HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:47:41 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Would you like to get a feed of t.p.a. from my system?  It'll be
>FREE, of course, and won't cost you a penny apart from your long-
>distance costs.   If you can't or won't take me up on this, then
>in the name of logical consistency as well as simple politeness, 
>you should stop trying to dictate net behavior.  

You're on - I accept.

Now, I accept this on the basis that I will not be hassled and harrassed by
you or your management on any system security matters.  I have no control
over each and every person on my local system, especially if Wheeler decides
to take me up on my offer.  I feel pretty secure with my system integrity, 
do you?

In short - I'm not a cracker, but I've no guarantee that someone else on my
box isn't.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:34:34
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Sun, 30 Aug 1992 02:09:30 GMT

In article <Btrxzw.4M4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Aug28123057@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Beem fencing often advertises in hunting magazines.  If you browse
   tr> through one, you will see a picture of the fencing they install.  It
   tr> appears to be 10' chain-link fence.  I saw the ad and the phone number
   tr> in Deer and Deer Hunting's 1992 Equipment Guide. I don't have it in
   tr> front of me but I think it is around page 13.  There is a list of
   tr> advertisers on the last page.
   tr> 
   tr> All this is really pointless.  The fact is that a fence capable of
   tr> containing deer without problems can be purchased for somewhere on the
   tr> order of $100,000.  Since this is at least an order of magnitude lower
   tr> than your estimate, please provide documentation or concede this
   tr> point.

   I'll agree that it was pointless for you to assume that a fence 
   for the LACS property would have been affordable, unless you're 
   privy to the financial plans of the organisation.  I also think 
   that it's silly for you to assume that Mr. Beem had quoted you 
   on 10' high chain-link fence simply because such fencing was 
   portrayed in his magazine ad.  If you wish to pursue the point, 
   why don't you try to be more specific instead of expecting me to 
   accept assumptions that strike me as ludicrous?  

Mr Beem enclosed a 1000 acre hunting resort for $75,000.  I provided
documentation and sources.  You have provided nothing excpet a wild
guess that such a fence would have been millions of dollars.  Please
provide some evidence to support your opinions.  I have provided mine!

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
From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line 1
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:44:34 GMT


> The post that I made was to present information that was made available to me
> through the local newspaper (and was stated as such) that appeared to be in
> conflict with PETA Action Line #1 posting.  I do not believe that I stated that
> I was discrediting the AR expedition.  These were the facts as presented to me
> by what I consider an independent source and I will pass them on to other
> people to make what they will of them, hence 'Information is from the local
> newspaper and available to the public.'
> If you feel that the information that I have posted is a discredit to the
> AR expedition in 'the widest forum I could find.' you might consider:
>    1.  Are you yourself not attempting to discredit information that I have
>        posted?  Or to be true the information of the Winnipeg Free Press?
>        At the very least the Shedd aquariam project itself?  Judging from
>        my post and the information in it in comparison to your post and
>        it's content then you are doing the same thing.

Of course I was trying to "discredit" your post. It was factually
incorrect. I know that what you posted was taken from the Free Press,
and was therefore not *your* error, but a correction was still called
for.

I do note, however, that your bit about "harrassing the locals"
was even more suggestive of violent/aggressive behaviour than what
was printed in the Free Press. The activists in Churchill, and I
particularly, took great pains to keep the peace in Churchill, and
so I take offense to this kind of transparent attempt to mire the
anti-captivity movement in false accusations of violent behaviour.
As you know, mixing demonstrations with violence only diverts
attention from the real moral and practical issues surrounding
marine mammal captivity, which is why we never do it.

Even if we had been inclined to stage aggressive demonstrations,
we certainly would not have chosen Churchill as the town to do it
in--it is 200 kilometres away from the nearest *road*, and the train
leaves only every three days (and the railway staff had already
threatened us a few times on the way up to Churchill!).

The "scuffles" reported in the Winnipeg Free Press are an editorial
fabrication, and the Manitoba Animal Rights Coalition will certainly
be pursuing them for an apology and retraction.

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:22:46 GMT

Dan Sorenson writes:

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

<sigh.>  How many times do I have to remind you folks that my
suggestion that Ferrell distribute his info via a mailing list or anon
ftp (where it belongs) is in *no way* censorship, any more than it is
censorship for the NYC Transit Authority to stop kids from writing on
the sides of subways with spraypaint?  A resource is being abused
(IMO -- apparently not in that of the uninformed t.p.a masses), and
there are far better ways for Ferrell to get his info out to those who
want it.  Proof once again that no matter what is said, somebody out
there in net-land just won't get it (although I'm truly surprized at
who, in this case -- no offense intended by what I've written, Dan).
     Ad nauseum, not all of us have kill files, and as I've said
before, that's not the problem for me anyway.  I don't mind skipping
articles one-by-one (I wish that was the toughest obstacle I ever have
to face in life :-).  Anyway, the vote stands and so be it.  Amusing
to note that only 6 people cared enough about Ferrell's stuff to voice
their opinions in favor...
     One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
of their vote, as well.  Guess I'll have to chalk that one up to a
combination of youthful vigor, as well as the AR quest for total
honesty and openness, which Bob Black has so recently tried to
convince me of. ;-)


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:56:54 GMT


From article <1992Sep3.123453.25156@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> 1.  What is this "meaning" that you seem to think conveys some 
ry> magical "status" to living creatures and which makes it 
ry> acceptable to kill and eat one but not another?  

I didn't say that meaning conveys magical status.  What I said 
was that meaningful existence is impossible without sentience and 
sapience and that we ought to take sentience and sapience into 
account when we're evaluating the consequences of our actions on
other individuals.  

ry> 2.By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
ry>   species based on sentience/sapience?

You're the one who's been assigning "status", Rich.  Not me.  To 
illustrate, I'm inclined to believe that it's wrong to inflict 
pain on other organisms for our own amusement, regardless of 
whether the other organism is a human, or a chimp, or a tiny 
bird.  If you were to "torture" carrots by sticking pins in them 
or roasting them alive, I'd have no objection, not because the 
carrots have less "status" than humans or chimps or birds, but 
because I've seen no evidence to indicate that carrots feel pain.  

To give another example, I'd object strongly if someone were to 
deny medical care to a kidney-dead human, simply because the 
kidney-dead human isn't what you'd call a "self-sustaining 
organism".  On the other hand, I'd have no strong objection if 
someone were to deny medical care to brain-dead humans with the
full consent of all the thinking/feeling persons involved. The 
reason for my judgment is that the kidney-dead human is a 
sentient/sapient individual who may be fully capable of enjoying 
life, and it's easy to see that we would be depriving him in no 
small way by denying him the advantage of medical care.  On the 
other hand, the brain-dead human can neither experience life nor 
think about his existence in any way.  As such, it seems rather 
silly to believe that we would be depriving him by disconnecting 
him from life-support machinery.  

ry> 3.Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
ry>   of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to 
ry>   synthesize glucose?"

Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, an action would
have no meaning whatsoever.  And without meaning, an action could
hardly be "good" or "bad".  As an example, the notion of "torture"
would be meaningless if the object of our actions were incapable
of feeling pain.  If you choose, you're free to point out that the
object in question may be a living bacterium or a self-propelled pogo 
stick capable of jumping sideways, or a lab machine capable of 
synthesizing glucose, but the fact will remain that the "torture"
of such an entity would be a meaningless concept.

-- 
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: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:40:30 GMT

In <Bu1C2y.JJI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>The data for the WWI paper came from the following sources: 
>Cattle-Fax, Inc ("Grain Utilization in the Livestock and Poultry 
>Industries", 12/8/89);  the USDA Economic Research Service;  and 
>a paper by David Pimentel published in _Science_ ("The Potential 
>for Grass-Fed Livestock: Resource Restraints", 2/22/80).

	*Two* sources?  That's it?  I can't even write a 200-level
speech without including more sources than that.  Right!  I'm
becoming an academic!  Seriously, I can prove that Washington, D.C.
is the safest place on earth by using only two sources.  I'll have
to look for these next time I'm in the library.

>  The 
>role of petrochemicals in US agriculture isn't a big mystery, and 
>is understood, I believe, by every farmer that I know.  

	Of course it is, but there is a great deal of ambiguity when
trying to quantify the amount used per item to any certain degree.
Ford motor company cannot tell you how much per unit it costs to
build a particular car, but they can average everything out and
come up with a reasonable estimate.  Without the experience to draw
figures from, however, there's no way they can tell you what it
costs to build a Porsche in Michigan.  Likewise, unless there is
good data available, the figures just might be somewhat scewed one
way or the other.

	I remember a claim of each cow drinking something like thirty
gallons of water per day.  My experience has shown ten or less is more
the correct figure, but if you take all the water used by the garden,
the washing machine, the shower, and the cattle, then divide by the
number of cattle, you can see where your average will be scewed.  I
submit that the lack of human-destined vegetables being farmed in the
Midwest will have a tendency to make estimates of what it would cost
to grow them here off by a fair margin.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:02:02 GMT

From article <1992Sep2.205525.7049@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
ms> - Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
ms>   and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
ms>   Matt Smith

The notion that "Nature" is a person who has some ideas but not others,
is Matt Smith's idea.  There's no evidence to suggest that "Nature"
is familiar with this notion.

-- 
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: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:22:00 GMT

Tim Rigg writes:
tr> Beem fencing often advertises in hunting magazines.  If you browse
tr> through one, you will see a picture of the fencing they install.  It
tr> appears to be 10' chain-link fence.  I saw the ad and the phone number
tr> in Deer and Deer Hunting's 1992 Equipment Guide. I don't have it in
tr> front of me but I think it is around page 13.  There is a list of
tr> advertisers on the last page.
tr> 
tr> All this is really pointless.  The fact is that a fence capable of
tr> containing deer without problems can be purchased for somewhere on the
tr> order of $100,000.  Since this is at least an order of magnitude lower
tr> than your estimate, please provide documentation or concede this
tr> point.

In article <Btrxzw.4M4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I'll agree that it was pointless for you to assume that a fence 
rl> for the LACS property would have been affordable, unless you're 
rl> privy to the financial plans of the organisation.  I also think 
rl> that it's silly for you to assume that Mr. Beem had quoted you 
rl> on 10' high chain-link fence simply because such fencing was 
rl> portrayed in his magazine ad.  If you wish to pursue the point, 
rl> why don't you try to be more specific instead of expecting me to 
rl> accept assumptions that strike me as ludicrous?  

From article <RIGG.92Aug31103434@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Mr Beem enclosed a 1000 acre hunting resort for $75,000.  I provided
tr> documentation and sources.  You have provided nothing excpet a wild
tr> guess that such a fence would have been millions of dollars.  Please
tr> provide some evidence to support your opinions.  I have provided mine!

Without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing, please explain:

-- How large is the LACS property?
-- How much would it cost to fence the LACS property using materials
   that the LACS officials would regard as ethically acceptable?
-- Without studying the books, how were you able to determine that
   LACS could easily afford a fence?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:51:48 GMT


Well, if we are going to reopen the voting, then I'll vote for
Ferrell. Does that make it 7-4? 6-3? Whatever.

I don't think that Ferrell's cross-postings are a "waste of bandwith."

I wonder if the same people would be objecting to these "blind postings"
if they were full of pro-hunting, anti-AR info?

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:18:41 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug26.174534.1250@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul 
Roberts) writes:

>	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does
>not infer a particular age at which this realization happens, but it does
>require that that realization should be very likely to happen at some
>individual age.
 
Cut the "parse it again" crap. You wrote it in the present tense, now you're 
trying to add in the future. It's fine with me if you want to modify your 
original statement, but I'd respect you a lot more if you were up front about 
it.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:34:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <BttMqw.6K@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> In article <agty-1_@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
> jve> Since Linda incorrectly stated that my words were "sexist" and 
> jve> "demeaning," I think it's safe to assume that there must be a 
> jve> reason why she would make such a patently false statement.  
> jve> "Hatred" was merely one suggestion, hence the "may." If that's 
> jve> not the explanation, perhaps she would like to tell us why she 
> jve> said what she did, since it was untrue.  
> 
> If Linda were black, would it have been racist if someone had said,
> 
>     "I didn't know we could let our niggers vote in this."

Ah yes.  Once again, Russell does the David Duke thing.  Tell me Russell, why
does race play such an important part in your life?  Why in any conversation,
do Blacks INEVITABLY constitute the negative example?  Why bring up the 
"niggers" comment, which in context is clearly a nonsequitor?  Do you normally
associate the terms, "wife" and "girlfriend" with "nigger"? 

PS - You probably meant to say, "niggers [who are really no better than
lobsters]"....

> Or, would such a comment be another example of "humor"?  On the 

Your "example" is an example of very twisted "humor", aggravated by the fervor
of the true believer.

> of secondary, subservient capacity.  If I'm wrong, please explain 
> why it would have mattered if Linda were a "girlfriend", or a 
> "wife", or a "mother".  

Please explain how you can equate "girlfriend", "wife", or "mother" with 
"nigger".  Perhaps you're such a virulent misogynist that you naturally 
associate the former three terms with the latter....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:30:59
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:04:44 GMT

In article <Btyszy.IMy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

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

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

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

What forest management policies are you referring to (I suspect
clearcutting)?  More importantly, what alternative method of obtaining
pulp and paper do you suggest?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:25:44 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.714384953@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:
> 	If I am to grant rights, or recognize rights, I require that the
> being I grant them to be capable of knowing the difference between
> exercising them and abusing them, for only then can I prosecute for
> the violation of said rights by the individual.  
 
So, for example, a newborn would be bereft of rights and subject to your 
every whim?
 
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 02:09:30 GMT

From article <RIGG.92Aug25113821@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Okay, given that rounding, the fence would be free!  I just called
tr> Marc Beem at Beem Fencing.  He just fenced in a 960 acre resort that
tr> took 5 miles of 10-foot deer-proof fence.  The total cost was $75,000.

In article <BtoJ20.GE4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Would you mind describing the fence material that he used? 

From article <RIGG.92Aug28123057@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Beem fencing often advertises in hunting magazines.  If you browse
tr> through one, you will see a picture of the fencing they install.  It
tr> appears to be 10' chain-link fence.  I saw the ad and the phone number
tr> in Deer and Deer Hunting's 1992 Equipment Guide. I don't have it in
tr> front of me but I think it is around page 13.  There is a list of
tr> advertisers on the last page.
tr> 
tr> All this is really pointless.  The fact is that a fence capable of
tr> containing deer without problems can be purchased for somewhere on the
tr> order of $100,000.  Since this is at least an order of magnitude lower
tr> than your estimate, please provide documentation or concede this
tr> point.

I'll agree that it was pointless for you to assume that a fence 
for the LACS property would have been affordable, unless you're 
privy to the financial plans of the organisation.  I also think 
that it's silly for you to assume that Mr. Beem had quoted you 
on 10' high chain-link fence simply because such fencing was 
portrayed in his magazine ad.  If you wish to pursue the point, 
why don't you try to be more specific instead of expecting me to 
accept assumptions that strike me as ludicrous?  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals