From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:47:54 GMT

From article <mhulsey-211292105542@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzH901.4nv@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> I'd say that your groundless conjectures about my alleged 
>> presence at an AR debate in Athens, Georgia, were an excellent 
>> example of sheer stupidity.  If you think those conjectures were 
>> damaging to my "point of view", as opposed to your credibility as 
>> a "scientist", dream on.
> 
> My "conjectures" weren't entirely groundless.  If the gentleman I debated
> in Athens was not you, then he must be reading the same set of pamphlets or
> otherwise getting his information from the same source.  I was simply
> curious as to whether you had ever been to Athens.  If you regard curiosity
> and stupidity as synonymous, then that is you right.
> 
> I never implied that your presence or absence in Athens had any
> implications for our exchange here.  Please do not suggest otherwise.

You wrote:

=====================================================================
mh> I believe that I am asking pertinent questions.  If you feel that 
mh> my questions are "stupid" or "uninteresting," rather than simply 
mh> damaging to your point of view, please indicate which ones and 
mh> why.  
=====================================================================

If your question about my presence in Athens, Georgia, was unrelated
to our exchange here, why was it included on your list of "pertinent"
questions?

>>If you want to engage in flights of
>> fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
>> your pretentious suppositions.
> 
> If my question about your presence in Athens was "sheer stupidity,"  why
> did you so quickly offer a straighforward answer?  Why do you continue to
> avoid my other questions?  As James suggested, if you consider these
> questions to be "stupid," please indicate why.

You have a habit of jumping to some very dumb conclusions.  As an
example, you've claimed that the person whom you met in Athens must
have used the same sources that I used re: thalidomide... namely
some "pamphlets".  Why would a "scientist" make such a silly claim?

Most of what I know about thalidomide was gleaned from several 
nights of _historical_ research at the LSU Dental School 
library...  going through old issues of Goodman and Gillman, JAMA, 
Science, and the Journal of Dental Research.  I don't believe 
I've ever come across any "pamphlets" concerning thalidomide.  

You may think it's reasonable to conjure up a set of "facts" 
about me on the basis of your ideological theory, but your 
conjectures strike me as a truly silly spew.  

>> It's rather obvious to some of us that you can't seem to 
>> distinguish differences of opinion among your net opponents, just 
>> as you can't seem to tell the difference between the 
>> philosophical views of Regan versus Singer.  [For example, you 
>> made the preposterous claim that Singer held "absolutist" views 
>> on animal research.]
> 
> At least I was able to determine which one supports animal "rights" and
> which one does not.  You were unable to ascertain this, as evidence by
> another post.

Not exactly.  

> If I ever made an "absolutist" statement about Singer and animal research,
> I was indeed mistaken.  I don't remember doing so, but I trust your
> assessment.  As I recall, Singer simply believes that it is "speciesist" to
> perform invasive research on non-human animals when we are unwilling to
> perform similar experiments on humans.  Is this correct?
> 
> The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit my
> mistakes, and concede when my positions are soundly disproven.  You simply
> change the subject and move on.

Your seem to think that your conjectures ought to be accepted 
at face value until they're "soundly disproven".   Why?

> ...
>>As long as you persist
>> in telling us what we think, and why we think the way we do, it's not 
>> surprising that "we" should all be so similar in your mind.  
> 
> I am trying to understand what you think.  I have asked numerous questions
> relevant to the debate concerning animal "rights," as well a couple that
> were admittedly not relevant.  You continue to make your objections about
> the few irrelevant questions an excuse to avoid the majority of relevant
> ones.  This is ironic considering that the least relevant question (about
> you visiting Athens) was the one for which I received the most prompt and
> straightforward answer.

Perhaps you could spare yourself some additional embarrassment if you'd
avoid asking "pertinent" questions that fall into the "least relevant"
category, such as whether or not I was in Athens on such-and-such a
date.

> The comment James Hoskins made (and you ignored) about your "debate"
> tactics is quite fascinating to me.  Another person suggested to me that
> you employ a debating tactic known as "negative spread."  I was unfamiliar
> with this term, but the person explained that it involved making a large
> number of objections to your opponent's positions.  The person also
> explained that it was an effective tactic to employ in time-limited
> situations, because there would be insufficient time to rebut the
> objections no matter how irrelevant they might be.  Although Usenet
> "debates" would not ordinarily be "time-limited," in this case they are. 
> Usenet is apparently your occupation, whereas for other participants it is
> a hobby.  Do you have any thoughts on these ideas?

It sounds to me like you're describing your list of "unanswered 
questions".  Such a strategy is only effective if ones opponent 
chooses to either waste his time or abandon the debate.  I'd prefer
to stick around, and of course, point out from time to time that
many of your questions and assumptions are incredibly silly.

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