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: Wed, 23 Dec 92 00:42:07 GMT

In article <BznDqx.J0t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>From article <1992Dec22.023342.6554@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> 1. Please detail for us the credentials of Dr. Neal Barnard which
>ry> qualify him to speak with authority on the subject of
>ry> nutrition, or more specifically, make recommendations to
>ry> the press regarding the role milk should play in the human
>ry> diet.
>
>You're asking me to make a contribution to an argument that I 
>regard as fallacious...  namely the notion that a man's 
>statements should be accepted or discarded on the basis of his 
>authority.  

	Now THERE'S an answer to instill pride in the most inveterate of
	politicians!  I'm asking you to provide me with information which
	might lend some credence to Dr. Barnard's ex cathedra pronouncements
	to the popular press.  What are his credentials in the field of
	human nutrition?

	I appreciate the fact that you may find it uncomfortable to admit
	that he has none and was merely expressing his opinion, but then,
	it was you who chose to spring to his defense with bow drawn and
	quiver empty.

[...]

>Please detail the credentials of Rich Young that qualify him to 
>represent himself as the "voice of reason" while dishing out 
>largely unwanted nutrition "advice" to the readers of rec.food.veg?

	I'm not sure of the precise context, but if you'd care to reproduce
	it, I'd be happy to explain.  And are you so sure that what I "dish
	out" is so totally unwanted?  You might also want to reconsider your
	characterization of what I post as "advice"...you've been wrong
	once already in this thread, and these leading questions will
	continue to get you into trouble.  By the way, when, exactly, DID
	you stop molesting your neighbor's little boy?

>ry> 2. Please explain for us precisely how you manage to transmogrify
>ry> a claim of reasonableness to a claim, or even an implication,
>ry> of expertise.
>
>This doesn't make sense.  Please elaborate.

	You keep trying to make a claim of reasonableness into an implication,
	or even a claim, of expertise.  I want you to explain by what twisted
	logic you accomplish this transmogrification?  It's perfectly clear
	as originally asked.

>rl> No doubt you will continue to offer a set of special pleadings 
>rl> [aka excuses] to explain the apparent contradiction between the 
>rl> behavioral standard that you've set for Dr. Barnard as opposed
>rl> to the behavioral standard that you apply to yourself.  
>
>ry> No doubt.  I never claimed to be an expert; I only claimed to be
>ry> reasonable.  Even you don't dispute that, so why do you continue
>ry> to flog this proverbial "dead horse?"
>
>It's not a dead horse, Rich. 
>
>Did Neal Barnard claim to be "an expert"?

	Neal Barnard wasn't posting to Usenet.

>Did he claim to be the "voice of reason"?

	In a way, yes.  He claimed that the American public is being purposely
	misled regarding the consumption of dairy products and that he, in
	rejecting these claims, was speaking The Truth(tm).

>Or, did he simply state his opinions while supporting them with facts
>and rational arguments?  

	Yes, he DID express his opinion, while hiding behind his M.D. and
	pretending that he had some expertise in the field about which he
	commented.  This is tolerated on a forum of opinions such as Usenet,
	but it is intellectually dishonest when perpetrated upon a public
	not used to critical review of their family doctor's opinions.

>I truly doubt that he made self-aggrandizing claims of any
>kind, but even if he did, I'd be truly surprised if they come
>anywhere close to your "voice of reason" pretense.

	He didn't HAVE to make any "self-aggrandizing" comments; the mere
	publication of his name as Neal Barnard, M.D., Medical Director
	[or whatever he is] of the Physician's Committee for Responsible
	Medicine is aggrandizement enough to intimidate the huge majority
	of the public into believing that he has the credentials to actually
	know about that which he speaks.

[...]

>rl> I didn't attend the PCRM press conference, but I've read several 
>rl> articles on milk consumption in PCRM's journal and those articles 
>rl> were amply footnoted.  Do you know whether or not PCRM 
>rl> distributed handouts to the press containing pointers to the 
>rl> literature?  
>
>ry> Do you?
>
>No, I don't.  However, I do know that a three page article on dairy
>products that was recently published in PCRM's journal was accompanied
>by twenty-eight footnotes.  It would truly surprise me if PCRM had
>failed to hand out references at their recent press conference on
>milk.

	Didn't you just castigate Martin for jumping to conclusions without
	actually having the facts at hand?  Apparently you work in a "do as
	I say, not as I do" mode.

	If you don't know, then don't try to feed us a line of bovine
	excreta...it doesn't smell any better in Louisiana than it does
	anywhere else.

>rl> Is do-it-yourself intelligence testing one of your many hobbies 
>rl> perhaps?   
>
>ry> Does it matter?  Or is this a gray area?
>
>Was it a grey area when you wrote the following passage?

	Sigh...feed them books and all they do is eat the covers.  "Gray",
	"matter", "intelligence testing"?  At least you're clever, Russell.

[...]

>My question was straightforward, Rich:  Would your title as the
>"voice of reason" qualify you to judge even your own intelligence,
>much less the intelligence of folks whom you hardly know?

	Please explain how a claim of reasonableness relates to the judging
	of intelligence.  Is this another of your transmogrifications?

	transmogrify, vt., to change or alter greatly and often with
				grotesque or humorous effect.

	Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you, Russell!?


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