From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:34:49 GMT

In article <C0Ioz8.Lww@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan7.152834.1316@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> The full text of A REF.  Get off it Russell. One ref. using uncited
>> "professional" critiques of the project is hardly fair.  Would you except
>> such a ref?
>
>Probably not, but then again, I'm not expecting you to accept the 
>reference I provided.  The truth of the matter, as I pointed out 
>previously, is that I've beaten this topic to death on several 
>occasions and don't particularly want to get embroiled in another 
>round of discussion with a group of apologists who seem to think 
>that they're waging some sort of primordial battle between good 
>and evil forces, with the pro-hunting, pro-fur, and 
>pro-unrestrained-animal-research faction on one side and everybody 
>else on the other.  

If you do not wish to discuss the issue, why did you bring it up?  If you
cannot or will not defend your statements I suggest you withdraw them.

Oh, "pro-unrestrained animal research faction"  Where? Let's go get him! 
The bastard!.  I don't know who you are talking about here.  Certainly
no one I am aware of on the net is pro-unrestrained -research.
To whom might your reference be aimed at?

 > >However, if
there's some particular aspect of the
controversy  >that you'd care to address briefly --- without turning the 
>discussion into a typing contest, please let me know.  

How can I address "some particular aspect of the controversy" when you
won't give me any information on it. (Aside from one local paper)
Russell, a few refs., a couple of dates, a government document number. 
That doesn't sound like a typing contest to me.

[Re: Nazi laws on animals research]>> 
>> Russell, I have given you at least three ref, including a book written by
>> a German historian in 1939.  
>
>Would you be satisfied with two more references, Greg?
>

Possibly.

 >As for the quality of your references versus the ones that I may be
>presenting, I still don't understand why you'd pay much heed to a series
>of poorly documented historical claims that were presented in a group 
>of journals that have nothing to do with historical scholarship.   By
>way of comparison, I don't think it requires much technical expertise 
>in neurosurgery to address many of the flaws in the LSU cat shooting 
>experiments, and hence, criticism was well-within the range of abilities 
>of James Gill, the investigative reporter whom I cited previously.

Is anyone else here confused by this double standard?  It's early and I
haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet.

>In any case, I don't recall your citation of a work published in 1939
>by a "german historian".   If you'd care to, why don't you repost
>the title and the author's name?  
>
I left the article in my other desk... I mean back pack.... I mean
pants...or did I leave it at that cat house ...oopps.
I'll have it tom.  (notice that is the day after today, not the month
after next.)

Squeeze squeeze, kiss kiss
Greg Popken


-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals