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: Thu, 24 Dec 92 00:57:56 GMT

In article <Bzp4E3.6CG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>ry> Now THERE'S an answer to instill pride in the most inveterate of
>ry> politicians!  I'm asking you to provide me with information which
>ry> might lend some credence to Dr. Barnard's ex cathedra pronouncements
>ry> to the popular press.  What are his credentials in the field of
>ry> human nutrition?
>
>You're not learning, Rich.  As I've pointed out previously, your 
>notion that we can determine the truth or falsity of a set of 
>statements by appealing to the personal characteristics of the 
>speaker is a fallacy.  

	Russell, I don't much care whether you agree with the premise or not;
	that wasn't the question.  The question was, "What are Dr. Neal
	Barnard's credentials in the field of human nutrition?"

	It's clear that you're blowing smoke here, desperately trying to
	avoid answering the question, so why not simply give up the pretense
	and give us an answer?

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

[...I'll deal with the deleted part later...]

>Incidently, Neal Barnard has an MD degree at the very least.

	OK, Neal Barnard has an MD degree; we'll contact him for your
	liver transplant.  It should be clear, even to you, that mere
	possession of an MD degree does not make one qualified to speak
	with credibility on all things medical and health-related.  In
	point of fact, I've even seen MDs admit in sci.med that the
	nutritional credentials of the average MD are abysmal.

>Have you got an MD degree?  [...]

	Of course not, but then, _I_ don't hold press conferences and make
	dietary recommendations to the public at large under the guise of
	such a degree, either.

>rl> Please detail the credentials of Rich Young that qualify him to 
>rl> represent himself as the "voice of reason" while dishing out 
>rl> largely unwanted nutrition "advice" to the readers of rec.food.veg?
>
>ry> I'm not sure of the precise context, but if you'd care to reproduce
>ry> it, I'd be happy to explain.  And are you so sure that what I "dish
>ry> out" is so totally unwanted?  You might also want to reconsider your
>ry> characterization of what I post as "advice"...you've been wrong
>ry> once already in this thread, and these leading questions will
>ry> continue to get you into trouble.  By the way, when, exactly, DID
>ry> you stop molesting your neighbor's little boy?
>
>You're avoiding the question, Rich.

	No, I'm not avoiding the question.  If you'll reproduce the entire 
	context in which the statement was made, I'll be happy to explain
	my motives.  I simply need a memory refresher, that's all.  Since
	you seem certain that such a statement was made, then it should be
	little trouble for you to edit both my statement and that which
	prompted it into the record here.

>If you want to address Neal 
>Barnard's credentials, then you surely can't object to the fact 
>that I'm now addressing your credentials.  For the sake of 
>logical consistency, it won't matter whether you've supplied your
>readers with references...  anymore than it would have mattered 
>to you if Neal Barnard supplied his listeners with references.  
>What matters is your credentials, pure and simple.  Have you got 
>any credentials?   

	When you reveal yours, I'll consider doing the same.  In the mean
	time, let us not forget that the issue is whether Neal Barnard has
	any real expertise in the field of human nutrition which would 
	allow him to make credible public health recommendations.

[...]

>ry> You keep trying to make a claim of reasonableness into an implication,
>ry> or even a claim, of expertise.  I want you to explain by what twisted
>ry> logic you accomplish this transmogrification?  It's perfectly clear
>ry> as originally asked.
>
>This still doesn't make sense.  Did Neal Barnard make an 
>unsubstantiated statement that appealed to his own character, such as 
>"My statements are true because I'm the voice of reason", or perhaps, 
>"What I say is true because I gave myself an IQ test and scored 150+".

	Did I actually SAY either of these things?  Or is this another
	bucket of manure like the last claim you made regarding my
	statements in another newsgroup?

>rl> Did Neal Barnard claim to be "an expert"?
>
>ry> Neal Barnard wasn't posting to Usenet.
>
>Do you understand the concept of "special pleading"?

	Oh, please.  Don't you understand the difference between Usenet and
	the New York Times?

[...]

>rl> No, I don't.  However, I do know that a three page article on dairy
>rl> products that was recently published in PCRM's journal was accompanied
>rl> by twenty-eight footnotes.  It would truly surprise me if PCRM had
>rl> failed to hand out references at their recent press conference on
>rl> milk.
>
>ry> Didn't you just castigate Martin for jumping to conclusions without
>ry> actually having the facts at hand?  Apparently you work in a "do as
>ry> I say, not as I do" mode.
>
>I didn't jump to conclusions.  You asked me a question and I answered:
>"I don't know".   Does that sound like I was jumping to conclusions?

	"It would truly surprise me if..." is a conclusion: "They MUST
	have handed out references."

>For a guy who publicly claims to have an IQ above 150, you seem to be 
>a careless reader.

	For a guy who doesn't claim to be impressed with IQ numbers, you
	seem to be fairly hung up on mine.

[...]

>In lieu of addressing Barnard's credentials, why don't you try to
>find out if attendees at the milk press conference were provided
>with references to the scientific literature? 

	Why, when the issue is Barnard's credentials in human nutrition?
	You brought up the possibility of handouts with references, why
	don't YOU find out and tell us all, eh?


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