Conference hydra::dejavu

        Re .0:
              
    >Has anyone seen that movie "The Believers"? 
    > ...
    >Has anyone heard about the animals they found beheaded on Revere
    >Beach?  The found a lamb, a pig, a couple of geese, a cat, and 
    >chicken.  When I heard that all I could think of was that movie.
    >What about you? 
     
    I've looked for a detailed story in the local papers, but have yet
    to find one.  Without that, there aren't enough details about the
    sacrificed (or at least executed) animals to make a good guess.
    My thoughts were less about the movie than about potential Satan
    worship, though, since there seems to havew been sporadioc activity
    in that area long before _The Believers_ was released.
    
    Re _The Believers_:
    
    I saw the film, and was quite disappointed in it.  Although Santeria's
    not my strong suit, my understanding of it is at variance with what's
    been portrayed on the screen.
    
    It's important to remember, though, that what's shown in a movie
    doesn't have to be technically accurate; like the "sci-fi" films
    (stories disguising themselves as science fiction) that pop up
    periodically, everything's put aside for entertainment.  For instance,
    the "unusual acne" in that film is pure Hollywood.
    
    A recent film that comes somewhat closer is _Angel Heart_, which
    is a long, symbolic pun.  And even that's not too much.
    
    Re animal sacrifice timing:
    
    Apparently, the day before, the Opreah Winfrey show had a discussion
    of Satanism (and animal sacrifices as a part of that) in the United
    States.  There might be a connection, if nothing more than a "copycat"
    act.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                   
    
    P.S.:  It might be instructive for newer members of this Conference
    to peek at note #121 (The Satan Connection -- watch out) and,
    derivitively, note 12 (Rushing In).            

    Steve "Angel Heart" is a very good example for the act. The reason
    why I didn't use "Angel Heart" is because they were into chickens.
    And I do not recall them using any other animals..
    
    If you check Sunday's, dated February 21, you should find an article
    on the animal findings on Revere Beach.  They had it on the news
    Saturday night..the 11:00 new channel 4..You might want to give
    them or the Globe a call so you can verify my data..Believe me I
    am not making this up..
    

    Re .2:
    
    >If you check Sunday's, dated February 21, you should find an article
    >on the animal findings on Revere Beach. 
    
    Sunday's _Globe_?  
    
    > ....................................... Believe me I
    >am not making this up..                             
     
    Didn't think for a moment you were (which is why citations to the
    other notes).  I have heard it happened, but not enough data to
    draw satisfactory conclusions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Okay, here's the article, reporinted without permission:
    
          CULT SLAYINGS SUSPECTED IN DISCOVERY OF HEADLESS ANIMALS ON
                                 REVERE BEACH  
    By Larry Tye
    Globe Staff
    
    Seven animals were killed and dumped on Revere Beach in what appears
    to be a sadastic cult slaying, Revere authorities said yesterday.
    
    A lamb, three chickens, two ducks and a rooster were found on the
    beach Friday morning -- with the heads missing on all but one duck,
    said Larry Chaet, Revere's animal control officer.  Bananas and
    apples were laid around the carcasses.
    
    Spray painted on a seawall nereby were the words, "Kill the yuppies
    and eat their children," Chaet said.  [The photograph shows the
    seawall saying, "KILL YUPPYS! & EAT THER KIDS" <sic>]
    
    The animals apparently were killed Thursday night, then brought
    to the beach at the end of Alden Avenue near the Lynn line, Chaet
    added.  "They weren'y mangled in any way.  They were cut with a
    razor or sharp knife; their heads were hacked right off."
    
    The lamb's head was found on the beach later Friday morning.
    
    "These weren't run-of-the-mill animals, they were huge," Chaet said,
    with the lamb weighing 75 pounds, the chickens up to 10 pounds each
    and the rooster "much larger than that."  The ducks were domestic
    "and could have been stolen pets," he added.
    
    Stephen Torre, law enforcement chief of the Massachusetts Society
    for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he had seen chickens
    beheaded before as part of "various Haitian religious ceremonies."
    
    The SPCA will "canvass the area, ask people if they saw anything,"
    Torre said, adding that he hoped an autopsy could be performed to
    determine how and when the animals were killed.  Chaet said that
    the animals had already been disposed of at the advice of SPCA
    officials.
    
    The animal control officer said there might be some connection with
    an Opreah Winfrey television show last week on Satanic worship,
    in which the beheading of a lamb was discussed.  "It just seemed
    awful strange that you see this on TV, and the next night these
    animals end up on the beach."
    
    Debbie DiMaio, executive producer of the Winfrey show, told the
    Associated Press that she found it difficult to believe there was
    a link to the television program.
    
    Chaet said, "We have absolutely no suspects; we don't even have
    a clue why the animals were killed.
    
    "We are asking a lot of questions.  We put it in the paper and will
    see if anybody comes up with any of their animals missing in
    neighboring towns."
                              -end-
    
    [Comment, next response]

    
    
    re 'sacrification':
    
    I like the word...a Joycean melding of 'sacrifice' and 'purification'.
    In so-called primitive cultures, the former is often done to achieve
    the latter. And even in our culture, we've been known to offer up
    victims to make things better...
    
    Gloria
    

    Re .4 (me):
    
    From what I read here, the thing seems like a cruel and sadistic
    prank rather than something connected with the paranormal.
    
    > ................................................ Bananas and
    >apples were laid around the carcasses.
                                                        
    >Spray painted on a seawall nereby were the words, "Kill the yuppies
    >and eat their children," Chaet said.  [The photograph shows the
    >seawall saying, "KILL YUPPYS! & EAT THER KIDS" <sic>]
    
    Apples and bananas?  No candles, designs, or the like?  Not likely.
    _If_ the animals had been ritually slain elsewhere to be _disposed
    of_ on the beach, why the "Kill yuppies ..." slogan?  It doesn't
    fit for ritual stuff.  [Admittedly, the standard of education is
    deteriorating, but this is a bit much.]
    
    > ... "They weren'y mangled in any way.  They were cut with a
    >razor or sharp knife; their heads were hacked right off."
            
    And no other ritual cuts?  Less and less likely to be ritualistic.
    
    >The animal control officer said there might be some connection with
    >an Opreah Winfrey television show last week on Satanic worship,
    >in which the beheading of a lamb was discussed.  "It just seemed
    >awful strange that you see this on TV, and the next night these
    >animals end up on the beach."
    >
    >Debbie DiMaio, executive producer of the Winfrey show, told the
    >Associated Press that she found it difficult to believe there was
    >a link to the television program.
     
    If this is a cruel prank, the connection should be obvious: someone
    hears of the animal beheadings, and decides that, "for a lark,"
    it would be "fun" to do something similar.  Or that it would be
    "fun" to scare people with such an act.  People who feel that way,
    in my opinion, are sick.
    
    On a related point, a movie on television some years ago showed
    some teen punks dousing a derelict with gasoline and setting him
    on fire "for fun."  That very night, after it was aired, some teens
    went out and copied the crime.  That B follows A doesn't necessarily
    mean that A causes B, but in the latter case, it did; it might have
    in the former.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Kill yuppies and eat their children?  This has got to be a joke.

RE: .5
    
    > "sacrification" as a Joycean melding of "sacrifice" and
    > "purification".
    
    I would have said Lewis Carol rather than Joyce.
    
    I would also have guessed "sanctification" rather than "purification".
    
    					Topher

    I believe in God and I believe in the Devil (or Satan) and I believe
    that this was an act of Satanism....I might be overdramatizing but
    that's the way I feel.

    Re .10:
    
    I, too believe in God and in Satan.  However, the "culprit" can
    be looked at in two ways.  If you are of the belief that "everything
    that's evil ultimately comes from Satan," then I cannot disagree
    with you.  If you mean "This act was part of a rite of conscious
    Satan worship," then I have to disagree.  
    
    The photograph, the description of the scene, and the lack of certain
    paraphenalia lead me to believe it was "merely" the work of sick
    folk.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I am the type of person who looks at things as right/wrong, good/bad,
    God/Satan....etc..they beheaded these animals for some reason..to
    play a joke (which wasn't funny) or to worship (I really don't know).
    Now thousands of animals are slaughtered for food, clothing, etc..
    for survival purposes..I don't even think that's right..I know that
    god doesn't really want us doing that..but I cannot catorgorize
    slaughtering animals as evil..but to just behead the animal and
    dump them ...has to be a Satanism act or shall I say evil...Anything
    evil to me is an act of Satanism...by this I mean that they have
    Satan in them..
    

RE: .12
    
    OK.  We're simply into a matter of definitions.  I don't think that
    anyone disagrees that this appears to be an act of evil or of disease.
    If you believe that the source of evil/moral disease is Satan than
    clearly, ipso facto, this was a Satanic act.
    
    Satanism, however, as the term is usually used, involves the deliberate
    worship of the evil entity known as Satan (The Opponent).  Some
    would include those who worship Satan not knowing that it is Satan
    they worship.  In any case it is a class of religions and involves
    conscious and serious worship.
    
    Satanism, in many forms, clearly and unquestionably exists.  You
    don't even have to believe in Satan to accept this, any more than
    you have to believe in Vishnu to believe that Hinduism exists.
    
    I agree with Steve, though, this has all the earmarks of a sick
    prank rather than serious ritual -- even botched, ignorant ritual.
    
    					Topher

    RE: .12 (CSCMA::SNOW) 

    I agree with you that God doesn't want us slaughtering animals, but I
    disagree where you say: 

    > ..but I cannot catorgorize slaughtering animals as evil..but to just
    behead the animal and dump them ...has to be a Satanism act or shall I
    say evil.  < 

    The fact remains that humans do not require meat in their diet.  EVERY
    animal slaughtered for reasons other than emergency survival dies
    unnecessarily.  Such wanton destruction cannot be called anything but
    evil by people of conscience. 

    It's almost amusing that people become upset over a dead lamb on a
    beach but think nothing of the dead lamb on their plate.  A chicken
    with it's head cut off lying in somebody's back yard is repulsive, but
    nobody gives a rat's ass about the thousands of chickens beheaded each
    hour destined to end up in Colonel Sanders buckets.  A few decapitated
    animals are found and the ASPCA gets involved, but it doesn't seem to
    matter that "livestock" are *exempt* from cruelty laws and undergo some
    of the worst humiliation and torture imaginable.  People get upset over
    cruelty that they can see, but so long as the horrors of the
    slaughterhouse are hidden from view by "the graceful distance of
    miles," what do they care?  Every dollar spent on a steak is a vote for
    continued suffering. 

    I also find it interesting that animal sacrifices are considered to be
    the property of devil-worshiping religions; yet the Old Testament runs
    red with the blood of countless innocent animals senselessly
    slaughtered to satisfy a god who delights in the smell of burning
    flesh. 

    How can people ever expect to live in harmony with each other when we
    won't even treat with respect creatures whose only crime is being born
    of a different species?  I swear, mankind is a mistake for which the
    rest of creation suffers incessantly. :-( 

    John M. 

    I agree with you John.  

RE: .14
    
    Thanks John I appreciate your note, it certainly hits home with
    me.
    
    
    -Arthur

    Re .14 (John):
    
    This could quickly turn into a rathole.
    
    Different people have different ideas about eating animal products.
    My feeling is that _if_ people should eat meat, that they ideally
    should insist on loving, careful, and tender care in bringing up 
    the animal and a painless, humane end for the animal when being
    killed.  [Really, they should have to witness the animal being killed,
    gutted, and cut up; however, that's another problem.]
    
    The difference here is _intent_.  Whether on an absolute scale,
    animal slaughter is evil, the people who are raising livestock to
    be slaufghtered are not doing it _to_ be evil; nor are the people
    in the slaughterhouses.  Callous, unfeeling, and so forth arwen't
    _willing evil_.
    
    Now someone who sacrifices an animal for ritual purposes to Satan,
    say, is worshipping evil and is deliberately participating in a
    _knowing_ evil act.  There's a world of difference there.
    
    Likewise, the sick folk who slaughtered animals for a prank (if,
    as I believe, that is what the Revere Beach incident was) are killing
    animals _not even_ for food, but for "fun."  That shows a different,
    and bizzarre, intent.  One which even meat-eaters would probably
    charactertize as evil.
    
    A note on carniverousness is one thing, but it's a digression from
    the real concern some here have in what seems to be a deliberately
    evil act.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S:  A few years ago, there was a news story about some animal
          mutilations on a farm in Natick that were probably of a Satanic
          nature.  

RE: .17

    >  This could quickly turn into a rathole.  < 

Steve, Steve, Steve.  You should know by now that any topic with "Animal"
in the title is going to initiate Mitchell.exe.  I don't want to go down
a rathole, but I'll jump on pert nigh any opportunity to speak for those who
can't speak for themselves.

    
    > Different people have different ideas about eating animal products.
    My feeling is that _if_ people should eat meat, that they ideally
    should insist on loving, careful, and tender care in bringing up the
    animal and a painless, humane end for the animal when being killed.  < 

On the one hand it is certainly less hypocritical to raise and kill one's
own animals, but it also requires that the person crush their humanitarian
instincts in order to perform an act that is not only repugnant, but
unnecessary. It is the same process by which soldiers bring themselves to
kill; "All pity choked with custom of fell deeds," as Shakespeare said.
Imagine... raising something with "loving, careful, and tender care" and
then killing it!  Reminds me of a favorite quote by Tolstoy:

    "This is dreadful!  Not only the suffering and death of the animals,
    but that man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest
    spiritual capacity--that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures
    like himself--and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel." [From
    _The First Step_] 


    >  The difference here is _intent_.  Whether on an absolute scale,
    animal slaughter is evil, the people who are raising livestock to be
    slaufghtered are not doing it _to_ be evil; nor are the people in the
    slaughterhouses.  Callous, unfeeling, and so forth arwen't _willing
    evil_. < 

What the heck difference does it make what the *intent* behind an evil act
is?  It is the act itself that really matters.  Some Nazi guard in a
concentration camp may simply be "callous, unfeeling, and so forth," toward
his victims, but it is his *participation* that is evil, not his motivation.
A person can fantasize about raping somebody all they want, but it is the
person who actually rapes that is guilty of "evil."  By the same token,
hoisting a lamb up by one leg and cutting its throat is really no worse
than taking it to some beach and whacking off its head; the motives may
be different but both are unnecessary deaths.  You can say seven "Hail Marys"
while you are killing something, but that doesn't matter to the victim.


    >  A note on carniverousness is one thing, but it's a digression from
    the real concern some here have in what seems to be a deliberately evil
    act.  < 


It is not a digression at all.  What do you think that lamb was probably
being raised for anyway?  Cruelty in every form must cease and I maintain
that killing billions of animals every year to satisfy mere tastes is as
evil as killing them for "fun."  Sick prank or Ballpark frank; it doesn't
matter to the poor animal.

John M.

         John, if I were to believe in nothing but the physical plane
    and all the logic that that entails, undoubtably I would agree with
    you.  BUT, since I believe in much more than just the physical plane,
    I agree with Steve.  Intent has a great deal to do with *everything*
    for it isn't the end results that matter, it's the means that matter.
    Giving any living thing (even plants, which are--for me--are also
    consciousnesses) dignity and respect in its life, however long and
    to whatever extent that life evolves, is the mark of the spiritually
    evolved person.  As a human, I believe that my dignity and all of
    my individuated components that comprise my valued self are being
    culled towards their eventual union with my Higher Self.  The plant
    (in this set of beliefs) will culminate its evolution with the 
    growth (reincarnationally) into the Animal Kingdom, the animal--
    into the Human Kingdom.  Unfulfillment in that kingdom prevents
    the movement into the next.  How does this fit?  In a sense, you
    could think of it as "approval" (and I really want the quotes around
    that word to stand out) from the kingdom above.  In the human
    condition, it has always been approval from "God."  In my reality
    utilizing my current beliefs, it is "approval" from my Higher
    Self (and even as I type this I know this is false...)  
       To wit:  The animal seeks fulfillment as what-ever-it-is...
    not giving it the dignity of that "position" is an error on
    our part.  We humans (most of us) have always been carnivores.
    There are many things we do in our normal activities that *could*
    be sacrificed for the good of something-or-other.  I believe
    in giving respect to all things.  Killing an animal, any more
    than killing a plant, NEED NOT NECESSARILY be an act of disrespect.
      
    Frederick
    (who definitely does not believe in Satan)
    

RE: .19 (Frederick)

In all honesty, I'm not sure what you were trying to say.  Two things do
stand out though:

    >  The plant (in this set of beliefs) will culminate its evolution with
    the growth (reincarnationally) into the Animal Kingdom, the animal--
    into the Human Kingdom.  < 

I find this view arrogant.  Humans ARE animals and there are no compelling
practical reasons to believe that humans are inherently better than any
other animal.  You believe that humankind is the apex of the animal kingdom
only because you happen to be one.  And if transmigration of the soul does
exist, how do you know that a whale or a dolphin is not considered to be
the next higher step?  I also see no reason for plants to "reincarnate"
into animals.  Plants are a legitimate lifeform unto themselves; they need
nothing to "improve" them.


    > We humans (most of us) have always been carnivores.  < 

Well, no.  Physiological evidence alone is enough to counter that statement.


    >  I believe in giving respect to all things.  Killing an animal, any
    more than killing a plant, NEED NOT NECESSARILY be an act of
    disrespect. < 

Killing becomes an act of disrespect when it is unnecessary.  By killing to
satisfy mere tastes, we objectify the creatures we kill.  Animals are not
objects and have a right to live their lives unmolested and unexploited. 

John M.
                 

    re:  John
      
         Several points:
     
         Humans have always been carnivores...except when they weren't.
    People have always eaten when hungry.  If wild berries weren't
    available, and they were hungry, they ate whatever insect or animal
    they could find.  It's one of the reasons that we have the set of
    teeth we have.  Who knows what effects pollution or many of the
    man-made chemicals have on us?  Similarly, who knows what effects
    a strictly vegetarian diet will have on an animal that is used to
    getting meat (in this lifetime and hereditarily speaking?)  I know
    all the arguments vegetarians use.  The arguments are admirable.
    To tell you the truth, in concept I agree, to an extent, at least.
    But you know as well (probably better than) as I do what contortions
    vegetarians have to go through to get the proper amino acids, proteins,
    etc. to "replace" those that meat-eaters get.  The point here is
    that it is "unnatural" to not eat meat for us in the Western world.
    You can argue more if you like...but I've already seen your arguments
    in the HOLISTICS notesfiles...and I will probably not counter.
    I think preaching vegetarianism is like preaching the Bible and
    "I'm agin' it."  Better yet is to show by example what you have
    accomplished by your vegetarianism.
      
         As for arrogance (oh, no, not that word again!  :-) ,) please
    don't misread my intentions.  I do not claim that humans are better
    than animals, especially when in my own belief system I have been
    an animal (of the non-human type) and I further believe that that
    animal is alive and "well" within "me."  What I WILL claim, however,
    is that humans are MORE than they are.  Notice the words...not BETTER
    THAN, but MORE THAN.  Just like "God" isn't better than me, but
    "God" is definitely MORE than I am.  And, further, as I grow
    (spiritually) I will become even more of who I already am.  I MUST
    believe this.  There is no purpose for me in this lifetime if I
    do not sincerely believe this.  I do not want a lifetime of sitting
    in front of a tv set burping beers.  I am not better than anyone
    who does that, but by golly I sincerely believe I am more than that!
    The last couple of weeks have seen similar discussions in the
    PHILOSOPHY conference about animals/humans; from reading them you
    can readily see that it can get quite verbose.  I do not wish to
    replicate those arguments/explanations here (even if I could) so
    I won't.  Anyway, I do not feel spiritually superior to these
    animals, plants, and (I know you'll cringe at this one...) even
    minerals.  I do recognize that I am on a different path from them,
    and I further believe that I have already been on those particular
    journeys.
      
         AS to the killing part, mostly I agree with you.  We restructure
    minerals (effectively "killing" whatever they were,) we kill plants
    (oftentimes just because they are in our way,) and we kill animals
    for sport (to the point of extinction in so many cases.)  On the
    other hand, we share a planet with 5,000,000,000 others.  Minerals
    MUST be moved/altered, plants MUST be displaced/killed, animals
    MUST change/die to make room for us (the "equal" human.)  Nay,
    (quaint word, that, isn't it? :-) ) we do all these things, yet
    we do not consider them undignified for either us or our "victims."
    So, then, where do you or I draw the line?  I believe the place
    to draw it is at, as Steve pointed out, the point of INTENT and
    RESPECT.  Should we lose our consciousness about this (and I think
    you could make a very strong argument here showing that we HAVE)
    then we "need" to make the proper adjustments.
     
    Frederick
    

    Why MUST animals die to make room for us humans.  Why can't we humans
    find our place in the natural order without distroying everything
    we touch.  Maybe the animals are more enlightened than we are. 
 

    John-M..you are absolutely right...I thought about that...but I
    thought it would be selfish of me to say it because I eat chicken
    and fish...I do not not eat red meat..I not really upset about the
    fact that they slaughtered the animals....it's the reason behind
    it..

.17  Steve

>   ............................................................. killing
>   animals _not even_ for food, but for "fun."  That shows a different,
>   and bizzarre, intent.  One which even meat-eaters would probably
>   charactertize as evil.

Does this include trophy hunters also?

John; What about fish?

Jay                

    re.  24
    
    Trophy hunters are absolutely evil... killing for "sport/fun"
    and possession.
    
    	bruce

    Aren't humans omnivores, rather than carnivores?
    
    

    Re .24 (Jay):
    
    >Does this include trophy hunters also?

    My personal opinion is that trophy hunting is bad and immoral. 
    That's evil in my book.
    
    If you _must_ hunt, then you should eat, or otherwise utilize,
    what you kill, in my opinion.
    
    Little personal story:  When I was in my mid-teens, my father (an
    Army officer) was stationed in El Paso.  A buddy of his from the
    post took his teenage son and me to the desert to do a little shooting
    at cans, bottles, and so forth.  While we were there, the other
    kid spotted a lizard sunning itself on a rock.  He crept up on it
    and blew its ghead away.  I immediately protested, saying that the
    lizard was threatening nobody.
    
    Shortly after I got home, my father told me he'd heard about my
    protest and chewed me out for making it.  I didn't back down on
    that one, though, because even then I held life higher than something
    to be snuffed on a whim, even if it were a supposedly "lower" form.
    
    Re .26:
    
    >Aren't humans omnivores, rather than carnivores?
    
    As I recall, this is a John M. hot button.  There is an argument
    that there is no such thing as an "omnivore."  Since the term is
    in the dictionary, I disagree with that comment.  But I bring up
    the point lest we go down the detour of arguing whether or not
    "omnivore" is a valid term (I mean, look what trouble we're having
    agreeing on UFOs).
    
    In addition to strict vegetarians, there are "ovilacto" vegetarians,
    who eat veggies, eggs, and milk products such as cheese.  One need
    kill nothing to do this (the eggs consumed are infertile), yet it
    provides animal protiens in the diet.     
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    RE: .18
    
    >  Cruelty in every form must cease and I maintain taht killing
    billions of animals every year to satisfy mere taste is as evil
    as killing them for fun. <
    
    Are we not generalizing perhaps just a wee bit here John.  I was
    previously a vegitarian for the last three years of my life, 
    until my last check-up declared  me to be quite anemic.  These
    days I eat lots of spinich, strawberries, cantalope and yes RED
    MEAT once a week!!!
           I am an animal lover.  I am totally against the way most
    farm animals are treated.  I think it is naive to think the solution
    to this problem is to not eat meat.  The key is active support to
    see these animals are treated better.  
           I do not eat meat for the "evil enjoyment" of it.  I eat
    it for my health.  Plants are living things to you know.  Let me
    close by saying you did bring up some good points, but lets live
    and let live a little.  Try reading I'm O.K. your O.K. its a great
    book on the human condition.
    
    Marye'
    
    
    

RE: .21 (Frederick)

Believe it or not, I agree with you on one or two points, although some
of the comments you make are enough to send me into my next incarnation!

    >  Humans have always been carnivores...except when they weren't.
    People have always eaten when hungry.  If wild berries weren't
    available, and they were hungry, they ate whatever insect or animal
    they could find.  < 

There is absolutely no evidence that "humans have always been carnivores."
Even if that were true, it is certainly no reason to continue killing animals
long after the necessity for doing so has vanished.  People have "always
done" a lot of things; murder and war are time-honored human pastimes.
So should we continue murdering and making war simply because our ancestors
did?


    >  It's one of the reasons that we have the set of teeth we have.  < 

I suggest you check out a carnivore's teeth.  Humans don't have fangs, which
are long, rounded instruments for stabbing.  Our puny "canines" (called
so only because of their position) are flat and barely extend beyond the
common line of the teeth, if at all.  Carnivores have jaws that are hinged
for movement up and down, since they tear off their food and swallow it
whole.  Humans have jaws that move laterally for grinding nuts, seeds, and
crunchy vegetable matter, and our flattened molars are perfectly suited for
grinding.  It's easy for us to bite into an apple, thanks to our incisors
(and hands...but that's another story).  Cats and dogs would be hard pressed
to do the same with their tiny incisors.  

I could go on for PAGES describing how pongid physiology is perfectly suited
for a vegetable diet and poorly configured for rendering/digesting meat.
However, I have written many such descriptions before and will spare noters
who have already read my dietary diurnalings elsewhere the tedium of reading
them again (unless pressed to do so).


    >  Who knows what effects pollution or many of the man-made chemicals
    have on us?  Similarly, who knows what effects a strictly vegetarian
    diet will have on an animal that is used to getting meat (in this
    lifetime and hereditarily speaking?)  < 

If that animal is a true carnivore a strictly vegetarian diet is unnatural
and will lead to deficiencies.  If we are talking about humans, however, the
results will be *improved* health.  I can back this up with studies, if
you so request.


    >  But you know as well (probably better than) as I do what contortions
    vegetarians have to go through to get the proper amino acids, proteins,
    etc. to "replace" those that meat-eaters get. < 


NO, NO, NO!  (This myth may never die!)  It is NOT necessary to eat certain
vegetable foods in the presence of others in order to get the correct amino
acid balance.  VEGETABLES ALREADY CONTAIN ALL OF THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS.
Mushrooms, lettuce, spinach, asparagus, potatoes, and many, many more
vegetables are sources of balanced protein.  If you eat a variety of vegetables
(as you should anyway) you'll get all of the protein and vitamins your body
requires.  "Protein complementing" was popularized by Francis Moor Lappe
in her book _Diet for a Small Planet_ which was written in a time when it
was thought you couldn't get enough protein.  Protein complementing, while
it certainly works, provides *too much* protein in the diet.  This came
about largely as a result of studies using rats, which have different amino
acid requirements than humans.  (BTW, Ms. Lappe, whom I greatly admire,
now admits she went overboard on the protein thing).


    > The point here is that it is "unnatural" to not eat meat for us in
    the Western world. < 

In other words, because so many other people do it you should do it too, right?
Take a look at the incidence of heart disease, diverticulitis, and the like and
tell me again how "natural" it is to eat meat in the western world.


    >  I think preaching vegetarianism is like preaching the Bible and "I'm
    agin' it."  < 


But why?  Do you think that killing billions of animals to satisfy mere tastes
is a sign of spiritual development?  Anyway, vegetarianism is not enough; we
must see that the exploitation of animals (humans included, of course) in every
form is stopped. 


    >  Better yet is to show by example what you have accomplished by your
    vegetarianism.  < 


That's simple; I am saving animal lives each year by not supporting their
destruction with my dollar (simple supply and demand). 


    >  What I WILL claim, however, is that humans are MORE than they are.
    Notice the words...not BETTER THAN, but MORE THAN.  < 

Well, just for the sake of argument (you expect that from me, right? ;-)) how
is a human "more" than any other animal?  By what criterion?  For instance, if
we set physical prowess as the standard, humans are *inferior* to most other
animals.  We make a big deal out of what Olympic gymnasts can do, but the
truth is that the most common alleycat is ten times more supple.  So you
see, standards are arbitrary.


    >  Just like "God" isn't better than me, but "God" is definitely MORE
    than I am.  < 

In my book, God is better than everybody!  Of course we are discussing
philosophy now, which is of little use to anybody. 


    >  There is no purpose for me in this lifetime if I do not sincerely
    believe this.  I do not want a lifetime of sitting in front of a tv set
    burping beers.  I am not better than anyone who does that, but by golly
    I sincerely believe I am more than that! < 


This outlook disturbs me.  I suspect that you will probably change your
philosophy some time in the future and will go on living quite happily.
What happens when you reach "perfection" anyway?  Since there is nothing
more (and you cannot be God) what will you have to exist for?


    >  Anyway, I do not feel spiritually superior to these animals, plants,
    and (I know you'll cringe at this one...) even minerals.  < 

This is a view shared by many American Indian tribes and I think it makes
for a very balanced outlook.  I'm not cringing at all!


    >  On the other hand, we share a planet with 5,000,000,000 others.  < 

Sadly, "share" does not seem to apply to humans.


    >  Minerals MUST be moved/altered, plants MUST be displaced/killed,
    animals MUST change/die to make room for us (the "equal" human.) < 

Please replace MUST with MIGHT.  We don't have to keep building and building,
nor do we have to destroy habitats, nor do we need to eat animals in most
cases.  But we do anyway, simply to make a profit or please our palates.
This is irresponsible and there is no excuse for supposedly intelligent
creatures to act in such a way.  OF COURSE some killing will always be
necessary; that is part of life.  It is the *unnecessary* killing that must
stop if this world is to last.


John M.
                                                                      

RE: .24 (Jay)

    > John; What about fish? < 

They should be off limits as well.  Mind you, I tend to go easy on
chicken-fishers even if they call themselves "vegetarian."  That's because
I think many such people are on their way to vegetarianism.  I even advocate
a more gradual conversion as opposed to going cold-turkey (oops!).


RE: .26 (Wolbach)

    >    Aren't humans omnivores, rather than carnivores?   < 
    

Humans are anatomically generalized and can eat just about anything *if
need be.*  We are configured for a vegetable diet, but may include small
amounts of meat.  An all-meat or heavy-meat diet is certainly not ideal
for our species, as evidenced by the fact that a person on an all-vegetable
diet can expect to live twice as long as a person on an all-meat diet.
    

RE: .27 (Steve)

RE: Lizard story..

Good for you!

Hey-- Aren't you glad I didn't go on another omnivore tirade?  ;-)


I don't mean to turn this into a vegetarian note, folks.  But I'm trying to
point out how animal sacrifice is of concern to so many people, while hundreds
of thousands of animals die every day unnecessarily.  We can argue about the
"intent" behind a killing all we want, but that is unimportant...especially to
the victim.  Recall a parable of Jesus where two servants were told to go out
and work in the field.  The first servant said, "Yes, right away!  Such a job
I'll do for you!" and did nothing.  The second servant protested vociferously,
but went out and did the work.  Although their intent was different, it is the
second servant who did his masters work...and that is really all the master
cares about. 

John M.
                                                             

RE: .28 (Marye')


    >  Are we not generalizing perhaps just a wee bit here John.  I was
    previously a vegitarian for the last three years of my life, until my
    last check-up declared  me to be quite anemic.  These days I eat lots
    of spinich, strawberries, cantalope and yes RED MEAT once a week!!!  < 

No offense intended, but I suggest either you were not eating a balanced
vegetarian diet, or your condition is influenced by some genetic or external
factor.  The small amount of meat you are eating is certainly not enough
to offset anemia, and you'd probably do better to concentrate on high-iron
vegetable sources and omit the meat altogether.

BTW, I'll be the first to admit that, from a health standpoint, small amounts
of meat aren't going to hurt anybody.  My standpoint is from an *ethical*
side, however, so I tend to come across rather strong on this issue.



    >  I am an animal lover.  I am totally against the way most farm
    animals are treated.  < 

As well you should be!  But don't you think it is inconsistent to espouse
love for animals, while eating the object of your affection?


    > I think it is naive to think the solution to this problem is to not
    eat meat.  < 


How so?  Your dollar is your vote.  The less meat people buy, the fewer
animals are killed, pure and simple.  The meat industry is hurting now for
that very reason.


    >  The key is active support to see these animals are treated better.
    < 


Killing them unnecessarily is not treating them better.  Anyway, mistreatment
is part of the objectification process.  To ask a farmer to treat his animals
as sentient, feeling beings is to ask him to recognize them for what they
are.  It is much easier to treat animals as commodities (as slaves were once
regarded in this country).


    >  I do not eat meat for the "evil enjoyment" of it.  I eat it for my
    health.  < 

I believe you, but I don't think you are *really thinking* about what you
are doing.  I used to eat meat quite heavily (one of my favorite recipes
called for 5 different kinds of meat) until I was confronted by a vegetarian
who challenged me to *think* about what I was doing.  There simply was no
moral justification for eating meat when I did not have to.  You do *not*
need meat for your health!  Even if you are anemic.  I know several registered
dietitians who back me up on this, and can quote other sources if you wish.
If you find eating certain high-iron vegetables not to your liking, why
not try a vegetarian vitamin/mineral pill?  As an animal lover, I'm sure you
would feel better about this.


    >  Plants are living things to you know.  < 

Yes, but a carrot doesn't scream when you pull it out of the ground.  Bite
into a banana, then bite into a cat.  What do your five senses (which are
all we need to interpret our environment) tell you about which should be
eaten?  As a matter of fact, most fruits are *evolved* to be eaten, which
is why they taste good to us animals.  Plants need us to disseminate their
offspring.  I could go on and on about this, because this is a particular
button with me, but Steve might go nonlinear.


    >  Let me close by saying you did bring up some good points, but lets
    live and let live a little.  Try reading I'm O.K. your O.K. its a great
    book on the human condition.  < 

Sorry,  "valuing differences" stops when a victim enters the picture.


John M.
                                   

    
    John,
    
    You're right on about the excessive protein.  Anyone who would like
    a copy of an article on excessive protein as written up in "Nutrition
    Action" (a non-profit organization which keeps an eye on the government
    and is worried about everything related to food), just send me a
    note directly.  May be a while - just to let you know - really busy
    right now.                                                   
    
    My favorite statement came out of there.  It was in their Food Porn
    section and the name of the article was "Apple Crud" (on Apple
    Jacks....). 
                
    I'm not a serious vegetarian or anything, but I cannot honestly
    remember the last time I ate or bought meat (except for seafood,
    and not much of that either).  I have this dynamite vegetarian lasagna
    recipe too....just send a note if interested in that too.  It came
    out of Prevention magazine, and was slightly modified.
    
    Back to the debate.
    
    Cindy

    Had to make one comment here. First, let me say that I am primarily
    a vegetarian, but do eat eggs, I'd consume milk products but I have
    rather recently acquired an allergy to milk products. Consuming all
    the iron in the world will not keep one from becoming anemic if there
    is no B-12 in the diet.  It is the B-12 that helps bind the iron to the
    blood cells.  If anyone can specify what organism in the plant kingdom 
    produces B-12 I surely would like to know what the name of that
    organism is. Animal and animal by-products are as far as I know the
    only natural source of B-12.  This information, I have received from someone
    who has been in natural foods for the last 40 years and recently
    earned a masters in nursing with a major in nutrition.  I'll accept
    the possibility that she might have missed some nutritional study
    somewhere that shows that B-12 is produced in adequate proportions
    for the human body, in the plant kingdom.  If some one out there
    in DEJAVU or other notesfiles knows of a source frome plants please
    let me know.  Now the other side of the coin is that one does not have
    to kill and eat flesh to get the necessary B-12;  It can be gotten
    from unfertilized eggs and milk.
    	I accept the philosophy of Don Juan Who Carlos Castaneda studied
    with:  don't kill two rabbits when one is sufficient.  Don't destroy
    the shrubbery and earth to barbeque the rabbits when mere cooking
    will suffice. And don't forget to thank the Rabbit and shrubbery
    because one day you will be food for other plants and animals. 
    Of course the above is paraphrased, but it reminds me that we are
    not immortal and cannot continue to think we are by indiscriminate
    and unecessary killing of plants or animals. Death should be our 
    "wise advisor".
    
    Ernie
     

    Re .31 (John):
    
>    >  Plants are living things to you know.  < 

>Yes, but a carrot doesn't scream when you pull it out of the ground.  Bite
>into a banana, then bite into a cat.  What do your five senses (which are
>all we need to interpret our environment) tell you about which should be
>eaten?  ...
    
    Well, Medieval literature indicates that if you pull a Mandragora
    from the ground, _it_ screams.  Also, Isaac Bonewits indicates that
    on a psychic plane (he didn't specify which), cutting a tomato will
    make _it_ scream.
    
    You shouldn't eat cats [but again, I think somewhere you indicated
    you weren't too fond of them, which is maybe why you used them as
    an example] but if you bite into a dead cat, it won't scream either.
    
    The ideal solution would for us to be energy-converters, but that
    day, alas, hasn't arrived.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
        

    I was in Brigham and Women's Hospital this weekend visiting a friend
    and I saw this nutrition poster...it displayed a well balanced meal
    which was
    
    milk
    bread
    cheese
    fruit
    chicken or fish  (it said nothing about red meat)
    vegetables
    cereal
    juice.....these are all the essentials to balanced or healthy meals...
    
    
    In the morning have cereal and fruit ....with a glass of juice....
    For lunch have a tuna fish sandwich...or even a veggie pocket with
    cheese....with a glass of juice...
    For dinner have a potato..chicken or fish...vegatables...juice or
    milk...and if you stick to that treat yourself to apple pie...this
    is how I eat...and the doctor say I am nice and healthy...I never
    get sick...I haven't caught a cold in about a year...On top of that
    I try to work out twice a week...Now once in a while I will go out
    to dinner and I am not as faithful to my diet...but I try to be..
    for example I went to Pizzeria Uno...there I munch on nacho chips..
    then I had buffalo wings with celery dipped in a blue-cheese dressing..
    and then a had a veggie pizza..which included bread, cheese, tomato,
    peppers, onions, and mushroom...then I drank pina coladas...
    
    So what do you think..
    

    I think it's kind of humorous how we began the subject with "Animal
    Sacrification" and now we are disputing nutrition..since we are
    now on the topic of eating animals...has anyone seen "Face of Death."
    This is factual live deaths ...in this film they showed how these
    weird people ate monkey brains live....they would cut the monkey
    in the head ...yes while it was alive and eat the brain..yes while
    the monkey is screaming....D*I*S*G*U*S*T*I*N*G!!!!!!!!
    
    Now tell me what do people get out of this?  I don't understand
    it!

    Re .36:
    
    >I think it's kind of humorous how we began the subject with "Animal
    >Sacrification" and now we are disputing nutrition...
     
    That's what's known as a "rathole" digression.  Personally, I believe
    that the ethics of killing animals for food ought to be separated
    from killing animals eitrher as a sacrifice or for "amusement."
    
    > ...................................has anyone seen "Face of Death."
    >This is factual live deaths ...
     
    No.  And this fits loosely into the "killing animals for amusement"
    category.  Nonwithstanding that somebody might be eating the animals
    during or after the filming of the scenes, the purpose of making
    the film was for the viewers' delectation.
    
    I consider such exploitation extremely evil.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: 661.37
    
    
    Kallis..these were not actor and actresses acting this out..they
    were filmed live...The filmed was banned in some cities because
    of it...they showed how some humans lost their arms, leg etc from
    bears, alligators, etc....It was a documentary...The narrator
    explained that after seeing the how they slaughtered the animals
    for food purposes, he decided to become a vegetarian....
    

    Re .38:
    
    >Kallis..these were not actor and actresses acting this out..they
    >were filmed live...
     
    I never said it was.  Note this from my .37:
    
    >No.  And this fits loosely into the "killing animals for amusement"
    >category.  Nonwithstanding that somebody might be eating the animals
    >during or after the filming of the scenes, the purpose of making
    >the film was for the viewers' delectation.
    >
    >I consider such exploitation extremely evil.
                                                
    I stand by those words.  In fact, if it were actors and the animals,
    etc. weren't actually being killed on camera, I would consider it
    a lesser evil.  The point is that it is bad enough to slaughter
    something, particularly something that is killed painfully.  This
    can be _partially_ offset if whatever is being killed is being eaten
    and is killed humanely.  [John M: we can discuss the ethics for and
    against this practice endlessly, but to do so _right at this point_
    would obfuscate what I'm about to say.]
    
    The _Faces of Death_ kind of documentary -- and I hear it was in
    such vogue among teenagers for a while that one videocassrtte rental
    place had a waiting list -- is _not_ made to sensitize the average
    user to the pain of real death; rather, it's made to appeal to
    the baser instincts of people so that they are =>entertained<= with
    images of killing and death.  To a lesser extent, the underground
    "snuff" films of some years ago were appealing to the same baser
    desires/drives/whatever.
    
    I consider slaughter-for-consumption to have _some_ redeeming features.
    I consider slaughter for amusement to be unspeakably repulsive,
    with no redeeming value whatsoever.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    	Being the type of person who becomes tearful at seeing a 
    	dog waiting patiently in the back of a truck for his owner
    	I'd really appreciate it if we could do without specifics
    	(i.e., screaming monkeys).  This topic is controversial 
    	yet discussable in many ways, the gross-out factor being
    	(in my opinion) unnecessary.  Thanks.
    
    						Carla
    

    Well Carla..that's the whole point of the matter...so you can get
    a vivid picture of what we have been discussing...Hopefully it will
    make people think about eating it again..I was trying to make a
    point...and it worked because you got upset about it!
    

    Re .41:
    
    >.......................................... Hopefully it will
    >make people think about eating it again..
     
    Speak for yourself.  I've nerver eaten living monkey brains, nor
    do I intend to.
    
    If you want to make a point about domestic cattle, use domestic
    examples.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Gee Kallis ...I can't make a general statement without anyone jumping
    on my back...For your information I was referring to the people
    in the movie..okay!  I do not eat monkey brains either and I don't
    know any one that does.....I was simply trying to make a point.......
    
    This note I think is getting out of hand.  People are getting too
    emotional and too picky!  I think I'll jump back into the astrology
    entry...I think I like that one better...
    

    re: .40 (Carla)
    
    I agree with you. I tend to not only get teary-eyed, but quite 
    squeamish (is that how you spell that?) when such things are 
    discussed in detail. I have, as a matter of fact, physically 
    left the room during more than one such discussion. In fact,
    if I remember correctly, my roommates at the time were discussing
    the same movie being discussed here...Anyway, although I have gotten
    pretty good at skimming these responses so as not to read anything
    "yucky", I wouldn't mind not seeing such graphic descriptions.
    
    Just my $.02 worth.
    
    -Amy.
    

    
    >Gee Kallis ...I can't make a general statement without anyone jumping
    >on my back...For your information I was referring to the people
    >in the movie..okay!  I do not eat monkey brains either and I don't
    >know any one that does.....I was simply trying to make a point.......
     
    Whoah!  I'm trying to _help_ you make that point.
    
    There are two issues with that film: one concerns carnophagy, the
    other about killing for entertainment.  These are worth separating.
    
    1) Carnophagy:
    
    If you are upset at the thought of animals being slaughtered to
    provide meat on the table, that's okay, and worth discussing (though
    is that more a note for PHILOSOPHY than DEJAVU?).  However, since
    I doubt that even one percent of the DEJAVU participants or readers
    (if any at all) would eat monkey brains, it's a less compelling
    argument than talking about the way some slaughterhouses brain cattle
    with sledgehammers.  On that, even strict carnivores should insist
    that _if_ cattle have to be slaughtered it be done quickly and
    painlessly (or, in the case of koshering meat, at least painlessly).
    Make _that_ point, and use examples of brutality to animals used
    for domestic, ordinary, meats (beef, pork, lamb, chicken, etc.)
    rather than the exotic, and it'll hit closer to home.
                                                         
    2) Entertainment.
    
    Anything that's involved in killing-solely-for-pleasure I consider
    extremely evil.  That goes for movies, trophy hunts, bullfights
    [a misnomer: the Spanish is "the run of the bulls'; it's a
    ritual-slaying hangover from the decadent days of the Roman empire]
    and animal fights to the death.  [I don't like animal fights, period.,
    but that's another topic.]  And that is what this note startyed
    out talking about.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Sorry its taking longer to respond, folks, but I am busier as of late and
we know what that's like.  Moderators:  I *promise* not to turn this into
a vegetarian topic.  But just a few more points:

RE: .33 (Ernie)

    >  If anyone can specify what organism in the plant kingdom produces
    B-12 I surely would like to know what the name of that organism is. < 

There are several vegetable sources of B12, including  tempeh, sea vegetables,
some varieties of brewer's yeast, some beers (yea!), and miso (that's all I can
think of right now.)  B12, in conjunction with folic acid, governs red blood
cell production.  A deficiency in this vitamin can lead to pernicious anemia,
but fortunately the RDA for vitamin B12 is only 3 *micrograms* which is not
hard to supply (and that figure is high).

B12 is also synthesized in the human gut when certain intestinal flora interact
with cobalt.  This helps to explain why certain long-lived individuals who
are strict vegetarians from birth never develop pernicious anemia.  

As you mention, B12 is found in abundance in milk and eggs.  (BTW, I'm
not surprised that your nutrition-major friend is unaware of the vegetable
sources of B12 and its synthesis in the intestine; I know two registered
dietitians who were in the same boat.  Nutrition science has not focused
on vegetarianism until rather recently, and this information is simply unknown
to many professors.)

RE: .35 (SNOW)

>    I was in Brigham and Women's Hospital this weekend visiting a friend
    and I saw this nutrition poster...it displayed a well balanced meal
    which was
    
    milk
    bread
    cheese
    fruit
    chicken or fish  (it said nothing about red meat)
    vegetables
    cereal
    juice.....these are all the essentials to balanced or healthy meals...
 
...So what do you think.. <

What you listed certainly would provide a balanced diet, but it contains
some foods which are definitely NOT "essentials to balanced or healthy 
meals."  Those are Chicken and fish, cheese, and milk.  The list reflects the
"4 food groups" which were created more for *economic* reasons than dietary
ones.  All of the nutrients we need are easily gotten from the vegetable
kingdom alone.  Milk products and meat were added not so much because they
supply necessary nutrients (which they can) but to bolster the dairy and
meat industries.

You mentioned that you are healthy.  Great!  So am I (I just
had a complete blood analysis and physical, so I can say this with assurance).
Now why not forget about meat?  I'll wager your health will either improve
or stay the same, and you'll save the lives of many innocent animals.  And
if you feel like going on a binge (You ain't got nothing on me in that area,
kid) don't forget beer, wine, potato chips, French fries, doughnuts etc.
are all vegetarian!  ;-)

John M.
                         

RE: .34 (Steve)    "Meeouch" indeed.  Hahahahaha!


> Well, Medieval literature indicates that if you pull a Mandragora
    from the ground, _it_ screams.  Also, Isaac Bonewits indicates that
    on a psychic plane (he didn't specify which), cutting a tomato will
    make _it_ scream. <

Now Steve, be careful!  I am well aware of the mandrake myth and realize
you are toying with me right now, but you know how easy it is to send me
off on a tirade.  Do you really want to take that chance?  :-)

  
The fact remains that the mandrake myth is just a myth and that screaming
tomatoes are just somebody's belief.  I could claim with equal validity that
one can cure impotence by staring at a G.I. Joe doll (the mechanics of this
work on another spiritual plane, of course).  Let's stick with what we KNOW to
be true. 

And it's true, I'm not very fond of cats, but don't tell anyone.


RE: .45

Sorry, guy.  I just HAVE to jump on this:

    >...that, even strict carnivores should insist that _if_ cattle have to
    be slaughtered it be done quickly and painlessly (or, in the case of
    koshering meat, at least painlessly). < 


First off, WHY should strict carnivores insist that cattle be slaughtered
quickly?  If people are not concerned that the deaths are unnecessary in
the first place, why should they bother with the particulars?  Either way
the steak ends up on the plate and, with the present cruel system, it gets
there a whole lot cheaper.

The kosher comment is simply not true; kosher slaughter, as it is practiced
in the majority of packinghouses today, is one of the cruelest methods of
slaughter.  Kosher law stipulates that the animal's throat be cut in one
stroke by a knife with no nicks on the blade.  But federal law prohibits
an animal from falling in its own blood, so most kosher slaughterhouses
first hoist the animal up by one leg and then cut its throat.  You can imagine
the pain and physical trauma caused to an animal as heavy as a steer when
it is yanked up by one leg and left to hang until its throat can be cut;
something like hoisting a person up by one thumb.  That's the worst part.
Once the throat is cut, death by exsanguination takes about 10 seconds.
What the animal feels during that time only it and God knows.  (Interesting
aside: when a human cuts another human's throat, it is considered an act
of extreme cruelty.  Why not so with other animals?)


RE: .36 (Snow) [WARNING: This could be a bit gross for some individuals]

Although it seems to have bothered some people, I understood the point you were
trying to make.  When I first heard the monkey brains story (about 18 years
ago) I simply did not believe it.  But the story has been confirmed by several
people now.  The people who eat monkey brains are not necessarily sadistic,
just insensitive.  People throw lobsters live into a pot of water and think
nothing of it, don't they?  I once read an ancient pork pie recipe that
stipulated the pig should be whipped to death for best flavor.  And somewhere
in my collection is a recipe for "blue trout" where fish are dropped live into
boiling water.  The author nonchalantly states that the fish should turn blue
and "curl in agony."  I could go on with more contemporary and worse examples,
but prudence dictates restraint.

I agree with Steve that a movie like "Faces of Death" is sick in its very
concept: death as entertainment.  What's worse is that it is one of the
most rented videos of all time.  The only good thing I can say about it
is that some people who rent it and see the slaughterhouse sequences
are forced to think about how steaks get on  their plates.  McDonald's
can do their very best to convince kids that hamburgers grow on trees, but
the horror of the slaughterhouse remains.

Something to think about:  Gross food stories (Kentucky fried rat, monkey brains
etc.) *invariably* involve meat!

John M.
                                                                       

    re: .29
      
         John, I think you have been reincarnated many times...so have
    anther one on me!  :-)
         Let me make some things clear.  First of all, I have stated
    many times within my own life that if I liked FOOD more, I'd probably
    be a vegetarian.  If I had my TRUE preference, I'd not eat at all.
    (At least I've said this...I don't know if I really mean it.)  There
    are many things about food that disturb me.  It disturbs me that
    so many people seem to consume so much of it, for starters.  And
    they appear to "end up" with many problems because of their excess.
    So much of our society is geared around food.  We make or break
    relationships over food, much of our garbage is food or its packaging,
    diseases are spread by food or food wastes, and on and on...
         Energy is neither created nor destroyed.  Most of us can agree
    to that.  As Steve pointed out, it would be interesting if we could
    simply ingest chemicals and transform their energy into energy useful
    and usable by our bodies.  But we can't, at this time.  Or at least
    most of us can't.  
         As for our teeth, I think they are "multi-purpose" tools. 
    As for animals being superior, you are correct that it depends on
    our criteria.  There is a pretty good set of arguments in the
    PHILOSOPHY conference in this regards.  As for philosophy not having
    much value, go ahead and emulate a machine, if you desire.  As for
    "God" being better than humans, I think this is one of the major
    deficiencies with religions.  But this is a digression.
         As for using up our planetary resources, perhaps we should
    all take a lesson from Sister Teresa Newman.  It was clearly
    documented by those around her that for at least ten years of her
    life the only "food" she consumed was the holy wafer given to her
    during her communion.  She felt that "God" would care for her and
    whatever food was available would be better off in the stomachs
    of the poor whom she served.  In other words, she was clearly
    a successful breatharian.  Why not use her as a role model?  Why
    stop at just eating vegetables?  Why not stop at not eating *anything*?
         Are animals more evolved than plants?  Are they "holier?"  If so,
    then aren't we holier still?  Why or why not?  If all things are
    sacred, why aren't they all equal?  If all things are equal, why
    aren't we (spiritually) equal to "God"?  If there is a hierarchy,
    then which animals are more "sinful" to eat (assuming more of a
    sin the closer to human we reach on the evolutionary or spiritual
    trail?)  What I am trying to get at here John is that you are somehow
    making animals more sacred than anything except humans.  You further
    seem to be making humans out to be the scum of the spiritual universe.
    And they are especially "scummy" if they eat animals (if I interpret
    your "philosophy" or personal code of ethics properly.)  
          You see, I consider *EVERYTHING* sacred.  All minerals, all
    plants, all animals, all humans (from whatever planet...)...And
    humans, as a PIECE of God/Goddess/All-That-Is, not as inferior,
    but as a "less aware" entity.  As we humans are more aware than
    animals, etc.  Who says so?  I say so for me.  You and everyone
    else can say whatever they want for themselves.  Which is really
    what I guess my major beef is with the message you have passed on.
    What I *really* object to is not so much the concept of vegetarianism
    but the moral justification that is implied in the failure to
    adopt its practice.  In other words, I do not "buy" your righteousness
    and the guilt you are attempting to force onto those who disagree
    with the supposedly superior position you have chosen.  I DO, however,
    find the INTENT behind your message a worthwhile one.  I also agree
    in very many (mostly logical, but some emotional and intuitive)
    ways with the attempt at spirituality which you are wittingly or
    unwittingly groping for.  I stand on the earlier message, though,
    that eating meat is not immoral.  Intent has everything to do
    with the manner in which we do things.  The end result has no value
    if the means used are destructive, hurtful, malicious or unhelpful.
    Once again, I applaud your desire to help out the animal kingdom.
    I agree with a great deal of the rationale you used.  I just don't
    think it should be forced on us.  Instead, practicing LOVE (which
    I believe you have not been willing to publicly express in the
    NOTESFILES) means accepting all things as they are (while
    paradoxically wanting MORE) and expressing gratitude for what we
    have and enjoying the moments we live and having dignity within
    ourselves and respecting the position of all that exists.
         One last point (for tonight, at least.)  I believe in creating
    our own reality (as I have stated before.)  What I have expressed
    (in these three notes I have written in this topic) relate to the
    particular reality which I reside in currently.  I believe that
    the consensus reality can be altered.  I believe that I can change
    my own personal reality.  I believe, to get to the topic here, that
    the reality in which no life is sacrificed in order for the
    preservation of others, is possible and perhaps even probable. 
    I join you in working towards that reality.  I will do it in a
    different manner than yours, apparently, but I will do it without
    guilt and at my own pace.
     
    Frederick
    
    

-1.    Frederick


    Way to go, Frederick.  It couldn't have been expressed better. 
This discussion is wearing alittle thin....    

    Love,peace, and *understanding* to you all.

    Meredith E.    

WARNING:  This reply should be read by hard-core followers of this topic only.
          Portions may be unacceptable to some Noters. Discretion is advised.

RE: .49 (Frederick)

    > Let me make some things clear.  First of all, I have stated many
    times within my own life that if I liked FOOD more, I'd probably be a
    vegetarian.  < 


I don't understand this statement.  What does liking or not liking food
have to do with the choice of not adding flesh to one's diet?


    > So much of our society is geared around food.  We make or break
    relationships over food, much of our garbage is food or its packaging,
    diseases are spread by food or food wastes, and on and on...  < 

Yes!  That is a very interesting observation.  Frankly, I'm with you; I
think it would be great if we did not have to eat at all.  I'd like to include
sleep and sex in that package as well.  I think that if I were God, I'd
have done things differently.


    >  As Steve pointed out, it would be interesting if we could simply
    ingest chemicals and transform their energy into energy useful and
    usable by our bodies.  But we can't, at this time.  Or at least most of
    us can't.  < 


Actually, I think Steve was talking about something more akin to
photosynthesis, which is highly impractical for mobile creatures.  Our bodies
use a system that is really quite efficient; we release the stored solar
energy of plants to use for ourselves, then we use their chemical constituents
to aid in performing other bodily functions.  Isn't that ingenious?


    > As for philosophy not having much value, go ahead and emulate a
    machine, if you desire.  < 
                              
    
That is the LAST thing I would ever want to do.


    >  As for using up our planetary resources, perhaps we should all take
    a lesson from Sister Teresa Newman.  It was clearly documented by those
    around her that for at least ten years of her life the only "food" she
    consumed was the holy wafer given to her during her communion.  She
    felt that "God" would care for her and whatever food was available
    would be better off in the stomachs of the poor whom she served.  In
    other words, she was clearly a successful breatharian.  Why not use her
    as a role model?  < 

Because I am not a nun and think such a diet is foolish.  If humans could
really subsist on such a diet, then she need only to have given the poor
whom she served a single wafer for their daily meal.  Talk about anecdotes!
I assume that because no one ever saw her eat, that means she must not have
eaten, right?  Buddha is said to have eaten only one grain of rice per day
for six years (before dieing of starvation).   I'll choose other role models,
thank you.


    >  Why stop at just eating vegetables?  Why not stop at not eating
    *anything*? < 

Because I cannot eat rocks, and if I don't eat anything I'll die.  Next
question.


    > Are animals more evolved than plants? < 

Yes.  You may consider animals to be "walking plants."


    > Are they "holier?"  If so, then aren't we holier still?  Why or why
    not?  If all things are sacred, why aren't they all equal?  < 


"Holiness" is not the issue here.  I would not stomp on your foot because
it would be painful to you and unnecessary, not because you are some sacred
object.  "Holiness" is a notion; let's stick to reality.


    > If all things are equal, why aren't we (spiritually) equal to "God"?
    < 

Because the creator is implicitly greater than its creation.


    >  If there is a hierarchy, then which animals are more "sinful" to eat
    (assuming more of a sin the closer to human we reach on the
    evolutionary or spiritual trail?)  What I am trying to get at here John
    is that you are somehow making animals more sacred than anything except
    humans.  < 


Where did you get that idea?  HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.  How can animals be more
sacred than animals?  I am not advocating that animals be treated better
than humans, but that they be accorded the same respect.  Outside of the
narromindedness of human law, the only thing that keeps humans from mistreating
each other is empathy.  I wouldn't whack you in the face because I know
what that would feel like and would not want to receive like treatment.
A pig also has a face which, while different, has as many muscles and nerve
endings as yours.  The pig would react in the same way to the stimulus of
my fist.  Based on this similarity alone, why should the pig be exempt from
mistreatment while you are not?   Why is it acceptable use a cattle prod
on the gluteus maximus of a cow but "cruel and unusual punishment" to use
one on the gluteus maximus of a human?  This double standard has no biological
basis and is a product of human arrogance.


    >  You further seem to be making humans out to be the scum of the
    spiritual universe. And they are especially "scummy" if they eat
    animals (if I interpret your "philosophy" or personal code of ethics
    properly.)  < 


I don't know if people are the scum of the spiritual universe, but our track
record in the physical universe is pretty lousy.  Anyway, there is a big
difference between considering people "scum" and wanting them to think
about what they are doing.  The vast majority of my friends are not
vegetarians, and I do not consider them to be any more "scummy" than I.


    >...we humans are more aware than animals, etc.  Who says so?  I say so
    for me.  You and everyone else can say whatever they want for
    themselves.  Which is really what I guess my major beef is with the
    message you have passed on. < 

Oh wonderful.  This is the same argument many slave owners used to justify
their actions; "they are not as aware as I, so I have the right to do what
I want."  Where, oh where, did you get the notion that you are more "aware"
than a chimp or a pig?  What bullshit!  I guess if I ever develop a taste
for human flesh I need only create a reality where other humans are less
aware than I.  That way, I'm justified in killing them, right?  Really
Frederick, sometimes I can't discern the difference between your enlightened
YCYOR philosophy and common garden-variety madness.


    > What I *really* object to is not so much the concept of vegetarianism
    but the moral justification that is implied in the failure to adopt its
    practice.  In other words, I do not "buy" your righteousness and the
    guilt you are attempting to force onto those who disagree with the
    supposedly superior position you have chosen. < 


I am flattered that you see me as righteous, though I see my "mission" as one
of education.  If guilt feelings arise out of the realization that your chateau
briand was once a living thing, conceived in misery and dedicated to the
proposition that all animals are created inferior, then good.  You know how
they have pictures of missing kids on the backs of milk cartons?  Maybe each
package of veil should have a label with the picture of the calf who lived its
entire life in a stall so small it couldn't even lie down or turn around, was
artificially forced into anemia and had to breathe the ammoniated fumes of its
own antibiotic-laced diarrhea.  If America won't go to the slaughterhouse,
maybe the slaughterhouse should come to America. 


    >  I DO, however, find the INTENT behind your message a worthwhile one.
    I also agree in very many (mostly logical, but some emotional and
    intuitive) ways with the attempt at spirituality which you are
    wittingly or unwittingly groping for.  < 


Thank you, but I am trying to speak from a humanistic standpoint.  

"Groping?"


    >  I stand on the earlier message, though, that eating meat is not
    immoral.  < 

I never said it was.  If you want to eat something that died of natural
causes, please be my guest.  I don't care what people do with their own
bodies, so long as a victim is not involved.  If you can claim that killing
and eating animals in the midst of vegetable plenty is not immoral, then
I can make, with equal veracity, the same claim regarding humans.


    >  Intent has everything to do with the manner in which we do things.
    The end result has no value if the means used are destructive, hurtful,
    malicious or unhelpful. < 

Sometimes that is true and sometimes it is not.  What really matters is
the end product.  Some people give to charity out of the goodness of their
hearts and some people give for tax advantages.  Either way the charity
benefits.  Anyway, what were really talking about here are ends, not means.
Killing an animal is an end.  Killing a person is an end.  What does it matter
where the mind of the killer was? 


    >  Once again, I applaud your desire to help out the animal kingdom. I
    agree with a great deal of the rationale you used.  I just don't think
    it should be forced on us.  < 

Forced how?  If you want to call legislation force, then go ahead.   I
want to see more legislation passed to protect animals from exploitation.
Every day we are "forced" to obey laws that are good for society as a whole:
laws against cruelty and discrimination and murder.  What's wrong with seeking
a fare shake for other animals?


    >  Instead, practicing LOVE (which I believe you have not been willing
    to publicly express in the NOTESFILES) means accepting all things as
    they are (while paradoxically wanting MORE) and expressing gratitude
    for what we have and enjoying the moments we live and having dignity
    within ourselves and respecting the position of all that exists.  < 


One of the problems with love a la New Age is that it is so damn superficial!
Those of the _I'm OK, You're OK_ mentality confuse *approval* for love and
flock like lemmings to "channelers" to be told how wonderful they are and drown
their misery in care-bear platitudes and feel-good phrases.  That is not love,
but a masquerade of love.  Sacrifice is the yardstick of love, but that notion
is just too uncomfortable for the Pepsi generation.  If you really love
animals, STOP EATING THEM.  Yes, it might take some effort, but to espouse
love for animals while exploiting them to satisfy mere tastes is hypocrisy.
I REFUSE to turn my back on the suffering of those who have no voice just
so some people can feel warm and fuzzy about whatever contribution they
have in the maintenance of cruelty.   If that sounds "unloving" to you TOUGH!

John M.
                                                                          

    "HE's BAAACCCKKKKK!!!"
     
    (... he says as he reads -.1)
           
    ...and I will respond tomorrow if I can.
      
    Frederick
    

    
    
    
    	blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
    
    	I personally enjoy red meat, smoking, drinking (only to excess)
    and enjoy reading Crowley!
    	We all have a job to do in life and that (i believe) is to find
    a path that fills our needs of growth ect.
    	Please however consider this when teaching the ignorant masses.
    
    
    		WE MIGHT NOT CARE!!!
    
    
    	Strongly defending issues or attitudes to extreems shows the
    discontent in your own reality making others less likly to believe
    your ideals.
               
    	as for me i know my reality is right.
    
    	How do I KNOW?
    
    	Because I dont.
                   		this is the joke.
    
    	As for me I will continue eating Monkey Brains and Children.
    
    		(both taste just like chicken)
    
    ttfn
    		

Ahhhh, luv children, 'specially boiled!

John;  Well argued, and I totally agree.

Jay

    Re .51 (John):
    
>    >  As Steve pointed out, it would be interesting if we could simply
>    ingest chemicals and transform their energy into energy useful and
>    usable by our bodies.  But we can't, at this time.  Or at least most of
>    us can't.  < 
>
>
>Actually, I think Steve was talking about something more akin to
>photosynthesis, which is highly impractical for mobile creatures.  Our bodies
>use a system that is really quite efficient; we release the stored solar
>energy of plants to use for ourselves, then we use their chemical constituents
>to aid in performing other bodily functions.  Isn't that ingenious?

    No, what Steve had more in mind was something akin to a direct energy
    converter.  On the order of electromagnetic_radiation_into_life_energy.
    That way we don't have to eat anything.  A nice philosophical model,
    but not very practical, alas.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    

    re: .53 (CBROWN)
    
     >  Please however consider this when teaching the ignorant masses.
    
    
               WE MIGHT NOT CARE!!! <
      
    
    Obviously, you did.
    
    John M.

    re: .53 (USACSB::CBROWN)
    
    >>	We all have a job to do in life and that (i believe) is to 
    >>	find a path that fills our needs of growth ect.
    
    	I completely agree with you!  However, please keep in mind 
    	that most people in this conference ARE doing *precisely*
    	what they feel is right, including the espousal of vege-
    	tarianism.
    
    >>	Strongly defending issues or attitudes to extreems shows the
    >>	discontent in your own reality making others less likly to 
    >>	believe your ideals.
    
    	What is extreme in your reality isn't extreme in mine.
    	John M. has every right to vocalize what I feel are some
    	extremely targeted facts, and I disagree that he is dis-
    	playing *any* sort of discontent with his reality!
    
    						Carla
    

...back to John...
      
         Well, for those of you who are watching this, it could
    perhaps be seen as a distinction between the Old Age and the New.
    I am not the quintessential New Ager, nor am I a spokesperson for
    it.  Additionally, I do not see John as completely Old Age, either.
    But there are some cuts along those lines here.  
         John says that the means sometimes matter but that the end
    is all that *really* matters.  I do not accept that.  I believe
    that there is no end (just new beginnings.)  I contend, as I have
    allegorically pointed out before by stating that we do not attend
    a concert for the final note, that the means is ALL that *really*
    matters.  The ends are the ideals that we use the means for.  The
    ends (the future) are what we use as a reason for the things we
    do (the present.)  The future creates the present.  The future never
    comes.  The past comes from the present.  This being the case
    then the *way* in which we do things MUST make a "difference." 
    Religions have taught us that only "God" can judge us.  I do not
    believe that "God" does any judging, but what I can gather from
    that set of beliefs is that no one can tell what is in the "mind"
    of anyone else.  If I were to commit some sort of crime, who would
    know what my motivation or feelings were that provoked my actions?
    Was it insanity?  Was it anger?  Was it self-defense?  Was it
    retaliation for a heinous act?  Who among us wants to play "God?"
    Who wants to do the judging?  True, the "crime" has been commited.
    And as humans we have done what we have so far deemed best in order
    to deal with it.  But no one ever says that "God" won't forgive
    it.  We'll give "God" the dirty job of doing the forgiving, we'll
    continue in feeling justification for our *punishments*.  
         To this argument of killing animals for the purpose of food,
    I say that the means that that is done (if it is to be done at all)
    is very important.  Animals are used to dying at the teeth of other
    animals.  Other animals do it for their survival.  A rabbit has
    not lost any dignity in being eaten by a cougar.  Similarly, a rabbit
    does not have to lose any dignity in being eaten by a human.  Who
    is to judge the human?  You?  Me?  The rabbit?  No, I think that
    only the individuals involved can know the *ultimate* motivations
    involved.  As outsiders, we can at best make distinctions,
    generalities, discernments, etc. about the conditions of the situation.
    For the record, I agree with John's statements about cruelty to
    animals.  I do not wish to see anything/anyone suffer (except at
    times when I have allowed my ego to run amuck.)  So, I agree that
    as we become MORE AWARE of our reality, we work to make changes
    that are reflective of that awareness.  As we become more aware
    that animals take more energy to produce than the equivalent
    (nutritionally) number of plants, as we learn that there are
    indignities taken onto the animals, as we learn that we can
    change our ages held beliefs, THEN we can make the changes necessary.
         But to say to anyone that what they are doing is "wrong" and
    to try to guilt-trip them into changing is a responsibility that
    that is not yours to take.  This reflects on the manipulation,
    control, domination aspects that man has seemingly always gravitated
    towards.  The Crusaders were "right" in forcing the will of Jesus.
    Hitler was "right" in his views of white supremacy.  These are two
    extremely strong statements that are only brought up to make the
    point of what domination, manipulation, control are all about.
    Obviously, the welfare of animals is much different than that for
    most of us.  There are very many people on the planet, however, who have
    much less AWARENESS than "us" for whom we cannot judge as to their
    justification for eating meat.  We do not even have the right to
    judge them in the WAYS that they obtain that meat.  What we CAN
    do is to make a distinction for ourselves and then, perhaps,
    show them what our learnings are.  
         I recently saw the movie "The Mission."  It helped underscore
    my awareness of how the missionaries, mercenaries, etc. forced
    THEIR will onto the formerly fulfilled peoples whom they encountered.
    "We know what's best for them."  Again, that is extremely arrogant
    position to take.  Respect for them does not mean forcing them to
    change.  Similarly, I do not want someone forcing me to be a 
    vegetarian.  When our realities overlap, however, we must do what
    we feel is appropriate for ourselves.  
         As for YCYOR vs. madness, I pretty much agree with John.  To
    the "outsider" there may be no difference.  Again, who's the judge?
    About all I can say is that for myself, I seek my own self-esteem,
    self-respect, self-worth, etc.  In so doing, I make every effort
    to be as AWARE of others as I know how and attempt to treat them
    with as much worth, esteem, respect as I am able.  I have in the
    past few years made more and more of an effort (successfully, I
    believe) to extend that worth, esteem, respect towards the rest
    of my physical reality, as well.  Yes, this includes animals.  
    Yes, I still eat them.  I do not treat the animals I eat with
    disrespect.  I am very grateful to them for what they have provided
    me.  I do not wish to see them treated without their due dignity.
    I encourage those who are responsible for their upbringing
    to accord them that, too.  As I learn more (as I become more
    AWARE,) I may leave them behind as far as nutrition is concerned.
    Then again, I may not.  That is my choice, not anyone else's.
         Sacrifice is NOT a part of my reality that I wish to align
    myself with.  Sacrifice, suffering, guilt, pain, etc. are all a
    part of Old Age thought/beliefs.  I believe that we can have an
    abundant reality...all of us who really want it.  The only thing
    we need to sacrifice is our own negative ego.  Sacrificing happiness
    or well-being is not a yardstick for love, Pepsi's or no Pepsi's.
    It is true that most of us seek approval and love outside of 
    ourselves.  That's only because we are not AWARE that the REAL
    love comes from within.  I will continue to flock to those places
    that continue to point that out to me.  Believe me, in my reality
    I am not at all superficial.  I yearn for the depth of
    self-understanding that will make me the most complete person I
    can be.  I will not stop that search to satisfy anyone's ego
    about what is right or what is wrong.  Morality is usually the
    issue for religions who force their versions onto others.  Integrity
    is the issue that rests within myself.  Beliefs have everything
    to do with it.  Sister Teresa Newman, the nun, may have been
    foolish for anyone else to emulate because they lacked the 
    CONVICTION and BELIEF she had.  Obviously, her BELIEFS were
    strong enough to support the change she made in her reality
    concerning nutrition.  The AWARENESS others had did not support
    that reality.  
         Are we more aware than *other* animals?  I believe so.  I 
    believe that they function with complete elegance and harmony
    within their own awareness.  Though I believe we humans are
    more aware, I believe that we lack the elegance (for the most
    part) and that it is clear we are not in harmony.  Forcing
    someone else to change for my good is probably not elegant and
    will undoubtably not bring me harmony.
     
    
    Frederick
    

    From the 4 March 1988 _Boston Globe_  [(c) 1988 _The Boston Globe_,
    entered without permission]
    
               RITUALISTIC KILLING OF ROOSTER IS PROBED
    
    Authorities said yesterday  that they are trying to determine if
    the ritualistic killing of a rooster found in Cambridge Tuesday
    is connected to the slaughter of several animals discovered two
    weeks ago on a Revere beach.
    
    Cambridge police detectives and officials from the Massachusetts
    Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are investigating
    the death of the rooster, which had its head dislocated while it
    was still alive.
    
    The rooster was spotted buried in Cambridge Cemetary early Tuesday.
    According to an examination performed at a local animal hospital,
    the rooster had bruises on its neck and head and [had] an open
    abdominal cavity.
    
    Among the animals found in Revere two weeks ago were sheep.  The
    MSPCA is also assisting in that investigation.
    
    "The Cambridge incident appears to be some type of spiritual exorcism
    in that garlic cloves, oils, and incense littered the gravesite
    around the dead anima," said Capt. Robert Fennessy, who is in charge
    of the investigation.
    
    In Massachusetts, ritualistic killing of animals is punishable by
    up to one year in jail and fines of $500.  "It's disconcerting that
    such incidents, although becoming increasingly frequent, rarely
    result in a successful prosecution due to the lack of witnesses.
    
    Anyone with information is asked to call the MSPCA's toll-free hot
    line at 1-800-628-5808.  All calls will be kept confidential.
                               #####

    Re .60 (Globe/me):
    
    >Authorities said yesterday  that they are trying to determine if
    >the ritualistic killing of a rooster found in Cambridge Tuesday
    >is connected to the slaughter of several animals discovered two
    >weeks ago on a Revere beach.
     
    If that statement's accurate, the authorities ought to take refresher
    courses on elementary criminal investigation.  The _Modi operendi_
    of the two incidents are strikingly dissimilar.  In the Revere Beach
    case, if we're to believe the news reports, the victims were
    decapitated, the area around the victims was free of any ritualistic
    paraphenalia, the corpses of the animals were on plain sight, there
    were [apparently] no bodily mutilations beyond beheading, and there
    was graffiti involving killing yuppies.  By contrast, the rooster
    in the Cambridge incident was killed -- probably by breaking its
    neck -- disemboweled, and buried.  Herbs, oils, and incense residue
    were found at the scene. How different can you get?
    
    >................................... "It's disconcerting that
    >such incidents, although becoming increasingly frequent, rarely
    >result in a successful prosecution due to the lack of witnesses.
                                               
    Well, I'd rather say it was frustrating.  However, I'm intrigued
    by the "increasingly frequent" statement.  Of course, would one
    expect witnesses to see a secret rite?
    
    My thoughts, from the sketchy data, are that this latest incident
    is far less likely to be a sick prank.   Not enough data to pin
    it much farther than that, though....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .61
    
    There is a fair population in the poorer sections of Cambridge and
    adjacent Somerville of Black Haitians.  It is probably unneccessary
    to remind people that whether or not it is legal and whether or
    not we approve the ritual slaughter of chickens and roosters is
    a legitimate, traditional part of the religious practice native
    to Haiti.  (That doesn't mean I approve or that I would not encourage
    legal measures being taken to stop it.  That human sacrifice is
    a "legitimate" part of the traditional Cult of Kali does not mean
    that it shouldn't be illegal.  I simply wish to point out that this
    piece of demographics makes it much more likely that this was a
    ritual without *any* thrillseeking motives).
    
    					Topher

    Re .62 (Topher):
    
    Valid observation.  However:
    
    > ......................   I simply wish to point out that this
    piece of demographics makes it much more likely that this was a
    ritual without *any* thrillseeking motives ....
    
    Yes, but so does the reorted evidence.  The rooster, for one, was
    _buried_.  Anyone wishing to call attention to a slaughtered rooster
    would probably put up signs or banners, or do something similar
    to that Revere Beach thing.  In addition to Haitains, there are
    others coming from different Carribean islands who practice similar
    rites (e.g., Jamaican Obeah), and there are descendents of such
    folk who are U.S. citizens who follow such practices.
    
    Incense and _oils_ are suggestive here.  The cloves of garlic is
    neutral, but Voudoun-type ceremonies often include herbs, oils,
    and incenses.
    
    The point is, although we've got scanty information on this event,
    whast we do have is sufficient to draw the conclusion that if it
    were a "prank," it would have to be done by a very knowledgable
    prankster.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE:62
    
    WHY MUST YOU SAY - "THE POORER SECTIONS OF CAMBRIDGE AND ADJACENT
    SOMERVILLE OF BLACK HAITIANS."  
    
    WE KNOW HAITIANS ARE BLACK..WHO CARES IF THEY LIVE IN A POOR SECTION.

    Re .64:
    
    Please don't SHOUT.
    
    I can't speak for Topher, but I suspect the part about living in
    poor sections might be to relate it to the activities: usually it's
    in the less advantaged strata of a society where people turn more
    quickly to attempts at "shortcuts," such as some rituals promise.
    Any perusal of various Voudoun-related oils and incenses will show
    such things as "Boss Fix" powder (to help someone get on the good
    side of his or her employer), "Follow Me Boy" oil, to gain the
    attention of and increase the willingness of men (noted in one
    formulary as a favorite of hookers), "Uncrossing" powder (used to
    break hexes), and so forth.  Usually, such oils, powders, and incenses
    are supplied through a Voudoun priest/ess or a shop (some items,
    like "Van Vav" oil are used for purification, and folk can even
    get a special "good luck" bluing for their laundry).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr  
    

    RE:65..TO KALLIS
    
    I was unware that my lock button was activated..but as you told
    me before..speak for yourself...
    
    By the way how do you know he meant that? 

RE: .64
    
    I wrote this quickly and those phrases seemed appropriate as I wrote.
    I waited a while to reply to spend some time in self-examination
    to be as sure as I could be that my motives for choosing the phrases
    I did were not tinted by the racism and classism which seems to
    have triggered such hostility.  To the extent that one can ever
    be sure of such things, I have a clear consciounce.  I also used
    the time to check a reference to be sure that something that I thought
    to be correct is so.
    
    The most important motivation for my choice of words was my belief
    (and the readers of this conference are best able to judge whether
    it is justified) that people who do not live in New England have
    a rather distorted view of Cambridge, Mass.  If they stopped to
    think it through they would probably realize the error (though probably
    not its extent) but people tend to use their impressions rather
    than analyzing everything.  The outside view of Cambridge is dominated
    by MIT, Harvard, Preppyism ("The Lodge at Harvard Square"), yuppieism,
    high tech, and nuclear free zones.  In reality, though all of those
    elements exist quite strongly, Cambridge has a great deal of poverty
    and squallor involving a number of different disenfranchised ethnic
    groups.
    
    Add to that that not all Haitians *are* black (though virtually
    all would be classified as black by *our* culture).  Here is what
    the Encyclopedia Brittanica says (it was handy) "The great majority
    are Negro; about 5 percent, however, consists of a mulatto minority
    who form an �lite that has played a leading role in Haiti's history;
    many members of this �lite are now living abroad."  (I had guessed
    the �lite class as slightly larger, say 10%, but that is really
    irrelevant).
    
    Combine the mistaken picture of Cambridge with the likelihood that
    a Haitian with the disporportionate number of "non-Black" Haitains
    outside of Haiti and people might assume that I was speaking of
    these �lite Haitians.  Since they are the self-appointed heirs to
    "European culture" in Haiti, and considerably less likely to practice
    the Voudoun religion, my point would have been less clear.
    
    This was my conscious motive for what I said, and, I am reasonably
    confident, my only motive.  I do not think it was incorrect, but
    if I had realized its potential to be misinterpreted and to elicit
    such hostility, I would not have bothered to make it -- it was
    not an important enough point.
    
RE: .66
    
    Although this conference has its share of disagreements, for the
    most part things tend to keep cool.  There was a strong feeling
    of hostility from your note (probably exagerated by your caps lock
    being on -- exactly why its best to avoid posting in all caps when
    possible), based it would seem by an interpretation of my motives
    for specifically mentioning that the group in question was poor
    and black.
    
    I can't speak for Steve (of course) but in similar situations I
    have responded by attempting to show that there are reasonable
    interpretations of what was said which did not include the onus
    which invoked the negative reaction -- specifically, the interpretation
    which I had placed on it when I had read it and which had not
    resulted in a similar reaction on my part.
    
    I have posted these responses myself rather than waiting for the
    person to defend themselves for a number of reasons 1) If someone
    feels unjustly attacked, especially if others do not defend them,
    they may not respond in the most reasonable, clear way, and may
    even withdraw (though I doubt anyone who regularly reads DEJAVU
    would worry about the latter from me).  2) It might be a while
    before the original poster gets around to reading the complaint
    and responding -- by that time things may have stewed for a while
    and gotten worse.  These things are best settled early.  3) If
    someone relatively neutral presents a positive interpretation than
    it is clear that it is possible for someone to read it that way.
    There is less chance of the persons defense sounding like an excuse.
    
    Steve quite clearly said that he did not know what I was thinking
    -- indeed his interpretation of my motives was not what I had in
    mind -- but his defense of me was appreciated.  I did not feel
    that he was putting words in my mouth or making excuses for me
    -- he was discussing what I had said, which is the point of a
    reply.
    
    					Topher

    Re .65 (me):
    
    A typo -- I meant "Van Van" rather than "Van Vav."  No biggie, but
    since I'm responding anyway...
    
    Re .68 (Topher):
    
    >...................................... 2) It might be a while
    >before the original poster gets around to reading the complaint
    >and responding -- by that time things may have stewed for a while
    >and gotten worse.  These things are best settled early.
     
    I want to expand on this a little.  Once, a couple of years or so
    ago, in a VAXnotes Conference, I was gone (i.e., not able to access
    the Conference) for some days.  In that time, one of the regular
    participants asked me a question that begged for a response.
    Naturally, since I hadn't (and couldn't have) read it, I didn't
    (and couldn't) respond.  By the time I logged into my system, I
    had received an off-line (VAXmail) posting chewing me out for not
    responding; when I logged into that Conference, I read the query
    (and a follow-up asking why I wouldn't respond).  I of course responded
    immediately, though a lot of emotions had been generated because
    an imprecise understanding of the motivations involved had taken
    place.  
    
    Why anticipate negativities when there may be other explanations?
    
    >-- indeed his interpretation of my motives was not what I had in
    >mind --  ...
    
    And it wasn't.  Perhaps my observations added a dimension to the
    discussion.  I certainly hope so.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                
    

    re: callaghan
    
    I know there was no offense, and I do not mean to be difficult but
    you have to understand my point of view - I was specifically told
    not to generalize and to speak for myself...Now if I am asked to
    do this isn't it fair for others who are telling me this to do the
    same thing?
    
    I love this note...I might of been harsh..My apologies...But I had
    it on my mind...
    
    Haitians do practice voo doo..I have friends that are Haitians who
    have told me wild stories about their grandparents and parents who
    have beheaded chickens and who have used chicken feet as part of
    a rituals.....