HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:14:23 GMT

> 
>              HUNTERS and ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTISTS
>      The Fund For Animals invites YOU to the third Bi-Annual
>              TEXAS CONFERENCE FOR THE ANIMALS
> 
>Perhaps your fondest dream:  Get Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle in the
>crosshairs for a debate!
> 
>               SUBJECT:  Sport Hunting
> 
>When:   Friday evening, October 2 at 8:00 P.M.  (Kicking off the
>                                                    Conference)
> Where:  Austin, Texas at Red Lion Hotel
> 
>The public is invited to this event.  However, as of this posting, no one has
>stepped forward to take them on in public - _even_ after a comprehensive
>search.  Furthermore, several hunting advocates have backed out of the debate
>after first accepting the invitation.
> 

Don't they know Oct. 1 is opening day of bow season? Also small game? You
really think hunters are going to go see these folks instead of going out
in the woods?

>MORE INFO?
> 
>Cost before 9/30 $72.50;  after 9/30 $80
> 

So this is really a fundraiser in disguise?


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:41:02 GMT

Thanks for this advice; I now know I need to take this problem more seriously.
The guy was back yesterday, both he and his hunting buddy had open "Bud
Light" beer containers in the truck as they stopped briefly at the house
to talk on their way out.  I can't throw him out.  The landowner makes
the decisions about who hunts on the land, the landowner was not inclined
to believe me (or if he did believe me didn't view it as a problem) when I
told him the guy was drinking in the woods.  This hunter has ingratiated
himself with the landowner by presenting offerings of deer steak and fish.
From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: NCIB view of PETA
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:18:20 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

The following appeared in "Outdoor News", a local weekly sportsman's
newspaper.  I don't know anything about the NCIB, or the AWF, but I
figure if Ferrell can dump unsubstantiated stuff on the group so can I.
This is from last week's issue:

===Start article===

   People for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA), failed to meet several
acceptable charity standards, the National Charities Information Bureau
(NCIB) reports.
 
   According to a letter from the Animal Welfare Foundation based in St. Paul,
PETA spends too much on fundraising and too little on programs.  The report
says 42% of PETA's organizational expenses are related to fundraising and 
only 20% goes to research and investigations into animal cruelty.

   The NCIB also said PETA fails to meet the required five board members with 
only three, and the president of PETA, Alex Pacheco, is a paid staff member,
which also violates NCIB standards.  So, what's new?!

===End Article==

Joe
All opinions mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=    "My basic view on tackle and equipment costs is that      =
=     fly fishers as a group spend too much and spin           =
=     fishers spend too little" - Stream Smallmouth Fishing    =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:25:53 GMT

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

> Putting "unwarranted" in here would basically say "pain is bad unless 
>something else makes it good". I think this is implicit in ethics - that any 
>ethic may, in certain scenarios, be overridden by other ethics.

	Isn't the purpose of a definition to define and not imply?

> Adding this 
>term into our ethic adds no new meaning, and is potentially ambigious, so I 
>think we need to steer clear of it. I think I'd like to stick with 
>"unwanted". This is more fundamental to this particular ethic.

	Wait a minute, stating what is implied provides no new meaning and is
potentially ambiguous?  Tell me, do you often have these delusions?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:04:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?
>

It is just you, Todd. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:10:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.212943.6934@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>+ac:  Yes, I agree with you, Mr. Whitehead, but no, I'm not Europhobic.  In
>+ac:  fact, I'm hopelessly and head-over-heels in love (and very often, in
>+ac:  lust) with all of my brothers and sisters of European-descent who share
>+ac:  similar ideas, ideals and yearnings with me.  A community of people who
>+ac:  struggle together to bring about change invariably develops a relationship
>+ac:  in which the bonds are like those of a family.  My family of dreamers in-
>+ac:  cludes every race of people, and of course, many non-human animals too.
>
>	alka

Alka, you may not like my sense of humor but I really cracked up when I
read your posts.  This one as well as the last one.  Your comments above
about lusting after "brothers and sisters" and about your "non-human
animals" in your family conjoured up some pretty funny (to me and to
anybody else who finds a "professor" so full of herself writing so
sloppily) images of you doing some (in my opinion) unnatural acts of
"lust" with the "family" (combo bestiality-incest?).  Keep posting, Doc.
You're funnier than reruns of Sledge Hammer.

Mary Otto
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA


 I tried to post the following, but I don't think it worked (at least I never 
saw it). Perhaps it's because I left out the subject line. My apologies if my 
first attempt did, in fact succeed, and this is a repeat. 

      ..............................................................

The following is a paraphrased summary of the responses to what appears to be 
a good-faith invitation to a debate about hunting:

------------------------------------------------------
<It's a set-up>
<They're all biased>
<What's the point, their mind's are all made up>
<I'd fear for my safety>
<AR people can't even get their opinions in synch, so why bother talking to 
them>
<It's scheduled for the opening of hunting season.>
<They're all nuts, I don't want to talk to a bunch of insane people>
<They're not worth wasting breath over>
-----------------------------------------------------
 
If I were a hunter I'd also find such an invitation quite intimidating. 
Getting up in front of a bunch of people, many/most of whom disagree with me, 
and arguing my points would be rather scary. I'd surely decline such an 
invitation, due to lack of guts, but I'd like to think that I'd freely admit 
the reason and NOT conjure up a list of excuses attempting to place the blame 
on others.  (I'm still waiting for someone to say "the sun's in my eyes" :-)) 
 
In a way, though, these responders have paid tribute to Ingrid, Alex, and 
others who are willing to speak out on animal rights. If you believe anti-AR 
claims on this newsgroup, the AR philosophy is a fringe group with very 
little popular support. As Ingrid, Alex, et al. are constantly speaking to 
the public, they must constantly be walking into the lion's den, requiring 
the sort of personal courage that's typically lacking in the rest of us.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:40:56 GMT

Jennifer L. Johnson writes:

[...]
>Then show up and set us straight.  I'll bet very few of you hunters have the
>slightest idea of what the animal rights movement is all about but, rather
>have a perception based solely on folklore and tradition, tradition that says
>"men have always hunted, so it must be okay," tradition that constipates the
>progress of ideas, and causes humans to hang on to their neanderthal past as
>predators.  In my book, brainwashed beats brain-absent.  "Open your mind,"
>says Archie Bunker, "and someone will come along and shove alot of crap in
>there." 

Alas, Jennifer, we have a very good idea of what the AR movement is
all about.  I only wish that the general population had half as good
an idea of your true agenda, instead of misconstruing you folk as
friends of animals.  I've spent a lot (too much?) of time with AR folk
over the years, and I've heard about every argument there is.  It's
pretty clear to me who is least likely to maintain an open mind.  It's
also painfully clear who does the most to help animals.  Perhaps you
should work on these two issues.  It would actually be a good idea if
you benefit from the example we hunters set.


[...]
>If no hunter shows up at the debate, lots of folks will believe just that,
>that out of all the hunters in the state of Texas (and elsewhere), not one
>has the testicular fortitude to argue for the pro-hunting side.  Pretty sad.

One might ask why you're so disappointed by this alledged lack of
"testicular fortitude" -- but one won't. :-)  [Sorry, Jennifer, but
I couldn't resist.]  If you can get Ms. Newkirk to spring for the
air-fare from New York, I know someone that would love to debate
her...


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: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:29:43 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

>>Well, Alka, old  (boy, girl, other, select one) thanks for your opinion and all

>ac>What do mean by "other" Ken?  Are you implying that because I don't have an
>ac>anglo-saxon name that is familiar to you that I may fall into a category
>ac>other than male or female?  

>	In all candor, I've never seen the name Alka before.  I presume
>	from the sound of it you come from the Indian subcontinent, but it's 
>	not a name that readily indicates gender or age to me, hence my "boy, 
>	girl, other".

+ac:  Alka is a Sanskrit name, given to a female.

>ac>Is part of your difficulty with accepting the notion
>ac>of protection to non-human animals tied in with an ethnocentricism that 
>ac>fails to understand anything that isn't European-oriented?   

>	Sorry alka, but out here in the real world not too many of us recoil 
>	with politically-correct revulsion at being called Eurocentric, so
>	you can save that little put-down for teaching assistants, associate 	
>	professors, and other faculty wannabes who have a need to fear it.

+ac:  I'm afraid that I must stick with my original criticism.  I still feel
+ac:  that it was highly inappropriate for you to include the category of 
+ac:  "other" in your gender-listing.  You may feel that my revulsion is that
+ac:  of a "politically-correct" mentality.  I think it's racism.  It's one
+ac:  thing to be unfamiliar with a name.  It's an entirely different thing
+ac:  to try to make a joke out of something which is unfamiliar, particularly
+ac:  when there is a negative association with the category offered (i.e., 
+ac:  "other").  I think it's a low blow, and quite inappropriate. 


>	By the way;  you're not Europhobic, are you?  That's another
>	form of ethnocentrism.

+ac:  Yes, I agree with you, Mr. Whitehead, but no, I'm not Europhobic.  In
+ac:  fact, I'm hopelessly and head-over-heels in love (and very often, in
+ac:  lust) with all of my brothers and sisters of European-descent who share
+ac:  similar ideas, ideals and yearnings with me.  A community of people who
+ac:  struggle together to bring about change invariably develops a relationship
+ac:  in which the bonds are like those of a family.  My family of dreamers in-
+ac:  cludes every race of people, and of course, many non-human animals too.

	alka
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:33:08 GMT

>
>jh> Along with
>jh> Mike's faith in God undoubtedly comes his understanding that his
>jh> God will not ask him to kill a witch, and will watch over and protect
>jh> him, as well as prevent you from traveling to the Bay Area to meet him!
>jh> Of course you are ridiculing his religious beliefs.  And you are taking
>jh> evident considerable humorless glee in doing so.  Is there any better
>jh> example than your above conjoining of the idea that Mike's "faith"
>jh> excludes him from the right to offer the opinion that the thoughts
>jh> of another are "idiotic"?



>Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
>be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting
>hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
>claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.
>
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


As I understand Mike, he doesn't care what we think or the
acceptability to us about God telling him that deer hunting
is acceptable.  You would be likewise free to dismiss as
"idiotic" his assertion that hunters hunting hunters is idiotic.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Truth about Ted (was Re: Hunters Needed)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:35:00 GMT

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

`Finally, Nugent once provided the following rationale for hunting with
`his son:   "I hunt with my son, so I will not have to hunt for my son."

From the song "I Just Wanna Go Hunting"

	"I'll take my kids hunting, so I don't have to hunt for my kids."

Perhaps a more popular context of the quote...

swood
-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Downed Animal Legislation
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:05:45 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

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

>Has it occurred to you that AR supporters might be better informed than
>you are on this? ...  and that they would either be familiar with the
>issue or know where to go for more information? Wouldn't you have supported 
>the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act?

If it's so obvious to all the animal rights types out there, then why waste
the bandwidth on it??  Why not do as you did, and type another four lines of
copy, and give us the story rather than just say "Call and say this"?

>How about it, Todd?  Here's a chance for you to show your concern for
>animal welfare without jeopardizing your own hunting lifestyle in any
>way.  Don't assume that just because AR supporters favor it, that it's
>not a good idea or that it warrants being a target for reflexive
>ridicule.  Consider that from your perspective even AR people are going
>to be right some of the time (think of it as the law of averages, if
>that helps). 

I have no trouble with the act, now that I've been informed just what it is.
See how easy that was?  My point here is that for a guy who subjects us to
propaganda attacks, Ferrell's postings are not only availiable elsewhere, but
terribly lacking in information content.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:42:49 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`Udo writes:
`u> Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
`u> Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?

`The vast majority of the hunters I know wouldn't engage in the sport
`if the game could shoot back.  Yet, they still view the sport as
`a "manly" endeavor for some reason.

I would not engage in such a sport if the animals could shoot back.  That
_WOULD_ in fact show me that the animals had intelligence.  That they could
think beyond eat-sleep-move instincts.  (I can just see all of these
AR groups now trying to train monkeys to use guns so my arguement can
be tested ;-)

I don't view my sport as manly.  I do however see where it take more
intelligence and effort than something as carnal as football or boxing
which takes pure braun and little intelligence on the part of the
player (who oft-times takes commands from the sidelines anyway)  Sure,
a football player can whoop my butt, but I can out smart most of them
and would surely be able to survive in the wild better than any of
them.

Yesterday, I had to dig my truck out of a six foot ditch by hand for
two hours straight.  I then woke up the next morning and carried a 50
pound bag of carrots for 2 miles into the woods over hill and dale and
under thorn bush and vine to a spot that took me over three weeks to
find. (ie to find one with sufficient deer sign)  On the way back to
the car, I accidentally shoved a branch 1/4" into the side of my right
eye, and I loved every minute of it!  That was a "manly" endeavor!

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 15:53:22 GMT

In article <BvIw6F.F4n@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <1992Oct2.231330.11236@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> You have evidence to support the assertion that I said it was OK
>ry> to kill any human?  It should be obvious, but "irrelevant to the
>ry> discussion" is hardly equivalent to "OK to kill", no matter HOW 
>ry> often you wish to insist that it is.
>ry> 
>ry> Now, you tried this tactic before, with quotes and all, and Craig
>ry> Boeker (who wasn't even involved in the discussion) pointed out
>ry> that your deductions were less than exemplary, based on the quotes
>ry> you provided.  One would have thought that this would discourage
>ry> you from repeating such silliness.  Please refrain from such
>ry> things in the future and save us all some bandwidth.
>
>Is it ok to kill a brain-dead human?
>Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?
>
>You pretended previously that you had answered these questions, yet 
>now you're claiming that I don't have any evidence concerning 
>your position.

	I pretended no such thing; I have ADDRESSED these questions and
	found them to be irrelevant to the discussion, which dealt with
	assignment of status by humans to non-human species.

>What's with all the secrecy?  Is there some reason why you're unwilling
>to reveal the role that sentience and sapience, not to mention structural
>similarity, plays in your "assignment of status"?

	Is this the best you can do?  I've not held anything within the
	confines of secrecy.  In fact, I've been quite straightforward
	with my comments and evaluations.  I know, from past experience,
	that one of your favorite ruses is to drag the discussion off on
	tangential issues when your arguments regarding the original
	subject flag.  This exchange, in fact, has nothing whatsoever
	to do with the subject of the original discussion.

	If you'd like to start another thread with your two questions,
	feel free, but within THIS thread, the questions are irrelevant.
	I have been consistent with both this determination and the reasons
	for it in my past postings...since you obviously have the history
	of the exchange saved, you can easily verify this by re-reading
	the text.

	I suggest that further conversation of this nature be done in
	e-mail: there is no need to waste bandwidth and money with what
	is clearly a "who-said-what-and-when" dispute.

	Now, as I recall, there are a number of questions which DO pertain
	to the discussion which you have not answered......your "public"
	awaits.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Truth about Ted (was Re: Hunters Needed)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:52:22 GMT

In article <swood.717786266@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVEN
SONG) writes:
>
>But never would he kill an animal without need or use (if for wantan waste).
>To paraphrase a quote from his last years WRIF broadcast in Detroit prior
>to Michigan bow season, "If I was 'Blood Thirsty' I would just go down to
>the local farm market and buy a bunch of goats and chicken, lock them up
>in a barn and get out the chainsaw..."  He is not blood thirsty.  He
>uses everything he gets just like the rest of the "workin' hard, playin'
>hard" hunters out there in the real world....
>
>He speaks of real values from a platform that would normally be held by
>party-hardy, drug induced social misfits, and I personally think he is
>doing a damn good job of it.
>
>swood
>
>died-in-the-wool Ted fan and Nuge wanna-be-like
>--


In my opinion Ted Nugent is a more gifted hunting spokesperson than
musician.  That stated, it's ironic to me the extent to which Nugent
has been elevated to satanic status by the animal groups assembling
in Texas next month.  Nugent owns land in Michigan.  He bow-
hunts deer on his property sufficient for his family needs.  Undoubtedly,
Nugent would be entirely ignored by the Texas assemblers if he had
someone else kill his food for him like the vast majority of other
Americans.  Go figure.

Finally, Nugent once provided the following rationale for hunting with
his son:   "I hunt with my son, so I will not have to hunt for my son."