HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: global
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:00:58 GMT

Jonathan Esterhazy writes:

>Well, if we are going to reopen the voting, then I'll vote for
>Ferrell. Does that make it 7-4? 6-3? Whatever.
>
>I don't think that Ferrell's cross-postings are a "waste of bandwith."
>
>I wonder if the same people would be objecting to these "blind postings"
>if they were full of pro-hunting, anti-AR info?

Jonathan, I would indeed object if someone were to blast 15 or 20
back-to-back pro-hunting "blind" postings to this group.  As I've said
before, such is not the correct use of this discussion group's
bandwidth.  That's what they make mailing lists and such for.  And I
would lose info either way.  I guess I was just raised different than
some of you kids, w.r.t. hogging a common resource.  <sigh>
     Also, I see no reason to re-open the vote.  If people missed it
the first round, c'est la vie.  It stands in favor of Ferrell.


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"--
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:33:49 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	Didn't we agree previously that the vote was irrellevant, that
>it amounted to censorship, and that a killfile was the way to go? 

Dan, as I've pointed out before, I *pay* for my feed.  Now, I get mail from
another source, which is not traffic-limited, so I'm not as worried about
big stuff coming through there, but the fact is, at this point I'm being
*FORCED* to pay for this dreck coming over the lines.  Personally, I'd rather
get a flamewar between two freshmen nerds about the merits of different colors
of pocket protectors, at least that'd have some entertainment value.

If you didn't notice, one of his recent posts had headers in it showing where it
came from.  It's all stuff verbatim off of a mailing list that any one of us can
subscribe to by writing to 'AR-news-request@Think.COM'.  Now, is it censorship
to begin by nicely asking (as I *began*) someone to not echo blindly something
that I can already get *should I so ask*?

All told, my biggest gripe is that he posts blind - according to what I've read
so far about ettiqutie here on the net, you should always read the group you're
posting to for a while before jumping in yourself.  Simple rudeness, that's what
the blind posts are, and in thier size, they become an irritant, too.

You don't see me asking everyone to force Russell to stop posting, just because
his posts are huge, do you?  The difference is that at least when I read one
of Russell's posts, some thought process went on before it came my way.  The
practice of blindly spitting propaganda through ucbvax is very similar to flying
an airplane over a city and dropping leaflets.

Just how long do you think this guy would hold up if he were here to answer some
of the questions that are raised by the Animals Agenda stuff?  I've seen the
same trick pulled on another service, and this stuff just doesn't hold up.  I'd
say that his not being here is the best defense for poor logic I've ever had
the opportunity to see.

Here's my position - Wheeler is welcome, with ANYTHING he'd like to post, but
not until he can participate in discussions about them.  As a matter of fact,
if he's in the Southeast, and better yet, Georgia, I'm right here and now
offering him an account on my system, FREE.  I'll email a copy of this to him
so he might see it.  If he can't or won't take me up on this, then in the
name of simple politeness, he should stop the blind posts.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.155856.25565@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>(Glad to see you back Mr. Pleis.  The humor potential of t.p.a went down when
> classes let out)

Kiss my ASS.

>Mark Pleis writes:
>>Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>>>          THE IOWA ALLIANCE FOR ANIMALS INVITES YOU TO ATTEND
>>>           The First Midwest Regional Farm Animal Conference
>>>       October 9, in Ames and October 10, in West Des Moines, Iowa
>>>FARM ANIMALS
>>>What is Their Future in American Agriculture?
>>Very strong in animal production!!!
>Shouldn't that be "reproduction". Production implies factories..... :-)
>Murder is involved here, but you left that out.......

No. this called making a living and having food on the table.

>>>PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AGENDA:
>>>  Friday Evening, October 9 - Ames
>>>  7:30 - 9:30 "Meat on the Menu: At What Cost?" - T. Colin Campbell
>>>               and Jeremy Rifkin
>>Where is this at, I live in Ames and want to attend.
>Just get in touch with the Ames group.  I am sure they'll welcome you there.

Tha Animal Science and Dairy Science clubs at ISU might attend to.

>>>  8:45 - 9:45 "Beyond Beef" - Jeremy Rifkin
>>What is beyond beef is, more beef
>Hopefully not in the future....but for now, sadly, you are right......

I know  I'm Right the beef markets are expnding and so are the beef producters.

>>>  9:45 -10:15 Break
>>For Hot Dogs?
>Sure, why not.  Not Dogs are great.....Soybeans and all that you know....

No. 100% Iowa corn fed beef.

>>> 10:15 -11:00 "A Veterinarian's Perspective of the Health and
>>>               Welfare of Farm Animals" - Ned Buyukmihci
>>Animals on the Farm are well taken care of.
>See what the vet has to say first.....

Call Our vet then Olwein Vet Clinic Olwein Iowa and ask them.

>>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
>>Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
>>replace the chemicals.
>What exactly are you trying to say?  It doesn't seem to make any sense....

The Defintion of Sustainable Ag. is to increase the out of a farm by lowering
the inputs.  Since shit is cheaper than NPK, it fits.

Beef is my life.


-- 
mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: HUNTING; RABIES
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:11:10 GMT

In article <viking.714793706@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <9208251458.AA20069@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>
>>The mid-Atlantic raccoon rabies pandemic reached Staten Island on
>>March 12, the closest advance yet to New York City.  The pandemic,
>>begun in 1977 by hunters and trappers who released rabid raccoons
>>from Florida in an attempt to restock their neighborhood in
>>Virginia, has already spread past New York into southern
>>Connecticut, and has gone as far north as Ithaca and Watkins Glen,
>>N.Y. 
>
>	This is very doubtful, since rabies is a disease racoons are
>noted for having from Massachusettes to Colorado and everywhere in
>between.  Something tells me this claim made is akin to blaming the
>CIA for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

This is NOT very doubtful (well probably the CIA part is doubtful :-). 

The strain of rabies now moving into New York state and the New England
states is different from the strains which have been here.  The strain
Ferrell refers to has been traced to raccoons transplanted from Florida
into the Virginia / West Virginia area by "sportsman" in an effort to
replenish the stocks that had been "over-harvested" by these same
"sportsmen."

---
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:36:05 GMT

Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> I don't see anything hypocritical about it, providing the hunter 
ds> is up-front in stating his desire to hunt. 

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> We're talking about a man who justifies his hunting on the basis
rl> of the alleged threat of deer starvation.

From article <viking.715406752@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> No, *you're* talking about a man who justifies it that way.  I 
ds> don't justify my hunting on ethical grounds at all -- I enjoy it, 
ds> and it's legal, and that's all I need.  That it has side benefits 
ds> that may be ethical in some curcumstances is fortunate, but I 
ds> wouldn't base an argument on it.  Self-serving isn't 
ds> hypocritical.  Hunters merely seek a balance of a healthy and 
ds> large herd given limited resources.  This strikes me as being 
ds> rather self-serving, but there's no deceit involved.  

In the original article, I specifically asked whether or not it's
hypocritical for a man who justifies hunting because of the threat
of deer starvation to turn around and advocate practices that enhance
the probability of starvation.  

Such people do, indeed, exist, although you may not be one of 
them.  Do you consider their position to be hypocritical?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:39:36 GMT

From article <1992Aug31.183331.8106@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> I guess I've lost track of the question.  What issue am I 
ja> evading?  I am sure you don't really need to ask my opinion of 
ja> industrial pollution (should be minimized, but there is a point 
ja> of diminishing marginal returns.  If people want to live in an 
ja> industrial society with all it's modern conveniences, some 
ja> pollution will result) I guess I am appalled by wanton damage to 
ja> the environment which supports wildlife, but not particularly 
ja> worried about individuals.  Prey is for eating.  Does this help 
ja> clear things up?  
ja> 
ja> 
ja> But it seems to me you have not answered my question.  I'll 
ja> rephrase it.  Is it "unnatural" for any species to use tools or 
ja> just for man?  Is it unnatural for man to kill and eat other 
ja> animals regardless of whether tools are used?  

You seem to be suggesting that the test of "naturalness" is 
whether or not non-human animals also engage in a given practice, 
but I'm sure you'd agree with me that industrial pollution would 
be no less "unnatural" if chimps were the offending agents rather 
than humans.  

We perceive industrial pollution as "unnatural", not because it's 
the work of human animals rather than non-human animals, but 
because industrial pollutants have a warping effect on the normal 
patterns of nature.  We both agree that "killing and eating" is
perfectly "natural", but the natural simile ends when the nature
and extent of the killing is grossly modified by technology.  You
may choose to ignore the differences, but human predation and
wolf predation are quite dissimilar in terms of the impact which
they have on the prey.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:24:41 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 28 Aug 92 02:44:54 GMT

In article <BtoAAv.Cpq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   Please take the time to read Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility",
   _Scientific American_, March, 1988.  I'm looking forward to your
   comments.

I read this article and was quite disappointed by what it said and
didn't say.  I was expecting it to explain how the mechanism would
allow populations to control their own population, regardless of
predation.  However, it said nothing of the sort.  ALL it said is that
lower body fat lowers fertility.  That's all.  That is a point almost
all have conceded quite a while ago.  What it does NOT say is that the
decrease means a heck of a lot.  In fact, it directly contradicts your
claims.  Please note the following quote:

"If undernourished women have fewer children than well-nourished ones
who do not practice contraceptions, why is there such a rapid
population growth in the developing countries?  The paradox is
explained by the fact that the death rate in these countries has been
reduced by mondern public health measures while the birthrate has
remained the same"

This is exactly the case with deer.  In areas without "handouts and
crops", the fat content will lower the fertility of the herd.
However, by removing predators, we have altered the "death rate".  The
population will explode.


I am disappointed in you Russell.  I think you just kept providing the
source and hoping no one would actually read it.  I read it and I
don't think it supports your claim that populations can regulate
themselves without predation.  Please provides more documentation or
an example to support your assertations, or retract your statements.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line 1
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.203830.2191@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
> 

> For the record:
> Six belugas were captured in all.  Two were released due to virus' that were
> considered detrimental to the other four that were going to be used in the
> aquariam.  No whales were reported stressed by the event according to the
> Winnipeg Free Press.  Activists up there were apparently harrased only by
> locals after having harrassing the locals in the first place.  Information
> is from the local newspaper and available to the public.
> -- 
> ==========================================================================
>   Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
>   is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
> ==========================================================================
> 

Whoops. Didn't see that last bit there. It is an absolute BALD LIE that
I, or other members of the team ever harrassed ANY locals. There was one
emotional, heated confrontation near the holding tank, but NO activist
"harrassed" anyone. In fact, after that confrontation, a member of the
Churchill RCMP thanked us for the efforts we took to maintain the peace,
and chastised FEDERAL FISHERIES EMPLOYEES for their inflamatory
behaviour.

You should have asked me for the facts, Will, before trying to discredit
the expedition in the widest forum you could find.

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:09:09 GMT

From article <1992Sep4.140040.27525@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> If I may barge in on this exchange: It seems to me that good and 
ja> bad are strictly human concepts with no meaning outside of the 
ja> human mind.  It would appear obvious that they are defined by the 
ja> particular society in which one lives, and that there are no 
ja> absolutes.  

Who said that good and bad had to be "universal" concepts?  One 
group of powerful men may consider rape to be perfectly 
acceptable because it suits their purpose, and the "cosmos" may 
be oblivious to their rationales, but the fact would remain that 
the victims would suffer nonetheless.  

ja> Situational ethics I guess is the common term used to describe 
ja> it.  In the case of rapists and murderers, isn't a plea of 
ja> insanity or mental incompetence used to describe a person who 
ja> doesn't personally see his/her actions as being bad?  

Let's not confuse our judgments of individuals with our judgments
about the goodness or badness of an action.   If a young man had
grown up in the society of the aforementioned group of rapists, it
would be a mistake for us to assume that he was marked by some 
mysterious evil, simply because he was taught to accept (if not admire)
a practice that we find abhorent.  Surely you would admit that he
himself is a victim of circumstances and isn't "spiritually" 
culpable.  Why?  Because he's acting on the basis of ideas and
information that seem valid in his own mind.

On the other hand, it would be an even greater mistake if the 
social reformers living in such a society were to excuse the 
on-going practice of rape by pointing out that the "cosmos" can't 
distinguish between an act of rape and an act of physical 
love-making.  The fact that everyone has acquiesced to the practice
doesn't change the underlying harm.

ja> Good and bad are merely defined by taking a vote (in essence) of 
ja> what the majority finds acceptable.  These are, of course, 
ja> subject to change, which I presume is what animal rights people 
ja> are trying to accomplish.  I disagree with their goals and many 
ja> of their methods.  Unfortunately, I must support their right to 
ja> fight for social change.  Sorry, I got carried away and kind of 
ja> off the track again.  

It's important to make a distinction between moral beliefs and the
underlying facts.   If everyone in our society got together and
decided that it was ok for men to rape women with blue eyes and
red hair, but wrong to rape anyone else, their beliefs wouldn't
change the fact that the rapists' claims on the bodies of 
red-haired women are much more dubious than far stronger claims 
that the women can make on their own bodies.  Moreover, the 
belief that rape is ok may excuse the perpetrator, but it doesn't 
diminish the underlying pain and humiliation.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:45:40 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>A previous poster declared that deer would know that a gunshot is 
>dangerous by virtue of the fact that a missed shot would kick up 
>dust and debris.  Assuming that a deer had the opportunity of 
>surviving a lot of missed shots, how would this differ from the 
>dust and debris and tree rustling caused by thunder storms?  

>As far as I can tell, the only way a deer might know that 
>gunshots cause harm is if he, himself, were shot and managed to 
>connect the sound with the pain, or, if he were able to observe
>the death of another deer at close proximity.

Russell - I can only hazard an intuitive guess at this, based upon
what I have witnessed personally, but:

Both the sound of a gunshot and the sound of thunder in close proximity can be
startling.  I have seen deer jump at the sound of thunder, but as soon
as they realized what it was they returned to calm;  they've experienced
thunderstorms before plenty of times in their lifetime, and I can only
conclude that they know that thunder is related to that wet stuff coming out
of the sky as well as that drop in air pressure that allows them to know about 
an approaching storm almost a day before it occurs.  The sound of gunfire is
different, and it's something they associate with the sight, sound, and smell
of human predators in their territory, as well as the fear and confused reactions
of the other deer. They fear gunfire because of the things they learn to
associate it with, not because they have been shot.  I think this is true of many
of the lessons that they must learn in order to survive.

For example, I think that one of the first things mama deer teaches her
fawns is to beware of human scent;  the fawns probably don't know why, only that
mama always acted like it was something to be avoided.  Similarly, I believe
that their fear of gunfire is a learned reaction, for the reasons described 
above.

But the only evidence I can give you is the things I've seen with my own eyes:
deer don't flee at the sound of thunder, but they certainly do at the sound
of gunfire. That would seem to mean that they know the difference.  Faced with 
that fact, arguments to the contrary become somewhat academic, IMHO.


Ken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:22:47 GMT

From article <1992Sep3.023742.13635@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
mp> PETA
mp> People for the eating of tasty animals.
mp> 
mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers 
mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast 
mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit 
mp> straight 
mp> 
mp>
mp> Beef Real food for REAL people

Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a 
high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?

Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation 
between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
diabetes?


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