From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:05:06 GMT

From article <mhulsey-040193083317@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C074sD.DKt@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> > The questions I posed were related to the "current thread" when I
>> > originally posed them.  Now that they have been ignored for some weeks,
>> > they may not be related to the "current thread."
>> 
>> Let's stick with our prime example:
>> It's now obvious that there never, ever, was a time when my 
>> presence or absence from a meeting in Athens, Georgia was 
>> "pertinent" to our discussion.  Yet, you posed this question many 
>> times and insisted that I was "evading" your questions.  
> 
> No, lets consider all of the questions that you left unanswered.  Let us
> not use one potentially bad example to condemn all others.  Likewise, don't
> attempt to conflate all animal research by citing a couple of potentially
> "bad" examples.
> 
> I was correct to say that you were evading all of my questions on the list.

No, you weren't correct to make such a claim.   As I've pointed out
previously, I simply don't have the time or inclination to wade through 
the dozens upon dozens of groundless assertions that you typically set 
forth in each of your postings.    

>> The problem with your rationale is that you assume that your statements
>> are true until they're proven false to your satisfaction.
> 
> Untrue.

Consider the following statement:

   "I was correct to say that you were evading all of my questions 
    on the list."

Do you have any proof to support the claim that I was "evading" 
your questions?  Or, is this one of those "correct" statements 
that we're supposed to accept until proven otherwise?  

>> Needless to
>> say, this doesn't stop you from applying more rigid standards to your
>> opponents.
> 
> Also untrue.

We'll see. [read on]

>> Modified question #3:  
>> 
>> Don't you think it might be more reasonable for you to shoulder 
>> the burden of proving your claims, rather than expecting your 
>> opponents to prove that your claims are wrong?  
> 
> A loaded question.  You are making unfounded assumptions about my
> intentions.

It's hardly an assumption.  You've demonstrated by statements and
by deeds that you have two standards of proof:  one for yourself
and one for your opponents.

>> Modified question #4:
>> 
>> Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
>> understand the inner motives of their opponents?
> 
> The inner motives of my opponents are beside the point.

Yet, you persistently make them a point, ie your statements concerning
my alleged "evasion" of your "pertinent questions".

Incidently, you haven't answered my question.   I'm going to repost
it at periodic intervals down the road in response to your own
"unanswered questions" bullcrap.

>> Modified question #5:
>> 
>> If it's unreasonable to assume that a usenet reader who uses a killfile
>> is "evading" another poster's arguments, why would it be reasonable to
>> assume that a usenet poster who doesn't wish to waste his time on silly 
>> or uninteresting arguments is seeking to "evade" a particular set of 
>> questions?  [Hint: Do you understand the fallacy of the "missing middle"?]
> 
> What purpose are you serving by bringing up the issue of a "killfile?"  Is
> it reasonable to repose the questions in "modified" from, then claim that
> they are "unanswered?"

The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's kinda silly for you
to assume that your opponents are "evading" your "questions", as though 
your spew represented some sort of formidable challenge. 

>> >>> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
>> >>> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
>> >>> opinion.  
>> >>
>> >> How do you know, Martin?   Did you interview the reporter who wrote
>> >> the article?  
>> > 
>> > No.
>> 
>> Then how do you know?
> 
> It is my opinion.

In other words, you didn't have the facts, but you made the statement
anyway... perhaps assuming that your opponents would have the burden
of disproof.

How are your readers supposed to distinguish between groundless or
false factual statements and your "opinions"?

>>[...]
>> Why, then, are you so willing to "predict" the ideas, motivation,
>> personal attributes, and so on, of your opponents?
> 
> I do not.

See above.  

>> >>If not, why did
>> >> you assume that PETA was responsible for the WP's statement that the
>> >> case against Taub had been dismissed on technical grounds?
>> > 
>> > I did not assume that PETA was "responsible."  This post is missing from my
>> > archive as well.  If memory serves, I indicated that WP's assessment of the
>> > Appeals Court opinion was misleading and the same as PETA's.
>> 
>> Your memory is faulty.  I took the liberty (see above) of editing back 
>> in the statement from your previous posting that you conveniently deleted:
>> 
>> ======================================================================
>> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
>> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
>> opinion.  
>> ======================================================================
>> 
>> Has it occurred to you that the reporter from the WP was capable of
>> thinking independently... without "swallowing" PETA's arguments,
>> as it were?   If the reporter had, indeed, done his homework, don't
>> you think that it was unfair for you to impugn his integrity by making 
>> the statement above?
> 
> Because of practical limitations with deadlines, etc.  Reporters are often
> unable to double-check information in press releases prior to publication. 
> I do not in any way suggest that the WP reporter was being unethical.  He
> was simply mistaken.  

Is this a factual statement?  Or is it just another "opinion"?

> If he had done his homework, he would realize that it
> is misleading to say that Taub's sole conviction was overturned on a
> technicality.  The Appeals Court opinion said much more.
> 
> Because the WP reporter and PETA made the same erroneous conclusion about
> the Appeals Court's opinion, it is not unreasonable for me to have the
> OPINION that he/she might have obtained his/her information from PETA,
> rather than reading the entire Appeals Court opinion.  Of course, the
> reporter could have made the erroneous conclusion independently.  The
> opinion is erroneous nonetheless.

The truth of the matter is that Taub's final conviction was overturned
on a technicality, Martin.  Your insistence that this wasn't the case
won't change the facts.

>> Be advised that I'm going to consider questions 6 & 7 to be unanswered 
>> until these points are resolved.
> 
> I hope that everything has been answered to your satisfaction.  If not,
> please take it to e-mail.

I'll keep my list of unanswered questions handy, Martin.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10988 alt.peeves:18975