From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:10:46 GMT

In article <BzFA2I.7q7@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> While you and Bob Straubinger might contemplate personal 
> information in order to understand how political and ethical 
> philosophies coincide with a person's private life [a reasonable 
> undertaking], there are quite a few folks in the tpa forum who 
> would use such information to launch irrelevant personal attacks 
> that have nothing to do with the important topics at hand.  

If "personal attacks" are "irrelevant,"  why do you avoid them so
strenuously?  You would otherwise take delight in ridiculing your opponents
for such "irrelevant" personal attacks despite your inclination to make
them against others.  I suspect that you have some other reason not to
reveal your degree, such as its absence.

BTW I did find your post where you boasted about attending an  "ivy-league"
institution.  I repost it here in its entirety, so that you cannot accuse
me of quoting you out of context:

++++++++++

Article 9606 (30 more) in talk.politics.animals:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:07:37 GMT

From article <1992Nov9.223222.10233@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> When I exchanged "letters to the editor" with Barnard in our 
mh> local newspaper (The Athens Observer 4/2/92), he said that John 
mh> Orem's research had "nothing of clinical value," and was "macabre 
mh> and useless." I replied (ibid., 4/16/92) that Barnard was not 
mh> qualified to make such judgements against Orem, because his 
mh> publication record (two papers in Medline since 1986 when I last 
mh> checked) would not qualify him for a position at a second-rate 
mh> university, much less at UGA.  I never heard back from him or 
mh> PCRM's lawyer.  What I said was true, and therefore not libelous.  

I would agree that such a record of publication might not qualify 
a person for a position at a second-rate university.  On the 
other hand, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him/her for a 
position at a top-rate university.  The ivy league institution 
that I occasionally call "alma mater" has, for the past twenty 
years or so, been turning it's back on the cretinous notion that 
a thinker's qualifications can be judged by the sheer number of 
his publications.  

BTW, I'd strongly recommend _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and 
Deceit in the Halls of Science_, by William Broad and Nicholas 
Wade, which explores the role that the "publish or perish" 
mentality has played in cheapening scientific exploration and 
scientific honesty in the United States.  

> ...
mh> I already told you what sort of research I would allow.  Why 
mh> can't you return the favor?  All you have indicated was that you 
mh> would like to review proposed experiments on a case-by-case 
mh> basis.  Did you mean that you wanted to review every experiment 
mh> personally, or did you just want them reviewed by someone?  How 
mh> would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the 
mh> interests of human and non-human animals?  Would failing to 
mh> perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one that 
mh> proved trivial?  How do we determine, in advance, which 
mh> experiments are critical and which are trivial?  

PCRM member, Henry Heimlich, appeared on a recent episode of _The 
Nature of Things_, to discuss his fervent opposition to a 
proposed animal research project in the early 1980's, wherein a 
prospective researcher wished to study the use of the Heimlich 
maneuver on drowning victims by deliberate drowning 42 healthy 
beagles.  Heimlich pointed out that the efficacy of the famous 
maneuver bearing his name had already been demonstrated on 
drowned humans and that the deliberate drowning of dogs would 
have been useless.  The project was eventually cancelled, thanks 
to public pressure as well as Heimlich's opposition.  Was 
Heimlich qualified to make such an assessment?  

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

++++++++++

You might argue that this was not a boast, but I disagree.  "Ivy-league"
implies a premier institution of higher learning.  You went beyond that in
implying that your alma mater would not accept "cretinous notions" that
other institutions would accept.

Notice also that this month-old post was where you originally suggested
that Heimlich made a chronological claim regarding the usefulness of the
beagle-drowning experiment.  I am still waiting for you to provide
chronological evidence that Heimlich published a paper showing the efficacy
of his maneuver in humans *before* the PI of the beagle-drowning experiment
submitted his/her proposal in the "early 80's."

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals