HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:58:39 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <1993Jan25.191806.24542@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

`  "Livestock account for 15% to 20% of global methane emissions ---
`   about 3% of global warming from all gases."

`From Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
`and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991.  BTW, 
`the source of info for this statement was a joint report from the Japan
`Environment Agency and the EPA.  

Has anyone ever done an estimate as to what the methane %## would be if
the beef industry were taken off these lands 'abused' by bovines and returned
to either farming or wild lands?  I would imagine that 15-20% would look a
lot less threatening if there were still about one third of it left when
alternatives took over.

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: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Compassion Question.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:10:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1E2s8.71J@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Let me get this straight.  You're in favor of using non-human 
>primates to find cures for human diseases, even when those 
>diseases may be the product of poor lifestyles, yet you're 
>opposed to the concept of universal health care because you don't 
>like "lazy idiots".  How about the children of "lazy idiots"?  
>Where do they fit into your cartoon picture?  

Russ, are you suggesting that we OWE these children anything?  I'll agree
that it sucks and its a situation that they cant control but seriously...

I'll give ya the most personal example I can about healthcare...
My father no longer has health insurance, he voted for Slick Willy because
of the healthcare promise.  My father and Stepmother smoke 80-100
cigarettes a day between the two of them, they also drink heavily and eat
all breakfasts and lunches in restraunts.  These are people who will need
some sort of healthcare because of what they are doing to their bodies.
BUT, if they were to save even half of their annual expenditures on
cigarettes and alcohol they could afford all of the health insurance they
need, and they would be more healthy because of the cut-back.  If the
government decides it can afford to give these people health insurance, is
the government not just as well funding their bad habbits?  For it could be
said that the tobacco and alcohol are keeping them from affording the
insurance now, govt assistance will allow them both.  I love my father more
than I love anyone else but I know what he is doing is his own lazy idiot
fault and when he gets cancer and cant pay for the treatment I wont feel
sorry for his plight.  Do I lack compassion?

alex the omnivore
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11888 alt.peeves:19789
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:35:21 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis) writes:

>>Actually, that may be the key to our getting rid of them.  I read somewhere
>>that an AR leader was encouraging her people to go off into the woods in
>>brown coats, so that hunters would get bad press for shooting people.
>>Surely, Father Darwin will be relieving us of some of these people soon.

>Stop teasing.  I can't afford a decent hunting rifle right now.

	Want to borrow one of mine?  Find an FFL and meet me at the border.

			Dan "Civic Improvement" Sorenson

< 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.                   >
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:41:07 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <mhulsey-260193163414@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu
 (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>
>Does anyone else see the similarities between Barnard's arguments and
>Russell's?


Possibly, but for those who are truly interested in where Russell
is coming from I recommend Tom Regan's The Thee Generation.  Although
Regan's ethic is religiously inspired--I understand Russell is an
atheist--and Russell is more intelligent and writes better than Regan,
the resemblance is uncanny.  This book should be required reading
for those of us participating in talk.politics.animals.russell.lawrence.








:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin Hulsey's lies  Was: Ingrid's lies.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:48:51 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.030615.25817@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <C14H49.L34@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>Both McCabe as well as the publisher of the Washingtonian were 
>>required to make a contribution to an animal rights group in 
>>conjunction with the settlement of the dispute.  And the 
>>Washingtonian was also required to print what's called a 
>>"retraction".   You're free to call it what you will, but it
>>was a "retraction" nonetheless.
> 
> Russell, if the article was retracted, in its entirety as you imply,  why
> did you feel it was so necessary to take the time to use quotation marks
> around retraction?

Because I was responding to Martin's claim that the word "retraction"
did not apply.  When a writer wishes to refer to a word, as a word,
it's customary to use quotation marks.    

> Question.  Was the entire article retracted?  Or were there only certain
> points that retracted?

No, the entire article was not retracted.  However, the author and
publisher did, indeed, _retract_ the points that PETA considered to
be vicious lies.

Now please answer my question:

Is it dishonest for an organization to circulate the original article,
without circulating the retraction?

-- 
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: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:58:36 GMT

From article <lm083tINN8rl@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking):
> In article <C183pM.J9y@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> A quibble about your math. Taking your 5.6 gal/lb-beef consumed
>>> directly, and assuming 5 lb-grain/lb-beef. Then if it takes 5214
>>> gal/lb-beef total, nearly all of the water (5208 gal)is needed to grow
>>> the 5 lb of grain. That comes to about 1000 gal/lb-grain. If tomatoes
>>> take only 23, it seems highly unethical to eat grain.
>>
>>Give it some more thought, Werner.
> 
> Give it some more explanation, Russ.  I pointed out to you that the
> figures you quoted were, let's see, "ludicrous and misleading."  I
> even challenged you to make it right.  You haven't, just as you
> haven't mended any of your errors that may look bad for your cause.

Your assumption about the amount of water used to produce the grain
is faulty.

> You're building your argument on a pyramid of lies.  You're not
> gaining support.  At some point, maybe you'll rub two neurons together
> and see the connection.

Go back over your arguments, and think about them critically.  One
step at a time.

-- 
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: Cattle Issue
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:29:08 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>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.

	Not that it makes a whit of difference, of course.  Did you
watch "Dances with Wolves" and think that the Earth was much more
pristene in those days, forgetting that it was filmed in the present
times, or have you just never seen a cow on your doorstep and think
they stayed in their own neighborhood?

>BTW, where do you get your "hundreds of millions" number from?

	Accounts from the late 18th century and early 19th century
mention buffalo herds that took *days* to pass a given area.  If
we assume 4 hours walking, at 1mph, that's 4*days = at least eight
miles of swinging beef.  A buffalo is maybe 8 feet long.  How
many buffalo to the mile?  Consider they aren't in single file,
there are many herds, and that the above is so incredibly
conservative an estimate it compares to thinking of millions of
passenger pidgeons, and you get the idea.

< 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.                   >
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: La Cat Shooting Experiments
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:04:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <C1HtJB.830@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1k3n5i$lcs@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>> In article <C1FG81.EyF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>As I pointed out previously, many members and employees of the 
>>>American Dental Association were flabbergasted when Sixty Minutes 
>>>did a report on the alleged relationship between multiple 
>>>sclerosis and amalgam fillings two years ago.  On the surface, 
>>>the report aired "some essential but damaging facts", as you 
>>>would say, that were allegedly being hidden from the american 
>>>public by the dental profession.  In truth, however, the 
>>>the report was a one-sided and distorted commentary that grossly 
>>>misinformed the american public.  
 
>> To coin one of your favorite phrases, So you say.  

>I was citing a statement from American Dental Association.


Does that automatically mean the ADA was telling the truth?  Who are we
to believe?  Perhaps 60 minutes did make some errors on this story but,
are we to accept as the truth that they did because the ADA complained?


>Here's an excerpt of a letter from Eugene Truno, who was president of the
>American Dental Association when the Sixty Minutes show on "toxic
>amalgam" aired on 12/16/90:

>Dear Member Dentist:

>   Many of you viewed the December 16 report on dental amalgam produced
>by CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" news program.  Others may have learned about
>the broadcast from colleagues or patients.
>...
>   Since the broadcast aired last month, your Association has sent a 
>detailed letter of protest to the "60 Minutes" crew and CBS network
>executives, pinpointing certain glaring errors of fact included in
>their report....

>The truth usually comes out in the end, Mike.


My point is that having heard you side of the cat shooting research and
60 minutes side I still am not sure what the truth is.  Do you?  I do 
know that your version was less than complete it would appear.  Was that
by design or were you ignorant of all the facts?


>>>I'm hoping the Times-Picayune will get involved at this point,
>>>and pressure some of the "anonymous" folks at LSUMC to make
>>>public statements.
 
  
>> If such people do in fact exist.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did not.

>We'll see. 

Perhaps.  With so many vested interests involved I'm not sure who is lying
or who to believe.

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


Mike Linan
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Tearing Earthworms (was: killing animals)
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:45:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1H6Jq.13M@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>>Actually, I'm not sure about this, but I think if you cut a worm in
>>half, both ends will still live and become active, productive, members
>>of worm society. You have to cut the worm up into a few pieces before
>>you start doing damage.

If you are to rip an earthworm, it is possible that it will survive.  Only
the half with the heart(s) will live and only then if it doesnt bleed to
death, starve because your ripped its stomach off, or die of shock.  The
chances of survival are much better if you use a sharp knife and a garden
tool or your own hands.  

Some other knowledge from childhood animal research:
A grub worm will die if you rip it.
There is no saving a slug if you pour salt or vinegar on it.
Kerosene and Diesel are effective against ants.
Meal grubs can be frozen solid and will live if you defrost them slowly.
A clean cut across the boundry of the thorax allows a cockroach to live for
  hours. 
A lizard's tail will wiggle 5 minutes or more if you pull it off.
Tadpoles die if you put them in a jar of tap water.
If you hold a crawfish just right it cant pinch you, it can still pinch
  your sister.

alex the omnivore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: 60 min. Cat Shooting
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:37:14 GMT

mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.104007.2736@netcom.com>, loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
>wrote:
>> 
>> You know, I love all this horseshit about "fully anesthetized cats."  The
>> point being made is that the cats did not suffer, and therefore the
>> research was ok.

>No, the "point being made "is that animal activists lied about the
>anesthesia that the cats received to falsely imply that they suffered pain
>during the procedures.

You're kidding yourself, Martin, if you truly believe those animals did not
suffer.

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:04:25 GMT

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

>Oh and I'm sure the PeTA newsletter, being a paragon of honesty, will
>surely circulate a public retraction of the now-proven-to-be-false cat
>screams in the brain trama experiments.  

Let's see...  Woman writes letter claiming cats screamed.  Woman retracts
letter claiming cats screamed.  Therefore, it is proven that cats didn't
scream.

If you seriously consider this line of reasoning logical, I suggest you
enroll in Philosophy 101 or a high school introduction to logic.

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Book Review - "Free the Animals!" by Ingrid Newkirk
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:46:13 GMT

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

>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. 

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!

 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

Do you have data which backs up this claim (i.e., that members of the ALF
habitually take on jobs as animal caretakers to blow open a case).  If you
have such information, don't you think that you should let the FBI know about
it, since it would probably make solving all of these cases immensely easy.

>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.

This is why it's especially nice of animal researchers, like those at the
head crash lab at the Univ. of Penn., to document their callousness & question-
able (from a scientic & ethical viewpoint) experiments all by themselves.  That
way, when the folks in balaklavas come to see what's on the go, they can just
pick up the videotapes and be on their way.

alka

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:04:39 GMT


Banta writes:
ab> No, a baboon's life is to eat, fuck, and die.  Fini.

Jennifer Johnson writes:
jj> Sounds like the baboon's got one up on Alan.

In article <llr5beINNfd0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, Banta writes:
ab> That's Andy, windbag.  And you're right, I'm not dead yet.

In that case, Andy Windbag, the baboon is two up on you.  The 
baboon wouldn't think of his own fists as sex partners whereas 
you seem to consider you and you and you to be a bawdy, 
adventuresome "menage a trois".  Different strokes for different 
folks, but still, I wouldn't brag about my sexual conquests if 
I were you.  The fact that your paws don't run the other way when 
you breath on them doesn't mean much.  

BTW, what's the first image that pops into your mind when you
hear the word "foreplay"?   Hand lotion, perhaps?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11782 alt.activism:21470 rec.food.veg:12626
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:36:22 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>=> And we also use corn for more than food or feed.  So what's the point?

Contents may have settled during Shipping writes:
>Your mother must by crying.  It is so pitifully obvious that you're a
>"slow learner".  I'll spell it out for ya, son.  Just cause you get
>600 lbs of beef from a 1000 lb steer doesn't mean that you've got a
>60% effiecient cow.

I may, in fact, be a slow learner, but in the long run I learn.  The original
discussion of 60% was the amount of retail consumer meat from a 1000 lb
cow.  In terms of meat on a weight basis, it is a 60% efficient cow.


>=> Because the amount of water saved by going to a non-meat centered diet
>=> could go into replenishing water levels in lakes and reservoirs.

>So now, the reason not to eat meat is to save water.  So all of
>California should go to a Vegetarian Diet.  So we'll have to increase
>our non-meat agriculture in order to feed all these hungry people.
>So all of your wonderful savigns of water will not got to the lakes,
>but to the  stomachs.

There is more than the water reason to not eat meat, e.g., health, ethics,
and/or environment.  Also, you wouldn't have to increase non-meat agriculture,
because the reported number of people who can be fed by the grains and soybeans
US cattle eat is 1.3billion (US population is about 250 million).  Even if the
reported number is off by a factor of 5 [one monumental error] we could still
feed all americans.

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:13:00 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.143308.5541@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In article <C16EwE.50p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan20.145050.10550@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>>Have you eaten any cotton lately, Rich?  Or chowed down on some
>>tasty rose buds?   Do you wear potato skins on your back?  Or
>>send grains to your loved ones on holidays?   
> 
> Is the growing of cotton, roses, potato skins, and grain for human
> consumption "non-livestock agriculture?"  That is, after all, the
> real question here...not whether I wear potato skins.

It's an irrelevant question, Rich.  As the WorldWatch paper observed,
it takes as much water to supply the average american with meat,
milk, and eggs as the average american typically uses at home 
(roughly 380 liters per day).  It seems rather obvious that cutting
back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.  As an alternative,
would you have us cut back on "non-livestock agriculture"?  What
products would you have in mind?

>>>Quibbling over the semantics won't change the fact that
>>>non-livestock agricultural uses constitute more than 50% of the
>>>total water use in the state of California.
>>
>>Again, you're lumping cotton production, flower production, fruit 
>>production, vegetable production, etc, etc, into a "single category
>>of use".   
> 
> Is "cotton production, flower production, fruit production, vegetable
> production, etc., etc." properly called "agriculture?" [yes]  Is
> it agriculture which is related to livestock production? [no]
> 
> Voila!  What we have here is "non-livestock-related agriculture,"
> a "single category of [water] use!"

It's not a "single use", Rich.   It's a wide range of diverse uses 
that you've lumped together in an effort to divert attention.

> ...
> You're dead in this one, Russell; admit it and go lick your wounds.
> The embarrassment will go away after a while.  In your case, I
> suspect that it will be a very short while, since you seem to have
> no shame.

You're dreaming, Rich, but what else is new.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals