the WorldWatch paper?
> 
> 	Yes.  Let me make it perfectly clear: World Watch Institute
> publishes anything they get their hands on, apparently.  Flavin is a
> fuckwit who would have a hard time tying his shoelaces in a strong
> breeze.  

Do you think they'd publish your commentary?    Probably not.

In any case, the sources cited by the aforementioned paper didn't 
include anything written by Mr. Flaven.  Rather, they included 
UN and USDA data, Cattle-Fax publications, and an expert in 
agricultural energy from Cornell University.  

> ...
> 	If such blatant things get past WWI, they aren't reputable.

Gee, I was looking for stats on meat production in the 1992 
Information Please Almanac yesterday and came across a brief 
overview of environmental forecasts.  Guess which UN-funded 
organization they cited: Yep, WorldWatch Institute.  

Perhaps we'd be in a better position to tell us who is or isn't
a "fuckwit", as you say, if you'd provide us with some verifiable
facts to replace the ones which you're disputing.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 23:39:38 GMT

In article <C19u5u.83B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>Right off hand, I'd say that there isn't too much that we can do 
>to reduce termite-methane-production, and even if there 
>was, it would have no bearing on our decision to-produce or 
>not-to-produce cattle for consumption.  Vis-a-vis the methane 
>that you say is produced by rice paddies, bear in mind that the 
>global production of rice is 450 million metric tons or 
>thereabouts, whereas global meat production (including non-ruminant
>animals) is roughly 100 million metric tons (carcass weight).

	Your point?  The fact remains, assuming we can believe the statements
	each of us posted, that the largest cause of atmospheric methane
	is not the farming of livestock.

>Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>we cut without causing famine?

	Famine for whom?

	I could do no more than speculate regarding the answer to your
	question.  I would guess that any answer would depend heavily on
	the circumstances of the one supplying the answer.  A Masai, for
	example, might well answer differently than you.  Eliminating
	the production of rice wouldn't be a major impact on the diet
	of most North Americans, but elimination of livestock production
	certainly would.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Ingrid's lies.
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:52:42 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <mhulsey-180193080909@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
`> In article <C0v599.62x@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
`> 
`>>[...]
`>>It's obvious to me that some animal research benefits humans, but it's
`>>equally obvious that some animal research provides no benefits.
`> 
`> It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me and others.  You have
`> provided two examples of what you consider "bad" animal experiments, but
`> you have failed to provide ample evidence to support your claims regarding
`> these experiments.  We are still waiting. 

`Out of the many thousands of animal research projects that are conducted
`each and every year, surely there must be at least one that provides no
`benefits.   You, on the other hand, seem to be unwilling to accept such
`a possibility... and hence, are obliged to defend each and every project,
`no matter how costly or redundant or poorly conceived.

I like a quote that came out on the local Company broadcast this week.
Kathleen Marquardt, national chairperson for Putting People First commented
that (paraphrased) "There are bad mothers, that does not mean that we
abolish motherhood..."  If the AR groups would specifically target the
irresponsible animal usage and abuse, I for one would love to help them
out.  But all I see is a lot of emotionally charged idiots running around
spending donated funds and costly personal time on projects that will do
nothing to directly or ultimately benefit animals (ie following hunters
into the wood, buy full page adds in the Des Moines Register, destroying
research labs, protesting dog shows and releasing animals, etc.)

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:41:23 GMT

In article <C16qxt.AxB@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> It's a question, not an argument, and it remains unanswered.

Russell, I have told you that I addressed this point, and told you to
consult your archives.  Since your archives are conveniently faulty here,
let me provide the excerpt myself:


++++++++++

Fron Message-ID: <mhulsey-090193153805@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>

The decision of the HHS Departmental Grant Appeals Board contains a clear
exhonoration of Taub and the treatment that his monkeys received.  The
Board upheld the NIH's decision on very narrow grounds constituting one
tenth of the NIH's original criticisms.  These grounds were characterized
as being "administrative grounds only and not substantive" (NIH Week,
4(23):1-3; 1984).  Among these grounds were complaints regarding the
ventilation system at IBR, which was beyond Taub's control.

++++++++++

> Your notion that NIH is a political organ that's influenced by 
> arguments that aren't strictly scientific is a sword with two 
> edges.  If it's true that NIH is responsive to folks who are 
> sympathetic to PETA, think how much more responsive NIH would be 
> to the men and women who belong to the AMA or the NABR.  

I would say that the NIH is a political organ to the extent that they must
lobby congress to maintain their own funding.

Although political interests, such as those concerned with AIDS, can
stimulate RFA (request for application) notices where NIH solicits
proposals from researchers in a specific area of research.  The funding of
these proposals is based on their scientific merit as judged by peer
review.

I see no evidence that the awarding of NIH grants is under the influence of
PETA, AMA or NABR.  Do you have any evidence that this is so?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: 60 min.  Cat Shooting
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:18:23 GMT

In article <C1FFC8.ELp@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1993Jan25.161122.9344@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> [lots and lots of Sixty Minutes stuff deleted]
>
>I'm going to address your comments in detail, 

Sure!  Will this take another three months.

>...but not without additional
>investigation.  In particular, I want to have a chat with James Gill
>at the Times-Picayune, who allegedly interviewed some of the LSU 
>employees who had complained about the cat screams.  

Russ, did you see the 60 min segment?  They interviewed the woman who
worked down the hall and wrote the "cat screaming" letter.  She (a
self-proclaimed AR advocate) said her information was based on 
article in Cats Magazine, and that is was not first hand information.

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.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Quote from Clinton?
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:48:30 GMT

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

>I was listening to the quote that Clinton gave the other day in regards to
>the lifting of the "Gag Rule" used in government funded planned parenthood
>clinics.  He was basically stating that the censoring of doctors based on
>the issue of abortion was a result of;

>	* 'Ideological concepts that have no place in medicine.' *

It would appear, Scott, that we actually agree on something if you have 
applauded Clinton's statements.

>If only he could keep this type of a policy in regards to the area of animal
>testing, then it might not be a bad four years after all....

Time now for our regularly scheduled disagreement.  Part of Clinton's message
was that human fetal tissue will be used in disease research.  In fact, this
is very appropriate since this tissue is *dead* and would otherwise be thrown
out.  Being human tissue, the results that it gives will be much more applic-
able to human disease than anything animal research could hope to muster up.

Notice in what you've written above, Clinton's quote is taken from the context
of the censoring of doctors at PP clinics.  The withholding of the *choice* 
from women who go to PP clinics for advice on what to do with an unwanted 
pregnancy is the issue to which Clinton made the reference, "Ideological
concepts ..".  In fact, ethical committees are a very important (although
I would argue, in their present incarnation, fairly impotent) part of
the research review process, and I think, Scott, that the implication of
what you're saying here regarding animal use in experimentation would find
you on fairly shaky grounds with the researchers that post to this group.

alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: gregb@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown)
Subject: Re: Trapping
Organization: University Of Idaho.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:13:00 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Jeff Achenbach (achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com) wrote:

: AR organizations (as opposed to individuals, many of whom I have far more
: respect for) would stick to their real agenda rather than smokescreening
: with the more sensationalistic bullshit, there would be no need to refute
: said bullshit. Your reply, I believe, gets right to the real point. That is
: that ARs are in general against the killing of animals, period. The fact that
: the vast majority of the inactive (in this debate) population is not, but 
: is opposed to needless suffering (they do perceive a need to kill animals,
: but would prefer it be done by methods that they perceive to be humane)
: causes the AR machine to dwell on side issues rather than going to the heart
: of the matter, as you have done.

As an activist, it is all too easy to get caught in the quicksand of
the utilitarian argument that involves pleasure/pain or cost/benefit. I
do my best to adhere to a philosophy close to Tom Regan's.  Wrong is
wrong.  I do not fear the research scientist, or trapper, or whoever 
that is sadistic--they will be exposed for what they are, and hopefully,
dealt with satisfactorily.  The greatest impediment to a compassionate
world is the indifferent, rational, or "objective" individual who views
the world merely as objects to be manipulated.
--
-----------
Greg Brown
gregb@owl.us.uidaho.edu  (University of Idaho)

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse
is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
   	Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:15:16 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>>I'm not including the previous postings on this topic because I found the maj-
>>ority of them to be far too nasty for my liking.

>	Tell it to your mommy, not me.  We've been *kind* thus far.

>>  All this discussion on 
>>Hoosiers & Iowans doesn't really cut it with me as being the purpose of the
>>group.

>	*WHICH* group, Alka?  Alt.peeves, perchance?  If you look closely,
>you may find it in the Newsgroups line above.  Alt.peeves does not exist to
>be nice, supportive, or even to pontificate anything of a moral nature.
>Alt.peeves exists to provide a forum for bitching, moaning, flaming, and
>generally telling of anything that pisses us off, and is certainly not for
>rational discourse.  So far the cross-posting has been something of a
>poaching expedition; the residents of alt.peeves consider you so easy to
>take that it's hardly a sport any more. 


Santa Cleopatra - I didn't realize this was being cross-posted alt.peeves!
So sue me, why don't you?  I was referring to t.p.a. .  Okay?

[lots of boring ramblings & impotent attempts at hostility deleted]

>	Good for you.  I don't care, and won't bother with such trivial
>stuff when I've far more important things to do.

Should I be flattered that you've taken time away from all your important 
things to post a fairly lengthy response to mine?  Well, I am.


>>p.s.: I've noticed a real ugly sort of hostility directed against male AR
>>posters, which reeks of "you guys are sissies & probably don't get it enough"

>>Do you think you might want to grow up today or preferably, yesterday?  Or 
>>would you like me to give you details on how disgusting meat-eating males can
>>taste?  

>	Having eaten a fair number, though not of the human variety, I find
>the taste to be quite good.  Disgusting?  Not at all.  As for growing up,
>I note you're the one bitching about opposing opinions here and calling
>for no lapse in voicing your opinions.  Review the Sesame Street episode
>(brought to you by the letters C, D, and the number 7) on "cooperation"
>and see if you can't find a clue somewhere therein.  That should be
>about your speed in these sorts of exchanges.

Try again, Dan.  (a) I didn't realize that this stuff was cross-posted to
alt.peeves - so, again, fuck me gently with a chainsaw for being so ignorant,
	         (b) As for the Hoosier/Iowa stuff being posted on t.p.a,
                I stand by what I originally said.  I didn't "bitch about
opposing opinions", I just tried to communicate an inappropriate use of
bandwidth.  Comprendez vous?
yeah, I didn't think so.

alka
From: booninvail@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:05:37 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1k2fnvINNdrk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:
> I was born to eat meat and so were you.  Take a look at your own 
> dentistry!  These nice sharp "canine" teeth I have are just great for
> ripping the tasty flesh of my animal meal.  

Your teeth will also do a nice job of ripping into human flesh.  The 
question is not whether you have the ability to do so, but whether it 
is right to do so.  More fundamentally, you are making an inference 
from what something was designed to do in its early evolutionary 
history to what it can best be used for now.  This is a faulty 
inference.  IF it is the case that early humans developed meat-eating 
teeth that is because such teeth had survival value at that time; 
perhaps the lack of widespread agriculture would explain this.  But 
conditions are different today.  You can be healthy without eating 
meat, and quite possibly even more healthy than if you do eat meat.  
So we might expect the survival value of such teeth to diminish and 
eventually to disappear, as the hair on our bodies seems to be now 
that we no longer have to live in such cold caves.  There are good 
arguments to be made against moral vegetarianism, but arguments which 
appeal to what some part of our body was "designed for" are not among 
them.  Better luck next time.

 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11719 alt.activism:21426 rec.food.veg:12596
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:05:57 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1993Jan25.144613.26315@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>
>>` If they go into
>>`a lab with camera and bear witness to the abuses of the vivisectors and show
>>`their "science" to be the fraud that it is, then I am much less hesitant.
>
>>They are not let in the door.  When they go in, they must sneak in and
>>film against the will and rights of the lab(s) involved. 
                            ^^^^^^
Alka, do you feel it is correct for people to disregard the
rights of others to promote their cause.  What if I believed yeast were
being cruelly treated in bakeries or breweries.  Does that legitimize my
burning the place down and attempting to take tha lives of the bakers?

>Are you saying Scott that breaking and entering is a more serious crime than
>the sort of procedures that have been brought to light by the ALF - stuff
>like the experiments at the University of Pennsylvania, where federal funding
>for the work was *cut off*.  Surely, one can go beyond "bad" and "good", "legal"and "illegal", to speak of such things as what Martin Luther King referred to
>when he spoke of obeying a law that says not to cross at a red light.  But, he 
>continued, 
>when there's a dying man on the other side of the road, you really don't care
>if the light is red or not: you cross the road!

We're not talking about infractions of minor local legal codes  here.  These
people attempted to murder someone.  A bomb planted on one of the cars did
not go off when planned.  The researcher drive the car for five days before
the bomb fell off and detonated.  

I'd hardly compare that to crossing against the light.

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: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:30:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <C188qs.Ks6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <lltllvINN48i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
>> Have you just finished a cover-to-cover reading of the Masturbation
>> Primer?  Sheesh.  

>Nah.  I have a girlfriend.

>Be that as it may, I was wondering why you didn't pick a more 
>romantic title for that how-to book of yours, such as "Making 
>Love with your Hand", perhaps.  Or a friendlier label, 
>like "Alan Windbag's Favorite Grips".  

>> I didn't think you'd have time, what, with your
>> furrowed brow buried in the protein complementarity literature.

>You're right.  I didn't have time, but I do plan to read some of
>your articles in the future.   In particular, I'm looking forward to
>your publication of "Why I'm Still a Virgin" and "How to Avoid Social 
>Entanglements".   Let me know when they're scheduled to appear. 

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

They're probably scheduled to appear about the same time you publish
your aritcles "How to be a pompous childish brat" or "The many joys of
being a child molesting pervert".  I can't help but, mention how boring
and ludicrous many posts have become on this group, especially yours 
Lawrence.  Am I the only one who notices that almost nobody here is
convinced of anything by the oppositions claims and demands.  There is
next to nothing to learn unless you want to learn how to "debate" like
deceitful child who pretends to be intelligent.  How many people have 
actually had their minds changed by a hunter?  How about a AR?  Very 
few if any that I have seen.  Round and round we go, nowhere!  

t.p.a. is really becoming a waste of time, or has it been all along and
I'm just now realizing it?

Mike Linan
From: jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Martin Hulsey's lies  Was: Ingrid's lies.
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:52:02 GMT
Organization: The Electoral Collage

(Russell Lawrence) writes:
=> Is it dishonest for an organization to circulate the original article,
=> without circulating the retraction?

It is as honest as you quoting statements and facts out of context.
And you have done so on many occassions.

---
Jack Noze -- jpoller@novell.com

	"Its not the size, its the sensitivity that counts" -- JennyG
	
	"Your battery is dead.  I couldn't have come up with a more suitable
	    analogy, myself." -- andy banta@abingdon.sun.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Tsk tsk Russell (was Re: Ingrid's lies.)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:16:37 GMT

In article <C0v599.62x@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:

>Next time our "Putting People First" ranter from Michigan shows up,
>be sure to ask him for his candid opinions about public expenditures
>on health care.

Talking about me when I am not around?  Lose my email address or something.
Well, I am back!!!

As far as MY opinions on health care, they don't belong in this group, nor
under the banner of Putting People First.  I am and have been very clear
to seperate my opinions from those of the organizations I support and
speak for.
In fact if you recall Russell, that was why I sent you my personal opinions
in email (both to keep them off an innapropriate news group and to make
sure that my public opinion as a PPF member did not conflict with my personal
opinions as a US Citizen) and in fact is was you that jumped accrossed
net etiquette and blatantly posted them accrossed the world.

Enuf sed!

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals