From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:21:47 GMT

From article <mhulsey-010193095049@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C058uA.3s3@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> I'd suggest
>> that you make an effort to weed out your innuendos, your unfounded
>> conjectures, and other forms of crap, and try to formulate questions 
>> that are directly related to the current threads.
> 
> The questions I posed were related to the "current thread" when I
> originally posed them.  Now that they have been ignored for some weeks,
> they may not be related to the "current thread."

Let's stick with our prime example:

It's now obvious that there never, ever, was a time when my 
presence or absence from a meeting in Athens, Georgia was 
"pertinent" to our discussion.  Yet, you posed this question many 
times and insisted that I was "evading" your questions.  

>> >> #1:  Are you finally willing to admit that your "unanswered questions" 
>> >>      about my alleged presence at a meeting in Athens, Georgia, were
>> >>      irrelevant to the major issues at hand?   If so, why did you
>> >>      repeatedly insist that you were asking pertinent questions?
>> > 
>> > I believe that I have already admitted such, but my archives are faulty at
>> > this point.  Perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks here.  
>> 
>> I don't recall any such admission.  I do, however, recall a posting
>> in which you stated that all your questions were pertinent.  Why don't
>> you go ahead and answer the question since you apparently have plenty
>> of time?  BTW, please don't confuse "responses" with "answers". 
> 
> I admit that my question about your presence in Athens was unrelated to
> animal issues.  Nonetheless, this question recieved the most prompt and
> forthright answer of any question on the list.  My other questions, which
> remain unanswered, were and are pertinent to animal issues.  Please answer
> them, or indicate why you believe them to be impertinent.

Martin, you're contradicting prior statements in which you insisted
that *all* your questions were pertinent.  Rather than waste my time, 
why don't you repost your list of questions, and fully explain why you
think they're relevant to the debate?   

>> Unanswered question #3:  Why do you often repeat the same false statements
>> over and over again?
> 
> A loaded question.  I, of course, do not repeat anything that I know or
> believe to be false.

The problem with your rationale is that you assume that your statements
are true until they're proven false to your satisfaction.   Needless to
say, this doesn't stop you from applying more rigid standards to your
opponents.   For those of us who know that a given statement is false,
your attitude seems thoroughly unreasonable.   I'm not saying this to
offend you, BTW.  Rather, I'm hoping that you will be exercise some
conservative restraint before jumping to conclusions.

Modified question #3:  

Don't you think it might be more reasonable for you to shoulder 
the burden of proving your claims, rather than expecting your 
opponents to prove that your claims are wrong?  

>> Message-ID: <BzonuJ.3In@wpg.com>
>> Do you understand the concept of a "killfile", Martin?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>Usenet users
>> often use a "killfile" to skip over the postings of posters they
>> consider illogical or disagreeable.
> 
> If you ignored my posts altogether, I would assume that I was in your
> "killfile."  You responded to my posts, but repeatedly evaded certain
> questions.

You're giving yourself too much credit, Martin, and you're (once again)
assuming that you understand my motivation.

>> Unanswered questions #4 & #5:   
>> 
>> Would the presence of a man's name in someone's "killfile" lead 
>> us to conclude that his arguments are irrefutable or compelling?
> 
> No.
>   
>> If not, isn't it possible that readers who choose not to reply
>> to a given set of questions may not be "evading" the questions,
>> but simply choosing not to waste their time responding to someone
>> else's stupidity?
> 
> Again, if you choose to respond to a particular post, yet fail to answer
> questions that are posed repeatedly without providing good reason, you are
> evading the questions.

You're jumping to a conclusion.

Modified question #4:

Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
understand the inner motives of their opponents?

Modified question #5:

If it's unreasonable to assume that a usenet reader who uses a killfile
is "evading" another poster's arguments, why would it be reasonable to
assume that a usenet poster who doesn't wish to waste his time on silly 
or uninteresting arguments is seeking to "evade" a particular set of 
questions?  [Hint: Do you understand the fallacy of the "missing middle"?]

>>[...]
>>>> The opinion that matters is the opinion of the Maryland Appeals 
>>>> Court...  not "some lawyers".  According to the Washington Post [not 
>>>> just PETA], Taub's conviction was overturned when the Court ruled 
>>>> that state animal cruelty laws did not apply to federally funded 
>>>> animal experiments.  
>>> 
>>> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
>>> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
>>> opinion.  
>>
>> How do you know, Martin?   Did you interview the reporter who wrote
>> the article?  
> 
> No.

Then how do you know?

>> Unanswered questions #6 & 7: 
>> 
>> Are you one of those "fundamentalist" types who attempts to explain
>> important events in terms of "evil" influences?
> 
> No.

Why, then, are you so willing to "predict" the ideas, motivation,
personal attributes, and so on, of your opponents?

>>If not, why did
>> you assume that PETA was responsible for the WP's statement that the
>> case against Taub had been dismissed on technical grounds?
> 
> I did not assume that PETA was "responsible."  This post is missing from my
> archive as well.  If memory serves, I indicated that WP's assessment of the
> Appeals Court opinion was misleading and the same as PETA's.

Your memory is faulty.  I took the liberty (see above) of editing back 
in the statement from your previous posting that you conveniently deleted:

======================================================================
The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
opinion.  
======================================================================

Has it occurred to you that the reporter from the WP was capable of
thinking independently... without "swallowing" PETA's arguments,
as it were?   If the reporter had, indeed, done his homework, don't
you think that it was unfair for you to impugn his integrity by making 
the statement above?

Be advised that I'm going to consider questions 6 & 7 to be unanswered 
until these points are resolved.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals