Animal testing
Linda Cole
>
> I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal) that
> were or are testing their products on animals.
>
> I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> public discovered that they tested on animals,
> what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against it...
>
> Any information would be a great help.
>
> Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
My husband and I are lifetime PETA members. We are also concerned
about this. There have been numerous companies & labs 'caught'
using dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits (etc.) while claiming it
is for the 'good of the people' and this shouldn't be
permitted. Animals should never be abused or mistreated.
Linda & Robert Cole
Frank Pantaleo
Linda Cole wrote in message <39FC6169...@newsguy.com>...
>pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal) that
>> were or are testing their products on animals.
For years, I avoided buying L'Oreal products because I was told that they
did animal testing. I bought Clairol. Recently, I thought I read (I thought
on the PETA website) that I had it all wrong, that Clairol did the animal
testing and not L'Oreal, so for the last six months, I have been making a
point of buying L'Oreal. I am confused. Does L'Oreal do animal testing or
not? What about Clairol?
Thanks.
--Cindy S.
Don Klipstein
>
>For years, I avoided buying L'Oreal products because I was told that they
>did animal testing. I bought Clairol. Recently, I thought I read (I thought
>on the PETA website) that I had it all wrong, that Clairol did the animal
>testing and not L'Oreal, so for the last six months, I have been making a
>point of buying L'Oreal. I am confused. Does L'Oreal do animal testing or
>not? What about Clairol?
One thing to consider about those "cruelty free" products... How many
of them are basically copies of something tested by someone else on
animals and "approved" on the basis of the results of animal testing that
they can claim they don't do?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Frank Pantaleo
Don Klipstein wrote in message ...
>
> One thing to consider about those "cruelty free" products... How many
>of them are basically copies of something tested by someone else on
>animals and "approved" on the basis of the results of animal testing that
>they can claim they don't do?
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
And another thing...
A few years ago, I received a free sample of a Lever product. I called the
company to find out if they did animal testing. The representative asked me
to hold on a moment and then read to me some statement that went on and on
about how the company tries to avoid animal testing and will do said testing
only if it is absolutely necessary blah, blah, blah, to which I responded
"So, your company does animal testing. " She again started reading this
statement about "Our company tries to avoid animal testing and does so only
when...and again, I interrupted her and said "In other words, your company
does animal testing." A third time, she began to read the same prepackaged
statement, and a fourth time. After I interrupted her for the fourth time,
she finally admitted "Yes, we do animal testing... (but only when absolutely
necessary)." I called the Dial company and asked if they tested their
products on animals. I got the answer in one word: "No." For years, I
bought Dial products. Now, I see they are also on PETA's list. Did they
lie? What is going on? I am so confused.
--Cindy S.
Ward M. Clark
news:39FC6169...@newsguy.com...
> pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal) that
> > were or are testing their products on animals.
> >
> > I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> > public discovered that they tested on animals,
> > what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against it...
> >
> > Any information would be a great help.
> >
> > Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
>
> My husband and I are lifetime PETA members
<snip>
How do you feel about your dues money being spent on a $35,000 yacht? Does
the yacht help save any animals? If so, how?
--
Ward M. Clark
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been
lazm
Have you lifetime suckers ever checked on how many animals PETA has killed
in Norfolk, Atlantic City, and their "farm" in Maryland?
lazm
own veggies so animals aren't killed. If not, wtf difference does it make
if a company uses animals to make sure you recieve a safe product?
"Frank Pantaleo" <mo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Nc%K5.100511$JS3.15...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Elric of Imrryr
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(_Washington_Post_, May 30, 1989)
Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable crimes"
when used for the animals' cause.
-Alex Pacheco (PETA)
My ideal is "a return to the garden of Eden where even the animals are
vegetarian."
-Andrea Reed, Louisville Fund for Animals
(_Lexington_Herald_, 1990)
* * *
The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human
being.
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
* * *
Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler
chickens will die this year in slaughter houses.
-Ingrid Newkirk (PETA)
(_Washington_Post_, Nov 13, 1983)
* * *
We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child.
-Alex Pacheco (PETA)
(_New_York_Times_, Jan 14, 1989)
* * *
On leather jackets: That's the next step. You have to take one step at a
time. It was easier to start with fur.
-Dan Matthews, Director of Fur Campaign, PETA
(_Detroit_News_, August 13, 1989)
* * *
Never buy wool again. Choose only cotton, synthetics and other non-animal
fibers. The sheep are embarrassed when they are shorn, sometimes they are
nicked during the process, and they get cold afterward.
(_PETA_News_, August 13, 1989)
* * *
Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(_Washingtonian_Magazine_, August 1986)
"Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of
the planet."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Reader's Digest, June, 1990
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human
manipulation."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Washington Magazine, August 1986
"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals.
(Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They would have full
lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet
them and then sit there and watch TV."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
"Where Would We Be Without Animals?, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990
* * *
"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return
to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Harpers, August, 1988
* * *
"We have a lazy, sick society. People bring diseases on themselves.
[People should] avoid getting the disease in the first place."
Dan Mathews - PETA spokesperson
USA Today, July 27, 1994
* * *
Question to PETA Outreach Coordinator Susan Rich: "If you were aboard a
lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which would you
rescue?"
Rich's answer: "I wouldn't know for sure...I might choose the human baby
or I might choose the dog."
Steve Kane Show WIOD-AM Radio Miami, FL Feb, 23, 1989
* * *
"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human
interference, dogs and cats would part of the ecological scheme."
PETA's Statement on Companion Animals
Me
news:MPG.146674f5f...@nntp.we.mediaone.net...
>
> Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable crimes"
> when used for the animals' cause.
> -Alex Pacheco (PETA)
>
> My ideal is "a return to the garden of Eden where even the animals are
> vegetarian."
> -Andrea Reed, Louisville Fund for Animals
> (_Lexington_Herald_, 1990)
I think these PETA people go too far. They once picketed a restaurant
in Atlantic City that served lobster, but they didn't bother to verify that
the restaurant was actually opened at the time they held their picket. They
held their picket at noon, but the restaurant wasn't opened at that hour!
Being a carnivore, I feel that it would be hypocritical for me to stand
opposed to all animal testing. I am against animal testing only for
products that are not essential to our health and well-being. For example,
it seems totally pointless and cruel to test perfumes on animals, but
I have no problem using animals to test medicines that may save us
and animals great pain. Where testing can be simulated by computer
modeling, it certainly should be, but for PETA to say that all animal
testing is wrong and that those of us who do not have a vegetarian
diet are wrong is just silly.
Frank Pantaleo
lazm wrote in message <8tihg9$6sr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>No shit you're confused. I take it you refuse medical care and grow your
>own veggies so animals aren't killed. If not, wtf difference does it make
>if a company uses animals to make sure you recieve a safe product?
>
conclusions about me. All I said, essentially, was that I would prefer to
avoid using an animal-tested cosmetic when there is an alternative
available. In my view, cosmetics are unnecessary vanity items, (and a far
cry from medical care, by the way). Fine, you don't share this view, and
you are entitled to your opinion. But why the need to be so rude?
--Cindy S.
jazmyn
They are sheared in warm weather and suffer horribly from the heat when
NOT sheared. In a bad heat wave, sheep can even die from overheating if
not sheared. Sheep lack the brains to be embarrassed by being 'naked'.
Even parrots, who are far smarter then sheep, are not embarrassed when
they moult and all their feathers fall out.
Elric of Imrryr wrote:
>
> * * *
>
> Never buy wool again. Choose only cotton, synthetics and other non-animal
> fibers. The sheep are embarrassed when they are shorn, sometimes they are
> nicked during the process, and they get cold afterward.
> (_PETA_News_, August 13, 1989)
>
--
Unsolicited email not accepted and will be reported.
NO SPAM!!
lazm
So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet people
just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something like
construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out there.
Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
>
>
Frank Pantaleo
lazm wrote in message <8tiqre$2ai$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
tested, and if I prefer to buy those, why does that make you so angry?
--Cindy S.
Frank Pantaleo
>So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet people
>just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something like
>construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out
there.
>Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
>
Fine. And if there are soaps and cosmetics available that are not
animal-tested, and I prefer to buy those, why does that make you so angry?
--Cindy S.
Richard Bishop
>
> lazm wrote in message <8tihg9$6sr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >No shit you're confused. I take it you refuse medical care and grow your
> >own veggies so animals aren't killed. If not, wtf difference does it
make
> >if a company uses animals to make sure you recieve a safe product?
> >
> Considering that you don't know me, you seem to jump to an awful lot of
> conclusions about me. All I said, essentially, was that I would prefer to
> avoid using an animal-tested cosmetic when there is an alternative
> available. In my view, cosmetics are unnecessary vanity items,
So soap, shampoo are unnecessary vanity items?
>(and a far
> cry from medical care, by the way). Fine, you don't share this view, and
> you are entitled to your opinion. But why the need to be so rude?
You are new here. Many of us have been here for years and have heard the
same tired arguments over and over and over. It tends to get rather boring
to hear them again, especially since most ARLs who show up here will post
for a while, then whine someone has been mean to them. Then they leave.
So, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Sue
>
> --Cindy S.
>
>
nichy
> > you are entitled to your opinion. But why the need to be so rude?
> You are new here. Many of us have been here for years and have heard the
> same tired arguments over and over and over. It tends to get rather
boring
> to hear them again, especially since most ARLs who show up here will post
> for a while, then whine someone has been mean to them. Then they leave.
>
> So, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I find this last comment to be remarkably rude and arrogant. Good for you
that you have been here for years, you obviously know all there is to know
about anything that needs to be known. If these tired arguments get so
boring to hear, why bother reading the thread? And why bother replying?
Considering you have been here for soooo long, seems like a LOT of issues
would be raised and re-raised, and I bet they become tiring for you too. So
do you complain about re-reading all of them?
Richard Bishop
nichy <rke...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Wy7L5.3930$Tq6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
BTW, cross-posting across a huge number of groups is definitely a No-No.
This is talk.politics.animals.
You totally missed my point. I suggest you lurk for a while and learn how
the discussions go on this group. It's ALWAYS been a place for heated
discussions.
If you want nice, go somewhere else.
If you are going to have hurt feelings if someone contradicts you, go
somewhere else.
If you can't defend your stance, go somewhere else.
If you are going to pout if someone calls you a fool, go somewhere else.
Sue
>
>
>
>
emanning
bible). There are abuses of animal testing, I'll admit. Spraying hair
spray into an animals' eyes is ridiculous and abusive. But if animal
testing leads to a cure for AIDS or cancer or some other disease, then I'm
for it.
If I had to chose between saving a baby or saving a dog when a boat
capsized, I would definitely choose the baby. I very much love my cat but
compare that love to my son? It's not even close. If I had to choose
between my cat or my son getting run over in the street....goodbye kitty.
Elric of Imrryr <Elric_o...@email.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.146674f5f...@nntp.we.mediaone.net...
Steve Knight
>
>So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet people
>just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something like
>construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out there.
>Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
soap does not need to be tested. been around for more years then we know. and
cosmetics are not a necessary item they are one to satisfy vanity.
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes +Galoot Made Products-
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com
For prices and ordering instructions.
M i k e M a r s h a l l
>So soap, shampoo are unnecessary vanity items?
What part of the manufacturing process still requires putting
soap in a bunny's eyes? They can vivisect my cat if it helps
them find a cure for cancer, but torturing animals down at
the shampoo factory seems unnecessary.
-Mike "bunnies are delicious"
M i k e M a r s h a l l
>On leather jackets: That's the next step. You have to take one step at a
>time. It was easier to start with fur.
>-Dan Matthews, Director of Fur Campaign, PETA
>(_Detroit_News_, August 13, 1989)
I'm anxious for them to show up at the Harley shop with
cans of red spray paint!
-Mike
Richard Bishop
Jim Powlesland <powl...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.100103...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Linda Cole wrote:
>
> > My husband and I are lifetime PETA members.
>
> members.
>
> You have no say in how PETA spends your money, most of which goes to
> media stunts, salaries, overhead, and more fund raising.
Also 'fact finding jaunts' to lovely locations like Hawaii and don't forget
that
yacht.
Sue
nichy
> BTW, cross-posting across a huge number of groups is definitely a No-No.
> This is talk.politics.animals.
From your previous post, you will see that YOU are the one to cross post
over such a large number of groups. THIS is rec.pets.dogs.misc
James Hepler
remove it from the header, but I don't have the stomach to get into
another "debate" with Sue Bishop. I'm posting from RPDM, BTW. Hi
everyone I like.
If Cat in Alaska still reads, would you email me? I went up there in
July and wanted to chat with you about it.
Richard Bishop wrote:
>
> Frank Pantaleo <mo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:SS5L5.102550$JS3.15...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > lazm wrote in message <8tihg9$6sr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > >No shit you're confused. I take it you refuse medical care and grow your
> > >own veggies so animals aren't killed. If not, wtf difference does it
> make
> > >if a company uses animals to make sure you recieve a safe product?
> > >
>
> > Considering that you don't know me, you seem to jump to an awful lot of
> > conclusions about me. All I said, essentially, was that I would prefer to
> > avoid using an animal-tested cosmetic when there is an alternative
> > available. In my view, cosmetics are unnecessary vanity items,
>
> So soap, shampoo are unnecessary vanity items?
There is a difference between HYGEINE products and cosmetics, at LEAST
in terms of how we view them as products in our society. But yes, soap
and shampoo are unnecessary vanity items. We don't need them to
survive. There might be a social necessity in our CULTURE, but you
might want to look out a window or open an atlas. Not everyone lives by
our social standards.
> >(and a far
> > cry from medical care, by the way). Fine, you don't share this view, and
> > you are entitled to your opinion. But why the need to be so rude?
>
> You are new here. Many of us have been here for years and have heard the
> same tired arguments over and over and over. It tends to get rather boring
> to hear them again, especially since most ARLs who show up here will post
> for a while, then whine someone has been mean to them. Then they leave.
Well, we have an interesting situation here. Sue is mean just to BE
mean. She likes chasing away people because it makes her feel like her
life has value. I know, I know, it is a hollow existence, but if you
look up hollow in the dictionary, well, there's Sue's picture.
Followups set.
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
inside you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes,
brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
-Mayor Bob Terwilliger
James Hepler
Linda Cole wrote:
>
> pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal) that
> > were or are testing their products on animals.
> >
> > I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> > public discovered that they tested on animals,
> > what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against it...
> >
> > Any information would be a great help.
> >
> > Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
>
> My husband and I are lifetime PETA members.
How could you admit that in public? Why are you a member? Because you
like NOT helping? Because you enjoy vilifying people you don't know?
Because you LIKE LYING?
Do you get a button or a bumper sticker that says, "I'm a big hypocrite
and I don't care!" when you join?
OR is it that you prefer giving your money to a PR organization instead
of to your local shelter that might actually use the funds to HELP
ANIMALS? Or is it the false sense of purpose they instill in their
little lemmings, parrots, and shills?
Please help me figure this out, because you didn't even get the acronym
right. It is PeTA. Note the little 'e'. They do this because the
ETHICAL part is minor.
> We are also concerned
> about this. There have been numerous companies & labs 'caught'
> using dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits (etc.) while claiming it
> is for the 'good of the people' and this shouldn't be
> permitted. Animals should never be abused or mistreated.
Give us some examples for Pete's sake. Which companies? Which Labs?
What are they testing for? Please provide REAL information rather than
cutting and pasting some paragraph from a brochure. And I'm an animal,
suffering from abuse at your hands. Your ignorance hurts me. You
should be in jail.
Richard Bishop
Didn't you notice that I was just following up to a message that someone
else started?
BTW, you also cross-posted this every where.
Sue
>
>
>
shelly
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:41:07 -0500, "Richard Bishop"
<bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>nichy <rke...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:TNkL5.5419$Tq6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> > BTW, cross-posting across a huge number of groups is definitely a No-No.
>>
>> > This is talk.politics.animals.
>>
>> From your previous post, you will see that YOU are the one to cross post
>> over such a large number of groups. THIS is rec.pets.dogs.misc
>>
>Didn't you notice that I was just following up to a message that someone
>else started?
so was Nichy. why are you picking on her for something that
you did, too??? for the record, it was Linda Cole who cross
posted this thread all over creation. you oughtta be bitching
at her for it, not Nichy.
>BTW, you also cross-posted this every where.
and so did you, ya big dork.
shelly and elliott & harriet
http://members.home.net/scouvrette/index/
lazm
I'm not angy, I'm laughing at you!!
>
>
lazm
"M i k e M a r s h a l l" <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:8tk9m5$20r$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
> "Richard Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >So soap, shampoo are unnecessary vanity items?
>
> What part of the manufacturing process still requires putting
> soap in a bunny's eyes?
Prove they are still putting soap in a bunny's eyes. If you'll bother to do
some cursory checking of laws and practices, you'll find that only new
formulas are tested and then only those formulas that there is some question
on what the reactions will be.
> They can vivisect my cat if it helps
> them find a cure for cancer, but torturing animals down at
> the shampoo factory seems unnecessary.
Well, at least you're only an uneducated fool. That can be cured.
>
> -Mike "bunnies are delicious"
>
raven_...@usa.net
chanting.. I Like Fur, while waving the hat in their faces. The PeTA goons seem to prefer to
pick on women... Although one guy did come up to me and start to scream in my face with a bull
horn... Did you know if you reach out and grab that central protrusion in the middle of the horn
it will completely muffle it?
Elric... dude... those quotes are great. I'm going to print a few up on flyers for when they
next hit the local mall...
I really think this one will go over well, as I live in a area that is about 90% jewish.
> Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler
> chickens will die this year in slaughter houses.
> -Ingrid Newkirk (PETA)
> (_Washington_Post_, Nov 13, 1983)
Comparing murdered jewished victims of the nazis to broiler chickens...
In article <8tk9tb$29v$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu says...
lazm
"Steve Knight" <ste...@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
news:cv5rvscg0makdbb5q...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:57:02 -0800, "lazm" <la...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet
people
> >just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something
like
> >construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out
there.
> >Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
>
> soap does not need to be tested. been around for more years then we know.
and
> cosmetics are not a necessary item they are one to satisfy vanity.
How often has the composition of soap changed over the years? Quite a bit,
huh? You're absolutely stupid in your remark about cosmetics.
Bev
loon/whiner decide to cross-post it to the animal groups?
I think animal testing is terrible. The poor things tense up and forget
the answers.
--
Cheers,
Bev
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010
Q. What's the difference between Batman and Bill Gates?
A. When Batman fought the Penguin, he won.
-- J. Levine
James Hepler
have to resort to this kind of garbage? Let's break this down.
lazm wrote:
>
> "Frank Pantaleo" <mo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:SS5L5.102550$JS3.15...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > lazm wrote in message <8tihg9$6sr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > >No shit you're confused. I take it you refuse medical care and grow your
> > >own veggies so animals aren't killed. If not, wtf difference does it
> make
> > >if a company uses animals to make sure you recieve a safe product?
> > >
> > Considering that you don't know me, you seem to jump to an awful lot of
> > conclusions about me. All I said, essentially, was that I would prefer to
> > avoid using an animal-tested cosmetic when there is an alternative
> > available. In my view, cosmetics are unnecessary vanity items, (and a far
> > cry from medical care, by the way). Fine, you don't share this view, and
> > you are entitled to your opinion. But why the need to be so rude?
> >
> > --Cindy S.
>
> So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"?
When we say "Cosmetics" soap may technically be included, but if you go
up to the average dood and say, "lookit the pansy boy shopping for
cosmetics" as he picks up a box of Dial and drops it into his cart, he
is going to look at you funny. Most of the time when we refer to
cosmetics, we are talking about make up. And make up is unnecessary and
used for vanity. Even as a NON ARA, I feel this to be true.
> I bet people
> just love being around you.
How much do you bet? I'll bet you don't know the person you were
responding to.
> Also, unless you're working in something like
> construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out there.
Don't even get started on that bullshit. First, it isn't true, although
I'd love to see the data from your research, as 99% is a very compelling
number. Second you don't even bother to define necessary in this case.
Medically necessary? The person will die without a dab of rouge?
Socially necessary? She will be ostracized from her peer group of she
doesn't wear makeup? Necessary how? Where did you learn to make a
point?
THIRD, how did it become so friggin "necessary" as you proclaim?
Because of an incredibly male dominated society that forces women to do
all sorts of horrible things to their bodies to make men feel more
attracted to them? A society that has created a stigma around people
who look NORMAL? A society that forces little girls to develop eating
disorders and psychological problems just because they see an
unrealistically thin woman on a magazine cover or on TV?
You know, maybe it is time for you sloped foreheaded knuckle draggers to
scrutinize the status quo and stop perpetuating MYTHS.
> Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
Rudeness is the best idiots like YOU can manage.
The real kicker here is that you, LAZM, if that IS your real name, are
on the right side. You have all of the better arguments. You are just
too ignorant to USE them. You, Sue, and god knows who else is still
hooked on that pitiful newsgroup of yours KNOW the arguments, yet you
choose to make complete ASSES of yourselves INSTEAD of arguing the good
points. Stop making complete asses of yourselves.
Richard Bishop
lazm <la...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tlg37$q5a$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Steve Knight" <ste...@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
> news:cv5rvscg0makdbb5q...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:57:02 -0800, "lazm" <la...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet
> people
> > >just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something
> like
> > >construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out
> there.
> > >Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
> >
> > soap does not need to be tested. been around for more years then we
know.
> and
> > cosmetics are not a necessary item they are one to satisfy vanity.
>
> How often has the composition of soap changed over the years? Quite a
bit,
> huh? You're absolutely stupid in your remark about cosmetics.
Maybe he doesn't know that the original source for soap was lye and animal
fat...
Sue, who has helped make homemade soap
Cassanders
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
:39FDD190...@email.unc.edu...
>
>
> Linda Cole wrote:
> >
> > pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal)
that
> > > were or are testing their products on animals.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> > > public discovered that they tested on animals,
> > > what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against
it...
> > >
> > > Any information would be a great help.
> > >
> > > Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
> >
> > My husband and I are lifetime PETA members.
>
> How could you admit that in public? Why are you a member? Because you
> like NOT helping? Because you enjoy vilifying people you don't know?
> Because you LIKE LYING?
>
ahem, James,
While I wholehartedly second your snap to Lazm on his rudeness to a
newcomer, perhaps you should have given this one a more relaxed introduction
to t.p.a. yourself?
[...] snip-o-rama
> --
> James Hepler
>
> http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
>
> "Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
> inside you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes,
> brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
>
> -Mayor Bob Terwilliger
Casssanders
Half the lies they tell about me are true
S.Gorn's Compendium of Rarely Used Clichés
Boron Elgar
<hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> Also, unless you're working in something like
>> construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out there.
>
>THIRD, how did it become so friggin "necessary" as you proclaim?
>Because of an incredibly male dominated society that forces women to do
>all sorts of horrible things to their bodies to make men feel more
>attracted to them? A society that has created a stigma around people
>who look NORMAL? A society that forces little girls to develop eating
>disorders and psychological problems just because they see an
>unrealistically thin woman on a magazine cover or on TV?
>
Though the poster to whom you are replying certainly deserves a
certain amount of correction, perhaps even derision in part, you, too.
seem to have gone over the edge in choosing cosmetics as syptomatic of
societal ills.
Males & females have been decorating their bodies for many thousands
of years...tattoos, face & body paint, hair styling, etc, have been
discovered in ancient burial sites.
Body image disorders & the public sexualization of young children,
male and female are horrific societal evils. Lipstick ain't.
You had some valid points and for the most point, made them well, but
when you descend the same ramp into raving madness as those to whom
you post argument against, you wind up at their same level, rather
than regarded as a voice of reason.
B.E.
lazm
"James Hepler" <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:39FED9F4...@email.unc.edu...
James, get being a dumbass. Cosmetics are necessary in this society for
women to work unless they're in some menial job. Hell, the Marine Corps
used to require women Marines to wear makeup. Get off your fucking high
horse and get your head out of your ass at the same time.
> Because of an incredibly male dominated society that forces women to do
> all sorts of horrible things to their bodies to make men feel more
> attracted to them? A society that has created a stigma around people
> who look NORMAL? A society that forces little girls to develop eating
> disorders and psychological problems just because they see an
> unrealistically thin woman on a magazine cover or on TV?
>
> You know, maybe it is time for you sloped foreheaded knuckle draggers to
> scrutinize the status quo and stop perpetuating MYTHS.
>
> > Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
>
> Rudeness is the best idiots like YOU can manage.
>
> The real kicker here is that you, LAZM, if that IS your real name, are
> on the right side. You have all of the better arguments. You are just
> too ignorant to USE them. You, Sue, and god knows who else is still
> hooked on that pitiful newsgroup of yours KNOW the arguments, yet you
> choose to make complete ASSES of yourselves INSTEAD of arguing the good
> points. Stop making complete asses of yourselves.
Er, James, I think you're the one that just made an ass of yourself by not
looking at reality.
lazm
"Boron Elgar" <Kalk...@bwu.edu> wrote in message
news:3a01149a...@news.carroll.com...
Unfortunately, if you think James had a voice of reason, you've lost your
reasoning.
>
> B.E.
lazm
"Cassanders" <anders....@imr.no> wrote in message
news:8tnj4s$11vo$1...@toralf.uib.no...
>
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> :39FDD190...@email.unc.edu...
> >
> >
> > Linda Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal)
> that
> > > > were or are testing their products on animals.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> > > > public discovered that they tested on animals,
> > > > what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against
> it...
> > > >
> > > > Any information would be a great help.
> > > >
> > > > Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
> > >
> > > My husband and I are lifetime PETA members.
> >
> > How could you admit that in public? Why are you a member? Because you
> > like NOT helping? Because you enjoy vilifying people you don't know?
> > Because you LIKE LYING?
> >
>
> ahem, James,
> While I wholehartedly second your snap to Lazm on his rudeness to a
> newcomer, perhaps you should have given this one a more relaxed
introduction
> to t.p.a. yourself?
Kiss my ass and James gave the petaphiles what they deserved.
Cassanders
lazm <la...@mindspring.com> wrote in the message
8to6mr$dlr$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Cassanders" <anders....@imr.no> wrote in message
> news:8tnj4s$11vo$1...@toralf.uib.no...
> >
> > James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> > :39FDD190...@email.unc.edu...
> > >
> > ahem, James,
> > While I wholehartedly second your snap to Lazm on his rudeness to a
> > newcomer, perhaps you should have given this one a more relaxed
> introduction
> > to t.p.a. yourself?
>
> Kiss my ass and James gave the petaphiles what they deserved.
>
Whatever...
Lazm, if you hang out at t.p.a just to let off some steam, why don't you
move over to alt.flames or similar ng? On the other hand, if you want to
make your opinions to have impacts on other peoples minds, i.e. -to convince
them they are wrong, and you are right, I tend to think your approach is
counterproductive.
rune
test on animals
Cassanders
rune <hatt...@yahoo.dk> wrote in the message :39FFFD6A...@yahoo.dk...
> Is,nt it about time someone tested on the animals who
> test on animals
>
You mean testing on humans?
Does this mean that you berates animal testing, while apparently does not
know the most fundamental fact about how and why the new products to be used
in human (and veterinay) medicine are determined to be safe?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
James Hepler
More people need to lose their reasoning, if that is the case. People
like you are on the way out. All I can say is that it is a good thing
that people evolve.
James Hepler
Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:40:52 -0500, James Hepler
> <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Also, unless you're working in something like
> >> construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out there.
> >
>
> >THIRD, how did it become so friggin "necessary" as you proclaim?
> >Because of an incredibly male dominated society that forces women to do
> >all sorts of horrible things to their bodies to make men feel more
> >attracted to them? A society that has created a stigma around people
> >who look NORMAL? A society that forces little girls to develop eating
> >disorders and psychological problems just because they see an
> >unrealistically thin woman on a magazine cover or on TV?
> >
>
> Though the poster to whom you are replying certainly deserves a
> certain amount of correction, perhaps even derision in part, you, too.
> seem to have gone over the edge in choosing cosmetics as syptomatic of
> societal ills.
Think about it. Cosmetics ARE a symptom of societal ills. One of
many. I'm all for people doing whatever the hell they want to do. It
is the notion of others that cosmetics are NECESSARY. I just say, if
they are so NECESSARY, then we have major problems in our culture.
> Males & females have been decorating their bodies for many thousands
> of years...tattoos, face & body paint, hair styling, etc, have been
> discovered in ancient burial sites.
This is true. But you are ignoring context. The wearing of face and
body paint, certain styles of hair, etc, have historically been
ritualistic in nature. And while physical traits have always been among
the variables considered when selecting a mate, paint wasn't worn to
enhance that portion of the physical appearance. The social climates
are very different. Women don't wear red lipstick anymore to signify
that they are prostitutes (the red lipstick was meant to emulate the
labia).
> Body image disorders & the public sexualization of young children,
> male and female are horrific societal evils. Lipstick ain't.
Young children are "sexualized" and lipstick is the TOOL by which this
is done. It is not a healthy cultural trait to have 10 YO girls
dressing like 27 YO tramps because they saw it on TV. The most
attractive women will ALWAYS be the ones who look good WITHOUT makeup.
> You had some valid points and for the most point, made them well, but
> when you descend the same ramp into raving madness as those to whom
> you post argument against, you wind up at their same level, rather
> than regarded as a voice of reason.
Look at your refutation. ALl you had to argue against my point was that
people throughout history wore makeup. That's it. It isn't in
dispute. But when you turn your back on CULTURAL CONTEXT, you discredit
everything you say. And the fact that you dismiss the that I was
responding to someone else who claimed that 99% of women NEED makeup is
also telling. If his comment is true, then we ARE in trouble.
James Hepler
>
> "James Hepler" <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
> news:39FED9F4...@email.unc.edu...
> >
> > >
> > > So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"?
> >
> > When we say "Cosmetics" soap may technically be included, but if you go
> > up to the average dood and say, "lookit the pansy boy shopping for
> > cosmetics" as he picks up a box of Dial and drops it into his cart, he
> > is going to look at you funny. Most of the time when we refer to
> > cosmetics, we are talking about make up. And make up is unnecessary and
> > used for vanity. Even as a NON ARA, I feel this to be true.
> >
> > > I bet people
> > > just love being around you.
> >
> > How much do you bet? I'll bet you don't know the person you were
> > responding to.
> >
> > > Also, unless you're working in something like
> > > construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out
> there.
> >
> > Don't even get started on that bullshit. First, it isn't true, although
> > I'd love to see the data from your research, as 99% is a very compelling
> > number. Second you don't even bother to define necessary in this case.
> > Medically necessary? The person will die without a dab of rouge?
> > Socially necessary? She will be ostracized from her peer group of she
> > doesn't wear makeup? Necessary how? Where did you learn to make a
> > point?
> >
> > THIRD, how did it become so friggin "necessary" as you proclaim?
>
> James, get being a dumbass.
Wow. That's almost a sentence. I'm impressed. But you didn't answer
any of my questions. Lemme ask again
1) Where's your data?
2) What do you mean by "necessary"?
> Cosmetics are necessary in this society for
> women to work unless they're in some menial job.
That's not true anymore. You are perpetuating stereotypes and myths.
But come on! Answer the questions from before! Necessary how? Are you
saying that a woman who refuses to wear makeup won't get a job because
of that? Can you imagine what would happen if a company refused to hire
a woman because of her makeup or lack thereof? The only people I KNOW
of who HAVE to wear makeup are TV personalities, and THAT I understand.
But the whole point is, how can one be OK with a situation where the
CHOICE to wear makeup doesn't exist? How can you support that?
> Hell, the Marine Corps
> used to require women Marines to wear makeup. Get off your fucking high
^^^^^^^^^
> horse and get your head out of your ass at the same time.
USED TO. Interesting that you have to go into the past to make a
point. Of course, your doing so by default discredits the point you are
making, but at least you are wearing your thinking cap!
But lets take a look at that which you are supporting. You seem to think
that it is OK to tell the women of our society that how they look
NORMALLY, WITHOUT MAKEUP, isn't good enough. They need to change their
appearance in order to get accepted in our society, in our workplaces,
in our social situations. Do you really want to get into gender
stratification in US history? Do you really want to latch on to this
outdated notion that things are now like they were in the fifties?
CHECK THE TIME, lazm. It is 2000.
> > > Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
> >
> > Rudeness is the best idiots like YOU can manage.
> >
> > The real kicker here is that you, LAZM, if that IS your real name, are
> > on the right side. You have all of the better arguments. You are just
> > too ignorant to USE them. You, Sue, and god knows who else is still
> > hooked on that pitiful newsgroup of yours KNOW the arguments, yet you
> > choose to make complete ASSES of yourselves INSTEAD of arguing the good
> > points. Stop making complete asses of yourselves.
>
> Er, James, I think you're the one that just made an ass of yourself by not
> looking at reality.
I'm looking at nothing BUT reality. The thing that confuses you is that
MY reality is not that which I INVENT. MY reality is based on HISTORY,
CULTURE, and SOCIAL CLIMATE.
You just happen to be desperately trying to salvage some form of
argument. Have fun sifting through the rubble.
James Hepler
Cassanders wrote:
>
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> :39FDD190...@email.unc.edu...
> >
> >
> > Linda Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > pava...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm currently doing a research on laboratories (precisely l'Oréal)
> that
> > > > were or are testing their products on animals.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking for information on how such companies reacted when the
> > > > public discovered that they tested on animals,
> > > > what laboratories or non-governmental organizations fought against
> it...
> > > >
> > > > Any information would be a great help.
> > > >
> > > > Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing
> > >
> > > My husband and I are lifetime PETA members.
> >
> > How could you admit that in public? Why are you a member? Because you
> > like NOT helping? Because you enjoy vilifying people you don't know?
> > Because you LIKE LYING?
> >
>
> ahem, James,
> While I wholehartedly second your snap to Lazm on his rudeness to a
> newcomer, perhaps you should have given this one a more relaxed introduction
> to t.p.a. yourself?
I'm happy to back up any and all of the points I made, whether you
snipped them or not. People who call themselves "lifetime PeTA members"
need to be shocked out of their intellectual comas.
The comment made above by this "newcomer" is not unlike saying, "I've
been a lifelong member of Aryan Nation". Be prepared for backlash.
James Hepler
>
> Is,nt it about time someone tested on the animals who
> test on animals
The style of your writing tells us what we need to know about YOUR
intellect, there, bub.
Cassanders
I snipped them only to avoid the discussion to become too long. I do
however wonder a bit why you seems to have the impression that I disagree
much on your description of PeTA?
>People who call themselves "lifetime PeTA members"
> need to be shocked out of their intellectual comas.
>
And your current presciption seems to be to yell that they are some duped
dumb-asses whenever you get the chance? How many duped PeTA members do you
think you have converted by this strategy, James?
> The comment made above by this "newcomer" is not unlike saying, "I've
> been a lifelong member of Aryan Nation". Be prepared for backlash.
>
I would think there are many well-intended but ill-informed people out
there. I do not think it is a good idea to yell them into the trenches.
> --
> James Hepler
>
> http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
>
........read "Slaughterhouse 5" perhaps?
> "Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
> inside you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes,
> brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
>
> -Mayor Bob Terwilliger
Cassanders
Hi ho
Snuffles
"That's the way to do it"
Mr Punch - British Seaside
Wish I had said that !
lazm
Data, observed almost daily.
>
> 2) What do you mean by "necessary"?
Necessary. Required for work.
>
> > Cosmetics are necessary in this society for
> > women to work unless they're in some menial job.
>
> That's not true anymore. You are perpetuating stereotypes and myths.
Liar. I'm perpetuating truth.
> But come on! Answer the questions from before! Necessary how? Are you
> saying that a woman who refuses to wear makeup won't get a job because
> of that?
In most cases, a woman that doesn't wear makeup won't get the job she wants
or keep the job she has.
> Can you imagine what would happen if a company refused to hire
> a woman because of her makeup or lack thereof?
The woman wouldn't get a job. It's no more complex than that.
>The only people I KNOW
> of who HAVE to wear makeup are TV personalities, and THAT I understand.
C'mon, James, you're smarter than that. Quit being a dumbass.
> But the whole point is, how can one be OK with a situation where the
> CHOICE to wear makeup doesn't exist? How can you support that?
Doesn't bother me a bit as I don't have to wear makeup. I'm glad some women
do wear makeup although I like mine without.
>
> > Hell, the Marine Corps
> > used to require women Marines to wear makeup. Get off your fucking high
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> > horse and get your head out of your ass at the same time.
>
> USED TO. Interesting that you have to go into the past to make a
> point. Of course, your doing so by default discredits the point you are
> making, but at least you are wearing your thinking cap!
No it doesn't discredit my point. The Marine Corps has changed in their
perception of women and how they are used. Women are just barely staying
out of combat units now. Back when I came in, they were usually not much
more than clerks. The Marine Corps has done almost everything possible to
make a woman Marine equal in all ways to a male Marine. The Marine Corps is
not civilian society. Civilian society still requires 99% of women to wear
makeup at work.
>
> But lets take a look at that which you are supporting. You seem to think
> that it is OK to tell the women of our society that how they look
> NORMALLY, WITHOUT MAKEUP, isn't good enough. They need to change their
> appearance in order to get accepted in our society, in our workplaces,
> in our social situations. Do you really want to get into gender
> stratification in US history? Do you really want to latch on to this
> outdated notion that things are now like they were in the fifties?
> CHECK THE TIME, lazm. It is 2000.
No shit about the date. Too bad it has nothing to do with the argument.
Take time off from your band and see how the rest of the country works.
Female executives, secretaries, custormer service reps, waitresses,
bartenders, and many more have to wear makeup to get and keep their jobs.
There was even a story recently in the national news about a bartender that
got fired, and stayed fired, for not wearing makeup to work. Nurses,
veterinarians, factory workers, agricultural workers, and some other, mostly
low paying jobs, do not require makeup. Figure out the percentages
yourself. You can't refute mine.
>
> > > > Rudeness is the best idiots like you rate.
> > >
> > > Rudeness is the best idiots like YOU can manage.
> > >
> > > The real kicker here is that you, LAZM, if that IS your real name, are
> > > on the right side. You have all of the better arguments. You are
just
> > > too ignorant to USE them. You, Sue, and god knows who else is still
> > > hooked on that pitiful newsgroup of yours KNOW the arguments, yet you
> > > choose to make complete ASSES of yourselves INSTEAD of arguing the
good
> > > points. Stop making complete asses of yourselves.
> >
> > Er, James, I think you're the one that just made an ass of yourself by
not
> > looking at reality.
>
> I'm looking at nothing BUT reality. The thing that confuses you is that
> MY reality is not that which I INVENT. MY reality is based on HISTORY,
> CULTURE, and SOCIAL CLIMATE.
Sorry, James, this is not the your band's history, culture, and social
climate. This is the real world. Come join it sometime.
>
> You just happen to be desperately trying to salvage some form of
> argument. Have fun sifting through the rubble.
Not desperate at all. Am totally surprised you've taken so stupid a stance.
Not usually like you.
Yoko Yamamoto Goodman
There are "not tested on animals" products. I buy them from natural food
stores. They have soaps, dish soaps, shampoo, cosmetics, and hair oil made
from plants. More people are becoming aware of the issue and if we start
ignoring "animal tested" products, it will be a big movement. Also, telling
other people how it's good for your health, environment and animals, a lot
of people will listen.
James Hepler
Cassanders wrote:
>
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> :3A002146...@email.unc.edu...
>
> >People who call themselves "lifetime PeTA members"
> > need to be shocked out of their intellectual comas.
> >
>
> And your current presciption seems to be to yell that they are some duped
> dumb-asses whenever you get the chance? How many duped PeTA members do you
> think you have converted by this strategy, James?
Ahhh, at least one. But the REAL question is, what are the odds that
*I*, a complete stranger, would be able to convince a LIFETIME PETA
MEMBER to leave the group in the first place?
Are you so naive as to think that people that read newsgroups actually
CARE about other points of view? Do you really think that more times
than not, people CHANGE opinions based on newsgroup posts? Come on!
> > The comment made above by this "newcomer" is not unlike saying, "I've
> > been a lifelong member of Aryan Nation". Be prepared for backlash.
> >
>
> I would think there are many well-intended but ill-informed people out
> there. I do not think it is a good idea to yell them into the trenches.
Then don't yell at them. What's the big deal?
> > http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
> >
> ........read "Slaughterhouse 5" perhaps?
Heh. Good call, but the band was not actually named with Vonnegut in
mind.
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
James Hepler
>
> > 1) Where's your data?
>
> Data, observed almost daily.
WOW! Where do you live? 99 out of 100 women you have personally talked
to about this subject feel it NECESSARY to wear it. Spooky. Where I
live, makeup isn't deemed quite that vital to daily survival.
> > 2) What do you mean by "necessary"?
>
> Necessary. Required for work.
Again, that's one screwed up set of companies you have there where you
live. Where I come from, not hiring a person because their makeup
wasn't up to par just doesn't happen. They base hirings more on
experience, job related knowledge, and stupid, shallow things like that.
Do they make men wear makeup where you live, too? Is it a town of ex
circus people?
> > > Cosmetics are necessary in this society for
> > > women to work unless they're in some menial job.
> >
> > That's not true anymore. You are perpetuating stereotypes and myths.
>
> Liar. I'm perpetuating truth.
You really aren't. I know many, many women who don't like to wear it
and don't wear it. But not to worry. This is probably the case because
I managed to situate myself in an ENLIGHTENED community. It is OK if
you don't understand.
> > But come on! Answer the questions from before! Necessary how? Are you
> > saying that a woman who refuses to wear makeup won't get a job because
> > of that?
>
> In most cases, a woman that doesn't wear makeup won't get the job she wants
> or keep the job she has.
Can you give me one example of a woman being fired because she didn't
wear makeup? Have you ever heard of sexual discrimination?
> > Can you imagine what would happen if a company refused to hire
> > a woman because of her makeup or lack thereof?
>
> The woman wouldn't get a job. It's no more complex than that.
It is a lot more complex than that. Especially if the hiring supervisor
were male. Do they not hire downright ugly people at these businesses
either? Are you drawing your whole set of beliefs from a brothel you
frequent or something?
> >The only people I KNOW
> > of who HAVE to wear makeup are TV personalities, and THAT I understand.
>
> C'mon, James, you're smarter than that. Quit being a dumbass.
This is nowhere near a refutation of any of my points. Maybe you can
explain how make up increases a woman's ability to do a job. Then you
can inform me as to how makeup can ever actually be a reasonable grounds
for firing an employee.
> > > Hell, the Marine Corps
> > > used to require women Marines to wear makeup. Get off your fucking high
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > horse and get your head out of your ass at the same time.
> >
> > USED TO. Interesting that you have to go into the past to make a
> > point. Of course, your doing so by default discredits the point you are
> > making, but at least you are wearing your thinking cap!
>
> No it doesn't discredit my point. The Marine Corps has changed in their
> perception of women and how they are used. Women are just barely staying
> out of combat units now. Back when I came in, they were usually not much
> more than clerks. The Marine Corps has done almost everything possible to
> make a woman Marine equal in all ways to a male Marine. The Marine Corps is
> not civilian society. Civilian society still requires 99% of women to wear
> makeup at work.
Bullshit. But then, all you have to do is show me the company policy
that verifies this. It is certainly not written as a law. Why?
BECAUSE IT IS IDIOTIC. But you can't support this assertion. You have
become the very type of person you come here to attack. Just like the
ARF's, you make unsubstantiated claims, unproved assertions, and false
observations. How you can so quickly jump the fence is a mystery.
> > But lets take a look at that which you are supporting. You seem to think
> > that it is OK to tell the women of our society that how they look
> > NORMALLY, WITHOUT MAKEUP, isn't good enough. They need to change their
> > appearance in order to get accepted in our society, in our workplaces,
> > in our social situations. Do you really want to get into gender
> > stratification in US history? Do you really want to latch on to this
> > outdated notion that things are now like they were in the fifties?
> > CHECK THE TIME, lazm. It is 2000.
>
> No shit about the date. Too bad it has nothing to do with the argument.
It has everything to do with the argument. The roles between women and
men are changing quickly, and are very different from the 1950's the
1970's or even the 1990's. You are stuck somewhere way back in the
past. And maybe it is because you are old or something, but your views
ARE outdated in this case.
> Take time off from your band and see how the rest of the country works.
Having been a traveling musician, I have seen a whole friggin lot of
this country in the past year alone. Over 20 states, a hundred or so
cities, ALL over the country. I see a lot that proves you wrong.
But nice way to work the band into the discussion. Go to mp3.com and
listen to some songs, so we can get paid (and get our van fixed).
http://www.mp3.com/SorryAboutDresden
> Female executives, secretaries, custormer service reps, waitresses,
> bartenders, and many more have to wear makeup to get and keep their jobs.
Bullshit. And even if some do, it doesn't make it OK.
> There was even a story recently in the national news about a bartender that
> got fired, and stayed fired, for not wearing makeup to work.
Then post it.
> Nurses,
> veterinarians, factory workers, agricultural workers, and some other, mostly
> low paying jobs, do not require makeup. Figure out the percentages
> yourself. You can't refute mine.
I don't have to. You have yet to support them.
> > > Er, James, I think you're the one that just made an ass of yourself by
> not
> > > looking at reality.
> >
> > I'm looking at nothing BUT reality. The thing that confuses you is that
> > MY reality is not that which I INVENT. MY reality is based on HISTORY,
> > CULTURE, and SOCIAL CLIMATE.
>
> Sorry, James, this is not the your band's history, culture, and social
> climate.
There is the band thing again! Where did that come from? You that hard
up for a dig at me?
> This is the real world. Come join it sometime.
Your real world appears to be that which you can create for yourself.
You put your little blinders on, keep your 1957 calendar on the wall,
and leave the house as little as possible. Meanwhile, in places where
INTELLIGENT, WELL MEANING people live, things change.
> > You just happen to be desperately trying to salvage some form of
> > argument. Have fun sifting through the rubble.
>
> Not desperate at all. Am totally surprised you've taken so stupid a stance.
> Not usually like you.
You don't know me. And the stance is far from stupid. If it were
stupid, you would be able to provide support. But I can't wait for your
response. I plan on juxtaposing it with some of the AR arguments I have
heard over the years. There should be a similar amount of
substantiation in them.
No Spam
Frank Pantaleo wrote:
>
> A few years ago, I received a free sample of a Lever product. I called the
> company to find out if they did animal testing. The representative asked me
> to hold on a moment and then read to me some statement that went on and on
> about how the company tries to avoid animal testing and will do said testing
> only if it is absolutely necessary blah, blah, blah, to which I responded
> "So, your company does animal testing. " She again started reading this
> statement about "Our company tries to avoid animal testing and does so only
> when...and again, I interrupted her and said "In other words, your company
> does animal testing." A third time, she began to read the same prepackaged
> statement, and a fourth time. After I interrupted her for the fourth time,
> she finally admitted "Yes, we do animal testing... (but only when absolutely
> necessary)." I called the Dial company and asked if they tested their
> products on animals. I got the answer in one word: "No." For years, I
> bought Dial products. Now, I see they are also on PETA's list. Did they
> lie? What is going on? I am so confused.
>
> --Cindy S.
Why don't you call the government -- they mandate alot of these dates (i.e. FDA,
EPA).
GOU RONIN®
and usually give the wrong answers so it's not too accurate for their
SAT's...
GOU RONIN® - The Unforgiven...
ICQ# - 49024165
AOL IM - GouRonin
http://members.tripod.com/~kenpo_ronin/houseofronin.html
Cassanders
>
>
> Cassanders wrote:
> >
> > James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> > :3A002146...@email.unc.edu...
> >
> > >People who call themselves "lifetime PeTA members"
> > > need to be shocked out of their intellectual comas.
> > >
> >
> > And your current presciption seems to be to yell that they are some
duped
> > dumb-asses whenever you get the chance? How many duped PeTA members do
you
> > think you have converted by this strategy, James?
>
> Ahhh, at least one. But the REAL question is, what are the odds that
> *I*, a complete stranger, would be able to convince a LIFETIME PETA
> MEMBER to leave the group in the first place?
>
Not very big. Anyhow, I have had some interesting objet lessons over at
alt.animals.whals, alt animals.dolphins and the now likely defunct
alt.kill.the.whales during the years I have participated in the
whaling/sealing debate. I have watched pepole entering these newsgroups with
very "solid" and very misinformed opinions. In my experience it is much more
effective to be factual and polite than to yell.
> Are you so naive as to think that people that read newsgroups actually
> CARE about other points of view? Do you really think that more times
> than not, people CHANGE opinions based on newsgroup posts? Come on!
>
This is where I have to confess: Yes I am that naive.
> > > The comment made above by this "newcomer" is not unlike saying, "I've
> > > been a lifelong member of Aryan Nation". Be prepared for backlash.
> > >
> >
> > I would think there are many well-intended but ill-informed people out
> > there. I do not think it is a good idea to yell them into the trenches.
>
> Then don't yell at them. What's the big deal?
No big deal. It was just a suggestion, not a flagellation.
>
> > > http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
> > >
> > ........read "Slaughterhouse 5" perhaps?
>
> Heh. Good call, but the band was not actually named with Vonnegut in
> mind.
>
> --
> James Hepler
>
> http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
>
> "Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
> inside you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes,
> brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
>
> -Mayor Bob Terwilliger
Cassanders
If you're not prejudiced, you just don't understand!
S.Gorns Compendium of Rarely Used Clichés
James Hepler
"GOU RONINŽ" wrote:
>
> Animal testing is bad. The poor animals always get so nervous
> and usually give the wrong answers so it's not too accurate for their
> SAT's...
You just going to keep saying this until someone writes LOL or
something?
Elric of Imrryr
>
>
> Cassanders wrote:
> >
> > James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in the message
> > :3A002146...@email.unc.edu...
> >
> > >People who call themselves "lifetime PeTA members"
> > > need to be shocked out of their intellectual comas.
> > >
> >
> > And your current presciption seems to be to yell that they are some duped
> > dumb-asses whenever you get the chance? How many duped PeTA members do you
> > think you have converted by this strategy, James?
>
> Ahhh, at least one. But the REAL question is, what are the odds that
> *I*, a complete stranger, would be able to convince a LIFETIME PETA
> MEMBER to leave the group in the first place?
>
> Are you so naive as to think that people that read newsgroups actually
> CARE about other points of view? Do you really think that more times
> than not, people CHANGE opinions based on newsgroup posts? Come on!
It would depend on how much personal worth they have invested in their on-line persona. Some
people don't deal with with being told everything they believe in is a junk. Although on usenet
it is easier to just filter out the signals that don't agree with your world-view.
Back when I had no life, and really put a lot of energy in my on-line persona I'd had fun a few
times driving people to state of bad cognitive dissonance, but it really not worth the
trouble... once you've provoke a few people into publicly swearing they are going to hunt you
down and kill you the thrill wears off.
Julie
think both sides, like politics, twist data to make it favorable in their
view, so I tend to sit back and watch the fur fly (no pun intended). I was
a member of Peta, for a long time, but I started doing research on what was
published by Peta and decided to cancel my membership. Because I am not a
member of Peta any longer does NOT mean that I am cruel to animals, support
cruelty, or am an evil person. I have a very clear cut view on wearing fur.
If you don't want to wear it, fine. If you do, fine (I would hope you would
buy ranch raised fur instead of wild fur, and most people do, wild fur pelts
are very low quality). I don't think someone has a right to throw red paint
on someone wearing a fur coat, and I don't think anyone needs to hear either
side preach. Fur to me, is like religion. I don't want to hear how better
yours is, and I don't want to hear that I am going to hell because I believe
differently.
I have a hyperthyroid. I am on medication to control my thyroid. I have
used both natural Thyroxin (which comes from animals) and chemical thyroxin.
I have to take 2 pills every 6 hours, so this means setting my alarm to wake
up to take a pill that tastes so bad I can't drink whatever I took with the
pill for the next day.
With the chemical pills my thyroid was still off, and I was taking higher
and higher dosages to keep my heart rate in check. With natural pills I
take a lower dosage and if I miss a pill by an hour or so (which is easy to
do) I don't feel the effects that I do with chemical pills. I am taking the
natural pills. I have all ready will my brain to a group that is studying
add and adhd, and have agreed to donate my endocrine system to a group of
endocrinologists when I die.
As that I all ready have a disorder with a gland that is part of the
endocrine system, I have a greater chance of being affected with diabetes
and Addisons, all of these diseases have been brought into control by
testing with animals. Without that testing so many people would die. Now I
know that there are people who think it shouldn't matter, that no testing
should be done on animals, and that human beings shouldn't have the luxuries
of medicine, they are entitled to that opinion. I only hope that no one in
their family ever gets sick and has to take medications of any kind, spend
any time in the hospital, or ever has to see a doctor for that matter. All
of the above things either were tested on animals, or experimented on
animals.
Now, I am entitled to my opinion, and everyone else is entitled to theirs.
I don't have to like your opinion, I don't even have to read your opinion, I
don't have to like anyone for that matter. When people preach to me of how
better their belief is, I get very turned off. I tend to ignore them and
lose respect for them and their views.
Animal testing happens, the way to change it, isn't through yelling and
screaming and having a fit, the way to change it is through education with
facts, not inflated facts, and offering alternatives. I have learned that
you can spout an opinion until you are blue in the face, but unless you
offer a viable alternative no one will be willing to listen.
Now, I just want to add something here. The meanest animal I have ever come
across is a mink. The are nasty vermin who are unabashedly aggressive and
will have no problem chasing you in broad daylight, over hill, rock, water,
and even trees. I don't doubt that their goal is to shred you limb from
limb with their little white pointy teeth. I have no problem with mink
coats, and when I see one, I can't help but think to myself about the one
who lives in our boathouse and made it near impossible to walk out our front
door to get to the lake.
Julie
"I glean great pleasure from eating an animal that is unabashedly
aggressive"
Charlie Trotter
--
~If you want to email me, remove the xyz from the .com
Julie
Roughrider50
>
> >So now you consider soap to be an "unnecessary vanity item"? I bet
people
> >just love being around you. Also, unless you're working in something
like
> >construction, cosmetics ARE a necessary item for 99% of the women out
> there.
> >
>
> animal-tested, and I prefer to buy those, why does that make you so angry?
>
> --Cindy S.
>
I think what makes people angry is when someone forces their views on
others.....if you want to avoid using animal tested products fine...but
don't try & force me not too. I like you do not believe in unnecessary
animal cruelty, but I bristle when groups like PETA & the like try to shove
their philosophies down my throat. We are at the top of the food chain &
animals are down below.....too bad maybe a million from now things will be
different.
CorkyF
Lifelong member of PETA(People Eating Tasty Animals)
Jonathan Ball
>
> In article <B626E5AE.4E0D%yyam...@flyingtrout.com>,
> yyam...@flyingtrout.com says...
>
> There is a small, secret, and very, very secure building on the grounds
> of Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu Hawaii where they are doing
> all kinds of things with monkeys and other animals. It is super
> sensitive, they will not let anyone near the building, and they hide
> everything possible from you if you have to go in there to work on
> equipment for them.
That's consistent with innumerable explanations. Why should anyone
accept yours?
> Oh, and the scientists who work there look like they
> may be a horrible mistake from one of their experiments gone awry.
That statement alone is enough to make people permanently dismiss you.
> Spooky, spooky stuff going on up there....
Swamp
Any ARA can find a source of severe animal exploitation, probably within a quick bike ride.
And of course, all the local ARA's are directly and actively engaged in whatever means is necessary
to immediately stop these heinous, immoral acts, right? Just follow the crowd!
If you can't find any, let me know where you live and I'll point out a couple for you.
No cloak-and-dagger sh!t either. These will be in open sight and of an obvious nature.
--
ゥSwampゥ
pava...@my-deja.com
Do you know something about l'Oreal and animal testing ??
If you know a few organizations that take actions against companies like
this, tell me !
I'm in France, Paris
Helene VOKIMSON
voki...@hec.fr
In article <t0e5efp...@corp.supernews.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pava...@my-deja.com
Instead of stupidly arguing about your personal problems, could we truly
have information on L'OREAL and animal testing ?!??
Does someone here knows anything about the subject ??
Have anyone heard of the boycott called by Naturewatch ?
Does anyone knows the reasons why they called for a boycott on l'Oreal
only ? What about other companies ?
What about the skin cells the company have recently developped?
What about their pharmaceutical products ? Are they also tested on
animals ?
Have there been other actions taken against l'Oreal before ? If yes,
what kind ?
Any information would be a great help.
Pavarotta, a consumer concerned about animal testing and who would
really appreciate not being that selfish and only thinking of arguing
about very stupid things !
Swamp
<pava...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8u98n4$iki$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi Swamp !
>
> Do you know something about l'Oreal and animal testing ??
> If you know a few organizations that take actions against companies like
> this, tell me !
>
> I'm in France, Paris
>
> Helene VOKIMSON
> voki...@hec.fr
Ach, L'OREAL !!?
Did you know they sponsor the EVIL OCRF research?!!
Talk about a double whammy!!
Cosmetics and Medical research, all bundled together and financed in one heinous package.
There must be thousands of poor animals being tortured for such a silly thing as ovarian cancer research.
I bet they use the survivors to test mascara.
Go there immediately and rescue those animals!!!!
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
Karen McGill
Animals" list - http://www.peta.com/liv/cc/ccdonttest.html