HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:53:10 GMT
Organization: blank
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu


From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
>The tree spiking was just an example. My question was in response to your
>statement that you would proscribe violent, *political* actions. I'm trying
>to find out what happens if we remove the "political" qualifier - would you
>still make a blanket condemnation?

Well, this might not have been all that easy to see in my last post, but
I want to make something clear: I cannot condemn all cases of violent
actions, political or otherwise. However, I have strong reservations
against the *subclass* of violent acts which are intended to draw attention
to an issue (ie. violence as a means of advertisement(protest)). In my last 
post I noted that some exceptions to this *general rule* are possible.
The boundaries between advertisement and forceful confrontation *may*
overlap, making distinctions difficult. However, to reiterate from 
my previous posts, I have encountered very few working exceptions and none
in the original "AR prisoners..." thread.

Similarly, conflicting or overlapping priorities also affect the
application of your "universal ethic."

Regards, 
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:45:29 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Nov11.155721.18401@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
>th> Actually, the 'possibility' that comes to my mind is the natural 
>th> 'cover your ass' bit that the ARs have done in the past.  I can't 
>th> count the times that I've been told that "Nobody ever threw red 
>th> paint on a fur coat - that's a lie made up by the fur people to 
>th> discredit the AR movement".  Now, explain the red paint on my 
>th> mother's rabbit jacket.  Oh, right!!  The thrower MUST have been 
>th> an ANTI-AR, just out to discredit the movement.  How silly of me 
>th> not to have figured it out by myself.  Give me a break.  

>We'll give you a break.

>You're claiming that someone threw red paint on your mother's fur 
>jacket, but then again, you've also claimed in the past that one 
>of my coworkers, Linda Guidry, is a non-existent character that I 
>personally invented.   Are you a credible person, Todd?

>Did your mother report this event to the police?  If so, when and
>where?

What's the matter, Russell?  Bored?  I was beginning to think that you'd
risen above petty picking at people.  My mistake.

Anyway, in case you don't recall, or wasn't paying attention, I did some
checking, and spoke with a Linda Guidry.  Such a person does exist.  My
claim rested that you had ghost-written the messages.  A type of forgery,
but not pure forgery.

Anyway, in case you wanna check, Chicago, around November of 1979, the charge
was criminal damage to property, the settlement (out of court) was for $225.
Have fun, Russell.  Oh, defendent's name was Thomas.

If you do check this out, please tell me how it's done.  So far, arrest records
are not open to the public view, as are court records.  As this one didn't go
to court, you'll have to break a law to check it.  Enjoy.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:22:39 GMT

In <BxsGB8.E10@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I asked you a couple of questions, Dan: Was Vietnam your home?  
>And, if not, was it truly "patriotic" for the US to use her 
>military muscle to stiffle vietnamese democracy?

	While I note that the former USSR was also considered a democracy
by their own claim, patriotism has no claim in either of your questions
above.  However, the USA was legally justified in supplying arms and
aid to the recognized government of Vietnam.  We can play "what if" and
try to decide if the Vietnamese people are better off today, but I'll
let the illegal emmigration figures speak for themselves on that.

>  In response, 
>you asked me about Afghanistan.  Would you mind explaining 
>how/why you consider Afghanistan to be relevant to the 
>"patriotic" questions concerning popular support and opposition 
>to the US role in Vietnam?  

	Certainly.  Afghanistan was a reversal of the roles you
mentioned in Vietnam.  My claim was that both were legal, and while
perhaps not moral they were both supporting of the popular side.  The
fundamental problem is merely getting away with it.

>On the whole, you seem to think that the principle of democracy 
>would give you the "right" to determine the economic and 
>religious choices of people living on the other side of the 
>world.  Is that a fair assessment of your position?  

	No.  That "right" extends from being a superpower, and the
USA is the biggest kid on the geopolitical block.  With this power
comes responsibility.  Frankly, I don't care what the Vietnamese
do in their country -- let them alone.  However, if China starts
using the VC as a puppet for their political gains, it is legal and
moral to try and stifle that response.  The same goes for the USSR,
or even Syria.  Once things have quited down, elections should
decide the preferences of the people.  As you should have noted by
now, few revolutions are backed by popular elections.  Were this the
case, there'd be no need for a revolution, would there?

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:48:22 GMT

In article <mhulsey-171192151758@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>Bob, I tried unsuccessfully to e-mail you about this topic.  Lest we
>degenerate at this point into a foolish round of "am too! am not!," give me
>a few days to get the transcript from Taub's trial at our law library.  I
>can then speak with more authority.  I will also give you the reference
>when and if I find it.
>
>If you are going to dismiss information I obtained from Taub as "from a
>non-disinterested party," perhaps I should likewise dismiss your evidence
>from Pacheco.

I was not "dismissing" Taub's input, just pointing out that he is bound to
portray himself in the best light, as of course would be true of Pacheco
also.

But the Taub statements you've posted essentially echo McCabe's
Washingtonian account, some of which she later retracted.  Since Taub
and his lawyers were evidently McCabe's initial main source, that tilts
the credibility scales toward Pacheco.

>
>I was disappointed that you and everyone else (especially Russell, since
>they were *his* dogs) continued to ignore my "water dish" analogy.

It's true that I'm very behind in responding to posts submitted by
you and others.  My time to do this is currently very limited and 
keeping up has been a problem.

In general, I would offer water to a thirsty dog.  Now what?

>
>As promised, I read Pacheco's account in Singer's book.  There was nothing
>there to dissuade me.  The entire chapter was emotionally-toned and
>unobjective.  I dismiss it entirely as an account of a non-disinterested
>party.

Please clarify what you mean by "emotionally-toned."  If the facts are
basically correct, how would you have differently written them?

>
>--
>mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
>Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
>Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
>University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Robodoc and animal testing
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.030052.22285@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>
>I think it's safe to assume that dogs and humans both have bones.
>Don't you?
>
Yes, but dog skeletons are a different size and shape than human 
skeletons, which may or may not affect the experiment.

Besides I meant my comment to apply to non-human animal research
in general, not just this particular experiment.

Ro


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1dvbe6INNug@agate.berkeley.edu>, timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim 
Ikeda) writes:

<discussion of tree spiking deleted>

> Overall, I think it fails on two counts: It doesn't protect the forest.
> It does hurt people.  I'm also not sure that such actions are
> inherently non-political.  Rather, it seems that they've chosen to
> abandon political means to achieve their ends.
> 
> Perhaps a better, non-violent, apolitical example would be the spraying
> of evergreens in national forests with noxious concoctions (or paint)
> to discourage X-mas tree poachers. (I'm for it.)

The tree spiking was just an example. My question was in response to your 
statement that you would proscribe violent, *political* actions. I'm trying 
to find out what happens if we remove the "political" qualifier - would you 
still make a blanket condemnation?  

> 
> What is your assessment of tree spiking?
 
I haven't really thought about it that much, but your analysis sure sounds 
reasonable. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:04:21 GMT

In article <1e9e5kINNe18@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov16.231414.23703@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>
[...]
>>Steve,  I don't understand why Jeff's question about other "less cute
>>and cuddly pests" is one which you do not want to address.  Discussions
>>here are always sidetracked, issues are rarely resolved... we're just
>>involved in an exchange of ideas.
>
>Okay, I'll address it.
>
>Jeff's thesis is that I care about deer, but not killer bees,
>because deer are "cute and cuddly".  In fact, I care about
>deer since they have more highly developed nervous systems
>than killer bees; hence suffer when mistreated.  

[...]

	As an experiment, go find a bee (killer or otherwise), grasp it
	gently in forceps, and hold it in close proximity to a small flame,
	such that it is exposed to great heat but not great enough to cause
	immediate death and immolation.  Observe the bee's actions carefully,
	then write a report detailing why those actions took place in the
	complete absence of any ability to "suffer when mistreated."

	We await your report with 'bated breath.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: steaming lobsters
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:05:27 GMT

In article <By3sF5.J26@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>welchb@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>bw> 1) Is this a normal way of preparing lobsters?
>
>From article <1727@esl.ESL.COM>, by markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen):
>mc> Of course a fox can do a nasty number on a chicken, but that's totally
>mc> natural.  And don't forget some perfectly happy vegetables are steamed
>mc> to death, too, not to mention, skinned alive and chopped up.
>
>Two questions:
>
>-- Do vegetables feel pain when they're "skinned alive"?  

   The way humans would?  Probably not, but there is this interesting
   little tidbit:

	Electrical signalling and systemic proteinase inhibitor induction in
	the wounded plant - DC Wildon....DJ Bowles. Nature 360:62-65. (11/5/92
	issue) Reviewed on pages 14-15 of the same issue.
	
	The work suggests that wound signals may propagate through the rest
	of the plant via an electrical impulse.

   Who said that plants had to respond with identical mechanisms in order to
   "feel" the plant equivalent of "pain?"


>-- Does the "naturalness" of an action make it ethically justifiable?

   Please.  Even YOU have said that it's not unethical for non-human animals
   to kill other non-human animals for food.

   And while you're criticizing others about not answering your postings (and
   wasting bandwidth RE-posting them), you might also consider that there are
   two of MY postings which YOU have chosen to ignore, to date.  I would
   suggest that, as the old saying goes, when you're living in a glass house,
   you shouldn't throw stones...or more biblically, "Let he who is without
   sin cast the first stone."  Remember when I said that you're rapidly
   becoming irrelevant?  I'd like to change that: over the past few weeks
   you have attained irrelevance.  It's clear that you're viewed as an
   unpleasant irritant rather than a thoughtful contributor...too, bad,
   because you ARE intelligent.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:12:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.221955.7406@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <BxvHBs.9nE@ccu.umanitoba.ca> chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
>>In <1e9e5kINNe18@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

[...re the disposition of woodchucks...]

   And speaking of woodchucks (more properly called marmots), I recently
   came across the following riveting piece of arcane trivia:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AU Hong-Shu Chen, Michael C. Kew, William E. Hornbuckle, Bud C. Tennant,
   Paul J. Cote, John L. Gerin, Robert H. Purcell, and Roger H. Miller

TI "The Precore Gene of the Woodchuck Hepatitis Virus Genome Is Not
   Essential for Viral Replication in the Natural Host.";

SO J. Virol. 66:5682-5684(1992)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Happy reading, all!   :*)


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: PeTA Investigation
Organization: throw it on the floor - it's happier there.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:08:52 GMT

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

>>The articles goes on to explain that if convictions are made PETA could be
>>financially destroyed, paying fines and restitutions, lossing their tax
>>exempt status.  In addition the RICO act permits the government to seize
>>property or other assets.

>I wonder...  if they're convicted if PeTA will try to claim that they
>were just renegades, and that the organization itself isn't responsible?
>Would this be a case of the "ship" deserting the sinking "rats"?

I doubt that that could happen, as PETA has in actuality got only three
honest members, two of whom are Ingrid and Alex.  Only three people are
required in thier state to incorporate, and they're two of the three.  The
bylaws of the corporation make no provision for the contributors to the 
group to have any power over the direction of the group.
>>    .... , Peta cofounders Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk refused to
> >   answer a number of questions asked during depositions in Sept. on the
> >   ground of relevancy or because their answers might incriminate them.
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
**** I voted with the majority this past election - AGAINST Clinton! ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:27:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.155721.18401@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>If your reference is from the AR Propaganda Machine (Animal Agenda, Bunny
>Hugger's Gazette, etc.) then I will disbelieve it.  My reading is from the
>mainstream liberal press - UPI.  I would also expect you to disbelieve my
>source had it been from something like Putting People First.
>
_Animals'_Agenda_ has been known to criticize AR groups who do stupid things,
e.g. in the July/August 1992 issue is an article criticizing NAVS for their
investment in US Surgical and other companies which contradict their ethical
positions.  Given that they are willing to criticize NAVS, why would they
go to the bother of inventing an elaborate story about the Fran Trutt case?
Possible, but how likely?

Of course you realize that all media, including the mainstream media, are
biased (one could say that the mainstream media who pretend to be unbiased
are the worst...)  I think it would be interesting to read accounts from a
variety of different sources, even the obviously biased ones.  If you have
an account by PPF, I would like to read it.  Hopefully I will be able to get
to the library soon (this has been a bad week) and post the _Animals'_Agenda_
account; could one of you post articles showing the other side?
>
>What I believe is this: Fran Trutt and Pricilla Feral blame it on Anti-AR
>folks because they think it's thier only defense.  The bug that Feral showed
>a picture of in the FOA newsletter was bogus, nobody in this country need
>enter your office to bug your phone system - it's much easier done from down
>the street.  All in all, the 'blame them for making us do it' line is weak,
>and sometimes hilarious.
>
Well, yes, regardless of the provocation Trutt shouldn't have done it, but if
the anti-AR people were infiltrating the AR movement in this way it just shows
that they aren't all as nice as they claim to be.
>
>Got any plans to deal with the people who claim to be your leaders, who are
>doing your non-violent ways terrible damage by association?  The latest
>PETA newsletter has the most telling photo on the cover - a terrorist, a
>member of ALF, suitably shadowed.  Looks like PETA is finally coming out of
>the closet on thier affiliation.
>
I can't really control other people's actions, can I?

Ro
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:26:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

>Steve, while you're waiting for his elaboration, maybe you'd like
>to offer comment on the passage reprised below:
>
> (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>According to an article in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper yesterday
>>the rat population in (I believe I have the city right) Prague is
>>reaching about a 1:1 proportion with the human inhabitants of the
>>city.  Because of monetary problems the Czech government has been able
>>to spend less money on rat poison in recent years, permitting the rat
>>population to soar.  Assuming you lived in Prague, what solution would
>>you advocate to humanely solve the rat problem?

Hoskins noted my unwillingness to support the killing of
deer in order to allow a recreational facility to exist,
and wishes to know whewther I am similarly unwilling to
kill rats to prevent a public health problem.

The answer is I am willing to kill the rats.

This is not because deer are prettier than rats.
(I'm rather fond of rats, in fact.)

This is because protecting the public health is
more important than creating a recreational facility
(park, golf course, etc).

>(P.S.  I think Tim may have had some problem with the notion of
>"forced sterilization" of humans.  Me too.)

Most people oppose forced sterilization of
humans so I'm not surprised.  It's really
only been tried in China, so far.


Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:29:49 GMT

Bob, I tried unsuccessfully to e-mail you about this topic.  Lest we
degenerate at this point into a foolish round of "am too! am not!," give me
a few days to get the transcript from Taub's trial at our law library.  I
can then speak with more authority.  I will also give you the reference
when and if I find it.

If you are going to dismiss information I obtained from Taub as "from a
non-disinterested party," perhaps I should likewise dismiss your evidence
from Pacheco.

I was disappointed that you and everyone else (especially Russell, since
they were *his* dogs) continued to ignore my "water dish" analogy.

As promised, I read Pacheco's account in Singer's book.  There was nothing
there to dissuade me.  The entire chapter was emotionally-toned and
unobjective.  I dismiss it entirely as an account of a non-disinterested
party.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:02:06 GMT

>>In article <1e90vnINNb20@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) 

>>Jeff  writes: 
>>From the little I've heard, survival rates are quite low for
>>deer that have been handled even for relocation. 

>Steve writes:  
>I hadn't heard this.  It works for other species, even other
>ungulates, but I don't know about deer specifically.  If
>this maneuver is infeasible for deer than you may have a point.
>My guess it's expensive rather than infeasible.  All
>sorts of wildlife is captured, studied, and released by
>scientists...
>
>In any case, even if the survival rate isn't perfect, it's
>a heluva lot better thatn the survival rate when you
>go out and shoot them all.

I really don't want to get into this discussion.  I have enough problems
in the animal research thread.  But, I just recently read an estimate of a
15% survival rate for deer that were relocated.  If your interested in the
reference feel free to e-mail me.  It not a bad book.  Most of it deals
with the animals rights issue and wildlife, written by a prof. of
environmental studies.
In fact shooting the animals and killing them humanly is results in much
less suffering when you consider the alternetives (i.e. starvation,
disease etc...)

				       Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************