HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:26:39 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your statements don't make sense to me.   Please explain why it might
rl> be acceptable for Mike to label a question about hunters hunting 
rl> hunters as "idiotic", yet still expect the rest of us to accept his
rl> claim that "god" told him that deer hunting is acceptable.

From article <1aq3a6INNrp@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Your confused Russell.  I never asked nor do I expect you or anybody
ml> to accept my beliefs.  I really for the life of me do not know how
ml> you can misunderstand what so many others clearly say to you.  

In this case, I suppose you won't have any objection if we expand the
scope of rights to protect the deer that you wish to kill, as well as
the witches that you might otherwise wish to kill.    

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Geese Down Campaign
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:41:14 GMT




Cold Comfort for Geese
----------------------

Beauty  Without  Cruelty (BWC) charity has launched a campaign to highlight
the  suffering  of  geese  that  are  live-plucked  for duvets and bedding.
Video  footage  of the process of live-plucking at a Hungarian factory farm
shows  the  terrified  birds  being  lifted by their necks, with their legs
tied,  and  then  having all their body feathers ripped out. The struggling
geese  sustain  injuries  and  after  their  ordeal are thrown back to join
their fellow victims until their turn comes round again.

This  torture,  which has been described as "extremely cruel" by veterinary
surgeons  and  even  geese  breeders,  begins when the geese are only eight
weeks  old.  It  is  then repeated at eight week intervals for two or three
more sessions.

The  main  countries  using  this  cruel  process  are  China,  Poland  and
Hungary,  where  some  60  per  cent  of down produced is live-plucked. The
down  market  in  the UK alone is worth around 2.6 million pounds per year.
According  to  the  BWC  campaign,  retailers stocking Hungarian goose down
duvets include John Lewis, Debenhams, Argos and Fenwicks.

[Article reprinted from "The Vegetarian" October 1992]


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: results of discussions
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:51:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.223043.18333@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
[Stuff deleted]
>
>There are few times when you or one of the hunting representatives will
>come together.  The discussion allows people having divergent opinions
>on emotional and serious issues to counter one another and air out
>their views.  Some people reading the group have minds that are not
>set on certain issues.  I think the "fronts" as you call them may be
>changed because the new readers who arrive may not have well thought
>out points of view (me, for example) on the important issues being discussed.
>If you're interested in animals--whether you observe, protect, or hunt
>--the opinions and facts advanced in the discussions can be very educational.
                    ^^^^^

I agree that this forum can be very good for helping one to form
opinions and get a different perspective on various issues, BUT....
One has to be very careful about statements that are presented as
fact(s). This goes for both camps. I think most authors try to post
what they know to be true, otherwise they gain no credibility. At
least from me. 

Keith





-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: NCIB view of PETA
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: global
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.121600.7916@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

[... deleted input from Joe Semrad and Jonathon Esterhazy on funding ...]

>Actually, I think this is a very real issue.  Anyone have comparable 
>numbers for the NRA?  Ducks Unlimited?  Other pro-hunting groups?

[...]

These numbers are for the year 1990.  For ease of typing, they're
rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand.  NA means not available.
(Some organizations chose not to release their overhead costs.)  

I caution against reading too much into these numbers without knowing
more about the type, goals, and characteristics of the organization. 
For example, groups that run shelters or sanctuaries can be very
efficient and beneficial, yet have high overhead expenses due to labor
costs associated with the physical requirements of the work.  Other
groups may be inefficient, yet have low costs simply because their key
officers are willing or able to accept minimal compensation.  Also there
*may* (emphasis here because this is sheer speculation on my part) be
some "creativity" in exactly what costs truly fall under the overhead
category. 


 Organization			Budget (in millions)	% Overhead
 ------------			-------------------	----------
Nature Conservancy			$137.7		   NA
NRA					  85.7		   20
Ducks Unlimited				  68.1		   NA
Greenpeace				  39.9		   27
Sierra Club				  36.1		   34
National Audubon Society		  33.4		   18

PETA					   8.8		   26
Defenders of Wildlife			   4.2		   26
Friends of Animals			   4.1		   16
The Animals' Agenda			    .6		   12
In Defense of Animals			    .7		   12
Farm Sanctuary				    .2		   13


These numbers were taken originally from IRS 990 forms and printed in
the April 1992 issue of Animals' Agenda.  Lest anyone question the
objectivity of AA, the numbers are all a matter of public record. 
Putting People First did not file a 990.  Many more organizations are
listed, but unless there's interest in a specific one, then I have
neither time nor inclination to type them in.  I targeted groups whose
names may have appeared here during recent discussions.  Any typos which
may be there are mine (though I tried to exercise care). 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.  
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:43:50 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
>among those rock musicians who would, while up on stage,
>stomp small animals to death.  I may be mistaken about this;

	You are.  Ted has never incorporated an animal into his stage
show, with the exception of various skins he has worn.  In fact, he
rarely has any props in his stage show -- his playing and music have
never required it.

>a number of rock stars engaged in this practice, and I
>*think* Nugent was one, but I could be wrong.  (Can anybody
>confirm this?)

	The only popular one I know of was Ozzie Ozborne, of Black
Sabbath fame and later his solo career.  He did bite the head off
a bat, which was thrown on stage by an audience member; he claimed
to have thought it to be a fake, which is not an unreasonable thought.

	There may be other groups who have done so, but I wouldn't
extend this generalization to rock bands in general, or even to a
particular variety of rock in particular.  In general, if they need
this sort of stunt, they aren't musicians.  Some bands have gone for
the shock treatment (the Plasmatics come to mind rather quickly), but
in general you'll have a hard time finding any who can do this and get
away with it -- the ASPCA would be on their case in no time, so would
the police (police in the auditorium would be excellent witnesses),
and the resulting story broadcast all over.  Heck, Ted got arrested
once for indecent exposure (as I recall) because he wore a loincloth
on stage once (and I seem to recall a large hunting knife as the
modest fashion accessory).  With this in mind, it sounds like you've
heard either of an urban legend or of some wild group that calls them-
selves musicians.

<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.>
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Date: 28 Sep 1992 15:45:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

Martin Hulsey writes:

> Steve Pope writes:

>> the minute you lose sight of the fact that you're working in a 
>> need-filling discipline, you are no longer doing science.  You 
>> are doing make-work experiments that might embody the scientific 
>> method, but are not science.  
>
>this is again one of your unsupported opinions.

My philosophy stated above may be an "opinion", but hardly
an unsupported one.  It happens to be the way I was taught to do 
science by my learned mentors earlier in life, and the way I've done 
it ever since.  A grasp of something this basic is, to me, a good
yardstick of whether a given individual can actually think like a 
scientist.

People who babble on about the virtues of pure research, disconnected 
from any purpose or direction, are not really scientists.  That is the
"pop science" paradigm, and it goes over with the public more
than it does with trained scientitsts.  True science fills a need,
however broad or subjective.  The purpose of researching
the Big-Bang theory, for example, is simply to satisfy 
human curiosity about the past.  It's still a purpose, and from 
there one follows the scientific method, testing the most likely 
hypotheses first, to address that purpose.

>Whether an experiment is "need-filling" has nothing to do with whether 
>it is appropriately called science.  

This really is confirming my worse fears.  The culture of 
unnecessary make-work experimentation, whose only goal is
renewal of research monies, has become so strong in the 
animal experimentation research community that those involved 
don't even REALIZE they're not behaving like scientists anymore.  
I find this very, very sad.

It would be bad enough if the only cost of this unnecessary 
make-work was merely wasted dollars.  But the added cost
of making animals suffer and die in experments which even
the researcher admits have no purpose is completely depressing.

My own feeling is that those who conduct animal experiments
have a lower standard of professional ethics than
the scientific research community at large; and therefore
are more prone to fraud, waste, abuse, and obfuscation.  
IMHO of course.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:15:05 GMT

Odo writes:
odo> But don't you want to go to "hunt" the guy with the knife with a knife?

From article <1a7obbINNkbq@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Why would you assume or ask someone why they don't want to take 
ml> part in an unethical activity?  Why not ask the women that have 
ml> had abortions if they want to take the lives of small children 
ml> and if not, why?  

I don't understand your conception of ethics, Mike.  If it's
unethical for one hunter to kill another hunter, why is it 
ethically acceptable for you to kill people who don't share your 
religious beliefs?  

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

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:42 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer) writes:

`In article <1992Sep24.144902.13834@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com  
`(Jeff Achenbach) writes:
`> >Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
`> >Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?

`But don't you want to go to "hunt" the guy with the knife with a knife?

`Killing of any form of life just for fun or lust!

Hunters would agree!

`If somebody hunts for his survival then he is a hunter.

Not necessarily.  Survival is far to relative when society comes into the
picture.  To many people try to show that because man produced resources are
available hunting is unecessary without looking at personal preference.  I
would rather kill a deer (from a healthy population I should add) in my own
back-yard (ie within my local environment) then to pay someone to bring me
a crate of veggies in a diesel belching truck acrossed the country for my
consumption.  Yet somehow I am looked down on for that.

`The others are, in my opinion, killers.

Fine, but I refuse to let a minorities opinion(s) govern or even attempt to
influence the majority.  Be sure to label opinion as opinion and you will
have no gripes from me.  Start slipping it into childrens books and shows
or slipping it between the lines in the general media and I start seeing
shadows of the Third Reicht (sp?)

`In real animal world hunting is a daily task. 
`Although we have not the right to kill any animal or man.

What great law of all do you cite that shows man is not part of the
"real animal world" or that he has not right to kill any animal?  Man
has enough intelligence and wisdom to make laws against killing other
such creatures with intelligence and wisdom as it creates disorder.
Animals on the other hand haven't enough intelligence and especially
wisdom to help order at all - natural occurance does its best to handle
that in nature.

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 or not, the sunrise
   will still be there, and so will I.
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:09:31 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:


`Subject: Re: Hunters needed

`In article <1992Sep30.012232.2729@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
`>I honestly don't know how anyone could deliberately and needlessly take the
`>life of an animal and "go on."  I know I couldn't.

`No one is asking you to.  What I find amusing and annoying is that you people
`feel you have the right to make us stop.  You feel it is needless, we do not.
`Are you so arrogant that you feel you OPINION is better than ours?  You must.

`Mike Linan

Bravo!  I think that says it all right there.  Bravo - GET THE POINT!

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: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Hunters needed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:54:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.012232.2729@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>If no hunter shows up at the debate, lots of folks will believe just that,
>that out of all the hunters in the state of Texas (and elsewhere), not one
>has the testicular fortitude to argue for the pro-hunting side.  Pretty sad.
>
>-- 
> Jennifer L. Johnson | "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
> jjohnson@convex.com |  		--George Bernard Shaw

"Testicular fortitude"?  Is that what I'm missing?  Maybe that's why you
never responded to my post.  Here it is again, to remind you that courage
is genderless. 

---------------------(begin included post)---------------
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:33:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.223431.4626@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>>Perhaps your fondest dream:  Get Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle in the
>>crosshairs for a debate!
>> 
>So what`s the real reason we can't find even two hunters out of the bunch who
>are willing to test their views against two members of the opposition?  If the
>leaders of the AR movement are simply disseminators of misinformation,
>wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity for those level-headed hunters to
>give us the facts?  Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?

>My guess is that the hunters will prove
>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.

Well, I faced-off with Ingrid at her public appearance in Oakbrook on 9/3/92.
Afraid?  Nah.

Unlike Ingrid, however, I don't have a stream of contributions flowing in
that I can use for "fundraising" trips to Austin  -- NICA data says PETA
is using 40% of the "take" for this kind of thing.  So, I can't just
jet off to Austin to take her on again.  But it sure isn't fear that is
stopping me.

Mary Otto
---------------------(end included post)-----------------
Re-reading it, I'd change the wording to "faced-off *against* Ingrid".
But it said what I meant.

Russell has also commented that hunting is supposed to be perceived as
"manly" and "macho" and necessary to some men to foster development of
lagging self-concepts.

Russell, how does this apply to me?

Mary Otto
From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: milllllggghhhhhkk
Summary: request for international info on soymilk
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:55:43 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


      The recent PCRM announcement about the dangers of human consumption
      of cow's milk prompted me to wonder about the types and availability
      of similarly used fluids on an international level. Here in the U.S.,
      soy drinks (with brandnames like EdenSoy, WestSoy) is widely available,
      even in mainstream stores. Does anyone know what kinds of fluids are
      drank outside the U.S., and how available these are?

      Also, has anyone seen a good powdered soy drink? The last one I tried
      never dissolved.

      Incidentally, did everyone get their RDAH (Recommended Daily Ad 
      Hominems) from media coverage of the announcement?


%%%NOTICE: THIS POSTER HAS BEEN JUDGED RUDE, TERRORIST AND PERSONALITY DEFECTIVE
BECAUSE OF HIS/HER REFUSAL TO KILL, KILL, KILL ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THAN US,
MUCH LIKE THOSE TERRORISTS MOHANDHES K. GANDHI AND ALBERT SCHWEITZER. 
RIGHT-THINKING PEOPLE WILL AVOID CONTAMINATION.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Date: 29 Sep 1992 16:01:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
>>among those rock musicians who would....

>I've never heard such a thing, and find it appalling that you would state 
>it on a newsnet with no verification...
>If you don't find proof, will you post a retraction and 
>apology? 

Okay, okay, I retract.  I probably am confusing Nugent with 
somebody else.  I stand corrected.


Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: hunters and the Austin debate (one more time)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:59:34 GMT

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

>there may be less cohesiveness and general agreement on related issues 
>among hunters than among ARs. Some hunt only small game, some large. Some
>use only a bow, others rifles and shotguns. Some are trappers. Within this
>group there are large differences of opinion as to what is ethical or sporting
>behavior. I don't know of a single national group or sportsman who can lay
>claim to representing them all, or even a minority. 

	The largest unbrella group may be the NRA, but I'd think Pheasants
Forever and similar groups offer large blanket support.  However, I think
you're suffering from a common fallacy.  Just as Pat Robertson does not
define the Republicans nor Jessee Jackson the Democrats, neither does
PETA define the typical AR believer.  Even hunters are AR to a certain
extent, for that matter.  What we're seeing here is a general concensus
on beliefs, but a wide difference on what exactly they construe.  The
Ar wants no pain, the hunter a quick death.  Similar in wish, quite
different in manner.  In addition, the popular press often reports on
the extremists (Robertson, Jackson) in each group, which can lead to a
rather opposing viewpoint among those who fundamentally agree.

>   The ARs, on the other hand, appear to be well organized, with nationally
>known spokespeople. Is this true or just my perception? 

	Your perception.  Those spokespeople get media time; Jane Granola
and Joe Venison do not.

>   It's only in the last year or two that hunters have perceived a threat to
>their way of life. Organizing them has just begun. I feel qualified to speak
>my own thoughts in this forum, but would not be so confident in presenting 
>them as representative of the entire hunting fraternity. 

	We're a fairly homogenous group, all things considered; just be
wary of what you speak for all hunters in (and I'm guilty of over-stepping
my bounds on occassion) and you'll do just fine.

<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: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics (was: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:06:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.033456.7954@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

[...lovely analysis of tactics deleted...]

>And to the other participants in this forum:  Should we continue to
>debate with Russell while he employs his unfair tactics?

	As I recently said to Russell, no one holds a gun to our collective
	heads forcing us to either read or respond to a posting.  Russell
	has every right to post here, but he cannot demand that we read
	or respond.

	The opposite of "like" isn't "dislike"...it's "indifference."


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)