🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1083@rti-sel.UUCP> jbs@rti-sel.UUCP (Joe Simpson) writes:
>In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes:
>>Better the animal than me.  Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help.
>
>Better no animals (people included) when other alternatives are available
>and accurate. I'd like to see if YOU could put acid in an animal's eyes 
>and then sit there and watch it squirm as its eyeballs burn away.
>   Sure, there are some times when it's unavoidable to use animals. But I
>can't see how putting Draino in the eyes of 100 mice does anybody any good.
>I can hear it now -  "Yup, Vern, looks like we was right! Draino burns the
>little suckers! Listen to 'em squealin'! Here - gimme another bottle."

You give me no credit.  I will concede that I was wrong based on some
things.  I had assumed that we were talking about necessary products or
products that people use every day.  Cosmetics are a big, and in my
opinion wasteful, industry.  But it is not going to go away.  Better
to test on an animal than humans.  I have trouble believing that any 
company would do unecessary testing; what is being argued here it seems
is what is necessary.  Obviously Draino is going to hurt most life forms
of this planet, and therefore it is not necessary to test for it.  But,
how can we be sure that the new brand X contact lens cleaner is going
to hurt a human or not.  [context switch]
A rabbit in contact lenses? :-) [context switch]  This is the type
of testing I am refering to.                              

						Ross