Norhing Royal: Paul Mc Cartney on animal rights
smith.
I think he's getting senile or has smoked too much pot in his youth.
Paul McCartney is concerned about monkeys being tested for medical
research.
How does he think cancer treatments are obtained? Would he
prefer that experimental cancer and other medical treatments
be tested on humans alone and no animals?
Linda McCartney died of cancer. A treatment might have saved
her life that might have been tested on animals first. Linda might
have died a long time ago if her diesase was not contained for the
time being due to animal testing.
So the question is it ethical to test drugs on animals if the
drug tests can be used for the greater good: to save human lives
or to prolong life in a young person?
Paul McCartney and the Beatles did more to make illegal drug
use "chic" and "fashionable" than any other singing group in the
middle 1960's when they went psychedelic. I have never heard any
Beatle or former Beatle speak up against the dangers of illegal
drug use or apologize to the world for embracing psychedelia and
what was perceived to be the hippie movement of free love,free sex,
and illegal drug use.
Instead of apoligizing to the world for this,or admit that he was
wrong about this,now he is an advocate for animal rights.
Sir McCartney seems senile to me.
Donna
Tony Dixon
monkey!
Seriously though, why should he apologise for having 'embraced psychodelia'.
It was and still is his choice.
Free love and free sex - Is there something wrong here? Or are you implying
that love and sex should be paid for?
Illegal drug use? There's more hypocrisy surrounding 'illegal drugs' than
anything else I know of. I live in a country where legalised drugs like
alcohol and tobacco claim well in excess of 150 000 lives a year and cost
billions of pounds in hospital bills.
The difference is that alcohol and tobacco are big business and have
politicians in their pockets all bought and paid for. Besides, if Raleigh
was arriving from the New World today with a cargo of baccy, do you think it
would be legalised in the light of modern medical opinion.
The only winners from any illegal trade are the criminals running it. Bring
it out in the open where it can be controlled.
"Chic" and "Fashionable"? Not sure. I tried alot of drugs in the 70's and
80's, as did many of my friends and contempories. Don't remember striking a
pose with a joint or a rolled up banknote or feeling either chic or
fashionable. I certainly didn't get stoned because it was what P McC did.
Still, maybe I was too stoned to remember.
Have you never offered an opinion that conflicted with something you once
said or did?
We're all human. And at some point in our lives we are all guilty of a
little hypocrisy. It's part of what makes us human.
smith. wrote in message <6qcojr$8e$4...@204.179.92.137>...
Tony Dixon
Tony Dixon
tup...@seaside.net
There always has been, and continues to be inhumane treatment of animals.
Ofcourse there has been experiments on animals for the good of mankind.
Because of this, we must make sure that experiments on animals is minimized
and done in an humane fashion. This particular excersize on the monkeys
doesn't seem very necessary, now does it? Famous people like McCartney can
use their notoriety to force scientists and other individuals who handle
animals to be respectful and sensitive to the creatures. If it weren't for
activists (of any kind) there would be little change. The pendulam usually
has to swing to the extreme in order to make change. I disagree with your
thoughts on the Beatles popularizing drugs...it sure didn't do that for me!
McCartney has mentioned (I think in the book "Many Years From Now") that he
discourages drug use as the drugs of today are far more potent and unsafe.
As far as "free love and sex", I beleive Paul has been a strong role model
for monogamy and fatherhood; considering his 30yr marraige to Linda and his
obvious devotion to his children. Nope, I don't think he is senile...in
fact, at 56yrs, I think he's very sharp!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
smith.
--
Since animals are not human beings (but humans are animals) I
don't know about humane treatment of animals,shouldn't it be called
animane or something?
My point was Sir McCartney has views that pets should not be tested
as trials for medicines or medical vaccines or medical procedures that
are experimental. Monkeys were sent into outer space before we sent
human beings into outer space. We have all benefitted from that.
Many animals sacrifice their lives to benefit medical science and
discoveries of patent medicines that provide relief for human
medical conditions that cause misery.
So to alleviate suffering,prolong human life is it ethical to
test trial medicines on animals first?
I think it is ethical to test trial medications on animals first.
Yes,monkeys can be injected with cancer cells and animals are given
what used to be fatal diseases and still are fatal diesases to test
vaccines and medicines on them.
Since there is speculation that AIDS originated in monkeys or was
given to monkeys or contracted from monkeys it is important that
monkeys be tested because somehow it is thought that monkeys were
originally involved somehow in spreading or contracting this disease,
plus the monkey body being similar to the human being body.
Even if Sir Paul McCarntney makes good music that does not give
him one bit of credibility as a spokesperson for animal rights,
which are not guaranteed by any written constitution and if there
is a Bill of Animal rights somewhere, I doubt if it would in any
way supercede Human Rights.
Donna
smith.
> Nope, I don't think he is senile...in
>fact, at 56yrs, I think he's very sharp!
>
Are you British? I'm American. We may have different standards
to evaluate sharpness.
Evidence to prove that Paul McCartney isn't very sharp or even sharp:
1. Smoked much pot.
2. Went psychedelic and burned out and lost ambition
3. Beatle break-up (inevitable)
4. Can't read music,didn't bother to learn
5. Fought with John Lennon,the most creative Beatle
6. "Wings"
7. Long legal battles over Beatles break-up
8. Broke communication with Lennon,more legal battles
9. Sold music rights to Michael Jackson! DUMB!
10. Now his songs can be used to sell sneakers,(tacos next?)
11. Proponent over animal rights as a priority over human health.
12. Accepted knighthood but he says he prefers not to be addressed
as Sir Paul McCartney,so which is it? If he accepted this
honor,why is he uncomfortable with Sir Paul or Sir McCartney?
This is not an attack on Paul McCartney,just asking him to
re-evaluate his position on animal testing and especially monkey
testing.
Donna
``````````````
Wull
You never cease to amaze me! LOL
I agree with your stand on animal rights but I usually don't
get involved in the controversies that have rabid adherents
(where they will kill in the name of their cause) such as,
politics, religious zealots, the abortion scene, the gun
scene and the Royal-Anti Royal scene (just to keep it
honest-LOL).
I think you deserve a little support for this post.
Wull
Marlene A Koenig
he may be uncomfortable with a change in style - it happens
to a number of people -- Dame Diana Rigg said it took her
some time to be comfortable with her DBE (the womens
equivalent to a knighthood). In the theatre, she was Miss Rigg
and is now Dame Diana (she says she likes being addressed by
her first name), although the title is never used in billing.
She received her honor in June 1994 -it does take time to
adjust to changes. But Sir Paul's comments does not mean
he does not appreciate his honor -- if he didn't, he would
not have accepted it
--
and author of Queen Victoria's Descendants,
published by Rosvall Royal Books
Publisher of Royal Book News, the only newsletter for and about
Royal Books
Keith Winkler
tup...@seaside.net
1. There's no evidance that smoking pot dulls the mind, in fact some people
believe that it enhances the creative mind.
2. Paul has admitted to doing LSD a total of three times. It is highly
unlikely that that would "burn a person out".
3. What does the Beatle breakup have to do with anything? Yes it was
inevitable hardly has anything to do with intelligence (or did you think
they would go on forever)?
4. What does reading music have to do with anything? He obviously has been
successful without it...how would that make his music different? How would
reading music make him more intelligent please?
5. The "most creative" is still being argued over (and will be for many years
to come). Both John and Paul had/have extreme talent and strong
personalities Donna...have you always been agreable with everyone you know?
No estranged relationships, Donna?
6. Where were you in the 1970's Donna? Wings were one of the top selling
groups of that time. Most people have excepted Wings as a very good band.
7. It is not uncommon for litigation (and lots of it) when there is soooo much
$ and assets to be devided. I still don't know what this has to do with
intelligence.
8. The communication between John and Paul was off and on throughout the
'70's. Their relationship was highly charged and emotional. So what?
9. The musical rights weren't his to sell. Michael outbid him and Yoko (the
details run from...Michael doing this behind McCartney's back and/or Yoko
being unwilling to pay the sum required. Hardly Paul's fault!
10. Ditto to #9. But now Sony owns them.
11. I've never heard Paul say that animal rights are more important than human
health. Could you print up the quote please...
12. Paul has stated that he is thrilled at such an honour, but coming from
a working class backgroung; he finds it uncomfortable being call Sir Paul.
Is this such a stretch for you to understand, Donna?
Actually Donna, you may want to read your list...you are attacking McCartney
(or do you think saying a person is senile or burned out is not an insult?).
You may want to do some research before you comment back to me, as it is
obvious you know very little about this subject. Also, could you please let
me know why you think this test on monkeys is so important for the health of
mankind? Is it some sort of cure for AIDS or Cancer that I am unaware of?
4
tup...@seaside.net
> >fact, at 56yrs, I think he's very sharp!
> >
> >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
Actually Donna, treating animals with compassion and respect is moral issue
as we are (supposedly) "the keepers of the garden". I cannot speak for
McCartney on this issue, but I repeat what I have said before...Famous
individual such as McCartney can use their notoriety to force scientist and
other animal handlers to be respectful and sensitive to creatures.
Pharmaceuticals is a huge business and it is likely that much testing on
animals is unneccesary. I won't even get into the cosmetic testing...
smith.
THE POINT WAS ANIMAL RIGHTS DO NOT OVER-RIDE HUMAN HEALTH CARE TREATMENT
OPTIONS WHICE ARE MADE POSSIBLE DUE TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND
ANIMAL DEATHS. <you asked what was the point? look at the subject title,
P.McC on animal rights> <I said Paul was senile somone else said he
was "very sharp". I said he was not sharp at all,especially now that
he is on the animal rights band-wagon,when monkeys are being used
for experimentation and death for a greater good:human vaccines and
disease management and treatment. That is the point,northcut.
Donna
>In article <35CB8DCC...@inreach.com>, kwin...@inreach.com wrote:
>
>> Take this to rec.music.beatles
``````````````````````````````````````
kwinkler, This is not a musical discussion. If you do not
appreciate this thread,do not participate in this thread.
The discussion is not music but Sir McCartney's views that
animal rights,especially monkey's rights have a higher priority
and ethical priority than saving human lives or prolonging human
life without suffering at the expense of monkey suffering & death.
Donna
`````````````````````````````````
>>
>> smith. wrote:
>>
>> > tup...@seaside.net wrote:
>> > > Nope, I don't think he is senile...in
>> > >fact, at 56yrs, I think he's very sharp!
>> > >
>> > >``````````
>> > Are you British? I'm American. We may have different standards
>> > to evaluate sharpness.
>> > Evidence to prove that Paul McCartney isn't very sharp or even sharp:
>> > 1. Smoked much pot.
>
>So? :-)
>
>> > 2. Went psychedelic and burned out and lost ambition
>
>"went psychedelic"? Since when? And since when did he a) burn out and b)
>lose ambition?
>
>> > 3. Beatle break-up (inevitable)
>
>Er, yes, your point?
>
>> > 4. Can't read music,didn't bother to learn
>
>Can read a bit, chooses not to work with notation
>
>
>> > 5. Fought with John Lennon,the most creative Beatle
>
>First part ??, second part ?? Explain your premise further, please
>
>> > 6. "Wings"
>
>Don't like high-quality pop music, huh?
>
>> > 7. Long legal battles over Beatles break-up
>
> ... of which he was only one of four ...
>
>> > 8. Broke communication with Lennon,more legal battles
>
>Incredibly vague, please elaborate
>
>> > 9. Sold music rights to Michael Jackson! DUMB!
>
>Untrue -- see Ray Coleman's "Yesterday ... and Today" for all the details
>
>> > 10. Now his songs can be used to sell sneakers,(tacos next?)
>
>Once again, quite vague; please elaborate.
>
>> > 11. Proponent over animal rights as a priority over human health.
>
>Untrue
>
>> > 12. Accepted knighthood but he says he prefers not to be addressed
>> > as Sir Paul McCartney,so which is it? If he accepted this
>> > honor,why is he uncomfortable with Sir Paul or Sir McCartney?
>
>He obviously loves it, some false modesty definitely there
>
>
>> > This is not an attack on Paul McCartney,
>
>OK, it's an attack on ... what? What's your point, you-whoever-you-are?
>
>--
>http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/index.html
--
Remove the "nospam" from our e-mail address to reply.
smith.
><. This particular excersize on the monkeys
>> >doesn't seem very necessary, now does it? Famous people like McCartney can
>> >use their notoriety to force scientists and other individuals who handle
>> >animals to be respectful and sensitive to the creatures.
Scientists are not swinging the monkeys by the tails when
they are testing them for pharmaceutical testing. Since the
scientists need the monkeys to test over and over until the
monkeys eventually die those monkeys would be handled with
sensitivity. There are people alive today thanks to animal
pharmaceutical testing and there will be people alive long
after Sir McCartney is gone who have scientists and monkeys
to thank for advances that prolonged or saved their lives or
the lives of their children.
DSS
I disagree with your
>> >thoughts on the Beatles popularizing drugs...it sure didn't do that for me!
They didn't do it for me either,because I didn't take illegal drugs!
Everyone knows some people who did in the late 1960's. There may be
some burned out aging hippies who have the Beatle's culture to thank
for the "monkey on their back". The Beatles were the first musical
group to my knowledge to not use drugs under-ground like jazz groups
but made the words and symbols a part of their albums and album sales.
DSS
>> >McCartney has mentioned (I think in the book "Many Years From Now") that he
>> >discourages drug use as the drugs of today are far more potent and unsafe.
``````````
That's like a parent telling a child,'I did it,but don't you do it.'
DSS
```````````````
>> >As far as "free love and sex", I beleive Paul has been a strong role model
>> >for monogamy and fatherhood; considering his 30yr marraige to Linda and his
>> >obvious devotion to his children.
`````````````````
You are right on this. <I went over-board in my enthusiasm.>
You are correct here & I apologize for that free love & sex stuff.
Donna
```````````````````````````
Nope, I don't think he is senile...in
>> >fact, at 56yrs, I think he's very sharp!
```````````````````
Not sharp if he is against testing surgeries,drug trials,
vaccine trials on monkeys.
Donna
`````````````````> >
>> >>> Even if Sir Paul McCarntney makes good music that does not give
>> him one bit of credibility as a spokesperson for animal rights,
>> which are not guaranteed by any written constitution and if there
>> is a Bill of Animal rights somewhere, I doubt if it would in any
>> way supercede Human Rights.
>> Donna
>>
>>
>
>Actually Donna, treating animals with compassion and respect is moral issue
>as we are (supposedly) "the keepers of the garden". I cannot speak for
>McCartney on this issue, but I repeat what I have said before...Famous
>individual such as McCartney can use their notoriety to force scientist and
>other animal handlers to be respectful and sensitive to creatures.
>Pharmaceuticals is a huge business and it is likely that much testing on
>animals is unneccesary. I won't even get into the cosmetic testing...
>
>```````````````````````
Monkey testing is necessary. I'm fond of animals so I could never
work in a laboratory where monkeys are tested,given surgeries,given
cancers and other virus's,exposed to all kinds of things. But this
is done,not for the purpose of torturing animals but for the purpose
of advances in medicine. I doubt if Sir McCartney will generate any
written legislation for monkey rights at the expense of human scientific
advancement,certainly not in the United States. If the United Kingdom
is interested in drafting animal rights legislation a Linda McCartney
Bill could be introduced. Imperial Chemicals Imdustries might not be
found of such a bill,are they involved in pharmaceutical research?
Donna
```````````````````````
smith.
>
>And how does calling him "senile" help your argument in any case?
>
Calling Sir McCartney senile does not make him senile,this is true.
However,if Sir McCartney is making statements in behalf of monkeys
having any 'rights' or 'privileges' that super-cede human beings
rights and privileges to the best medical treatments that they
are able to afford then I would guesstimate that Sir McCartney
is losing a portion of his reasoning abilities if he is putting
animal welfare before human welfare(welfare meaning well being).
DSS
>Anyway, it's pretty obvious Sir Paul knows certainly his stuff on his side
>of the issue, as can be gleaned from the Viva! interview excerpts printed
>today in the Daily Express. You don't have to agree or approve, but he
>ain't "senile"!
`````````````````
We don't have access to "Viva!" or "Daily Express",what did he say?
Viva means life, I wouldn't put monkeys lives before human lives.
This medical research is done in secret since the pharmaceutical
companies are in competition with each other,so I doubt if any
pharmaceutical corporations will be offering Sir McCartney a chance
to examine their premises,medical and scientific records and view
monkey research. Since this research is top secret, I wonder how
Sir McCartney is of the opinion that the monkeys are mis-treated?
Does he view all medical treatment of monkeys used experimentally as
mis-treatment? What did he say,in a nutshell?
Donna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tup...@seaside.net
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> Scientists are not swinging the monkeys by the tails when
> they are testing them for pharmaceutical testing. Since the
> scientists need the monkeys to test over and over until the
> monkeys eventually die those monkeys would be handled with
> sensitivity. There are people alive today thanks to animal
> pharmaceutical testing and there will be people alive long
> after Sir McCartney is gone who have scientists and monkeys
> to thank for advances that prolonged or saved their lives or
> the lives of their children.
> DSS
As pharmaceurticals are such a huge industry, are you so sure that
unnecessary testing is not going on? With the technolgy of today, there may
be other means to gather the data required.
> They didn't do it for me either,because I didn't take illegal drugs!
> Everyone knows some people who did in the late 1960's. There may be
> some burned out aging hippies who have the Beatle's culture to thank
> for the "monkey on their back". The Beatles were the first musical
> group to my knowledge to not use drugs under-ground like jazz groups
> but made the words and symbols a part of their albums and album sales.
> DSS
Ever heard of the Grateful Dead, the Doors, Santana, Rolling Stones...need I
go on? Besides, how come you and I were so smart? I think the "burned out
aging hippies" only have theirselves to blame.
> That's like a parent telling a child,'I did it,but don't you do it.'
> DSS
```````````````
So? What's this to do with sharpness please?
````````````````
You are right on this. <I went over-board in my enthusiasm.>
> You are correct here & I apologize for that free love & sex stuff.
> Donna
Hallelujah ```````````````````````````
```````````````````
Not sharp if he is against testing surgeries,drug trials,
> vaccine trials on monkeys.
> Donna
The testing on monkeys is to blast (airplane) decible sound into their ears to
see how deaf they go. Gosh, this is a big mystery?
> >> >>> Even if Sir Paul McCarntney makes good music that does not give
> >> him one bit of credibility as a spokesperson for animal rights,
> >> which are not guaranteed by any written constitution and if there
> >> is a Bill of Animal rights somewhere, I doubt if it would in any
> >> way supercede Human Rights.
> >> Donna
> >>
Paul McCartney is NOT a spokesman for animal rights...he supports PETA which
has spokepersons.
`````````````
> Monkey testing is necessary. I'm fond of animals so I could never
> work in a laboratory where monkeys are tested,given surgeries,given
> cancers and other virus's,exposed to all kinds of things. But this
> is done,not for the purpose of torturing animals but for the purpose
> of advances in medicine. I doubt if Sir McCartney will generate any
> written legislation for monkey rights at the expense of human scientific
> advancement,certainly not in the United States. If the United Kingdom
> is interested in drafting animal rights legislation a Linda McCartney
> Bill could be introduced. Imperial Chemicals Imdustries might not be
> found of such a bill,are they involved in pharmaceutical research?
> Donna
> ```````````````````````
>
Is it? Do you trust what the scientist (that are paid by huge pharmacuetical
companies) say? I doubt if written legislation for animal rights will happen
in our time either; I just have to read about the cruelty towards family pets
and realize we are a long way from respecting the animal kingdom. Proctor
and Gamble are cosmetic and phamacuetical (wouldn't be intersting to see who
pays the bills for these tests?
Isn't this fun?
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> nort...@mindspring.com (d.) wrote:
> >
> >And how does calling him "senile" help your argument in any case?
> >
> Calling Sir McCartney senile does not make him senile,this is true.
> However,if Sir McCartney is making statements in behalf of monkeys
> having any 'rights' or 'privileges' that super-cede human beings
> rights and privileges to the best medical treatments that they
> are able to afford then I would guesstimate that Sir McCartney
> is losing a portion of his reasoning abilities if he is putting
> animal welfare before human welfare(welfare meaning well being).
He didn't put monkey's rights above human rights, how in the world did you
get that? Did he say "kill all humans so monkeys will have someplace to
live"? The testing on the monkeys is not for any significant medical
research, they're not testing a new vaccine for AIDS on them. They're testing
the monkeys to see how loud noise will affect their hearing. DUH, it will
damage it. The test is a waste of money and cruel to the animals to find
something that has already been tested many times over. Those tests have been
done years and years ago, and even some doctors and experts since the story
came out have said how unnecessary the tests are. If you want exact names and
quotes I have the story somewhere. If I fall into a lake, I'll get wet. I
don't need some bored college department to spend tons of money to find that
out.
~Jamie
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> My point was Sir McCartney has views that pets should not be tested
> as trials for medicines or medical vaccines or medical procedures that
> are experimental. Monkeys were sent into outer space before we sent
> human beings into outer space. We have all benefitted from that.
Donna, did you even READ the article? You didn't did you? Because if you had
you would know that Paul was protesting a college experiment that would test
monkeys' hearing after being exposed to loud noise. Medicine has nothing to
do with it, they aren't testing anything about AIDS or cancer or any other
disease. You keep talking about AIDS and cancer and medicine when that has
nothing to do with what Paul is protesting. Please get your facts straight.
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
> > Are you British? I'm American. We may have different standards
> > to evaluate sharpness.
I'm American, and what you write below is full of crap:
> > Evidence to prove that Paul McCartney isn't very sharp or even sharp:
> > 1. Smoked much pot.
So everyone who ever smoked pot is an idiot?
> > 2. Went psychedelic and burned out and lost ambition
He never burned out, and if he lost ambition he would've never tour again and
never made another album.
> > 3. Beatle break-up (inevitable)
John broke up the Beatles more than anyone else.
> > 4. Can't read music,didn't bother to learn
Nope, he tried, but felt that it would inhibit him. Neither John, George or
Ringo ever "bothered to learn" either.
> > 5. Fought with John Lennon,the most creative Beatle
And John fought with Paul, too. So that makes John "not sharp" either, by
your definition. And John being the most creative Beatle is an opinion, and
since you can't bother to get even basic facts rights, don't expect anyone to
take your opinions seriously.
> > 6. "Wings"
A multi-million record selling band is evidence of someone being senile, is
it?
> > 7. Long legal battles over Beatles break-up
Which weren't his fault. Are you skewed enough to think that Paul is the one
at fault for the legal battles? I've read just about every Beatles book ever
written, and you're wrong; it was their manager, Allen Klein, more than
anyone.
> > 8. Broke communication with Lennon,more legal battles
He didn't break communication with Lennon. Are you allergic to facts or
something?|
> > 9. Sold music rights to Michael Jackson! DUMB!
He did not, anyone familiar with the Beatles knows that Paul and John were
not the owners of their rights in the first place, so they didn't even have
them to sell.
> > 10. Now his songs can be used to sell sneakers,(tacos next?)
Nike used "Revolution" in a commercial without the Fabs' and was promptly
sued by them. The Beatles won a several million dollar settlement. Beatles
recordings are not permitted to be used in commercials and never have been.
Again, do you have an aversion to the facts?
> > 11. Proponent over animal rights as a priority over human health.
He did not say that, that's just a blatant lie.
> > 12. Accepted knighthood but he says he prefers not to be addressed
> > as Sir Paul McCartney,so which is it? If he accepted this
> > honor,why is he uncomfortable with Sir Paul or Sir McCartney?
That's just such a ridiculous question I'm going even going to bother with the
answer.
> >
> > This is not an attack on Paul McCartney,just asking him to
> > re-evaluate his position on animal testing and especially monkey
> > testing.
You keep saying this yet you don't even know what Paul said. You keep
bringing up AIDS and cancer research when you don't even know that what Paul
came out against is the testing of high volumes on monkeys to see if it will
damage their hearing. Yes, you are attacking Paul, and in the worst way: by
making up lies and not even bothering to get the facts.
~Jamie
smith.
>>
>As pharmaceurticals are such a huge industry, are you so sure that
>unnecessary testing is not going on? With the technolgy of today, there may
>be other means to gather the data required.
>
Du Pont,Merck, Merck-Du,Pont,Imperial Chemicals Industries employ
some of the best scientists there are and they would not run tests
that were not necessary because these are cost-efficient organizations
and they must account to their Board of Directors and stock holders.
Since they are not charities,but profit motivated they would not
engage in expensive unnecessary testing.
Donna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>> <snipped>
>Ever heard of the Grateful Dead, the Doors, Santana, Rolling Stones...need I
>go on? Besides, how come you and I were so smart? I think the "burned out
>aging hippies" only have theirselves to blame.
The Beatles 'drugged music period' were before the other groups.
Maybe the Rolling Stones paralleled this drug thing,but not to
the extent the Beatles did. Then came the others,my generation was
the Beatles and groups like The Strawberry Alarm Clock. I was busy
working when Grateful Dead sang and working when Bee Gees were popular.
Stopped buying music after the Beatles broke up.
I think the Beatles created a mileau where international drug use
became 'cool' and 'hip' and 'chic'. Luckily, I didn't jump on this
trend, I was too square.<But was against Viet Nam war.>
DSS
>
>
>> That's like a parent telling a child,'I did it,but don't you do it.'
>> DSS
> ```````````````
>So? What's this to do with sharpness please?
>````````````````
*decades* of pot use. Like 30 years of pot,yuck!
DSS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ```````````````````
> Not sharp if he is against testing surgeries,drug trials,
>> vaccine trials on monkeys.
>> Donna
>
>The testing on monkeys is to blast (airplane) decible sound into their ears to
>see how deaf they go. Gosh, this is a big mystery?
That was already done on humans at rock concerts. :-)
Donna
>
>> >> >>> Even if Sir Paul McCarntney makes good music that does not give
>> >> him one bit of credibility as a spokesperson for animal rights,
>> >> which are not guaranteed by any written constitution and if there
>> >> is a Bill of Animal rights somewhere, I doubt if it would in any
>> >> way supercede Human Rights.
>> >> Donna
>> >>
>
>has spokepersons.
>
>`````````````
>> Monkey testing is necessary. I'm fond of animals so I could never
>> work in a laboratory where monkeys are tested,given surgeries,given
>> cancers and other virus's,exposed to all kinds of things. But this
>> is done,not for the purpose of torturing animals but for the purpose
>> of advances in medicine. I doubt if Sir McCartney will generate any
>> written legislation for monkey rights at the expense of human scientific
>> advancement,certainly not in the United States. If the United Kingdom
>> is interested in drafting animal rights legislation a Linda McCartney
>> Bill could be introduced. Imperial Chemicals Imdustries might not be
>> found of such a bill,are they involved in pharmaceutical research?
>> Donna
>> ```````````````````````
>>
>
>Is it? Do you trust what the scientist (that are paid by huge pharmacuetical
>companies) say?
Yes. I'll leave the animal testing up to licensed scientists
and pharmaceutical corporations. I am a stock-holder (just a
little stock as an investment) in several major pharmaceutical
corporations and as I stock-holder I have a vested interest on
this subject and I do not want Sir Mc Cartney to dictate company
policy. If he is a stock holder then he can speak at the next
Du Pont meeting,actually I don't own any Du Pont stock,but some
pharmaceutical companies stock. If he comes to Delaware,I would
recommend the Nicholas & Alexandra exhibit. Maybe he could
find a really worthy cause such as the Hermitage Museum that
needs financial assistance and has been around for many years
since Catherine the Great.
Donna
`````````````
Isn't this fun?
`````````````````
Don't ask me why,but I'm wondering what is the life expectancy
of a healthy untested monkey? 10 years? 20 years? Does anyone know?
I enjoy talking on the computer. Not arguing,but you have some
good points. Of course you are right about cosmetic testing and
as for Proctor & Gamble products,generic is cheaper and as good.
Off to do laundry,
Donna
``````````````````
>
>
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> THE POINT WAS ANIMAL RIGHTS DO NOT OVER-RIDE HUMAN HEALTH CARE TREATMENT
> OPTIONS WHICE ARE MADE POSSIBLE DUE TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND
> ANIMAL DEATHS. <you asked what was the point? look at the subject title,
> P.McC on animal rights>
First off, please don't shout. It's rude. Secondly, several people have asked
you to name the specific quote where Paul put animal rights above human
rights. So far you have not done that. I have read about every interview Paul
has ever done, and he has never stated the above.
> <I said Paul was senile somone else said he
> was "very sharp". I said he was not sharp at all,especially now that
> he is on the animal rights band-wagon,when monkeys are being used
> for experimentation and death for a greater good:human vaccines and
> disease management and treatment. That is the point,northcut.
Donna, please pay attention and read this slowly: Paul came out against an
experiment wherein monkeys will be tested by with high volumes of noise to
see if their hearing is damaged. *You* Donna are obviously the one who is not
sharp. You have ignored that, along with the fact that Paul came out against
THAT SPECIFIC EXPERIMENT, which had nothing to do with vaccines, AIDS,
cancer, disease, etc. Yet you keep harping on how Paul is putting monkeys'
rights above humans because he is against monkey experimentation for vaccines
and the like. PUAL HAS NEVER SAID THIS. And *that* is the point, Donna. You
are blatantly *lying*. And you are obviously mistaken if you think animal
testing is that integral to medical research. Why don't you do a little
reading up on the facts before you attack someone like Paul for something he
didn't even say?
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
wjma...@datarecall.net wrote:
> Donna,
>
> You never cease to amaze me! LOL
> I agree with your stand on animal rights but I usually don't
> get involved in the controversies that have rabid adherents
> (where they will kill in the name of their cause) such as,
> politics, religious zealots, the abortion scene, the gun
> scene and the Royal-Anti Royal scene (just to keep it
> honest-LOL).
PETA does not promote killing in the name of animals rights, and as far as I
know, the other organizations you named don't promote killing in their name
either. Yes, there a few pyscho nuts who will kill in the name of politics or
abortion, but that doesn't mean all the people involved in those organizations
or hold those opinions are bad.
Anyway, Donna is being deliberately misleading. Not only did Paul not come
out against medical testing (he came out against a specific experiment on the
animals' hearing) but she shows an appalling naivete about how medical
testing works. She says that monkeys are/were a significant part in AIDS
research, because monkeys were maybe the original carriers. In fact, that is
a blatant lie. The isolation of the virus that causes AIDS was done WITHOUT
animal testing, as was the devolpment of the CAT, MRI, and PET scans, the
development of the X-Ray, the invention of the stethoscope, and the discovery
of anesthesia, bacteriology, germ theory, morphine, radium, penicillin,
antiseptics and artificial respiration. All this and more medical
advancements were done without animal testing or animal research playing a
role. Cadavers and computer simulators, the new model "microbrain" (created
by scientists from human brain cells) are just among the options which are
faster and less expensive and more accurate than animal testing. Animal
testing is notoriously unreliable, also, especially when it concerns infants
and the elderly, for example: - Thalidomide tested safe in all animals
except one strain of rabbit, yet in humans it caused birth defects. - The
swine flu vaccine was found safe in all animal tests, yet in humans it caused
progressive paralysis. - Oprin and Oraflex, the arthritis drugs, tested safe
on animals yet caused the deaths of elderly humans. Eferol, Oraflex, Suprol,
and Selacryn were other drugs taken off the market after causing deaths
and/or injuries. And there are more examples. People forget, even if animal
testing is done, the final testing is still humans when the drugs hit the
market. From 1976 to 1985, more than half the drugs approved by the FDA (Food
and Drug Administration) were either relabelled or pulled from the market
because of serious side effects.
smith.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
You mean it was just some dumb noise test? That's all?
That was done on human beings already at (all the) rock concerts!
And how about when the loud speakers make that screech noise?
What is the life expentancy of a monkey,does anyone know?
(If they're doing noise tests,there may be a reason we
don't know like sound waves being used as a curative
or sound waves or breaking the cound barrier or something
to do with gravity or outer space or high definition television?)
Maybe it's a test for some new telephone or talking computer or
something? There's probably a reason for this. What is the name of
the college MIT? Stanford? Or Flubber College?
Donna
```````````````````````
smith.
>In article <6qf295$cpu$0...@204.179.92.104>,
> "smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
>> My point was Sir McCartney has views that pets should not be tested
>> as trials for medicines or medical vaccines or medical procedures that
>> are experimental. Monkeys were sent into outer space before we sent
>> human beings into outer space. We have all benefitted from that.
>
>Donna, did you even READ the article? You didn't did you? Because if you had
>you would know that Paul was protesting a college experiment that would test
>monkeys' hearing after being exposed to loud noise. Medicine has nothing to
>do with it, they aren't testing anything about AIDS or cancer or any other
>disease. You keep talking about AIDS and cancer and medicine when that has
>nothing to do with what Paul is protesting. Please get your facts straight.
>
>~Jamie
>
>
noise tests. I read somewhere that he was going to take up
Linda's cause and be a champion of animal rights and when I
read it was about scientific testing (unspecific testing was
what I read,it didn't say what kind of testing,certainly not
noise tests,I thought it meant *all* scientific testing.)
Now do we even know the monkeys are being exposed to loud
noises? What is loud for a monkey? They are pretty loud animals
themselves. Since they are social animals and they make alot of
noise when they are together,screeching and screaming the noise
tests must be really really loud. I wonder if the noise tests are
monkey noises? If they are being subjected to loud monkey sounds
maybe it is to see how they react? eg male monkeys subjected to
loud female monkey noises. Oh,look, I don't even care anymore.
Donna
````````````````````````````````
smith.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
I did not know that it was noise tests that Sir McCartney was
objecting to.
The source of my limited information was an article on the computer
a headline under Reuters UK news,a blip. Not a long article.
It is ironic that Sir McCartney is so concerned about noise
levels that monkeys are subjected to after he was subjected to
the screams of all those adoring fans and fan clubs and mobs of
screaming females. Plus the noise of the Beatles concerts which
filled stadiums etc.
I enjoyed the Beatles when they were together and was a Beatle
fan.
The next time Sir Paul McCartney is interviewed, I hope someone
does ask him his opinion of monkeys or any other animals being
used for medical research or trial vaccines,incl. cancer vaccines
because these animals are injected with cancer virus's and I wonder
if he would be in favor of this or if he is just opposed to the
noise tests. Did the article state the purpose of the noise tests?
I did not read the article.
Donna
smith.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
I wish I had the name of the scientist who said last week on CNN
that animal testing was used in the development of penicillin.
If I hear a repeat of that interview I will post the name of the
scientist.
There are animals that cause nuisances and dangers to humans:
deer run into moving autobiles,flocks of birds fly into jets
and this can cause a crash,bird droppings can cause terrible
pollution and in excess this gets into the water & kills fish
and other wildlife.
I don't "go" for this animal-rights stuff and that's all there
is to it and nothing you say,Jamie is going to change my mind.
I think it is downright "nutty". (The cosmetics testing is
unnecessary,but that's as fas as I'll go.)
Paul may be extra sensitive to the noise situation due to all
the screaming hordes of fans plus the Beatles' amplifiers. What
would he say about the noise decibel levels at rock concerts and
the humans who are exposed to that and parents who bring babies
and young children to those noisy rock concerts?
Jamie,you have your rhetoric and that's fine but I do not agree
with this animal rights stuff,I'm turning a deaf ear.
Donna
`````````````````````````````
smith.
>In article <6qi41c$l08$0...@204.179.92.138>, "smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
>
>> nort...@mindspring.com (d.) wrote:
>> >
>> >And how does calling him "senile" help your argument in any case?
>> >
>> Calling Sir McCartney senile does not make him senile,this is true.
>> However,if Sir McCartney is making statements in behalf of monkeys
>> having any 'rights' or 'privileges' that super-cede human beings
>> rights and privileges to the best medical treatments that they
>> are able to afford then I would guesstimate that Sir McCartney
>> is losing a portion of his reasoning abilities if he is putting
>> animal welfare before human welfare(welfare meaning well being).
>
>That's it! It's not the health thing, important though that is. It's
>respect for our fellow species. We're just another animal, yet we think
>we're so clever, know so much. But what have we done? We're headed
>towards disaster and won't even acknowledge it."
>
>Statements which you will no doubt attack. But try to think of it this
>way: perhaps his thinking is more rooted in a kind of spiritualism. Many
>(most?) cultural traditions raise us to believe in the right of total
>dominance of man over animals. This modern science we worship so much has
>also proven that we are animals, too, with the advantages (?) of opposable
>thumbs and larger brains. No one but the most wild-eyed animal-rights
>freak would deny that some animal research has brought about crucial
>advances in the medical field. But the fact is, it has become a sort of
>crutch, and many of the experiments are unecessary, such as the monkey
>experiments in California he has recently spoken out against.
>
>> Since this research is top secret, I wonder how
>> Sir McCartney is of the opinion that the monkeys are mis-treated?
>
>145 decibels of sound which will make them deaf and they say it's OK
>because they're anaesthetised first. And it's all to prove that you
>shouldn't listen to loud music or stand under a jet plane. Well we know
>that anyway."
>
>Sounds like they are being mistreated by the very nature of the
>experiment. To me, animal reserach like this is barbaric. I never
>thought much about "animal rights" very much until I worked as a paid
>employee for the Humane Society in Athens, Georgia. A very brief time
>spent there taught me that animals do feel pain, do undego psychological
>trauma, and that a good judge of a person's character was how they treated
>their pets and livestock. I saw some horrible things. When I read about
>useless animal experimentation such as this I view it no differently than
>the teenagers who dragged a puppy up and down a street chained to the back
>of a car: they just wanted to see how long it took before the puppy's paws
>wore down to the bone.
>
>> > Does he view all medical treatment of monkeys used experimentally as
>> > mis-treatment? What did he say,in a nutshell?
>
>cancer charities, and animal rights groups wrote to me pointing out that
>many were heavily into vivisection -- and it's true. A doctor we knew
>out in America just admitted it as a matter of fact, innocently, like
>'Well, sure we do'. What he doesn't realise is that he won't get a
>donation out of me for that very fact."
>
>This is difficult for me to comment on because I believe it represents a
>significant hardening of his earlier position.
>
>--
>http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/index.html
--
Instead of worrying about monkeys,and noise tests on monkeys
Sir Paul McCartney should think about the long term use of
marijuana and all the pot he smoked in the 1960's,1970's,
1980's and 1990's.
I'm not going to get out my violin and shed any tears for
any monkeys who are subject to loud decibels of noise,because
I don't care about these monkeys that were tested.
If mankind benefits from any monkey noise tests,then those
monkeys have made a great sacrifice.
The United States sent monkeys into outer space before we
sent humans. I would imagine that "blast off" was noisey for
those monkeys.
The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
being blasted off into outer space.
These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
Just think about that.
Donna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jamie, I didn't read the article. I didn't know it was about
> noise tests.
Then I apologize if I was unnecessarily harsh. But I believe you were
unnecessarily harsh for attacking Paul.
> Now do we even know the monkeys are being exposed to loud
> noises? What is loud for a monkey? They are pretty loud animals
> themselves.
It's a California university, I don't remember exactly which one. They are
going to anesthitize (sp?) the monkeys, submit them to noise levels (how high
was unspecified, but it was louder than a jet engine, and loud enough to make
the monkeys deaf). Then they will kill the monkeys to dissect their brains.
JOHN L NORRIS
sharpness.
1. We research all of the facts before we start a thread on a newsgroup.
2. We dont attack peaple and call somebody senile when that person is
obviously a lot more sane and together than we are ourselves.
3. We do not base a whole argument around an article that we did'nt even
read, but instead just caught a "blip" off from the internet.
4. We dont call the worlds most successful singer/songwrighter a man without
ambition.
5. We dont criticize somebody for not being able to read music after they
have been nominated for a grammy for the work "Standing Stone"
6.We dont make out that somebody puts animal rights over human rights when
you have not even a shred of evidence to go on.
I think that if asked dirrectly Paul would put animal rights on an equal
level with human rights, and quit rightly so, especialy after he has led a
successful campaign to keep his local hospital open.
OH, and bye the way, what was the concert for Kampuchia, the song "How many
peaple", Paul and Lindas involvement with battered wifes charaties, The
recent appearance at the concert for Monserrat, and Pauls continuing support
for environmental issues all about then.
Does'nt sound to me like a man that does'nt care for human rights!
The rest of your points are'nt even worth commenting on because you
obviously know nothing about what you are talking about, you sound like a
depraved egotistical maniac who simply has to sound off with uncontrolled
abandon about any subject that is the flavour of the day.
Take my advice and fix that hole, there is rain getting in and your brain is
turning into mildew.
Having said all that go in peace Donna and find what you are looking for.
P:S- What do you actually do to promote the cause of Human rights?
xfj...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6qinuc$hl0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
smith.
>In article <6qj6bf$p6i$1...@204.179.92.168>,
> "smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jamie, I didn't read the article. I didn't know it was about
>> noise tests.
>
>Then I apologize if I was unnecessarily harsh. But I believe you were
>unnecessarily harsh for attacking Paul.
No,Jamie,there is no need to apologize for a simple
mis-understanding, I apologize for the free-love stuff but that's all,
because that was out of line and not true. Donna
```````````````````````````````````
>> Now do we even know the monkeys are being exposed to loud
>> noises? What is loud for a monkey? They are pretty loud animals
`````````````````````
I looked up the life expectancy for monkeys & it is 12-15 yrs,
(record for longevity for monkeys is 29 years).Donna
>
>It's a California university, I don't remember exactly which one. They are
>going to anesthitize (sp?) the monkeys, submit them to noise levels (how high
>was unspecified, but it was louder than a jet engine, and loud enough to make
>the monkeys deaf). Then they will kill the monkeys to dissect their brains.
>
>~Jamie
Jamie ,there may well be a letimate & valid reason for this test.
I don't know if there is,but I don't think it is to be sadistic or
cruel on purpose. Americans are the kindest and most generous of
people. The test could be for a greater good,saving lives.
Airports all over the USA have problems with flocks of birds
hanging around airports. I don't know if the birds are looking
for their great airplane god, or if the birds like open spaces.
These flocks of birds get into the openings of the jet when the
jet is taking off and the jets crash. We may have written laws which
prevent shooting or killing endangered birds so *sound waves* and loud
noises are being used to make the birds go away to prevent jet
crashes and save human lives. Different locations have different
bird species at different airports. (Fla. seagulls,etc.)..
Maybe the monkeys are being used to find out the effects of
loud sound on them and extrapolate the results to bird loud noise
effects...We've got to get rid of but not kill birds at airports.
There is probably a good reason for this test. Maybe it is
noise levels at airports to deter flock formation. And the results
of the test might be made public to the world and help deter bird
flocks at airports internationally if anyone else wants to use
the information obtained from the tests. This is a speculation.
Donna
`````````````````````````
>
>
smith.
>
>1. We research all of the facts before we start a thread on a newsgroup.
>
on this *gossip* newsgroup with no research involved other than one
headline.
DSS
>2. We dont attack peaple and call somebody senile when that person is
>obviously a lot more sane and together than we are ourselves.
> This is a gossip newsgroup,John,who are you to tell me what
"we" do. You are not me and I am not you and there is no collective
"we". There are individuals who post here. Have you ever posted here
before? This is a gossip group. Donna
>3. We do not base a whole argument around an article that we did'nt even
>read, but instead just caught a "blip" off from the internet.
> This is done all the time on this gossip board, This is gossip
and speculation, This is the topic here,alt gossip.
Donna
>4. We dont call the worlds most successful singer/songwrighter a man without
>ambition.
> It is debatable if he is the most successful songwriter in the
world. I did not say he does not have ambition.
DSS
>````````````````
>I think that if asked dirrectly Paul would put animal rights on an equal
>level with human rights, and quit rightly so, especialy after he has led a
>successful campaign to keep his local hospital open.
`````````````````````````
You are speculating that yourself.
Donna
``````````````````````````````
>OH, and bye the way, what was the concert for Kampuchia, the song "How many
>peaple", Paul and Lindas involvement with battered wifes charaties, The
>recent appearance at the concert for Monserrat, and Pauls continuing support
>for environmental issues all about then.
>Does'nt sound to me like a man that does'nt care for human rights!
````````````````````
That is wonderful. They are to be commended for that and also
for his music school that was opened. This is great.
Donna
````````````````
>
>The rest of your points are'nt even worth commenting on because you
>obviously know nothing about what you are talking about,
```````````````````````
I'm talking about the effects of smoking pot for 30 consecutive
years and the long term effects of smoking pot in the brain chemistry.
I've always been led to believe that it (smoking pot for a long time)
has a negative effect on the brain's chemistry and this is why it
is illegal in so many countries,because it damages the brain and also
possibly causes genetic damage. That was one of my points that you
did not address. I am saying a person who has smoked pot for 30 or
so years may not be the best person to champion a cause because he
did not take very good care of himself of his brain if he,not Paul
McCartney,but any one who has smoked pot for 30 years might not
be taken seriously due to his drug history. Pot is a drug. It is
used medically sometimes to alleviate pain because it dulls the
senses and pain is sensory. If pot dulls the senses what does it do
to the brain? Over 30 years of use?
Donna>
`````````````
Having said all that go in peace Donna and find what you are looking for.
````````````````````````````
Thanks. Same to you. (As long as it isn't me.) DSS
>
>P:S- What do you actually do to promote the cause of Human rights?
> ```````````````````````
I've done some things,some of them were mistakes. I marched in
a protest march against capital punishment.
I've written letters to state senators,and received replies on
the topic of legalized abortion,which I think denies the conceived
life the right to life. I'm hoping someday the abortion on demand
laws are changed. My views are always within the limits of law and I
would never break any laws to promote any causes because that's the
way I am.
We've donated to charities,on an international scale funds for
hospital administration for the poor,education for the poor,food
and clothing for the poor,medicines for the poor;not just deprived
but the poor and starving in famine ridden nations,parts of Africa.
Believe it or not prayers are said for those human beings who
are lacking human rights and basic rights:food,shelter,clothing and
peace. I do not pray for animals or believe in animal re-incarnation.
Our tax dollars go to causes that help some human rights.
Donna
``````````````````````
McCartney:
>
> 1. Smoked much pot.
>>
>>So everyone who ever smoked pot is an idiot?
```````````````````````````````````
Yes,everyone who *smoked much pot* is an idiot.
And their viewpoints will be taken into the
consideration of a person who has smoked much pot for
a long term period. And they will lose some credibility.
Of course,to another person who has smoked much pot for
a long term period,then their views are clouded with
'insight' and 'awareness'.
DSS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>
>>
>>> > 9. Sold music rights to Michael Jackson! DUMB!
>>
>>He did not, anyone familiar with the Beatles knows that Paul and John were
>>not the owners of their rights in the first place, so they didn't even have
>>them to sell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The songs were on the market and Paul could have purchased the package
but either he did not want to spend all that money or he did not think
they songs were worth it or he had better things to do with his
money. The songs were up for grabs and Michael Jackson purchased them.
This is history.
Donna
>>
>>> >
If these monkeys are in California and Michael Jackson,who
purchased and owns a large portion of the Beatles Catalogue lives
in California (sometimes) with his little chimp,"Bubbles"..........
DSS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
smith.
>nort...@mindspring.com (d.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>"At San Francisco University, they're planning to bombard monkeys with
>>145 decibels of sound which will make them deaf and they say it's OK
>>because they're anaesthetised first. And it's all to prove that you
>>shouldn't listen to loud music or stand under a jet plane. Well we know
>>that anyway."
Is Paul being logical when he says it is "ALL to prove that
you shouldn't listen to loud music or stand under a jet plane."
The monkey testing could be used to extrapolate information
on the effect of sound waves on flocks of birds at airports.
Since monkeys have larger brains than birds (hence the
expression "bird-brain" ie:tiny brain) the monkey's brains could
be examined or CAT scanned or MRI scanned to check how sound
effects monkeys and extrapolated to bird flocks.
This could be alzheimer research or any kind of brain research.
This could be a legitimate research project.
Thank you to northcut' for the McCartney quotation, It
provides some clarity in an otherwise clouded discussion. I admit
my part of the discussion was clouded. (Not the anti-pot part.)
Donna
>--
>
>
> Instead of worrying about monkeys,and noise tests on monkeys
>Sir Paul McCartney should think about the long term use of
>marijuana and all the pot he smoked in the 1960's,1970's,
>1980's and 1990's.
> I'm not going to get out my violin and shed any tears for
>any monkeys who are subject to loud decibels of noise,because
>I don't care about these monkeys that were tested.
> If mankind benefits from any monkey noise tests,then those
>monkeys have made a great sacrifice.
> The United States sent monkeys into outer space before we
>sent humans. I would imagine that "blast off" was noisey for
>those monkeys.
> The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
>satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
>the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
>being blasted off into outer space.
> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
>Just think about that.
> Donna
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
smith.
> > <snip>
> If mankind benefits from any monkey noise tests,then those
>monkeys have made a great sacrifice.
> The United States sent monkeys into outer space before we
>sent humans. I would imagine that "blast off" was noisey for
>those monkeys.
> The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
>satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
>the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
>being blasted off into outer space.
> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
>Just think about that.
> Donna
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
into outer space in space capsules eventually progressed into Pres.
Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,God Bless President
Reagan,and this Strategic Defence Initiative resulted in nuclear
disarmament agreements between the United States and the former
Soviet Union and then the nuclear disarmament agreements resulted
in dialogues and talks which resulted in the break up of communism
and the end of the Cold War and peace between these two world powers
and we can thank monkeys,monkeys who did more to promote world peace
than any Beatle song or lyric or album sale or any animal activist
because it all began with monkeys being blasted off into outer space
and now we have the break up of the Cold War & nuclear dis-armament.
So thank you little outer space monkeys. Thank you scientists.
Little monkey astronauts experiments led to nuclear dis-armament
and anti-nuclear proliferation treaties and the break up of
communism in the former Soviet Union. Little monkey astronauts.
And they never even sold a single record album or gave a rock
concert in Monserrat or anywhere else. Monkey astronauts accomplished
what the Beatles tried to do with "Give Peace a Chance": a great song.
Donna
tup...@seaside.net
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> xfj...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <6qi41c$l08$0...@204.179.92.138>,
> > "smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> >> nort...@mindspring.com (d.) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >And how does calling him "senile" help your argument in any case?
> >> >
> >> Calling Sir McCartney senile does not make him senile,this is true.
> >> However,if Sir McCartney is making statements in behalf of monkeys
> >> having any 'rights' or 'privileges' that super-cede human beings
> >> rights and privileges to the best medical treatments that they
> >> are able to afford then I would guesstimate that Sir McCartney
> >> is losing a portion of his reasoning abilities if he is putting
> >> animal welfare before human welfare(welfare meaning well being).
> >
> >get that? Did he say "kill all humans so monkeys will have someplace to
> >live"? The testing on the monkeys is not for any significant medical
> >research, they're not testing a new vaccine for AIDS on them. They're testing
> >the monkeys to see how loud noise will affect their hearing. DUH, it will
> >damage it. The test is a waste of money and cruel to the animals to find
> >something that has already been tested many times over. Those tests have been
> >done years and years ago, and even some doctors and experts since the story
> >came out have said how unnecessary the tests are. If you want exact names and
> >quotes I have the story somewhere. If I fall into a lake, I'll get wet. I
> >don't need some bored college department to spend tons of money to find that
> >out.
> >
> >
> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
>
> You mean it was just some dumb noise test? That's all?
> That was done on human beings already at (all the) rock concerts!
> And how about when the loud speakers make that screech noise?
> What is the life expentancy of a monkey,does anyone know?
> (If they're doing noise tests,there may be a reason we
> don't know like sound waves being used as a curative
> or sound waves or breaking the cound barrier or something
> to do with gravity or outer space or high definition television?)
> Maybe it's a test for some new telephone or talking computer or
> something? There's probably a reason for this. What is the name of
> the college MIT? Stanford? Or Flubber College?
> Donna
> ```````````````````````
>
about this issue or what the issue is about. What am I to do with you?
tup...@seaside.net
>I did not know that it was noise tests that Sir McCartney was
> objecting to.
> The source of my limited information was an article on the computer
> a headline under Reuters UK news,a blip. Not a long article.
This has become painfully obvious, Donna.
It is ironic that Sir McCartney is so concerned about noise
> levels that monkeys are subjected to after he was subjected to
> the screams of all those adoring fans and fan clubs and mobs of
> screaming females. Plus the noise of the Beatles concerts which
> filled stadiums etc.
OK. The test is to have monkeys subjected to high decibal sound (jet) which
is oh, about 10 X louder than any rock concert. When the monkeys wake up
they will be deaf little monkeys. This is so scientist can examine the ear
damage to loud sounds. What a wondrous benefit to mankind, eh, Donna?
Ofcourse you have already stated that you couldn't care less about these
monkeys, so...
> I enjoyed the Beatles when they were together and was a Beatle
> fan.
>
Your kidding! And here I thought for sure you were a Sinatra fan!
The next time Sir Paul McCartney is interviewed, I hope someone
> does ask him his opinion of monkeys or any other animals being
> used for medical research or trial vaccines,incl. cancer vaccines
> because these animals are injected with cancer virus's and I wonder
> if he would be in favor of this or if he is just opposed to the
> noise tests. Did the article state the purpose of the noise tests?
> I did not read the article.
> Donna
>
>Yes, well then you may have a leg to stand on! Until then...keep on hoppin'
Donna!
tup...@seaside.net
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> >
> John,this is a *gossip* newsgroup. Many threads have been started
> on this *gossip* newsgroup with no research involved other than one
> headline.
> DSS
Here's a new thread...Donna is really Yoko Ono. She enjoys watching "artists"
kill animals and use the guts to do is painting.
> This is a gossip newsgroup,John,who are you to tell me what
> "we" do. You are not me and I am not you and there is no collective
> "we". There are individuals who post here. Have you ever posted here
> before? This is a gossip group. Donna
All right already!
> > This is done all the time on this gossip board, This is gossip
> and speculation, This is the topic here,alt gossip.
> Donna
Geez, Donna...quit repeating yourself, you're sounding senile.
> It is debatable if he is the most successful songwriter in the
> world. I did not say he does not have ambition.
> DSS
> >```````
No debate, Donna. He has had more hit singles than anyone, ever. He
has performed at the biggest concert, ever. He is the wealthiest
musician anywhere, ever. (check out the guiness book of records).
> >I think that if asked dirrectly Paul would put animal rights on an equal
> >level with human rights, and quit rightly so, especialy after he has led a
> >successful campaign to keep his local hospital open.
> `````````````````````````
> You are speculating that yourself.
> Donna
Kinda like your gossip stuff eh, Donna?`````````````````````````````
>
> I'm talking about the effects of smoking pot for 30 consecutive
> years and the long term effects of smoking pot in the brain chemistry.
> I've always been led to believe that it (smoking pot for a long time)
> has a negative effect on the brain's chemistry and this is why it
> is illegal in so many countries,because it damages the brain and also
> possibly causes genetic damage. That was one of my points that you
> did not address. I am saying a person who has smoked pot for 30 or
> so years may not be the best person to champion a cause because he
> did not take very good care of himself of his brain if he,not Paul
> McCartney,but any one who has smoked pot for 30 years might not
> be taken seriously due to his drug history. Pot is a drug. It is
> used medically sometimes to alleviate pain because it dulls the
> senses and pain is sensory. If pot dulls the senses what does it do
> to the brain? Over 30 years of use?
> Donna>
> `````````````
Could I see the actual medical reports on this info, Donna? Oh yes,
also...how do you know so much about his pot smoking habits? From what I've
read he quit smoking pot in the '80s. I have no idea how much he smoked
before that. As far as I know there is no definate information indicating
that pot has any long term effects on the brain or the genetic makeup.
You know, Donna...after reading all your posts, I think the real story is that
you simply do not like Paul McCartney. That's ok...but do try to get the
details before you start mouthing off. Bye for now.
Tom
> Instead of worrying about monkeys,and noise tests on monkeys
>Sir Paul McCartney should think about the long term use of
>marijuana and all the pot he smoked in the 1960's,1970's,
>1980's and 1990's.
Why? How does the pot he smoked affect monkeys, or anyone other than
himself?
> The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
>satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
>the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
>being blasted off into outer space.
> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
>Just think about that.
I am thinking about it and it doesn't make any sense. How do these
experiements that haven't happened yet affect satellites that are already
up?
smith.
>
>
>>
>Why? How does the pot he smoked affect monkeys, or anyone other than
>himself?
monkeys.
The cumulative effects of 30 yrs. of sporadic pot smoking would
affect him in some way,but no monkeys would be affected,thank
goodness for that or that might be mis-treatment of monkeys.
>> The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
>>satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
>>the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
>>being blasted off into outer space.
>> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
>>Just think about that.
>
>I am thinking about it and it doesn't make any sense. How do these
>experiements that haven't happened yet affect satellites that are already
>up?
These monkeys could be descendants of the early astronaut
monkeys.and results might be extrapolated to determine hearing
test data for human beings or future astronauts from
undeveloped countries.the third world,etc.
It could not just be a hearing test. The ears,nose and
throat is related and all of this leads directly to the
brain,so maybe not just the ears and hearing are being
tested.
How do you know? How do I know? Most importantly how
does Sir Mc Cartney know?
Not the 1998 San Francisco monkeys, I'm talking about the
1958 NASA monkeys,exact date unknown.( approximate 1958-1968++++)
The point was that monkeys were used in the first space launches
back in the late 1950's or early 1960's and that monkeys
have been serving mankind in scientific experiments and in the
search for the unknown,outer space and military &/or scientific
research.
``````````````````````````
smith.
>In article <6qkajb$1mq$0...@204.179.92.75>,
> "smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
>> >
>> "we" do. You are not me and I am not you and there is no collective
>> "we". There are individuals who post here. Have you ever posted here
>> before? This is a gossip group. Donna
>
>
>> > >
>Geez, Donna...quit repeating yourself, you're sounding senile.
>
>> <snip for brevity>>> >```````
>No debate, Donna. He has had more hit singles than anyone, ever. He
>has performed at the biggest concert, ever. He is the wealthiest
>musician anywhere, ever. (check out the guiness book of records).
````````````````````````````````````````
Good for him. But will his hits last as long as:
"Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms"(1808)
or "Turkey in the Straw" (c.1834)? Or that British hit
called "Lord Randall"? (don't have a date for that one) :-)
>
>> >
>You know, Donna...after reading all your posts, I think the real story is that
>you simply do not like Paul McCartney. That's ok...but do try to get the
>details before you start mouthing off. Bye for now.
>
> Oh,he's ok.
Donna
smith.
>>
>Donna...your showing us that you haven't a clue as to what McCartney has said
>about this issue or what the issue is about. What am I to do with you?
>>
>
sunset at your seaside and play some McCartney music on our
CD players. What else?
So long and farewell it was just one of those things. :-)
Donna
smith.
The most touching and lovely Beatle song:
"Free As A Bird" original composition by
John Lennon,Beatles version by Lennon,McCartney,Harrison & Starr.
recorded New York circa 1977 & Sussex,England Feb/March 1994
DSS
Morley
smith. wrote in message <6ql079$aod$0...@204.179.92.133>...
Would it be possible for you McCartney pro and cons to take this out of agr
do you think? Morley
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> There are animals that cause nuisances and dangers to humans:
> deer run into moving autobiles,flocks of birds fly into jets
> and this can cause a crash,
That is because humans have built and come into areas that were rightfully
those animals' areas in the first place. And accidents caused by animals
account for probably less than one percent of roadway accidents. Also, due to
changes in airplanes' designs, it's basically impossible for a jet today to
be damaged by a bird.
> bird droppings can cause terrible
> pollution and in excess this gets into the water & kills fish
> and other wildlife.
Donna, you know so little about nature it's scary. 1) You would need to about
quadruple the number of birds for bird droppings to cause any inconvenience.
And even if there WAS that number, it would likely not harm any fish or other
wildlife. 2) Bird droppings and any other animal droppings are organic. Fish
and other animals go to the bathroom in the water all the time, it doesn't
kill them. Millions of years went by with birds going to the bathroom in
lakes, etc. and fish were fine. Your statement is just a total made-up lie to
make yourself fell better. Any sane person knows very well that humans caused
the pollution of rivers and oceans and lakes, not *birds* for Chrissake.
> I don't "go" for this animal-rights stuff and that's all there
> is to it and nothing you say,Jamie is going to change my mind.
> I think it is downright "nutty". (The cosmetics testing is
> unnecessary,but that's as fas as I'll go.)
So you just ignore facts? Well, then, that's your right.
> Paul may be extra sensitive to the noise situation due to all
> the screaming hordes of fans plus the Beatles' amplifiers. What
> would he say about the noise decibel levels at rock concerts and
> the humans who are exposed to that and parents who bring babies
> and young children to those noisy rock concerts?
Probably: don't bring young children. It's just basic common sense. Humans
have choices, but it seems as if you would prefer tons of animals to die
simply because they would inconvenience humans. Humans are animals, and part
of a worldwide chain, and if all these species keep dying off, so will we.
> Jamie,you have your rhetoric and that's fine but I do not agree
> with this animal rights stuff,I'm turning a deaf ear.
It's facts, not rhetoric. And it is very immature when instead of debating,
when knowing that you have nothing to debate with, you instead pretend it
doesn't exist.
~Jamie
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
>
> Sir McCartney's 30 years of sporadic pot smoking don't affect any
> monkeys.
> The cumulative effects of 30 yrs. of sporadic pot smoking would
> affect him in some way,but no monkeys would be affected,thank
> goodness for that or that might be mis-treatment of monkeys.
1) Why do you care so much about Paul's pot smoking?
2) A recent medical study showed that even continuous pot smoking on the level
of Bob Marley does not cause any damage to the brain. Since Paul smoked
considerably less than Marley, plus he's healthy, it's safe to say that he
sustained no damage.
3) Many, many medical studies have shown the benefit of marijuana. That's why
it's being subscribed for AIDS and cancer patients.
> >I am thinking about it and it doesn't make any sense. How do these
> >experiements that haven't happened yet affect satellites that are already
> >up?
> These monkeys could be descendants of the early astronaut
> monkeys.and results might be extrapolated to determine hearing
> test data for human beings or future astronauts from
> undeveloped countries.the third world,etc.
1) The monkeys used by NASA were in tests for future human astronauts.
2) Humans in space are not needed to launch satellites.
3) The monkey experimenting in NASA had nothing to do with satellites.
4) The descendents of the original NASA monkeys are currently being sold by
NASA.
5) The tests at the University in 1998 are not being used for any astronaut.
They are not being used for any advancement in hearing understanding.
> It could not just be a hearing test.
Yes, it could.
> The ears,nose and
> throat is related and all of this leads directly to the
> brain,so maybe not just the ears and hearing are being
> tested.
They are. It's a test that is needless, because it's already been done before.
> How do you know?
Because I read the article.
>How do I know?
You obviously don't.
> Most importantly how
> does Sir Mc Cartney know?
He was given the information; Also, he can read.
> Not the 1998 San Francisco monkeys, I'm talking about the
> 1958 NASA monkeys,exact date unknown.( approximate 1958-1968++++)
> The point was that monkeys were used in the first space launches
> back in the late 1950's or early 1960's and that monkeys
> have been serving mankind in scientific experiments and in the
> search for the unknown,outer space and military &/or scientific
> research.
Donna, your arguments are ever more hilarious. What does this have to do with
the discussion? Paul is not back in the Fifties protesting monkeys used in
NASA. The two things are completely unrelated. Check your calender: it's
1998, not 1958.
chri...@ufl.edu
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
> Just think about that.
> Donna
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
In what way does blasting loud music into the ears of monkeys maintain world
peace?
--
Christine
"You just talk, and I'll watch."
chri...@ufl.edu--Yeah, you know...
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > America's space initiative which began with monkey's being blasted
> into outer space in space capsules eventually progressed into Pres.
> Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,God Bless President
> Reagan,
Oh, she's a *right wing* nut. Shocking.
> and this Strategic Defence Initiative resulted in nuclear
> disarmament agreements between the United States and the former
> Soviet Union and then the nuclear disarmament agreements resulted
> in dialogues and talks which resulted in the break up of communism
> and the end of the Cold War and peace between these two world powers
> and we can thank monkeys,monkeys who did more to promote world peace
> than any Beatle song or lyric or album sale or any animal activist
> because it all began with monkeys being blasted off into outer space
> and now we have the break up of the Cold War & nuclear dis-armament.
Psst! I think Donna's gone insane. She thinks monkeys ended the cold war.
> So thank you little outer space monkeys.
Yes, thank the little monkeys. Tell me Donna, are the "little outer space
monkeys" there with you now?
> Little monkey astronauts experiments led to nuclear dis-armament
> and anti-nuclear proliferation treaties and the break up of
> communism in the former Soviet Union. Little monkey astronauts.
Um, no, they didn't. First off, the first animal in space was a dog. A
RUSSIAN dog, BTW. Secondly, that cleared the way for a man to go into space,
which was experimental anyway. You should be thanking the first man in space,
he was more experimental than any previous animal shot out in space. (But I
believe he was Russian, so that wouldn't work with your reasoning anyway.
Yes, Donna, the Soviet Union is responsible for the things you've chalked up
to the US.) That paved the way for more men in space. Also, the space race
had nothing to do with any nuclear disarmament in the Eighties. The Cold War
involved nuclear arms, Donna, not space. By the Eighties, NASA was in deep
shit; there had been a lack of interest in space missions which started
basically after the '69 moon landing. In the early 80s, NASA was coming into
even more shit with the Challenger disaster; which was originally supposed to
jog more interest in space missions, BTW. (The whole reason Christa McAuliffe
was on the mission.) Another thing: there are still nuclear weapons in the
former Soviet Union aimed at the United States today. 60 Minutes did a whole
piece on it; it would take two seconds for a nuclear missile to be launched
at the USA.
~Jamie
Tom
>> >
>> John,this is a *gossip* newsgroup. Many threads have been started
>> on this *gossip* newsgroup with no research involved other than one
>> headline.
>> DSS
>
as a defense for your thread, you shouldn't post that thread to other
groups.
>Here's a new thread...Donna is really Yoko Ono. She enjoys watching
"artists"
>kill animals and use the guts to do is painting.
>
week ago. Guess that shows the danger of trusting a second hand news report.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Göring
>
> Also, due to changes in airplanes' designs, it's basically impossible
> for a jet today to be damaged by a bird.
Gee... the USAF would disagree with you. One of my husband's
classmates
struck a bird in his T-1. The little feathered darling managed to
completely "shell" the engine (in other words, the engine was completely
gutted) but not before it managed to utterly destroy the "Radome" (which
is where the radar is located.) My husband struck a bird in his T-1,
and was luckier - the bird only flattened itself on his canopy. A
little
lower or a little higher, and the bird would have shattered the canopy
itself. This is why my husband is required to wear his visor under
10,000 feet in altitude - so if a bird comes through, he will have some
chance of saving his eyes.
Also, you might want to tell the families of the crewmembers killed on
E-3A Sentry that the flock of Canada geese that downed their (pretty
damned big) AWACS airborne radar jet was "basically impossible." The
crewmembers were shipped home with their dog tags in their mouths in
ziplock bags.
In the past six months, a T-34 pilot lost an eye to a bird that struck-
and went through- the canopy.
It is MANDATORY that ALL USAF pilots report EACH and EVERY "birdstrike."
They take precautions: they study the migratory patterns, grow the
grass
longer near the runways so the birds do not want to nest there, and
they call out positions of airborne birds just like they were MiGs.
Part of EVERY AF pre-flight briefing details "what happens if we hit
a bird?"
I worked for a civilian airline for 3 years. You should see what a
L-1011's Rolls-Royce engine looks like after a bird has gone through
it. Amazing what major damage such a small creature can cause. Sure,
big civilian aircraft can land with one damaged engine, but it usually
causes the pilots - if not the crew and passengers - to suck the seats
up their rectums in what is caused the "pucker factor."
The smaller aircraft stand less of a chance. Depending on where it
hits, air speed and altitude, a sparrow could take down an F-16.
--
- CEM-L-G
walk...@ioNET.net
"Who can refute a sneer?"
- William Paley (1743-1805):
Moral Philosophy. Vol. ii. Book v. Chap. 9.
*** Note to all: Still having trouble with my servers.
Please copy any answers to my E-Mail address.
smith.
>. Also, due to
>changes in airplanes' designs, it's basically impossible for a jet today to
>be damaged by a bird.
Liar,fabricator, This is a blatent lie! After this post I have
nothing more to say to you,not even good-bye.
``````````````````````````````````````
>
>> bird droppings can cause terrible
>> pollution and in excess this gets into the water & kills fish
>> and other wildlife.
>
>Donna, you know so little about nature it's scary.
Jamie,young man you know nothing of the Chesapeake Bay or the
tributaries that flow into the Bay and how the eco-balance
has been upset from chicken droppings that have been spread as
fertilizer and also disposed of in a manner that has fed these
chicken droppings into the Chesapeake Bay region. This is not made up.
You are a child & you are bluffing when you don't know what you
are talking about. I have nothing more to say to you.
>>
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> >1. We research all of the facts before we start a thread on a newsgroup.
> >
> John,this is a *gossip* newsgroup. Many threads have been started
> on this *gossip* newsgroup with no research involved other than one
> headline.
I find that hard to believe. Normal people usually read the actual article
before starting a debate about it.
>
> >2. We dont attack peaple and call somebody senile when that person is
> >obviously a lot more sane and together than we are ourselves.
> > This is a gossip newsgroup,John,who are you to tell me what
> "we" do. You are not me and I am not you and there is no collective
> "we". There are individuals who post here. Have you ever posted here
> before? This is a gossip group.
I didn't know "gossip" meant "automatically attacking without facts."
> >4. We dont call the worlds most successful singer/songwrighter a man without
> >ambition.
> > It is debatable if he is the most successful songwriter in the
> world. I did not say he does not have ambition.
Donna, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of the Guiness Book of World
Records 1998 and then tell us whose name is listed under "Most Successful
Songwriter." Tell me, do you often lie like this?
> >I think that if asked dirrectly Paul would put animal rights on an equal
> >level with human rights, and quit rightly so, especialy after he has led a
> >successful campaign to keep his local hospital open.
> `````````````````````````
> You are speculating that yourself.
He is not, it is a fact that Paul and Linda led a successful campaign (using
their own names AND money) to keep their local hospital open.
> I'm talking about the effects of smoking pot for 30 consecutive
> years
No, you are not. You were talking about the monkeys.
> and the long term effects of smoking pot in the brain chemistry.
> I've always been led to believe that it (smoking pot for a long time)
> has a negative effect on the brain's chemistry and this is why it
> is illegal in so many countries,because it damages the brain and also
> possibly causes genetic damage.
No, like I said in my other post, a recent study done showed no negative
effects of very heavy long term marijuana use; in fact many doctors have
championed marijuana for medical use. It does not cause genetic damage,
that's just blatantly made up.
> That was one of my points that you
> did not address.
I can give you many citations. In fact, I posted a long list of facts
concerning medical research, which you ignored. Also, you blatantly made up
how marijuana works when used for medical purposes.
> I am saying a person who has smoked pot for 30 or
> so years may not be the best person to champion a cause because he
> did not take very good care of himself of his brain if he,not Paul
> McCartney,but any one who has smoked pot for 30 years might not
> be taken seriously due to his drug history. Pot is a drug. It is
> used medically sometimes to alleviate pain because it dulls the
> senses and pain is sensory. If pot dulls the senses what does it do
> to the brain? Over 30 years of use?
Obviously nothing YOU would know about, as you do not show the least bit of
knowledge of medical matters, or of Paul McCartney, for that matter, or else
you would know he hasn't smoked pot for thirty years. You are painfully
obviously not a medical professional.
> >P:S- What do you actually do to promote the cause of Human rights?
> > ```````````````````````
> I've done some things,some of them were mistakes. I marched in
> a protest march against capital punishment.
> I've written letters to state senators,and received replies on
> the topic of legalized abortion,which I think denies the conceived
> life the right to life. I'm hoping someday the abortion on demand
> laws are changed. My views are always within the limits of law and I
> would never break any laws to promote any causes because that's the
> way I am.
And since when has Paul McCartney broken any laws regarding animal rights? It
may be a shock to you, Donna, but there's a thing in America called free
speech, and Paul McCartney and I and anyone else are perfectly within our
rights to protest these experiments.
> Believe it or not prayers are said for those human beings who
> are lacking human rights and basic rights:food,shelter,clothing and
> peace. I do not pray for animals or believe in animal re-incarnation.
And you're saying McCartney doesn't? He doesn't believe in reincarnation, BTW.
In fact, I guarantee you he has saved more people's lives than you ever will.
> >>So everyone who ever smoked pot is an idiot?
> ```````````````````````````````````
> Yes,everyone who *smoked much pot* is an idiot.
Which is your opinion since their is no medical evidence to support that.
> And their viewpoints will be taken into the
> consideration of a person who has smoked much pot for
> a long term period. And they will lose some credibility.
Perhaps only to lying right-wingers who can't even get basic facts straight.
> Of course,to another person who has smoked much pot for
> a long term period,then their views are clouded with
> 'insight' and 'awareness'.
I have never smoked a joint in my life, and Paul is perfectly intelligent to
me.
> The songs were on the market and Paul could have purchased the package
> but either he did not want to spend all that money or he did not think
> they songs were worth it or he had better things to do with his
> money.
Nope. They weren't only HIS to buy, as it was half John's, Yoko needed to put
up the money, too, which she didn't. But you wouldn't know this, and you
don't seem to know ANYTHING about any subject you are discussing.
> If these monkeys are in California and Michael Jackson,who
> purchased and owns a large portion of the Beatles Catalogue lives
> in California (sometimes) with his little chimp,"Bubbles"..........
Are you drunk?
smith.
>>
>Would it be possible for you McCartney pro and cons to take this out of agr
>do you think? Morley
>
>
Donna
BRogers115
>>>
>>As pharmaceurticals are such a huge industry, are you so sure that
>>unnecessary testing is not going on? With the technolgy of today, there may
>>be other means to gather the data required.
>```````````````````````````````
>>
> Du Pont,Merck, Merck-Du,Pont,Imperial Chemicals Industries employ
>some of the best scientists there are and they would not run tests
>that were not necessary because these are cost-efficient organizations
>and they must account to their Board of Directors and stock holders.
>Since they are not charities,but profit motivated they would not
>engage in expensive unnecessary testing.
Donna, you are 100% wrong about this. These companies can and do engage in
unnecessary testing. All the proof you would need is to look into all the
products that are quite effective and perfectly safe, including cosmetics, that
have never been tested on animals.
It's been reported for years that better research can be done using computer
models rather than animals or humans.
It's been thoroughly documented that researchers seldom treat research animals
with "sensitivity". Don't you remember the not so long ago raid on a
neurologist's lab and the absolutely hideous conditions those monkeys were in.
We have a primate center here where these poor animals and others used in
research come if someone cares enough to save them.
Another absolute fact is that drug researchers are not above falsifying
research data to get the results in print that they want. And this includes
human testing also.
Drug Research has very little to do with any concern other than money, and when
it comes to money it seems that all thoughts of morality and even human decency
go flying right out the window.
On this subject at least, you are living in a dreamworld. The literature isn't
easy reading but you really should find out what's really happening.
> Donna
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>>> <snipped>
>>Ever heard of the Grateful Dead, the Doors, Santana, Rolling Stones...need I
>>go on? Besides, how come you and I were so smart? I think the "burned
out
>>aging hippies" only have theirselves to blame.
>````````````````````````
> The Beatles 'drugged music period' were before the other groups.
>Maybe the Rolling Stones paralleled this drug thing,but not to
>the extent the Beatles did. Then came the others,my generation was
>the Beatles and groups like The Strawberry Alarm Clock. I was busy
>working when Grateful Dead sang and working when Bee Gees were popular.
>Stopped buying music after the Beatles broke up.
> I think the Beatles created a mileau where international drug use
>became 'cool' and 'hip' and 'chic'. Luckily, I didn't jump on this
>trend, I was too square.<But was against Viet Nam war.>
> DSS
>>
>>
>>> That's like a parent telli
Brenda
BRogers115
>>> >And how does calling him "senile" help your argument in any case?
>>> >
>>> Calling Sir McCartney senile does not make him senile,this is true.
>>> However,if Sir McCartney is making statements in behalf of monkeys
>>> having any 'rights' or 'privileges' that super-cede human beings
>>> rights and privileges to the best medical treatments that they
>>> are able to afford then I would guesstimate that Sir McCartney
>>> is losing a portion of his reasoning abilities if he is putting
>>> animal welfare before human welfare(welfare meaning well being).
Donna, only a really sick mind would think like this. Don't you have any
compassion. Don't you realize that if the animals were to choose, they'd choose
not to be tortured to death? Don't you realize that there are more important
things than your physical well-being? There are other people who feel like you
do, and all I can say is that you all must live in a spiritual desert.
>>
>>"It's always been and will always be compassion for animals.
>>That's it! It's not the health thing, important though that is. It's
>>respect for our fellow species. We're just another animal, yet we think
>>we're so clever, know so much. But what have we done? We're headed
>>towards disaster and won't even acknowledge it."
>>
>>Statements which you will no doubt attack. But try to think of it this
>>way: perhaps his thinking is more rooted in a kind of spiritualism. Many
>>(most?) cultural traditions raise us to believe in the right of total
>>dominance of man over animals. This modern science we worship so much has
>>also proven that we are animals, too, with the advantages (?) of opposable
>>thumbs and larger brains. No one but the most wild-eyed animal-rights
>>freak would deny that some animal research has brought about crucial
>>advances in the medical field. But the fact is, it has become a sort of
>>crutch, and many of the experiments are unecessary, such as the monkey
>>experiments in California he has recently spoken out against.
>>
>>> Since this research is top secret, I wonder how
>>> Sir McCartney is of the opinion that the monkeys are mis-treated?
>>
>>"At San Francisco University, they're planning to bombard monkeys with
>>145 decibels of sound which will make them deaf and they say it's OK
>>because they're anaesthetised first. And it's all to prove that you
>>shouldn't listen to loud music or stand under a jet plane. Well we know
Brenda
xfj...@my-dejanews.com
"smith." <st...@magpage.com> wrote:
> Du Pont,Merck, Merck-Du,Pont,Imperial Chemicals Industries employ
> some of the best scientists there are and they would not run tests
> that were not necessary because these are cost-efficient organizations
> and they must account to their Board of Directors and stock holders.
> Since they are not charities,but profit motivated they would not
> engage in expensive unnecessary testing.
That's hysterical. Yeah, pharmaceutical companies are totally humane and
honest, aren't they? Companies are motivated by money. The stockholders care
about money, period. And they don't care if the companies do tons of
unnecessary testing, as long as they still bring in money.
> The Beatles 'drugged music period' were before the other groups.
> Maybe the Rolling Stones paralleled this drug thing,but not to
> the extent the Beatles did.
Um, yeah. Back in the Sixties everyone was a moron who took drugs only cause
the Beatles did. Yes, Donna, that's an easy way for anyone to avoid taking
responsibilty for their own actions.
> I think pot fogs the brain. I think a person is less sharp after
> *decades* of pot use. Like 30 years of pot,yuck!
And your evidence and medical citations, please.
> >The testing on monkeys is to blast (airplane) decible sound into their ears
to
> >see how deaf they go. Gosh, this is a big mystery?
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````
> That was already done on humans at rock concerts. :-)
So why do it on the monkeys?
>
> Yes. I'll leave the animal testing up to licensed scientists
> and pharmaceutical corporations.
LOL, yeah, pharmaceutical corporations are totally honest, and lots of medical
advancement was made at pharmeceutical companies.
> I am a stock-holder (just a
> little stock as an investment) in several major pharmaceutical
> corporations and as I stock-holder I have a vested interest on
> this subject and I do not want Sir Mc Cartney to dictate company
> policy.
Tell me where and when he's done that.
> If he is a stock holder then he can speak at the next
> Du Pont meeting,actually I don't own any Du Pont stock,but some
> pharmaceutical companies stock.
The companies you have stock in, unless you own a couple million $ worth,
don't care what you think about their company. They much more would care
about what Paul McCartney, net worth over $800 million and owner of a
multi-million dollar company, megastar able to give them bad publicity,
thinks than you or I.
> If he comes to Delaware,I would
> recommend the Nicholas & Alexandra exhibit. Maybe he could
> find a really worthy cause such as the Hermitage Museum that
> needs financial assistance and has been around for many years
> since Catherine the Great.
Um, yes, I'm sure he would ne interested in a museum about Russian royalty.
NOT.
UCI
> 145 decibels of sound which will make them deaf and they say it's OK
> because they're anaesthetised first. And it's all to prove that you
> shouldn't listen to loud music or stand under a jet plane. Well we know
>
> > > Does he view all medical treatment of monkeys used experimentally as
> > > mis-treatment? What did he say,in a nutshell?
>
> "It became very difficult when Linda died because I said I would support
> cancer charities, and animal rights groups wrote to me pointing out that
> many were heavily into vivisection -- and it's true. A doctor we knew
> out in America just admitted it as a matter of fact, innocently, like
> 'Well, sure we do'. What he doesn't realise is that he won't get a
> donation out of me for that very fact."
A few questions out of curiosity--
1. For the people outraged by the monkey/noise experiments: If the data
was eventually used to create a cure for human deafness or ear damage due
to high decibels would that change your minds? What if the experiments
directly tested a surgical procedure to correct the noise-induced damage
immediately following the tests, would that be okay?
2. Although people here argue that Paul McCartney only spoke against this
singular experiment and not about the use of animals to find cures and
vaccines for human diseases, I had been told that the organization he
speaks highly of, PETA, does indeed endorse a policy of no animal research
whatsoever. Is this correct? If it is TRUE (or if the below quote is
true) then I trust Linda did not use any drugs or cancer therapy that had
been developed with the aid of animals lives. I would hope this would go
for all of those sponsoring PETA as well.
******************************************************************************
Mike Warren
>
>
> Instead of worrying about monkeys,and noise tests on monkeys
> Sir Paul McCartney should think about the long term use of
> marijuana and all the pot he smoked in the 1960's,1970's,
> 1980's and 1990's.
> I'm not going to get out my violin and shed any tears for
> any monkeys who are subject to loud decibels of noise,because
> I don't care about these monkeys that were tested.
> If mankind benefits from any monkey noise tests,then those
> monkeys have made a great sacrifice.
> The United States sent monkeys into outer space before we
> sent humans. I would imagine that "blast off" was noisey for
> those monkeys.
> The whole world has benefited from the use of satellites and
> satellites are used as an instrument for maintaining peace in
> the world. And to think,it began with monkeys in space capsules.
> being blasted off into outer space.
> These monkey experiments are a factor in maintaining world peace.
> Just think about that.
> Donna
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why stop there Donna?..why not use downs syndrome
people to experiment on?..or any mentally subormal
person.??....actually using REAL humans would be
much more usefull in clinical trials than animals...
You sound like youve been brainwashed by the
powers that be..all that stuff about world peace as a result
of technology...its only by the grace of god that we havent
all blown ourselves to smithereens by now...and its
not certain yet that we wont.
are you aware that more people(pro rata for pop growth)
have died this century from war than at any other time in human
existence?.
Mike Warren.