From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 02:33:42 GMT

In <BzJ4pF.F9w@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>You've argued that Dr. Neil Barnard acted unethically because he 
>publicly voiced his concerns about the hazards of milk 
>consumption without having credentials in the field of nutrition 
>per se.  Yet, you apparently don't have any qualms about dishing 
>out nutrition advice to vegetarians in rec.food.veg while 
>claiming to be the "voice of reason" [sic].  

	1. Please detail for us the credentials of Dr. Neal Barnard which
		qualify him to speak with authority on the subject of
		nutrition, or more specifically, make recommendations to
		the press regarding the role milk should play in the human
		diet.

	2. Please explain for us precisely how you manage to transmogrify
		a claim of reasonableness to a claim, or even an implication,
		of expertise.

>No doubt you will continue to offer a set of special pleadings 
>[aka excuses] to explain the apparent contradiction between the 
>behavioral standard that you've set for Dr. Barnard as opposed
>to the behavioral standard that you apply to yourself.  

	No doubt.  I never claimed to be an expert; I only claimed to be
	reasonable.  Even you don't dispute that, so why do you continue
	to flog this proverbial "dead horse?"

>ry> By the way, even Dr. Spock was a bit nonplussed at the PCRM press
>ry> release.  He stated to the New York Times....[...]
>
>rl> Would you mind posting a reference to this article?
>
>ry> Sure.  As soon as you supply Martin, et. al., with references to
>ry> cat shooting and beagle drowning as they've asked repeatedly.
>
>rl> You have forfeited your right to timely responses to such requests
>rl> by virtue of your consistent refusal to comply with similar requests
>rl> from others.

	I do wish you'd fix that editor, or proofread your postings.  YOU
	didn't write the preceding two-plus lines...I did.

>As I explained previously, it was my intention to post, not only
>the references, but entire articles... some of which were published
>in the Times-Picayune, New Orleans CitiBusiness, and Gambit, sources
>that are unlikely to be available in your local library.   
>Unfortunately, I just haven't had enough time.  Do you think your
>interests would be better served by the references alone... given
>the fact that your limited resources would prevent you from testing
>the veracity of my interpretations?

	No doubt you'll continue to offer a set of special pleadings
	[aka excuses] to explain the apparent contradiction between
	the behavioral standard that you've set for everyone else in
	this forum as opposed to the behavioral standard that you apply
	to yourself.

	None of the names you offer can reasonably be called a reference
	without a corresponding date.  No one ASKED you to post all the
	articles, only to supply adequate references.  Also, unlike the
	backward libraries with which your experience has apparently been
	limited, some libraries actually DO keep microfilm copies of out-
	of-town newspapers, like the Times-Picayune, from major metropolitan
	areas.

>Be that as it may, I'm under no obligation to be an "Answer Man"
>of sorts for every question that pops into the heads of my opponents.
>I've already discussed the "cat shooting" topic at length on several 
>occasions and each time I provided citations to the evidence.   I'll
>be happy to discuss it again, in response to Greg Popken's most
>recent request, but perhaps I won't bother supplying full text
>articles.  

	Perhaps we don't WANT you to be an "Answer Man."  Perhaps all we
	want is a reference when you use an example and one is requested.

	I also note that you remain conspicuously silent about the beagle
	drowning experiment.

>ry> Barnard is no more qualified to make dietary recommendations to
>ry> the public than he is to perform liver transplants.
>
>rl> Yet you seem to think that you're qualified to make dietary 
>rl> recommendations to the readers of usenet.
>
>ry> And so do you.  Are you any more qualified than I?  Usenet is a forum
>ry> of opinions, sometimes supported by references to published works.
>
>Ah yes, but your postings aren't merely "opinions", Rich.  
>They're special products from the "voice of reason" himself.  In 
>any case, you're in no position to determine whether Dr. Barnard is 
>unqualified as you claim.  The fact that a man doesn't have a 
>particular degree in a particular topic doesn't mean that he's 
>unfamiliar with the material.   

	No indeed, but when he tells the world at large that they need to
	change their dietary habits, he'd better be prepared to show that
	he knows what he's talking about.

>I didn't attend the PCRM press conference, but I've read several 
>articles on milk consumption in PCRM's journal and those articles 
>were amply footnoted.  Do you know whether or not PCRM 
>distributed handouts to the press containing pointers to the 
>literature?  

	Do you?

[...]

>rl> You're not only a "voice of reason" when it comes to nutritional
>rl> advice, but you're also an expert on intelligence.  How convenient.
>rl>
>rl> A few months ago one of the readers of sci.med.nutrition
>rl> with an interest in breast-feeding posted references to several 
>rl> scientific articles suggesting that breast-feeding raises the 
>rl> intelligence of infants.  Weren't you the guy who disputed 
>rl> the evidence by claiming to be one of three, bottle-fed brothers 
>rl> all of whom had IQ's over 150?
>
>ry> As usual, you are in error.  I disputed no evidence with such a
>ry> claim.
>
>You may be right.   [...]

	There's no "may" about it: I _am_ right.

>rl> Is do-it-yourself intelligence testing one of your many hobbies 
>rl> perhaps?   

	Does it matter?  Or is this a gray area?

>I've noticed that you occasionally make references to the 
>intelligence of your opponents while attempting to resolve 
>various arguments.  Apart from your nutritional expertise, do 
>you also consider yourself to be the "voice of reason" when it 
>comes to IQ testing?  

	Huh?  When, exactly, DID you stop molesting your neighbor's little
	boy?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals