From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:11:32 GMT

From article <mhulsey-070193161112@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>When
>> do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
>> Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
>> claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?
> 
> What you call "Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter"
> referenced verifiable court testimony.  Your source, a newspaper article,
> gave no references for verification.  Do you seriously believe that your
> reference is more credible than mine?

This doesn't make much sense.   Would the statement of the WP reporter
have been more credible to you if he had provided his readers with a 
pointer to the published statement of the court... concerning the 
court's judgment that Maryland state laws didn't apply to federally
funded research? [ie a technicality]

> I have just received additional info.  I will post excerpts as soon as I
> can "keyboard" them.   Using your guideline, that should be no longer than
> three months.

Take your time.

>> Incidently, I'm also waiting for answers to my questions concerning your
>> claims re: the nazis.
> 
> As soon as I hear from associates who are translating the German text, I or
> they will post the results.
> 
> We've waited patiently for three months for you to post a single
> "keyboarded" reference that was, in fact, reposted from your archive.  You
> have no grounds to be impatient with me. 

Take your time.  

>>[...]
>> Your statement didn't make sense, Martin.  If you believe that the
>> "government" is at fault for limitations in the AWA, perhaps you'll
>> be willing to tell us whether the various anti-AR organizations that
>> you support are in favor of having military research subject to the
>> same requirements that presently apply to research funded by HHS.
> 
> Or perhaps I won't.  I've told you previously that I have no obligation to
> defend any "anti-AR" organization.
> 
> BTW, you agreed in a previous post that military research was worthy of
> secrecy to protect national security.  Have you changed your mind?

Here's the precise text of our exchange:

======================================================================
You wrote:
mh> I see no reason
mh> why military researchers should not also be obliged to justify their
mh> projects to a review committee composed of military researchers, although I
mh> could see reasons for keeping the information therein from the press &
mh> public (for some time) for the sake of national security.

I wrote:
rl> I can understand this argument, but it falls apart when the 
rl> researcher turns around and argues that his work is driven, not 
rl> by military objectives, but altruistic ones.  

You wrote:
mh> Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
mh> his/her objectives?

I wrote:
rl> Yes.
======================================================================

I haven't changed my mind.

>>[...]
>> > Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
>> > his/her objectives?
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> What were they?

He and his supporters claimed that the research would help physicians
treat gunshot trauma.
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ