HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Wanted, Info on falconry (pro and con)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:34:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.181258.10224@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com
(robert.m.atkins) writes:
>Can anyone point me to a source of information on the pros and cons of
>falconry. Does falconry help raptors in any way? Is there widespead
>abuse of birds involved in falconry? Are the birds regularly taken from
>the wild? Is the training abusive? You get the general idea. I'd like
>unbiased data, so reports from falconers of their organisation are
>probably not what I'm looking for (though they might be).

Oh for god's sake, you MUST be desperately bored.  Get a life...

   don
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:41:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


In article <1993Jan27.055726.19226@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>And I also do not approve of "whitewashing" of environmental data to show
>that no damage is occuring.  Now do you see the problem?  Both sides seem
>to see the data in two different ways, but that is always the nature of
>interpreting data...

I am not attempting to whitewash anything, I am simply saying that cattle
do not have a negative effect on our atmosphere as a result of their farts.
Isnt that simple?

>>You shouldn't need such doomsday science to convince yourself of your vegan
>>ways,

>The "doomsday" science I use is not to convince me to stay my vegan ways,
>but is just icing on the cake.  I have a strong moral dough with a bit of
>health concerns mixed in.

I dont think this icing exists on your cake, if you're concerned about the
atmospher concentrate on strong feul efficincy for autos, less industrial
realease of hydroflorocarbons, Carbon Dixoxide, and Sulfer Dioxide, and the
use of alternative fuels (lower in carbon than coal).

>While on the buffalo thing, I caught part of PBS show where a gentleman
>was advocating returning the western states back to buffalo herds and
>open range for environmental and economic reasons.  Does anybody reading
>know the show and/or the man I'm writing about?

I didnt see it but I can guess.  I would suppose that the entire food chain
of the high plains is in trouble because of the loss of many orgainisms
such as the buffalo, prarie hen, prarie dog, etc...  We can still eat
buffalo just as we do cattle and use them for an even stronger leather.
They are naturally suited for the high plains and therefore probably
require less vet care than their domestic counterparts.  They look really
cool as headdresses.  Buffalo complete the nitrogen cycle quite nicely and
thus keep the land fertile.  We can have fun by stampeding them through
small towns.  Anyone else have guesses?

>Rob U

alex the omnivore
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:20:33 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan26.180537.2142@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
booninvail@guvax.acc.georgetown 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.  

When I was young, I proved this to my sister  ;-)

>The 
>question is not whether you have the ability to do so, but whether it 
>is right to do so

I did not argue this.

>.  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.

Yes, that is true.

I also have tiny microbes in my belly that help me break down meat.
I wonder if vegans starve this microbes to death and kill them?  If one has
been a vegan for a long time does meat become harder to digest? 

>Better luck next time.

Same to you but more of it!  :^)

alex the omnivore
 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:49:37 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu


In article <C1J52z.HI6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>As you know, two of my closest friends are dogs, and I've 
>occasionally wondered what might happen to them if they were to 
>get lost some day and end up in strange company.  In such an 
>instance, I'd much prefer to have their lives ended quickly and
>painlessly, than to end up in one of LSU's dog experiments wherein 
>teeth are drilled and infected and allowed to abscess in order to 
>study artificial bone replacements.  

For all you know your lost dogs found a new home or were hit by a car and
killed instantly and painlessly.  On the other hand wouldnt it be nice to
know that your dog helped save someone's life?  I'm not saying you should
donate your pets, I'm just saying that once they're gone and you dont
bother to check the pound, you must be doing just fine without them.

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

alex the omnivore
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:02:05 GMT

From article <lm09c3INN8tm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C1876H.KqE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, it take 17000
>>kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce one kilo of trimmed beef.
> 
> Now I can say it: Bullshit.
> 
> Cite your reference, Russ.  Can David Pimentel be found anywhere other
> than the student register?

I already did.

Try "The Potential for Grass Fed Livestock: Resource Constraints", 
_Science_, February 22, 1980.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:46:57 GMT

thmiley@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Tim Miley) 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.  They also must
shirk the responsibility of their hired position (as they usually take on
medial tasks - most often being the ones truely responsible for the care
and upkeep of the animals' habitations) to spend the multitude of time
required to get truely good incriminating photos.
Any of you involved in photography or video production can attest to the
amount of film time that will hit the editing room or the dark room floor
to get one useful shot.

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: California/Desert
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:51:20 GMT

From article <lm88puINNimt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C1C8F5.LI2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>According to USDA data (cited in the WorldWatch paper mentioned 
>>previously), 70% of the 1990 US grain crop was consumed by 
>>livestock.
> 
> This is the flip side of your "single use" argument.  What Dan
> Sorenson pointed out is that 30% of the grain produced is suitable for
> human consumption.

Are you sure it's not 30% or 40% or 50% or 60%???   Let's see
some data.

> And all your mumblings along these lines aren't arguing for more
> ethical treatment of animals.  Their arguments for environmental
> conservation with a presupposed hypothesis.
> 
> You aren't arguing for "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
> 
> If you were concerned with environmental conservation, you would look
> at each problem individually, and objectively choose a method of
> remedying problem areas.   Your arguments are the height of
> speciousness.

When we're analyzing the "goodness" or "badness" of a given activity,
it behooves us to examine all the relevant facts.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:25:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan26.070853.2927@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>Alex L. Pace writes:
>>Did it ever occur to any of you cattle doomsdayers that this country was
>>once blanketed in cattle, buffalo!  Hundreds of millions of buffalo, which
>>are bigger than modern cows, ate, drank, and farted all over this land for
>>thousands and thousands of years!  Boom!
>
>Yes, but they didn't have feed grown for them by another species, they
>weren't artificially inseminated, dehorned, castrated, raised in fenced in
>areas, confined to feedlots, milked by another species, branded, tagged,
>and systematically disassembled by powered cutlery either.

The reason I noted the gillions of buffalo was to discount methane
assumptions about cattle.  I know that some people feel that artificial
insemination, branding and the lot are inhumane, I did not intend to argue
that...the observation was made in a purely environmental sense.  I know it
is impossilbe to change someone's opinion about such a sensitive issue as
diet via newspost.  I respect your concern for the cows' well being.  What I
do not respect is the use of such scare tactics, terrorism if you will,
that distort water and environmental figures to try to "prove" damage.
You shouldn't need such doomsday science to convince yourself of your vegan
ways, if you are comfortable with it in your own moral world then fine,
just dont accuse omnivores of ruining the planet, especially where there
are plenty of legitimate causes of environmental damage.
 
>BTW, where do you get your "hundreds of millions" number from?

Actually that number was one mentioned on a documentary about Buffalo Bill
in which it mentioned that hundreds of millions were slaughtered, there
could have been billions of them over the generations and eons before
European man came.

alex the omnivore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:14:36 GMT

From article <1993Jan24.065052.3877@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <C1BuEw.JM0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>The 20% non-agricultural allocation includes industrial and commercial
>>uses as well as toilet flushing, bathing, dishwashing, etc.  Would
>>you care to tell us roughly how much is used to stock fountains
>>and swimming pools, so that we can't gauge the savings more accurately?   
> 
> "...so that we CAN'T gauge...?"  I won't even hazard a guess at
> the arcane meaning of that sentence segment.  

Would you care to tell us roughly how much water is used to stock 
fountains and swimming pools, Rich?  After you've supplied the 
facts, we'll find out whether or not your finger-pointing is just 
another evasive maneuver?  

> As for the other
> stuff, I have nothing which details the water use in California
> in such detail, nor am I sufficiently interested to spend time
> searching for it.  I'm sure you'll be more than happy to educate
> us, however.  After all, without numbers, your argument is equally
> weak...and I did say "might."

You say that my arguments are weak.  However, I'm certain that 
most critical readers understand by now that the meat-component 
of a 1/4 pounder requires roughly 340 liters of water to produce 
in the US.  By contrast, all the at-home uses of water for bathing, 
cooking, washing clothes, etc is roughly 380 liters per person 
per day, on the average.  Gee, that's a lot of water for one 
burger, eh Rich?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cattle Issue
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:36:02 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <C1H4JD.1w0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Did those buffalo live in feedlots?  And hence, did their manure 
>collect in oxygen-free ponds where it might decay anaerobically?

	You're being silly, Russ -- the manure from buffalo and
cattle decay in piles on the plains; it is your manure that decays
anaerobically in an oxygen-free pond.  Mine too, now that I live in
a town with a sewer system.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:23:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.181656.8162@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
bert Black (x37236)) writes:
[...]
>
>These monkeys were deafferented, a condition which tends to lead to
>injuries, self-mutilation and open wounds.  A number of the monkeys had
>bitten off fingers and mutilated their own hands.  The threat of
>infection is great in such cases and extra precautions must be taken to
>preserve high sanitation standards.  That's why there has been this
>focus on the presence of fecal material, which is a good source of
>infection.
[...]
>
>---
>Robert Black       |  Replies may be slow.
>black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
>These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Bob, Martin:  How many infections were present in the lab monkey
population?






:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Protect the Rights of Plants!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:51:27 GMT

alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

`Dont you think that we are assuming too much if we assume that only animals
`can have feelings?!?

`The only solution is to refuse to eat anything made from animals or plants!
`Stick to pure synthetic food

Hey, that is a great idea.  The obvious place to start is brocolli - they
have proven that it can feel - Bush was ahead of his time.  But wait, why
stop there?  Animals around us don't seem to know any better than the rest
of the "meat-lovers" in society do.  If we are going force them to stop
eating meat, let's start working on the animal kingdom as well.

Granted, we will have to find some way to keep the toxic waste and disposal
thereof from effecting the environment any more than we already are, and
of course testing of the synthetic food has to be handled somehow - cellular
level testing is too cruel as it causes pain to those poor helpless cells!

By golly nothing should ever have to die again.  And who knows.  If we all
quit our jobs and donate our homes and fortunes, maybe we could spend all
our time and energy at specializing ALL the species of the earth to eat dirt!
(gee I wonder if dirt has feelings???)

swood

`A "fact" cant be proven to be correct because the rest of society concurs
`with you but it can help you convince yourself you're not crazy if others
`feel the same.  After all, our concepts of normal and abnormal are based on
`the actions of everyone else...you'll find this hold true even for the
`(pseudo)science of psycology.

(great quote by the way)




-- 
 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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:29:48 GMT

From article <viking.727866994@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>>Are you unbiased because you directly or indirectly require that
>>animals be made to suffer unspeakably (& killed) just so that you can
>> eat their muscle tissue?
> 
> 	There is a good chance, Alka, that I harvested the soybeans, corn,
> and/or wheat that you ate today.  The pheasants were run over or sucked into
> the guts of the combine, the deer were killed by the sickle blades of the
> bean head as it rolled over the field while they lay, motionless, hoping
> to escape predation by hiding.  Doesn't work on a John Deere.  Now then,
> do you suddenly feel remorse at eating that tofu, or are you somehow
> morally superior because you can point at Banta?
> 
> 	Go ahead, tell me your worst -- I'm ready.  I raised it, I ate it.

For the most part, you dreamed it.   

For instance, you say there's a "good chance" that you raised the 
soybeans and corn and wheat that Alka consumed yesterday.  How 
would you describe such "good chances" numerically.  One in a 
billion, perhaps?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11750 alt.activism:21459 rec.food.veg:12608
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:17:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: WP Group


[I've directed followups to talk.politics.animals, where this thread
 now belongs]

From article <1993Jan26.210557.18376@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> 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?

-- Do yeast organisms have thoughts and feelings?  If yeast organisms
   are incapable of experiencing their own existence, why would they
   care how we treat them, anymore than a car would care whether or
   not we run the engine without oil?

-- You've stated in the past that the thoughts and feelings of animals
   don't count in your assessment of cruelty if/when their torment is
   "necessary" or "useful".   Since women in Miami don't "need" to
   wear mink coats and most US sport hunters don't really "need" to hunt 
   deer, how do you justify the suffering that may be experienced by mink 
   and deer in these two circumstances?

Thanks in advance for helping me to understand your position.  

-- 
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: Cattle Issue
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:25:14 GMT

From article <viking.728206562@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
> In <C1H4JD.1w0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>Did those buffalo live in feedlots?  And hence, did their manure 
>>collect in oxygen-free ponds where it might decay anaerobically?
> 
> 	You're being silly, Russ -- the manure from buffalo and
> cattle decay in piles on the plains; it is your manure that decays
> anaerobically in an oxygen-free pond.  Mine too, now that I live in
> a town with a sewer system.

I've posted my sources.  You've disputed them, but offered no 
references of your own.  Is there an authoritative source that 
you would accept?  Or, is this one of those cases where you're 
going to believe the "facts" that fit your political purpose?  

-- 
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: Retractions on 60 Minutes
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:17:17 GMT

alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

>Oh, BTW, You tried to discredit the information on cattle methane release
>and atmopheric concentrations because they came from the journal science,
>your exact reason for this was the Science once published an article about
>cold fusion.  I'm not sure if you realize what this does to your
>argument...

	Actually, I hope you're ready to apologize to Russ, since it was
I who made that inference.  The point, of course, was that Science was
hardly a credible journal, and has been known to be just as wrong as
the WorldWatch Institute when publishing information.  I suspect this
comes from not being peer-reviewed.  In addition, there are many such
associations out there.  Does anybody really think Ralph Nader knew
what he was talking about in "Unsafe at Any Speed," or that his present
consumer-protection organization is at all competent to judge products?
They may be right on some, and have been wrong on others, but when looking
for factual information those wrong decisions make them very suspect.

>If _Science_ is indeed bunk, then you must remember that that magazine was
>the one that semiseriously broke the news on cattle flatulence in the first
>place so if they are wrong then so are you...

	Was it a full retraction, or did they just print a few corrections?

>But your insistance on cold fusion as proof doesnt hold water because
>_Science_ didnt say that cold fusion worked, they reported that a couple of
>aTm researchers claimed that it did.  They published the researchers'
>method which allowed scientists all over the world to reproduce the
>experiment and show that it was flawed.  I hope you can see the difference
>between merely reporting a method and endorsing it...And besides, all of us
>in Texas know that the aggies couldnt be trusted.

	Hey, I'll agree with the last.  However, as I recall the Science
article it wasn't simply reporting the experiment, it was also quite
good at telling us what it all meant.  You know, cheap energy forever,
no more pollution from coal or fission plants, etc...  Somebody forgot
to tell these people that cold fusion can't produce heat energy, only
neutrons, and neutrons are not easily converted into electricity.  In
short, it would have made a nice neutron spectography machine, but
no power.  Funny how nobody saw that.  Funnier still how nobody in
the power industry, or the nuclear industry, was asked to review it.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >