HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:25:29 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct8152905@valeron.che.wisc.edu> rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.160653.4961@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct6115201@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

[...]

>   Remember it's not just his results.  I've been quoting him because I
>   have his book, but I have posted names of other studies performed by
>   wildlife management agencies which also claim to show about 50% wounding
>   rate. 
>
>I'll accept this figure.  I'll assume you are fairly representing
>these reports and that a 50% overall average exists.  However, I
>mentioned several ways to reduce this number to around 10%.  I'd
>like to reiterate that "wounding" does not necessarily mean "long
>painful death".

You're correct in saying "not necessarily."  However there is evidence 
to indicate that a long painful death IS the common fate of unretrieved
deer wounded by broadhead-tipped arrows.

Determining what happens to a wounded and unretrieved animal in the
wilds is sometimes difficult.  So Benke ran a series of experiments,
which involved deliberately wounding animals in a confined area and then
observing what happened to them. 

In one experiment, four rabbits were used and it required between
7 1/2 to 20 1/2 hours for death to occur.

In another case, 10 goats were wounded.  Two suffered heart hits and
died within seconds.  A third goat suffered a severed femoral artery and
died after 55 minutes.  The agony of the 4th was judged too severe to
permit continuation to a natural conclusion and his life was mercifully
ended with a .22 after 5 1/2 hours.  

The remaining six goats died between 5 1/2 hours and 13 days, when a
massive infection finally claimed the life of the 10th and final goat. 
None of these shots were in the lungs or the abdominal area.  So at
least some hunters in the wilds would likely have speculated - and
undoubtedly convinced other people - that the animals were destined to
recover, since the wounds were not in critical areas of the body.  In
actual fact, all of the goats were doomed to die without some medical
care.  And there's no reason for assuming that their fate in the wild
would have been any different from their fate in the observed area.

Also the Texas study done by Boydston and Gore, who have no connection
to Benke, contains this statement about gut-hits, "... almost all
abdominally-shot deer die a slow death due to peritonitis."

>
>tim 

---
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: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:24:05 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
rl> of the conversation.

From article <1992Oct7.143946.26057@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.  (Russell can talk about Mike, but
mo> I can't talk about Russell.)

I don't think it would serve much purpose to post an article with 
a title like, "Mike Linan's Name-Calling".  However, it would 
help me to understand your philosophy if you could explain 
how/why a man who accepts some beliefs without any thought or 
criticism could reasonably turn around and label an opponent as a 
"fool" or "idiot", simply because he disagrees with the ideas 
that the opponent has set forth.  

It seems to me that you, yourself, have a doublestandard.   You
apparently saw no fault in Mike's use of the "idiot" label, yet
you've resented the fact that I've challenged his use of those
labels.  Why?

mo> Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponents position
mo> to the point of absurdity.  (The subject was the use of unfair 
mo> tactics and the stifling of debate in a open forum.) 

Please explain how the statement, "What an idiot", without any
supporting facts or arguments, would help to encourage reasonable 
debate in an open forum.

mo> Russell tactic 128:  Assumption based on Russell's self-importance.
mo> (He really thinks this is about him.)

Who are you trying to fool, Mary?

rl> Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
rl> disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.

mo> THANKS RUSSELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mo> YOU JUST DEFINED WHAT YOU WERE DOING TO MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope.  Mike's the guy who was tossing the "idiot" label around.  Not me.

-- 
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: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:36:19 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> In other words, limit myself to an anthropocentric view, as you do?
ry> No problem.  Without an explanation, a description, of that which
ry> constitutes "meaning", assignments of status based on these criteria,
ry> even WITHIN human society,  begin to be somewhat random, or
ry> "arbitrary."

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm not "assigning status" to Rich Young when I recognize that he 
rl> has thoughts and feelings that deserve my respect.  To the 
rl> contrary, I'm merely recognizing capabilities that exist within 
rl> Rich Young.

From article <1992Oct14.210313.14943@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> I thought you weren't going to do this any more, Russell?  We've
ry> been over this before, as the following will attest.  Remember
ry> this from <1992Oct8.224955.11938@pixel.kodak.com>?
> ...

Perhaps we wouldn't need to run through it, again and again, if you
would discontinue the inaccurate assertion that your opponents are
"assigning value".   This phrase, as I've pointed out repeatedly,
applies more to your position than to my own.

rl> The fact that I cannot know with absolute certainty that Rich 
rl> Young has a mind with thoughts and feelings (ie meaning) doesn't 
rl> prevent me from treating him with respect, regardless of the
rl> particular "meanings" that may be running through his mind.  Nor 
rl> could my lack of certainty permit anyone to reasonably conclude
rl> that my respect for Rich's mind is "arbitrary".   

ry> What you say is correct, as far as it goes, but that uncertainty
ry> is a real problem, isn't it, Russell?  Even though you don't "know"
ry> what goes on in my mind, you're reasonably certain that I do have
ry> one, especially since I'm of the same species, so the drawing of
ry> conclusions is a reasonable action, based on similarity of structure.
ry> But what happens when you get to forms of life which are NOT
ry> similar?  Do your conclusions remain as reasonable?  I think not.

Give me an example, Rich.

-- 
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: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:00:13 GMT


"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  Exodus 22:18.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Millions of people believed that the statement quoted above
rl> gave them divine permission to ignore the rights of other (human) 
rl> beings, just as millions of people still believe that other 
rl> biblical statements have given them divine permission to ignore 
rl> the rights of non-human beings.

From article <viking.718595549@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
ds> the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
ds> even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
ds> almost solely on power...

I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".  Yet,
the philosophers who pioneered the development of the concept of
rights (ie Locke, Jefferson, Paine, etc) from the late 17th century
onward faced stiff opposition from clerics who claimed to represent 
the christian deity.  How come?

Isn't it a shame that "god" said:

   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Instead of saying something like:

   "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:47:23 GMT

Mike Linan writes:
ml> What's the difference between you and a fool Russell?   You obviously 
ml> feel that any type of faith is mindless acceptance.  I obviously feel
ml> that is foolish but, that doesn't make either true.  I also never
ml> described my faith as mindless acceptance as you I admire mindless ac-
ml> ceptance as you say I did.  You have a habit of saying people said 
ml> things to you that they never did.  Would this be enough to label you
ml> a liar?  Or just deceitful?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Let's get back to one of the statements made by your "god" that I
rl> cited previously:  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   

From article <1authfINNrr7@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> No, lets *not* get back to that statement.  Sorry to inform you 
ml> that you don't call the shots around here Russell.  If you have 
ml> questions about the Bible or Christian faith, I suggest you take 
ml> them to your local church or find a news group that will 
ml> accomodate you.  

Suit yourself, Mike.  

rl> Is this the sort of command that ought to be taken on faith?  Or, 
rl> would it not be wise for us to ask ourselves if a "god" really 
rl> gave such a command, and if so, should we obey.   Would you be inclined
rl> to say that a person who mindlessly accepts such a commandment is
rl> an "idiot"?    

ml> Find your own answers Russell.  This line of questioning has no 
ml> bearing on animal issues and really is a waste of my time.  Sorry 
ml> old bud.  

Of course, it has a bearing on animal issues.  You've stated in the
past that your "god" gave animals to humans like yourself to use as
you see fit.  No offense, but it seems to me that your notion of
"god" is not only antagonistic to the concept of animal rights, but
antagonistic to the concept of human rights as well.

What rights would humans have, for instance, if it's perfectly ok 
for you to kill innocent men, women, and children if/when your 
"god" tells you to do so?  

-- 
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: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:19:31 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
rl> 
rl>    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
rl> 
rl> Instead of saying something like:
rl> 
rl>    "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

William John M. Christie writes:
wc> He did.  He said 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

rl> Possibly.  And he may have written, "Do unto others as you would 
rl> have them do unto you".  Unfortunately, there are many who would 
rl> say that such consideration don't apply to our mammalian 
rl> cousins, not to mention our more distant animal relatives.  

From article <1992Oct12.071343.17276@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
wc> What do you mean by possibly?  

I don't know that these statements were truly written by a "god".  Would
they be less admirable if they'd been drafted by a poor humble man
without any divine connections whatsoever?

wc> In Matthew 19:19 of the KJV Christ says: 'Honour thy father and 
wc> thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Are 
wc> you going to accept the Christian Bible as a source of reference 
wc> or not?  I am one of those who believes that that consideration 
wc> generally does not extend to 'our mammalian cousins'.  Can you 
wc> explain or prove to me that it should?  

Can you explain or prove to me that a "god" truly said:  "Thou shalt
not suffer a witch to live".   Such statements would seem cruel to 
me, even if they were spoken by a "god".

-- 
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: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:16:17 GMT

From article <1992Oct13.194329.24334@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> This brings to mind the fact that Dan and I as humans can actually
mo> choose to have beneficial but painful things (like dentistry or
mo> immunizations) done to us because we have the mental capacity to
mo> look beyond the immediate to a large scheme of things.  This is
mo> something that non-human animals do not have the ability to do.

This isn't entirely true.  Why would a fox chew off its own foot 
to escape the jaws of a human trap?  Why would a band of gorillas 
confront the spears and riflefire of human hunters in vain 
attempts to save the life of a captured infant?  Why would a dog 
run into a burning house to rescue a member of his human family?  

Surely it would be a mistake to conclude that foxes enjoy chewing 
off their own feet, or that gorillas enjoy the sensation of being 
stuck with spears, or that dogs enjoy running through flames.  In 
all three cases, the pain is certainly not pleasant, although it 
may be the lesser of the evils.  

Dan pointed out that he would accept pain from his doctor but 
protest vehemently if the pain were caused by me.  One of my dogs 
might say the same thing: He accepts pain from the vet, 
presumably because he realizes that the vet is serving his 
interests in some mysterious way.  If the same pain were meted 
out by a stranger, however, there'd be a lot of blood on the 
floor just a few short seconds later.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Shapshot of talk.politics.animals
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:32:24 GMT

Today, just out of curiousity (seeing so many Russell posts) I did a snapshot
of activity on the talk.politics.animals newgroup.  This covers the last
five days (as our sight only saves news back that far) and is sorted from
those users with the most postings, down to those with the least.  Looks
like Russell wins!  (I seem to recall a phrase - "Get a Life!")



Percent No. Name
--------------------------------
 27.9%   56 Russell Lawrence    
  8.5%   17 young@serum         
  8.0%   16 Robert Black        
  5.5%   11 mary.rita.otto      
  5.5%   11 Tim Rigg            
  5.5%   11 Dan Sorenson        
  4.0%    8 W J M Christie      
  4.0%    8 Mike Linan          
  4.0%    8 James M Hoskins     
  3.0%    6 Ted Robinson        
  2.5%    5 Scott Wood          
  2.5%    5 Jeff Achenback      
  2.0%    4 Ferrell Wheeler     
  2.0%    4 Chuck D'Ambra       
  1.5%    3 Udo_Meyer           
  1.5%    3 Rosemary Waigh      
  1.5%    3 Paul Roberts        
  1.5%    3 John S V Etten      
  1.5%    3 Eric A. Schwartz    
  1.0%    2 bhjelle@carina      
  1.0%    2 R J Unglenieks      
  1.0%    2 Martin Hulsey       
  1.0%    2 Alka Chandna        
  0.5%    1 Tim Ikeda           
  0.5%    1 R M Straubinger     
  0.5%    1 Kingsley Morse      
  0.5%    1 Kathryn L Cook      
  0.5%    1 J L Johnson         
  0.5%    1 David Sternlight    
  0.5%    1 Carl K Williams     
  0.5%    1 A Thomas-cramer     
--------------------------------
100.0%  201 TOTAL               


swood

P.S. In this shapshot, I precluded this post in my total....

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct13.194329.24334@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

> I'm with Dan.  I disagree with the proposed ethic.
 
Mary - can you tell us why you disagree with it?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:59:36 GMT

In article <viking.718951917@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>It may well be that there are thousands of people who reject Ted's
>>postulate.  But has anyone actually done so? 
>
>	I did.
>
>>Secondly, assuming that there will be objections, then I would further
>>suggest that we request these objectors to demonstrate their good faith
>>by voluntarily submitting to lots of unwanted pain.  In this way we can
>>weed out frivolous objections and test the seriousness of the objector. 
>
>	I have.  In reverse chronological order: planned hernia surgery
>this Christmas break, hernia surgery September 1991, surgery on left
>ankle fall 1987, same leg set w/o anaesthetic one month previous, not
>to mention various other assorted nasties like having teeth filled,
>giving blood, rehabilitation for various injuries, etc...  And I take
>this pain voluntarially because I hate pain-killers when I can get
>by without them, but none of this pain is wanted.

Sorry, this doesn't cut it.  I believe that, given these situations, the
pain is not truly unwanted, since you can choose not to experience it or
at the very least to alleviate it significantly.

In order to satisfy the criterion, you must agree to submit in advance
to pain selected by someone else.  You will have no idea what the
nature, intensity and duration of the pain will be, but assume it will
be intense and longlasting.  Only in this way, can we maximize the
probability that the pain is truly unwanted and that the criterion is
satisfied. 


>	Now then, what's so bad about the word "unwarranted?"  If you
>don't mind, I won't tell the surgeon this December that he's being
>unethical in inflicting pain upon me - pain which will last for at
>least two weeks - until well after the surgery.

You're free to choose against having the surgery.  Therefore, given
your situation, the pain is wanted.

>
><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.>

---
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: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Call for Response: alt.russell.biblical.nonsense
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:22:54 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <swood.719091884@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
`sw> This train of thought does not need to go on in a 
`sw> talk.politics.animals group.

`It doesn't take a genius to figure out that religious concepts, 
`like it or not, have played a major role in rights debates over 
`the past three hundred years, and they continue to do so even in
`our day and age.

Yes, but this debate has sprung away from animal concerns and into tangents
in regards to witches and specifics of the bible.  It also amongst a few
individuals repetitively and does not have any relativeness to the rest
of the majority - TAKE IT TO EMAIL


As far as kill files, that takes up system space, as does the rest of
the junk bandwidth this discussion brings in on the partitions dedicated
to news....

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:51:57 GMT

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

>It may well be that there are thousands of people who reject Ted's
>postulate.  But has anyone actually done so? 

	I did.

>Secondly, assuming that there will be objections, then I would further
>suggest that we request these objectors to demonstrate their good faith
>by voluntarily submitting to lots of unwanted pain.  In this way we can
>weed out frivolous objections and test the seriousness of the objector. 

	I have.  In reverse chronological order: planned hernia surgery
this Christmas break, hernia surgery September 1991, surgery on left
ankle fall 1987, same leg set w/o anaesthetic one month previous, not
to mention various other assorted nasties like having teeth filled,
giving blood, rehabilitation for various injuries, etc...  And I take
this pain voluntarially because I hate pain-killers when I can get
by without them, but none of this pain is wanted.

	Now then, what's so bad about the word "unwarranted?"  If you
don't mind, I won't tell the surgeon this December that he's being
unethical in inflicting pain upon me - pain which will last for at
least two weeks - until well after the surgery.

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:07:08 GMT


Ted Robinson writes:
tr>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

Rich Young writes:
ry> You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
ry> the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
ry> do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
ry> inappropriate.

Russell Lawrence asks:
rl> Would you object if someone were to inflict unwanted pain on you?

From article <1992Oct9.220817.28508@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Say, Ted, I didn't know you'd found a job in Louisiana at Russell's
ry> company.  When did THAT happen?  Did you get a raise in pay and
ry> moving expenses?

Would you mind answering my question:  Would you object if someone were 
to inflict unwanted pain on you?

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